Not right now. But there’s a chance that you might in the future: the moratorium on an internet tax expires November 1. The moratorium is sometimes referred to as the Internet Tax Freedom Act, or ITFA.
ITFA has been extended twice since 1998. It bans taxes on certain internet transactions at the federal level but also prohibits state and local governments from passing similar taxes with the exception of nine states which were allowed to keep existing internet taxes. The internet transactions are internet access (including dial-up, DSL, cable modem and wi-fi); “double tax” for products or services bought over the internet; and discriminatory taxes that treat internet purchases differently from other types of sales. Those nine states which are currently exempt from the ban are Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin; not surprisingly, most of the governors of these states appear to oppose making the ban permanent since the exemptions will not be included in a permanent bill.
Nonetheless, a handful of Senators, including John McCain (R-AZ), Trent Lott (R-MS) and John Sununu (R-NH) have suggested a permanent internet tax ban. Not surprisingly, fearing both loss of revenue and potential for abuse, there is opposition to a permanent ban on both sides of the political spectrum who have offered a number of alternatives. One suggestion is to limit the length of the moratorium rather than make the ban permanent – but so far, that isn’t getting much support.
What do you think? You pay tax on your phone connections, why not the internet? That is the loudest argument, after all, against the permanent repeal – the fact that cell phone service is taxed and is at an all-time high. So, the thinking goes, how bad can it be? Well?
Being the libertarian that I am, I’m generally opposed to taxes except the minimal amount necessary to fund the minimal amount of government we need. That said, I also prefer to see government programs supported by the people and industries that use them, rather than just throwing everything into a general fund.
So to tax internet access as a way to create revenue for the general fund? I’m totally opposed. To tax it to provide a small fraction of the operating budget of the regulatory bodies that govern internet usage, I’m fine with.
Oh wait… there’s NOT a regulatory body that governs internet usage. Tell me again why we need an internet tax? 😉
I propose that we all agree to either drink hard liquor or smoke cigarettes or consume pricey pharmaceuticals while we are using the Internet.
That way we shall render unto Caesar accordingly (via sin taxes) while not having to change our current behavior at all.
Only the pricey pharmaceuticals generally aren’t taxed (public policy for legal substances, black market for not so legal substances).
But I’m with you on the hard liquor. It is, after all, Friday night.