Hacker News Reader

Comment by rb808 | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure why this tax should be labelled as absurd. Lots of countries tax TV, phone already. Taxing social media sounds weird only because no one else has done it yet.

View on HN

Taxing TV and phone is like taxing internet connectivity. While a bit odd, this is perfectly fine. The reason for this is that it does not discriminate content, but only care about the utility itself.

Taxing social media is like taxing you for saying or hearing a specific word or sentence on the phone, or every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV.

This is absurd, and a violation of free speech, as it discriminates content. It is an attempt to control information exchange by discouraging it. The ulterior motive is usually manipulation of the citizens to keep them in line in absurd regimes, and/or to avoid the outside becoming aware of their internal issues.

Separately, these idiocies implemented by people that do not understand how the internet works undermines fundamental security aspects by being incompatible with proper cryptographic security measures. You cannot, for example, serve a portal instead of a properly configured HTTPS site without your browser noticing, so HTTPS needs to be blocked first.

Taxing TV and phone is like taxing internet connectivity.

Is it? Then why do you pay taxes to use VOIP? Is internet not a carrier, while TV & phone are services?

I don't quite know about any VoIP taxes, but I am quite certain that no place puts taxes on the VoIP traffic itself over internet as a carrier.

Services purchased that use the internet as a carrier may be taxed as any other financial transaction, but in that case, the internet itself is still a neutral medium that does not discriminate traffic. Being non-discriminatory does not mean that you cannot pay Netflix a monthly fee, with VAT and other applicable taxes, to give you an account.

http://www.ipfone.com/taxes-and-fees/

Ah, all of the VoIP fees are just fees for gaining access to the PSTN network from the outside (not necessarily through the VoIP). All of the taxes relate to any use of telephone services.

Thus, it's just the price of the service your are purchasing, none being related to how it is delivered.

VOIP fees are not taxes - merely upfront fee for an agreed upon add-on service.

Beer is taxed differently than bread, and that's fine.

It would be more absurd if different brands of beer were taxed differently.

I don't think it's going to work out well given the lack of standardized information floating around, but the impetus is does not have to be entirely unreasonable, even if in this situation it probably is.

It is important to understand where the internet fits in this metaphor.

That different services cost different things with different taxes is not a problem.

However, with a beer analogy, it would be a special tax on transportation of beer (including bringing it home from the store), which seem a lot less sensible than just pricing beer and bread differently.

After all, the internet is an information transport, and it was a tax on using the internet for certain things (social media).

If they are taxing on the IP level or packet level, then yes, you could make this argument.

But if they are taxing on the service level, ie FB or What's App, then no, it's just information they are taxing. They could feasibly just use 'packets' or 'IP' as a crude measure of that service.

> Taxing social media is like taxing you for saying or hearing a specific word or sentence on the phone, or every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV. This is absurd, and a violation of free speech.

Is it? After the shenanigans that have been uncovered with recent elections (specifically referring to the US and Britain, I’m sure there are others) is ‘free speach’ really anthing that is being defended by opposing this tax?

Just because the U.S. and Britain fails to care about free speech and human rights doesn't mean that the battle is not worth fighting.

This tax is in direct opposition to free speech, so opposing it defends free speech. It is, however, only a single battle in a very long war.

But the companies hit own the forums, and don’t support free speech. I agree that it’s a potentially slippery slope for regulation, but it’s not currently an area where free speech is tolerated. Just yesterday Zuckerberg was apologising for censoring inappropriately. I don’t have a strong view either way, I’m just not convinced that the ‘free speech’ aspect is as direct as you state.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/05/facebook-censors...

No one cares about the hit Facebook takes from having social media blocked. In fact, I'd rather have them crash and burn.

The problem is that the citizens get access to all social media taken away through taxes that most would avoid. Social media is also Twitter, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Snapchat, WeChat, Weibo, QQ, ...

It is not suddenly okay to block free speech by limiting/removing access to social media, just because one of these social media are known to censor content in other ways. One crime does not justify the next.

