Issue 692 European Social Security October 5, 2015

Europe is interesting.  They are united due to the European Union, but they have not gone and taken the steps necessary to take it a step further with respect to their welfare based systems.  Let us discuss.

European Welfare:  Let's discuss the advantages of uniting their systems of welfare first before we look at why they do not want to do so as of yet.  For one, the key advantage is money.  A greater money pool means more resources to distribute benefits for everyone.  Also, as they have the free movement of people there, a unified system helps to ease the transition of peoples if they are on welfare in one part and still need to be on welfare in another.  Basically, logistically, if you're a citizen in one country some may still be able to get benefits even if they are in another European Union country, or they will be denied benefits once they leave their home nation and have to go through hoops trying to get welfare in their new home country.  So by streamlining it, they fix those issues.  Another benefit is that if they unify the system to extend across Europe, that means local governments and national governments need not worry about such issues anymore. They literally free their national budgets up (if designed to do so), which allows the European nations like Greece to focus more on technology and infrastructure.  European welfare is also not that unique, but is not equal in each country.  As such migrants will generally travel to one country with the best welfare to freeload.  A unified system ends that.

But the European nations do not want to yet.  They like the autonomy and control they have over the welfare system.  It basically gives them power over some of the citizenry.  It is also a bit of nationalization where these countries like to lay claim that they can aid and help their own citizens.  Not to mention all these countries provide different forms of benefits and by giving it over to a unified system, they may inadvertently be denying benefits to their citizens.  As such riots may ensue.  Also, there is the issue that the system cannot keep up with growth of the entire European population, which means that the benefits of a unified system may need to be curtailed or denied due to lack of funds.  These are the reasons why they have yet to take the next step.

Conclusion:  Europe has a lot to gain from joining hands on welfare type programs.  A unified system would handle seniors in retirement, disability, unemployment/job training, medical and due to their brand of welfare and need for increasing native populations, there system will also handle child care and maturity leave.  They can also have the group that runs the program decide the number of hours per week a person is allowed to work, how much pay a person should get per week, and the number of breaks at work a person is allowed to have.  It can be means tested to insure fairness, and be contributed to via a separate tax on every European citizen so that they contribute to their own retirement and welfare in times of trouble.  They can do much here, and I think it is only a matter of time before they begin this shift toward a unified welfare system.

Issue 691 Europe Should Defend Itself October 2, 2015

Europe is in trouble.  The countries there in their European Union face destabilizing factors such as mass immigration, Russia annexing parts of neighboring countries and lack of a unified defense structure.  As such, Europe must begin to defend itself.

European defense:  Europe as it stands relies on NATO, a military organization which is led by the United States.  It was created as a means to counter Soviet aggression, but that enemy has changed to simply Russia acting as a bully via withholding fuel and annexing parts of neighboring countries.  Europe also faces issues of mass illegal immigration and facing off against terrorists.  The European governments do have a small defense force, but they specialize in peacekeeping missions due to pressure by the American and other governments for its feared destabilizing factors, or possibility to ignite aggression in neighboring countries.  Also, many European countries are neutral in all conflicts beyond their borders which hinders recruitment if the EU and the other European nations want to go to war.  Many of these countries budgets are small, so their military's are equally as small.  As such, Europe relies on NATO who will only counter some threats, but not all.  

Relying on NATO does not keep Russia from potentially turning aggressive and starting a new land war in Europe, and does not prevent terrorists from sneaking over the border.  As such, Europe needs a defense force which has a unified budget and standardized equipment to conduct the mission of defense.  This force can be started up with neutral nations like Austria, Ireland and Sweden who will control the extent of the missions they are allowed to perform which solves the issues of citizens of neutral nations being deployed overseas.  Then other smaller nations with military's can also join and those without their own defense forces, and other nations who cannot defend themselves can join.  This force will probably be used exclusively for defensive operations and interdiction of illegal migrants, handle terrorists, and perhaps conduct counter espionage and sabotage missions with special team(s) dedicated to hostage rescue.  Basically, it will be a hybrid between what the United States National Guard and the FBI.  The reason neutral nations should start this up first is because their laws prohibit the use of force save in defense of their own nation.  So by joining with their fellows, they can be assured that their citizens will not be used in a war abroad and other nations can be disarmed of the idea that Europe is rearming itself for war.  Likewise, nations in Europe that have tiny military's, no military or simply lack sufficient means to defend themselves will want to join up over time for mutual protection, but they must promise to become neutral, or to never deploy the defense forces overseas if they desire to have a say in defense policy.  By showing a unified force, the aggression of neighboring countries can be much more easily countered as opposed to the weak piecemeal approach they have now.

