[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Mixtape Culture Club - rmgman - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:58am
 
Impeachment Time: - miamizsun - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:53am
 
Anti-War - SeriousLee - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:49am
 
I want an iPhone!!! - miamizsun - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:46am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:31am
 
What are you listening to now? - SeriousLee - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:22am
 
Bad Restaurant Promos - Proclivities - Nov 17, 2019 - 7:14am
 
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests - miamizsun - Nov 17, 2019 - 6:58am
 
DQ (as in 'Daily Quote') - SeriousLee - Nov 17, 2019 - 6:21am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - oerknol409 - Nov 17, 2019 - 5:06am
 
Regarding dogs - haresfur - Nov 16, 2019 - 11:55pm
 
Fires - haresfur - Nov 16, 2019 - 11:40pm
 
How much is your monthly cellphone bill? - Isabeau - Nov 16, 2019 - 8:17pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Nov 16, 2019 - 6:59pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Isabeau - Nov 16, 2019 - 2:02pm
 
Coffee - SeriousLee - Nov 16, 2019 - 12:50pm
 
Health Care - R_P - Nov 16, 2019 - 12:15pm
 
Name My Band - Coaxial - Nov 16, 2019 - 10:25am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - R_P - Nov 16, 2019 - 10:01am
 
Race in America - R_P - Nov 16, 2019 - 9:49am
 
Bolivia - R_P - Nov 16, 2019 - 9:31am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Nov 16, 2019 - 5:51am
 
Bad News / Good News - Proclivities - Nov 16, 2019 - 5:43am
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Proclivities - Nov 16, 2019 - 4:41am
 
Two sexes or ? Gender as a non-binary concept - R_P - Nov 15, 2019 - 5:17pm
 
If I was Oldv I'd.....to keep from freezing. - Manbird - Nov 15, 2019 - 3:04pm
 
The death penalty on trial? - miamizsun - Nov 15, 2019 - 3:02pm
 
Things that piss me off - Antigone - Nov 15, 2019 - 2:29pm
 
Canada - R_P - Nov 15, 2019 - 1:17pm
 
Photos you haven't taken of other people... - Proclivities - Nov 15, 2019 - 1:07pm
 
Know your memes - Red_Dragon - Nov 15, 2019 - 12:59pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 15, 2019 - 12:33pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Nov 15, 2019 - 12:32pm
 
Great drummers - miamizsun - Nov 15, 2019 - 12:24pm
 
How we see work - SeriousLee - Nov 15, 2019 - 11:46am
 
Trump - westslope - Nov 15, 2019 - 10:40am
 
Sweet horrible irony. - Red_Dragon - Nov 15, 2019 - 10:19am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Nov 15, 2019 - 10:00am
 
Guns - black321 - Nov 15, 2019 - 8:16am
 
Women in the World - Isabeau - Nov 15, 2019 - 6:16am
 
I like cheese - miamizsun - Nov 15, 2019 - 4:36am
 
We need to be aware of what just happened in Indiana - haresfur - Nov 15, 2019 - 1:35am
 
How To Be Politically Correct, A Primer - R_P - Nov 14, 2019 - 8:13pm
 
Race/Ethnicity-Genetics Connection - R_P - Nov 14, 2019 - 3:46pm
 
New Music - miamizsun - Nov 14, 2019 - 3:03pm
 
Need a Cell Phone Geek - miamizsun - Nov 14, 2019 - 2:40pm
 
charity link - rmgman - Nov 14, 2019 - 2:13pm
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Nov 14, 2019 - 9:56am
 
Economix - Lazy8 - Nov 14, 2019 - 8:29am
 
Where are the 80's? - Proclivities - Nov 14, 2019 - 8:08am
 
Things You Thought Today - Steely_D - Nov 14, 2019 - 7:51am
 
Democratic Party - black321 - Nov 14, 2019 - 7:22am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Proclivities - Nov 14, 2019 - 7:20am
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - Proclivities - Nov 14, 2019 - 7:07am
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Nov 14, 2019 - 6:46am
 
