The basic theme of the [below] article is simple and most of us learned it as fifth-graders: CO2
is primarily the plant food while its other implications for nature are
negligible in comparison. Humanitarian organizations should work hard
to help the mankind to increase the CO2 concentration and it's surprising that virtually all of them are failing to do so.
Thus, ex-moonwalker Harrison Schmitt and physics professor Will Happer of Princeton argue:
Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation
than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this
natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control
of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is
that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary
to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by
increasing agricultural productivity.
As an occasional eBay seller, my email box has been filling up with messages urging me to call my Senators to oppose the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would require internet retailers to collect sales taxes even in jurisdictions where they have no physical presence.
As an accountant, I can only imagine the nightmare this is going to cause. I predict that a new service industry will emerge, much like ADP emerged when multi-state payroll became complicated enough to warrant a stand alone speciality.
But this is worse. First of all, this is coming from a Republican. Sneaky Senator Mike Enzi has been quietly trying to push this thing through for 12 freaking years. This time, he has 4 Republican and 16 Democrat cosponsors.
Next, this isn't about making the markets fair. Markets make themselves fair, without any government intervention required. As usual, this is big corporations using the government to destroy any advantage their smaller competition might have.
The way things work now is pretty simple. If a seller has a physical presence in a state, then they are required to collect sales tax on behalf of that state if they are selling their merchandise to a resident of that state. For example, if I sell a book to a fellow Michigander, I am required to collect sales tax. If I sell to a resident of any other state, then I am not.
So, since Amazon does not have a warehouse or an office in Michigan, I do not pay sales tax if I buy from Amazon. I do pay sales tax if I buy from a third party Amazon vendor who happens to live in Michigan.
The bigger retailers think that isn't fair, even though that's been the law for as log as I remember. They believe that buyers use their stores as "showrooms" then go home and buy the item of their desire off the internet specifically to save the sales tax.
Balderdash. While people who shop on-line are indeed cost-driven, the price of postage and handling more than raises the apples-to-apples cost. For example, I can buy a $10 shirt on eBay or at Walmart. If I pick Walmart, I pay 6% - .60 - in sales tax. If I pick eBay, I pay $4.00 in shipping. When prices are the same, clearly shopping locally is the cheaper option most of the time.
And we can't forget the immediate gratification factor. If I buy my shirt at Walmart, not only do I get the benefit of trying it on beforehand, I can drive home and wear it that very night if I choose. But if I choose the internet, I have to wait.
Different customers making different choices based on different factors. I think there's a phrase that describes that, but it isn't coming to me right now...free something?
Nobody wants that, I guess. Especially the states who fund their operations with sales taxes. They have been salivating over the thought of finally getting the chance to tap into a revenue stream that has heretofore been denied them.
They've tried to demand that their citizens pay the tax by passing laws requiring citizens to 'fess up and admit they bought goodies across state lines at tax time. Guess how that worked out?
This national sales tax thing will have the biggest impact on mid-size retailers, as our corporate Congress has wisely used the "divide and conquer" strategy when they exempted small sellers, like me, by including a floor. If a seller doesn't sell more than $500,000 per year, they're exempt.
But that really puts the larger small sellers in a bind. While the mega-corporations already have entire departments devoted to taxes, the single-location operators don't have that luxury, nor do they have the margins to set up and maintain a system like that. Coupled with the fact that they don't get the huge discounts the mega-retailers get when buying merchandise, they're going to be priced out of the markets in no time flat.
Of course, I can't help but notice that a lot of the trade organizations that are pleading with me to lobby on their behalf are the same organizations that didn't hesitate to pressure eBay into giving them huge discounts on their listing and final value fees, at the expense of the smaller sellers. What goes around...
Don't worry, Professional EBay Sellers Association. I called my Senators for you, but they never met a tax they didn't like so it was a pretty unexciting couple of calls. (Seriously, I'll be so glad when Levin is gone - his staff is horribly snotty. I really, really detest those people.) And my Rep isn't any better, so I'm not sure how much help I'm going to be.
But if it's any consolation, barring hyperinflation I'll never sell anywhere near $500,000 in a year, so you can at least rest assured that your price-shopper customers will be in good hands with me.
On productiveness and the charitable instinct:“No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he’d only had good
intentions; he had money as well.” On the hostile press: “If my critics
saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn’t
swim.”