> every time a certain show is broadcast on the TV.

It seems like an obvious thing to tax the airing of a show on TV. I'm in favor of the taxation of every 30 minute slot on TV and Cable.

This maybe makes sense to me because I'm a natural person (i.e. not a corporation), so everything I receive or produce or give away is taxed.

Ah, but then you're back at general taxation of a utility, not discriminatory taxation of certain content. I disagree wholeheartedly that it would make sense to have a government tax on TV slots, but it does not manipulate information exchange in any way.

Taxing social media would be more akin to placing a tax on documentaries, or all content containing a narrative by Morgan Freeman.

Since this tax is on the user’s end, this would be more like a tax on watching documentaries, and then scrambling to control all DVD players and such to ensure they report your viewing.

That's what I meant, although I failed to be explicit about it.

Although, the enforcement would be on delivery for social media (i.e. ISP reports social media traffic), so cable TV that detects if your TV is on during documentary broadcasts would maybe be a better analogy.

> I'm a natural person (i.e. not a corporation), so everything I receive or produce or give away is taxed.

This sounds like a dystopian nightmare. Where do you live?

Well, with income tax and VAT, you end up paying tax of everything both ways. Private transactions are commonly exempt, but they commonly have a limit in size before that becomes taxed income or require a company to be registered that takes care of VAT.

Most things in America that you can buy are taxed on the sale, and any money (or the monetary value of assets) you receive is taxed as income. If you produce anything, you're usually hit with licensing fees of some sort. I laughed out loud that you called out my description of this system a "dystopian nightmare".

Anywhere with an income tax + sales tax?

Because social media is simply one of the vast amount of websites on the internet, it's unfair to tax it alone. Either you tax the whole internet comsumption (e.g. every 5GB or something like that) or you don't.

Imagine taxes specific to laundering machines that only apply when washing underwear, but not for any other clothes, it makes no sense.

Also, the govt. snooping on what people access / banning use of VPNs raises privacy concerns (and even censorship ones).

You could argue that social media has a negative effect and that it should be taxed in the same way that alcohol (and soft drinks in some places) is taxed. I'm not arguing that social media has a net negative effect, but I can see how some internet sites could singled out and taxed.

In this case, the reason that Uganda is taxing social media is to stop people from criticizing the government. Taxes can be a great tool for censorship.

> I'm not sure why this tax should be labelled as absurd

It's not the tax per se so much as how it's being levied and enforced. Social media should be subject to a sales tax, levied on the provider. This is being structured as a use tax, levied on users. Use taxes are notoriously difficult to enforce, and digital goods make that harder.

Commendations for your bravery in raising that viewpoint. Assuming it’s a good idea to tax social media, do you also think it’s a good idea to implement the tax as a captive portal at the ISP level?

Many gouvernements tax what the it/the population deems hurtful: cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, etc.. Social media fits that list better than TV and phone IMO.

It might mean it's a bad idea to tax TV and phones.

Telephones have taxes, but has anyone tried anything like this?

    Calling mother: 15¢/minute
    Calling children: 3¢/minute
    Calling policy: 25¢/minute

Here in Brazil there were plans where you can choose one or two numbers and calls to them will come off a separate monthly time quota.

Don't know if they still exist.

Interesting exercise - if calling certain relatives received tax credits you could potentially achieve something positive.

Not with taxes, but providers have had rate plans like that.

The effective tax rate is so disproportionate as to be obviously punitive. Relative to average earnings, it'd be equivalent to America imposing a social media tax of $2,000 per year. It's clearly not a good-faith effort to raise revenues, but a de facto ban on social media.

I must agree- we like the idea of absolute neutrality, but the internet is so general purpose it's possible that society will ultimately settle on things like this.

TV and phone are two services both provided over one or two strands of copper, and each is taxed at a different rate. Is social media not just another service? Sure, it's built on TCP/IP, DSL, & DOSCIS, but cable TV is built on CATV and phone on ISDN.