What Makes You Sad? - Egctheow - Nov 14, 2019 - 2:01am
 
Puzzle it - Manbird - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:54pm
 
RP starts randomly in Android - jarro - Nov 13, 2019 - 3:38pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - rhahl - Nov 13, 2019 - 12:28pm
 
Unresearched Conspiracy Theories - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:42am
 
Books read recently - maryte - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:39am
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 11:15am
 
How's the weather? - miamizsun - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:45am
 
News of the Weird - Red_Dragon - Nov 13, 2019 - 10:43am
 
Mystery Topic #21668 - jjtwister - Nov 13, 2019 - 8:35am
 
Party planning advice - Proclivities - Nov 13, 2019 - 8:02am
 
MacOS app - gtufano - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:38pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Nov 12, 2019 - 10:28pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Nov 12, 2019 - 4:49pm
 
The Black Crowes - SeriousLee - Nov 12, 2019 - 3:46pm
 
Don't Make Me Laugh - Red_Dragon - Nov 12, 2019 - 11:53am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Nov 12, 2019 - 8:59am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - cc_rider - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:59am
 
Immigration - Isabeau - Nov 12, 2019 - 7:31am
 
Ebola - miamizsun - Nov 12, 2019 - 5:27am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 36, 37, 38  Next
Post to this Topic
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Apr 6, 2019 - 7:11am

Solar and wind generated power are ultimately the only sustainable sources. ALL the energy on this planet came/comes from the sun. We need to stop mining the stored solar energy and start using the solar energy that is dumped on the planet on a daily - sustainable - basis.
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 6, 2019 - 6:39am

It's not their land. And certainly not their oil. 

The oil industry is only more competitive because they are basically selling stolen goods.

If it is not sustainable it is stealing from the common good. End of discussion.
no kittens were harmed in the making of this statement.

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 6, 2019 - 5:21am

 Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
Who gives a s#$t about whether its a tax break, lease discount, subsidy....these all impact the cost, which is ultimately all that is important.  

It matters so we can have an honest discussion about the topic.

If, say, wind power were a completely economically viable proposition all on its own—that is, the value of the power generated exceeded the cost of the labor, land, and resources required to generate it—governments would be looking for a way to tax it. Not because windmills have externalities that need to be compensated for, not because windmills are a burden on the public treasury, but because there's money there that the state isn't getting a piece of. They want a cut. Period.

The word subsidy is used (even when it isn't appropriate) because it's emotionally charged. It implies other people are being taxed to pay for something—that money is coming out of their pockets to prop up something that can't support itself. In some cases that is completely accurate, in some cases it's simply false.

We won't make progress on issues if we don't face them honestly.

Wind farms pay a $1/MWh tax in Wyoming. That's in large part because coal, a much bigger employer than wind, makes the state of Wyoming a lot of money in taxes and thus has a lot of political pull. They see it as only fair.

No other state taxes wind power directly. Is that a subsidy? No?

If Wyoming cut that tax to $.687/MWh would that be a subsidy? If it raised it to $1.178 would that mean that it was being subsidized, but isn't any longer? What if that tax could have been raised to $1.1839, but wasn't—is the difference a subsidy?

When Amazon threatened to open a headquarters in Brooklyn the city of New York offered it $3.4B in tax abatement—taxes it promised not to collect—to make it worthwhile to move there. There was outrage! How dare they, giving Amazon all that money!

So Amazon pulled out of the deal. Did the city of New York save itself $3.4B? No, the deal was a net gain for NYC and now it won't realize that gain. The $3.4B was never coming to NYC and now the jobs and paychecks and building rentals and restaurant meals won't either.

This is what happens when the discussion is dishonest. That's why it matters.

 
Terminology does matter. 

The best example I can think of is when discussing the federal budget, it is common for the framing of a reduction of an automatic increase to be called a budget cut.  The budget is still being increased, just not as much.  An increase is an increase, yet in political speak, it becomes a cut because it is not a full increase.  The federal government assumes that the budget increase is automatic regardless of need instead of using a zero based system where a function is analyzed and say an adjustment for increased efficiency would offset the need for an increase is ignored.  This is the primary difference between how the government operates vs a private enterprise.

