Aug. 22, 2020, under philosophy, software dev
In many years of consulting, I’ve seen a lot of projects developed with the philosophy of “Don’t worry about [comments][readable code][proper variable names][documentation][error handling][optimization][(your favorite corner to cut here)] because this is just a prototype – we’ll fix those things when we write the production code.” In 100% of those cases, when the prototype was reasonably close to working, it got shipped: The “prototype” became the production code, errors, shortcomings and all. Maintenance, updates and improvements became nightmares, often leading to complete failure of what could have been a great product. Trying to avoid those problems feeds into my OCD tendencies, and when I see a comment like “we’ll write another [CR] to fix it” I tend to balk because I know the rewrite will never happen. Furthermore, when a future developer is called on to fix a bug or develop a new feature, they’re going to be “strongly” discouraged from making any changes beyond their immediate effort, even if renaming variables would make the code more readable when they discovered “flag” is “page_type” or “std” means “start_date” instead of “standard” etc. Having an understandable, well documented interface from the beginning is a LOT more important than making all of the internal variables recognizable. “Cosmetic changes” often look a lot less trivial when you realize that the lifetime cost of code maintenance is generally ten times what it cost for a program to be written initially.
I recognize that I have to reign in my OCD to let development proceed. However, when a developer asks someone to review their code, they need to recognize the reviewer is looking at it from a different perspective than they are. If a reviewer doesn’t understand something, it could either be an error or a misunderstanding. When a misunderstanding is encountered, commenting on a change request doesn’t help the next person reading the code, and adding a comment to the code at this point isn’t a lot of effort. It will, though, make the code more maintainable – it reduces the maintenance cost. Also, if a native English speaker hands a foreign born developer a well written docstring that clarifies a point of confusion, it’s not just courteous to use it: You’re not going to break anything by putting the brakes on for a moment and push one more patch set.
Jan. 30, 2019, under bad business, disturbing, opinions, really???
I just started a new job, and the employee benefits program is administered through an outfit called Employee Navigator from Bethesda, Maryland. The first thing I noticed is their site is seriously broken if Javascript isn’t enabled, and they don’t bother to say anything about it. When creating an account in their system, they’ve got a ludicrious requirement that usernames must be at least 8 characters long – so I can’t use “wfredk” as I do everywhere else – and they don’t bother to announce the limitation until after you’ve submitted the form with your username and password selection (which resets your password entry). Oh, by the way, they don’t have a password confirmation field, either – they have a button to show what you’ve entered in the password field – which only works if Javascript is enabled.
Once you’ve logged in, the sheer incomptence of this bunch of amateurs starts to reveal itself: Instead of having pages formatted using HTML, the documents a new employee are supposed to sign have the HTML code embedded into them – and much of the HTML is actually defective. It looks to me as if someone pasted HTML into a text-only field of a CMS and didn’t bother to check if the result was correct. (I’ve included the actual contents of the pages in question below.) Since I’ve got extensive experience as a Web developer, I was able to sift through the HTML and figure out what I was supposed to be signing up for.
The first page, Electronic Signature and Consent, wasn’t too bad:
I agree that by using the e-signature feature on this website I am applying my electronic signature which is the legally binding equivalent to my handwritten signature. Whenever I execute an electronic signature, it has the same validity and meaning as my handwritten signature. [That seems fairly innocuous and standard.] I also agree that no certification authority or other third party verification is necessary to validate my e-signature. This is starting to look pretty sketchy: Without a certification authority, where is the proof that I applied “my” signature to a document?
I understand that:
1. The following documents and/or notices may be provided to me electronically:
- Summary Plan Descriptions;
- Summaries of Material Modifications;
- Summary Annual Reports and/or;
- Summary of Benefit and Coverages;
- All health and welfare benefits Notices and any Notice a similarly situated employee would consider to be related to employee benefits.
For the purpose of this agreement, a Notice is any document, disclosure, policy, procedure, form or other written material required to comply with federal, state, or a governmental safety or regulatory body and any disclosure provided by my company to comply with any of the aforementioned requirements or to communicate company or employment specific information to me.
