Tarrifs for values

Post #116,255 by kmself 9/1/03 7:35:01 PM Reply	Tarrifs for values This speaks to something I think Drew has tried to point out a few times. \r\n\r\n We're willing to impose tarrifs for various sorts of environmental causes. Say, to offset externalities such as pollution and the like. Why is it not permissible to hold that standards such as universal sufferage, human rights, labor unions, healthcare, or public education shouldn't be similarly universally recognized, and charge a tarrif on imports reflective of the status of these acheivements in the exporting country? It's a community-standards basis of imports. \r\n\r\n Of course, there's the question of what could or could not be appropriate for such charges. Would it be appropriate for Italy to charge a 10% tarrif in support of the Roman Catholic Church? Or middle-eastern states a tarrif supporting Islam? Could the US Bible Belt lobby for anti-vice tarrifs against Holland? Where do you draw the line? \r\n\r\n In balance, I think I'd be in favor of a mechanism which would balance costs for socially beneficial business costs born by domestic businesses. --\r\n Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link\|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/\|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
Post #116,284 by boxley 9/1/03 10:39:27 PM Reply	easier method. Tax profits If Nike produces a shoe for $1.00 US, thru an overseas subsiduary, with several "inhouse" trades before reaching US shores with a taxable value of $74 dollars they currently sell that item for $100 and pay income tax on a profit of $26.00 dollars. Tax the entire transaction, $99. A few accounting rule changes would eliminate transactions like that. Name brands could be sold at local cost to "any" buyer, and legitimate purchasers who sell Nike shoes for $21.00 could no longer be prosecuted using copyright laws. Would make the Original factories more productive selling legit Nikes to highest bidder. Nike would shift some production onshore again. thanx, bill America, Love it or give it back questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #116,289 by Another Scott 9/1/03 11:12:30 PM Reply	Interesting ideas. On Nike. Imagine the apparel industry adopting accounting tricks like the music or film industry... :-( On Nike, I've never understood how they can manufacture expensive shoes for a few dollars yet not have Microsoft-ish profit margins. Consider [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2071248.stm\|this] story from the BBC from June 2002: Net profits for the quarter rose 28% to $208m (\ufffd136m) from $162m a year earlier. The rise followed a 31% rise in profits during the previous quarter. The company also reported an 8% rise in sales to $2.68bn from $2.48bn a year earlier. That's an 8% net profit margin - hardly obscene. Nike's business model seems to require vast expenditures on advertising and sponsorship of teams and individual athletes. It seems as if they would go under if they had to pay first-world prevailing wages to their shoe workers. But perhaps they merely want it to appear that way... Taxing the net value of shoes would give Nike and others incentive to come up with more costs. I don't think it would end up encouraging them to pay their workers more. It's a tough problem. Cheers, Scott.
Post #116,296 by kmself 9/1/03 11:52:00 PM Reply	Nope. Provide incentives for benefits. If they can genuinely provide a good product at a profit while meeting other social goals, why penalize them? That's counter to capitalist incentive. \r\n\r\n However, if the equivalent of ten days paid vacation, eight paid national holidays, family leave, employer-paid health care, and an employee investment/retirement program, is $5000 per year for a $10,000 oversees employee, then charge, say, a penalty of double the cost as an incentive to the company to provide these services. \r\n\r\n Note that I'm not saying "charge the domestic US cost of services", but "charge the cost for provision of equivalent services in the manufacturing company. \r\n\r\n If I understand corporate benefits programs correctly, there are already similar structures in place in the US for executive benefits such as health care and stock options programs. If a certain target participation level among staff isn't met, there are penalties applied to the execs. This comes both from statutory/regulatory penalties, and as terms imposed by large investment funds such as CalPERS and TIAA-CREF (a teachers insurance and retirement benefit if I understand correctly. \r\n\r\n Some of this is partial understanding or conjecture. But it's how I understand, and would like to see, things work. --\r\n Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n [link\|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/\|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n \r\n Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html\|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n

Welcome to IWETHEY!