torsdag 7. oktober 2010
Moms elektroniske tjenester, kortversjon
Å ikke moms-legge en type vare, mens en momslegger en annen vil gi en fordel til den som selger sin vare momsfritt. Folk vil få økonomisk intensiv til å kjøpe en vare foran en annen, som de i feks. et momsfritt land ikke ville kjøpt like mye av. Om alle skal få konkurrere på like vilkår så må også skatten/momsen være lik for alle produkter. Så kan en diskutere om ikke elektroniske produkter er mer miljøvennlige, og at de dermed burde få en skattefordel. En kan også diskutere om ikke MVA generelt i Norge er for høy (UK har 17,5, Tyskland 19%). Men den generelle innføringen av MVA på de elektroniske tjenestene er vanskelig å henge seg opp i alene.
Moms på elektroniske tjenester, riktig men feil
Innlegg i debatt på DagensIT-forum; http://www.dagensit.no/article1990082.ece
Her var det mye umiddelbare negative reaksjoner, og det er klart, her har vi en del tjenester som over natten (fra 1. juli vell og merke) vil bli momsbelagt, som før ikke var det. Og 25% økning i pris på en vare er selvsagt ikke noe som blir velkommen. Men hva er alternativet?
Å ikke moms-legge en type vare, mens en momslegger en annen vil gi en fordel til den som selger sin vare momsfritt. Folk vil få økonomisk intensiv til å kjøpe en vare foran en annen, som de i feks. et momsfritt land ikke ville kjøpt like mye av. Om alle skal få konkurrere på like vilkår så må også skatten/momsen være lik for alle produkter.
Så kan en diskutere om ikke elektroniske produkter er mer miljøvennlige, og at de dermed burde få en skattefordel. En kan også undres på gjennomførbarheten av dette. Men dette er det systemet som er i hele EU også, bare se http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/traders/e-commerce/index_en.htm . Dermed burde det nok ikke være helt umulig å gjennomføre. Men en kan jo risikere at mindre leverandører ignorerer det norske markedet pga regelverket.
Men 25% økning av priser! Der er MYE! Og det viser det vi normalt ikke ser i dagliglivet når vi er på butikken, vi har 25% MVA!!! Det er derfor det å spise ute er så himla dyrt. Det er derfor produkter vi kjøper er så dyre. Det er derfor alt oppleves så grassat billig i utlandet. (dette er selvsagt ikke hele forklaringen, høyt lønns og avgiftsnivå må selvsagt også tas med i bildet). MVA i andre land: Spania: 18%, Tyskland: 19%, UK: 17,5%, Sveits: 7,6%!!!
Så det er MVA som er høy, og MVA på alle varer bør ned. Innføring av MVA på nye varetyper er med på å illustrere hvor høy MVA faktisk er. Men om du ikke har MVA på en vare når du har den på en annen så gir du en skattefordel sammenlignet med andre varer, med dertil effekter i markedet som du ellers ikke ville hatt (se f.eks. hvor mye unødvendige matbutikker vi har, MVA på mat: 13%). Gir man en vare en "skattefordel" framfor en annen skal en iallefall ha en god grunn. Er miljø en god nokk grunn? Finnes det andre? Kunne vi ikke bare satt ned MVA generelt?
Her var det mye umiddelbare negative reaksjoner, og det er klart, her har vi en del tjenester som over natten (fra 1. juli vell og merke) vil bli momsbelagt, som før ikke var det. Og 25% økning i pris på en vare er selvsagt ikke noe som blir velkommen. Men hva er alternativet?
Å ikke moms-legge en type vare, mens en momslegger en annen vil gi en fordel til den som selger sin vare momsfritt. Folk vil få økonomisk intensiv til å kjøpe en vare foran en annen, som de i feks. et momsfritt land ikke ville kjøpt like mye av. Om alle skal få konkurrere på like vilkår så må også skatten/momsen være lik for alle produkter.
Så kan en diskutere om ikke elektroniske produkter er mer miljøvennlige, og at de dermed burde få en skattefordel. En kan også undres på gjennomførbarheten av dette. Men dette er det systemet som er i hele EU også, bare se http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/traders/e-commerce/index_en.htm . Dermed burde det nok ikke være helt umulig å gjennomføre. Men en kan jo risikere at mindre leverandører ignorerer det norske markedet pga regelverket.
