+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13692
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Mechanisms of Prejudice: Hidden and Not Hidden  (Read 6683 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30741
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
The following thread was taken from this article (http://grist.org/politics/obama-has-a-good-transportation-plan-now-we-just-need-to-raise-the-gas-tax-so-he-can-pay-for-it/#comment-1267522241). I disagree with the premise of the article on how to generate funds to improve our infrastructure in order to make us a sustainable society.

agelbert
I think the solution is to eliminate the gas tax altogether and slap a 0.1% transaction tax on all Wall Street stock sales. Billions would be generated continuously, gaming the stocks with thousands of computer generated buys and sells would stop and, without the price manipulation, assets would be priced in a realistic manner. THEN we could get serious about overhauling ALL of our infrastructure.

We need fossil fuels or the taxes they generate like a hole in the head.

Don't Believe the Dirty Lie

SticksInMyCraw > agelbert 

The financial transactions tax is such a sensible idea, I don't know why it doesn't get any traction here in the United States. Didn't the UK just adopt a stock-transactions tax?

In any case, I know it is attracting serious attention throughout Europe. A modest transactions tax would have minimal impact on regular folks like you and me and our 401k's. But -- as you point out -- it would slow down and/or shift some tax burden onto the computerized high frequency stock trading that adds absolutely no value to the U.S. economy.
 
agelbert > SticksInMyCraw 
Our Senators, Congressmen, the White House AND the Supreme Court get hard of hearing when someone mentions taxing Wall Street. Of course we know who they work for (It is definitely NOT we-the-people).

Even my Senators and my Rep in Vermont (who favored this tax about 5 years ago) have gone silent on it.

On the plus side, more people are talking about it and a tax Wall Street party actually exists now and made the ballot (but lost the election) in New York recently.

It's the only logical solution to our fiscal problems. But the 1% get the heeby jeebies just thinking about it!

Thanks for talking it up; the more people know about this no-brainer, the better chance we have of making our government enact it.

SticksInMyCraw > agelbert
Here you have it: The European Parliament approved such a tax last summer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
 
agelbert > SticksInMyCraw  
The Europeans have more sense than we do.

dreamweaverdory
Taxes should be based on use, why the per gallon tax is workable the more you use the road the more you pay, and if you want to save taxes you pay, get a fuel efficient car you pay less and pollute less. In a small town, unless you live in a food desert, you will drive less to find a supermarket than in most cities, and you should have a farmers market near by ,so why would you drive to the city for anything but the night life.If you live farther than that out in the country you are probably raising at least some of your own food. Also , yes purple people should pay less in taxes and blue people should pay more.
 
agelbert > dreamweaverdory 
Taxes based on use is regressive taxation and fosters inequality and strife. Taxes should be progressive and based on net worth and income from all sources (including capital gains).

The present structure polarizes the population. That is wrong.

We want a tax structure that benefits the country as a whole, not just the richest.

dreamweaverdory > agelbert
if we all paid one tax, not a bunch of different ones, i would agree with you. The idea that if you tax the user for polluting resources by the amount they use will help control use and maybe help undo/clean up said pollution. The poor are not the ones gobbling up resources, but they should be responsible for what they use.
 
agelbert > dreamweaverdory 
"The poor are not the ones gobbling up resources, but they should be responsible for what they use."

Well, that is exactly my point. The poor are, not only responsible for what they use but are being forced to shoulder the cost and responsibility of what they don't use (i.e. the top 20% piggies!).

And you want to level the piggy playing field by pounding on the victims of massive pollution and resource explotation first?

That is, not just illogical (because it doesn't address the heart of the problem), it's immoral, vindictive, buck passing and irrational too.

I don't mean to sound so harsh but you really need to understand how this works in human power structures. Watch this, somewhat slow at first (jump ahead to the 28 minute mark to) where the Survival International Director explains where our so-called "Conservation of Nature" concept came from. No, it has nothing to do with conserving the biosphere and everything to do with throwing natives off their land (first, the poor come later) and then using said lands for resource explotation while setting aside a small portion as "nature preserves" that the resource raping goons use as pristine "natural" areas they can hunt wild animals in to their corrupt hearts' content.

These very same bastards will turn around and defend conservation efforts and wail and moan about how the people of the world are despoiling nature and more areas need to be "conserved" (for the rich to hunt and play in, of course).

It's a long and sordid story. Can you handle it? We liberals have been manipulated big time by the rich for their benefit and the detriment of the rest of humanity.

Date: Friday, February 28
Time: 5pm Pacific Standard Time (1am GMT on Saturday, March 1)

Survival Director Stephen Corry is giving a hard-hitting talk on the impact of conservation on tribes worldwide at the University of Oregon's Public Interest Environmental Law Conference.

Explaining the role of ‘conservation’ in the ongoing destruction of tribal peoples, he will explore how conservation theories grew with ‘scientific’ racism, which underpinned colonial genocides and the Holocaust.

He will demonstrate that contemporary claims that tribal and indigenous peoples are ‘like our ancestors’, and ‘more violent’ than us, are no less spurious, and that they too damage the people they purport to describe.


Quote
'First we were dispossessed in the name of kings and emperors,
later in the name of state development,
and now in the name of conservation.'
Indigenous Peoples' Forum
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 06:23:04 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by Surly1
October 18, 2019, 07:55:39 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
October 18, 2019, 07:27:06 am

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 10:43:35 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 08:15:55 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 08:01:15 pm

Money by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 07:55:48 pm

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
October 17, 2019, 03:59:58 pm

Welcome! by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:48:34 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 04:36:28 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
October 16, 2019, 02:45:34 pm