A Ban That Is Clear, Flexible And Does No Harm
By Jeffrey Arnold, Guest Blogger
It was interesting to listen to the debate over H.R. 3678 on the House floor this morning because the arguments for a permanent ban on Internet taxes were so shallow and misinformed.
The bill under consideration does three important things: It is clear, it is flexible, and it does no harm. It’s clear because the new definition more accurately reflects the Internet of today, not the Internet of 1998. It is flexible because we cannot predict the Internet of 2011 and we need the ability to review that new world at that time. It does no harm because it does not remove existing taxes that generate millions of dollars for the states that were grandfathered (there are very few local jurisdictions that impose such taxes).
Per the debate this morning, there is no evidence that taxes on Internet access have had any effect on adoption of broadband. Does anyone really believe that an additional dollar on a $30 bill from an Internet access provider is going to keep customers from getting the service?
The world of the Internet is about NOW, and decisions about investment in the Internet or physical plant to provide access, or the services carried over the Internet are not going to be affected by taxes on access even if they were imposed.
State and local government associations have shown a willingness to compromise on this matter and negotiate with telecom interests over the definition of Internet access. They have moved away from an insistence in eliminating the moratorium outright. This bill gives all of us a chance to revisit this in a few years and make better choices for the future.
Arnold is the deputy legislative director for the National Association of Counties.
Categories:
Net Tax Talk
Join the Discussion
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus