There have been studies to determine how much pot impairs your ability to drive, like this one:
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s1p2.html
Here's a good quote from the abstract:
"Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had."
Pot does not impair your ability to determine how impaired you are; if you think you are sober enough to drive, you are. This simple fact is not true of alcohol, it impairs your ability to tell how impaired you are. That is why alcohol is a problem and pot is not, at least as far as driving goes.
The statistics show that stoned people do not get into accidents more often than sober people. That simply means that the people who choose to drive while stoned are no more likely to get in accidents than sober drivers. That doesn't mean that every driver is capable of driving while stoned, just that the people that do drive while stoned are correct in thinking that it is safe for them.
I blame the same people. They don't want to test pot because all the studies show that it is nearly harmless.
A big factor left out of these discussions is the level of experience with the drug. Everyone seems to forget the long learning curve for handling alcohol. It takes a while to learn to handle any drug, but at least with pot, an experienced smoker can accurately gauge how impaired they are.
My recollection is that THC decays very rapidly; something like 95% is gone within 10 minutes. That means that it is quite likely that blood tests will always be required for pot.
On the other hand, the by-products of THC in the body are fat soluble and can be detected for months afterwards. Alcohol, cocaine and heroin all decay faster, so they can't be detected more that a day or two after. We are used to thinking that testing positive for a drug means you're high; but that isn't necessarily true for pot.
Now the difficulty of measuring pot makes the studies hard to interpret, and I could have gone into all this and more when I mentioned the study. But I have found that most people know nothing about the real effects of pot and aren't interested in learning.
I know you were joking with the "crash into a tree" statement, but please cite the evidence that smoking marijuana significantly impairs the ability to drive. From what I've read, you can be more impaired by alcohol, even at a level below the legal limit, than you will by any amount of pot.
Check out the evidence. In Australia they measured the blood of people that died in auto accidents. People with Marijuana in the blood were no more likely to be killed in auto accidents than sober drivers; but those with alcohol in the blood stream were 5 times more likely to die.
I don't know why people are so worried about people driving while high. You are allowed to drive while impaired; the legal limit for alcohol isn't 0.00, and as MADD will tell you, even one drink impairs. Why is it so hard to accept that Marijuana impairment, at any level of consumption, might be less than the legal limit for alcohol impairment?
Taxation is not theft, it is paying your fair share for government services. The government has complete authority to spend money on your behalf and then send you the bill.
If you don't like how the government spends your money, complain to your representatives. If you think you are paying too much and your fellow citizens should be paying more instead, complain to your representatives. But, if you absolutely aren't willing to pay your taxes, your only legal alternative is to emigrate to a better country.
I think your quote supports my argument:-) Enabling the poor requires giving them the opportunity to develop their talents. It is clear that the rich have opportunities that the poor don't have. For example, if I am a rich student with problems in school, my parents can hire a tutor to ensure I am as educated as possible. A poor student with trouble in school better hope they have smart parents or friends, because that is all the help they can afford. If a rich person has any difficulties, they can hire help to overcome those difficulties; a luxury that poor people don't have.
As another example of how the rich and poor are different; the poor must work or they can't eat. The will to live is incentive enough for poor people to work; however, someone with enough investments can earn enough to live by just cashing checks. If welfare checks are a disincentive for poor people to work; how is this any different than the situation a rich person finds themself in, if they don't have to work to be able to eat? If investment income were taxed at 100%, that would merely force the rich to earn money by working at a job; the same as any poor person (and the rich would still have more connections and a better chance at getting an easy job).
As a society, we would be stupid to waste any of the talents that anyone has, rich or poor. We can increase those talents by taking money from people with plenty of opportunity and using it to provide more opportunities to everyone else. Of course the rich don't want extra competition, so from their point of view the are hurt twice, once when they are taxed and a second time when those tax dollars are used to create more competition for them.
Unfortunately, giving someone an opportunity does not mean they are going to take it or can benefit from it. So there has to be an incentive for people to work hard, which means that taxes can't be so high that there is no incentive to work harder. That's why communism doesn't work, people need to be rewarded for working harder and punished for not working at all.
It is possible that the current tax system does not get the balance right, and that the tax system is either too progressive or not progressive enough. But, I think that rich people have an have a natural advantage and automatically get more opportunities, which makes it easier for them to succeed. I don't think it is possible to determine the exact amount of progressivity that will give everyone the same opportunity to develop their talents, but some level of progressive taxation will even out the playing field by increasing the opportunities that poor people have; and thus will make society as a whole richer since fewer potential talents are wasted.
