Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Tax Approved By Louisiana House

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the well-they-have-a-napoleonic-system dept.

The Internet 305

Stinky Litter Box writes "WWL-TV in New Orleans reports that the Louisiana House voted 81-9 on Thursday to propose that a '15-cent monthly surcharge should be levied on Internet access across Louisiana to fight online criminal activity.' Can you say 'slippery slope?' The good news is that Gov. Jindal opposes such a tax. Full disclosure: I grew up in south Louisiana and worked for WWL-TV in the late '70s."

cancel ×

305 comments

Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220699)

Rep. Mack "Bodi" White, R-Denham Springs, said he sponsored the bill for Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, to raise money to finance a division in Caldwell's office that investigates Internet crimes, particularly online sex crimes against children.

I agree that sex crime against children are very very bad but I think that if you look at the scope and size of the problems that plague the internet and ranked them in order, you'd find many other things precede sex crimes against children. Like Internet Fraud [fbi.gov] and Identity Theft [usdoj.gov] . How much money do people lose to things like that? Hint: A lot.

I'm sick and tired of thinking of the children, let's think about everybody for a while. The lil' bastards don't even pay taxes and they're the motivation behind 50% of the legislation in this country.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (5, Insightful)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220781)

Bring up an emotionally charged topic like children's protection and you can enact any half-baked political action. They killed Socrates this way, they can sure as hell ratchet down internet rights this way.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220959)

They killed Socrates this way, they can sure as hell ratchet down internet rights this way.

The Louisiana House Legislature killed Socrates? That's terrible.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221151)

They killed Socrates this way, they can sure as hell ratchet down internet rights this way.

The Louisiana House Legislature killed Socrates? That's terrible.

I wouldn't be surprised, in 2001 (yes, within this millennium) they branded Darwin a racist [state.la.us] with the following flawless logic:

Be it resolved that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, and does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others.

Yeah, they actually brought out this gem (page 2 line 1):

WHEREAS, Adolf Hitler and others have exploited the racist views of Darwin and those he influenced, such as German zoologist Ernst Haekel, to justify the annihilation of millions of purportedly racially inferior individuals.

Who knows where they'll set their sights next to appease their God? I certainly wouldn't want to be in their way lest I be likened to Adolf Hitler.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (2, Informative)

NovaHorizon (1300173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221387)

HOW did they explain the whole concept of slavery for the... 10,000 years BEFORE Darwin then?

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221591)

Because the the Nazi's notion of "races and classes" primarily meant "Jews, Gypsies, the mentally retarded, and Communists"; it did also include "Negroes", but the Nazis didn't make a big deal of that because Germany's black population in the 1930's was approximately zero.

Since the Nazis didn't make a big deal out of "Negro inferiority" it is easy for backwards-ass southern fucks to conveniently disregard that part of Nazi thinking, as that would conflict with their holdover slave owner's belief that blacks aren't human.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (4, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221471)

I wouldn't be surprised, in 2001 (yes, within this millennium) they branded Darwin a racist with the following flawless logic ...

Huey Long, one of the more famous governors of the Great State of Louisiana, once said "One of these days the people of Louisiana are going to get good government and they aren't going to like it."

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221779)

does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others.

Did they condemn the bible as racist for claiming the jewish were the chosen race of God? That sounds inherently supieror to me. /sarcasm

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221193)

But, when they did it, did they pronounce it sau-kra-teez? Or Soe-kraets?

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221405)

Or maybe Snoc-ra-teez? [snausages.com]

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (1)

Gerzel (240421) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221383)

Must have imported the hemlock.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (2, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221589)

"Bring up an emotionally charged topic like children's protection and you can enact any half-baked political action. They killed Socrates this way, they can sure as hell ratchet down internet rights this way."

Well, I have heard it put forth in the past, that the keys to the Constitution of the US are "terrorists" and "child pr0n".

With either of those two, you can run roughshod over the Constitution.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (2, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221709)

We don't seem to have a lot of molested children running about where I live. It seems like a fairly rare problem and in most cases that we do hear about it is a family member or live in boy friend that does the bad deed.
                  Frankly I can't see society spending much money on such an issue. I am aware that we have a witch hunt for sexual offenders. There is a city near my town that has all of its convicted sex offenders living under a bridge. That is the only spot in that city where it is legal for a released sex offender to live. Insanity is not the sole property of the mentally ill.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220795)

I'm sick and tired of thinking of the children, let's think about everybody for a while.

So you're saying that your anti-children? :-P

I agree that sex crime against children are very very bad but I think that if you look at the scope and size of the problems that plague the internet and ranked them in order, you'd find many other things precede sex crimes against children. Like Internet Fraud and Identity Theft. How much money do people lose to things like that? Hint: A lot.

I dislike the term "Internet Fraud". Fraud is fraud, whether it was conducted on eBay or at the local flea market.

That aside, I think you're saying that if you cut down on other crimes conducted online, sex crimes conducted online will drop as a matter of course. I tend to agree.

.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221035)

Anti-children? Not possible. Unattended children make great soup stock!!

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221105)

I dislike the term "Internet Fraud". Fraud is fraud, whether it was conducted on eBay or at the local flea market.

I have to disagree. From the perspective of law enforcement, fighting Internet crime requires a lot of extra technical expertise, and that means hiring additional people with extra training. If anything, internet crime is more like what the FBI and Secret Service have traditionally investigated.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221139)

So you're saying that your anti-children?

His anti-children what?

On a similar note, I accidentally a bottle of coke. Is that bad?

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (3, Insightful)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220993)

I tend to agree with you there, there are so many more prominent situations across the board we could defer our resources to, however, children should not be completely put off to the side, everything is parallel, so to is the p0rn on the web...if you turn away for 2 seconds you fall so far behind playing catch up, you won't be able to catch them properly for another few years after you start again....

