Political stupidity? Or would you just LOVE being taxed on your emails to save the post office.

16 replies
So, I read on the Drudge Report that a lawmaker has just proposed a bill to put a tax on emails in order to 'save the post office'.

His argument is that it would be a win-win because it would not only SAVE the post office, but it would also discourage spam from being sent out.

(However, the post office isn't going bankrupt because of their business structure, per se, it's going bankrupt because it's paying so much in entitlements and retirement programs for employees that don't even WORK for the post office.....)

At any rate, here's my beef yet another 'tax' proposal on my business.

The emails I send out ARE. NOT. SPAM. They are sent out to engage my opted-in subscribers and to give them added value of what they WANT.

Not only that, but think of MASSIVELY huge websites, like eBay. Whenever there is a bid, an offer, a question on an item, or other notification, an email is sent out as well as a message in the messaging system.

All that extra money going to save a post office for their failures in 'running a viable business because they DO run a viable business'? Seems stupid.

I can't imagine what other people think with massive email lists with legitimate opt ins think about with a proposed tax on their emails.

Oh, by the way, here's a link to one of the news articles on the subject:

Berkeley, Calif. politicos: Tax email to save Postal Service - Washington Times

One of the comments on the article page I thought was brilliant. They said something to the effect of: "Let's tax regular mail to save the telegraph"

Spot on.
#emails #love #office #political #post #save #stupidity #taxed
  • Profile picture of the author Neil Morgan
    It would be interesting to see how they plan to tax spammers from other countries.

    It sounds like mis-informed sound-biting.

    Cheers,

    Neil
    Signature

    Easy email marketing automation without moving your lists.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7833331].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author New Comer
    are you freakin KIDDING ME??!?!?!?!

    a TAX.......just to send an EMAIL


    Forgive my language......

    KISS MY ******* ASS!



    and to make it even worse it's to "save the post office"


    yoooooooo wtf?!? It would be less stupid if it was just someone who thought it would be a good idea to tax emails
    Signature

    dope

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7833338].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MrMonetize
    What a load of tosh. Spammers will exist anyway regardless of the cost, especially at these prices.

    I mean a bit tax could be a cent per-gigabit and they would still make, probably, billions of dollars a year,”

    Not only would it help fund the postal facility, he said, But it would also discourage spammers.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7833365].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author devbencas
    It really is kinda scary when some idiot proposes an idea so moronic that you think most people are obviously gonna give him the pppfffftttt face... and then other idiots actually listen to him. I'll probably have nightmares tonight.
    What are they gonna tax next? Lifespan? "Now, Mr. Joe Blow, you have two options to pay your Life Tax. You can pay in yearly installments, or pay in advance for 10, 20, or 50 years at respectively greater savings. However, if you die, we keep the money."
    Uh, maybe I should delete this. There's bound to be a few idiots around thinking that's not half bad.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7833392].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      [chuckle] And as soon as someone shows them the true economics of tracking this sort of thing (it would cost far more to measure than the tax would bring in), they'll quietly drop it. Or deny the laws of physics and demand that someone (who?) figure out how to make it possible.

      That is, of course, leaving aside the whole jurisdictional thing...


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7833631].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yakim1
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        [chuckle] And as soon as someone shows them the true economics of tracking this sort of thing (it would cost far more to measure than the tax would bring in), they'll quietly drop it. Or deny the laws of physics and demand that someone (who?) figure out how to make it possible.

        That is, of course, leaving aside the whole jurisdictional thing...


        Paul
        Hi Paul,

        You are my hero most of the time. They would just tax the ISPs and guess who the ISPs would pass that on to. You and me. It could be just as simple as the ISP increasing your monthly fee to cover the tax. It would not have to be a tax per email message.

        Don't count these nit wits in Washington out.

        Best regards,
        Steve Yakim
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7834456].message }}
        • Originally Posted by yakim1 View Post

          Hi Paul,

          You are my hero most of the time. They would just tax the ISPs and guess who the ISPs would pass that on to. You and me. It could be just as simple as the ISP increasing your monthly fee to cover the tax. It would not have to be a tax per email message.

          Don't count these nit wits in Washington out.