Re:Heisenbugs...
on
Debugging
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Heisenbugs are also caused by floppy disks. We once shipped a program where one bit was wrong on the floppy, which caused a nasty bug. That one was hard to duplicate until we got the customer to ship us their version of the program.
I'm sorry to pester you like this, but I've had this argument before:-). I'm trying to refine my argument.
I say it is easier for the rich to get richer than for someone who is poor. This is because the rich can afford to hire help. For example, in making investments.
Suppose I have $10,000 to invest. I can buy a mutual fund, invest it in stocks I pick; this will cost me some fraction of the total investment, less if I am good at investing. Now, if someone has $1,000,000 to invest, they can hire a competent manager to invest on their behalf. Maybe the manager is good, maybe bad; but if the manager is better than me, the rich guy will earn more than me. In other words, it doesn't matter whether I am a better investor than the rich guy; the rich guy just has to hire a manager that is better than me. And of course, if you are Bill Gates, you can build a University to study how to make money for you:-)
The rich also have more influence. I think I know how the RIAA ought to make CDs and deal with file sharing, but I'll bet Janet Jackson's opinion is more likely to be acted on.
For all these reasons, it is easier for the rich to get richer (in an exponential way!). It's easier for a rich person to make extra money, so hitting them harder with taxes just cancels out their advantages.
Now I'm not going to argue that the government isn't spending huge amounts of money and sticking me with a large portion of the bill. I think there are plenty of cases where it's spending wads of money to make things worse (e.g. in the war against marijuana). There are useful things that only a government can do, and as a society we have to pay for that, preferably with fair taxes. I think it is fair to tax everyone; and to tax the rich at a higher rate.
You made the important point about sales taxes for me, that it would encourage conglomerates as a way to reduce taxes.
An economist would say that if a tax changes how businesses operate, it distorts the economy and is a bad thing. The best kind of tax is one that does not change the economic decisions that companies make. At any rate, most of my complaints about sales taxes would go away if it were a value-added tax like they have in Europe. In this system, businesses are taxed on the difference between what they paid for the inputs and what they get for selling it; eliminating the advantage that conglomerates would have. I think there will always be plenty of paperwork and rules involved in any tax system.
My larger point is that a simple tax system is probably not a fair tax system. Most "loopholes" are there to encourage desirable activities, or to discourage undesirable activities. Eliminate the loopholes and you eliminate the good behaviours you were encouraging (like the mortgage interest deduction that encourages home ownership). On the other hand, loopholes are ripe for abuse and often don't work. The rate of home ownership in Canada is about the same as in the U.S.; even though Canadians don't get a mortgage interest deduction. In this case, all the deduction does is make house prices higher in the U.S.; thus benefiting current home owners over people who don't yet own a house or never will.
I mostly agree with you about eliminating the complexities in the tax system, and making it crystal-clear how much people are paying in taxes. About ten years ago Canada replaced a hidden federal sales tax (it was included in the price of goods) with one that was charged at the time of purchase. The new tax system raised about the same amount of revenue as the old system, but you wouldn't believe the complaints now that the tax was visible. As an added bonus, the government used to increase the old hidden tax every couple of years with nearly no complaints; the government hasn't dared to raise the visible tax in more than ten years. You see the same thing with hidden taxes like alcohol, tobacco or gas taxes; they are increased all the time, but most people don't notice.
A problem with a single type of tax is that it makes tax evasion easier. It is nearly impossible to avoid all the taxes that now exist; income taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. If there were only a single type of tax, that would mean that someone could avoid all taxes just by figuring out how to avoid a single type of tax. A sales tax is probably the hardest type to completely avoid since you deal with so many different people, but I think you would see plenty of legitimate stores go bankrupt as people switched to more informal sales channels that aren't so visible to the tax police.
Now about government benefits: I think it depends how you look at the issue about whether paying for Hurricane damage in Florida benefits everyone in the country. Do you only benefit from fire insurance if your house burns down? Surely you get some benefit from not having to worry about being financially ruined if your house burns down. In the same vein, you could consider welfare to be loser insurance:-). Imagine you could buy welfare insurance before you are born and you are born retarded and can never get a good job, would you have wanted the chance to buy insurance to support you even though you can never get a good job? If you are the offspring of rich parents, you will never collect on welfare insurance; but if you are born in the projects you probably are going to collect on that welfare insurance.
