New Jersey Democrats Saying Taxes Are Already High On The Rich

#54
#54
hog88 said:
I'm not denying that we do have an impact, it's a minor impact and the global warming movement has nothing to do with slowing or preventing it. It's 100% about wealth redistribution and crippling the US economy.
Click to expand...
Crippling the US economy? I guess that opinion is rooted in your anti regulations stance.
 
#55
#55
Mick said:
Crippling the US economy? I guess that opinion is rooted in your anti regulations stance.
Click to expand...
You cannot look at this deal put out and it not instantly hit you that it is full of unicorns and rainbows and that is imaginary. You're ignorant in economics.
 
#57
#57
Orange_Vol1321 said:
You cannot look at this deal put out and it not instantly hit you that it is full of unicorns and rainbows and that is imaginary. You're ignorant in economics.
Click to expand...
I haven't looked at the AOC plan if that is what you're talking about. I've had more than one economics class. I can look at it from both a micro and macro level.
 
#60
#60
Mick said:
Basically you don't have an understanding of how greenhouse gasses effect the atmosphere. The data is there and agreed upon by the people that know such things. Stay in your lane because your opinion on the matter is worthless.
Click to expand...
I’d say you’re the one who doesn’t have a valid opinion and the disciplined scientists will say they don’t see a clear trend.

Are CO2 levels increasing?
 
Last edited:
#61
#61
DC_Vol said:
Yes it was repealed.
Click to expand...
Do they still have a problem with runoff pollution and did they used the tax to address the needs? You may be right that the need was addressed and the tax was no longer needed but still used it to address other needs unrelated to the original purpose of the tax.
 
#63
#63
Mick said:
Really "skepticalscience" is your resource. I'm skeptical that it's not biased.

Plus do you have something from the last decade?
Click to expand...
😂😂
Decade....time constants, _ick, time constants. Plus it doesn’t invalidate the 160 years of previous data 😏
 
Last edited:
#64
#64
Mick said:
Do they still have a problem with runoff pollution and did they used the tax to address the needs? You may be right that the need was addressed and the tax was no longer needed but still used it to address other needs unrelated to the original purpose of the tax.
Click to expand...

Yes MD still has a terrible stormwater problem but they have went in a different direction in addressing it, they are putting the responsibility where it belongs. On the developer and property owner. We are finally seeing movement on some problem locations we identified years ago. It's not perfect and there is still some shady shizz going on but it's getting better.
 
#65
#65
hog88 said:
Yes MD still has a terrible stormwater problem but they have went in a different direction in addressing it, they are putting the responsibility where it belongs. On the developer and property owner. We are finally seeing movement on some problem locations we identified years ago. It's not perfect and there is still some shady shizz going on but it's getting better.
Click to expand...

Did your funding come from taxes to identify the problems years ago or private money? I swear I remember you telling me that you ran into this problem when you were looking to expand your company.
 
#66
#66
Mick said:
Did your funding come from taxes to identify the problems years ago or private money? I swear I remember you telling me that you ran into this problem when you were looking to expand your company.
Click to expand...

Our expansion plans had nothing to do with this topic.

We have contracts with several companies to do stormwater inspections for their facilities, some of these are in MD. Through the inspections we identified several that several of our clients properties were out of compliance but have gotten no movement on them until this year. I don't know the exact reason but when 4 different clients all of a sudden dust off old proposals and want to move on them something happened.
 
#67
#67
So while we’re attacking idiot science this morning let’s deal with the North Pole melting and drowning us.

Assume there is an ice cube in a glass of water. When the ice cube melts, will the water level have risen, fallen, or remained the same? Why?

Sea levels do not rise due to melting icebergs. The mass of the iceberg is conserved. In order to raise the sea levels you need to A) decrease density, temp rise can do this out look at the rise data it’s noise B) add mass, ice and snow currently on land would have to move to the seas at a higher seasonal rate C) invent a bunch of science to conflate the natural phenomena which occur normally to advance your agenda based on bad science.

Furthermore over 95% of the earths water is already liquid in the seas. All of the ice at the North Pole could melt and it has zero impact on the sea level.

Is there a natural habitat impact on polar icecaps melting? Yes, absolutely, for polar bears, seals, even pure marine life and indigenous Northern peoples. Is it going to kill off the planet? Absolutely not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and davethevol
#68
#68
hog88 said:
Our expansion plans had nothing to do with this topic.

We have contracts with several companies to do stormwater inspections for their facilities, some of these are in MD. Through the inspections we identified several that several of our clients properties were out of compliance but have gotten no movement on them until this year. I don't know the exact reason but when 4 different clients all of a sudden dust off old proposals and want to move on them something happened.
Click to expand...

So, business is good? I knew you would be the man with the knowledge. You can thank regulations for your prosperity.
 
#69
#69
Mick said:
So, business is good? I knew you would be the man with the knowledge. You can thank regulations for your prosperity.
Click to expand...

Regulation done right can be helpful to everyone, sadly this isn't the case most of the time.

Take the emission standards for heavy duty diesel trucks for instance, they have done very little in regards to reducing total NOx, NMHC and HCHO emitted from heavy duty diesel trucks since they have hurt the fuel economy, takes more fuel to run the same miles so in the end you're not really cutting down on emissions. Not only that the requirements are polluting the water. 1/3 of diesel exhaust fluid is urea which is essentially nitrogen when it breaks down, nitrogen is is a nutrient which leads to algae growth which leads to low oxygen in the water and fish kills. So in the fervor to reduce air pollution and "global warming" we have really done nothing but increase water pollution and of course keep me in business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#70
#70
hog88 said:
Regulation done right can be helpful to everyone, sadly this isn't the case most of the time.

Take the emission standards for heavy duty diesel trucks for instance, they have done very little in regards to reducing total NOx, NMHC and HCHO emitted from heavy duty diesel trucks since they have hurt the fuel economy, takes more fuel to run the same miles so in the end you're not really cutting down on emissions. Not only that the requirements are polluting the water. 1/3 of diesel exhaust fluid is urea which is essentially nitrogen when it breaks down, nitrogen is is a nutrient which leads to algae growth which leads to low oxygen in the water and fish kills. So in the fervor to reduce air pollution and "global warming" we have really done nothing but increase water pollution and of course keep me in business.
Click to expand...
You're basically making a case against taxes in favor of more regulations. Regulations that make sense and address the problem in your eyes. Not going to argue against that.
 
#71
#71
Mick said:
You're basically making a case against taxes in favor of more regulations. Regulations that make sense and address the problem in your eyes. Not going to argue against that.
Click to expand...

Ideally before a regulation is adopted it must have a cost assigned to it and all angles and possible consequences examined.
 
#72
#72
Mick said:
Do they still have a problem with runoff pollution and did they used the tax to address the needs? You may be right that the need was addressed and the tax was no longer needed but still used it to address other needs unrelated to the original purpose of the tax.
Click to expand...

I didn’t make any statements about needs, just noted that Democrats’ desire to tax the weather was a bad play in Maryland.

We now have a Republican governor in a very blue state.
 
#73
#73
DC_Vol said:
I didn’t make any statements about needs, just noted that Democrats’ desire to tax the weather was a bad play in Maryland.

We now have a Republican governor in a very blue state.
Click to expand...
"Tax on the weather". lol. Seriously is that how they sold it as a bad idea to the people that it didn't affect. I'm sure it was a hot button issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top