Conclusion:  Europe cannot afford to rely on other nations anymore.  America could not protect Ukraine or the Eurasian country of Georgia, so how can they expect their own countries to be protected as well.  It is time that the European nations show they have the muscle to defend themselves.

Issue 690 Taxing goods October 1, 2015

Unlike services goods can be taxed.  The reason for this is as follows.

Taxing goods:  Goods are physical objects unlike services.  A services value can at times be hard to measure but is ultimately not refundable.  Once given, irrespective of its quality, it cannot be returned.  However, goods can be measured for quality and that value can change over time.  Basically it is easier to value than a service prior to it being purchased and thus makes it easier to decide a value that can be taxed.  You see, unlike services where the value of such can be arbitrarily decided, a good's value can be measured at all times such as a house, a car or a toy.  So there is less risk to the buyer.  However, this is not the primary reason why goods can be taxed even though it makes sure taxing it is actually fair to both parties involved (basically, less chances of being swindled).

The real reason why it can be taxed is due to the exchange of one person property for another's.  Yes, that small tiny state of limbo where you give your property to another person’s in exchange for theirs.    That tiny limbo state is when the people making the exchange both own and do not own the items. It is the reason it is taxable.  If there was no physical exchange of property (money counts as one's property), then it would never be able to be taxed.  As such, sales taxes are 100% legal and acceptable.  Sure, goods can be bought to aid in the expression of one's rights, but you are exchanging property.  Even the artist must be taxed for selling his art if it comes in physical form as a consumer goods such as in an art book or a sketch (an art project for a park, or for a company where they are commissioned would be an exception to this as that is considered a service).  Get it?  If you do not exchange property then you cannot be taxed, but as a good is property and money is property, you can be taxed if one is exchanged for the other.

Conclusion:  There are many ways to say it as I have done here, but goods can basically be taxed.  An exception could be your doing a service in exchange for that good, which would make that situation non-taxable under this premise.  However, say you exchanged a bottle of wine for a wedding cake?  Is that a taxable situation?  Yes it is for the items have value and there is an exchange of property occurring. Sure this example does not work in most of the United States but bartering still happens here in the United States like in Alaska, and in other parts of the world like Africa and Asia.  So money is not the only form of property that needs to be exchanged for taxation to take place.  It can occur when a good is exchanged for another good.  So I hope that helps to clarify why goods can be taxed. Feel free to read the previous issue on why services should not be taxed as well to get more clarification about taxation.  Hope you enjoyed reading.

Issue 689 Don't Tax Services September 30, 2015

Continuing from last issue on services, I wanted to expand on the subject.  In this case, I want to present my case on why services should not be taxed.  Let us begin.

Don't Tax it:  First and foremost, services can be either free, pay as you go or subscription based.  So money can change hands.  However, unlike with goods (like cars, toys, tools etc.) nothing physical is exchanged.  There is no exchange of property.  In other words, teachers providing an education to students as a service would not be taxed.  Same goes for intellectual property, such as online news, blogs and such.  These are all services where no physical property is exchanged, but is either someone's labor, which can count as a form of free expression, or information which is someone's freedom of speech.  So should a web designer be taxed because they were paid to design a web site despite it being a form of free expression and speech? (It counts because the website provides information and the design of the site itself can be considered art).  Should an online magazine be taxed for charging a nominal fee to access their content which is their freedom of speech and even part of their freedom of the press?  No property in the form of an item is returned from the money given, just intangibles like labor and information.  So why are such things taxed when they clearly blur the lines between the meaning of exchange of property?