Men 25% økning av priser! Der er MYE! Og det viser det vi normalt ikke ser i dagliglivet når vi er på butikken, vi har 25% MVA!!! Det er derfor det å spise ute er så himla dyrt. Det er derfor produkter vi kjøper er så dyre. Det er derfor alt oppleves så grassat billig i utlandet. (dette er selvsagt ikke hele forklaringen, høyt lønns og avgiftsnivå må selvsagt også tas med i bildet). MVA i andre land: Spania: 18%, Tyskland: 19%, UK: 17,5%, Sveits: 7,6%!!!
Så det er MVA som er høy, og MVA på alle varer bør ned. Innføring av MVA på nye varetyper er med på å illustrere hvor høy MVA faktisk er. Men om du ikke har MVA på en vare når du har den på en annen så gir du en skattefordel sammenlignet med andre varer, med dertil effekter i markedet som du ellers ikke ville hatt (se f.eks. hvor mye unødvendige matbutikker vi har, MVA på mat: 13%). Gir man en vare en "skattefordel" framfor en annen skal en iallefall ha en god grunn. Er miljø en god nokk grunn? Finnes det andre? Kunne vi ikke bare satt ned MVA generelt?
mandag 26. april 2010
Trip to Alicante, 1. day
In february in norway it had already been - 14 degrees C for a while where I live, and combined with moistier from the see, that is cold I can tell you. So I desided to order a trip to the south of europe, Alicante. And since noone else could go on that date, I went all alone
So far so good. Have met some intresting people at the hostel, and had a greate party yesterday. Allso was at the beatch today. Lovely, and nice wether :)
So far so good. Have met some intresting people at the hostel, and had a greate party yesterday. Allso was at the beatch today. Lovely, and nice wether :)
mandag 12. april 2010
onsdag 27. januar 2010
The donut soul paradox, why are we conscious
[under construction]
[This is a post that I am still writing on, editing some misspellings and adding a few things in. Still, I have published it, because I believe I have withen egnuff for people to reed and comment. But just so you know, more will come shortly. 27. January 2009]
In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGTleaTCXq8&feature=related) vdizhoor asks what if we froce you down, copied all your molecules and made an other you, then exchanged 50% of the molecules between your bodies, then waked you up placing either a beer or a donut at the side of you. Who would you be? Would you see the beer or the donut?
Lets take an other example, taken from a startec-episode: Two persons travels with a teleport. Something wrong happens and out of the teleport comes one person, bearing the genetics, the molecules, and the memory of both persons. Who is this person?
If we had even more advanced medicine than today we could split a person with it's brain in 2 (the two parts of the brain, left and right hemisphere, can work perfectly on their own), and you would sudenly have 2 persons. Which one would you be? I will answer bout. And that can not be understood with the ordinary soul-thinking that is teached in almost every religion in the world (at least the ones I know about).
We must get away from the thinking of a soul, somthing every person has, that is either, belived by some religions; sent to heaven or hell when we die, or by other religions; just takes part of a new person. The first one is sientifacly stupid becouse there is know evidence, and now reason why it should be that way. The second one is, thought belived as more sientificly corect, just as stupid. You have lots of anarkists still beliving in a soul. The question is why would there be a soul if there is no god? Is there a force in the universe that somehow creates a soul when a living thing comes to live?
We know one thing though, we have a consciousness. We know we are alive, we sense the world. We are not just mechanical objects wandering around. And that is wery strange to me. Why is it like this? Why does some electrical/chemical signals in the brain, besides moving the body around in response to the environment making the body survive long egnuff to replicate it's geens, why is it so that we can feel this prosess, that we are conscious? In a physical world, of atoms and radiation, why do we feel anything?
I belie there is no "soul" as we think about it, but that it, our consciousness, is made up of electrical signals interactions in the brain. I tend to belie that there might be a "soul", one single "soul" in the entire universe, filling all of human beings at the event of these chemical reactions, and the only thing that separates 2 persons (or animals) is that our brains are not attached. So: you will see bout the donut AND the beer, but you will think that you are only one of this persons...
[This is a post that I am still writing on, editing some misspellings and adding a few things in. Still, I have published it, because I believe I have withen egnuff for people to reed and comment. But just so you know, more will come shortly. 27. January 2009]
In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGTleaTCXq8&feature=related) vdizhoor asks what if we froce you down, copied all your molecules and made an other you, then exchanged 50% of the molecules between your bodies, then waked you up placing either a beer or a donut at the side of you. Who would you be? Would you see the beer or the donut?