If it is absurd to tax a social media service coming down the wire, then it is equally absurd to individually tax cable TV or phone service over the same wire. Yet, we hardly see that as absurd, we've been doing it for decades.

If you take the stance that social media is ultimately a bad thing for society, then a tax actually seems like a good solution.

After all, San Francisco decided that soda is a bad thing and implemented a soda tax. What's the difference?

Nothing like siding with a President that has been in power for 31 years and is known to jail and kill gay people, but hey, social media is the problem!

You can't threaten government by drinking soda.

Would it be reasonable to tax meeting up in person? If not, how is this different?

It's more like taxing cafe's and bars by creating entry fee where there was none.

What's absurd is the rate. It's far more than most Ugandans can pay. It's clearly meant to suppress usage, not to fund the infrastructure.

It's being used to limit government criticism.

> President Yoweri Museveni pushed for the changes to combat what he calls "gossip,"

It would be nice if those in disagreement would advance an argument as to why. Anonymous down voting without a comment is lame.

I don't think ESPN is taxed differently than CNN.

Because tax, in general is absurd. You're literally taking people's money under the threat of force. Just because it is done quite universally does not justify the practice.

More specifically, taxes are abused near universally. From the sugar taxes in Seattle (unless you are Starbucks), or forced Union dues that fund political campaigns, the practice is abused. Meanwhile necessary services like police, firefighters, and rescue workers are always under underfunded, even though that's why we think we're paying them.

> Because tax, in general is absurd. You're literally taking people's money under the threat of force. Just because it is done quite universally does not justify the practice.

They buy you civilization, which is great because it means you're not just immediately enslaved by your local warlord.

A Warlord prefers his subjects unarmed. What better way than to tax said items.

Don't worry, in the absence of an advanced economy the supply chains needed to manufacture firearms won't exist, so you'll be subjugated using clubs and spears.

You just proved my point. Thank you.

Oh, was your point that the things you take for granted, like the existence of firearms, are only possible because of a civilization that runs on taxes? You're welcome :)

> You're literally taking people's money under the threat of force

Money that would have no meaning, earned for work which would largely be impossible, without said threat of force.

>earned for work which would largely be impossible, without said threat of force.

You're confusing threat of force to enforce property rights and personal freedoms with the threat of force to collect taxes.

They're the same thing. You can't have courts and police without paying them, and you can't pay them without taxes.

> You're confusing threat of force to enforce property rights and personal freedoms with the threat of force to collect taxes

How do you plan on paying your police?

That doesn't sound any better. So if I have an asset that I'm not using, it's morally just to take it from me because I'm not using it?

The devil's in the details. Depending on the asset and the situation, it may be morally correct to take it, yes.

To give an absurd, extreme example: if you lived in a nation going through a famine and your hobby was watching bread mold, it might be morally just to take away your warehouse of stockpiled bread to let the starving people eat, even if it meant you couldn't continue your thrilling bread-mold-watching hobby.

> it's morally just

Morally? Definitely. Incentivizing trade promotes human survival. Is it "just" is a different question, because justice requires a set of idealogical social principles to start from. Natural rights, divine will, reparative, or some other. YMMV

Please keep generic ideological tangents such as taxation-is-theft off Hacker News. They only ever lead to repeats of the same discussions for the millionth time, and usually flamewars. Repetition and flamewar are two of the most off-topic things here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I’m curious if you have any suggestions for keeping assorted necessary services funded without the “absurdity” of taxes.

I will gladly pay 'taxes' for needed services. I hope the last bit of my comment implies that. When I examine the budget of my local and Federal government, said things are a monitory unfortunately.

There are much greater absurdities within the capitalist economic system which mostly go unquestioned; I'd actually start there rather than attacking something much higher up the chain and less fundamental. Taxes also help alleviate the burden of a capitalist economy on people, by providing for social institutions.

So it's fine to attack taxes (even with this naive-libertarian "stealing my money under threat of force" line) but it's a very small problem in the big scheme of economic organisation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com