I believe there should be an overall committee, which has 3 sub division, fraud/identity theft, child p0rn, and virus/worm/spam divisions. These would each have there own budgets decreed by higher up management, and also
correlating to their importance to one another, but sharing tactics and technologies to better make use of resources.

Also, just because we spend 1 billion dollars on child p0rn to catch those implicated, does not mean we will get more caught, it just means the chances should be greater. It all depends on how the money is spent and where, I think before giving any more money to any of these organizations, we should see where they will spend the money , sort of like a business plan, open for review by a few high class security experts, that can see the big picture....sometimes a lot of the people in these orgs, don't really know the firs thing about technology advances, even though they mean well.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (2, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221103)

Do they similarly tax photographs? How about telephone service? I imagine both are used for sex crimes against children.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221279)

Do they similarly tax photographs?

I would tax holiday snaps!

Want some Candy little.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221611)

I think they should tax candy and nondescript vans with mirrored windows.

Re:Awesome! Wait, Children's Protection? (2, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221807)

"Do they similarly tax photographs? How about telephone service? "

Actually yes...at least on the phone thing, most everywhere taxes phone service. At least, according to any bill I've ever had for a phone, landline or cell.

Deficit spending (1)

doug141 (863552) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221865)

"The lil' bastards don't even pay taxes"

Deficit spending means we will bill today's children tomorrow, for things we enjoy today but won't pay for ourselves. Each of those "non-payers" owes about $30,000 the day they are born.

I'm confused (1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220733)

This surcharge is $1.70 per year. That's not that much.

I've been to Louisiana. They could definitely use a little extra cash in their coffers for education if their uneducated, violent, and poor urban populace is any indication. Also, their roads are pretty bad [drivinglou...orward.org] , so extra money coming in could allow extra funds to go towards improving that.

Re:I'm confused (5, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220775)

What do you think 15 cents is when it is misappropriated and charged to an entire state/abused/shown to not have matched the original intent at all?

answer: a whole lot of money going nowhere. See FEMA, many useless taxes in general, etc.

Really, 15 cents sounds like small amounts, but so did the original 3% or whatever for taxing gasoline. Now about 1/4 of gasoline cost is tax. How's that working out? Money well spent?

Re:I'm confused (3, Interesting)

forand (530402) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221061)

Where did you get your numbers? They are out of wack with reality for the vast majority of states (see link below). Also FEMA is not a tax but a government agency. Finally, many would argue that increasing the tax on gasoline would lead to a more sustainable economy less dependent on oil in general and more centralized. Here is a link to the gasoline taxes by state. http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/ [api.org]

Re:I'm confused (3, Interesting)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221459)

It's not that far out of whack. He said 1/4 the price of gas. I just did the math and, based on the average tax in the US and the cost of gas where I am, gasoline tax is about 19% of the cost of gas. 1/4 the price of gas would be 25%. And actually, since the date of the gas tax listed was April 1, I just recalculated based on the price of gas in April and at that point it was 22.5%. So he really isn't that far off.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221733)

Count yourselves lucky guys. I'm in the UK. we pay 71% tax on our petrol (gas).

Re:I'm confused (1)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221825)

Count yourselves lucky guys. I'm in the UK. we pay 71% tax on our petrol (gas).

No, you're not paying 71% tax on your petrol, but 71% of the price of your petrol is taxes. Slight difference here.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221107)

Now about 1/4 of gasoline cost is tax. How's that working out?

That's nothing, really. In the UK the tax makes up over 80 percent of the cost. And as a result we don't piss it down the drain like US people do with "cars" that haven't improved economy-wise since the 1970s. How is that going for you with GM now then? Not that our car industry improved fast enough to keep up :-(

Re:I'm confused (-1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221477)

That's nothing, really. In the UK the tax makes up over 80 percent of the cost. And as a result we don't piss it down the drain like US people do with "cars" that haven't improved economy-wise since the 1970s. How is that going for you with GM now then? Not that our car industry improved fast enough to keep up :-(

Funny....Vauxhaul, a European brand name, that gets quite good economy across the board, is a GM brand. There are a few others, too.
Admittedly, it's been nearly 7 years since I've driven a Vauxhaul in Europe, but by my memory it was pretty peppy, and admirably efficient.

Besides that, even the North American versions are significantly better now than in the 70's. I currently drive a 2000 Chevy Impala. Full size, big car, big engine, fast....the whole bit. A lot of police departments use them, because of the size, reliability, and performance.
It uses slightly more than half the fuel of my first car, which was a mid-size early 80's Chevrolet wagon. And it's faster, too.

There's a Youtube vid of a Honda Insight (hybrid) being driven very gently on an out of town road, windows up, no air conditioning, in econo mode, etc.etc. Basically every little thing they could do to get every inch out of the fuel they're using. Got 67 MPG.
If I drive my Impala - which is not hybrid, probably twice the weight, and with the frontal area of a barn door compared to the Honda - in the same manner, at the same speed, I can easily break 50MPG. Somewhere around 53, depending on traffic; which the Honda didn't have to deal with.
If I can do 53, and the Honda can only do 67 with all the advantages it's got....that's pretty pathetic.

Re:I'm confused (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221701)

Nice.

I get modded down for stating facts.

Guess the truth hurts, doesn't it?

Re:I'm confused (3, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221795)

I get modded down for stating facts.

No, you left out the fact that you're going downhill to get 50 mpg with the Impala.

Re:I'm confused (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221235)

Seems to be working out pretty well. Do you like the highway system? See any economic value? The gas tax is the natural way(*) to pay for the common infrastructure (roads) that are used and degraded by the vehicles that run on gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_(United_States)

For what it's worth, the original federal tax on gasoline was $0.03 /gal, about 10%. Inflation adjusted, that would now be about $0.27 / gal. It's not. It's $.184, which is one of the reasons we the Highway Trust Fund is busted (higher mileage also hurts).

Some studies put the rate of return on the Interstate investments at 10-35%(1).

To sum up, you fail. In real terms the gas tax has actually decreased, it has worked out OK at the Federal level, and the interstate highway system is money fairly well spent.

