Oh taxation is easy!
Low corporate taxes, scrap welfare and replace with negative tax brackets, scrap most sales tax, tax property and capital gains rather than wealth.
Printable View
Climate change is often the loudest voice heard on the destruction of the great barrier reef, but do you know what is just as damaging? Starfish juiced up on agriculture sector run offs.
Quote:
In 2000, an outbreak contributed to a loss of 66% of live coral cover on sampled reefs in a study by the CRC Reefs Research Centre.
reported
(=
The issue is that belief systems are more or less necessary. And that most people look to politics for a concrete belief system that they can use in their lives. It’s not STRICTLY a categorisation issue because e.g. someone who is staunchly against, say, capitalism, will probably try to refuse capitalism in all of its forms.
Intent and action are interlinked. When action deviates strongly from intent, perhaps the person was lying about their real intent.
Anyway, one change I’d like to see is a more interactive taxation system where you get to choose where a certain percentage of the taxes you pay go. I would put as much as I could into space exploration because it’s, in my view, the single most important problem we are facing right now, and it heavily contributes to scientific advancement. Hell, it would be nice if we really went to Mars before 2030 like NASA is currently planning on doing.
Who else thinks fusion power is fucking dope?
The strongest argument in favour of the Union not really giving much of a shit about slavery are the Jim Crow laws. It took nearly a century to repeal them. Why?
Negative tax brackets? I have never heard of such a thing, is that essentially a way of giving people money if they don’t make enough?
I don’t know if I agree with that though. I think wellfare is a better idea. People who don’t have a lot of money probably shouldn’t be trusted with it.
I think the war was more about secession than slavery. The only reason the north attacked the south was because they tried to secede. The South seceded because they were afraid slavery would be abolished in the South as well - I think the Union didn’t really give much of a shit about freedom and whatnot.
Congratulations you have just gone full circle.
North wanted to end slavery, South didn't. South was clearly on the verge of seceding so the North compromised to allow slavery in existing Southern slave states. The South saw the writing on the wall that even if this happened, slavery wasn't destined to stay so they seceded anyway to ensure it's survival on their terms. The Union declared war because they seceded. This is as layman as I think I can make it while not subscribing to a biased narrative. I really do not know why you keep trying to push this other narrative.
Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.
I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.
And I'd fall back on my original point, the causation cannot be put aside for the justification. Full circle yay.
I can't understand how you logic yourself into such a position. You admit that the war was about slavery, and for the north the war was about keeping the union intact. Yet the whole reason the south started the war by seceding was because they wanted to keep slaves. If the north didn't care about slaves then why the fuck didn't they just keep slavery legal and end the whole thing immediately lmao. Or just not start it in the first place.