Issue 660 Don't Tax Non-citizens: Revisited August 20, 2015

So a while back I said do not tax non-citizens on their income.  My reasoning was that because they are not citizens and thus could not vote (which they should not until they become citizens), that they are being taxed without representation in our government.  Today I am revisiting this because we do want their money, but not in the same way you might think.

We want their money:  So one of the main reasons we do not want them taxed on their income if they live here legally is because they will have more disposable income.  As such, they can spend more which enriches the businesses around them and thus can potentially aid in reducing prices of goods over time.  You get it, by them spending money, the business gets richer and thus they can expand their services, or lower the costs of goods.  Also, if there is a sales tax (the best form of taxation with respect to getting at everyone's money legally) then they pay into the system without the need for extra paperwork or need to have them register.  Basically, sales taxes gets everyone without discrimination (though it works best when other taxes are reduced or do not exist.

Another thing we want from legal resident’s money wise is their businesses.  Business owners moving their companies to the United States means jobs.  This also means a growing economy and that our tax and economic system is business friendly enough to attract more businesses.  What do I mean by this?  The person (legal resident) will not be taxed, but if we maintain business taxes, the successful business will. And even if business taxes do not exist (my ideal system) the business will still have to collect sales taxes for the government when they sell their goods. This allows for the governments to gather tax money while the legal resident enjoys the United States acting as a tax haven for them.

Conclusion:  There must be a balance here though.  If a legal resident is not taxed, then it means that many more people will want to move here to reap the benefits and thus flood the country with non-citizens.   To counter this, we could go back to the old style system of saying you are a citizen after living in the United States legally for a specified number of years.  Ten is a nice number, and many of these legal residents already are of quality based on our immigration system.  So what do you think?  We can counter free loaders while bringing in business and tax revenue into the country. It is a win win situation with respect to economic benefits.

Issue 659 Direct Aid August 19, 2015

Direct aid is when either money or food/medicine is given directly to disaster/violent conflict victims, and the poor.  So what are the benefits and when should it be applied?

Direct Aid:  For one according to Foreign Affairs journal which discussed the topic, there have been no drunks, or addicts using the aid to feed their self-abuse.  In fact, any money directly given has been used to start businesses or procure what the individual needs to survive.  As such, the primary form of direct aid, being cash is best used in impoverished countries where a majority of people are self-employed like in Africa.  This direct money replaces or substitutes for the lack of capital, credit, insurance or products necessary to grow their businesses.  This means however, that countries like the United States where such services exist cannot have this form of aid for their poorer populations save for specific communities.  These communities being where the situation mimics the self-employed circumstances like in the African Continent.

The other time you want to give direct money aid to individuals is right after a conflict or a disaster. Both these situations limit localized knowledge so adequate aid cannot be given in the form of traditional aid like food stuffs.  So the direct aid via money is better due to the sheer flexibility of it so that the people affected can buy and get only what they need.  Thus this aid is cheaper as countries giving support need not spend massive amounts on food, clothing and the like per person when victims can simply buy it themselves based on need.

The final form of direct aid does not come in monetary form like the others.  This aid comes in the form of vaccines which are either subsidized or given free if they are too expensive for a population to afford.  Likewise it works the same with food when food prices rise exponentially pricing out the poor and risking a famine.  As per the examples, the conditions must exceed regular needs for this to work for this public good category of aid.

Conclusion:  Direct aid is being looked upon as the future of aid to people in trouble.  No more corrupt officials taking the money for themselves, the people who need it actually see the money and have the flexibility to use it when and where they need it.  Other forms of aid like direct aid in the public goods category make up for the rest.  What’s good about direct aid also is that it minimizes costs while maximizing the effectiveness of the aid itself.  As such, it is cheaper and easier to distribute to those in need.  It is my belief, based on the articles in Foreign Affairs Journal and others like in the Economist, that direct aid is the best way to go with respect to the future of aids programs.

Issue 658 CUBA U.S. relations August 18, 2015

So, the United States and Cuba have finally opened up relations.  Obviously this is a step in the right direction with respect to achieving a state of normalcy between the two neighboring countries.  But what is bad about this and what is good about this?  Let us discuss.

The Bad and the Good:  Well for one, by opening up relations with Cuba which has trained terrorists including the PLO, we essentially endorse their past behavior.  Also, political prisoners are still going to be imprisoned due to their speaking out against the regime.  However, exposure to the United States businesses, and citizens who may now go into Cuba can result in a change in the way of thinking for the Cuban government due to the United States becoming a trading partner.  This also puts the U.S. in a better position to get those political prisoners freed via economic and even political pressure due to the new state of affairs.  Additionally, while Cuba was essentially isolated from most countries that sided with the United States during the cold war, that did not stop them from doing medical, and environmental research.  As such, Cuba has unveiled a cure for lung cancer which may be used as the basis for a vaccine against a multitude of cancers.  Environmentally, Cuba's laws are much stricter and this has resulted in pristine environments for scientists to do research into earth's ocean life.  

