# data[].attributes.body
Vote Spongebob for president. Why? because he will FIGHT for you Spongbob is from the Bikini Bottom. he lives in a pineapple under the SEA Why not vote for him. He even has experience in war He was a leader in the army. don't believe me? Look at the gallery Spongbob also knows how to cook he can cook from Crabby Patties to Kelp flakes. He graduated from High school with an honours degree. Hes a good friend to those around him and even to People he doesn't know. Give's presents to those who don't deserve it. Vote Spongebob for president.

# data[].attributes.body
2nd Amendment Aka right to bear arms Spongbob believes there should be an age restriction to bear arms. Those who are under age should not bear arms until the age of 25. He also thinks that they should be able to buy arms if they have permission from the government. He also thinks that the army should also only be able to get arms if they are over the age of 25. Spongbob thinks that they should only be able to buy arms if they do a background check. He also thinks that they should do background checks one reason is because some people could have a criminal record and possibly do more crime than what they already have done. another reason is that some people may not have a criminal record but aren't mature enough to handle arms or any other weapons. Lastly He thinks that Its good for people have arms so they can protect themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Spongebob Squarepants believes that wealthy people should be taxed higher because the percentage of the tax rates now is not helping the economy. About seven in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have supported heavier taxes on the rich each time the classic Gallup question has been asked since October 2008. That compares to a consistent third or less of Republicans. He also thinks that people who make less than 30,000$ should not be taxed as much as people who make more than 100,000$. Spongbob thinks that people who have more money should pay more. Because they are spoiled and have to much money instead of wasting money or dumb material items they should give some money to charity and help find orphans good homes. Spongebob also thinks that taxes should go to feeding america so that people in need could get the food they deserve. Spongbob thinks that taxes money should also go to homeless dogs and homeless people to build them a shelter and home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Second Amendment is often misplaced and overrated in the debate over guns in America, according to many experts on guns and the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
History of Gun Control Laws
Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, enslaved people, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned.

Guns were common in the American Colonies, first for hunting and general self-protection and later as weapons in the American Revolutionary War. Several colonies' gun laws required that heads of households (including women) own guns and that all able-bodied men enroll in the militia and carry personal firearms. Read more history...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

The Second Amendment is not an unlimited or individual right to own guns.

Further, the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of militias to own guns, not the right of individuals to own guns. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion for District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, wrote, "the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias," hence the inclusion of the phrase "well regulated militia."

Michael Waldman, President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, stated there is nothing about an individual right to bear arms in the notes about the Second Amendment when it was being drafted, discussed, or ratified; the US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of the individual right four times between 1876 and 1939; and all law articles on the Second Amendment from 1888 to 1959 stated that an individual right was not guaranteed.
Read More

Pro 2

More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.

Approximately 50% of unintentional fatal shootings were self-inflicted; and most unintentional firearm deaths were caused by friends or family members.

Five women are murdered with guns every day in the United States. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, 5,364 US soldiers were killed in action between Oct. 7, 2001 and Jan. 28, 2015; between 2001 and 2012 6,410 women were killed with a gun by an intimate partner in the United States.

Researchers found that a "general barrier to firearm access created through state regulation can have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide rates in the United States. Permit requirements and bans on sales to minors were the most effective of the regulations analyzed."

Gun licensing laws were associated with a 14% decrease in firearm homicides, while increases in firearm homicides were seen in places with right-to-carry and stand-your ground-laws.

More gun control leads to fewer suicides. When US gun ownership goes down, overall suicide rates drop; meanwhile, each 10 percentage-point increase in gun ownership is linked to a 26.9% increase in the youth suicide rate. In Indiana and Connecticut, after "red flag" laws to remove guns from people who may pose a threat were enacted, gun suicides decreased by 7.5% and 13.7% respectively, while suicides by other means did not decrease during the same time. A person who wants to kill him/herself is unlikely to commit suicide with poison or a knife when a gun is unavailable.