          Best regards,
          Steve Yakim
          I wonder where we would be if Washington was as good at 'saving money' as they were in 'finding ways to take mine'.
          Signature
          Famous for my '$1000 dollar challenge,' I've been teaching people how to DOMINATE on eBay for YEARS. Sell 100% of your items FOR A PROFIT. Rank higher, sell faster, sell more, and DESTROY your competition with a data-based approach. Quit listening to Guru's-in-training! Click now below!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7834469].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AlphaWarrior
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        [chuckle] And as soon as someone shows them the true economics of tracking this sort of thing (it would cost far more to measure than the tax would bring in), they'll quietly drop it. Or deny the laws of physics and demand that someone (who?) figure out how to make it possible.
        Do you really think that they (the politicians) look at or even care what the cost would be? They just see more money coming in and do not care about how much it costs to get it.

        I don't know why the Post Office is losing money, but I do know that they have the most inefficient method possible for delivering some mail.

        In my neighborhood, the postman/postwoman drives to the front of my house, stops the vehicle, gets out and walks about 50 feet up to the front porch, puts the mail in my mail box, walks back to the vehicle, starts the vehicle, drives 50 - 75 feet (that's feet, not yards) to the front of the next house and does the same thing.

        I truly believe that it is impossible to create a more inefficient delivery system.

        Also, they can cut out Saturday delivery and save a fortune.

        Where are the efficiency experts when the Post Office needs them?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835247].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Steve,

          They didn't propose it that way. An additional tax on Internet access is not all that unlikely, but they don't describe it that way because it sounds so much more palatable to tax 'spammers.'

          MktCoach,
          It's a collectivist nightmare we're living in. Another guy just proposed taxing bike riders because they breathe out too much CO2, LMFAO!
          Ummm... No. He didn't. He said something mildly stupid in an interview which someone twisted into a soundbite that was intended to give that impression.

          What the guy actually proposed was a flat tax on bikes over $500, with the funds to be used to support services/facilities used exclusively by bicyclists.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7837636].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yakim1
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            Steve,

            They didn't propose it that way. An additional tax on Internet access is not all that unlikely, but they don't describe it that way because it sounds so much more palatable to tax 'spammers.'
            Yes, you are correct but after a little thought, (hard for me) The ISPs do know how many emails or bandwidth is used by their clients. If this data is collected, a software solution to tracking and billing would not be that hard to do at the ISP level.

            I heard a radio station mention this tax just today without much information on how it would be applied.

            Naturally, I believe this would be a tax on US resources unless other countries would follow. If they did this as well on emails received the spammers would not just be a big nusance but cost us a lot of money.

            In other words tax on incoming and out going emails to and from the US.

            Best regards,
            Steve Yakim
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7842280].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MktCoach
    It's a collectivist nightmare we're living in. Another guy just proposed taxing bike riders because they breathe out too much CO2, LMFAO!
    Signature
    Here's a unique 100% FREE book about the best online business models. No strings attached. Enjoy!
    Looking for an online business system that works?
    Time you checked out the IM Competitive Edge.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7834466].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rus Sells
    Nevery fly and the guy from Berkley is a no name and has zero pull except when he's in the bathroom.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835064].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LexiB
    Well the worlds going to end because of a 2.5% cut in future spending so a tax on our emails won't be a big deal.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7835235].message }}
  • I think taxing is wrong and illegal at least in amarica so I'm against it. The sad thing is most people don't care and will gladly demand for our emails to be taxed.
    Signature
    soon people... Relax...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7837879].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mikeink
    Here is how the general public and governments do math and accounting. As Many see it.

    you and me 1+1=2

    Governments and many big corporates 1+1= 11 or in roman num xxi (10+10+1=21)

    This may be why they have a big negative every year, and are broke.
    They forgot how to do simple math.

    Let not let them tax e-mail.
    Signature

    Well let me see. OH yea need to start work on my ???????? again.
    Been working for slave wages to long.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7839320].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dvm3
    So now the government thinks they own the internet?

    Why are we trying to save the Post Office? They lost almost 16 BILLION(!) dollars in 2012 alone. Let them go bankrupt and let the private sector take over. I'm sure UPS or FedEx would love to have the opportunity to delivery mail. Sure it might cost $1+ per mail piece but other than direct mail marketers, would that really affect the average person?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7842525].message }}

Trending Topics