2. I may revoke my consent to receive notices electronically at any time without charge by sending an email or written request to Human Resources or the BKS Employee Care Center (mybenefits@bks-partners.com). how do I contact “Human Resources”?
3. I am entitled to request and obtain a paper copy of any electronically furnished document free of charge by sending an email or written request to Human Resources or the BKS Employee Care Center (mybenefits@bks-partners.com). how do I contact “Human Resources”?
4. In order to access information provided electronically, I must have:
- A computer with internet access;
- An email account that allows me to send and receive emails; and
- Microsoft Word and/or Adobe Acrobat Reader Program. not just any program that can read PDF documents? really?
I authorize my employer to send notices electronically and agree to accept the delivery of notices via email as well as the requirements to view notices on this portal. Contact Human Resources or the BKS Employee Care Center with any questions.
In spite of my reservations, I “signed” the Electronic Signature and Consent page, and continued on to the Premium Only Plan page – which, again, was obfuscated with inline HTML code. Here is where I was really horrified, and decided I couldn’t continue the process:
Under the Section 125 Plan, my benefit deductions for Medical, Dental, Vision, and/or H.S.A. contributions during the plan year will be taken on a pre-tax basis. I elect to receive the following coverage under the Cafeteria Plan:
- In lieu of specific dollar amounts, I hereby elect the specified insurance coverage’s and authorize salary redirection in the amounts of current premiums being charged. i.e., I have no idea how much money I’m agreeing to let you take out of my paycheck.
- If my required contributions to pay premiums for the elected benefits are increased or decreased while this agreement remains in effect, my compensation redirection will automatically be adjusted to reflect the increase or decrease. i.e., I’m giving you permission to change the amount of money you take out of my pacheck whenever you want to, without my consent.
- I cannot change or revoke any of my elections or this compensation redirection agreement at any time during the plan year [emphasis mine] unless I have a “change in status” and the election change is consistent with the “change in status”, (including marriage, divorce, death of a spouse or child, birth or adoption of a child, termination or commencement of employment of a spouse, change in my or my spouse’s employment status from full-time to part-time or from part-time to full-time, my spouse or I taking an unpaid leave of absence, a substantial change in my family’s health coverage due to a change in my spouse’s employer-sponsored health coverage, obtaining coverage on the Marketplace, reduction in hours where I voluntarily elect to seek coverage on the Marketplace, or such other events as the Plan Administrator determines will permit a change or revocation of an election). i.e., I’m locked in to this commitment for a year unless there’s a major upset in my life or you decide to let me do something different.
- The Plan Administrator may redirect or cancel my compensation redirection or otherwise modify this agreement in the event he/she believes it advisable in order to satisfy certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. i.e., I’m giving you permission to change this agreement, at whim and without my consent, as long as you are working in collusion with the IRS.
- The redirection in my cash compensation under this agreement shall be in addition to any reductions under other agreements or benefit programs maintained by my Employer.
- Any amounts not used during a Plan Year to provide benefits will be forfeited and may not be paid to me in cash or used to provide benefits specifically for me in a later Plan Year. i.e., if you take more from my paycheck than you use to pay for my insurance coverage, that’s “too bad” for me, you get to keep the money for your own benefit.
- Prior to the first day of each Plan Year, I will be offered the opportunity to change my benefit elections for the following Plan Year. If I do not make a new election at that time, I will be treated as having not elected to continue my benefit elections for the new Plan Year.
- If disability insurance is paid for on a pre-tax basis, any benefits I receive may be taxable. “may” be taxable?
- Upon retirement, my Social Security benefits may be slightly reduced. i.e., “may” really means “will” because by taking the money from my paycheck before taxes, you are reducing my “taxable income” (which is what Social Security benefits are based on).
At the bottom of the page, I found this paragraph prompting me to “sign” the document.
Please click the “Sign Document” button to confirm that you have reviewed and completed this task.
The problem here is that this does NOT say that it’s NOT an agreement to the terms and conditions described on the page. Because that clause is missing, a “signature” here (again, without any real proof of who signed the page because of the previous document) could be interpreted as acceptance of the terms and conditions as described. That would be rather like signing a blank check and passing it to someone you really don’t know. To me, it looks like they’re asking for a license to commit fraud. There is no way I would voluntarily and consciously do such a thing.
Furthermore, because of second thoughts, and of observation of other business practices of this company, I am revoking the authority and consent I hesitantly made on the first page, by sending an email notification to mybenefits@bks-partners.com and several people at the agency I’m working through, with CC’s to a couple of my own email addresses as supporting documentation.
Take another look at the problems I marked in red on the Premium Only Plan page. It’s precisely this sort of behaviour that got the credit industry slapped on the wrist with a sledge hammer. If the “employee benefits” companies don’t clean up their act pretty quickly, perhaps it’s time for a Congressional inspection of their practices as well…
As promised, here are the “as presented” contents of the pages mentioned in this post:
Electronic Signature and Consent
I agree that by using the e-signature feature on this website I am applying my electronic signature which is the legally binding equivalent to my handwritten signature. Whenever I execute an electronic signature, it has the same validity and meaning as my handwritten signature. I also agree that no certification authority or other third party verification is necessary to validate my e-signature.< span><br> I understand that: </span>< span><br> 1. The following documents and/or notices may be provided to me electronically:</span>< ul> <li>Summary Plan Descriptions;</li> <li>Summaries of Material Modifications;</li> <li>Summary Annual Reports and/or;</li> <li>Summary of Benefit and Coverages;</li> <li>All health and welfare benefits Notices and any Notice a similarly situated employee would consider to be related to employee benefits.</li>< /ul> For the purpose of this agreement, a Notice is any document, disclosure, policy, procedure, form or other written material required to comply with federal, state, or a governmental safety or regulatory body and any disclosure provided by my company to comply with any of the aforementioned requirements or to communicate company or employment specific information to me.< span> <br> 2. I may revoke my consent to receive notices electronically at any time without charge by sending an email or written request to Human Resources or the BKS Employee Care Center (mybenefits@bks-partners.com). <br>< br> 3. I am entitled to request and obtain a paper copy of any electronically furnished document free of charge by sending an email or written request to Human Resources or the BKS Employee Care Center (mybenefits@bks-partners.com).<br>< br> 4. In order to access information provided electronically, I must have:</span>< ul> <li>A computer with internet access;</li> <li>An email account that allows me to send and receive emails; and</li> <li>Microsoft Word and/or Adobe Acrobat Reader Program. </li>< /ul> I authorize my employer to send notices electronically and agree to accept the delivery of notices via email as well as the requirements to view notices on this portal. < span>Contact Human Resources or the BKS Employee Care Center with any questions.</span>
Premium Only Plan
Under the Section 125 Plan, my benefit deductions for Medical, Dental, Vision, and/or H.S.A. contributions during the plan year will be taken on a pre-tax basis. I elect to receive the following coverage under the Cafeteria Plan:< ul> <li>In lieu of specific dollar amounts, I hereby elect the specified insurance coverage’s and authorize salary redirection in the amounts of current premiums being charged. </li> <li>If my required contributions to pay premiums for the elected benefits are increased or decreased while this agreement remains in effect, my compensation redirection will automatically be adjusted to reflect the increase or decrease. </li> <li>I cannot change or revoke any of my elections or this compensation redirection agreement at any time during the plan year unless I have a “change in status” and the election change is consistent with the “change in status”, (including marriage, divorce, death of a spouse or child, birth or adoption of a child, termination or commencement of employment of a spouse, change in my or my spouse’s employment status from full-time to part-time or from part-time to full-time, my spouse or I taking an unpaid leave of absence, a substantial change in my family’s health coverage due to a change in my spouse’s employer-sponsored health coverage, obtaining coverage on the Marketplace, reduction in hours where I voluntarily elect to seek coverage on the Marketplace, or such other events as the Plan Administrator determines will permit a change or revocation of an election). </li> <li>The Plan Administrator may redirect or cancel my compensation redirection or otherwise modify this agreement in the event he/she believes it advisable in order to satisfy certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. </li> <li>The redirection in my cash compensation under this agreement shall be in addition to any reductions under other agreements or benefit programs maintained by my Employer. </li> <li>Any amounts not used during a Plan Year to provide benefits will be forfeited and may not be paid to me in cash or used to provide benefits specifically for me in a later Plan Year. </li> <li>Prior to the first day of each Plan Year, I will be offered the opportunity to change my benefit elections for the following Plan Year. If I do not make a new election at that time, I will be treated as having not elected to continue my benefit elections for the new Plan Year. </li> <li>If disability insurance is paid for on a pre-tax basis, any benefits I receive may be taxable. </li> <li>Upon retirement, my Social Security benefits may be slightly reduced. </li>< /ul>< span>I will complete an Election NOT to Participate form that is under the Human Resources – Benefits section under the Documents tab and send it to Human Resources if I decline to have my Medical, Dental, Vision and/or H.S.A. plan taken out on a pre-tax basis. This agreement is subject to the terms of the Employer’s Premium Only Plan, as amended from time to time in effect, shall be governed by and construed in accordance with applicable laws, shall take effect as a sealed instrument under applicable laws, and revokes any prior election and compensation redirection agreement relating to such Plan.</span>
Please click the “Sign Document” button to confirm that you have reviewed and completed this task.
Jan. 04, 2019, under hilarious, really???
Gee, I wonder if I should “revert back to” Hildegard to get my good news from Facebook: Clearly “she” works at Facebook, they all have email addresses at consultant.com and send messages from noreply@accounts.com, right? That Hacker Way address in Menlo Park also tells me it’s a legitimate message, and the fact I’ve had to send bitcoins to all those guys with dirty secrets really makes me confident aztekcomputers.com@wfredk.com is a good email address, surely I’ve got to “revert back” to “her”!
My only question is how do I revert back to somebody who wasn’t me in the first place???
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: New Facebook Message for aztekcomputers.com@wfredk.com
Date: 03 Jan 2019 15:41:35 -0800
From: Customer service<noreply@accounts.com>
To: aztekcomputers.com@wfredk.com
Hello
Good day My name is Hildegard Evans from the Facebook
headquarters based in the USA, I am a Facebook Online
Coordinator.
Am contacting you because I have good news for you from Facebook
Kindly revert back to this to claim Your good news from facebook
:Hildegard.evans@consultant.com
Thanks
Facebook Cordinator
Hildegard C. Evans
Hacker Way, Menlo Park, 94025
(612) 440-8719
Email: Hildegard.evans@consultant.com
Dec. 23, 2018, under music
I’ve added several playlists to the Fun & Games section of this site. The Playlists page now includes these playlists:
- December 22, 2018 – 86 songs – 6:15:09
- September 15, 2018 – 29 songs – 2:00:29
Van Halen, Prince & ZZ Top
- August 31, 2018 – 6 songs – 0:36:50
Technorobic Workout Mix
- April 24, 2018 – 29 songs – 2:35:10
An Evening of Rush
- October 10, 2017 – 131 songs – 9:58:09
- June 18, 2017 – 108 songs – 9:07:58
- January 24, 2017 – 47 songs – 7:36:36
- November 8, 2015 – 47 songs – 4:47:26
- November 17, 2007 – 100 songs – 7:31:50
Sinners Unite : Machine After Party
I have lots of other playlists from the past to add, and occasionally build new ones, so the list is going to grow…
Dec. 14, 2018, under cool tech, product reviews
When building a project around an Arduino, Raspberry Pi, Beaglebone, etc. board, or anything on a solderless breadboard, you frequently find a need to connect pins together. With a solderless breadboard, you can just strip the ends from a piece of wire and go from point A to point B by inserting the ends of the wire. That doesn’t work so well for the male pins on the processor boards. You also have to be careful to not strip too much or too little from the end of the wire, or you might have shorts or poor connections. If you want to keep a group of wires together, you’ve got to twist them into a bundle, or wrap ties around them.