The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 31% of total accidental shooting deaths could have been prevented by installing safety devices on guns: 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks; and 23% of accidental shooting deaths by adolescents and adults per year could be prevented by loading indicators showing when a bullet was in the chamber ready to be fired.

Marjorie Sanfilippo, PhD, Professor of Psychology at Eckerd College who has researched children's behavior around guns, stated, "We put gates around swimming pools to keep children from drowning. We put safety caps on medications to keep children from poisoning themselves.... [B]ecause children are naturally curious and impulsive, and because we have shown time and again that we cannot 'gun-proof' them with education, we have a responsibility to keep guns out of the hands of children."
Read More

Pro 3

The presence of a gun makes a conflict more likely to become violent.

The FBI found that arguments (such as romantic triangles, brawls fueled by alcohol or drugs, and arguments over money) resulted in 1,962 gun deaths (59.9% of the total).

An editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health noted, "gun-inflicted deaths [often] ensue from impromptu arguments and fights; in the US, two-thirds of the 7,900 deaths in 1981 involving arguments and brawls were caused by guns." A study published in the same journal found that "the weapons used [in altercations]... were those closest at hand." And thus, according to another study, "[r]ather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

Common sense gun control laws can decrease the likelihood of a violent situation turning deadly. President Ronald Reagan and others did not think the AR-15 military rifle (also called M16s by the Air Force) should be owned by civilians and, when the AR-15 was included in the assault weapons ban of 1994 (which expired on Sep. 13, 2004), the NRA supported the legislation. A Mother Jones investigation found that high-capacity magazines were used in at least 50% of the 62 mass shootings between 1982 and 2012.When high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, the death rate rose 63% and the injury rate rose 156%.
Read More

Pro 4

A majority of adults, including gun owners, support common sense gun control such as background checks, bans on assault weapons, and bans on high-capacity magazines.

According to a Feb. 20, 2018 Quinnipiac Poll, 97% of American voters and 97% of gun owners support universal background checks. 67% support a nationwide ban on assault weapons, and 83% support mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases.

As much as 40% of all gun sales are undocumented private party gun sales that do not require a background check (aka the "gun show loophole").

53% of all adults surveyed approve of high-capacity magazine bans. 89% of adults with a gun in the home approve of laws to prevent the purchase of guns by the mentally ill, and 82% approve of banning gun sales to people on no-fly lists.

77% of Americans support requiring a license to purchase a gun.

Don Macalady, member of Hunters against Gun Violence, stated, "As a hunter and someone who has owned guns since I was a young boy, I believe that commonsense gun legislation makes us all safer. Background checks prevent criminals and other dangerous people from getting guns."

Many would like to see the U.S. enact more laws like other countries, citing the fact that countries with restrictive gun control laws have lower gun homicide and suicide rates than the United States. Both Switzerland and Finland require gun owners to acquire licenses and pass background checks that include mental and criminal records, among other restrictions and requirements. In 2007 Switzerland ranked number 3 in international gun ownership rates with 45.7 guns per 100 people (about 3,400,000 guns total). In 2009 Switzerland had 24 gun homicides (0.31 deaths per 100,000 people) and 253 gun suicides (3.29 deaths per 100,000 people). Finland ranked fourth in international gun ownership rates with 45.3 guns per 100 people (about 2,400,000 guns total). In 2007 Finland had 23 (0.43 deaths per 100,000 people) gun homicides and 172 gun suicides (4.19 deaths per 100,000 people).
Read More

Con 1

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."
Read More

Con 2

Gun control laws are discriminatory and infringe on citizens' rights

Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, poor, black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. Charles Gallagher, Chair of Sociology at LaSalle University, stated that some gun control laws are still founded on racial fears: "Whites walking down Main Street with an AK-47 are defenders of American values; a black man doing the same thing is Public Enemy No. 1."