(*) at least for the time being
(1) http://www.interstate50th.org/docs/techmemo2-1.pdf

My Thoughts Exactly (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220861)

From the summary:

Can you say 'slippery slope?'

Can you say 'boy who cried wolf'?

When we complain about $1.80 per year we not only distract attention from real issues, but we also discredit any future complaints we might have. What kind of person overlooks the massive amount of money we ship off to the likes of China and Saudi Arabia but can't tolerate even the smallest trickle of cash to our own government?

Re:My Thoughts Exactly (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221119)

How many $1.80 taxes does it take to eat away your paycheck? If you let one slide and then the next, eventually you can't afford anything. The government should be more accountable for where the money is spent. Reduce some of the pork and use those funds for these various tax initiatives. Make legislators particpate in the same retirement plans that common folk have. Enact laws where bills that involve money can only deal with one monetary issue (so that they don't pass a bill to improve roads that has a rider about an unrelated pork project -- the pork project would never pass were it to stand on its own).

Re:I'm confused (2, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221099)

Ahem. Yes, I'll have to agree. You're confused. Any tax fund, no matter what purpose it was intended for, is subject to raiding by the politicos. Not very many years ago, Social Security had a nice little surplus. Everyone already knew that SS would be bankrupted when the baby boomers reached retirement age. But, SS was actually showing a surplus, temporarily. Instead of re-investing those few billions, the politicos cast their greedy eyes on all that money, and passed new laws, entirely contrary to pre-existing law, so that they could pilfer that surplus. You can bet both cheeks of your arse that if politicians care that little about voting old people, they don't really give a damn about non-voting young people.

People are suckers, politicians know it, and they pull the heart strings whichever is necessary to rob us.

Besides which - the law sets bad precedent, even if they really DID use the money for children.

Re:I'm confused (2, Interesting)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221111)

... They could definitely use a little extra cash in their coffers for education if their uneducated, violent, and poor urban populace is any indication. Also, their roads are pretty bad [drivinglou...orward.org] , so extra money coming in could allow extra funds to go towards improving that.

BadAnalogyGuy, please don't dilute yourself or others if you think Louisiana is going to put any money toward education. Or more than anything for show. I am now convinced that they want to keep the people ignorant. The polls can be led by things like welfare. How do you think that Edwin "Fast Eddie" Edwards was re-elected after his first term when out of office he said I am a crook but you will never catch me? Two more terms for welfare; that is how. Then he sold the casino licenses that should have been properly bid for. Don't get me started on that. Tourism isn't everything. The money from the taxes on the casino's was supposed to get teacher pay to the regional average (from Louisiana to Georgia, where I am presently), but teachers had to picket in my hometown of Shreveport, just to get them to raise it to the state average. I always said if I made it out, I wouldn't return. I was able to leave five years ago.

 

The roads are bad they say because we wouldn't set the minimum drinking age to 21 for several years and were the last state to holdout. The government withheld federal funds for the rebuilding of roads until the laws were changed. So yea, the roads suck ass and you can tell you have left the state with your eyes closed at any border.

But enough about Louisiana, until the people decide to run the politicians out of town like the olds days, change will not come. But I think we live in a police state, until I see something like that happen.

Re:I'm confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221483)

BadAnalogyGuy, please don't dilute yourself or others if you think Louisiana is going to put any money toward education.

I think its to late for that.

even fuller disclosure: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220741)

Whenever I watch a movie trailer, I think of Don LaFontaine and when I think about Don I get a hard on that won't quit.

Ten years ago,I worked in what was once my Grandfather's movie studio. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the soud studio by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help with the trailer.

Don always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white under the brim of his battered felt fedora.

He did not chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.

Dirty Don, he extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old man winked at me. "Don LaFontaine is the name and playing pecker's my game.

I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."

"Now me," said Don, "I just love jumping men. . ."

"I'll bet you do."

". . . and grabbing on to their peckers," said Don.

"I though we were talking about. . ."

"You like jumping old men's peckers?"

I shook my head.

"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Don lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."

That summer of 1999 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of the bathroom, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.

Under the stage lights, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as brown as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Don wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his hightop work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.

"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Don licked his lips from corner to corner then stuck it out far enough that the tip could touch the tip of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."

"People do that?"

He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"

"I never. . ."

"Well, Dirty Don's willing to let you find out."

"No way."

"Just teasing," said Don. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."

"Why would I do that?"

"Curiousity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."

"I'm no queer."

"Now don't be getting judgemental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't being queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Don slipped a handside the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."

I swallowed, hard.

Don winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"

***

We worked steadily until noon. Don drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and make with the golden arches before lunch."

I followed I ke to the end of the recording studio where he stopped at the outside wall of the utility shed. He opened his fly, fished inside, and finger-hooked a soft white penis with a pouting foreskin puckered half an inch past the hidden head.

"Yes sir," breathed Don, "this old peter needs some draining." He exhaled a sigh as a strong, yellow stream splattered against the boards and ran down to soak into the earthen floor.

He caught me looking down at him. He winked. "Like what you're viewing, Boy?"

I looked away.

"You taking a serious interest in Dirty Don's pecker?"

I shook my head.

"Well you just haul out yourn and let old Don return the compliment."

Feeling trapped and really having to go, I fumbled at my fly, turned away slightly, withdrew my penis and strained to start.

"Take your time boy. Let it all hang out. Dirty Don's the first to admit that he likes looking at another man's pecker." He flicked away the last drop of urine and shook his limp penis vigorously.

I tried not to look interested.

"Yer sir, this old peepee feels so good out, I just might leave it out." He turned to give me a better view.

"What if somebody walks in?"

Don shrugged. He looked at my strong yellow stream beating against the boards and moved a step closer. "You got a nice one,boy."

I glanccd over at him. His cock was definitely larger and beginning to stick straight out. I nodded toward his crotch. "Don't you think you should put that away?"

