California Lawmaker Proposes Music Download Tax 326
modemac writes "Sacramento, California Assemblyman Charles Calderon wants to expand a 75-year-old sales tax on 'tangible personal property' to include music downloads from iTunes and other music-download sites. The tax would specifically apply to music downloads, but the estimate used in this article for revenue generated by 'Net downloading also "includes pornography downloads." The measure, AB 1956, will be considered on Monday, April 14th."
tax deduction (Score:5, Funny)
Re:tax deduction (Score:5, Funny)
Only if you're filing as an individual. If you're filing jointly, you have bigger problems than your tax liability.
I've been trying without success to claim deductions for blackjack and hookers for years, so my advice is to just pay up. And don't forget to leave a tip.
Re: (Score:2)
Such as?
Re:tax deduction (Score:4, Informative)
Silicone valley (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Silicone valley (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Silicone valley (Score:5, Funny)
Tangible Personal Property? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, what does "tangible" mean? To me, it means something a bit more permanent than bits on a disk. After all, if someone gets near it with a magnet, there goes your "tangible" property. The same cannot be said for a car, a bookshelf, a can of paint, etc.
Re:Tangible Personal Property? (Score:5, Funny)
That depends on the size of your magnet.
Re:Tangible Personal Property? (Score:5, Funny)
That depends on the size of your magnet.
Re:Tangible Personal Property? (Score:5, Insightful)
On a related note: If I was in California, I'd ask this congressman what benefit I as an individual and California as a whole would receive for the increased revenue. Would I get more use of my product? Would the money be used to increase pay for congressmen? Would it offset some other tax? Without knowing those things, and also having compensation in the language of the bill for what happens if those funds are not used for the approved task, the increase should be disallowed. On behalf of everyone who wishes to avoid California setting precedent, please write your representatives!
I personally don't mind taxes as long as there is a clear benefit for the additional cost. When taxes increase with no increase in benefit, there's a problem.
Re:Tangible Personal Property? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that people come in two flavors: those that don't want to see it coming, and those that do.
Re:Tangible Personal Property? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, to flip it around, you could just as easily say that they're not taxing the information, they're taxing the actual, physical signals that iTunes is sending you.
Re:Tangible Personal Property? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly (Score:2)
Just like the tax that have when you buy a book or CD. Ultimately, that's a tax on information as well.
He actually has a clue about what is happening. Whether or not you agree it should be taxed is another matter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a scary concept. It could be extended to *any* access of information. Imagine being charged a "use tax" every time you read a book.
Re:Tangible Personal Property? (Score:5, Insightful)
You get what you pay for.
Buyer beware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Music files aren't tangible in the sense of the bold sec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't agree that something that can be replicated "out of nothing" with no loss to the original should ever be considered tangible (living beings are not created "from nothing" because food is consumed and converted into cells), but pointing out that there are some holes in your argument.
L
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In California, sales taxes are paid on leased and rented equipment. So, no, ownership is not a key concept. You pay sales tax on a can of beer, so, no, permanence is not a key concept. Tangible means it takes real form. I move your sofa for $10 and there's no sales tax, because you did not gain any tangible good for my sale (of a service). You give me $10 a month and I tell you the important news of the day on demand: a service, not tangible, no sales tax. You give me $10 a month and I deliver a newspaper
Can't have it both ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As discussed ad nauseum, the owners are taxed on their incomes, just like any author.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is one reason why it was such a trying point with some of the founding fathers. Also, copyright had a surprisingly large catalyst to the revolutionary war.
Wrong title (Score:5, Insightful)
"But his measure is being soundly criticized by Republicans, who are opposed to any tax increases to solve the deficit problem."
So if you're not FOR the tax, you don't want to lower the deficit!
" His bill, AB 1956, comes as Apple reports that its iTunes store has leap-frogged over Wal-Mart to become the top music retailer in the United States with more than 4 billion downloads sold."
Odds are this bill comes AS A RESULT of iTunes leapfrogging Wal-Mart.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawmakers sees exactly what is happening, and seems to understand how things are changing.
"Besides the obvious fact that it would be very hard to police (esp. the pr0n)
no, not really.
