Thread: There should be a 20% tax on pbooks
View Single Post
Old 03-04-2012, 10:27 PM   #45
Phogg
PHD in Horribleness
Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Phogg ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Phogg's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,320
Karma: 23599604
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In the ironbound section, near avenue L
Device: Just a whole bunch. I guess I am a collector now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbot View Post
If governments in the developed world are serious about environmental conservation, they should seriously consider a 20% tax on new paper books and paper newspapers in order to benefit the adoption of ereaders and ebooks. Ebooks take a lower toll on the environment.

This would get publishers to start pushing ebooks more than hardcovers, which are a COMPLETE WASTE of paper, energy, and space.

The tax funds would go to libraries to purchase ebooks.

Also, we'd make ebooks transferable like pbooks so anyone could lend and resell them without onerous restrictions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbot View Post
I generally agree with that stance; however, the full cost of pbooks like negative externalities of environmental degradation isn't priced into the books...thus demand may be too high. There is a useful alternative that has far fewer costs and also some side benefits....ebooks.

I also support the high taxes on cigarettes which funds healthcare in some states. You can think of this pbook tax as a vice tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlenBarrington View Post
Most people 'generally' agree with that stance. Right up to the point where they think they know better than others what is good for them.
Doing the very best things to limit the depradation of technology, and establish an ecologically sound society...what could possibly go wrong with a noble goal like that?
Phogg is offline   Reply With Quote