HalfEarthMedic

joined 2 months ago
[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Governments have never been dependent on speeding fine revenue. This is a myth perpetuated by people who are indignant that they can't drive recklessly without consequence.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hmmm, the fact that Rudd tried and failed to carry out a difficult but fundamentally positive reform is not a very strong case against pursuing it again in the future, for better or worse political progress is almost always multiple failed attempts punctuated by small iterative steps forward.

The idea that Murdoch's influence is down to the consumers is pretty naive. The Murdoch media is so dominant that it has the capacity to poison every narrative, while one can seek alternative sources those sources struggle financially and can't market themselves to compete effectively. Added to this is the fact that their dominance means that nearly all incidental news exposure will be Murdoch, they are the papers on the stands, they are the news breaks after sports matches, they are favoured by social media algorithms. Not everyone has the time or inclination to put in the substantial daily work to combat this, Murdoch media dominance is a systemic problem, not one of individual choice.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm a little lost too, they post a lot, left leaning and progressive stuff mostly. Nothing terribly controversial so far as I can see.

When I saw the volume of posts I thought maybe a bot but it just seems that they are *really active.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

As the article points out, the fuel excise tax does not pay for roads, it goes into general revenue and does not collect enough to pay for the damage done by air pollution. The argument is that roads should be paid for by a tax on vehicle weight and distance travelled whether ICE or EV in addition to the fuel excise tax.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

Relevant to our recent exchange, @Zagorath, this helped clarify my thoughts on the topic.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

I read the first book and I think it is the first time in decades that I have encountered actual sci-fi concepts that weren't a reworking of ideas that have been around for decades.

It's not a character driven novel but the characters are fine, mostly they're not that likeable - which in my opinion is not a reason to dislike a story - and I think they probably lose something in translation. When I was a teenager I devoured Asimov, Phillip K Dick, Heinlein etc for the concepts, compared to them the characters in 3 Body are masterfully written.

I haven't yet read the second book as I found the first few chapters a bit of a slog but I plan to pick it up again once I've finished rereading some Ursula K LeGuin

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Doesn't this risk creating a slum-like situation that works for no one?

I have very little time for this argument, although I acknowledge that it is one sentence in a longer more nuanced post.

The fact is that these people need to be housed and housing near to public transport, employment and services is going to result in fewer "problematic" neighbours than housing them out in the middle of bum-f**k nowhere.

The vast majority of public housing residents will be fine neighbours, even if inner city folks wouldn't necessarily invite them around for a barbecue. The people who make genuine problems for the neighbours need to be somewhere, I see no reason that burden should be placed on other poor people in preference to the wealthy.

Edit: Whoops, didn't realise this was a month old...

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

Excellent point well made.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

One of the recommendations of the commission has been a tax on cash flow rather than profits for the largest 500 companies for exactly this reason. You can predict what the response of the business council was and therefore its chance of ever becoming policy..

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 weeks ago

And not reinvesting in productivity. Another recent Gittins piece pointed out the reinvesting in plant and research(which increases productivity) is tax deductible, all other things being equal increasing company tax on large companies should increase incentive to increase productivity.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I came here to say more or less this.

While funding road upkeep with fuel and car taxes makes sense it isn't necessary, we don't fund emergency departments with taxes on trampolines and skateboards for example.

The greater policy need at this point in history is to increase the uptake of electric vehicles(really to reduce the use of fossil fuel vehicles in a variety of ways, including uptake of EVs) and future policy should reflect this, not commitment to past policy.

@Tenderizer @TimePencil

view more: ‹ prev next ›