Tag: los angeles times

California Wants Amazon to Tax Californians

The Los Angeles Times has a good article on California’s move to require Amazon and other out-of-state retailers to collect taxes for it. Good because it accurately portrays what’s happening. Many such stories will say that California is seeking to tax Amazon. In fact, says the headline, “California Tells Online Retailers to Start Collecting Sales Taxes From Customers.”

You see, Californians generally don’t pay their “use taxes“—the alternative to sales taxes, for things brought into the state from outside. If the tax authorities tried to collect use taxes, going door to door to tally up the goods that haven’t yet been taxed, there would be bedlam.

So they want out-of-state companies that sell into California to collect the taxes that the state’s residents would pay. But in 1992, the Supreme Court found in a decision called Quill v. North Dakota that states can’t require out-of-state retailers to collect taxes for them. Doing so would create too great a burden on interstate commerce.

If an Internet retailer has a significant presence in a state, then the state can require the retailer to collect and remit sales taxes. (It’s no longer interstate commerce—get it?) So Amazon and other retailers are doing the sensible thing: shedding ties to California, such as with their affiliate marketers. Reports the Times:

Amazon and online retailer Overstock.com Inc. told thousands of California Internet marketing affiliates that they will stop paying commissions for referrals of so-called click-through customers. … Both Amazon in Seattle and Overstock in Salt Lake City have told affiliates that they would have to move to another state if they wanted to continue earning commissions for referring customers.

The natural result of California doing yet more to make the state uninhabitable for business comes at the end of the story. Californians who earned and spent money in California as part of the Internet remote sales ecosystem plan to move elsewhere:

One affiliate, Ken Rockwell of San Diego, the owner of a 12-year-old photography website, said he planned to move out of state. “Will it be Las Vegas or Scottsdale or Ensenada?” he said. “It’s a question of where, not if.”

In the Quill case, the Supreme Court invited Congress to change the rule that it laid down. If it saw fit, Congress could permit states to export their tax responsibilities to businesses in every other state. But this would cut off the healthy tax competition you see happening in the area of remote sales; both taxes and tax collection burdens would rise.

Profligate and tax hungry states like California are desperate to overturn Quill in the courts or through the Congress. Here’s hoping they fail.

They Were for the War before They Were Against It

Doyle McManus at the Los Angeles Times highlights the zigging and zagging of some leading Republican presidential contenders when it comes to war with Libya.

Particularly noteworthy is Newt Gingrich. “Two weeks ago,” McManus writes: 

the former House speaker and possible presidential candidate denounced Obama for not intervening forcefully against Kadafi.

“This is a moment to get rid of [Kadafi],” he urged. “Do it. Get it over with.”

Then Obama intervened in Libya. Was Gingrich pleased?

“It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity,” Gingrich said Sunday. “Iran and North Korea are vastly bigger threats…. There are a lot of bad dictators doing bad things.”

That sounded like a flip-flop, so I asked Gingrich what he meant. He responded with an e-mail: “The only rational purpose for an intervention is to replace Kadafi. That is what the president called for on March 3, and after that statement anything less is a defeat for the United States.”

Actually, Gingrich was wrong both before and after Obama (inexplicably) chose to follow his advice. The only rational purpose for the use of the U.S. military is to advance U.S. national security. The Libya operation has never been justified on those grounds – it is a humanitarian mission to protect civilians – and it might actually make a minor and manageable problem far worse.

Qaddafi is a clown and thug; and no one will shed a tear if and when he leaves Libya – feet first or otherwise. But declaring Qaddafi’s ouster to be a suddenly vital U.S. interest, when a few mere months ago he was our supposed great ally in the fight against al Qaeda, epitomizes absurdity. If nothing else, Gingrich and other boosters of military action in Libya should have pondered – before we risked the lives of our troops, and committed the country to a potentially open-ended mission – whether some of the vaunted rebels might, in fact, be even worse than Qaddafi.

But I guess that never occurred to them.

Social Conservatives Offer Irrelevant Solutions

In today’s Los Angeles Times I write that social conservatives are pointing to real problems, but the only policy solutions they discuss are completely irrelevant to what they call “the high cost of  a dysfunctional society”:

… Reducing the incidence of unwed motherhood, divorce, fatherlessness, welfare and crime would be a good thing. So why the focus on issues that would do nothing to solve the “breakdown of the basic family structure” and the resulting “high cost of a dysfunctional society”? Well, solving the problems of divorce and unwed motherhood is hard. And lots of Republican and conservative voters have been divorced. A constitutional amendment to ban divorce wouldn’t go over very well, even with the social conservatives. Far better to pick on a small group, a group not perceived to be part of the Republican constituency, and blame it for social breakdown and its associated costs.

That’s why social conservatives point to a real problem and then offer phony solutions.

But you won’t find your keys on the thoroughfare if you dropped them in the alley, and you won’t reduce the costs of social breakdown by keeping gays unmarried and preventing them from adopting orphans.

Cost-Slashing? No, Cost-Shifting.

Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of the Los Angeles Times:

Three and a half million Californians may become eligible for subsidized private health insurance in 2014 under ObamaCare [“3.5 million Californians would be eligible for healthcare tax credits, study finds,” October 6], but those subsidies will not “slash the cost” of their health insurance.  As ObamaCare causes health insurance premiums to rise by as much as 30 percent, the private-insurance subsidies will shift those costs to taxpayers.  A bipartisan majority of Americans opposes ObamaCare in part because such shell games increase costs rather than reduce them.