Background checks and micro-stamping are an invasion of privacy. Background checks require government databases that keep personal individual information on gun owners, including name, addresses, mental health history, criminal records, and more. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) worried that Senator Harry Reid's 2013 proposed background check legislation (the bill failed 54-46) would have allowed the government to keep databases of gun purchases indefinitely, creating a "worry that you're going to see searches of the databases and an expansion for purposes that were not intended when the information was collected." Micro-stamping similarly requires a database of gun owners and the codes their personal guns would stamp on cartridge cases. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) wrote that they would oppose any legislation that infringes "on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance."

Gun control laws infringe upon the right to self-defense and deny people a sense of safety. The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." Nelson Lund, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer. Even Senator Dianne Feinstein, a gun control advocate, carried a concealed gun when her life was threatened and her home attacked by the New World Liberation Front in the 1970s.

Gun control laws, especially those that try to ban "assault weapons," infringe upon the right to own guns for hunting and sport. In 2011, there were 13.7 million hunters 16 years old or older in the United States, High-powered semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used to hunt and in target shooting tournaments each year. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, "So-called 'Assault weapons' are more often than not less powerful than other hunting rifles. The term 'assault weapon' was conjured up by anti-gun legislators to scare voters into thinking these firearms are something out of a horror movie... [T]he Colt AR-15 and Springfield M1A, both labeled 'assault weapons,' are the rifles most used for marksmanship competitions in the United States. And their cartridges are standard hunting calibers, useful for game up to and including deer." According to a Feb. 2013 Pew Research report, 32% of gun owners owned guns for hunting and 7% owned guns for target or sport shooting.
Read More

Con 3

Gun control laws simply do not work.

Gun control efforts have proved ineffective. According to David Lampo, Publications Director of the Cato Institute, "there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates." Banning high-capacity magazines will not necessarily deter crime because even small gun magazines can be changed in seconds.The "gun show loophole" is virtually nonexistent because commercial dealers, who sell the majority of guns at shows and elsewhere, are bound by strict federal laws. According to a Mar. 10, 2016 Lancet study, most state-level gun control laws do not reduce firearm death rates, and, of 25 state laws, nine were associated with higher gun death rates.

Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people). The country has only one legal gun store (the Directorate of Arms and Munitions Sales), compared to at least 63,709 legal gun stores and pawn shops in the United States as of Feb. 10, 2014. Mexico's gun store is on a secure military base and customers must present a valid ID, go through a metal detector, and turn over cellphones and cameras to guards. To actually buy a gun, customers have to show proof of honest income, provide references, pass a criminal background check, prove any military duties were completed with honor, and be fingerprinted and photographed. If allowed to purchase a gun, the customer may buy only one gun (choosing from only .38 caliber pistols or lower) and one box of bullets. Between 2006 and 2010, Mexico's one gun shop sold 6,490 guns, yet as of 2012, Mexicans own about 15,000,000 guns, or about 13.5 guns per 100 people.

The main reason gun control doesn't work is because laws will not prevent criminals from obtaining guns or breaking laws. Of 62 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, 49 of the shooters used legally obtained guns. Collectively, 143 guns were possessed by the killers with about 75% obtained legally. A Secret Service analysis found that of 24 mass shootings in 2019 at least 10 (42%) involved illegally possessed guns.

The logical conclusion is that gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A study in Applied Economics Letters found that "assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level" and "states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murders." While gun ownership doubled in the twentieth century, the murder rate decreased. Journalist John Stossel explained, "Criminals don't obey the law... Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these [illegal] weapons now have a much easier job... As the saying goes, 'If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.'"

More gun control is not needed; education about guns and gun safety is needed to prevent accidental gun deaths. 95% of all US gun owners believe that children should learn about gun safety. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Inc (SAAMI), stated, "Whether in the field, at the range or in the home, a responsible and knowledgeable gun owner is rarely involved in a firearms accident of any kind." According to Kyle Wintersteen, Managing Editor of Guns and Ammo, studies show that "children taught about firearms and their legitimate uses by family members have much lower rates of delinquency than children in households without guns" and "children introduced to guns associate them with freedom, security, and recreation-not violence." [82] [85] [154]
Read More

Con 4

Gun control laws give too much power to the government and may result in government tyranny and the government taking away all guns from citizens.