"this would lead to more piracy. "
no it wouldn't. There is no evidence at all.
iTunes has sold billions of downloads, ALL of which is available for free if someone wanted to ignore copyright laws. Yet people still pay.
"So
Seems to encourage piracy... (Score:2)
Re:Seems to encourage piracy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seems to encourage piracy... (Score:4, Funny)
Is it considered property when you don't "Own" it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Is it considered property when you don't "Own" (Score:2)
Re:Is it considered property when you don't "Own" (Score:2)
Hmmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy an iTunes track, it's mine, sorta. But, I can't resell it, or give it away, or what have you. It's not tangible by any meaningful sense of that word. It's not like in a bankruptcy proceeding they could seize my music collection to help pay off my debtors.
And, porn? Really? They think people are gonna pay tax on all that free porn they're pulling off (ahem) the internet?
Seriously, yet another lawmaker who wants to monetize the internets to try to generate some cash or protect a special interest, and who doesn't actually know enough about the topic at hand to say anything reasonable. Hopefully, someone can slap some sense into him.
Cheers
Re:Hmmmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell are you thinking, man? He a freaking politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)
According to TFA, it would be a tax on the sale price:
So, presumably, free porn wouldn't be taxed at all--but you would have to pay tax on any porn you purchase online.
This is interesting because if it's a sales tax, it won't apply to freely distributed intellectual works, like creative commons music. So if all my music downloads are free, I don't have to pay any tax. Presuming that they don't start taxing donations, this would actually make the creative commons business model (release for free, capitalize on donations, concerts, merchandise, etc.) even more compelling (for artist and consumer).
That having been said, this overall sounds like a terrible idea. We need less monetization of intellectual works, not more.
Politician: A.Raise Taxes B.Limit Freedoms (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do they always seem to be on the prowl to find yet another way to tax us the public?
I wish somehow, we could pass laws in each state AND nationally, that there be a mortorium on any new tax being instated. For like 5 years minimum...NO NEW TAXES, and even with that...no new taxes without equivalent tax b
Re: (Score:2)
Becuase there are deficits. The only way to pay for them is to increase taxes. The main cause of deficits is that we had this nifty stream taxing millionaries at a higher rate, but turns out when you cut the highest tax bracket by 6%, you lose a lot of money.
I just want the highest bracket to be at 40%, and for capital gains to get taxed as income. Maybe in parallel (so the first $X,000 of capital gains wasn't taxed, the next bit at teh lowest tax rate, etc.).
And 'gridlock' used to be called 'loyal opp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China is more "liberal" regarding capital gains taxes - there is none. All you do is pay a 1 or 2% fee based on transaction amount. So I guess China is more capitalistic than even US.
I do agree that capital gains should be counted as income taxes, though the lower inclusion rate (as in Canada) in important to keep people in investing money inst
Re: (Score:2)
How about "cutting pork-barrel spending"? That oughta free up a chunk of cash...
Re: (Score:2)
I wish somehow, we could pass laws in each state AND nationally, that there be a mortorium on any new tax being instated. For like 5 years minimum...NO NEW TAXES, and even with that...no new taxes without equivalent tax being recinded, or cut in govt. spending.
I think we need a constitutional amendment that states no person shall be subjected to (local, state, and federal) taxes totaling more than x% of their income, where x is hopefully rather low. Instead of allowing the government to tell us how much we get to keep, we need to start telling the government how much they're allowed to take.
And I realize that as soon as this amendment passed, taxes would be set at x%. That's why x needs to be low. Graduate it based on income levels, if necessary (e.g., make i
Re: (Score:2)
Unfair taxes are a problem, we just have to all agree what is unfair. It seem like this might be a case of an unfair tax, but that is why we have people represent us. If you don't like what he/she is doing, tell them, if they do it anyway, vote them out. It's not the
Good basis for Riaa taxes (Score:3, Insightful)
1) If it is property... then Riaa is going to start paying taxes on it. And of course property tax is value based so RIAA will have a reason to value their property lower.
2) As the value approaches zero, the tax approaches zero. If you sell 1,000 songs for $1.00-- the tax on 1,000 songs is 8 cents (or
Re: (Score:2)
Amusing (Score:2)
Taxes (Score:2)
Every year it is more of the same. New "entitlements" where people are "entitled" to money and services that they don't have to pay for.
