jeviensenpaix.bsky.social
62 posts
46 followers
139 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
Il faut dire que Hutson faisait face aux trios adverses les plus faibles lorsque jumelé avec X. Ça a été le contraire avec Guhle. Ceci explique cela…
comment in response to
post
I am not aware that I have dismissed the importance of individual rights in any way. The fact that you have somehow convinced yourself that I have says more about your preconceived ideas, and potentially your ability to debate with people that don’t completely share your views, than it does about me
comment in response to
post
Balancing individual and collective rights is inherently difficult and does not lend itself to easy answers. I don’t have them, but I can see arguments on both sides. The Gazette doesn’t seem to anymore have the collective intellectual wherewithal to even conceive that it is a legitimate issue.
comment in response to
post
It is the lack of analysis, contextualization and balance that have in my view progressively seeped through at the Gazette. It has become an English version of the Journal de Montréal, raising anecdotes to the level of national scandals because rage baiting is seen as the most profitable way to go.
comment in response to
post
I certainly have absolutely no love for a prime minister that systematically labels a significant proportion of the population as ‘threats’. I am equally baffled by a Quebec based paper having so little understanding, let alone sympathy of course, for what is objectively the most threatened minority
comment in response to
post
I equally complain when French media have absurd stereotypical views of English Canada. I just have noticed over the years how the Gazette has descended into a grievance filled leaflet in which if you replaced the word French by black or Jew, it would objectively be described as racist.
comment in response to
post
I invite you to look at the definition of leitmotif and then look at your timeline. Wake me up when you or the Gazette find a way to write a single positive syllable about anything French related. The newspaper has become a closed minded symbol of hate propaganda.
comment in response to
post
I know you ‘have a French Canadian friend’, but your daily dumping on Quebec has really become your leitmotif.
comment in response to
post
Il y a toujours une constante avec ces gens…les erreurs de grammaire. Mais ils sont ‘fiers’!
comment in response to
post
It will indeed have little impact on the UK aluminium industry as the country has no competitive advantage in making it. The UK has the highest commercial energy price in the world, and making aluminium is mostly about transforming energy. This industry, in the UK, is doomed in any case.
comment in response to
post
25% to be fair
comment in response to
post
C’est malheureux à dire, mais la violence, comme méthode de dissuasion, ça fonctionne. Et le gouvernement américain possède un potentiel de violence très élevé. Il est impératif de s’en distancer le plus possible.
comment in response to
post
Everything is a question of balance. In fine, if the UK puts no tariff on anything, and all other countries put tariffs on UK products, you end up in a situation where economies of scale mean that absolutely nothing is produced in the UK.
comment in response to
post
Article extrêmement intéressant M. Leclerc.
comment in response to
post
Well these people are not going to be in one of the 5 countries taxing their assets
comment in response to
post
Sure. But it is hardly going to change the national budget. That is my point . The idea that to ‘tax the rich’ is a panacea is completely utopic
comment in response to
post
No they don’t. Property is actually a particularly difficult asset to hide.
comment in response to
post
You are right about that. That it is why it will never be a significant tax revenue
comment in response to
post
Again, if you have billions, property is very marginal in your asset mix
comment in response to
post
That will encourage entrepreneurship :)
comment in response to
post
Quite different :) Valuation of any bespoke company is much more difficult and subjective than a house. It is also very difficult to disentangle when it operates across countries, with complex ownership structures. Scaling this up to a large number of people annually would be a legal nightmare
comment in response to
post
Why would these people stay in the UK for tax purposes then?
comment in response to
post
No it isn’t. Book value is equally meaningless for private companies. Take any start up. The book value is inevitably nothing. But the stock options can be very valuable. Out of the money stock options are not taxable until redeemed for this reason.
comment in response to
post
It is also a function of complexity, time and sophistication. Very few people at HMRC would have the combination of time (literally years), competence, and legal backing to challenge what is submitted.
