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!
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?):
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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 $3.4B was never coming to NYC and now the jobs and paychecks and building rentals and restaurant meals won't either.
This is what happens when the discussion is dishonest. That's why it matters.
Who gives a s#$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 ownâthat is, the value of the power generated exceeded the cost of the labor, land, and resources required to generate itâgovernments 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 somethingâthat 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'tâis the difference a subsidy?
When Amazon threatened to open a headquarters in Brooklyn the city of New York offered it $3.4B in tax abatementâtaxes it promised not to collectâto 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.
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.
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.
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!
a: a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
b: money granted by one state to another
c: a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public
yes. but the question is not about just the subsidies, but the efficiency of alternative energy. to consider that we need a full accounting of all subsidies and costs related to alternatives and fossil fuels.