KFF/HRET Survey, Part III: Employers Can’t Shift to Workers a Cost that Workers Already Bear

In a previous post, I promised to address the negative spin that the Kaiser Family Foundation put on its annual Employer Health Benefits Survey, released this month.  I do so in an op-ed that ran today at the Daily Caller.  An excerpt:

The Kaiser Family Foundation recently issued its annual survey of employer-sponsored health benefitsdeclaring: “Family Health Premiums Rise 3 Percent to $13,770 in 2010, But Workers’ Share Jumps 14 Percent as Firms Shift Cost Burden.” That’s half-right — but the other half perpetuates a myth about employee health benefits that stands in the way of real health care reform….

[Y]ou pay the full cost of your health benefits: partly through an explicit $4,000 premium and partly because your wages are $9,770 lower than they otherwise would be.

Kaiser therefore claims the impossible when it says that firms are shifting costs to workers.  Employers cannot shift to workers a cost that workers already bear. Yet this year, as in past years, the Associated PressBloombergCNNKaiser Health NewsThe Los Angeles TimesThe New York TimesNPRThe Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post uncritically repeated the cost-shifting myth.

The bolded sentence is Cannon’s Second Rule of Economic Literacy.  (Click here for the first rule.)

I have also collected a series of excerpts from past Kaiser Family Foundation surveys showing this is a persistent issue.  Here are a few:

1998: “Workers in small firms bear a much larger share of the financial burden for health benefits than employees of larger firms.”

2005: “The average worker paid $2,713 toward premiums for family coverage in 2005 or 26% of the total health premium.”

2007: “Annual Premiums for Family Coverage Now Average $12,106, With Workers Paying $3,281”

The folks at the Kaiser Family Foundation were exceedingly gracious when I approached them to discuss this issue.

Dear Health Care Journos, There’s Nothing Free about ObamaCare

The Obama administration announced yesterday its plans for implementing ObamaCare’s mandate that consumers purchase first-dollar coverage for preventive services.  The press release reads (emphasis added):

Administration Announces Regulations Requiring New Health Insurance Plans to Provide Free Preventive Care

Of course the administration would emphasize that consumers will pay nothing for these services at the moment of service, and elide the fact that this mandate will increase their health insurance premiums. The administration’s use of the word “free” is what we call spin.

What’s surprising–and more than a little disappointing–is that journalists and headline writers at major media organizations would repeat the administration’s spin, as if the government really is giving away free stuff:

  • New York Times: “Health Plans Must Provide Some Tests at No Cost…free coverage…free screenings…free preventive services…”
  • Los Angeles Times: “Healthcare law offers preventive care at no cost”
  • Politico: “New rules: Free preventive care…free under new federal guidelines.”
  • Reuters: “Healthcare overhaul mandates free preventive care…no extra cost to consumers…Medicare patients will have access to free prevention services…”
  • Wall Street Journal: “White House Unveils Free Preventative Services…services that will be free to consumers…free preventive care…free preventive care…”

Each use of “free” and “no cost” in these excerpts is false, even within its original context.  There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has a cost.  No government can change that.  Mandating that insurers cover certain services does not magically make them free.  Consumers still pay, just in the form of higher health insurance premiums and lower wages.

The Wall Street Journal (in paragraph six), The New York Times (paragraph seven), Reuters (paragraph 16), and the Los Angeles Times (paragraph 19 or so) do mention that consumers will pay for this mandate in the form of higher premiums–but that doesn’t make the untrue stuff true.  It just makes the article internally inconsistent.  Moreover, the Los Angeles Times incorrectly suggests that the higher premiums would be offset by lower out-of-pocket spending.  (The change in premiums will be larger due to moral hazard and administrative costs.)  And Reuters mentions higher premiums only vaguely, and as if insurers would bear that cost.  Each article also repeats the administration’s spin that spending more on preventive care would reduce health care costs, without mentioning that the Congressional Budget Office and other health care researchers dispute that claim.

Journalists need to be very careful with terms like “free” and “no cost.”

More about the Calorie Police

It’s nice to get quoted in the Los Angeles Times, even if the author obviously didn’t understand what I was getting at. I’ll try to clear up the confusion here.

Karen Caplan writes:

Does Kuznicki (or anyone else) really think that the goal of a healthy diet is simply to minimize the total number of calories consumed? (Perhaps these are the same folks who swear by Taco Bell’s Drive-Thru Diet.)

A 12-ounce serving of whole milk contains 12 grams of protein, along with 45% of the calcium and 36% of the vitamin D you need each day. The same amount of soy milk also has 12 grams of protein and 14% of the daily recommended intake of iron.

Care to guess how many vitamins and minerals are in a can of Coke?

I certainly don’t think that a healthy diet means only reducing one’s calorie intake. I do, however, believe that the stated goal of the policy was not to improve overall health, but to reduce obesity. And for that, which one do you pick?

a) consume fewer calories

or

b) get more calcium and vitamin D.

Does anyone seriously suggest that (b) is the right choice? Is this what passes for nutritional advice at the Los Angeles Times? Eat whatever you want, and as long as you take your vitamins, you won’t get fat?

The policy we’re talking about was not intended to make sure that people get all their vitamins and minerals. It was intended to curb obesity. And for that purpose it will do essentially nothing, as I noted, I still think correctly, in the original post.