I don't think our positions are that far apart. I also agree that communism can't work. Greed is a natural part of human nature, and if an economic system doesn't find some way to harness the power of greed, it isn't going to work. But you need laws to keep greed in check. If stealing were legal, that would seem to be an easy way for ruthless and greedy people to make a living. Simila
Sales taxes aren't all that easy. Does a company pay sales taxes on the input for their goods? For example, if a contractor buys paint for a house he sells, does he pay sales taxes on the paint? I assume the customer pays sales taxes on the house, do they get a rebate for the taxes on the paint?
What about services? Should you pay taxes on a haircut? What about getting your car fixed? Is there tax on the labour or just on the parts? What about transfers within a company? If an IBM worker needs a computer, is there tax owing on the "purchase"? Is it on the wholesale or retail price?
Finally, I seriously doubt 7% would be enough; I think it would need to be something more like 30%. Doesn't the army alone cost about 5% of GDP?
As far as taxes go; the government supplies services and needs to pay for that. Surely you think that the government at least has to pay for the costs of enforcing laws and protecting the border. Since the government has to spend money, someone has to pay for it. Everyone in the country benefits from what the government does, everyone should pay for it. Taxes aren't theft, they are payments for services rendered.
Now the case for progressive taxes is hard to argue, as your points make clear. But I think there are plenty of people that are rich because they inherited from their parents and haven't blown it yet. Do you really think that someone who earns a million dollars in interest from their trust fund works as hard as someone making minimum wage in MacDonald's? I think in general, the richer you are, the easier it is to make money, and therefore a higher tax rate on the wealthy simply ensures that rich and poor are both hurt equally by taxes.
Another point is that some people are rich solely due to government actions. For example, if the government didn't enforce copyrights, Microsoft would be worth nothing. Doesn't the government deserve a cut of the value that laws create, at least to pay for enforcement?
You may believe that people are solely responsible for their success and that everyone has an equal chance; I don't. I think that Bill Gates' kids are much more likely to end up rich than the kids of a crack addict in Detroit. The two may be equal in potential, but they definitely will not have the same opportunities, and probably they will not have equal success in life.
I'll try one more argument. Over the last decade or two, the income of the rich has been increasing at a faster rate than the income of the poor. Do you think this is because the rich are working harder that ever and the poor have become more lazy? I think it is more likely that everyone is putting in the same effort as they have all along. The unequal distribution of the wealth created in the last 20 years should be compensated for.
I disagree that there should be a single rate, I think progressive taxes are fairer. The bigger flaw in your suggestion is that there is no way you can eliminate rules and loopholes.
How would this system work for self-employed people? Do they get to deduct expenses from the income they make, and if they can, what expenses should be allowed? That question is responsible for a lot of the complications of the tax system. Should people get a deduction for children? A deduction for medical expenses? A deduction for mortgage interest, or interest on a loan to run their business?
The tax rate is the easiest part of the tax system: figure out what bracket you are in and use the specified rate. The hard part of the system is caused by treating different types of income differently (e.g. capital gains, interest, dividends, wages, gifts) and different types of expenses differently. The tax system would be better if there were fewer rules, but the majority of people think some deductions are valid and think that some types of income should be treated differently.
Surely there is something the government does for you. You know, defend the country with an army, provide firemen and equipment to save burning houses, that sort of thing. The government needs tax dollars to do that.
If the government needs money to do these useful things, doesn't it need to get it from somewhere? If the government can't get it from tax-cheaters they are going to get it from me.
It seems to me that you are the gambler. You want taxes to be paid by those that are unlucky enough to get caught cheating (kind of like how the police selectively apply drug laws to people they don't like). I'd rather have a system where everyone pays their fair share rather than have an unlucky (or stupid) few pay for all of us.
What does government spending have to do with this? People who cheat on their taxes are breaking the law. How can you object to people obeying the law paying the taxes that they owe? It would mean that your taxes (assuming you don't cheat) could be lower.
If there is a cheap way to detect when people are breaking the law, I'm all for it, like photo-radar for speeders. I don't see the point in having laws that aren't enforced. If the government needs tax money, I'd prefer it came from criminals rather than me.
If you don't like paying taxes, convince the government to spend less money. But don't argue that tax dodging is OK; all that does is transfer the costs of running the government to the law abiding (or those with no opportunity to cheat) and lets criminals off the hook.
It is more correct to say that people that run companies give people jobs; there is no rule that says those people have to be rich. I mean, how rich is rich enough? If Bill Gates were only worth $20 billion, would Microsoft hire fewer people? Do you really think Bill Gates is still working because he wants to earn more money?
