You're Not Gonna Believe This!!!!
- Thread starter DougF
- Start date
This kind of junk has been talked about for years. Old news. Hasn't happened and never will, IMO.
BTW, I didn't even click the link.
BTW, I didn't even click the link.
This is a modern day urban myth. Hillary Clinton even fell for this, mentioning it at a debate a few years ago.
When I hear things like this I am reminded of the immortal words of PT Barnum....
Urban legend (sort of), at present.
Bet ya a dollar to a donut, we will be paying a bit extra for email within 5-10 years...
Whether that be in the form of a direct tax, or indirect one, it's only a matter of time, since most correspondence is done by email now.
The proposed extra charge, for extra bandwidth fight, will certainly take into account email providers, who allow media content based email, such as video, audio, etc.
If there's a buck to be made, the government will find a way to get a piece of the action somehow...
Bet ya a dollar to a donut, we will be paying a bit extra for email within 5-10 years...
Whether that be in the form of a direct tax, or indirect one, it's only a matter of time, since most correspondence is done by email now.
The proposed extra charge, for extra bandwidth fight, will certainly take into account email providers, who allow media content based email, such as video, audio, etc.
If there's a buck to be made, the government will find a way to get a piece of the action somehow...
Considering the current state of affairs in Washington, and the craziness going on it may be plausible... I mean we are talking about amnesty for illegal aliens.
I'm stunned that the government hasn't figured it out yet. I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't soon become top priority for Nancy, Harry, and their ilk now that they have a stranglehold on the Legislative Branch.
There's a very logical reason on why the US government won't, and cannot tax e-mail.
1) Logically, the riots that would instill from thousands of online users would cost them more money than the tax would make.
2) No method of policing, e-mail cannot be controlled; meaning, I can send it from my public library's computer, church, work, home. the Internet Privacy Act prevents e-mail providers from releasing information such as how many e-mails where sent.
3) Not sure on the legal aspect of this, but the internet is a global domain, meaning the US Gov't has no jurisdiction on it. This is why bootlegging sites in Russia exist. It is a worldwide property and thus cannot be controlled by the Feds. Yes, one could argue that the e-mail servers are physically located on US soil and thus would fall under jurisdiction, BUT there are servers all over the world. People would just stop using any server based on the US and thus local companies would lose income.
4) No matter the dumb crap we've done, including allowing Hildog to run for Pres, our government is not stupid enough to even think they could pull this off.
1) Logically, the riots that would instill from thousands of online users would cost them more money than the tax would make.
2) No method of policing, e-mail cannot be controlled; meaning, I can send it from my public library's computer, church, work, home. the Internet Privacy Act prevents e-mail providers from releasing information such as how many e-mails where sent.
3) Not sure on the legal aspect of this, but the internet is a global domain, meaning the US Gov't has no jurisdiction on it. This is why bootlegging sites in Russia exist. It is a worldwide property and thus cannot be controlled by the Feds. Yes, one could argue that the e-mail servers are physically located on US soil and thus would fall under jurisdiction, BUT there are servers all over the world. People would just stop using any server based on the US and thus local companies would lose income.
4) No matter the dumb crap we've done, including allowing Hildog to run for Pres, our government is not stupid enough to even think they could pull this off.
Give me free [e-mail] or give me death
I don't want to get into the government/tax angle regarding this argument as I don't have a lot of time to do research. Still, just like using a telephone at your church, library etc. services could be inhibited.
I'll hang my hat (and argument) on one fact. Charging for e-mail has long been Bill Gate's solution for the spam scourge. If he believes that it is technically feasible to charge for e-mail what technological impediment would prevent the government from extracting their slice of the pie? I know Bill doesn't use a Mac but he probably has a couple of techies around to advise him. If he thinks it is technically possible, it is most probably so.
I don't believe charging for e-mail is imminent but e-mail riots? Large groups of white collared rowdies impinging on the personal freedoms of the public at large over e-mail charges? Yeah OK, if you say so.
I don't want to get into the government/tax angle regarding this argument as I don't have a lot of time to do research. Still, just like using a telephone at your church, library etc. services could be inhibited.
I'll hang my hat (and argument) on one fact. Charging for e-mail has long been Bill Gate's solution for the spam scourge. If he believes that it is technically feasible to charge for e-mail what technological impediment would prevent the government from extracting their slice of the pie? I know Bill doesn't use a Mac but he probably has a couple of techies around to advise him. If he thinks it is technically possible, it is most probably so.
I don't believe charging for e-mail is imminent but e-mail riots? Large groups of white collared rowdies impinging on the personal freedoms of the public at large over e-mail charges? Yeah OK, if you say so.