Government-sponsored research into natural therapiesral therapies
There are a ton of diseases that could be cured or alleviated with minimal side effects using natural therapies. However, no corporation would invest the time and money researching and marketing a natural cure because there would be no patent rights and they'd lose their investment. So instead we get manufactured chemicals with side effects almost as bad as the disease they're meant to treat. What we need is a medical research arm of the government searching for cures using natural products. The results should be posted and use encouraged by prescribers, perhaps increasing reimbursement rates.
Solid bike tir
Anyone else think a solid bicycle tire would be a good idea? I'm thinking a modest band of rubber around the metal rim with shocks or springs of some sort to replace the cushion lost from a pneumatic tire. The benefits would include better "mileage" from not pedaling against an underinflated tire and no flats. Tires could last much longer reducing cost and environmental impact.
Why do we have street lights?
Anyone know? Think of all the energy wasted and light pollution created by street lighting while cars drive around with lights of their own. My very crude estimate has Chambana spending about $2M/yr on it. I know sidewalk lighting is important, especially in densely populated areas to cut down on crime, but the streets themselves? I've read some arguments saying it helps drivers see hazards or signs easier but, if that were so valuable, why are offramps lighted and not the whole interstate? Why not just improve headlights and technologies to allow for improved environmental awareness like nightvision.
Could help save $, aesthetics, and the environment.
Could help save $, aesthetics, and the environment.
Escobar's - Not a fan
Been wanting to check out Escobar's for a while. Read it was pretty nice. Told it was up there with KoFusion which we've been to several times and they have really good food. Tried to go last Monday but they were closed. Finally got there this weekend and I think it just may have been the worst meal I've had in C-U, certainly for the price. We ordered a house salad, mussels, and a dish with filet mignon medallions over pasta and a cream sauce. The salad was just alright. Table bread smelled good but was generally mealy. Mussels were decent but they didn't bother to pick out the bad ones. But the filet dish was just downright bad. Ordered medium, got just shy of raw. See for yourself.
And by filet mignon, they meant a fatty, chewy steak. Most sirloins are better than that. By cream sauce, they meant whatever juices happen to drip off the meat. The pasta was completely unseasoned, as if it was pulled straight out of the water and onto the plate. The side veggies were the only thing decent on the $20 plate.
Just saying.
And by filet mignon, they meant a fatty, chewy steak. Most sirloins are better than that. By cream sauce, they meant whatever juices happen to drip off the meat. The pasta was completely unseasoned, as if it was pulled straight out of the water and onto the plate. The side veggies were the only thing decent on the $20 plate.Just saying.
Woohoo, I can post from my phone!
Okay, so it's not perfect but I can blog from my phone now. Maybe I'll actually do it more often now.
eCommerce Sales Tax
Most online purchases are not taxed and most people do not file to pay the tax as required. This creates a big disadvantage for local, brick-and-mortar companies and results in more individual shipping and packaging which isn't very green. My solution: have the ecommerce retailer tax the purchase at some nationally-agreed upon rate, remitting half to their home state and half to the purchaser's home state. The rate might be the retailer's home state rate, the average of all state rates, the highest state's rate, or some other method. Alternatively, the states could maintain a database of tax data that the retailer could access to tax appropriately. In the end, however, half the tax should be retailer-local and half should be purchaser-local to more fairly distribute the tax based on the impact to public services each party has.
The (Modified) Fair Tax
So here's my thinking. Democrats like a progressive income tax rate because it's redistributive, giving money back to low earners, low taxes for middle class, and the highest taxes on the rich. Republicans like a flat tax because it's fair - everyone pays the same rate. For the same reason, they typically prefer a sales tax over income tax.
So here's my idea: A flat sales tax applied consistently across the board on the sale of all new B2C items (homes, cars, TVs, clothes, etc) but, and here's the important piece, with a monthly refund for every citizen. Why this works so well is that you can't say it's not fair. Everyone pays the same rate and everyone gets the same dollar amount check once a month. Republicans on board, check. But the refund check will be worth more to someone with a low income that someone who makes more. Democrats on board, check. And you eliminate corporate and all other taxes. Businesses on board, check. Who doesn't love getting money? Individuals on board, check.
So say the sales tax rate is 25% and the refund check is $300. Someone who spends $6000/mo on new items would pay $1500 and get back $300 - a $1200 tax bill in essence. Same spending with a wife and two kids would have a $300 tax bill. Someone who spends $1000/mo on new items would pay $250 and get back $300 - they come out ahead by $50.