By the way, rich people don't pay your salary, the company does. Both you and rich people make money when a company sells stuff for more than it costs to make it. The owner wouldn't get as rich if they paid you more. I think people still had jobs 20 years ago when CEOs had a salary 20 times as much as the average worker; are things really any better now that CEOs make 200 times as much as the average worker?
Maybe it's true that the fastest way to increase the wealth of a country is to leave it with the rich people to invest. But think like a greedy rich person yourself: what's in it for you? I want more income, and I haven't heard how letting the rich get richer helps me. I guess if you sell Porches, Rolexes or yachts you're better off; but for everyone else, the money that a rich company owner keeps is money that doesn't go to them.
Now as far as taxes go, doesn't California have a huge budget deficit? Those brave Republicans that stood up for their unpopular belief that people don't like to pay taxes didn't cut spending to match; they've just deferred the tax bill until they are safely out of office. Their rich supporters are certainly happy, they may never have to pay the taxes they are avoiding now.
I'd like to see a real debate on government budgets, one that recognizes that taxes have to equal spending. Right now people are asked two separate questions: do you want the government to spend more money on those things you like? and do you want lower taxes?. Surprisingly, people tend to answer yes to both questions. Republicans talk big about cutting spending, but it never happens, while the tax cuts always do.
Umm... politically-connected companies are making out like bandits in Iraq, or at least that's what I understand from the stories I read. There is no Canadian monopoly on politicians favouring companies that are generous and useful at election time.
Canadian and U.S. citizens are alike in many ways. In both countries, citizens are ignoring obvious corruption and lies from their governments. In both cases, the current crooks are given free rein because every one is scared that the opposition is worse. In both countries, I think the majority is wrong and anyone would be better than the current clowns.
I have to agree with you 100%. I recently visited Vancouver, where they had excellent used CD stores and A&B Sound had some really good prices. My wife and I bought 23 CDs because we averaged about $10 each (Canadian!).
I won't buy copy protected CDs and I won't pay more than $15, unless it is very special. Why can't the record companies give me what I want? I own more than 1000 CDs (and no MP3), I would have thought I was a good customer.
I'm sorry to say this already happened in the U.S., and even earlier than in Canada (the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992). At least we Canadians can legally make copies as partial compensation for this rip-off, you Americans just get to pay.
It is legal to make a copy, so there can't be any fine for that. The levy is considered compensation for unpaid copyright payments.
They really do try to be fair when they calculate the levy. They calculate how often a medium is used to record music and multiply that by the copyright rate (you know, the 8 cents per song). The iPod rate sounds kind of high, but how many songs will it hold? If each song on the iPod is 4MB, the rate is maybe reasonable. At any rate, I think they will end up charging something feasible, maybe by realizing that most people will not fill their iPods.
However, if they are going to start charging serious money, they really should refund the levy when the medium is discarded. I think I ought to get my money back when I throw out (or ruin) a record-only medium or my iPod for that matter.
The real shame in all this is the record companies are missing an opportunity to increase sales by emphasizing quality. Almost 100% of the remastered CDs I have listened to are better than the original. Why didn't the record companies try harder to master correctly in the first place?
Record companies are putting out CDs that have pitiful sound quality; then they're surprised that people are satisfied with MP3 rips. If they put out more CDs that used the full resolution of the CD, or put some effort into a new format like SACD, they'd find that people would hear the difference between MP3 and the real thing and see some value in buying a CD/SACD. I personally have never downloaded MP3's because of the crappy quality, but I have stopped buying CDs because they are not worth what the record companies are charging. I'd love to start buying high quality, relatively cheap CDs again.
Octopi may be accepted, but it isn't any more correct than virii. Octopus is not a latin word, it is a greek one so the "correct" plural should be octopodes. Google "octopus plural" and read the article.
I don't think it is legal to use data CD's to record music. The copyright act says it is legal to copy "onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy". I don't know if data CDs are considered an "audio recording medium".
What myth? It is legal to copy music in Canada. Google "copyright act canada" if you want, you'll find the text I have included. Note that this doesn't say anything about only being able to copy originals, despite what others have said. Copying is legal, but file sharing probably isn't, if you look at the limitations 2(a) and 2(b):
infringement of copyright
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public
I think DVD sales are vastly higher than 7.9 million. I read an article that Finding Nemo sold 15 million copies in two weeks. Maybe your figures are for music DVD's; not all DVD's.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been studies to determine how much pot impairs your ability to drive, like this one:
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s1p2.html
Here's a good quote from the abstract:
"Alcohol impaired performance relative to placebo but subjects did not perceive it. THC did not impair driving performance yet the subjects thought it had."
