Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3
It's pretty simple, the fundamental belief is that Murray Edwards does not personally bring 2000x as much value to society at I do. Maybe his assets and employees cumulatively do bring that much value, but he is personally benefiting at that level
|
Ok I have read this catastrophe paragraph a few times now. Can you maybe explain your point again, but this time in English?
So maybe his assets (which includes his companies? Or do we for some reason not count those? Trying to follow your logic) or his employees equate to 2,000x the value to society that you bring, but he doesn't deserve to "benefit at that level" (what does this even mean)? Am I reading this right? Why the hell not?
I am actually ok with a guy like Edwards having $2billion, because I know how critical CNRL is to this province. But I'm not sure where I stand on the tax issue, personally. I kind of agree with both sides of the debate.
But anyway, that paragraph reads as a train wreck.