Internet Taxation :: Government Political Essays

Internet Taxation â€Å"Should We Tax the Internet?† was written in response to the recent findings of the Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce in the May 2000 issue of The American Spectator. The argument is between the liberals and conservatives on the issue of whether or not to tax Internet purchases. The liberals believe that Internet purchases should be taxed so that state and local tax bases are not eroded because of increasing Internet purchases. On the other end the conservatives believe that Internet purchases should be kept tax-free, since tracking sales are completed and several states are involved with each purchase. George Gilder the author of â€Å"Should We Tax the Internet?† is extremely conservative in his views and is against all taxes. The article aims to convince its readers that Internet taxation is unlawful and should not implemented because of past tax increases results. To make Gilder’s arguments he uses logos arguments based on facts and reasons. Gilder implements his arguments into his article by relating the arguments to different peoples views and things. Gilder’s main argument is that â€Å"lower tax rates generate more revenue than higher ones† (Gilder 3). Through Gilder’s use of logos arguments, ethos arguments, and unique perspectives he makes an effective argument in favor of not implementing Internet taxes. Gilder starts off by attacking Republicans, which are traditional conservative, by saying that they suffer from the â€Å"tax-raising itch† (Gilder 1). He then moves on to say that two billionaires that he recently talked to are more afraid of a â€Å"reckless tax cut† than war or terrorism. Gilder is starting his argument off by using ethos argument by giving perspectives from high profile Silicon Valley cent millionaires. Gilder then goes onto to explain to his audience how taxes above a certain percent do not collect revenue. He does this by saying â€Å"that there has only been one advance since John Marshall opined that the power to tax is the power to destroy† (Gilder 3). John Marshall made this advance by showing that lower tax rates generate more revenues than higher ones. This is a logos argument, but is a fallacy because higher taxes would lead to higher revenues rather than lower taxes. Gilder then tries to make the argument that no tax rate above 20 percent collects revenue.