Greta TOONberg protested a wind farm. Nuff said.its actually pretty sad that they attack success
again envy & spite
Greta TOONberg protested a wind farm. Nuff said.its actually pretty sad that they attack success
again envy & spite
No constantly calling someone right wing or a MAGA because they don't agree with you on everything is foolish. What I posted is fact.That's a rather foolish post.
you want to confiscate a business owners income @ 95 to 99% and your claiming i don't make any sense ???????I did not sat any of that. I did not say the govt has to tax business owners 95%. I said billionaires and oligarchs need to be. And why is 95% confiscation and 50% taxation? No. Taxation is neither confiscation nor is a billionaire paying their fair share socialism.
You are not making sense.
of course you did not as you are not bright enough to foresee the reactions to your theftI did notsatsay any of that.
to the angry mob but it would not do you any goodI did notsatsay any of that.
Greta TOONberg protested a wind farm. Nuff said.
Considering I did not say confiscate a business owners income everything you've said here is irrelevant and not a response to my post. You are having the argument in your head.you want to confiscate a business owners income @ 95 to 99% and your claiming i don't make any sense ???????
of course you did not as you are not bright enough to foresee the reactions to your theft
you did say you would confiscate a business owners income @ 95 to 99%
actions have consequences
if govt tried to confiscate 95% to 99% of ANY business owners income
he / she would just stop operating the business , shut it down and fly out of your jurisdiction
other business owners would see an irrational lunatic is in charge and pull their money out of your country & stop all operations
actions have consequences
you would be left holding your dick in your hand trying to explain the economic collapse, chaos and product shortages to the angry/ hungry / unemployed mob
you could try saying
to the angry mob but it would not do you any good
you would likely need to declare martial law, just to save your life
your not very bright
too funnyConsidering I did not say confiscate a business owners income everything you've said here is irrelevant and not a response to my post. You are having the argument in your head.
I'm not trolling. I'm asking you questions to understand your point.Per capita matters. If Canada only contributes 1.5%, and that is because of the low population, then by reducing per capita emissions, we can contribute much less than 1.5%. After all we are still in the top 10 countries with most emissions. Remember China may produce everything, but the majority of the worlds consumption is driven by people in the west. As you can see in the map below, the countries with most per capita emissions are also countries with lower populations and advanced economies.
You are just trolling at this point jumping through hoops.
View attachment 316193
Nowhere have I ever said I don't like taxes. That's your imagination.That's like saying paying for your dinner is 'theft' just cause you ate.
If you don't like taxes, move to Haiti.
No government, no taxes.
Its the right wing, libertarian fantasy right now.
Its true about lithium but even that poison is way better than putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.
We are at the point where we need to do everything (except geoengineering).
EV's are one small part but not a long term goal.
Okay at what % does taxation turn into confiscation. Let's hear your logic.too funny
confiscation @ 95% to 99% being renamed to taxation @ 95% to 99% would not change the reaction by business owners or the anarchy your lunatics "taxation policy'' would produce
you are not very bright
It does matter. We are the consumers. To reduce emissions you need to reduce consumption and reduce production. But since consumption and production are related, you need to reduce consumption, to have an impact on production. The reason per capita emissions are important is because it shows you how much we consume. Our consumption drives production in countries like China, which is also the number 1 country for emissions.Per capita, in this context doesn't matter if the entire amount for Canada is 1.5%. To illustrate my point, I even suggested using net-zero to remove the entire 1.5% as it relates globally. Then you pivot to "per capita"? Why? I've already demonstrated that Canada reaching net-zero has insignificant impact on global numbers.
shut Canada down completely and it would not make a difference in emissionsI'm not trolling. I'm asking you questions to understand your point.
Why do leftists always accuse others of trolling when they are faced with questions they either can't answer or won't answer. Happens every time.
Per capita, in this context doesn't matter if the entire amount for Canada is 1.5%. To illustrate my point, I even suggested using net-zero to remove the entire 1.5% as it relates globally. Then you pivot to "per capita"? Why? I've already demonstrated that Canada reaching net-zero has insignificant impact on global numbers.
Straw man argument, larue.too funny
confiscation @ 95% to 99% being renamed to taxation @ 95% to 99% would not change the reaction by business owners or the anarchy your lunatics "taxation policy'' would produce
you are not very bright
Sure it does.I'm not trolling. I'm asking you questions to understand your point.
Why do leftists always accuse others of trolling when they are faced with questions they either can't answer or won't answer. Happens every time.
Per capita, in this context doesn't matter if the entire amount for Canada is 1.5%. To illustrate my point, I even suggested using net-zero to remove the entire 1.5% as it relates globally. Then you pivot to "per capita"? Why? I've already demonstrated that Canada reaching net-zero has insignificant impact on global numbers.
Analogies aren't your strong suit.Sure it does.
You're still trying to argue that if you don't pay for your meal at a restaurant and tell them its only 1.5% of revenue then it doesn't matter.
Well, spending $1.50 on a meal for 150 people does sound like something you'd do.Analogies aren't your strong suit.
We're talking about per capita vs overall. Total is 1.5% regardless.
If I owe $1.50 for that meal, and it's split among 150 patrons that's 1 cent per person. Still totals $1.50.
Says the guy who can't explain what "fair share" means.Well, spending $1.50 on a meal for 150 people does sound like something you'd do.
And of course you'd argue that therefore there is no need for you pay your fair share, even if its only 1 cent, because its only a tiny part of the total.
Same argument, you won't pay your fair share.
You're a cheapskate and a free loader.
long before taxation reduces the risk adjusted after tax return to the business owner below his/her risk adjusted cost of equity capitalOkay at what % does taxation turn into confiscation. Let's hear your logic.
How do you know it is staged? I did not see him hiding, he addressed those haters directly.All staged. He hides behind the turban
You are answering a question and a scenario that solely resides in your head, not to mention I am not talking about corporate taxes, but personal income taxes. You are also not answering the question I asked. I asked at what tax % does it turn from taxation to confiscation?long before taxation reduces the risk adjusted after tax return to the business owner below his/her risk adjusted cost of equity capital
business owners assume a lot of risks you are not bright enough to even imagine.
they need to be compensated for assuming those risks
if they are not they should park their money in a savings account
no investment by business owners >> no economic growth, no innovation , no hiring
far more logical / practical than your clown show based on spite
you are not very bright