57% of people surveyed by Pew Research in Feb. 2013 said that gun control laws would "give too much power to the government over the people."

The NRA's Wayne LaPierre stated, "if you look at why our Founding Fathers put it [the Second Amendment] there, they had lived under the tyranny of King George and they wanted to make sure that these free people in this new country would never be subjugated again and have to live under tyranny."

Concurring, Alex Jones, radio host, stated, "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting, it's there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs... 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!"

Marco Rubio (R-FL), US Senator, speaking about gun control laws during his 2016 presidential campaign, stated, "If God forbid, ISIS visits our life, our neighborhood, our school, any part of us, the last thing standing, the last line of defense could very well be our ability to protect ourselves."
Read More

Did You Know?

1. A Pew Foundation report found that 79% of male gun owners and 80% of female gun owners said owning a gun made them feel safer, and 64% of people living in a home in which someone else owns a gun felt safer.

2. The US General Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that 100% of deaths per year in which a child under 6 years old shoots and kills him/herself or another child could be prevented by automatic child-proof safety locks.

3. The Centers for Disease Control listed firearms as the #12 cause of all deaths between 1999 and 2015, representing 1.3% of total deaths. They were also the #1 method of death by homicide (67.3% of all homicides) and by suicide (51.9% of all suicides).

4. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, in 2012, Mexico had 11,309 gun murders (9.97 gun homicides per 100,000 people) compared to the United States that had 9,146 gun homicides (2.97 per 100,000 people).

5. Carrying a concealed handgun in public has been permitted in all 50 states since 2013, when Illinois became the last state to enact concealed carry legislation.

6. Five women a day are killed by guns in America. A woman's risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right to own guns. Opponents say the amendment protects individual gun ownership.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How do taxes affect the economy in the long run?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Economic activity reflects a balance between what people, businesses, and governments want to buy and what they want to sell. In the short run, demand…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What You'll Learn

1. Discover why there are better and worse ways for governments to raise a dollar of revenue.

2. Compare the economic impact of the three basic tax A tax is a mandatory payment or charge collected by local, state, and national governments from individuals or businesses to cover the costs of general government services, goods, and activities. types-taxes on what you earn, buy, and own-including three specific taxes within each category.

3. Learn about the basics of "dynamic scoring Dynamic scoring estimates the effect of tax changes on key economic factors, such as jobs, wages, investment, federal revenue, and GDP. It is a tool policymakers can use to differentiate between tax changes that look similar using conventional scoring but have vastly different effects on economic growth. ," one tool economists can use to compare the economic and revenue impact of different tax policies.

Introduction

There are better and worse ways to raise a dollar of revenue. That's because no two taxes impact the economy the same.

One way to think about this is as a hierarchy: Which taxes are most and least harmful for long-term economic growth? This hierarchy is determined by which factors are most mobile, and thus most sensitive to high tax rates-in other words, what economic activities, if taxed, can easily be moved, reduced, or otherwise changed to avoid that tax?

Taxes on the most mobile factors in the economy, such as capital, cause the most distortions and have the most negative impact. Taxes on factors that can't easily be moved, such as land, are the most stable and least distortive.

It's relatively easy for someone to invest less to avoid a capital gains tax property tax A property tax is primarily levied on immovable property like land and buildings, as well as on tangible personal property that is movable, like vehicles and equipment. Property taxes are the single largest source of state and local revenue in the U.S. and help fund schools, roads, police, and other services. . This difference is why capital gains taxes distort people's decisions, and thus the economy, more than property taxes. A capital gains tax is levied on the profit made from selling an asset and is often in addition to corporate income taxes, frequently resulting in double taxation. Capital gains taxes create a bias against saving, leading to a lower level of national income by encouraging present consumption over investment., for example. It's much harder for someone to pull up stakes and move their home to avoid a

Taxes on what you earn

Corporate Income Taxes

Corporate income taxes are taxes on business profits earned by C corporations. The corporate income tax A corporate income tax (CIT) is levied by federal and state governments on business profits. Many companies are not subject to the CIT because they are taxed as pass-through businesses, with income reportable under the individual income tax. directly increases the cost of making investments in capital, like machinery and equipment, which businesses and workers use to be more productive. When businesses and workers are more productive, the economy grows. So, by increasing the cost of making investments, the corporate income tax discourages investment and productivity growth, creating one of the largest negative impacts on economic growth compared to other taxes.