Pot does not impair your ability to determine how impaired you are; if you think you are sober enough to drive, you are. This simple fact is not true of alcohol, it impairs your ability to tell how impaired you are. That is why alcohol is a problem and pot is not, at least as far as driving goes.
The statistics show that stoned people do not get into accidents more often than sober people. That simply means that the people who choose to drive while stoned are no more likely to get in accidents than sober drivers. That doesn't mean that every driver is capable of driving while stoned, just that the people that do drive while stoned are correct in thinking that it is safe for them.
I blame the same people. They don't want to test pot because all the studies show that it is nearly harmless.
A big factor left out of these discussions is the level of experience with the drug. Everyone seems to forget the long learning curve for handling alcohol. It takes a while to learn to handle any drug, but at least with pot, an experienced smoker can accurately gauge how impaired they are.
I recommend that you read the report that the Canadian Senate did recently. It addresses the testing issue, among all the others.
s p? Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&comm_id=85
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/Committee_SenRep.a
My recollection is that THC decays very rapidly; something like 95% is gone within 10 minutes. That means that it is quite likely that blood tests will always be required for pot.
On the other hand, the by-products of THC in the body are fat soluble and can be detected for months afterwards. Alcohol, cocaine and heroin all decay faster, so they can't be detected more that a day or two after. We are used to thinking that testing positive for a drug means you're high; but that isn't necessarily true for pot.
Now the difficulty of measuring pot makes the studies hard to interpret, and I could have gone into all this and more when I mentioned the study. But I have found that most people know nothing about the real effects of pot and aren't interested in learning.
It is much easier to choke someone with water, and choking on water is much more likely to cause death. Sorry, water is still more dangerous.
I know you were joking with the "crash into a tree" statement, but please cite the evidence that smoking marijuana significantly impairs the ability to drive. From what I've read, you can be more impaired by alcohol, even at a level below the legal limit, than you will by any amount of pot.
Check out the evidence. In Australia they measured the blood of people that died in auto accidents. People with Marijuana in the blood were no more likely to be killed in auto accidents than sober drivers; but those with alcohol in the blood stream were 5 times more likely to die.
I don't know why people are so worried about people driving while high. You are allowed to drive while impaired; the legal limit for alcohol isn't 0.00, and as MADD will tell you, even one drink impairs. Why is it so hard to accept that Marijuana impairment, at any level of consumption, might be less than the legal limit for alcohol impairment?
Taxation is not theft, it is paying your fair share for government services. The government has complete authority to spend money on your behalf and then send you the bill.
If you don't like how the government spends your money, complain to your representatives. If you think you are paying too much and your fellow citizens should be paying more instead, complain to your representatives. But, if you absolutely aren't willing to pay your taxes, your only legal alternative is to emigrate to a better country.
I think your quote supports my argument :-) Enabling the poor requires giving them the opportunity to develop their talents. It is clear that the rich have opportunities that the poor don't have. For example, if I am a rich student with problems in school, my parents can hire a tutor to ensure I am as educated as possible. A poor student with trouble in school better hope they have smart parents or friends, because that is all the help they can afford. If a rich person has any difficulties, they can hire help to overcome those difficulties; a luxury that poor people don't have.
As another example of how the rich and poor are different; the poor must work or they can't eat. The will to live is incentive enough for poor people to work; however, someone with enough investments can earn enough to live by just cashing checks. If welfare checks are a disincentive for poor people to work; how is this any different than the situation a rich person finds themself in, if they don't have to work to be able to eat? If investment income were taxed at 100%, that would merely force the rich to earn money by working at a job; the same as any poor person (and the rich would still have more connections and a better chance at getting an easy job).
As a society, we would be stupid to waste any of the talents that anyone has, rich or poor. We can increase those talents by taking money from people with plenty of opportunity and using it to provide more opportunities to everyone else. Of course the rich don't want extra competition, so from their point of view the are hurt twice, once when they are taxed and a second time when those tax dollars are used to create more competition for them.
Unfortunately, giving someone an opportunity does not mean they are going to take it or can benefit from it. So there has to be an incentive for people to work hard, which means that taxes can't be so high that there is no incentive to work harder. That's why communism doesn't work, people need to be rewarded for working harder and punished for not working at all.
It is possible that the current tax system does not get the balance right, and that the tax system is either too progressive or not progressive enough. But, I think that rich people have an have a natural advantage and automatically get more opportunities, which makes it easier for them to succeed. I don't think it is possible to determine the exact amount of progressivity that will give everyone the same opportunity to develop their talents, but some level of progressive taxation will even out the playing field by increasing the opportunities that poor people have; and thus will make society as a whole richer since fewer potential talents are wasted.
