[elbucko]

That would mean taxing email..

No. I specifically wrote "spam". Isn't there a difference between the mass e-mailing of commercial messages via the Internet and individual or company e-mail communication? I think there is and spam can be classified as such and therefore taxed (destroyed).

[ShadowAce]

Isn't there a difference between the mass e-mailing of commercial messages via the Internet and individual or company e-mail communication?

Technically? No. I subscribe to a couple of (legit) Internet newsletters who have very large subscriber bases. Are those spam when they go out? How do you tell the difference?

[TalonDJ]

Yes but this would put in place everything the fed need to tax email and leave them with power to determine which emails should and should not be called spam. Companies that send out legit special offer emails to people on a list would be impacted my this. They would either be taxed or have to show records of who signed up for the list to prove they were not unsolicited. I don't want the federal government anywhere near Internet regulating. There are other routes spam senders can use to send stuff to victims. They can't all be blocked.

[TalonDJ]

Every plan I have so far seen to tax spam was basically to tax ALL email by a very small amount (1/10 cent) and those that send up huge amounts of it would get hit hard by it. You might want to take note that a lot of spam gets sent from the computers of victims whose computers have had a program implanted on them. They might use their computer without ever knowing it is there until they get a huge tax bill from Uncle Sam.