What the idiots in the legislature don't realize is that all the "rich" people and "evil" companies, who can afford to leave, have and are leaving the state. Meanwhile we can't ask for ID to make sure that the people using these new "entitlements" are residents of the state (legal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know people who go to Nevada and Oregon to buy stuff, because the sales tax here is 7.25%, and it pays them to drive to another state to avoid it.
And By Entitlements I mean legislatively mandated services t
Just wait... (Score:2)
Seeing as this is from California (Score:2)
Then through the week they compete. Some of the competitions are simple, like correctly applying constitutional law to every day situations. Others are more difficult, like a 15000 word essay on financial markets reform.
At the end of the week, the legislator with the least points has to face off (ma
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a credit for uploading? (Score:4, Funny)
Given that this is California, that could take quite a byte out of the deficit.
Re: (Score:2)
[/cynical]
But seriously, I wouldn't mind massive tuition hikes for non-resident students. Too many damn foreigners(especially the ones from the midwest) are driving costs through the roof. It's tough being a native of the best state in the Union
Tangible personal property? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Attack the messenger (Score:2)
1. I want netizens to dig out juicy personal details about this senator and publish it online in every place: Digg, reddit, etc.
2. Form a focus group which buys ad time much like Swift Boat and puts out ads linking this senator with moneybags.
3. Publish "expert" testimonies from many professors from major universities detailing how such a tax would cause a major recession in the state and al
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's look at reality here. Taxation and fiscal policy plays a huge role in where businesses live, consumers shop, and people live. Taxes do make a determination as to whether or not to engage in a business. If your gross profit margin is ten percent, and taxes are fifty percent on that acti
Re: (Score:2)
Those bastards deserve to be taxed at 75% rate.
About your concern about layoffs, how come Exxon did not layoff its CEO or reduced its salary of board, etc., in 1990s when it was laying off workers?
Lets face facts here: Any company survives solely to earn money for its shareholders. Period. Whichever way they can use, they WILL use it. Much like a bull boy in school who beats up others to get their lunch since it is cheaper and easier to snatch it from others than make your own.
Corp
Re: (Score:2)
Those bastards deserve to be taxed at 75% rate.
Why should they be taxed at a 75% rate? Why, because gas prices are so high? What I do not understand is, if you are so imperialistically inclined as to confiscate the wealth of your own countrymen, then why is it so wrong to go and invade Iraq to "steal their oil". I mean, if gas prices are so high and so evil that they are high, that you can go and confiscate Exxon out of business because he's a fat necked CEO, then what's really
Wall Street is my choice (Score:2)
It's my money. If I want to put my money in a 401k, in Wall Street, versus your school, then, that's my choice. I would think that, if the education of your child was so important to you, then might be motivated to earn enough to pay for it. My question is, if health care, education and even
This is complete horsepuckey. (Score:3, Interesting)
First, it does not solve any of the "problems". Any of them.
Second, everybody is being charged for a "problem" (the quotes are on purpose... I don't agree that there even is a real problem here) caused by a relative few.
Third, the money is going to the wrong people.
And so on. It's just a BAD idea.
Tough for California to say no... (Score:5, Informative)
Democrats in California have already been arguing for a tax increase, and in that environment, saying that sales taxes have to be paid on internet items might be politically the easiest thing for them to do. After all, they could argue, somewhat disingenously - why should everyone else pay taxes, but internet businesses not?
Define "download" (Score:5, Interesting)
in the case of pr0n, even if you don't download it to your hard drive, if you can see it in your browser, you have downloaded it. (duh, you got the data somehow) would this same principle apply to net radio, streaming music, youtube, etc? makes you wonder how far they will run with it.
Is this really a new issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Where To Pay the Tax? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say I live in Vermont and I buy a song from iTunes, which is based in California.
Vermont claims that people owe it sales tax because they're in Vermont and buying something in another state that they could be buying here. If a Vermont resident goes to another state with no or lower sales tax to buy a car, Vermont requires that they pay Vermont's sales tax equal to the difference between the two when they register it in Vermont. There's also a section on Vermont tax returns that asks state residents to estimate the sales tax we would have paid if we'd bought something locally instead of through a Web site that, at present, implies that if they buy music through iTunes they should be paying state tax on the purchase.