There’s an easier way: REXQualis 120pcs Breadboard Jumper Wires. These are made from 40 conductor ribbon cable, with 40 individual pins crimped on each end. The package incudes three 20cm (8″) pieces of ribbon cable. One has male pins on both ends, one has female pins on each end, and one has male pins on one end and female pins on the other. That covers pretty much all of the connection types you’re going to encounter. If you want individual jumper wires, just peel them from the ribbon cable, it easily separates between the conductors. For a group of wires, peel off the number you need, and they’ll neatly stay together.
If you ask me, this is pretty cool tech!
 
Nov. 05, 2018, under 3D, bad business, call to action, disturbing, opinions
These “products” are simply rebranded copies of Blender – a free and open source 3D creation suite that you can download and use for free. 3DMagix, 3DMagixPro and IllusionMage are scams because they are selling you software that don’t have to pay for. They advertise heavily via email, and get away with their scam only because people don’t know any better.
If you want to do 3D animation, do yourself a favor – go to Blender.org and download the software for free and help put the scammers out of business.
For more information, see the page about the 3DMagix, 3DMagixPro and IllusionMage scam on the Blender Web site.
To support my work, please buy a pre-publication copy of Race To Space. For more info about the project, see the Race To Space site, subscribe there to be kept abreast of its progress.
We are going to run out of oil. Before that happens, we MUST have a replacement source of energy and feed stock for our civilization that has become so dependent on plastic. The time to act is NOW!! Please visit SpacePowerNow.org to help build a solution.
Sep. 24, 2018, under software dev, Web dev
I’ve published my first contribution to the FOSS community on github: HumanMathTest implements a math test ‘bot deterrent PHP class for use in online forms.
This class is used to create an image to be included in an online form that shows a simple math test the visitor must solve when submitting the form. The operands and operation are stored in the $_SESSION data for the page. After submitting the form, the visitor’s answer is checked by calling the verify() method to compare their entry vs. the session data. If an error is found, the form submission should be rejected.
The demo page illustrates many of the options available, and includes a link to download the fully commented source code, including that of the demo and example pages.
To support my work, please buy a pre-publication copy of Race To Space. For more info about the project, see the Race To Space site, subscribe there to be kept abreast of its progress.
We are going to run out of oil. Before that happens, we MUST have a replacement source of energy and feed stock for our civilization that has become so dependent on plastic. The time to act is NOW!! Please visit SpacePowerNow.org to help build a solution.
Jul. 03, 2018, under bad business, bootstrap finance, disturbing, really???
 Purple turtle figurine I recently sold a small item on eBay: I bought a 10-piece lot of small turtle figurines a few years ago for $40, so the cost for each item is $4.00. I had them listed for $4.95 each, plus shipping, so my gross margin on each sale would be $0.95 – not a lot, but at least it looked like a profit.
At that price, I couldn’t offer free shipping. I listed the shipping and handling as $1.00 for handling (to cover the cost of a box, packing material, tape, etc.) plus the actual cost of shipping via the customer’s selected method.
The customer paid $16.36 to buy this $4.95 item – eBay added $11.41 for shipping and handling to the bill, which astounded me. As it turns out, though, that wasn’t out of line, considering the actual cost of sending the package from Wellsville to Tulsa, Oklahoma via FedEx Home Delivery was $10.39 (after eBay’s bulk discount): The assessed shipping and handling charges left me with $1.02 to cover the cost of materials.
Adding the gross margin from the sale, plus the handling fee, it would appear I gained $1.97 from the transaction. The problem, though, is that there are fees involved: eBay charges a 10% “final value” fee for sales at this level, so I had to pay them a commission of $0.50 to make the sale. Fair enough, but now my gross margin is $0.45. Then, PayPal charges 2.9% plus $0.30 per transaction to process the payment – so PayPal collected $0.77. Now my gross margin has disappeared, and I’ve already lost $0.32 on the deal – and that’s assuming my time has zero value, and there were no costs in packing the figurine to send it. Using those assumptions, I’ve still had a net income of $0.70 because of the handling charges that the customer paid.
