Small Business Hawaii | Volume 23 Number 7 | July 1998
By Richard O. Rowland, Rowland & Alameida I hereby confess that I harbor animosity toward Eric White, the "African-American" who "suffered" a racial slur out of the mouth of Rob Wallace, a student manager with the UH Basketball Team. Eric White engaged in provocative language in the heat of observing an athletic contest. Then, when such was answered with a similar inappropriate outburst, Eric White ran to the government for help. Eric, measured by normal standards, quite obviously lacks good character, a concept of his own basic self-worth and has an inability to separate trivia from substance. I am prejudiced against Eric White. I would never willingly hire him, buy anything from him or go to a social function with him. The fact that he is "African-American" has absolutely nothing to do with my aversion. His lack of good character and judgement is at the root of my dislike. And what of the "character" or values of a government that would condone and even encourage such personal flaws? Eric White attends a government-funded game, then complains to the government about his "treatment" there to a government funded panel. That group decides in his favor and fines the government funded entity that ran the game. Who pays? Indeed it is you, sucker (and me), who pays to subsidize Eric's counterproductive behavior. I called a friend who has over 30 employees and is black. I asked him if he would hire the guy who sued over the racial slur at the University of Hawaii. His answer: "Absolutely not, I strive for quality in my employees." It seems to me that we need more and better prejudice and discrimination in our society. Oops, almost forgot, I'm prejudiced against that panel of citizens too; wouldn't buy a shave ice from any of them.
 By Ken Schoolland, Schoolland International Partnership Uncle: We gotta control the sale of guns in this country. Joanie: What's the problem? U: Too many guns out there. Kids are getting shot in schoolyards and there are lots of accidents, too. J: Yeah, that's really tragic. Someday the death rate from guns will be up there with swimming pools and bicycles! U: Get serious, Joanie! Take those guns off the street and the crime rate will drop. J: Really? What if it doesn't? Suppose the crime rate goes up, instead? U: Goes up? Nonsense! J: Maybe the bad guys know that it's easier to go after people who can't defend themselves. U: If that happens, we have the authorities to protect us. J: Yeah? Do you trust the authorities to protect you? U: Well, sort of. J: Suppose a crook attacks you or steals from you. What's the chance of the bad guy getting caught by the police? And if he does, what's the chance he'll get convicted, or be sent to jail, or have to stay there, or get rehabilitated, or have to compensate you? And who'll pay for it all? Isn't it better to prevent the attack in the first place? U: OK, things aren't perfect. But you gotta trust the authorities to stop the criminals. That's the way people see it all over the world! J: You know what the rest of the world sees? Sometimes they think the authorities are the bad guys. And they see American taxpayers buying guns for the bad guys in other countries-more so than the rest of the world combined! Think about it-Marcos & Mobutu, Noriega & Pinochet, Saddam & the Ayatollah, -you name it! U: OK...well, sometimes they've gotta put down rebellions! J: Yeah, so did King George III. Like I said, the bad guy knows that it's easier to attack people who can't defend themselves. And plenty of kids get hurt, too.
Who Pays The T.A.T. (Hotel Room Tax)? By Tracy Ryan, Libertarian Party of Hawaii The Transient Accommodations Tax, often called the TAT or hotel room tax is a levy on the price paid by consumers for hotel rooms. Honolulu's former mayor suggested that the tax rate should be raised to 25% below what certain mainland cities charge for their equivalent tax. Mr. Fasi thinks we are passing up an easy source of revenue that would be painless for Hawaii residents. His conclusion is supported by the argument that visitors do not consider the height of the room tax before travelling. Therefore no decrease in visitor arrivals will occur following a TAT increase. This argument is not sound. Although the visitor may not care about the rate of tax on his hotel room he certainly does care about the total cost of that room. What portion goes to the government versus the hotel is not an issue to him, but is also not germane to Fasi's argument. Our hotel industry has carefully calculated their room prices. If they thought raising prices would give them higher profits they would do it. Increases in the existing price structure must deter business in the view of the professionals in that industry or they would do it themselves without government mandates. The comparison to mainland cities with much higher hotel tax rates is also misleading. Business travel which is the bread and butter of most mainland hotels is subsidized by Federal income tax deductibility. It is also given to cost benefit analysis since business travel involves seeking to increase revenue. Travel to Hawaii is vacation oriented discretionary spending. A comparison to other vacation spots such as Las Vegas, or Florida must include the overall cost of travel including plane fare and accommodations. Compared to resort destinations on the US mainland Hawaii is an expensive choice for vacationers. We are not in a position to increase costs of travel here without losing market share. Travelers who would come despite a higher TAT would have less money to spend on everything else while here. Nothing we do will increase their travel budgets. Waikiki's retailers would be among the hardest hit losing both in number of visitors and in the redirecting of visitor money to taxes rather than consumption. In short, it is our own visitor industry that bears the burden of our TA tax. It cannot be exported to tourists. There is no free lunch.
Top of this Page | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 Copyright 1998 Small Business Hawaii. All rights reserved. |