Individual Income Taxes

Individual income taxes are applied to wages and salaries, business income from pass-through businesses like sole proprietorships and LLCs, and investment income. High marginal tax rates, the amount of additional tax paid for every additional dollar earned as income, reduce individual incentives to work and business incentives to invest. That means individual income taxes also have a negative effect on the economy.

Payroll Taxes

Payroll taxes are paid on the wages and salaries of employees to finance social insurance programs like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Payroll taxes apply only to labor income, and not to business income like the previous two forms of tax. For this reason, payroll taxes are one of the least harmful ways to raise revenue, as the supply of labor is less responsive to taxation than the supply of capital. That said, it's important to note that employees bear the burden of payroll taxes, resulting in lower wages.

Taxes on what you buy

Gross Receipts Taxes

Gross receipts taxes are applied to a company's gross sales without allowing any deductions for costs. Unlike a sales taxes or a value-added taxes (VAT), gross receipts taxes are applied to business-to-business transactions and final consumer purchases. Since the tax is applied at each transaction in a production chain, without allowing for any deductions, it leads to tax pyramiding Tax pyramiding occurs when the same final good or service is taxed multiple times along the production process. This yields vastly different effective tax rates depending on the length of the supply chain and disproportionately harms low-margin firms. Gross receipts taxes are a prime example of tax pyramiding in action. , where the many layers of tax are built into the final price of the good. By providing an advantage to businesses with short production chains, while harming those with long production chains, gross receipts taxes distort business decisions and the economy.

Excise Taxes

Excise taxes are imposed on a specific good or activity, such as cigarettes, alcohol, and fuel. Because of their narrow base (applying a tax to a small selection of goods or services) excise taxes distort production and consumption choices. Sometimes this distortion is by design. For example, a tax on cigarettes to discourage smoking; however, this distortion makes excise taxes an inefficient source of revenue. Excise taxes with broader bases, or those levied in direct connection with the consumption of public goods, like gas taxes paying for road usage, better resemble pure consumption taxes and have less distortive effects.

Sales Taxes

Sales taxes are imposed on retail sales of goods and services. Ideally, sales taxes are imposed on all final retail sales of goods and services, but not on intermediate business-to-business transactions in the production chain, as in the case of gross receipts taxes. Sales taxes are less distortive than capital and income taxes because they do not affect decisions to work or invest, and when appropriately structured, they do not lead to tax pyramiding or changes in consumption.

Taxes on what you own

Wealth Taxes

Wealth taxes are imposed annually on an individual's net wealth. Net wealth is calculated by taking the market value of their total owned assets-the price those assets would get if sold-and subtracting their liabilities-everything that person owes, including loans, mortgages, and other debts. Wealth taxes place a high tax burden on the normal return to capital (the amount required for an investor to break-even on an investment) and a lighter burden on the supernormal returns to capital (amounts above and beyond the normal return); this is the opposite of ideal tax policy. By placing a higher burden on the normal return to capital, wealth taxes distort investment decisions and can alter entrepreneurship, venture capital funding, and even where talent is located (in Silicon Valley vs. Hong Kong, for example).

Estate Taxes

Estate taxes are levied on the value of property that is transferred to heirs upon the death of the original owner and can be thought of as a one-time wealth tax A wealth tax is imposed on an individual's net wealth, or the market value of their total owned assets minus liabilities. A wealth tax can be narrowly or widely defined, and depending on the definition of wealth, the base for a wealth tax can vary. . These taxes lead to unproductive tax planning, increase the tax burden on investment by encouraging people to consume their income rather than invest it, and may have negative effects on entrepreneurship.

