Month: July 2020

Newrevenue.org to be archived by Library of Congress

Webcapture [Library of Congress]5:11 PM (3 hours ago)
to me

To Whom It May Concern:

The United States Library of Congress has selected your website for inclusion in the historic collection of Internet materials related to the Legal Blawgs Web Archive. We consider your website to be an important part of this collection and the historical record.

The Library of Congress preserves important cultural artifacts and provides enduring access to them. The Library’s traditional functions, acquiring, cataloging, preserving and serving collection materials of historical importance to foster education and scholarship, extend to digital materials, including websites. Our web archives are important because they contribute to the historical record, capturing information that could otherwise be lost. With the growing role of the web as an influential medium, records of historic events could be considered incomplete without materials that were “born digital” and never printed on paper.

The following URL has been selected:

https://newrevenue.org/

In order to properly archive this URL, and potentially other URLs of interest on your site, we may archive both this URL and other portions of your site, including public content that your page links to on third party sites such as Facebook, YouTube, etc. The Library of Congress or its agent will engage in the collection of content from your website at regular intervals and may include it in future collections. The Library will make this collection available to researchers at Library facilities and by special arrangement.

The Library may also make the collection available more broadly by hosting the collection on the Library’s public access website no earlier than one year after our archiving has been completed. The Library hopes that you share its vision of preserving Internet materials and permitting researchers from across the world to access them. 

Please grant the Library permission to provide public access to archived versions of your website by filling out the form available here: [Omitted]

Learn more about the Library’s Web Archiving program goals at https://www.loc.gov/programs/web-archiving/. Also, find our information for site owners at https://www.loc.gov/programs/web-archiving/for-site-owners/. Finally, view our web archives at https://www.loc.gov/websites/. If you have questions, comments or recommendations concerning the web archiving of your site, please email the Library’s Web Archiving Team at webcapture@loc.gov at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Library of Congress Web Archiving Program

webcapture@loc.gov

https://www.loc.gov/programs/web-archiving/

Library of Congress

Washington, D.C.

Critism of analysis of local marijuana taxes in California

“an independent California cannabis tax expert . . . said that . . . the city (Lemon Grove) could bring in $560,000 at 4 percent and $1.12 million at 8 percent.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/east-county/lemon-grove/story/2020-07-11/lemon-grove-moves-forward-on-taxing-cannabis-dispensaries

$560,000 X 2 = $1.12 million.

So if the city taxed it at 16%, they would bring in $2.24 million, and if they taxed it at 32%, they would bring in $4.48 million, and if they taxed it at 64%, they would bring in $9.96 million?

Well, there wouldn’t be a huge drop-off going from 4% to 8%, but there would be at least SOME bit of migration to the black market and to lower-tax jurisdictions.  So revenues would not exactly double.  They’d be less.

Close enough for government work?

How tax competition can threaten marijuana revenue
How tax competition can threaten marijuana revenue

Pat Oglesby, opinion contributor

Here’s what to know about cannabis tax competition.