Monday Open Thread

18 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

1. Today's political trivia question:

   There is only 1 statue in Arlington National Cemetary honoring someone who was not an American citizen. Who was he? And why did he receive this honor?

   Log in to Reply

   1. Pierre L'Infante? – designer of the city of Washington

      Log in to Reply

      1. Can't be. Arlington was created during the Civil War. It was the plantation of Robert E. Lee and the Union took it as the spoils of war.

         Log in to Reply

         1. And was actually sold by Lee's son to the United States.

            It was a classy thing to do. Had the Supreme Court ruling returning the plantation to Lee's family been honored, thousands of graves of gallant men would have been desecrated by exhumation.

            I rarely hold any southerner in esteem, espescially today's unrepentant conservative white southerner, as the Civil War was the ultimate act of southern treason against this Republic, but those who fought for the Confederacy warrant respect.

            Log in to Reply

         2. Statutes come later–there could be a statue of L'Enfant at Arlington, of course.  But I take it that is the incorrect answer…

            Log in to Reply

            1. Or statues rather. 

               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Charles_L%27Enfant

               Pre-Civil War…

               Log in to Reply

   2. GREAT question.

      Had to look it up.

      My guess was going to be Capt. Myles Keogh, 7th Cavalry, United States Army. Died 25Jun1876 at the Little Big Horn.

      Nope.

      Log in to Reply

   3. huh

      That guy who blew up in the space shuttle?

      Log in to Reply

2. From CNET: Ok, so the original idea was…

   Eight years ago, Sens. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., introduced legislation that would have allowed Internet sales taxes to be collected — but only after states simplified and standardized their tax systems through a process created in 2000. Enzi said at the time that it was necessary to require "dramatic simplification in almost every aspect of sales and use tax collection and administration" including "a reduced number of sales tax rates" and "reduced audit burdens for sellers."

   But apparently that was too difficult for some states (like ours). So now they're looking at forcing it through as is. There will be one small simpligication (which will probably be beyond the ability of Colorado's DOR & OIT):

   S.743's limited simplification requirements require a single tax collector per state, a single audit agency per state, and "software free of charge for remote sellers that calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction at the time the transaction is completed."

   So easy-peasy right? No. Because what is taxable and tax rates are still set be each individual local district. Including…

   In New Jersey, for instance, bottled water and cookies are exempt from sales tax, but bottled soda and candy are taxable. In Rhode Island, buying a mink handbag is taxed, but a mink fur coat is not.

   What's pathetic about this is the states were told 8 years ago they could have sales tax if they would simplify things so that someone running an online business out of their house would face the same level of overhead and hassle as someone opening a store in a single physical location.

   And they couldn't do it.

   So private companies pay the price for government ineptitude. And then people in government wonder why business owners oftentimes view as a hinderance, not a help.

   Here's hoping between anti-tax Republicans and Congresspeople looking out for small online businesses, they kill this in the House and tell the states once again – you want the money, then simplify your systems.

   ps – This is not that onerous for my company because our sale price is high (and our customers are not price sensitive). But it will be a killer for those that sell low priced items.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Here's what I think Congress should require of the states. 

      1. Everything is handled through a single agency (federal or an association of the states). 
      2. There is only that one agency performing audits instead of a business potentially facing 46 seperate audits.
      3. That one agency must answer questions asking what a given product should be classified as. (None of the Colorado DOR approach where they tell you to guess, and then they'll sue you if they disagree.)
      4. Real-time system that provides the tax rate based on address and product type ID (I think this is in the present bill – not sure about it handling product types though – and that is key).

      It's fine if the tax on a sale is based on a combination of address and product types. That can all be automated. But to not kill lots of small businesses, it needs to be one entity that handles this, for audits and for answers on how to classify products.

       

      Log in to Reply

      1. In Colorado, this is a Constitutional issue. We the voters would have to limit the power of home rule cities in order to implement this. Any thoughts as to how that would go?

         Log in to Reply

         1. If it was amend or no internet sales tax revenue, I'm guessing they'll give up that home rule right in a heartbeat.

            On the flip side, if the cities decide to pretend we're still in the 1800's and forgo the revenue, that is a valid choice.

            Log in to Reply

   2. Colorado is a mess.

      Postal and physical addresses have only a vague correlation in many cases.

      TABOR will prevent "simpligication"

      Log in to Reply

3. Really interesting article on health insurance – What Health Insurance Doesn’t Do

   First, if the benefit of health insurance is mostly or exclusively financial, then shouldn’t health insurance policies work more like normal insurance? Fire, flood and car insurance exist to protect people against actual disasters, after all, not to pay for ordinary repairs. If the best evidence suggests that health insurance is most helpful in protecting people’s pocketbooks from similar disasters, and that more comprehensive coverage often just pays for doctor visits that don’t improve people’s actual health, then shouldn’t we be promotingcatastrophic health coverage, rather than expanding Medicaid?

   Log in to Reply

   1. Spoken like someone who has no idea how expensive a trip  to the doctor for anything is for people of modest means who have to pay out of pocket. How about sane national health like other countries have, countries whose average citizens are healthier than we are by plenty of objective measures?

      The kind of people who would qualify to be covered by expanded medicaid don't have anywhere near enough income to cover even those ordinary health repairs, especially if they have a kid or two.  Doctors pretty much don't say "hello" for less a than a couple hundred bucks.

      Lots of self insured people are already paying more than they can afford for not much more than catastrophic coverage, even though it's not classified as just catastrophic coverage, since their copays and deductibles are so high and it sucks.  It's a huge improvement when you get old enough for medicare as my self employed husband just did.  Now that would make a very good model for universal coverage.

      And health insurance isn't like car or home insurance. You don't have to buy a car or a house if you can't afford to. You can take the bus and rent. You can't, however, opt out of needing healthcare you can't afford by giving up living in a body. Health care coverage isn't just another free market option you can do without if you can't afford it. It's insane to treat it the same way.

      The  important comparison isn't between catstrophic coverage and crappy coverage in our crappy health care system.  It's between our system and every other modern industrialized country's and we don't compare well even though ours costs twice as much.

      Log in to Reply

      1. well said, BC.  Just right….

         Log in to Reply

      2. Reasonable. Facty. Spot on.

         This is no way to post to this blog thing.

         Log in to Reply

4. "If the best evidence suggests…"  Well, if preventative care diagnoses Diabetes and prevents heart attacks, leg amputations, and other severe savings-threatening conditions, then it's kind of hard to measure just what has been prevented, isn't it?

   We know, for example, that paying for contraception is cheaper than the costs of an unwanted pregnancy. But would Douhat's "best evidence" support that fact, or would he simply say that paying for contraception just results in more doctor's visits or prescriptions?

   I get lower fire insurance rates if I install certain features in my house. How is this different in reality than getting a discount (i.e. free, or heavily subsidized visit) for doing a preventative doctor's visit?

   Log in to Reply