So what are the benefits of this? Well for starters, it'd nearly eliminate the IRS. With no income tax, there would be no tax reporting, no complex rules, no cheating. You wouldn't be giving the government a tidy sum of intel on your personal financial situation. With businesses collecting the tax, there's fewer places for cheats or mistakes and fewer people to audit. You eliminate B2B and other hidden taxes so it's relatively easy to calculate what your actual tax burden is. You're redistributing taxes and helping out the less fortunate. You're taxing what you take out of the economy (new goods) and not what you put into it (labor - ie income). It's actually incentivizing working in fact. If someone wanted more money, they simply work to get it. There's no penalty. No situation where you'd lose government benefit XYZ or tax credit 123 because you input $1 more worth of your labor into the economy. Since it only taxes physical goods, the service industry would see a boon. And finally, it encourages the reuse and resale of goods which is great for the environment and is the most efficient use of those goods.
Now this works easily at a national level where all the inputs, outputs, and money begin and end within the country. Certainly, you'd have to consider additional scenarios such as imports (increased net price since the host country might be taxing their exports, labor, and raw materials in addition to the sales tax - not necessarily bad for us since it would discourage the export of our wealth and encourage more buying at home), exports (we'd be sending our labor and raw materials elsewhere, creating a burden on our country's resources that isn't resulting in any tax revenue - although the profits made from exports would eventually be used to buy new B2C goods within the US (in theory) so it would eventually show up), and money transfers (individuals and businesses would earn the money in the US and could spend it somewhere else to reduce taxes - we'd probably want to tax money flowing out of the country to make up for this).
So what do you think? Does this theoretical tax have any big picture flaws that couldn't be overcome in the details and constructs of the final law?
So here's my idea: A flat sales tax applied consistently across the board on the sale of all new B2C items (homes, cars, TVs, clothes, etc) but, and here's the important piece, with a monthly refund for every citizen. Why this works so well is that you can't say it's not fair. Everyone pays the same rate and everyone gets the same dollar amount check once a month. Republicans on board, check. But the refund check will be worth more to someone with a low income that someone who makes more. Democrats on board, check. And you eliminate corporate and all other taxes. Businesses on board, check. Who doesn't love getting money? Individuals on board, check.
So say the sales tax rate is 25% and the refund check is $300. Someone who spends $6000/mo on new items would pay $1500 and get back $300 - a $1200 tax bill in essence. Same spending with a wife and two kids would have a $300 tax bill. Someone who spends $1000/mo on new items would pay $250 and get back $300 - they come out ahead by $50.
So what are the benefits of this? Well for starters, it'd nearly eliminate the IRS. With no income tax, there would be no tax reporting, no complex rules, no cheating. You wouldn't be giving the government a tidy sum of intel on your personal financial situation. With businesses collecting the tax, there's fewer places for cheats or mistakes and fewer people to audit. You eliminate B2B and other hidden taxes so it's relatively easy to calculate what your actual tax burden is. You're redistributing taxes and helping out the less fortunate. You're taxing what you take out of the economy (new goods) and not what you put into it (labor - ie income). It's actually incentivizing working in fact. If someone wanted more money, they simply work to get it. There's no penalty. No situation where you'd lose government benefit XYZ or tax credit 123 because you input $1 more worth of your labor into the economy. Since it only taxes physical goods, the service industry would see a boon. And finally, it encourages the reuse and resale of goods which is great for the environment and is the most efficient use of those goods.
Now this works easily at a national level where all the inputs, outputs, and money begin and end within the country. Certainly, you'd have to consider additional scenarios such as imports (increased net price since the host country might be taxing their exports, labor, and raw materials in addition to the sales tax - not necessarily bad for us since it would discourage the export of our wealth and encourage more buying at home), exports (we'd be sending our labor and raw materials elsewhere, creating a burden on our country's resources that isn't resulting in any tax revenue - although the profits made from exports would eventually be used to buy new B2C goods within the US (in theory) so it would eventually show up), and money transfers (individuals and businesses would earn the money in the US and could spend it somewhere else to reduce taxes - we'd probably want to tax money flowing out of the country to make up for this).
So what do you think? Does this theoretical tax have any big picture flaws that couldn't be overcome in the details and constructs of the final law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)