There should be a 20% tax on pbooks

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by markbot

also, we are in a phase where ereaders are new so there are many innovations and we replace them frequently...eventually it will be a mature technology and the replacement cycle will greatly lengthen....just like with TV technology.

People will always want a slightly faster screen refresh or a slightly larger screen. Gadget manufacturers will always find some new must-have feature to add to the latest annual product launch. I haven't noticed much of a slow down in new features being added to TV sets either. My latest kitchen one has an SD slot on the side.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Do you have evidence for this? To provide evidence, you may have to actually quantify those 'negative externalities of environmental degradation' to which you refer; in other words, put a $ on it. As others have eluded in this thread, there may well be an overall positive externality.

Here is an article on the topic...the evidence in this case is carbon footprint, which you may or may not believe is valid. But carbon footprint can be a proxy for energy use in general. Thus an ereader is more efficient, energy-wise, after forgoing about 22.5 new books...thus after the first year of usage., approximately.

They should also apply the 20% tax on paper newspapers...which is actually worse than the book sector.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...er-than-books/

http://tstcpublishing.wordpress.com/...-green-debate/

cleantech study: http://www.tkearth.com/downloads/thoughts_ereaders.pdf

[QuantumIguana]

Paper books are a good use of paper. Paper books will go a long time before going into the landfill. Junk mail is tossed out without being read. Newspapers are tossed out the next day. Magazines are tossed out the next month.

[howyoudoin]

Once again, to reiterate, the proper way to go about this is to price e-work lower than paperworks, not by taxing paperworks. A tax on paper is a silly idea.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by markbot

You're forgetting about the cost and consumption of resources to actually manufacture the book, the contamination of water from paper mills, resources to transport it (energy, packaging waste, time, etc), cost to store it, and annoyance of dealing with the waste when it is tossed.

In conjunction with the tax, I'd propose that the government prevent the prevention of reselling and loaning ebooks. There should be a way to transfer the ebook like a pbook....if we are to get rid of pbooks.

Pollution of electronics is bad....but environmental impact of pbooks is probably worse overall. a lot of people read ebooks on tablets and computers where they already have a device and don't need to purchase a special device.

I also believe they should greatly increase US gasoline taxes to like $4 per gallon instead of having those CAFE standards. They can gradually institute the tax so people have time to change behavior. I can guarantee u that very few people will buy an SUV if there is a $4 gas tax. the UAW would make passing the tax extremely difficult though, if not impossible. the tax monies could go toward creation of solar power plants and such. the other added benefit is that in effect the tax would transfer wealth from OPEC to the home country as it means that the home country would be effectively collecting some of the oil price increase instead of OPEC. OPEC would not be able to raise the underlying price as high since the cost to the consumer has the added tax to stifle demand.

pbooks are laughably antiquated...the sooner they are minimized the better. imagine a world that instead of using telecommunications and email, you'd have to write a LETTER and send it via post, every time! HAHHAA, that is so pathetic. this is how I view pbooks.

but I agree, the 20% tax would create other problems we'd have to deal with.

I'm not forgetting anything... why put your words/thoughts in my mouth... Overall, you're also assuming that the US is the world as is usual for a lot of you ex-colonials - quite a lot of the real world actually does tax petrol (gasoline to you) at substantial rates, doesn't stop SUVs or any other gas-guzzler (so there goes YOUR guarantee but I guess that's usual for you - worth the paper it's printed on ) but does increase general prices of goods overall.

Pathetic is as pathetic does... you don't like paper, well tough, it's going to be around a lot longer than you and as for a lot of people reading books on tablets and computers (or even eReaders), so what... a lot is still a tiny minority of the world's population, the majority of whom still don't have access to eReading in any form... oh and paper is bio-degradeable or can be used as bio-fuel, more than you can say for a good part of electronic devices which are still not close to being totally recyclable... and why do you wish to destroy most of of the books of the last few centuries as no-one is even close to digitising them for any e-format...

[markbot]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

Once again, to reiterate, the proper way to go about this is to price e-work lower than paperworks, not by taxing paperworks. A tax on paper is a silly idea.