The only way now that a budget item will not get an automatic increase is if the previously allocated monies are not all spent, and even in that case is still unlikely.  This method only causes increased waste and inefficiency where administrators seek out ways to spend all "their" money (our money) regardless of need or merit to insure the next year's automatic increase.  This method also assures that there will never be another surplus of government funds.  And insures the need for continually higher taxes to pay for increased automatic spending.



westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 3:28pm

Jesuz jumpin' catfish Lazy8.

This is by far the worst post of yours I have read on RP.  "Honesty"?   Gimme a break.


 Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
Who gives a s#$t about whether its a tax break, lease discount, subsidy....these all impact the cost, which is ultimately all that is important.  

It matters so we can have an honest discussion about the topic.

If, say, wind power were a completely economically viable proposition all on its own—that is, the value of the power generated exceeded the cost of the labor, land, and resources required to generate it—governments would be looking for a way to tax it. Not because windmills have externalities that need to be compensated for, not because windmills are a burden on the public treasury, but because there's money there that the state isn't getting a piece of. They want a cut. Period.

The word subsidy is used (even when it isn't appropriate) because it's emotionally charged. It implies other people are being taxed to pay for something—that money is coming out of their pockets to prop up something that can't support itself. In some cases that is completely accurate, in some cases it's simply false.

We won't make progress on issues if we don't face them honestly.

Wind farms pay a $1/MWh tax in Wyoming. That's in large part because coal, a much bigger employer than wind, makes the state of Wyoming a lot of money in taxes and thus has a lot of political pull. They see it as only fair.

No other state taxes wind power directly. Is that a subsidy? No?

If Wyoming cut that tax to $.687/MWh would that be a subsidy? If it raised it to $1.178 would that mean that it was being subsidized, but isn't any longer? What if that tax could have been raised to $1.1839, but wasn't—is the difference a subsidy?

When Amazon threatened to open a headquarters in Brooklyn the city of New York offered it $3.4B in tax abatement—taxes it promised not to collect—to make it worthwhile to move there. There was outrage! How dare they, giving Amazon all that money!

So Amazon pulled out of the deal. Did the city of New York save itself $3.4B? No, the deal was a net gain for NYC and now it won't realize that gain. The $3.4B was never coming to NYC and now the jobs and paychecks and building rentals and restaurant meals won't either.

This is what happens when the discussion is dishonest. That's why it matters.
 


R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 1:54pm

 islander wrote:
But I do see an issue and I'm willing to take some steps (even if they are sideways or even occasionally backward) looking for compromise and forward motion. Because if nothing changes and the status quo continues, when the pressure finally breaks, and people get really fed up, you will have people with...

... pitchforks and rechargeable-battery-powered torches!
JrzyTmata

JrzyTmata Avatar



Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 1:46pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
islander wrote:
I was using your rules, see merriam-webster (they still get to do definitions right?):



2a(1): to promote the interests or cause of



b(1): ASSIST, HELP

You were murdering kittens.
 


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 1:42pm

islander wrote:
I was using your rules, see merriam-webster (they still get to do definitions right?):



2a(1): to promote the interests or cause of



b(1): ASSIST, HELP

You were murdering kittens.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 1:22pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
 islander wrote:
Okay, so it's just the definition. Let's use a different word.  Support. The fossil fuel industry gets far more support than the alternative fuel industry. And as you noted, because they are singled out in many instances for this support while their competitors are not (or even actively interfered with), then this is an unfair advantage and should be rectified. Again, I don't see that support going away while the industry has a model in place where they can continue to use there massive profits to pay off law makers to get subsidi support from the tax paying public.

How about we stop torturing the language and just describe reality? No, you don't get to redefine the word "support" either.

Fossil fuel industries are net taxpayers. The alternative fuel industry (and the only things I know of that qualify as "alternative fuels" are biofuels) are heavily subsidized and even mandated in downstream markets.