Cuba benefits also because American businesses can now potentially set up shop there which boosts their economy.  Also, Cuba will now benefit from American tourists who wish to see the classic cars and old style buildings that have not changed due to communist rule and its restrictions on economic progress (not to mention the beaches and other touristy spots that Caribbean islands have to offer).   This also means that the United States benefits from Cubans coming to the United States as well.  Many families that have not seen each other in years finally met.  People who could not leave Cuba in general can now leave and say whatever they want politically on its government without fear of arrest.  Businesses in America benefit from the cheap labor in Cuba to make goods and the new customers.  Overall, very good situation all around.

Conclusion:  Cuba and the United States is probably the most significant positive thing to happen in the Obama administration.  This positive turn benefits both parties’ people and economies which was needed on both sides for economic growth and prosperity.  As such, despite the human rights issues and Cuba's past with respect to being a terrorist training ground, this turn can allow Cuba to eliminate that from its current resume and use the new relations with the U.S. as a rebirth if Raul Castro, Cuba's current dictator/president, allows for it.

Issue 657 Don't Tax Schools! August 17, 2015

So Public schools, charter schools and certain religious schools are not taxed at all for obvious reasons.  But what about private schools?  Why are they taxed which creates an uneven playing field?  Let us answer this question.

Why some schools are taxed and others are not:  Well, let us start with the non-taxed group.  Religious nonprofit schools are obvious due to them being associated with a Church or other religious institution.  Public is also obvious because they are a government institution.  Charters are not taxed because they are a version of public schools that are run differently and as such are funded by the government.  That leaves private schools.  There are private schools that are not taxed, but that is only when they become a non-profit.  As such, both for profit private and religious schools are taxed like any regular business.  But this is education we are talking about.  This practice means that nonprofits and government funded schools have an advantage over the for profit schools.  So, this unfair competition leads to private schools being forced to charge more for their services just so they can stay in business.  Unfair advantages issued by government are bad in a capitalist society for it inherently creates winners and losers artificially.  This also means good schools shut down, or less students being able to afford to go due to the schools having to charge more so they can pay their taxes.  This unequal treatment needs to end.

Conclusion:  Education is just that, education. It does not matter where it comes from, or who teaches it so long as the quality is good.  Can you imagine how many more schools could open or how affordable they would be if more for profits were not taxed like most other schools?  The idea of making money off of educating kids is not a bad thing as we do that when people in localities pay taxes directly to the schools (which is fishy unto itself).  So it should not matter if something is for profit or not, for what really matters is that the kids get the best education possible.

Issue 656 It they can't, You can't August 14, 2015

So, Bakers cannot deny a gay couple a wedding cake.  Even though this violates the bakers’ rights, it is forced upon them irrespective of what they believe.  But, what people do not realize is that this opens a very interesting door with respect to discrimination irrespective if it is good or bad.  Allow me to explain.

What this means:  By forcing the baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding legally, it set a legal precedent.  That president works both ways.  So if a gay baker wants to refuse to make a cake for a straight couple, they can't.  The system works both ways and in this case it bans all discrimination.  Thus it can be applied to other groups now as well.  As such, a Jewish shop owner cannot deny a Neo-Nazi as a customer.  Nor can a black business owner deny a KKK member.  Also gay clubs, men’s only clubs, and similar cannot exist for it leaves out everyone else.  So the men's only clubs have to let women in as customers and the gay club has to let straight individuals in or else they are in violation of this court precedent that bans discrimination.  Basically, if the baker with a religious objection (the one with the strongest argument based on religious beliefs via the 1st Amendment) cannot deny a gay couple a wedding cake, then no group can deny anyone with respect to association.

Conclusion:  Isn't law fun?  Of course it is, for now everyone who limits membership to specific religious groups, sexes, ethnicities, genders and the like are subject to a lawsuit that they will very well likely lose by using the case of the baker versus the gay couple amongst its other associated cases.  Sure, it takes away our rights, but if they cannot choose whom they can associate with (and the method thereof), then no one can.  Of course, we need someone to bring legal action first to begin applying this everywhere else first, but it is only a matter of time before some vindictive character shows up to do just that.

Issue 655 Debtors Prisons August 13, 2015

A debtor’s prison was a prison for those who could not or would not pay back their debts.  This concept could be revived if done correctly so that people could pay off their debts if they were negligent, or have no normal ways to pay.  Let us discuss.