"I got me strictly a parlor prick," said Don. "Barely measures six inches." He grinned. "Of course it's big enough around to make a mouthful." He ran a thumb and forefinger along its length and drawing his foreskin back enough to expose the tip of the pink head. "Yersiree." He grinned, revealing nicotine stained teeth. "I t sure feels good, letting the old boy breathe."

I knew I should button up and move away. I watched his fingers moving up and down the thickening column.

"You like checking out this old man's cock?"

I nodded. In spite of myself, my cock began to swell.

"Maybe we should have ourselves a little pecker pulling party." Don slid his fingers back and forth on his expandingshaft and winked. "I may be old but I'm not against doing some little pud pulling with a friend."

I shook my head.

"Maybe I 'll give my balls some air. Would you like a viewing of old Don's hairy balls?"

I swallowed hard and moistened my dry lips.

He opened another button on his fly and pulled out his scrotum. "Good God, It feels good to set 'em free. Now let's see yours."

"Why?"

"Just to show you're neighborly," said Don.

"I don't think so." I buttoned up and moved into the recording studio.

Don followed, his cock and balls protruding from the front of his overalls. "Overlook my informality." Don grinned. "As you can see I ain't bashful."

I nodded and took my sandwich from the brown paper bag.

"Yessir," said Don. "I just might have to have myself an old fashioned peter pulling all by my lonesome. He unhooked a shoulder strap and let his overalls drop around his ankles.

I took a bite of my sandwich but my eyes remained on Don.

"Yessiree," said Don, "I got a good one if I do say so myself. Gets nearly as hard as when I was eighteen. You know why?"

I shook my head.

"Cause I keep excerising him. When I was younger I was pulling on it three time a day. Still like to do him every day I can."

"Some say you'll go blind if you do that too much."

"Bull-loney!" Don't you believe that shit. I been puling my pud for close to fifty years and I didn't start till I was fifteen."

I laughed.

"You laughing at my little peter, boy?"

"Your hat." I pointed to the soiled, brown fedora cocked on his head. That and his overalls draped about his ankles were his only items of apparel. In between was a chest full of gray curly hair, two hairy legs. Smack between them stood an erect, pale white cock with a tip of foreskin still hiding the head.

"I am one hairy S.O.B.," said Don.

"I laughed at you wearing nothing but a hat."

"Covers up my bald spot," said Don. "I got more hair on my ass than I got on my head. Want to see?"

"Your head?"

"No, Boy, my hairy ass and around my tight, brown asshole." He turned, reached back with both hands and parted his ass cheeks to reveal the small, puckered opening. "There it is, Boy, the entrance lots of good feelings. Tell me, Boy, how would you like to put it up old Don's ass?"

"I don't think so."

"That'd be the best damned piece you ever got."

"We shouldn't be talking like this."

"C'mon now, confess, don't this make your cock perk up a little bit?"

"I reckon," I confessed.

"You ever seen an old man's hard cock before," asked Don.

"My grandpa's when I was twelve or thirteen."

"How'd that come about?"

He was out in the barn and didn't know I was around. He dropped his pants. It was real big he did things to it. He saw me and he turned around real fast but I saw it."

"What did your grandpa do?"

"He said I shouldn't be watching him doing that. He said something like grandma 'wouldn't give him some,' that morning and that I should get out of there and leave a poor man in peace to do what he had to do."

"Did you want to join him."

"I might have if he'd asked. He didn't."

"I like showing off my cock," said Don. "A hard-on is somethng I always been proud of. A hard-on proves a man's a man. Makes me feel like a man that can do things." He looked up at me and winked. "You getting a hard-on fromall this talk, son?"

I nodded and looked away.

"Then maybe you should pull it out and show old Don what you got."

"We shouldn't."

"Hey. A man's not a man till he jacked off with a buddy."

I wanted to but I was as nervous as hell.

Don grinned and fingered his pecker. "C'mon, Boy, between friends, a little cock showing is perfectly fine. Lets see what you got in the cock and balls department."

In spite of my reluctance, I felt the stirring in my crotch. I had curiositythat needed satisfying. It had been a long, long time since I had walked in on my grandfather .

"C'mon let's see it all."

I shook my head.

"You can join the party anytime, said Don. "Just drop your pants and pump away."

I had the urge. There was a tingling in my crotch. My cock was definitely willing and I had a terrible need to ajust myself down there. But my timidity and the strangeness of it all held me back.

Hope you don't mind if I play out this hand." I ke grinned. "It feels like I got a winner."

I stared at his gnarled hand sliding up and down that pale, white column and I could not look away. I wet my lips and shook my head.

"Dirty Don's about to spout a geyser." Don breathed harder as he winked. "Now if I just had a long finger up my ass. You interested, boy?"

I shook my head.

The first, translucent, white glob crested the top of his cock and and arced to the dirt floor. Don held his cock at the base with thumb and forefinger and tightened noticably with each throb of ejaculation until he was finished.

I could not believe any man could do what he had done in front of another human being.

Don sighed with pleasure and licked his fingers. "A man ain't a man till he's tasted his own juices."

He squatted, turned on the faucet and picked up the connected hose. He directed the water between his legs and on to his still dripping prick and milked the few remaing drops of white, sticky stuff into the puddle foming at his feet. "Cool water sure feels good on a cock that just shot its wad," said Don.

***

"Cock-tale telling time," said Dirty Don. It was the next day and he rubbed the front of his dirty,worn overalls where his bulge made the fly expand as his fingers smoothed the denim around the outline of his expanding cock.

I wasn't sure what he had in mind but I knew it wasn't something my straight-laced Grandma would approve of.

"Don't you like taking your cock out and jacking it?" Don licked his lips.

I shook my head in denial.

"Sure you do. A young man in his prime has got to be pulling his pud."

I stared at his caloused hand moving over the growing bulge at his crotch.