Conclusion:  As long as nothing physical is returned in exchange for the money like a computer, or a toy, then it is probably a service.  When we provide our labor to a business we work at, we are also providing a service.  Can you imagine the sheer level of economic progress we can achieve by eliminating taxes on services all around?  People would be able to keep so much more of their income and have more options with respect to jobs in service based industries like computer programming and artists.  Health Care would be almost entirely untaxed, which means cheaper medicine.  Services that are internet based would be the top commodities with respect to global trade and business due to the freedom to be sold to the entire world.  Internet based services provide information, which is the freedoms of expression and may also, depending on the content, be considered a part of the press.  These online services even allow people to peaceably assemble via online chat rooms and even aid in freedom of religion.  Basically the internet based ones alone have at least one out of four of the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution (those freedoms being freedom of speech, worship, press, peaceful assembly and to petition the government).  That’s one freedom and potentially including the other three save government petitioning.  Labor based services also qualify as a form of speech for people choose where they work, how they work and can move (if they have the money) to find work (the ability to move and choose your occupation is free speech).  That work may be providing the news (freedom of the press) or involve a religious based industry or charity (freedom of religion).  Services based on labor can be community organizing which aids in freedom of religion, counts as peaceable assembly and can even be a form of petitioning the government.  Do you get it know a little?  By taxing these services, the government is not only diminishing our income for selling intangible materials, they are actually taxing our freedoms!  So let's stop the madness, and not tax services anymore.

Issue 688 Free Trade on Services September 29, 2015

Free Trade has become a dirty word with respect to manufacturing jobs.  Why? You ask.  Simple, manufacturing due to free trade gets concentrated into countries where it is cheapest to manufacture goods.  As such, factory jobs disappear in other countries increasing unemployment.  So despite the consumer getting a cheaper product, their nationalism and the idea of job losses taints the very idea of free trade.  But there is a component of free trade that reduces the pain job wise.  In this case it is free trade on services.  Allow me to explain.

Free trade on Services:  While manufacturing jobs are destroyed by free trade because every business wants their goods produced in the cheapest way possible so as to save costs while increasing sales.  Services do not destroy such jobs, for they can be provided literally to anyone anywhere.  First and foremost, I must explain what a service is.  An example would be insurance companies.  They provide financial support for people who cannot afford medicine out of pocket, or to repair damages to people's house. Essentially, they provide money for those situations that would otherwise bankrupt you.  Banks are another example, in which they provide a place to store your money safely.  These are services.  It is the providing of a non-tangible product to meet a public need.  Another example is a cell phone company, power companies and even legal services by law firms.  All these are services where you give money to these businesses and they provide to you some form of service.  But this is very broad for this even includes maids and potentially even prostitutes.  Thus, we are going to narrow it down to anything that does not require actual physical contact with another individual, and no need to ship anything.  As such, we are talking about computer programming, online tax help, and online legal help. These activities do not harm our manufacturing jobs for they are not built by hand in the traditional sense.  Also, they may need impute or aid to complete, create, or provide from multiple places around the world.  So, unlike traditional manufacturing jobs which are stuck in a single location or country, services traded online are global and thus flexible.  They need not have brick and mortar facilities as they can be provided from the seller from the comfort of their own home.  It is these services that free trade should embrace.  Can you imagine how much cheaper health insurance would be if we had the entire world's health insurance companies vying for your money.  Contract with any company for computer support.  Video Games can be made by anyone and sold to anyone with a simple download.  Architectural designs can be delivered via the internet, and then printed at the worksite.  No jobs lost here as everyone can provide the services at their cheapest no matter where they are.  However, the fact that we do not have free trade on such businesses results in stagnation of prices and innovation.  We need the competition of these internet traded businesses to enhance and improve quality of services while making them compete to provide them at the lowest cost. Which is exactly why competition needs to be maximized to where everyone can compete with everyone else.

Conclusion:  Basically we want online services to compete in the same way news has become everyone competing against one another.  You have a bunch of bloggers, radio hosts, people who do podcasts, and regular news people competing with each other.  Everyone becomes everyone else's competition.  Hence why free trade enhances and provides a bigger platform to get to that ideal.  A place where you can get help from a doctor in China via online video, or to bank with a company in a tax haven all without leaving your home.  Free trade makes this a reality, because all can compete without fear of losing a job to an overseas company because you cannot produce the same good for less like with manufacturing.  For you are not producing a good, but a service where the price can be adjusted and sold cheaper with a simple click of the mouse so as to keep your customers coming back.  Though you still have to make sure your services quality is good.