Property Taxes

Property taxes can be levied on immovable or "real" property (i.e., land and buildings) and personal property (i.e., cars, machinery, office equipment, etc.). When properly structured, property taxes can be relatively economically efficient and transparent, such as when they apply to immovable property, like annual taxes on land and buildings. Taxes on immovable property have a relatively small effect on decisions to work and invest, though they can impact where a person or business chooses to locate. Because personal property is much more mobile, and thus more sensitive to taxation, personal property taxes distort investment decisions, complicate business tax compliance, and reduce economic growth.

Bang for Your Buck: Ranking 5 Hypothetical Tax Changes

Instead of focusing on the relative harm of different tax types, think about it in the reverse: Which taxes can be reduced to improve the economy? One way to answer this question is to use dynamic scoring to produce what we refer to as a "bang for your buck" analysis-a ranking of how much economic growth is produced per dollar of revenue forgone by different tax reductions.

The chart below considers five U.S. federal tax policy changes and the resulting effect on the size of long-run economic output, including a change in the corporate income tax base full expensing individual income tax tax credit A tax credit is a provision that reduces a taxpayer's final tax bill, dollar-for-dollar. A tax credit differs from deductions and exemptions, which reduce taxable income, rather than the taxpayer's tax bill directly. to $2,500; and a decrease in the capital gains tax rate of 5 percentage points. An individual income tax (or personal income tax) is levied on the wages, salaries, investments, or other forms of income an individual or household earns. The U.S. imposes a progressive income tax where rates increase with income. The Federal Income Tax was established in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Though barely 100 years old, individual income taxes are the largest source of tax revenue in the U.S. rate for all tax brackets; an increase in the maximum child Full expensing allows businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of certain investments in new or improved technology, equipment, or buildings. It alleviates a bias in the tax code and incentivizes companies to invest more, which, in the long run, raises worker productivity, boosts wages, and creates more jobs. ; a 1 percentage-point reduction in the corporate income tax; a 1 percentage-point reduction in the The tax base is the total amount of income, property, assets, consumption, transactions, or other economic activity subject to taxation by a tax authority. A narrow tax base is non-neutral and inefficient. A broad tax base reduces tax administration costs and allows more revenue to be raised at lower rates. called

As you can see below, cutting the capital gains tax rate is the least efficient option to produce economic growth. Dollar-for-dollar, full expensing, which allows companies to fully and immediately deduct the cost of all new investments, is the most efficient way for policymakers to generate economic growth through the tax code.

The relative increase in economic output that tax reductions generate per dollar of lost revenue clearly illustrates that not all taxes (and not all tax cuts) are equal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do taxes affect the economy? There are better ways to raise a dollar of revenue. That's because no two taxes impact the economy the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nothing lasts forever. Landscapes disappear, populations die out. It's the natural course of things. Why try to protect anyone? The strongest survive, the weakest die-the law of nature. Environmentalists are faced with this kind of reasoning time and time again. So in this article we want to present a number of convincing arguments as to why conservation and the promotion of sustainable development are important in spite of all the arguments of the skeptics.

Environmental protection creates jobs and stimulates the economy

Thousands of people work in conservation around the world. It encompasses many sectors, from organic farming to generating energy from wind, water, solar and biofuels. From inspecting protected areas to setting up hiking trails in national parks.

Environmental protection stimulates scientific research and technological innovation

Man has learned a lot from nature, and continues to learn. The idea for the first flying machine was inspired by watching birds fly. Tropical forests are a rich source of many medicines, including antibiotics or remedies for malaria. Lotus petals inspired the idea of making dirt-repellent surfaces and modern paints. Almost every animal and plant has its technical secrets, which scientists discover and inventors create know-how. In other words, humans peep from nature and copy. As ecosystems and wild species disappear, the basis for scientific research and technical improvements is sharply reduced.

