SomeoneSomewhere

Most of the current plans for wealth taxes start in the region of $5-$50 million, taxing wealth above that bracket (like other progressive taxes). Do you expect to save $5 million, let alone $50 million? If not, you won't pay any wealth tax.

Many plans also exclude your 'family house' from that, so you could have a $3m house and $4m in the bank and still pay no wealth tax - you're rich, but not filthy rich.

Most of the seriously proposed tax rates are also in the 1-3% range, maybe 5% on the very high end. Again, of wealth above that threshold.

There is also some argument about hoarding that $200k (again, more like $20m) you saved rather than using it. If you spend it eating out, drinking, getting your house renovated, flying somewhere - then you end up paying tax and spending money and there's some trickle down. If it sits in a bank account or in stocks or real estate, less so.

The ping is a bit meh. I need to figure out how to get the 4G card in my laptop to work on linux.

This is capped at 50Mb/s to be a bit cheaper.

One of the big arguments is to tax wealth, not just income.

NZ has similar.

It is basically a plastic milk bottle that has pancake powder at the bottom.

You add water up to a line printed on the label, shake it, and now you have a bottle of pancake mix.

There's a difference between a market and a significant market.

Explain how you deal with or prevent rape and murder in an anarchist society.

The argument is not that they chose not to harm the land, but that they simply couldn't significantly harm the land, and there usually wasn't any incentive to, because they couldn't get at anything under the land anyway.

About the only option was intentionally setting first/grass fires, and that happened plenty.

So your alternative is what? Just say a tonne is a tonne?

It's adequate for the purpose at hand.

Lots and lots of math and analysis.

My understanding is it is fairly well settled on a chemical & lifespan basis. I am not sure of what impact initial altitude has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Anaerobic bacteria produce methane. When oxygen is present, the aerobic pathway outcompetes anaerobic because more energy is available, producing CO2 instead.

GHG are usually measured in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GWP) where methane is about 80x as much warming as the same mass of CO2 over a 20 year period, or about 25x as much warming over a 100 year period.

This is also what's going on in the steady replacement of various refrigerants with lower-GWP alternatives.

40% thrown away does not necessarily imply all others are better.

Normally imperfect produce goes to processing plants (juice, cans, pies etc.) but I'm not sure if there's any significant market for banana chunks/puree.