Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
That's the excuse they give, yes. That doesn't mean it's why they do it, though.
Sure, one action can have multiple reasons and outcomes. I agree with it in part that I need to pay my fair share of road taxes. I also recognize that this is a relatively new market force, and highly accurate consumption-to-taxation isn't in place yet (again, for many reasons).
Its not the only reason they do it.
More money is, of course, nice for them. But that doesn't mean it's their main reason. We can ascribe all sorts of benevolent reasoning to politicians, but reality often disagrees.
It's a regressive policy made as a reaction, and not an action, and thus inherently destructive.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Err, clearly an action. A reaction IS an action by definition.
Point of order, counselor. Conclusion not supported by the facts. If you apply your same logic ( and conclusions) to the COVID lockdowns, then your conclusion would be those were unnecessarily destructive.