Yep, that one fits. I'm not really sure there is some kind of other me, though.
CanadaPlus
Are you thinking of sewer lines, garbage pickup, roads and the like?
I think it's quite possible that if they weren't free, lifestyles would change to accommodate it, including a lot more people going car-free and transit growing to accommodate that. OP's talking about something different, though, and I'm guessing the effect on house sizes just from non-free services would be mild, if measurable.
Yeah. Mounties like swinging their dick around as much as the next beat cop, and OP conspicuously didn't mention how much they were speeding by, exactly. Since OP wasn't at the wheel I don't see how they could be ejected, though. Being an idiot's passenger isn't a crime.
Yeah, I did address Poland. The agreement fell apart before much more sphering could happen. I rest my case, basically.
Nazis were better at planning. What a surprise.
You know that was a disaster for them, right? The Soviets had their own clusterfucks going on, but they won and it wasn't close.
Is this a national pride thing for you? Why even go there otherwise?
Like almost all of them believe in conspiracy theories. It's a fringe movement at this point, if a large one.
So, probably that George Soros personally stuffed all the ballot boxes for Carney.
That's definitely part of it. Most of the hereditary tory voters aren't on the separatist train, though.
No evidence? Yeah, good luck defending that one, guys. Like, not enough you could definitely argue for, but none is laughable.
Yep, they're good and empty. Nunavut is actually a bit smaller yet.
I mean, it had non-aggression pact right in the name. They did cooperate in splitting up Poland, but given the history, rhetoric and eventual actions of both sides you'd be hard pressed to seriously argue they were of a side.
Make it an official tax bracket too, instead just a refund everyone qualifies for. I don't know why TF it's set up that way.
Personality and lifestyle dependent, too.
The problem I have with the space tax idea, which I think OP has mentioned before, is just that it presupposes what people need without much justification, and then applies a penalty to force that outcome. Really, you only want to make people pay for what they take, and people buying big houses definitely do that. (Having inequality in the first place is of course it's own issue)
I'm curious if you mean in an abstract way, of if you've done nice-seeming things for people only for them to call you out on whatever ulterior motives.
Cool that you're way at the end of the willing-to-face-facts bell curve, though.