However, today the last nail in the coffin arrived: eBay’s invoice for the month of June shows they have assessed a $1.14 “final value” fee on the SHIPPING CHARGES! Ignoring everything else, that means they charged $0.12 more for their profit on my mailing the package to the customer than I received as a handling charge.
Together with the gross loss from the transaction, the loss from the shipping charges means I had a net LOSS on the $4.95 sale of $0.44. No business can survive with a 10% loss on every deal. That plan is fundamentally flawed, and is the reason I will no longer be trying to sell things on eBay.
I tried sending them an email about the situation, but I expect it will bounce…
May. 08, 2018, under call to action, opinions, philosophy, tax evils
Everything.
How does this happen? A buyer and seller come to agreement on the cost of something. The buyer gets out his money to pay for it, and the seller says “Wait, I have to add the sales tax.”
How much is the sales tax? Depending on where the transaction is taking place, the state, county, town, city, and who knows what other government, wants “their” percentage added on. What percentage? Well, that depends on where you are – and how many of those governments are reaching into your wallet to take your money, and how much each of them thinks it can get away with. For example, in New York City, the rate is 8.875% – 4% going to New York state, 4.5% to the city, and 0.375% for the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District – and that’s not the highest rate in the country: According to the Tax Foundation, that ignoble title falls on Birmingham and Montgomery, Alabama, each with a 10% tax rate.
We now return to our regularly scheduled transaction, already in progress. The seller announces a new price, not the one that had previously been agreed on, but a higher one that the buyer has to cover. The hapless buyer pays the new price, feeling shafted, and the seller, if he has any morals at all, feels guilty about taking more than they’d agreed on in the first place.
Admittedly, the seller doesn’t get to keep any of the additional money he collected as sales tax, he just has to hold onto it, keep track of it, and at the end of the month, or quarter, or whatever the local rules say, promptly send it off to the government(s) in whose name he collected the tax.
Do you see something else wrong with this picture? How much does the seller get paid for collecting, keeping track of, and sending the sales tax to the government(s)?
Zero.
That’s right, the seller is an unpaid tax collector, extorting (tax) money from the buying public without receiving anything in return. Why, then, would anyone commit such a crime? Because if they don’t, the government(s) will confiscate their business, impose fines, or send the merchant to jail: The seller, under duress, is paying protection money to the government(s) to keep them off his back.
Now we have states arguing that because a buyer is in their state, that gives them jurisdiction over an Internet seller who is not in their state: They are trying to forcibly deputize every merchant in the country as their tax collectors – without pay. Instead of being a non-consensual unpaid worker (i.e., slave) for one, two or three jurisdictions as they are now, they want to have every business in the country collecting, counting and sending money to any jurisdiction a buyer happens to come from. That would be like saying if someone from Omaha got off a cruise ship and walked into a shop in Key West to buy something, the Florida merchant would have to collect and manage Nebraska sales tax. In addition to being a bookkeeping nightmare for American merchants, it will turn buyers to overseas sellers who don’t have these ludicrious rules to follow. This has to be stopped, or it’s going to destroy the American economy.
As of today, May 8, 2018, eBay has a petition they are circulating to gather voices against states being able to impose taxes on Internet merchants who are not physically located within their jurisdiction. Please go to https://t.co/JMhYbuZvlV to add your signature, it will only take a minute. The money you save will be your own!
How did this all get started?