Thatcher’s basic take on a tight European federation was that it was
unnecessary, unworkable, and dangerous. The nation state, she insisted,
should remain at the heart of the international system, and a federated
Europe would threaten its sway.
Moreover, Thatcher had misgivings about the Continent as a source of
moral inspiration. “During my lifetime,” she reminisced, “most of the
problems the world has faced have come, in one form or another, from
mainland Europe, and the solutions — from outside it.”
That insight alone is priceless, but it still pales compared with what
she wrote more than a decade ago, when the euro was still a toddler, and
the economies of Greece, Spain and Cyprus seemed as distant from
calamity as they now are from salvation. “The European single currency,”
wrote Thatcher in 2002, “is bound to fail — economically, politically,
and indeed socially.”
Thatcher’s reasoning for this was not ideological. It was monetarist.
There can be no such thing as a united currency without a united budget,
she argued, at a time when it was impolite to suggest that the euro’s
newlyweds would soon accuse each other of theft, deceit, laziness,
imperialism and oppression.
The term "GDP" (Gross Domestic Product) is no less ubiquitously used and generally taken for granted than a phrase like "good morning". Yet do we truly comprehend what is involved? "Mish" Shedlock has a thoughtful comment on the matter:
By definition, government spending contributes to GDP. No products have to be produced. Economic benefits are unnecessary.
Pettis used an example of governments building worthless bridges.
Previously I have noted that if the government hired people to spit at
the moon it would add to GDP. And that is an inherent problem with the
definition.
In France, government spending accounts to 56% of GDP. How much of that
spending is wasteful? How much government spending in the US is wasted?
Consider how Davis-Bacon and prevailing wage laws affect the answer. In
the case of roads repairs, if the private market could do as good a
repair job for 1/3 less, then the answer is 33.3%. But what about
projects that should not be done at all?
Spending can even be net-negative as is the case in bombing countries
for no reason. What did the US accomplish in Vietnam or Iraq? Even
bridges to nowhere have more economic benefit.
While everyone is ready and willing to consider that China overstates
its GDP, too few point the same finger at the US for the same reason.
Jaana Woiceshyn offers an interesting take on the dichotomy of egoism and altruism. In the below article, she makes an observation whose implications I find highly disturbing. If people stop learning (in term of moral discernment) in their "best" years, and if by then the majority are steeped in politically correct altruism, liberty has a naturally restricted target groups, in fact, a tiny one, indeed.
Research shows that most people do not think about ethics explicitly
after their late teens or early twenties, implicitly choosing instead to
follow cultural norms and the values they were taught at home, if any.
The closest they come to choosing an “obvious” moral code is to follow
cultural norms—which means subscribing to the moral code dominant around
the world: altruism.
Theocracy: a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission
It looks as if we are being increasingly ruled by an eco-(hypocracy)-theocracy:
They represent a rapidly expanding,
increasingly powerful government class that is determined to control
what we eat, say, do and buy.
In the environmental arena, these
would-be czars and czarinas want to regulate what kinds of energy we can
produce and use, cars we can drive, and jobs and living standards we
can have. They are the vanguard of a dangerous alliance of eco-imperialism and vulture environmentalism.
[...]
Driven by utopian, Deep Ecology and
global governance ideologies, elected and unelected ruling elites pass
laws, promulgate regulations and issue edicts, based on faulty to
fraudulent science and unsupported proclamations about dangerous manmade global warming, resource depletion and sustainable development.
They seek to radically and fundamentally transform the energy, economic
and social fabric of our nation and world – in the name of “social
justice” and “saving the planet.”
They operate with little or no
transparency or debate, often with vague or minimal legislative or
constitutional authority, and with virtually no accountability for the
false pretexts they use to justify their intrusive actions, or the harm
they cause to people and wildlife. Their attitudes and actions often
reflect a callous disregard for environmental values and people’s
property, civil rights, jobs, health and even lives.
Our courts give them almost limitless
discretion to impose laws and regulations, select pseudo-scientific
“facts” to justify them, and ignore both the imaginary benefits and
substantive harm they cause. They allow and encourage sweetheart “sue
and settle” legal actions between regulatory agencies and activist
groups, capricious agency inaction on mineral leases and permits, and
arbitrary bureaucratic waivers of endangered species and other
environmental laws for gigantic wind and solar projects.
Recent Comments