by Christian Britschgi, The reasonJuly 2, 2024.
Quote:
Phoenix’s amicus brief in Grants Pass the lawsuit was co-authored by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns—a taxpayer-funded lobbying group that has spent much of the past year fighting the Arizona Legislature’s efforts to loosen local codes.
Local governments like to blame Martin because of the increase in the homeless because it absolves them of any real responsibility for the problem. Homelessness is something that happened to them, and here comes the 9th Circuit preventing them from doing anything about it.
It is an amazing act of suspicion. In fact, local and state governments are largely to blame for the rising homeless population by making housing so difficult to build in the first place.
Nothing is more closely related to homelessness rates than high housing costs. And nothing drives up housing costs like government housing restrictions.
When getting city approval for a new apartment building takes two years, the state’s environmental law allows anyone to delay an approved project with lawsuits, and cheap types of housing are completely banned, is it any wonder that thousands of people end up on the streets?
by Romina Boccia, The reasonJuly 2, 2024.
Quote:
In fact, Social Security operates on a pay-as-you-go basis. This means that income taxes collected from current workers are used to pay benefits for those who have retired. Any surpluses are deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund, but these are not reserves; they are special Treasury bonds, which are basically IOUs from the federal government.
When Social Security runs a deficit—meaning it pays out more in benefits than it collects in taxes—it must repay these obligations to cover the shortfall. The federal government must come up with the money to honor these IOUs, either by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing more money. SoThe Trust Fund has no real, liquid assets but a promise that the government will pay for itself, which ultimately depends on the government’s health and fiscal policy. (emphasis in original)
DRH story:
In 2004, when Dan Klein was teaching at Santa Clara University, he asked me to come and give an evening lecture to the students. We discussed what might be a good topic to grab them and I suggested “Public Safety: A Nightmare in Your Future.” That’s what I talked about. My daughter, Karen, was a student there and even though she didn’t have to go, she showed up with a boy friend. It was a Tuesday evening and, as was the schedule when his mother and I taught there in the early 1980s (that’s where we met), there were no classes on Wednesdays. That’s related because my daughter told me she would stay for the first half hour and then leave because it was the night of the party. I told him that was fine and asked for permission to use the story of an interaction we had when he was 11 years old. He said yes.
Here is the story I mentioned to make it clear that the Trust Fund is not a trust fund. When Karen was 11, she asked me if I was saving for her college. I replied that I had just started last year. Being the daughter of an economist, she asked, “How much?” I replied that I was saving $10,000 a year for 8 years. That satisfied him. Then I said to the audience, “Imagine, instead of putting $10,000 a year into a money market fund, I had written, ‘IOU $10,000’ on a piece of paper and put it in a jar, and I did that for 8 years in a row. Who here believes that when I empty the jar in 8 years, I will have $80,000?”
However, the talk lasted 45 minutes and Q&A another 40 minutes. Finally, Karen brought her friend. They stayed the whole time. He said, happily, “I didn’t know those things.”
by Michael Munger, AIER, July 1, 2024.
Quote:
It would be possible to treat such value as “mark to market” rates, but also for properties with small markets—stocks in close or family companies – or with no annual market at all – for a mansion, or a large portion. of real estate for which there is no “comparable” – such estimates are likely to be inaccurate, and worth checking.
This is where the “ULTRAs” come in. Instead of taking two percent (say) of the finished value of the wealth, the state will simply take ownership of the wealth, instead. ULTRA is the “descendant of intellectual equality.” The government literally takes part of the value of the property; that amount will be paid to the government when the property is sold. Now, the stake is only “notional”, in the sense that no shared control or voting rights exist. But for those who represent ULTRA, in any situation where the tax agencies are authorized to charge property tax today, but will not because there is no inspection event, the taxpayer can be made to pay with ULTRA instead of paying in cash.
Also:
It is very difficult to know the value of goods, but ULTRA will save! As Delmotte puts it:
Without knowing its economic value, the government takes 2 percent of the equity in the First Year while in the Second Year the remaining 98 percent of the assets are subject to the 2 percent tax (96.04 percent left for Giselle); in Year Three, another 2 percent of the ULTRA tax leaves Giselle with 94.12 percent of the original property value. After twenty years of wealth tax, this leaves Giselle with 66.4 percent of the surplus, and the tax authorities now own 33.6 percent of the company’s value. Under the ULTRAs, there is no current income tax payment, but if Giselle sells her shares in Plenty after 20 years, 33.6 percent of any resulting sale price goes to the tax authorities.
The result is surprising, looking at the example. In the short term, the government takes major ownership of all successful independent businesses. Rather than being a hindrance, the lawyers are really excited about the government’s ownership of the “Metaverse,” and they are giving the Treasury Secretary an extremely broad and comprehensive understanding of the use of ULTRAs instead of paying money.
by Krit Chanwong, Cato at LibertyJuly 5, 2024.
Quote:
Forty-six states and DC require acupuncturists to be certified with the National Certification Commission for Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM). To obtain certification, aspiring acupuncturists must have a degree from one of 49 accredited acupuncture schools. Aspiring acupuncturists also need to pass at least two of the four exams administered by the NCCAOM. The number of tests required varies by state. Delaware, for example, mandates that its acupuncturists take all four NCCAOM exams. On the other hand, Pennsylvania only authorizes two tests.
California does not recognize any NCCAOM certification. Instead, the state has its own licensing laws. Aspiring acupuncturists in California need to graduate from one of the 29 universities accredited by California’s Acupuncture Board and take California’s acupuncture licensing exams. According to the People’s Organization of Community Acupuncture (POCA), California’s acupuncture certification exams “have been held up as the gold standard for acupuncture licensing exams.” The higher honors given to the California exam is due to the increased rigor and depth of the exam compared to the NCCAOMs.
Also:
Acupuncture licensing is just one small example of California’s licensing mania. For 20 years, California was ranked 49th out of 50 in Cato Freedom in a 50-state survey of freedom to operate licenses. A 2023 study by the Archbridge Institute found that California requires occupational licenses for 189 occupations, higher than the national average of 179. These licensing laws hurt all Californians: a 2018 Institute of Justice study suggests that California’s licensing regime costs 195,000 jobs a year—maybe one. the reason the Golden State has the highest unemployment rate in the state.
Source link