Environmental protection prevents natural disasters

Nature seeks balance. So forests absorb CO2, grow and turn it into oxygen. This makes life possible and also slows down climate change. In addition, forests provoke rainfall and the circulation of water in nature, contributing to its purification and transformation into drinking water. In addition, forests and green spaces protect the soil from erosion and prevent landslides and avalanches. Destroying forests drastically changes the climate of entire regions and causes dehydration and desertification. Or, conversely, it can cause massive floods, resulting in the flooding of entire areas and the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people. By treating ecosystems with care, such troubles can be avoided.

Environmental problems have no geographic or political boundaries and affect everyone

The term "climate refugees" has already entered the international lexicon. New Zealand was one of the first countries to officially welcome in its territory people from other regions affected by natural disasters caused by climate change. Further climate change could lead to tremendous not only economic but also political and economic disruption. Accordingly, the struggle to save nature also has no boundaries: people from all over the world work together to find solutions to ecological problems and to promote models of sustainable development, opening up new horizons for themselves.

Protecting the environment teaches us to take responsibility for ourselves and others

In the course of our daily lives we consume the world's natural resources. For the production of fruit juices, meat, chocolate, palm oil and other products, entire forests, home to millions of living creatures, are cut down. The industrial cultivation of cotton leads to the disappearance of bodies of water and, again, accelerates climate change and the lives of many people in different countries. So we have to watch how much and what we buy and how the production of these goods affects the life of our planet, that is to take responsibility for our actions, because:

Protecting the environment is protecting people.

By protecting nature, we protect ourselves. Lack of natural resources causes economic crises, wars and epidemics. Even small changes in the ecosystem can lead to enormous disasters. For example, the death or decline in the population of bees will affect not only the production of honey, but also the entire system of food production, since bees pollinate 80% of useful and wild plants. No bees - no honey, no fruit, very few vegetables. This leads to hunger, disease, migration, political turmoil and wars.

Protecting the environment is about protecting people

By protecting nature, we protect ourselves. Lack of natural resources causes economic crises, wars and epidemics. Even small changes in the ecosystem can lead to great disasters. For example, the death or decline in the population of bees will affect not only the production of honey, but also the entire system of food production, since bees pollinate 80% of useful and wild plants. No bees - no honey, no fruit, very few vegetables. This leads to hunger, disease, migration, political turmoil and wars.

Involvement in environmental protection is a source of joy

We study nature, admire it, ride bicycles or hike, swim in rivers and lakes. We meet like-minded people. Many tourist regions lure guests, promising to show them wild, untouched nature. Both children and adults love to watch animals, birds or fish. Any local successes - eliminating landfills, saving endangered populations, creating nature reserves - become a cause for global joy and inspire all other members of the environmental movement.

We humans are part of nature and its cycles. Even if we think that "man has explored and conquered nature," we are highly dependent on it. Our impact on ecosystems has notable consequences for our daily lives. But they can be predicted and avoided if we think with our heads and act carefully. But it is also possible to promote positive change. Even small things can improve the state of nature and our life on the planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 important arguments for environmental protection - Great Lake Sworm Watch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nothing lasts forever. Landscapes disappear, populations die out. It's the natural course of things. Why try to protect anyone? The strongest survive, the weakest die-the law of nature. Environmentalists are faced with this kind of reasoning time and time again. So in this article...

# data[].attributes.body
Spongbob thinks that the environment should be protected. Why? because people are the ones ruining the environment because spongebob lives in the bikini bottom he sees all the pollution humans make in the ocean. Like oil pollution and waste pollution. Spongebob thinks that humans need to stop polluting and start cleaning and caring for the environment. he knows that even on land we have more plastic than we can handle. He says that all the trash you make goes to the dump or the us has to send it to other countries just so we can get ahead. We need to stop taking our trash to the dump and start figuring a way to get rid of the trash our own way. He said to save the ocean and the sea life like him :)