This would require that the publishers voluntarily price it this way though.

In the US they do not have state sales tax on ebooks so in effect the tax on pbooks is already higher. I think they could probably even make it higher if they were really serious about environmental conservation.

[speakingtohe]

Books are still considered sacred by a large segment of the population.

The tax you propose could be construed as further penalizing people without ereaders, the poor, the less technologically advanced, students and those who live in areas without interent access.

And of course it would be an excuse/incentive for publishers to raise the price of ebooks so that pbooks remain competitively priced.

Making literature less accessible in any form seems distasteful and doing it by taxation is controlling to the point of Big Brother tactics.

Helen

[markbot]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Books are still considered sacred by a large segment of the population.

The tax you propose could be construed as further penalizing people without ereaders, the poor, the less technologically advanced, students and those who live in areas without interent access.

And of course it would be an excuse/incentive for publishers to raise the price of ebooks so that pbooks remain competitively priced.

Making literature less accessible in any form seems distasteful and doing it by taxation is controlling to the point of Big Brother tactics.

Helen

You still have libraries that the poor could use. Any tax is going to be disportionately negative for the poor but this doesn't mean we should throw out all taxes.

It is possible that the higher demand for ebooks would drive up the price on them. Also, in this new world ebooks are now transferable so there is a secondary market for ebooks. Ultimately, I think the secondary market would likely keep down the new ebook prices as the new ebooks would have to compete with the secondary market.

On one hand, the demand for new ebooks goes up because of the pbook tax but on the other hand the demand declines because of the secondary market.

[howyoudoin]

What you're proposing is a system where prices of both paperbooks and e-books are jacked up.

There's a simple solution that you keep ignoring for some reason. Make it mandatory for ebooks to be priced "x%" lower than paperbooks. Thats it.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

What you're proposing is a system where prices of both paperbooks and e-books are jacked up.

There's a simple solution that you keep ignoring for some reason. Make it mandatory for ebooks to be priced "x%" lower than paperbooks. Thats it.

Yeah, but the secondary market for ebooks would keep the average price lower. In this world ebooks could also be lent like pbooks so elibraries could serve the entire country.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by markbot

Yeah, but the secondary market for ebooks would keep the average price lower. In this world ebooks could also be lent like pbooks so elibraries could serve the entire country.

How would you create a working system of second hand ebooks with the guarantee that first purchaser hasn't held back a copy for himself before second sale? Even if you devised a fool proof system to overcome this, it still does not change the fact that you've jacked up the prices of paperbooks when they didn't need to be jacked up.

Price ebooks lower than paperbooks, and you're done without the need for all the fluff.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by markbot

You still have libraries that the poor could use. Any tax is going to be disportionately negative for the poor but this doesn't mean we should throw out all taxes.

It is possible that the higher demand for ebooks would drive up the price on them. Also, in this new world ebooks are now transferable so there is a secondary market for ebooks. Ultimately, I think the secondary market would likely keep down the new ebook prices as the new ebooks would have to compete with the secondary market.

On one hand, the demand for new ebooks goes up because of the pbook tax but on the other hand the demand declines because of the secondary market.

So the poor could use the libraries but those libraries would cost more?
And the fact any tax is going to be disportionately negative for the poor is an allowable disadvantage? Let them eat cake? Probably I am misreading your posts but you seem to be approaching this from a very self centered perspective.
You are also bizarrely fixated on pbooks wasting paper, while ignoring the many other ways that paper products are used. Transient media such as newspapers etc, mailed documents, packing of shipped merchandise, packaging of fast food or TV dinners..... The list is endless. Pbooks do not in general get used only once and disposed of.

I just do not perceive your arguments as echologically motivated or you would be addressing a wider area instead of concentrating on messing up the only way many people have to read their books.

Helen

[vxf]

Originally Posted by markbot

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.

Bah. Why should I pay to support your environmental fetish?

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by markbot

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.

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.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by markbot

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.

Originally Posted by markbot

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.

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

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?