8 ms·
I'm not sure why this tax should be labelled as absurd. Lots of countries tax TV, phone already. Taxing social media sounds weird only because no one else has d
by rb808 8y ago
I'm not sure why this tax should be labelled as absurd. Lots of countries tax TV, phone already. Taxing social media sounds weird only because no one else has done it yet.
- chatmasta 8y agoCommendations for your bravery in raising that viewpoint. Assuming it’s a good idea to tax social media, do you also think it’s a good idea to implement the tax as a captive portal at the ISP level?
- tudorconstantin 8y agoIt might mean it's a bad idea to tax TV and phones.
- Nullabillity 8y agoWould it be reasonable to tax meeting up in person? If not, how is this different?
- scotty79 8y agoIt's more like taxing cafe's and bars by creating entry fee where there was none.
- feikname 8y agoBecause social media is simply one of the vast amount of websites on the internet, it's unfair to tax it alone. Either you tax the whole internet comsumption (e.g. every 5GB or something like that) or you don't. Imagine taxes specific to laundering machines that only apply when washing underwear, but not for any other clothes, it makes no sense. Also, the govt. snooping on what people access / banning use of VPNs raises privacy concerns (and even censorship ones).
- forinti 8y agoYou could argue that social media has a negative effect and that it should be taxed in the same way that alcohol (and soft drinks in some places) is taxed. I'm not arguing that social media has a net negative effect, but I can see how some internet sites could singled out and taxed.
- greglindahl 8y agoIn this case, the reason that Uganda is taxing social media is to stop people from criticizing the government. Taxes can be a great tool for censorship.
- exabrial 8y agoBecause tax, in general is absurd. You're literally taking people's money under the threat of force. Just because it is done quite universally does not justify the practice. More specifically, taxes are abused near universally. From the sugar taxes in Seattle (unless you are Starbucks), or forced Union dues that fund political campaigns, the practice is abused. Meanwhile necessary services like police, firefighters, and rescue workers are always under underfunded, even though that's why we think we're paying them.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> You're literally taking people's money under the threat of force Money that would have no meaning, earned for work which would largely be impossible, without said threat of force.
- exabrial 8y agoThat doesn't sound any better. So if I have an asset that I'm not using, it's morally just to take it from me because I'm not using it?
- giggles_giggles 8y agoThe devil's in the details. Depending on the asset and the situation, it may be morally correct to take it, yes. To give an absurd, extreme example: if you lived in a nation going through a famine and your hobby was watching bread mold, it might be morally just to take away your warehouse of stockpiled bread to let the starving people eat, even if it meant you couldn't continue your thrilling bread-mold-watching hobby.
- shamsalmon 8y agoYou libertarians are insufferable. The only guaranteed way to provide services for people who cannot pay are with taxes. Is it moral to only have hospitals in rich areas where people can pay? Is it moral to only fix roads where rich people live?
- nodesocket 8y agoIf you take the stance that social media is ultimately a bad thing for society, then a tax actually seems like a good solution. After all, San Francisco decided that soda is a bad thing and implemented a soda tax. What's the difference?
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> I'm not sure why this tax should be labelled as absurd It's not the tax per se so much as how it's being levied and enforced. Social media should be subject to a sales tax, levied on the provider. This is being structured as a use tax, levied on users. Use taxes are notoriously difficult to enforce, and digital goods make that harder.
- arghwhat 8y agoTaxing TV and phone is like taxing internet connectivity. While a bit odd, this is perfectly fine. The reason for this is that it does not discriminate content, but only care about the utility itself. Taxing social media is like taxing you for saying or hearing a specific word or sentence on the phone, or every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV. This is absurd, and a violation of free speech, as it discriminates content. It is an attempt to control information exchange by discouraging it. The ulterior motive is usually manipulation of the citizens to keep them in line in absurd regimes, and/or to avoid the outside becoming aware of their internal issues. Separately, these idiocies implemented by people that do not understand how the internet works undermines fundamental security aspects by being incompatible with proper cryptographic security measures. You cannot, for example, serve a portal instead of a properly configured HTTPS site without your browser noticing, so HTTPS needs to be blocked first.
- politician 8y ago> every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV. It seems like an obvious thing to tax the airing of a show on TV. I'm in favor of the taxation of every 30 minute slot on TV and Cable. This maybe makes sense to me because I'm a natural person (i.e. not a corporation), so everything I receive or produce or give away is taxed.
- bronson 8y ago> I'm a natural person (i.e. not a corporation), so everything I receive or produce or give away is taxed. This sounds like a dystopian nightmare. Where do you live?
- arghwhat 8y agoWell, with income tax and VAT, you end up paying tax of everything both ways. Private transactions are commonly exempt, but they commonly have a limit in size before that becomes taxed income or require a company to be registered that takes care of VAT.
- ambicapter 8y ago
- jpambrun 8y agoMany gouvernements tax what the it/the population deems hurtful: cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, etc.. Social media fits that list better than TV and phone IMO.
- craftyguy 8y agoIt's being used to limit government criticism. > President Yoweri Museveni pushed for the changes to combat what he calls "gossip,"
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dev_dull 8y agoTelephones have taxes, but has anyone tried anything like this? Calling mother: 15¢/minute Calling children: 3¢/minute Calling policy: 25¢/minute
- gascan 8y agoNot with taxes, but providers have had rate plans like that.
- lostlogin 8y agoInteresting exercise - if calling certain relatives received tax credits you could potentially achieve something positive.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoHere in Brazil there were plans where you can choose one or two numbers and calls to them will come off a separate monthly time quota. Don't know if they still exist.
- bdcravens 8y agoI don't think ESPN is taxed differently than CNN.
- namlem 8y agoWhat's absurd is the rate. It's far more than most Ugandans can pay. It's clearly meant to suppress usage, not to fund the infrastructure.
- gascan 8y agoI must agree- we like the idea of absolute neutrality, but the internet is so general purpose it's possible that society will ultimately settle on things like this. TV and phone are two services both provided over one or two strands of copper, and each is taxed at a different rate. Is social media not just another service? Sure, it's built on TCP/IP, DSL, & DOSCIS, but cable TV is built on CATV and phone on ISDN. If it is absurd to tax a social media service coming down the wire, then it is equally absurd to individually tax cable TV or phone service over the same wire. Yet, we hardly see that as absurd, we've been doing it for decades.
- jdietrich 8y agoThe effective tax rate is so disproportionate as to be obviously punitive. Relative to average earnings, it'd be equivalent to America imposing a social media tax of $2,000 per year. It's clearly not a good-faith effort to raise revenues, but a de facto ban on social media.
- polynomial 8y agoIt would be nice if those in disagreement would advance an argument as to why. Anonymous down voting without a comment is lame.