Go ahead and bring up some instance where competitors to the fossil fuel industry are being held back and interfered with. I promise to be outraged, but I ain't holding my breath.

This feels a lot like the gun arguments. You don't think there is any legitimate regulation there or taxation here. You don't see a problem with status quo in either situation, or at least not one where any of the proposed solutions is to your liking, so you'll sit back and wait until someone manages to craft a proposal to your liking.  Once again, I like guns and my house has 1000HP of diesel engines, so I'm not radical left that is calling for much sterner measures. But I do see an issue and I'm willing to take some steps (even if they are sideways or even occasionally backward) looking for compromise and forward motion. Because if nothing changes and the status quo continues, when the pressure finally breaks, and people get really fed up, you will have people with really whacky ideas implementing policies that will really muck up the works.  It's already building out there in future land. And I can move my house when things get too bad, you're just going to have to live with the kitten murderers.

I'll make my own argument, thanks. And there are other places to argue about gun control.
 

I was using your rules, see merriam-webster (they still get to do definitions right?):



2a(1): to promote the interests or cause of



b(1): ASSIST, HELP

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 1:18pm



 black321 wrote:


 Lazy8 wrote:
It matters so we can have an honest discussion about the topic....

 

Yes, that seems pretty obvious.  But the discussion you were having...all that seemed to be getting lost.   As noted, a true accounting of costs for all the alternatives is necessary.  Including the low probability, but high exposure related to nuclear.  
 

Yeah, and when you have entrenched powers paying people to set 'fair' trade rules, it's likely that a real proper accounting is probably not going to happen.  BTW, I'm still way pro on nuclear, but you are right about the risk understanding and the need to account for full stream costs.  It's still the only real solution on the table for a significant part of our energy (not Fuel!) problem.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 1:12pm

 islander wrote:
Okay, so it's just the definition. Let's use a different word.  Support. The fossil fuel industry gets far more support than the alternative fuel industry. And as you noted, because they are singled out in many instances for this support while their competitors are not (or even actively interfered with), then this is an unfair advantage and should be rectified. Again, I don't see that support going away while the industry has a model in place where they can continue to use there massive profits to pay off law makers to get subsidi support from the tax paying public.

How about we stop torturing the language and just describe reality? No, you don't get to redefine the word "support" either.

Fossil fuel industries are net taxpayers. The alternative fuel industry (and the only things I know of that qualify as "alternative fuels" are biofuels) are heavily subsidized and even mandated in downstream markets.

Go ahead and bring up some instance where competitors to the fossil fuel industry are being held back and interfered with. I promise to be outraged, but I ain't holding my breath.

This feels a lot like the gun arguments. You don't think there is any legitimate regulation there or taxation here. You don't see a problem with status quo in either situation, or at least not one where any of the proposed solutions is to your liking, so you'll sit back and wait until someone manages to craft a proposal to your liking.  Once again, I like guns and my house has 1000HP of diesel engines, so I'm not radical left that is calling for much sterner measures. But I do see an issue and I'm willing to take some steps (even if they are sideways or even occasionally backward) looking for compromise and forward motion. Because if nothing changes and the status quo continues, when the pressure finally breaks, and people get really fed up, you will have people with really whacky ideas implementing policies that will really muck up the works.  It's already building out there in future land. And I can move my house when things get too bad, you're just going to have to live with the kitten murderers.

I'll make my own argument, thanks. And there are other places to argue about gun control.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 1:03pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
Yes, that seems pretty obvious.  But the discussion you were having...all that seemed to be getting lost.   As noted, a true accounting of costs for all the alternatives is necessary.  Including the low probability, but high exposure related to nuclear.  

May be a threadjack of sorts but it' still revealing an important and timeless truth. In the words of Daniel Webster: "...the power to tax involves the power to destroy".
 