"Like I said," continued Don, "I got me barely six inches when he's standing up." He winked at me. "How much you got, son?"

"Almost seven inches. . ." I stuttered. "Last time I measured."

"And I'm betting it feels real good with your fist wrapped around it."

"I don't do. . ."

"Everybody does it." He scratched his balls and said,"I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Then, looking me in the eye, he lifted his leg like a dog at a tree and let out a long, noisy fart.

Denying that I jacked off, I said, "I saw yours yesterday."

"A man has got to take out his pecker every once in a while." He winked and his fingers played with a button on his fly. Care to join me today?"

"I don't think so."

"What's the matter, boy? You ashamed of what's hanging 'tween your skinny legs?"

"It's not for showing off."

"That would be so with a crowd of strangers but with a friend, in a friendly showdown, where's the harm?

"It shouldn't be shown to other people. My Grandma said that a long time ago when I went to the bathroom against a tree whan I was seven.

"There's nothing like a joint pulling among friends to seal a friendship," said Don.

I don't think so." I felt very much, ill at ease.

"Then what the fuck is it for," demanded the old man. "A good man shares his cock with his friends. How old are you boy?"

"Nineteen almost twenty."

You ever fucked a woman?"

"No."

"Ever fucked a man?"

"Of course not.

"Son, you ain't never lived till you've fired your load up a man's tight ass."

"I didn't know men did that to each other."

"Men shove it up men's asses men all the time. They just don't talk about it like they do pussy."

"You've done that?"

"I admit this old pecker's been up a few manholes. More than a fewhard cocks have shagged this old ass over the years." He shook his head, wistfully, "I still have a hankering for a hard one up the old dirt chute."

"I think that would hurt."

"First time, it usually does," agreed Don. He took a bite from his sandwich.

I looked at my watch. Ten minutes of our lunch hour had already passed.

"We got time for a quickie," said Don. "There's no one around to say, stop, if were enjoying ourselves."

He unhooked the slide off the button of one shoulder-strap, pushed the bib of his overalls down to let them fall to his feet.

"Showtime," said Don. Between his legs, white and hairy, his semi-hard cock emerged from a tangled mass of brown and graypubic hair. The foreskin, still puckered beyond the head of the cock, extended downward forty-five degrees from the horizontal but was definitely on the rise.

I could only stare at the man. Until the day before, I had never seen an older man with an erection besides my grandpa.

Don moved his fingers along the stalk of his manhood until the head partially emerged, purplish and broad. He removed his hand for a moment and it bobbled obscenely in the subdued light of the potting shed. Don leaned back against a bin of clay pots like a model on display. "Like I said, boy, it gets the job done."

I found it difficult not to watch. "You shouldn't. . ."

"C'mon, boy. Show Don your peckeer. I'm betting it's nice and hard."

I grasped my belt and tugged on the open end. I slipped the waistband button and two more before pushing down my blue jeans and shorts down in one move. My cock bounced and slapped my belly as I straightened."

"That's a beaut." Don stroked his pale, white cock with the purplish-pink head shining. "I'm betting it'll grow some more if you stroke it."

"We really shouldn't. . ."

"Now don't tell me you never stroked your hard peter with a buddy."

"I've done that," I finally admitted,. "But he was the same age as me and it was a long time ago." I though back to the last time Chuck and me jerked each other off in the loft of our old barn. Chuck wanted more as a going away present and we had sucked each other's dicks a little bit.

"Jackin's always better when you do it with somebody," said Don. "Then you can lend each other a helping hand."

"I don't know about that," I said.

Don's hand continued moving on his old cock as he leaned over to inspect mine. "God Damn! Boy. That cock looks good enough to eat." Don licked his lips. "You ever had that baby sucked?"

I shook my head as I watched the old man stroke his hard, pale cock.

"Well boy, I'd sayyou're packing a real mouthful for some lucky gal or guy." He grinned. "Well c'mon. Let's see you get down to some serious jacking. Old Don's way ahead of you."

I wrapped my fist around my stiff cock and moved the foreskin up and over the head on the up stroke. On the down stroke the expanded corona of the angry, purple head stared obscenely at the naked old man.

Don toyed with his modest six inches. "What do you think of this old man's cock?" His fist rode down to his balls and a cockhead smaller than the barrel stared back at mine.

"I guess I'm thinking this is like doing it with my grandpa."

"You ever wish you could a done this with your grandpa?"

"I thought about it a lot."

"Ever see him with a hard-on."

"I told you about that!"

"Ever think about him doing your grandma?"

"I can't imagine her ever doing anything with a man.

"Take my word for it, sonny, we know she did it or you wouldn't be here." Begrudgingly I nodded in agreement.

"Everybody fucks," said old Don. "They fuck or they jack off."

"If you say so."

"Say sonny, your cocks getting real juicy with slickum. Want old I ke to lick some of it away?"

"You wouldn't."

Don licked his lips as he kept his hand pistoning up and down his hard cock. "You might be surprised what old Don might do if he was in the mood for a taste of what comes out of a hard cock."

And that is what he proceded to do. He sucked me dry.

Then he erupted in half-a-dozen spurts shooting out and onto the dirt floor of the potting shed. He gave his cock a flip and shucked t back into his overalls. He unwrapped a sandwich from its wax paper and procede to eat without washing his hands. He took a bite and chewed. "Nothing like it boy, a good jacking clears the cobwebs from your crotch and gives a man an appetite."

***

The following day, We skipped the peliminaries. We dropped our pants. Don got down on his knees and sucked me until I was hard and good and wet before he stood and turned.

"C'mon boy, Shove that pretty cock up old I ke's tight, brown hole and massage old Don's prostate.

Don bent forward and gripped the edge of the potting bench. The lean, white cheeked buttocks parted slightly and exposed the dark brown, crinkly, puckered star of his asshole "Now you go slow and ease it along until you've got it all the way in," he cautioned. "This old ass craves your young cock but it don't want too much too soon. You've got to let this old hole stretch to accomodate you."

