And what if SpaceX are lifting a payload for NASA ?
do they still have to pay the tax?
It's all about removing hidden subsidies. If the people of the USA want to pay for a space program, that's fine. But let's have them pay for it explicitly without hiding the costs in the budgets of other agencies. So yes, NASA should pay in this situation.
It's clearly fair that something that causes costs to a government agency pays those costs. However hiding a subsidy for NASA by failing to get them to pay as well would be featherbedding the public sector; remember that its NASA's poor record in developing space technology that has led to the private companies getting going.
The easy response - which many have trotted out - is to condemn any form of child labour, and call on Western countries to pressure poor countries to ban it. A specific outworking of this is to prevent ALL child labour in formal sectors of the economy. At its worst this means that the kids get employed in far more dangerous and problematic ways because the parents need the money they can earn.
In this context the kid in the slum earning money on this site is possibly the best type of child employment. Hyperventilating about it being 'child exploitation' without asking harder questions about whether there is any alternative and whether it's really bad is bad for the kids. Remember there is an obvious alternative use of such a laptop in a slum: child pornography.
Where do you see me defending US corps hiring children in the USA. We used to have child labour. We can afford to ban it now. But in a lot of countries that is not a reasonable expectation.
After nine billion views?
Where the inventors of this - along with all advertising executives - where the inhabitants are tied down and forced to watch adverts for eternity.
Yes, we can afford to largely exclude our children from the work place. In poor countries too often they can't, with the result that 'demanding that it doesn't happen merely leaves the kids to be more badly exploited in unregulated sectors of the economy'. In that context the particular form of work this article is about is probably as unexploitative as is possible.
'Saving Mr Banks' shows us Walt Disney talking about his doing paper rounds morning and evening for his father at the age of eight in St Louis when the snow was above his head...
The right answer is that electricity should cost enough to enable the pollution that it causes - including, but not only CO2 - to be fully corrected. Anything else is having wider society pay the costs of the electricity user's choice to use electricity. This, of course, is not going to happen, and on the whole, I'm with Corporal Fraser
Throughout history children have worked on the farms that they lived on; nobody thought anything of it. When industrialisation occurred, it was therefore inevitable that children would be expected to do the same. It slowly dawned on the wider community that some of the new generation of jobs were far more dangerous than farm work, and restrictions on the type and duration of employment for children gradually were legislated.
Given the inevitability of child labour in poorer countries, demanding that it doesn't happen merely leaves the kids to be more badly exploited in unregulated sectors of the economy. By contrast the 'exploitation' of kids in this instance is almost as benign as it's possible to consider. And remember; the families NEED income to live at all.
If a mine causes pollution, the mine owners should clean it up.
Not so long ago London had 'pea souper' fogs where the visibility was very low and people died in vast numbers. Eventually this led to smokeless zones that somewhat reduced the problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Today cars cause vast amounts of pollution - from the congestion they cause through to particulate matter, until recently lead and now the big issue is CO2.
In each of these cases the beneficiaries of the economic activity are failing to pay the full costs of what they are doing. Taxation to correct that is always justified.
At the moment there is no Dutch government because a majority can't be constructed.
The Socialists in Spain got to form the government - but giving pardons to the Catalan separtists whom they'd promised not to give pardons to.
Portugal has a large far right party noone will talk to. As a result the centrist parties can't form a government
France has rejected PR for two rounds of voting; in the second round only the top candidates are allowed to stay in the race.
Greece gives an extra 50 seats to the party that gets the most votes in the election to reduce the chaos of PR
Israel has seen the religious parties act as kingmaker between the two major secularist blocks, ensuring that their agenda got served despite the vast majority of the population being opposed to their policies (e.g. no public transport on Shabbat, LOTS of subsidies for religious higher education institutions)
Charge him with releasing CO2 into the atmosphere when breathing. Would allow a court to rule on whether CO2 does cause weather changes!
Partisan because it was alleging that this is a Republican's proposal, playing on the idea that Republicans are science deniers. Sadly many an anti-vaxxer will be found to be a Democrat.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT....
I'm arguing that we don't get a lot of scandals in soccer. You're right, of course, that gambling is freely available in the UK; it makes us hard to understand the cultural references to illegal betting in US crime dramas...
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.