Lets take an other example, taken from a startec-episode: Two persons travels with a teleport. Something wrong happens and out of the teleport comes one person, bearing the genetics, the molecules, and the memory of both persons. Who is this person?
If we had even more advanced medicine than today we could split a person with it's brain in 2 (the two parts of the brain, left and right hemisphere, can work perfectly on their own), and you would sudenly have 2 persons. Which one would you be? I will answer bout. And that can not be understood with the ordinary soul-thinking that is teached in almost every religion in the world (at least the ones I know about).
We must get away from the thinking of a soul, somthing every person has, that is either, belived by some religions; sent to heaven or hell when we die, or by other religions; just takes part of a new person. The first one is sientifacly stupid becouse there is know evidence, and now reason why it should be that way. The second one is, thought belived as more sientificly corect, just as stupid. You have lots of anarkists still beliving in a soul. The question is why would there be a soul if there is no god? Is there a force in the universe that somehow creates a soul when a living thing comes to live?
We know one thing though, we have a consciousness. We know we are alive, we sense the world. We are not just mechanical objects wandering around. And that is wery strange to me. Why is it like this? Why does some electrical/chemical signals in the brain, besides moving the body around in response to the environment making the body survive long egnuff to replicate it's geens, why is it so that we can feel this prosess, that we are conscious? In a physical world, of atoms and radiation, why do we feel anything?
I belie there is no "soul" as we think about it, but that it, our consciousness, is made up of electrical signals interactions in the brain. I tend to belie that there might be a "soul", one single "soul" in the entire universe, filling all of human beings at the event of these chemical reactions, and the only thing that separates 2 persons (or animals) is that our brains are not attached. So: you will see bout the donut AND the beer, but you will think that you are only one of this persons...
tirsdag 26. januar 2010
Overpopulation is not the reason of poverty in southern Africa
With this enormasly long hedline I herby open my blog LimitedByReality. Don't mind the name of the blog, it was just somthing I came up with, and alldough I have plans to discuss this team later. What I realy want to do with this blog is to attack statements that I think are falce, becouce they do not see the whole picture and/or are misinterpreting it.
To get stright to my point. Many people belive that overpopulation is the reason for a countries poverty. I'll compare 2 country. One of them is 825,418 km2 large (about twice as large as the state of Calefornia), the other being 41,526 km2. The largest country has a population of about 2.1 million, the one with only 41.5K km2 a population of 16.5 million. Which country would you expect to be the richest/poorest? Which country would have the largest unemployment-rate?
The country that is 41.5K km2 large and populated with 16million people is The Netherlands. The other country is Namibia in south Africa. While Namibia has a GDP of $13.653 billion ($6,611 per capita) Netherlands has a GDP of $876.970 billion, or $52,499 per capita, being about 8 times as many people. While unemployment in Namibia is 30-40% the Netherlands has kept it stable under 4%, event trough the financial crises.
This points, that third world countries problems are not overpopulation but rather other factors such as mismanagement and corruption is mentioned by overpopulation.com ("Indonesia’s problem — like much of the poor in the Third World — is endemic mismanagement and corruption, not its increase in population and/or wealth.")
yupp...
To get stright to my point. Many people belive that overpopulation is the reason for a countries poverty. I'll compare 2 country. One of them is 825,418 km2 large (about twice as large as the state of Calefornia), the other being 41,526 km2. The largest country has a population of about 2.1 million, the one with only 41.5K km2 a population of 16.5 million. Which country would you expect to be the richest/poorest? Which country would have the largest unemployment-rate?
The country that is 41.5K km2 large and populated with 16million people is The Netherlands. The other country is Namibia in south Africa. While Namibia has a GDP of $13.653 billion ($6,611 per capita) Netherlands has a GDP of $876.970 billion, or $52,499 per capita, being about 8 times as many people. While unemployment in Namibia is 30-40% the Netherlands has kept it stable under 4%, event trough the financial crises.
This points, that third world countries problems are not overpopulation but rather other factors such as mismanagement and corruption is mentioned by overpopulation.com ("Indonesia’s problem — like much of the poor in the Third World — is endemic mismanagement and corruption, not its increase in population and/or wealth.")
yupp...
Abonner på:
Kommentarer (Atom)