The California proposal seems to think consumers are going, in a virtual sense, to California to buy my music. Because the transaction happens in California, they want to collect tax.
The Vermont requirement is apparently widely ignored and impossible to enforce unless the out-of-state business collects the tax for it. The California proposal would be enforceable only as long as the iTunes music store is hosted there. It would likely be moved off-shore if this proposal passes.
This will likely take Federal legislation or a Supreme Court decision defining the basis for where a tax is levied: on the location of the consumer or the location of the business. If the former, every business with a Web presence will have to incorporate 50+ different tax rules based on customer location, possibly more if they serve international customers.
It would be simpler would be to tax where the business is located, but then most states would object to the revenue loss and businesses would move their Web operations to states with low or no sales tax or off-shore (which would then likely cause Congress to pass legislation allowing states to tax their residents for out-of-state purchases anyway).
As always, it's about money which is of course is the root of all evil, which makes us a really evil society.
Re: (Score:2)
It is for the children (Score:5, Insightful)
they need to pay their fair share those dirty rotten music down loaders
we are taxing perverts, you want to tax them, right?
it is for the children.
the revenue will go towards reducing our impact on the environment!
which statements can we queue up to support this? I expect the bulk of them to show up at one time or the other
Sorry, it never ceases to amaze me that when facing a spending problem their first reaction is to increase taxes.
Super Latino Grandstander (Score:5, Insightful)
Check out the shape of his legislative district (California #58). It's a true octopus. Precisely gerrymandered (an American term meaning the drawing of political boundaries to ensure permanent re-election of the people drawing the boundaries) down to the household to ensure that this bozo can never be voted away.
In the not-too-distant future, bozos like this will avoid tangling with the technicians in order to avoid having their slimy little scams and fiefdoms exposed on the web like this.
Common everywhere else (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't this then mean...RIAA Heartburn (Score:2, Redundant)
Well its one for you, eighteen for me (Score:2)
Personal property tax on nontangible licensed IP? (Score:2)
OK, someone explain how this works to me please.
The RIAA and all seem to insist that, even when buying physical CDs, let alone digital Rights-managed files, that we don't own the files - what we're paying for is a "use license". This is why they have always claimed that we don't have the right to space/time/format shift, make backup copeis, resell, or generally do whatever we want under the Fair Use tenets.
Now, a senator in California is attempting to apply a personal property tax - a tax on tangible,
Re:Personal property tax on nontangible licensed I (Score:2)
"Tangible" (Score:2)
Rob
I thought we didn't own the songs.=) (Score:2, Insightful)
Attitudes Like This Make Me Sick (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is nothing new. Some years ago now there was a ballot measure to add 1 cent to the gasoline tax to fund mass transit. Now, of course, people driving cars already aren't users of mass transit and therefore don't wish to pay for it. The ballot measure was soundly defeated!
Wonder of wonders, some bright light in the tax department in Sacramento SUDDENLY DISCOVERED that, Hey, we can apply Sales Tax to gasoline, which we never did before because we already had a gasoline tax. And on top of that, we can apply Sales Tax to THE ENTIRE PRICE of a gallon of gasoline, resulting in what should never be allowed, A TAX ON A TAX!
FRUTHERMORE, Sales Tax goes into the General Fund, meaning we can SPEND IT ON ANYTHING WE LIKE including mass transit, or not. That's still in effect in California, which is one of the two reasons why CALIFORNIA HAS SOME OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE GASOLINE IN THE COUNTRY! (Hawaii at least has the excuse that they have to import all their gasoline for their prices.)
This is timely because California is at it again trying to get registered car owners to pay for mass transit. And now it's IN ADDITION to the sales tax on gasoline!!
It's not property, it's a license (Score:3, Insightful)
If what you bought was actual property, we wouldn't have nearly the DRM and piracy mess as we do now. Lawmakers have to make a decision - leave it as a license and not taxable, or call it property, tax it, and let customers do whatever they like with their property after it's purchased.
Re:Will only encourage "illegal" downloading (Score:5, Insightful)
No kidding... I thought the whole point of sales tax was SUPPOSED to be that it supported the infrastructure (roads, etc.) needed to actually sell the product, which is why sales tax makes sense as far as ordering off of, for example, Amazon.com goes (stuff still needs shipping). As far as I am aware, the government doesn't actually have an infrastructure to support regarding just downloads. The entire cost is borne by ISPs and the site you download from (thus, by extension, the consumers themselves).