Some time in the early 1930’s, during the USA’s Great Depression, many state governments were in danger of going bankrupt. In order to avoid such a failure, they would either have to cut expenses to stay within a balanced budget as a business would (heaven forbid!), or raise taxes. Raising existing taxes could only be done on a limited basis before a tax revolt took place, what they were looking for was something with a broad base, so lots of people could be taxed “just a little bit” but they’d make up for it in volume. A direct tax on labor didn’t seem like a good idea because it was feared it would endanger productivity. Instead, some genius in West Virginia or Kentucky came up with the idea of a tax on the sale of goods where every merchant in the state was deputized as a tax collector, whether they wanted to be or not. For the states, it was a win-win situation: They got lots of money so they didn’t have to worry about nuisances like balancing a budget, and they didn’t have to pay anybody to collect it. Once the pioneering states pulled it off, and got away with it, the idea spread like wildfire until nearly every state in the union has a sales tax. And if the state can get away with it, why not the county, or the city, or some other synthetic jurisdiction? After all, once the merchants had been convinced they had to collect the sales tax for the state, how could they object to collecting taxes for more localized governments?
It all stems from the “divine right of kings” (assumed by any government in power) to impose whatever laws and taxes on their subjects that they feel are appropriate. The fact it was elected officials who enacted sales tax laws does not make it a voluntary choice of the populace: It was the government adding a new cost onto the public without their consent: Did anyone vote for a legislator whose platform included adding a new type of tax on their life? No, it is, in fact, taxation without representation – it was an act undertaken by the government, for the government’s sole benefit, without asking for agreement from the governed.
Taxes, per se, are a crime against the populace, committed by the government imposing them: Without a prior agreement, stating what was being purchased, for how much, and under what terms, the government presents a demand for money to the subject being taxed. That person may decline to pay the demand on the grounds that they never agreed to it in the first place. However, the government will impose whatever sanctions it feels are necessary to collect the money until, under duress, the subject pays. This is a classic case of one entity initiating the use of force to cause another to do something against their will, or otherwise deprive them of their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That is the fundamental definition of the commission of a crime. I cannot imagine a rational argument wherein the mere fact that the action is undertaken by a government makes it not a crime: It may be lawful – conveniently, since the government wrote the law – but it is still a crime.
But, you say, the government has to have money to pay for essential services!
If the services are essential, people will pay for them when they use them if they are not already being subsidized, and therefore expected to be “free.” (Maybe railroads would still be viable if “free” roads weren’t sucking all of the traffic off them.) There are plenty of (business) models that can be used as templates for how to do this, even within the governmental system itself: Every toll road in the country adds more to the government coffers than it takes out. Water and sewer services are metered and paid for proportional to use. Similarly, if people bought police and fire department insurance, the cost of calamities could be spread across the populace without the imposition of taxes. Even national defense could be handled the same way: The government could offer broad-based “defense insurance” with a mix of services, or people could selectively buy “army insurance” or “navy insurance” or “air force insurance” depending on who they think is going to provide the best defense for the country. (I suspect the real “danger” with such a plan – from a government perspective – is that with such an option, people might not buy military insurance at all, and then we’d have to all just get along instead of parading our weapons systems all over the globe.)
Governments should be providing their services within a balanced budget just as any other corporate entity is required to. If a government wants to provide an unprofitable service, such as underwriting the cost of housing for disadvantaged families, it should be providing that service from the profits it makes on the other services it provides. Using taxes to arbitrarily pay for programs leads to spending without contemplation of the cost or consequences: It’s really easy to spend money when it’s not yours and you have a blank check in hand.
So, what’s wrong with sales tax? Everything.
If you’d like to support my work, please buy a pre-publication copy of the Race To Space book.
We are going to run out of oil. Before that happens, we MUST have a replacement source of energy and feed stock for our civilization that has become so dependent on plastic. The time to act is NOW!! Please visit SpacePowerNow.org to help build a solution.
Dec. 26, 2017, under bootstrap finance, call to action, goals, progress reports
I’ve finally gotten the initial version of the new site for the Race to Space project up and running. There’s a teaser on the Home page, an opportunity to pre-order copies of the book at discounted prices, and the “Corporate” section has a copy of the investor goodies I first published on the L5 Development Group Web site.
Check out the new site, and if you’re sufficiently intrigued, pre-order a copy of the book.
|
|