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

"Easy boy, easy," he cautioned. "You feel a lot bigger than you look. Put a little more spit in your cock."

"It's awfully tight. I don't know if it's going to go or not."

""It'll go," said Don. "There's been bigger boys than you up the old shit chute."

I slipped in the the last few inches.. "It's all in."

"I can tell," said Don. "Your cock hairs are tickling my ass."

"Are you ready," I asked.

"How are you liking old Don's hairy asshole so far?"

"It's real tight."

"Tighter than your fist?"

"Might be."

"Ready to throw a fuck into a man that reminds you of your grandpa."

"I reckon."

"I want you should do old Don one more favor."

"What?"

While you're pumpin my ass, would you reach around and play with my dick like you would your own? Would you do that for an old man?"

I reached around and took hold of his hard cock sticking out straight in front of him. I pilled the skin back amd then pulled it up and over the expaded glans. I felt my own cock expand inside him as I manipulated his staff in my fingers. I imagined that my cock extended through him and I was playing with what came out the other side of him.

"C'mon, boy, ram that big cock up the old shitter and make me know it. God Damn! tickle that old prostate and make old Don come!"

I came. And I came. Don's tightened up on my cock and I throbbed Roman Candle bursts into that brown hole as I pressed into him. His hairy, scrawny ass flattened against my crotch and we were joined as tightly as two humans can be.

"A man's not a man till he's cum in another man." said old Don. "You made it, boy. But still, a man's not a man till he's had a hard cock poked up his ass at least once."

Every time I think of that scene, I get another hard-on. Then I remember the next day when old Don returned the favor.

I never have managed to come that hard again. If only I ke were here.

Re:even fuller disclosure: (0, Offtopic)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220797)

wtf did i just read :(

Re:even fuller disclosure: (0)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220863)

YHBT. HTH. HAND.

Re:even fuller disclosure: (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221551)

wtf did i just read :(

You read that whole thing?

Masochist.

Re:even fuller disclosure: (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221769)

wtf did i just read :(

You read that whole thing?

Masochist.

I read about four lines in. I'm afraid to go any further...

Use (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220751)

Thank goodness legislatures have the discipline to only use funds for the reason they gave in the justification.

Make 'em pay (5, Insightful)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220769)

I don't live in Louisiana (or the US), but I'd be quite cross if they started charging me because other people like to watch images of naked kids.

Re:Make 'em pay (4, Insightful)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220825)

Let's disregard the article for one second here. How do you think crime fighting is funded in general?

Re:Make 'em pay (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220895)

By stealing it from those who earn it and "redistributing" it to those who do not; just like everything else in our "democracy".

Re:Make 'em pay (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220943)

Okay, another scenario.

Traffic Cops - Are they funded by Car Tax? No
Homoicide Detectives - Are they funded by Death Tax? No

Why should Internet Cops be different? As far as I'm concerned, in my workplace, I had to modernise and use computers to keep in the market place.
Did my "core" business change? No
Did my fees change? No

Why do cops need to tap a new revenue source to battle online crime. It's their job to fight crime regardless of where it is, and they are funded by the state. State's coffers getting scarce? Not my problem. They already get a piece of the action when I get my wages. They get a piece of the action when i "buy" broadband/computer/electricity. What else next?

Oh sir, you want to use that electricity to power your kettle to make coffee? That'll be a 15cent tax. Why? Boiling hot coffee was used in a crime, so we need more tax to pay for the cops to investigate coffee burn crimes.

Re:Make 'em pay (1)

gnud (934243) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220987)

Crime fighting is funded by (normal) taxes. White-collar crime fighting is funded by my income tax, not a special tax on stock or bond trading.

So, internet based crime should be treated in the same way.

Re:Make 'em pay (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221343)

So it would be perfectly ok if they would instead add this (according to them new and necessary) sum to your income tax making no economic difference for you at all? Is it the name that bothers you? Am I the idiot here? Because I really don't get it.

Re:Make 'em pay (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221363)

Crime fighting is funded by (normal) taxes.

I take it you've never had your car impounded by police only too eager to boost their budgets from the sale of your car (for, among other things, posession of drugs, attempting to buy drugs, soliticing a blow job, and traffic violations), had other property impounded that was similarly sold, or just driven through certain localities where the local sheriff's version of crimefighting involves intimidating motorists to hand over their cash?

Re:Make 'em pay (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221109)

Through taxes, like the sales taxes I pay when I pay my bill for internet access, and the property taxes paid by my landlord and my ISP.

I'd like to see property taxes go up, and income taxes go down, and eventually away. But I guess we can't have everything.

Re:Make 'em pay (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221283)

Fine. You can have your wish and property taxes will go up ... As soon as the people who are not paying property taxes no longer are allowed the opportunity to vote.

Signed,
Sick of apartment dwellers voting in tax and bond initiatives funded only by property taxes

Re:Make 'em pay (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221339)

Sick of apartment dwellers voting in tax and bond initiatives funded only by property taxes

If property taxes go up, rents go up.

Signed, rent is theft.

HAHAHA! (-1, Flamebait)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220787)

Serves you right for voting Coroprationist Red!

Disclaimer: I'm not American.

Re:HAHAHA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220821)

Heck, as long as you have another disclaimer, you should also say that you are not intelligent.

Re:HAHAHA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221553)

Serves you right for voting Coroprationist Red!

First, it is spelled "Corporation". Second, I have a feeling you mean Republicans. In which case, I point out to you, the Governor who is threatening to veto the internet tax is also a Republican or a "Coroprationist(sic) Red" as you so put it.

Disclaimer: I'm not American.

1. I can tell. 2. We're very thankful you're not.

Re:HAHAHA! (0, Troll)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221697)

Flamebait? Wow, looks like Republicans have mod points. Of course, you could have as easily said "Coroprationist blue", because the Democrats are just as much in the pockets of the corporations as the Republicans. When you have only two viable parties and it's legal to donate to both candidates in any election, and you don't even have to be eligible to vote for them, your vote doesn't mean very much. What would you expect?