And also in the words of Ben Parker (and Voltaire, or maybe Churchill...I'm sticking with Parker) - With Great power comes great responsibility. We should demand that those who set our tax policies use that power responsibly to fairly generate revenue and offset specific public costs associated with those things being taxed. In that regard I think we can all agree that our 'leaders' are failing us, and we should be demanding more of them.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 12:55pm

black321 wrote:
Yes, that seems pretty obvious.  But the discussion you were having...all that seemed to be getting lost.   As noted, a true accounting of costs for all the alternatives is necessary.  Including the low probability, but high exposure related to nuclear.  

May be a threadjack of sorts but it' still revealing an important and timeless truth. In the words of Daniel Webster: "...the power to tax involves the power to destroy".
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 12:48pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
islander wrote:
A. So is a tax holiday a subsidy?  

B
. How about a discounted lease of federal lands?

C
. Is relief of a debt the same as a grant of money?  What about a future debt?

D
. Can interpretation of a definition be important?

A. No. Tax rates are arbitrary. Once set they can be adjusted up or down. Considering a tax holiday (or a reduction in tax rate) a subsidy implies that some rate (once set) is right, proper, and sacred. It's a random number chosen by the state. There is no natural value to it.

Singling out a business for a tax break (leaving its competitors paying the higher rate) is unfair, but it's not a subsidy. A subsidy is a transfer payment, not the absence of a transfer payment.

B. A discount implies there is a correct price. If a price is set by bids at a publicly-accessible auction then the price is set by competitive forces, not by the state, and there is no such thing as a discount. If it's an arbitrary number assigned by the state then there is only a discount if someone pays less than that. Again, if the state charges one buyer less than its competitors that is unfair. If it rebates part of the price after the sale then that is a subsidy. This really isn't that hard.

C
. Yes and what? How do you relieve a debt that hasn't been incurred?

D
. Using a common set of definitions is important because it lets us discuss the same thing with the same words. Otherwise you're murdering kittens.

See what I did there? I redefined being dishonest as "murdering kittens". If you get to do it then I get to do it. You kitten murderer, you.

Okay, so it's just the definition. Let's use a different word.  Support. The fossil fuel industry gets far more support than the alternative fuel industry. And as you noted, because they are singled out in many instances for this support while their competitors are not (or even actively interfered with), then this is an unfair advantage and should be rectified. Again, I don't see that support going away while the industry has a model in place where they can continue to use there massive profits to pay off law makers to get subsidi support from the tax paying public.

This feels a lot like the gun arguments. You don't think there is any legitimate regulation there or taxation here. You don't see a problem with status quo in either situation, or at least not one where any of the proposed solutions is to your liking, so you'll sit back and wait until someone manages to craft a proposal to your liking.  Once again, I like guns and my house has 1000HP of diesel engines, so I'm not radical left that is calling for much sterner measures. But I do see an issue and I'm willing to take some steps (even if they are sideways or even occasionally backward) looking for compromise and forward motion. Because if nothing changes and the status quo continues, when the pressure finally breaks, and people get really fed up, you will have people with really whacky ideas implementing policies that will really muck up the works.  It's already building out there in future land. And I can move my house when things get too bad, you're just going to have to live with the kitten murderers. 


black321

black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 12:40pm



 Lazy8 wrote:
It matters so we can have an honest discussion about the topic....

 

Yes, that seems pretty obvious.  But the discussion you were having...all that seemed to be getting lost.   As noted, a true accounting of costs for all the alternatives is necessary.  Including the low probability, but high exposure related to nuclear.  
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 12:21pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
black321 wrote:
Who gives a s#$t about whether its a tax break, lease discount, subsidy....these all impact the cost, which is ultimately all that is important.  

When Amazon threatened to open a headquarters in Brooklyn the city of New York offered it $3.4B in tax abatement—taxes it promised not to collect—to make it worthwhile to move there. There was outrage! How dare they, giving Amazon all that money!

So Amazon pulled out of the deal. Did the city of New York save itself $3.4B? No, the deal was a net gain for NYC and now it won't realize that gain. The $3.4B was never coming to NYC and now the jobs and paychecks and building rentals and restaurant meals won't either.

This is what happens when the discussion is dishonest. That's why it matters.