Heisenbugs are also caused by floppy disks. We once shipped a program where one bit was wrong on the floppy, which caused a nasty bug. That one was hard to duplicate until we got the customer to ship us their version of the program.
I'm sorry to pester you like this, but I've had this argument before :-). I'm trying to refine my argument.
:-)
I say it is easier for the rich to get richer than for someone who is poor. This is because the rich can afford to hire help. For example, in making investments.
Suppose I have $10,000 to invest. I can buy a mutual fund, invest it in stocks I pick; this will cost me some fraction of the total investment, less if I am good at investing. Now, if someone has $1,000,000 to invest, they can hire a competent manager to invest on their behalf. Maybe the manager is good, maybe bad; but if the manager is better than me, the rich guy will earn more than me. In other words, it doesn't matter whether I am a better investor than the rich guy; the rich guy just has to hire a manager that is better than me. And of course, if you are Bill Gates, you can build a University to study how to make money for you
The rich also have more influence. I think I know how the RIAA ought to make CDs and deal with file sharing, but I'll bet Janet Jackson's opinion is more likely to be acted on.
For all these reasons, it is easier for the rich to get richer (in an exponential way!). It's easier for a rich person to make extra money, so hitting them harder with taxes just cancels out their advantages.
Now I'm not going to argue that the government isn't spending huge amounts of money and sticking me with a large portion of the bill. I think there are plenty of cases where it's spending wads of money to make things worse (e.g. in the war against marijuana). There are useful things that only a government can do, and as a society we have to pay for that, preferably with fair taxes. I think it is fair to tax everyone; and to tax the rich at a higher rate.
You made the important point about sales taxes for me, that it would encourage conglomerates as a way to reduce taxes.
:-). Imagine you could buy welfare insurance before you are born and you are born retarded and can never get a good job, would you have wanted the chance to buy insurance to support you even though you can never get a good job? If you are the offspring of rich parents, you will never collect on welfare insurance; but if you are born in the projects you probably are going to collect on that welfare insurance.
An economist would say that if a tax changes how businesses operate, it distorts the economy and is a bad thing. The best kind of tax is one that does not change the economic decisions that companies make. At any rate, most of my complaints about sales taxes would go away if it were a value-added tax like they have in Europe. In this system, businesses are taxed on the difference between what they paid for the inputs and what they get for selling it; eliminating the advantage that conglomerates would have. I think there will always be plenty of paperwork and rules involved in any tax system.
My larger point is that a simple tax system is probably not a fair tax system. Most "loopholes" are there to encourage desirable activities, or to discourage undesirable activities. Eliminate the loopholes and you eliminate the good behaviours you were encouraging (like the mortgage interest deduction that encourages home ownership). On the other hand, loopholes are ripe for abuse and often don't work. The rate of home ownership in Canada is about the same as in the U.S.; even though Canadians don't get a mortgage interest deduction. In this case, all the deduction does is make house prices higher in the U.S.; thus benefiting current home owners over people who don't yet own a house or never will.
I mostly agree with you about eliminating the complexities in the tax system, and making it crystal-clear how much people are paying in taxes. About ten years ago Canada replaced a hidden federal sales tax (it was included in the price of goods) with one that was charged at the time of purchase. The new tax system raised about the same amount of revenue as the old system, but you wouldn't believe the complaints now that the tax was visible. As an added bonus, the government used to increase the old hidden tax every couple of years with nearly no complaints; the government hasn't dared to raise the visible tax in more than ten years. You see the same thing with hidden taxes like alcohol, tobacco or gas taxes; they are increased all the time, but most people don't notice.
A problem with a single type of tax is that it makes tax evasion easier. It is nearly impossible to avoid all the taxes that now exist; income taxes, sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. If there were only a single type of tax, that would mean that someone could avoid all taxes just by figuring out how to avoid a single type of tax. A sales tax is probably the hardest type to completely avoid since you deal with so many different people, but I think you would see plenty of legitimate stores go bankrupt as people switched to more informal sales channels that aren't so visible to the tax police.
