Personal Finance >
Taxes
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould you be taxed for using the Internet?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 3% | 30 votes | Total: 864 votes | |
| No | 97% | 834 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesShould you be taxed for using the Internet?
I believe taxing the internet for business use, is a potential revenue source for local, state or federal government. There are many people who sell things on the internet, that do not have business licenses, while people who actually own or operate out of bricks and mortar are required to possess one.
The internet has encouraged people to operate everything from small businesses to extremely big businesses, without having to report any income. I think companies like PayPal, and e-bay should require sellers who earn over $20,000, to have some sort of a local, state or federal "internet" business license. To be honest, who knows what kind of "tax loopholes" the internet has opened up, it allows global merchants to operate by different rules than people who are selling out of one place. A company can have a sales office in several countries, a physical goods delivery warehouse in a tax free state, and their business headquarters offshore for all we know. In California, we have a sales tax, that several surrounding states don't have. Who knows if unregulated internet companies should be paying more in sales tax, or if regulation is possible in this instance? The only person I have heard mention on this topic, is Steve Westley who briefly touched on this a few years ago, in a Commonwealth Club lecture.
As far as taxing individuals for simply using the internet. I don't think that is a very appealing idea to anyone. I know that cable companies such as Comcast,who provide both cable and internet services have in the past, been required to pay a utility tax in some area's of the state, such as unincorporated Hayward, and the money goes to fund the sheriff's department. I don't know if local governments think this a good or viable revenue source for them or not.
In addition, I have been a supporter of the porn tax for several years now. In California, we seem to be forever picking on alcohol and tobacco companies to get revenue, though sometimes I think we go way too far. Believe me, I quit smoking when I heard how much cigarettes were going to cost. Just a few years ago, I heard they were going to put a two dollar tax on a pack of cigarettes. Our government spends money trying to regulate the porn industry. Government could fund the regulatory agency that oversee's "internet porn" better or increase state revenues by requiring porn sites to register their sites, while charging them a special permit fee, or a small tax. I mean really, nothing over a hundred bucks.
Learn more about this author, Titania Jones.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
A tax on use of Internet does not satisfy a single criterion for a 'good tax'.
CRITERIA FOR JUDGING A TAX
The taxes are judged on the basis of certain characteristics. A 'good tax' should be FAIR - meaning that people should pay taxes depending upon their ability to pay. It should also be NEUTRAL - meaning that two different persons with equal ability to pay should pay the same tax amount irrespective of their other circumstances and actions.
Secondly, a good tax is one that is EFFICIENT - meaning that it should collect adequate revenue with least adverse impact on the economy. A good tax should also be SIMPLE - meaning that it should be easily understood by people who need to comply with it, PREDICTABLE, in order to make an reasonable forecast that is required for tax planning and at the same time, should be easy to administer.
i. Tax on internet is not fair
A tax on using Internet is not fair, because it has no relationship with the ability to pay. It is not neutral, because it taxes a net-savvy individual much more than a computer-phobic person. It is not easy to administer because Internet connects people across political boundaries, while tax is a sovereign state matter. It is not predictable, because of fast changing technical preferences across the world, and because of the difference in the level of connectivity speeds etc, it is not even simple.
ii. Tax in internet is not efficient, simple, predictable or easy to administer
Taxes can theoretically be levied upon ANYTHING in the world. Taxes have been levied on things as strange as 'number of windows in a house', entertainment, gifts, death, food, addiction and even life. However, most taxes serve little purpose other than making our lives more complicated and difficult.
Irrespecti ve of the part of globe in which you live, you can always find an example of a tax that has served no other purpose apart from making life of both the taxpayer and the tax administrator more complicated. It is because of such taxes that the word 'tax' has come to be as hated as it is today.
Tax on internet is neither efficient to collect significant revenue that could replace other taxes like income tax and consumption tax, nor predictable because of the simple reason that people can change their net surfing habits and avoid it. It is also not easy to administer because of the free surfing environment prevailing today, and it is not simple either because of all these complicating factors attached to it.
iii. Tax on internet does not serve any possible purpose
What is worst in case of a hypothetical tax on Internet usage is that it will not efficiently serve any of the purposes for which a tax is raised.
There are three basic reasons for levying a tax - collection of resources for public goods and service, including the government structure; redistribution of income from the rich to the poor and modifying the behavior of people. A tax on using Internet will fail on all counts. It will not raise sufficient resources for public goods and service - on the contrary it will tax a public utility. It will not lead to any redistribution of income in any way, and the only modification of behavior it will cause will be to reduce the usage of Internet, thereby reducing the rate of further growth of modern technology, and creating a hurdle in overall development of our civilization.
Clearly , such a tax will be a highly self-destructive step, which can ruin any country by pushing it a few centuries back in time and development.
Learn more about this author, V. Kumar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Taxes
- Will increased capital gains taxes discourage investment and inhibit economic growth?
- Should the mileage deduction for volunteers be equal to business?
- Should the death tax be abolished?
- Should the Federal government contribute tax dollars to all 501(c)(3) charities?
- Which is the better tax hedge: Individual retirement accounts or life insurance policies?