 
{#Lol}
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 12:16pm

black321 wrote:
Who gives a s#$t about whether its a tax break, lease discount, subsidy....these all impact the cost, which is ultimately all that is important.  

It matters so we can have an honest discussion about the topic.

If, say, wind power were a completely economically viable proposition all on its own—that is, the value of the power generated exceeded the cost of the labor, land, and resources required to generate it—governments would be looking for a way to tax it. Not because windmills have externalities that need to be compensated for, not because windmills are a burden on the public treasury, but because there's money there that the state isn't getting a piece of. They want a cut. Period.

The word subsidy is used (even when it isn't appropriate) because it's emotionally charged. It implies other people are being taxed to pay for something—that money is coming out of their pockets to prop up something that can't support itself. In some cases that is completely accurate, in some cases it's simply false.

We won't make progress on issues if we don't face them honestly.

Wind farms pay a $1/MWh tax in Wyoming. That's in large part because coal, a much bigger employer than wind, makes the state of Wyoming a lot of money in taxes and thus has a lot of political pull. They see it as only fair.

No other state taxes wind power directly. Is that a subsidy? No?

If Wyoming cut that tax to $.687/MWh would that be a subsidy? If it raised it to $1.178 would that mean that it was being subsidized, but isn't any longer? What if that tax could have been raised to $1.1839, but wasn't—is the difference a subsidy?

When Amazon threatened to open a headquarters in Brooklyn the city of New York offered it $3.4B in tax abatement—taxes it promised not to collect—to make it worthwhile to move there. There was outrage! How dare they, giving Amazon all that money!

So Amazon pulled out of the deal. Did the city of New York save itself $3.4B? No, the deal was a net gain for NYC and now it won't realize that gain. The $3.4B was never coming to NYC and now the jobs and paychecks and building rentals and restaurant meals won't either.

This is what happens when the discussion is dishonest. That's why it matters.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: A sunset in the desert
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 11:04am

Who gives a s#$t about whether its a tax break, lease discount, subsidy....these all impact the cost, which is ultimately all that is important.  
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 9:29am

islander wrote:
A. So is a tax holiday a subsidy?  

B
. How about a discounted lease of federal lands?

C
. Is relief of a debt the same as a grant of money?  What about a future debt?

D
. Can interpretation of a definition be important?

A. No. Tax rates are arbitrary. Once set they can be adjusted up or down. Considering a tax holiday (or a reduction in tax rate) a subsidy implies that some rate (once set) is right, proper, and sacred. It's a random number chosen by the state. There is no natural value to it.

Singling out a business for a tax break (leaving its competitors paying the higher rate) is unfair, but it's not a subsidy. A subsidy is a transfer payment, not the absence of a transfer payment.

B. A discount implies there is a correct price. If a price is set by bids at a publicly-accessible auction then the price is set by competitive forces, not by the state, and there is no such thing as a discount. If it's an arbitrary number assigned by the state then there is only a discount if someone pays less than that. Again, if the state charges one buyer less than its competitors that is unfair. If it rebates part of the price after the sale then that is a subsidy. This really isn't that hard.

C
. Yes and what? How do you relieve a debt that hasn't been incurred?

D
. Using a common set of definitions is important because it lets us discuss the same thing with the same words. Otherwise you're murdering kittens.

See what I did there? I redefined being dishonest as "murdering kittens". If you get to do it then I get to do it. You kitten murderer, you.
RabbitEars

RabbitEars Avatar

Location: original states


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 8:27am

excellent nytimes piece published in December on energy sources by state. graphics are superb. I'm definitely seeing a big spike in solar panels going up around me - maybe there's hope yet. 
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 5, 2019 - 8:04am

 islander wrote:

So is a tax holiday a subsidy?  

How about a discounted lease of federal lands?

Is relief of a debt the same as a grant of money?  What about a future debt?

 
precisely. In fact I am doing a report right now where the company gets a tax holiday if they meet certain criteria (minimum capex, minimum headcount). 
The company sure is accounting for it like a subsidy!   
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 36, 37, 38  Next