comment in response to
post
No, it really doesn’t. Look at Tesla’s accounts, and look at its valuation as a proof of that. Book valuation is meaningless.
comment in response to
post
When you have billions, and your assets are scattered around the globe across all sorts of companies, you interaction with HMRC is very different from that of a PAYE employee. A bit like when you owe a million to the bank , you have a problem, but when you owe it a billion, it is it that has one
comment in response to
post
Your specific experience is irrelevant. Most companies do not get valued regularly and there is no tax requirement to do so as you suggested.
comment in response to
post
You are changing the subject. Stock options are mostly used for quoted companies, and you already pay taxes on them when you receive them. For others, wha tif I argue that they are worth nothing. Who is going to challenge that? How will they do that? And will the disagreement be managed…every year?
comment in response to
post
I have a company. I pay my taxes on profits every year. At no point do I have to value it. No one does, unless you sell it.
comment in response to
post
No, they literally don’t
comment in response to
post
Then there is the issue of which assets to include. Do you include pension plans, art, foreign held assets, etc. All those bring different moral dilemmas, and can be particularly challenging to assess.
comment in response to
post
That is why that there are now only six countries left in the world that have asset taxes of this nature. All the others that tried found it too difficult to implement efficiently and ended up giving up on it.
comment in response to
post
For most very rich people, real estate is a small fraction of their wealth. Most will be in businesses, whose value is inherently difficult to assess. Look at share price fluctuations in any given year. Furthermore, most of these businesses are not traded. Valuation, every year, is a legal nightmare
comment in response to
post
No. That’s too complicated. Better to just scream meaningless slogans, and feel good about yourself
comment in response to
post
Bienvenue au Québec! We will be going visit you from Montreal this summer (if you are in the Maritimes)
comment in response to
post
Vous avez changé de sexe
? :)
comment in response to
post
Not great, but the decline from the high is 7.4%, not 8.8%…so there is a bit of hope :)
comment in response to
post
Isn’t it fair to say that Bernardo’s time on the starting XI has come and gone? He is just too slow to play on the wing, and it’s been years since he’s been effective in the middle of the pitch.
comment in response to
post
That would be a serious long term mistake for Canada. Short term economic pain is worth the long term gain of diversifying relationships
comment in response to
post
They are not perfect. But who is ? Certainly not the US. And China is a more reliable and coherent trading partner than the US is at the moment. Canada would be foolish to not do everything to reduce its dependence on the US
comment in response to
post
1 Great coverage
comment in response to
post
Full of guts, your teacher. Great you remember her
comment in response to
post
We get to the same place through different paths :) I just find both sides quite puerile when referring to done deals or sunk costs of 50 or 100 years ago. Neither should have any bearing on what the most productive deal for both sides should be going forward.
comment in response to
post
Can you give me an example of a polity that reopens a favourable agreement just on the basis that it is too favourable? Would, for example, NL consider giving back some of the Labrador territory to PQ given the extremely favourable and one-sided decision it received from the Privy Council of 1927?
comment in response to
post
It was not protective but it was beneficial to the UK
comment in response to
post
Sad if you think it is the most important thing in the country.
Other people might believe matters relating to climate change are more important and should be subject to referenda. Others might feel the same about abortion. For others, it might be health, or education matters. Where does it end?
comment in response to
post
This has nothing to with brexit. The UK does the same within the EU or outside of it when it comes to its national management of its nuclear arsenal.
comment in response to
post
Everything happens without a vote. That’s the parlimentary system.
comment in response to
post
Sure. And there is also the gestation period of elephants that is interesting. But the discussion here was about the fact that brexit was an unmitigated economic negative. It was, it is, and will continue to be.
comment in response to
post
Lack of strategic planning absolutely is the problem. Destruction of gas storage facility, blowing the money from the oil boom, lack of investment in nuclear and now renewables, privatisation of a natural monopoly. All these are national decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with the EU.