Now about government benefits: I think it depends how you look at the issue about whether paying for Hurricane damage in Florida benefits everyone in the country. Do you only benefit from fire insurance if your house burns down? Surely you get some benefit from not having to worry about being financially ruined if your house burns down. In the same vein, you could consider welfare to be loser insurance
I don't think our positions are that far apart. I also agree that communism can't work. Greed is a natural part of human nature, and if an economic system doesn't find some way to harness the power of greed, it isn't going to work. But you need laws to keep greed in check. If stealing were legal, that would seem to be an easy way for ruthless and greedy people to make a living. Simila
Sales taxes aren't all that easy. Does a company pay sales taxes on the input for their goods? For example, if a contractor buys paint for a house he sells, does he pay sales taxes on the paint? I assume the customer pays sales taxes on the house, do they get a rebate for the taxes on the paint?
What about services? Should you pay taxes on a haircut? What about getting your car fixed? Is there tax on the labour or just on the parts? What about transfers within a company? If an IBM worker needs a computer, is there tax owing on the "purchase"? Is it on the wholesale or retail price?
Finally, I seriously doubt 7% would be enough; I think it would need to be something more like 30%. Doesn't the army alone cost about 5% of GDP?
As far as taxes go; the government supplies services and needs to pay for that. Surely you think that the government at least has to pay for the costs of enforcing laws and protecting the border. Since the government has to spend money, someone has to pay for it. Everyone in the country benefits from what the government does, everyone should pay for it. Taxes aren't theft, they are payments for services rendered.
Now the case for progressive taxes is hard to argue, as your points make clear. But I think there are plenty of people that are rich because they inherited from their parents and haven't blown it yet. Do you really think that someone who earns a million dollars in interest from their trust fund works as hard as someone making minimum wage in MacDonald's? I think in general, the richer you are, the easier it is to make money, and therefore a higher tax rate on the wealthy simply ensures that rich and poor are both hurt equally by taxes.
Another point is that some people are rich solely due to government actions. For example, if the government didn't enforce copyrights, Microsoft would be worth nothing. Doesn't the government deserve a cut of the value that laws create, at least to pay for enforcement?
You may believe that people are solely responsible for their success and that everyone has an equal chance; I don't. I think that Bill Gates' kids are much more likely to end up rich than the kids of a crack addict in Detroit. The two may be equal in potential, but they definitely will not have the same opportunities, and probably they will not have equal success in life.
I'll try one more argument. Over the last decade or two, the income of the rich has been increasing at a faster rate than the income of the poor. Do you think this is because the rich are working harder that ever and the poor have become more lazy? I think it is more likely that everyone is putting in the same effort as they have all along. The unequal distribution of the wealth created in the last 20 years should be compensated for.
I disagree that there should be a single rate, I think progressive taxes are fairer. The bigger flaw in your suggestion is that there is no way you can eliminate rules and loopholes.
How would this system work for self-employed people? Do they get to deduct expenses from the income they make, and if they can, what expenses should be allowed? That question is responsible for a lot of the complications of the tax system. Should people get a deduction for children? A deduction for medical expenses? A deduction for mortgage interest, or interest on a loan to run their business?
The tax rate is the easiest part of the tax system: figure out what bracket you are in and use the specified rate. The hard part of the system is caused by treating different types of income differently (e.g. capital gains, interest, dividends, wages, gifts) and different types of expenses differently. The tax system would be better if there were fewer rules, but the majority of people think some deductions are valid and think that some types of income should be treated differently.
Surely there is something the government does for you. You know, defend the country with an army, provide firemen and equipment to save burning houses, that sort of thing. The government needs tax dollars to do that.
If the government needs money to do these useful things, doesn't it need to get it from somewhere? If the government can't get it from tax-cheaters they are going to get it from me.
It seems to me that you are the gambler. You want taxes to be paid by those that are unlucky enough to get caught cheating (kind of like how the police selectively apply drug laws to people they don't like). I'd rather have a system where everyone pays their fair share rather than have an unlucky (or stupid) few pay for all of us.
What does government spending have to do with this? People who cheat on their taxes are breaking the law. How can you object to people obeying the law paying the taxes that they owe? It would mean that your taxes (assuming you don't cheat) could be lower.
If there is a cheap way to detect when people are breaking the law, I'm all for it, like photo-radar for speeders. I don't see the point in having laws that aren't enforced. If the government needs tax money, I'd prefer it came from criminals rather than me.
If you don't like paying taxes, convince the government to spend less money. But don't argue that tax dodging is OK; all that does is transfer the costs of running the government to the law abiding (or those with no opportunity to cheat) and lets criminals off the hook.
It is more correct to say that people that run companies give people jobs; there is no rule that says those people have to be rich. I mean, how rich is rich enough? If Bill Gates were only worth $20 billion, would Microsoft hire fewer people? Do you really think Bill Gates is still working because he wants to earn more money?