Issue 687 Government money and Subsidies September 28, 2015

The government likes to give out a lot of money.  They give it to businesses, organizations, other countries and even charities.  But, the tax payer money does not belong to them.  It belongs to us.  So don't you think it is time they stopped with the handouts?

Case against subsidies:  Subsidies, for those who do not know, are monies given by the government to any form of organization with little to now expectant returns.  For example, Planned Parenthood gets subsidies under the claim that they use that money for women's health.  However, that organization performs abortions which violates people's religious and moral beliefs.  As such, as a voter who does not agree with abortion, the money should not go to Planned Parenthood at all.  Likewise, money goes to oil companies in the form of subsidies, which people who believe in global warming and climate change do not believe in.  They as a voter have the right to say no, as it is the tax payer’s money.  It is their money too.  However, these subsidies are numerous.  The national endowment for the arts is one organization in the government that funnels money to artists and organizations in the form of subsidies to handpicked artists whom you as a voter may think sucks.  Money is given to charities, unions, businesses and organizations to get their favor and money for the following election.  The government and politicians also pick and choose who they deem are worthy to get these funds and some of these funds are placed into laws to get politicians to vote for things they may or may not believe in.  So what does this tell us?  That our money is being used as a tool to grant political favors.

Conclusion:  There really is no shortage of examples for you merely have to google how much money an oil company, import export businesses, union, Planned Parenthood and more have donated to politicians and how many subsidies have been given in return.  They are literally a click away.  Think about all that wasted money that was just tossed to these groups that may or may not benefit anyone but themselves.  Subsidies play into the corruption of government via lobbyists whom we all do not like in general.  As such, we need to ban subsidies via a constitutional amendment.  That Amendment must state that the government cannot give money to any organization, or group of individuals of any kind, under any circumstance with the sole exception of purchasing a good or a service for use by the government exclusively or as part of a treaty with a foreign country.   Basically unless they are buying something for the government to use like a computer program, or fuel for the militaries motor pool, the government can no longer give any money away ever again.  And with that, our problem would be solved.  No more moral violations or ethical violations with the people's money ever again.

Issue 686 Double Blind Debate September 25, 2015

After watching the first republican debate of this year, it got me thinking.  They are primarily winning just on personality, but that does not make a president.  So I propose an alteration to the debate format.  Here is the idea.

Blind debate:  So instead of seeing the candidates on stage, they are cast in shadow with their voices distorted so none of them can be told apart from each other.  Then a number will appear before each of them to differentiate each person with the number lighting up or altering color when they are speaking.  From there it works like a normal debate until the end.  At which time people can vote who won, or the pundits can decide which person was best.  Once the winner is decided, each candidate's number is reviled.  The results may surprise or change people's opinions.  I say this and propose this idea based on historical records and studies done on past Presidential elections.   The most poignant example is the Kennedy Nixon debate.  People who watched on television thought that Kennedy won, but people listening via radio thought Nixon won.  That reason had to do with image.  Nixon was sick on stage and was not wearing makeup, while Kennedy was youthful and vibrant looking.  Basically the more beautiful looking person won.  Further studies reveal that not only that, but in a majority of elections, the most youthful candidates typically won as well.  So by hiding their faces and voices it eliminates the age and beauty factor.  Additionally, it eliminates the race and sex/gender factor as well.  Basically, the debate can now be heard more objectively by the listening audience, and thus prevent as much bias as possible.  This even has the benefit of reducing the amount of on stage attacks on other candidates which should result in the issues being talked about more, rather than about each other.  Basically, I wanted a debate where we would get to make an objective decision without biases and this is what I came up with.

Conclusion: Debates are a ratings magnet for news agencies.  Hence why they are hosted by the major news networks like Fox and CNN.  But, our biases get in the way due to looks, age, race, sex/gender, party affiliation or even just favoritism.  This however does a disservice to the country and to ourselves by us allowing those biases to take hold.  Thus my double blind debate, where if all goes well, not even the candidates will know who is who on stage.