Whoa whoa whoa (0, Flamebait)

E. Edward Grey (815075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220789)

I wouldn't say that having Gov. Bobby Jindal on our side is necessarily "good news."

Re:Whoa whoa whoa (2, Interesting)

toppavak (943659) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221133)

You mean Gov. Piyush Amrit Jindal? I find it interesting that the man tries so hard to distance himself from his heritage but still retains his Indian name as his legal name.

"to fight online criminal activity" (1, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220801)

News flash: a 15-cents-a-month tax will not deter criminals.

Re:"to fight online criminal activity" (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221765)

Unless those criminals now have to cancel there internet because they can't afford the extra 15 cents! I wonder if free internet access will now be free plus tax??

Rash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220809)

Feel an itch? You just got fucked.

Did a politician actually say.. (3, Interesting)

sskinnider (1069312) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220823)

FTFA - "I don't think we should start instituting a revenue stream for every criminal element that's out there," Maybe the Mayans were right about 2012.

Well, he's a Republican (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220833)

You know. He's just another stupid Republican. Those guys sure don't have any good ideas.

Re:Well, he's a Republican (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220983)

So Louisiana only has 9 Democrats?

There are 2 major parties in most of the US. Does your hate apply to those Democrats too and by natural extension of your hate of one stupid Republican to "those guys" to all Democrats as well?

As they say, once a cocksucker, always a cocksucker. We just need to find one Democrat in the Louisiana House that voted for this...

BTW, I believe the governor of Louisiana is still Bobby Jindal, a Republican. Just think, the safeguards of Louisana, protected by a Republican. What's that make your comment now? Pro-Obama?

Actually a Democrat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221187)

In case anyone is missing the irony, that line was actually uttered by a Democrat. Here's what a Republican had to say:

"As the anti-tax man, I can't think of a better fee, tax that we can impose ... I don't know a better use for 15 cents"

He's anti-tax except when he's not.

Okay, and....? (3, Insightful)

idiotnot (302133) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220849)

Look at all the surcharges you pay on your telephone bill. I think the federal rural phone tax lasted until something like 1999?

This is a non-story. The big story where states are going to soak people for taxes is when Congress allows them to do sales tax on every single purchase. It's coming.

(and maybe a federal one, too)

Tax child porn! (0, Troll)

Engeekneer (1564917) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220859)

I think those who commit the crime should pay. If you'd tax the child porn, you'd even get a nice feedback loop. When your anti-childporn measures (uhm.. discount coupons to stores that sell childrens clothes?) are working well enough, your funds get cut, If it picks up again, boom! Automatic funding!

Full disclosure for me too... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28220879)

From the summary: "Full disclosure: I grew up in south Louisiana and worked for WWL-TV in the late '70s."
OK, well...before I post, I should disclose some things too.
I've said the word "Louisiana" 11,547 times in my life. I've never been there, but I hear they have some weird tax on the Intertubes.

Bad policy yes, slippery slope... not really. (4, Interesting)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220903)

It's just another tax on something that shouldn't be taxed... We already get taxed on ramen noodles, water, gasoline, cheeseburgers, cable television, telephones, and almost everything else.

If you're worried about a slippery slope, please glance downward at the icy incline and the skates on your feet.

It is kinda stupid to justify as way to pay for fighting "online crime". Why don't they levy an additional tax on retail sales and call it the "shoplifter arrest and incarceration tax".

Re:Bad policy yes, slippery slope... not really. (5, Funny)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221263)

Why don't they levy an additional tax on retail sales and call it the "shoplifter arrest and incarceration tax".

DO NOT GIVE THEM IDEAS.

Re:Bad policy yes, slippery slope... not really. (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221323)

Why don't they levy an additional tax on retail sales and call it the "shoplifter arrest and incarceration tax".

They probably already do. Why do you think cities have their own taxes to pay for local law enforcement and other services. The internet has escaped local taxes other than sales tax, so where should the extra money to provide online law enforcement come from ? By charging everybody, including people who don't use the internet, or just those who do ?

Dedicated revenue streams are gimmicks (5, Insightful)

netbuzz (955038) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220923)

Of course it's tough to vote against "protecting the children," but if this expenditure is necessary it should take a place in line with every other legitimate need and wait for its share of the income tax. Special interests are going to be lined up around the block to try this one in La.

Re:Dedicated revenue streams are gimmicks (2, Informative)

Late Adopter (1492849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221259)

Agreed.

An economist will tell you money is fungible [wikipedia.org] . It doesn't matter where it comes from. If you earmark a particular source for a destination, that just means the destination needs that amount less from the general supply, which is then freed up to go wherever.

It's a great way to get unpopular revenue streams passed (my state uses Lotto to fund education), but it's entirely meaningless.

What if you want to offer free Wi-Fi? (1)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220945)

How does this affect people who want to offer free Wi-Fi?

Re:What if you want to offer free Wi-Fi? (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221585)

You pay 5% of your income. :)

Oh another thing, you are a commie!

No Katrina money left? (2, Insightful)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 5 years ago | (#28220955)

What about the billions we already gave to that incompetent Nagan and his crooked police force?

Re:No Katrina money left? (1)

Aldenissin (976329) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221155)

Wat are you kidding me? What goes better with a chocolate city than some powdered sugar?

Slope this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221021)

Either legislators are weak, corrupt, or ignorant, or legislative government is a failure because it is inherently flawed. Pick from those two or shut up. There is no "slippery slope".

Re:Slope this (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221169)

Add in, the voter is ignorant and apathetic. If you were an honest politician, and you realized just HOW stupid the voter is, might you not be tempted? No one is looking, no one cares, and everyone else is doing it anyway.....

Public schools exempt... (1)

emocomputerjock (1099941) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221051)

How would this work for public wifi? Would you get charged an extra 15 cents on your tab when you pick up your coffee? What about waiting at the airport, would that be an extra 15 cents on your flight?