By the way, rich people don't pay your salary, the company does. Both you and rich people make money when a company sells stuff for more than it costs to make it. The owner wouldn't get as rich if they paid you more. I think people still had jobs 20 years ago when CEOs had a salary 20 times as much as the average worker; are things really any better now that CEOs make 200 times as much as the average worker?
Maybe it's true that the fastest way to increase the wealth of a country is to leave it with the rich people to invest. But think like a greedy rich person yourself: what's in it for you? I want more income, and I haven't heard how letting the rich get richer helps me. I guess if you sell Porches, Rolexes or yachts you're better off; but for everyone else, the money that a rich company owner keeps is money that doesn't go to them.
Now as far as taxes go, doesn't California have a huge budget deficit? Those brave Republicans that stood up for their unpopular belief that people don't like to pay taxes didn't cut spending to match; they've just deferred the tax bill until they are safely out of office. Their rich supporters are certainly happy, they may never have to pay the taxes they are avoiding now.
I'd like to see a real debate on government budgets, one that recognizes that taxes have to equal spending. Right now people are asked two separate questions: do you want the government to spend more money on those things you like? and do you want lower taxes?. Surprisingly, people tend to answer yes to both questions. Republicans talk big about cutting spending, but it never happens, while the tax cuts always do.
Umm ... politically-connected companies are making out like bandits in Iraq, or at least that's what I understand from the stories I read. There is no Canadian monopoly on politicians favouring companies that are generous and useful at election time.
Canadian and U.S. citizens are alike in many ways. In both countries, citizens are ignoring obvious corruption and lies from their governments. In both cases, the current crooks are given free rein because every one is scared that the opposition is worse. In both countries, I think the majority is wrong and anyone would be better than the current clowns.
I have to agree with you 100%. I recently visited Vancouver, where they had excellent used CD stores and A&B Sound had some really good prices. My wife and I bought 23 CDs because we averaged about $10 each (Canadian!).
I won't buy copy protected CDs and I won't pay more than $15, unless it is very special. Why can't the record companies give me what I want? I own more than 1000 CDs (and no MP3), I would have thought I was a good customer.
I'm sorry to say this already happened in the U.S., and even earlier than in Canada (the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992). At least we Canadians can legally make copies as partial compensation for this rip-off, you Americans just get to pay.
It is legal to make a copy, so there can't be any fine for that. The levy is considered compensation for unpaid copyright payments.
They really do try to be fair when they calculate the levy. They calculate how often a medium is used to record music and multiply that by the copyright rate (you know, the 8 cents per song). The iPod rate sounds kind of high, but how many songs will it hold? If each song on the iPod is 4MB, the rate is maybe reasonable. At any rate, I think they will end up charging something feasible, maybe by realizing that most people will not fill their iPods.
However, if they are going to start charging serious money, they really should refund the levy when the medium is discarded. I think I ought to get my money back when I throw out (or ruin) a record-only medium or my iPod for that matter.
The real shame in all this is the record companies are missing an opportunity to increase sales by emphasizing quality. Almost 100% of the remastered CDs I have listened to are better than the original. Why didn't the record companies try harder to master correctly in the first place?
Record companies are putting out CDs that have pitiful sound quality; then they're surprised that people are satisfied with MP3 rips. If they put out more CDs that used the full resolution of the CD, or put some effort into a new format like SACD, they'd find that people would hear the difference between MP3 and the real thing and see some value in buying a CD/SACD. I personally have never downloaded MP3's because of the crappy quality, but I have stopped buying CDs because they are not worth what the record companies are charging. I'd love to start buying high quality, relatively cheap CDs again.
Octopi may be accepted, but it isn't any more correct than virii. Octopus is not a latin word, it is a greek one so the "correct" plural should be octopodes. Google "octopus plural" and read the article.
I don't think it is legal to use data CD's to record music. The copyright act says it is legal to copy "onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy". I don't know if data CDs are considered an "audio recording medium".
What myth? It is legal to copy music in Canada. Google "copyright act canada" if you want, you'll find the text I have included. Note that this doesn't say anything about only being able to copy originals, despite what others have said. Copying is legal, but file sharing probably isn't, if you look at the limitations 2(a) and 2(b):
infringement of copyright
80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
Limitation
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public
I think DVD sales are vastly higher than 7.9 million. I read an article that Finding Nemo sold 15 million copies in two weeks. Maybe your figures are for music DVD's; not all DVD's.
A possible reason: Volume.
If CDs sell in much lower quantities than DVDs, you need to make a higher profit per disk to pay for the production (and marketing) costs.