I see no need for a sales tax on downloads other than padding pockets and paying for totally unrelated projects.
Re:Will only encourage "illegal" downloading (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is paid for by the property taxes where the various pieces of equipment are located.
Education of the people working at the company
Is paid for as and end unto it self, it is a governemtn investment that pays big returns already. educated countries have massively higher GNPs than uneducated countries.
The juridical and monetary systems that make doing any business possible
I already pay for that via State a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will only encourage "illegal" downloading (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There, I had my say!
Re:Will only encourage "illegal" downloading (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose you'd rather have air so thick you could chew it eh? L.A. has 4 times the number of automobiles that it had in the 1970's but only half the air pollution. Thanks to those "extremist tree-huggers"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FBI Agent to P2P file sharer: "You know, when you illegally download, you avoid paying your taxes. When you avoid paying your taxes, the government can't fight terrorists. You want the government to fight terrorists, don't you?"
Re:Will only encourage "illegal" downloading (Score:5, Insightful)
They make the rules. They choose what to tax and they choose what rules to change. But this is a far bigger issue that just music downloading. They are saying they want to add a tax on downloading specific data. That would create a hell of a precedent. It opens a situation that in the long term, is far wider than just music downloads.
Up until now, countries already have tax on downloading arbitrary data, as that's effectively part of the cost of using an ISP etc... But taxing specific data, thats very different. For a start, its going to need literally a Big Brother system to monitor it all. As they need to log and then workout a charge for each and every form of data.
Also who then works out how much to charge for each form of data?
Also what competitive disadvantage does that create for Californians against other countries not using such a system?
In a global economy, such short sighted state imposed profiteering for extra tax money, is going to create a competitive disadvantage for even being based in California.
Then to appear to counter this competitive disadvantage, they can then waste millions more setting up schemes where small businesses and students get some of their data at reduced tax rates etc.. But it will fail to cover all costs incurred, as they cannot create tax breaks of sufficient detail, to cover every new startup or student situation. Plus at the same time, other government departments undermine them, as they are working on dreaming up new forms of data tax, they want to add to the list of taxable forms of data.
While some countries most likely will follow America into this new hole they are trying to dig for themselves, they will open up yet another competitive advantage for other countries who don't adopt such a system.
It shows incredible shortsightedness. They are focused on short term profits from taxes with ignorance of the wider extra costs and implications and disadvantages and on top of that, will need to spend a fortune on building a Big Brother system to manage it all.
And if they choose to build Big Brother, so much for Land Of The Free?
The more I hear, the more I am sadly convinced that Big Brother is becoming inevitable, given the kinds of personalities involved in corporations and some positions of power.
For example
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I don't own the things I buy, I'm not going to pay for the privilage of not owning it; I may as well not own it for free and download it off LimeWire, or borrow a mates CD.
Good luck policing that last one, by the way.
Side note: My CAPTCHA image? "copied"
Re: (Score:2)
They apply this type of tax on cigarettes and alcohol in Canada.
Besides, if the government would do this, their biggest problem would come from the gangs trying to takeout the legitimate marijuana stores in drive-bys and bombings, not competition from the illegal sales on the streets.
Re:What is this guy smoking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is this guy smoking (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true, there is a very large market for tobacco. In fact In some states there is a limit on how much you can buy to help curb moving tobacco around from cheaper to more expensive states.
However, it is no where near the blackmarket rate for Cannabis.
Logically, it should be legal. There is exatly no reason why someoen would be ok with tonacco and alcohol but not cannabis.
It's funny to hear people talk about peoples rights to smoke and drink, and those very same people say cannabis should be banned but give no reason that doesn't apply to the others.
really just goose stepping along to the party rhetoric without thinking.
Not surprisingly all these people are also told how to think by an old book and some guy talking about a magic sky faerie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a HUGE black market for booze and tobacco.
Organized crime still heavily relies on running stolen trucks of cigarettes and booze.
The biggest demand is for packs of cigarettes with quality forgeries of tax stamps on them.