tannin wrote on Aug 4th, 2021 at 9:23pm:Further North wrote on Aug 4th, 2021 at 11:07am:tannin wrote on Aug 3rd, 2021 at 11:12am:One solution - No more free grazing on BLM land, and a tax on all cattle raised out west. Raise cattle east of the Mississippi where the water is.
I'm trying to understand how a tax - that would get passed along to consumers - would help?
I like the idea of raising cattle in the east (sort of, because I'm concerned it'd lead to more CAFOs) and can back cutting off grazing on BLM land...but the idea of a tax isn't effective.
Direct action works better than indirect, IMO.
Although taxes are primarily for raising funds, they are also commonly used as disincentives. If the cattlemen in the west had a tax that made it harder for them to compete with the cattlemen in the east, there would be a disincentive to raise cattle, and thus pump out rivers to raise hay in the western states.
I hate to pick nits (OK, not really, I kinda live for it 'cuz it tends to reveal agendas), tell us, who,
exactly, does taxation raise funds for? I mean...I know the answer, but let's get it out there, make it public...
...and your assessment that there's some kind of actual difference between eastern and western "cattlemen" begs the same question...who benefits? Feel free to provide detail...
Please note that I'm challenging your assessment, not you, as an individual, because I truly believe that your heart is in in the right place.
Here's a thought, skip the passive aggressive taxation and just write the laws for the results that'd best for
everyone.
Bottom line: Let's advocate for what's truly best for
everyone, and the environment, and screw the politics.
Anyone who puts politics first should find a deep, dark hole, crawl into it, and die.
Bottom line: Everyone here has the same goals.
What we do with that, and how we choose to present it makes all the difference in the world.