This is a great idea (1)

glebovitz (202712) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221059)

after all, Louisiana has no other major pressing issues that might require some financial attention, such as finding homes for all the people displaced by Katrina. Before they spend the money on protecting children from the evil Internet, maybe they should spend some effort on protecting children from the evil collapsing infrastructure.

Re:This is a great idea (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221651)

Before they spend the money on protecting children from the evil Internet, maybe they should spend some effort on protecting children from the evil collapsing infrastructure.

It doesn't matter if their house, the road, or a tall building collapses on them and kills them. At least they won't have had to give a blowjob to a middle aged pervert.....

Note: This post is sarcasm. I hate having to inform people of humour, but with the mods around here, you can't take the chance.....

In Brazil we pay 40% (1)

famazza (398147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221073)

While you are worry about US$ 0.15/mo. We in Brazil need to worry about 40%, that's what we pay in taxes for any kind of telecomunication service. I wish I could pay US$ 0.15 in taxes.

Re:In Brazil we pay 40% (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221475)

While you are worry about US$ 0.15/mo. We in Brazil need to worry about 40%, that's what we pay in taxes for any kind of telecomunication service.

I wish I could pay US$ 0.15 in taxes.

So what, because some assholes in your country make you pay too much, we should be happy we get to pay so little? Bullshit.

Re:In Brazil we pay 40% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221519)

In Soviet Russia internet pays you! In Brazil internet is a luxury and not a utility. We are already forcing the poor off of the internet and creating wider gaps. This will make it even harder for them, because it only goes up from here. If we don't fight it now it will go up even further. Know what happens when you tax the internet 40%? When the internet crashes, so do airplanes.

Re:In Brazil we pay 40% (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221663)

While you are worry about US$ 0.15/mo. We in Brazil need to worry about 40%, that's what we pay in taxes for any kind of telecomunication service.

I wish I could pay US$ 0.15 in taxes.

Yeah, but at least you have good beer....

Re:In Brazil we pay 40% (1)

Ogive17 (691899) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221669)

This is an additional tax, not the total tax. I don't live in Louisiana but in my town in Ohio I have one choice for broadband, Time Warner Cable, and that costs $45 + another $5 or $6 in taxes that are tacked on (which is about 97-100 Reals). I'm suppose to get a 7Mbit connection but it's normally only around 4Mbit. Not to mention if I stream video it seems to magically slow way down.

How much do you pay for broadband a month?

Re:In Brazil we pay 40% (1)

jcrousedotcom (999175) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221815)

This article is about the 15 but in reality, many Americans are closer to 20%+ in taxes on telecommunications services with some being over 30%. [taxfoundation.org]

How it really works. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221191)

15-cent monthly surcharge should be levied on Internet access across Louisiana to fight online criminal activity

Only here is how it really works. If you're spending $10 million, from the general fund, on X and now you have an extra $10 million specifically for X all that does is move the original $10 million back to the general fund. You don't actually have to spend any more money on X but you've just increased your tax base. You could even wait a year or so to move the original money back in the budget so as not to raise alarms.

Internet 2.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221197)

If the internet is just a large network, can't we just form another one? If enough people are involved then it'll be a usefull tool... which means it'll be connected to the internet by somebody.. which means you'll have subverted the tax and decentralized it back to how it should be. Bonus points for ending up with free internet access.

Reminds me of.... (1)

uffe_nordholm (1187961) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221327)

This reminds me, somehow, of Gudrun Schymann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudrun_Schyman), a Swedish politician who proposed a special "man tax". This tax would be levied on all men, for their collective responsability for the physical abuse some women have to put up with from some men. When someone opined that since all men would have to pay this tax, beating your wife/girlfriend cannot be illegal, she shut up very fast and has not raised the subject since!

As for the issue at hand, why should internet users be singled out for extra taxes? I have not yet heard of any car owners having to pay an extra tax to fund a police branch concerned with car theft. (At least here in Sweden a part of your vehicle taxes are used to provide the roads, the rest disappears into that black hole that is the Government budget, no mention of a special car theft police squad.) Or home owners having to pay a special tax to have a police force that takes care of home burglaries.

Why is internet any different? Is it that the crimes can be spread over so many jurisdictions that makes it different? Or is it that the politicians are so stupid? I know what my answer is...

Yeah, right (1)

david_thornley (598059) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221437)

Who cares? There's so many additional fees on my phone bill that I wouldn't notice a fifteen-cent DSL tax. It's a lot less than the other little governmental add-ons.

Of course, what I'd like to see done with it is to help expand broadband access. The problem with a state tax to address internet ills is that the internet is so much bigger than any state, or even any country.

I support this idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221447)

There should also be a 15 cent tax on cellphones to fight crimes organised via cellphones, also a 15 cent tax on roads to fight vehicular crime, and a 15 cent tax on water for illegal cult kool-aid manufacture. Not to mention a 15 cent tax on sunlight which is used in the illicit manufacture of marijuana.

Does Louisiana currently tax the sale of firearms and ammunition for the specific purpose of paying for anti-gun violence enforcement?

Damn them (1)

Workaphobia (931620) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221505)

Damn Louisiana for making me side with Jindal! Damn them all!

No different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28221535)

I don't see this as any different than any other tax. They tax cigarrettes to pay for health care, they tax gas to pay for roads. The whole "for the children" is just a political ploy and everyone knows it. I'm not saying that I approve or dissaprove of it, I'm simply saying that this isn't the huge slippery slope everyone thinks it is.

Wow (1)

Ferretman (224859) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221667)

Between this and the Congressional idea of a VAT tax, don't folks "get it" that it's never enough with these guys?

Wow! (1)

airship (242862) | more than 5 years ago | (#28221789)

Man, this is unbelievable! Totally amazing!

Bobby Jindal is on the right side of an issue! 8O

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...