It's designed to bamboozle EU member-states into buying 'emissions certificates' to underwrite Brussels' Hamiltonian ambition to create a superstate, replete with taxation, albeit w/o representation
For the private individual, whether he knows this stuff or not, increased taxes (and a tax by any other name hurts just as much) is to remove his business and labour as much as possible from what can be monitored and recorded.
Which is what will happen, and even a freshman-economy student could tell them so. It is what always happens when taxation becomes too punitive. A death spiral starts, because there's no point working unless it's for the state directly, and even so there's no point doing anything more than you can be forced to here and now.
People who visited Communist bloc hotels and resorts are acquainted with the accompanying attitude of "meh" to dirty table-cloths, menues where's there's only one thing to order, and a general sense of malaise permeating everything.
Going in that direction because the compass reads "must fight climate change" doesn't change economic fundamentals. But:
The authors of this report knows all this, and they also knows that 9 out of 10 politicians and pundits in media? Don't know nor understand that. Not for lacking intelligence, but because they think reality is negotiable, and that they can decide what will happen. My go-to example is a Kindergarten-Karen deciding that tomorrow the kids will go on a picnic because the weather /will/ be fine. Tomorrow comes and it's The Flood all over again? Karen still drags the kids outside, and still tries to grill hotdogs in torrential rains, and is angry at the kids, angry at herself, angry at the weather and underlying that anger is a sense of having been betrayed and let-down: she had decided! Why can't [insert whomever here] respect that!?"
And that is why one must word such reports so that Karen thinks she's had a brainwave and discovered something new. Same principle as when leading a pig, really.
Hamiltonian moment you say? Paging Aaron Burr. Mr. Burr, please pick up the white courtesy phone…
This would be Politico's wording, not mine. Agreed on the other aspect.
For the private individual, whether he knows this stuff or not, increased taxes (and a tax by any other name hurts just as much) is to remove his business and labour as much as possible from what can be monitored and recorded.
Which is what will happen, and even a freshman-economy student could tell them so. It is what always happens when taxation becomes too punitive. A death spiral starts, because there's no point working unless it's for the state directly, and even so there's no point doing anything more than you can be forced to here and now.
People who visited Communist bloc hotels and resorts are acquainted with the accompanying attitude of "meh" to dirty table-cloths, menues where's there's only one thing to order, and a general sense of malaise permeating everything.
Going in that direction because the compass reads "must fight climate change" doesn't change economic fundamentals. But:
The authors of this report knows all this, and they also knows that 9 out of 10 politicians and pundits in media? Don't know nor understand that. Not for lacking intelligence, but because they think reality is negotiable, and that they can decide what will happen. My go-to example is a Kindergarten-Karen deciding that tomorrow the kids will go on a picnic because the weather /will/ be fine. Tomorrow comes and it's The Flood all over again? Karen still drags the kids outside, and still tries to grill hotdogs in torrential rains, and is angry at the kids, angry at herself, angry at the weather and underlying that anger is a sense of having been betrayed and let-down: she had decided! Why can't [insert whomever here] respect that!?"
And that is why one must word such reports so that Karen thinks she's had a brainwave and discovered something new. Same principle as when leading a pig, really.
Well, I'm not at-all convinced that everybody understands these connections.
Even so, that doesn't change a thing about your argument, and while I hope I'm wrong, I don't see how these causalities don't match.