They do. I'm also in favor of tearing out intracity highways, converting roads in urban centers in walkable spaces, and shifting zoning to encourage the density required for those to be actually viable transportation.
Those are all super tall orders though, so I'm happy to start with shifting the financial burden for road maintenance to those mainly driving it (๐ฅ)
Cars may do more, but for maintenance spending a car and a pedestrian have exactly the same impact.
Eliminate the gas tax entirely and replace it with a weight and mileage based tax on commercial freight shipping.
Cars put next to no strain on the roads. Freight trucks put a disproportionate amount of strain on the roads.
https://www.gao.gov/products/109954
a five-axle, tractor-trailer loaded to the 80,000-pound Federal limit, has the same impact on an interstate highway as 9,600 automobiles
a truck axle carrying 18,000 pounds is only 9 times heavier than a 2,000-pound automobile axle, it does 5,000 times more damage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law
Since the roads have to be built to tolerate trucks, the impact of the cars on the road are effectively negligible. We also already have a system for regularly weighing and monitoring the millage on freight trucks.
Yes, but they're the cog that makes choices about where to invest the money.
People with 401Ks who don't know where their money is invested certainly aren't to blame for corporate evil, even if they, as a block, make up the vast majority of shareholders.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/08/who-has-retirement-accounts.html
Saying the blame for putting money before lives lives not with the people who control how the money gets invested, but instead with the more than 50% of the country aged 24-64 who have a hands off account seems very strange to me.
Why do you think the investment managers aren't to blame ?
My point was more that the corporate behavior is geared towards pleasing fund managers rather than retirees or people with retirement accounts.
The fund manager decides where the money goes, so they're the ones that need to be happy. Yes, legally both the fund manager and the company have a fiduciary duty to the literally millions of people with 401ks that put money into their stock or fund, but in practice it's fund managers who matter.
If blackrock says that all things being equal, they're going to preferentially invest in sustainable companies, suddenly companies have an incentive to make themselves sustainable by whatever metric blackrock is using. Likewise when an investment firm doesn't reduce their stake in an insurance company for harming patient outcomes.
Non-voting means the CEO can be sued by them, but not replaced. It's a different level of responsibility.
I would disagree that that is an example of generational warfare.
The older people get, the less of their money tends to be in actual stocks, and the shares managed by retirement funds are inevitably non-voting, so they can't even voice what tiny bit of opinion their fraction of ownership would theoretically get them.
The "shareholders" being performed for are the managers of those investment funds.
Making obscene wealth on stock investing is relatively rare, but making obscene wealth investing other people's money and then paying yourself an obscene salary out of the proceeds is far more common.
Those are the people who control the massive amounts of money that companies perform for to drive up share prices.
Why own when you can get paid to control? Then your money isn't on the line and you don't need to be lucky to get rich.
Ah, the high risk situation of being called to deal with a man falsely accused of a non-violent crime, and an unruly mob of people keeping their distance and "begging the men with guns and armor not to murder a man in the street". I can definitely understand why shitty cowards would feel threatened.
lied about in court
I'm gonna go with "nah". He was found guilty, so he's a guilty murderer.
I'm shocked a bootlicker like yourself would have such doubts in the system. Or is it because they actually found a cop guilty and you just can't accept such a travesty? Just think of all the black kids he could have threatened!
Go to hell.
Yeah... Of all the antigovernment people to latch onto it's vaguely unfortunate that we landed on fawks. Like, I do get that it's a pop culture reference more than an actual historical reference, but still.
There was legitimate persecution of Catholics in England at the time, so it doesn't least have a veneer of fighting tyranny, but he didn't even actually succeed.
Shoulda gone for Louis Lingg. A bit more modern, and had the awesome criminal defense that "it's his right to fill his house with dynamite".
Ah, I was thinking you'd want it to ignite in the child's hands to really maximize the lifelong trauma and deep seated trust issues.
Oh 100% they are. It would probably be harder to design them so they did get hot than otherwise, since I think the most suitable resin for eyes and buttons doesn't get hot. But it'd be a shame if someone got burned. :)
I enjoy the notion that they would argue that undocumented immigrants are not subject to US law in the fashion that diplomats aren't subject to US law, since that would effectively prevent anything except deportation as a punishment for crimes.
"Your children can't be citizens, but you can murder with impunity until we ask you to leave".
Just to add on a clarifying detail: microwaves can heat things that aren't water, they just usually don't do so nearly as well. So while this sloth might have eyes that don't get hot, a different one might have them cheerfully get insanely hot very fast.
I'm not sure that your guess is correct. The gass tax is an example of a regressive tax. Higher income people are generally more able to work from home, and own higher efficiency vehicles. Even ignoring efficiency, a person making $200k would pay the same for road maintenance as a person making $30k. As a proportion of income, the tax hits lower income people harder.
At the same time, we don't actually want to penalize people for having more efficient cars. So dropping the tax on individuals and shifting it to the main driver behind road wear makes sense. The cost will inevitably be passed on to consumers, but spreading $60 billion over all the products sold in the US in a year is a smaller burden for low income people, particularly if weight is factored in.