Debtor prison revived:  The original debtors prisons was where people who could not pay their debts were sent. In that prison they would work various jobs so that they could pay off their debt and a portion of that to go toward paying for their incarceration.  They kept zero money in this instance.  The concept was later abandoned because of harsh conditions, and abuses.  However, with prisoners today getting better treatment in the United States than anywhere else in the world (arguably), we could remove the non-violent members of the prison community so that they can pay back their debt to society.

So reviving it in the modern era would mean the people that go to this "prison" are people who are negligent in paying back taxes, not paying their fines or tickets, and even people not paying their child support.  Likewise, it can be applied to thieves as well, where laws could be changed where they are made to work to pay back what they stole if the items or the money are not recoverable.  Of course this would also include outstanding debts as well as a means for people to work off their debt more quickly.  The only time these people would not be sent to the prison is if the debt was below $100 (makes sense as that is payable) or other set amount that can be readily paid back.   

The work that could be done by these prisoners would be cooking for their fellow prisoners, doing their fellow prisoners laundry, cleaning the jail, tending a greenhouse where they grow as much of their own food as possible and grounds keeping.  Additionally, they can be used to make uniforms and clothing for government personnel, make license plates, and even help file government documents or do research for the government using the prisons library.  Other prisoners can be driven to factories nearby or local stores to provide free labor or clean parks and schools for the government.  They can also be used for focus groups as debtors come from all aspects of society as well.  In all these cases money is collected from those who wish to use this labor or the State identifying a competitive wage based on the value of their work which again is used to pay for all expenses in the prison and to pay off their debts.  Once they reach a payable amount they are released.  Also, nothing says that funds cannot be established to take private donations to help people with the largest debts get out faster, even donating toward particular individuals if they want.  Additionally, classes on financial management (free online courses so that their debt does not increase), and other courses relating to managing money will be available to them as well, so that they do not end up back in debtors prison.

Conclusion:  The idea of a modern debtor’s prison is fanciful.  Though this concept should allow people to voluntarily enter the "prison" to aid in paying their debts too.  As such, it should not look like a prison. They would also learn skills that would aid them in other jobs via free online courses and the work that they do in the prison.  Also, the idea that prisoners who are thieves, and people negligent on their taxes, tickets, fines and child support, is not exactly new, being sent to prison together is not new, but they do not pay their debts or for their incarceration while there.  This has them do that though.  The prisoners could apply for jobs for free via the prison computers and because they do not have the stigma of a typical prison, they are likely to get hired or maybe even out of pity.  Though for that to work, inmates would be segregated.  As such, thieves would be in one section and people who are paying back money in another.  The people who are paying back money however would be separated still into those who want to pay their debts but did not have the means, and the other group who just outright refuses to pay back what they owe.  Of course all this would be revealed to any potential employer.  As I said, it is a concept and the old stigma is still strong.  But the question is; is this a good idea?  You decide.

Issue 654 Image and the Media August 12, 2015

Have you noticed that the fashion industry is not the only ones who favor "good looking" people?  Think about it.  How often do you see ugly people on TV in general?  Let us discuss.

Where are the Ugly people?:  Next time you watch the news or a television show, look at the people in that show.  Now count the number of people who look bad.  For instance, Fox News hires a lot of former Miss America's and its runner ups.  All the women there are, well, really good looking.  Same with CNN and most of MSNBC.  There are very few non-skinny women, or ugly looking men for that matter.  The only time they have people who can be deemed unattractive on the payroll is if they are people with pull like Al Sharpton on MSNBC (yea, he is not "attractive" and maybe he never really was) or they fit some sort of stereotype.  Same with television.  All the actors are good looking or attractive in some way.  The only time we get a person who goes against this is for a stereotype yet again, like a nerd, or a hobo, and the like.  Do you see what I am getting at?  The fashion industry is the mere tip of the iceberg with respect to not being representative of the population and can potentially have a negative psychological impact on people to look and perhaps act a certain way so that they can feel attractive.  So the fashion industry is not alone at being at fault.  Thankfully we have the Dove brand that looks to get real people (or as close to reality as possible) into their commercials which serves to allow people viewing their commercials to relate to the people in them and thus perhaps become more likely to buy their products.  However, the fact that there are hardly any people who look bad in news and television also means that ordinary people and ugly people with talent are being shafted as well.  

Conclusion:  I write this issue because it was pointed out to me.  And once it was I was like "wow, you're right". This beautiful person favoritism can be contributing to our culture favoring the physically beautiful who make up a small percentage of society, and thus skewing our view of what a real human being looks like.  Additionally, people who are talented, but do not fit this supermodel archetype are ignored unless they are so compelling that they are snapped up due to personality (Glenn Beck? or Chris Farley?).  You get the idea.  So is this a problem? Perhaps.  Should it be corrected?  We will have to see how it plays out and see if anyone is willing to look into it a little deeper.