There's a third choice, though. It's bad when speed limits are much lower than the natural speed of the road, for the reason you describe. And it's good when the natural speed of the road is the safe speed of the road. But in addition to those two, it's also possible to introduce fast, automated enforcement— speed cameras.
This, of course, applies just as much to the actual topic of the Economist article; new inheritance taxes are just and good, but they should be written to be enforceable, and then they should actually be enforced.
Wait WHAT?! I’ve been buying ebooks off BookWalker and it’s so annoying. Their reader app sucks and they have these faux-protective constraints like not permitting a “copy” function on any highlighted text and limiting a book to no more than 50 highlights. It’s so silly…
Edit: damn, had assumed you meant maximum nerd mode and that these books were available in Japanese… looks like it’s all English translations. So it goes.
The old meaning of the word "deprecate" meant to "pray against," or "to pray for deliverance from". As a software developer, I have always found this fact amusing. Software becomes deprecated not when it is actually limited or removed, but when the developers and maintainers begin to pray that God will deliver them from it.
Thanks, that's interesting. I never thought to look it up before.
Though most people I've worked with for some reason insist on pronouncing and sometimes spelling it as 'depreciated', which I guess makes a little sense if they're thinking of it as 'valueless.'
From what I can tell, the polls were just really bad. Less than 1% response rates. This provided hope for various sides at various times but at the end of the day they basically aren't that useful.
When you see really goofy progressive taxes, if you look behind them, you'll usually see a strong legal or political barrier behind more sensible ones. This is why you are always hearing about ridiculous Amazon taxes coming out of the state of Washington; the place has no income tax, and progressive income taxes have been held to be unconstitutional there. So they have to get creative if they want a progressive tax.
Of course, the barrier in California is the infamous Proposition 13. You're right that charging people different rates for energy based on their income is silly; if they want to let the poor off the hook they should just tax them less, or even give them money. But the state's lawmakers are operating in a constrained environment.
(It's also the case that subsidies and means-tested benefits are trendy in Democratic policy-making circles, despite being dumb and inefficient compared to simpler and less directed benefits.)
I think you're holding some of these to too high of a bar. This is a one-page article intended to be posted in company bathrooms. Of course it's less comprehensive than a longer blog post.
Universal broadband access is a governmental program supported by Democrats to give Internet access to Republicans. Hard-nosed politics would suggest the program should not have a bright future. States can deal with this problem, or not, as they choose.
> Universal broadband access is a governmental program supported by Democrats to give Internet access to Republicans.
This isn't a bad observation.
To speak plainly here: It taps at the notion that poor rural Rs ought to realize that the national R party likes them poor and angry. It's not untrue but it's totally tone deaf to the reality that the national D party hasn't given a meaningful crap about rural poverty in my lifetime. (source:recovering conservative)
> Hard-nosed politics would suggest the program should not have a bright future.
Our bazillionth lesson that hard nosed politics benefit a small group at the expense of most everyone else. Much work+money goes into making sure the lesson isn't learned.
> States can deal with this problem, or not, as they choose.
This runs up against a bright line. It runs between states that are openly, gleefully hostile toward helping vulnerable people - and the states that sometimes help when they aren't busy being inept/apathetic/confused/corrupt.
Alternative take: Universal broadband is a governmental program supported by Democrats to give Internet access to human people, some of which identity as Republicans, with the goal of improving things for all if us.
Jesus fuck, why does it always have to be us vs. them?
it's always been weird to me how badly elected democrats want to help republicans out in the in boondocks like I know those people show up at the state legislatiures but they're rigidly inflexible, ideologically committed and will never vote blue no matter what the democrats do for them, I want to shake my parties leaders sometimes like they will never love you, stop it.
I do think insurance is probably the right tool if you want people with more dangerous vehicles to have to pay more. However, the limits are too low. I live in New York, which requires insurance of up to $50,000[1] for the death of a person involved in an incident. However, most lives are worth more than $50k. If the requirement was insurance up to $10 million here instead, you would find the safety of cars constraining the market a lot more, and people wouldn't be able to get away with the kinds of externalities they do now.
The problem is that the country is dug too deep in a hole where driving is cheap, communities are sprawling, and public transport is a luxury. If a state actually mandated $10m liability, we'd probably see skyrocketing rates of uninsured drivers as a result. Or at least, skyrocketing more than they already are.
>> If the requirement was insurance up to $10 million
Hardly anyone has assets of $10 million, so they do not have the assets to insure. Many people do not even have assets of $50k, so again, why would they need insurance? If they get a judgement against them for $50k, they are bankrupt. That's what bankruptcy laws are for.
If your life is worth $10 million, you need to be the one to insure it for $10 million. Not the working class person who has no assets.
I see forced purchases of insurance for people with nothing to insure as similar to debtor's prison. Obviously not as extreme, but the same concept.
> I see forced purchases of insurance for people with nothing to insure as similar to debtor's prison
That's probably because you're looking at it entirely wrong.
The third-party cover in insurance is not for you (the driver), it's for the poor sod that you turn into a pavement stain.
If you kill them, their family has had someone taken away from them - would you be happy with $50K for the loss of a spouse?
If you don't kill them, but inflict life-changing injuries, the resulting lifetime healthcare costs could easily be more than $50K.
When you take to the road, you do incur some risk, but on average you pose more of a risk to others, particularly if you've chosen to drive a car that you can't see in front of properly.
The UK introduced compulsory third-party cover in 1988. Even back then, the cap was £250,000 - it's not led to any societal problems (although, the accident rate in the UK is far, far lower than in the US so policies probably are going to be cheaper).
I do agree, though, that 10 mil is definitely pushing it a bit far.
>> would you be happy with $50K for the loss of a spouse?
If that was an issue for me, I would make sure that I had the appropriate level of insurance for that event, rather than relying on the hope that some random driver on the streets where I live would have the appropriate level of insurance. Many of the drivers where I live have no license, the cars they are driving aren't registered, and they have no insurance.
That's a law enforcement issue (they don't enforce laws here either), not an civil one. The insurance thing is my responsibility.
