View Full Version : tax-free energy
04-05-05, 05:50 PM
I have an idea:
The US government, in order to ween America from dependency on foreign oil (at least in means of energy production) should make any energy a household or industry sells to the grid completely tax free profit for that family/company. This would in effect allow homeowners to generate extra profit using renewable sources like wind and solar energy with equipment that pays for itself in a fairly short period. It would also erase at least some of that family's energy bill, if not all of it if a house gets plenty of good weather and the right systems in their house. This perk would increase a demand on renewable energy systems, and thanks to supply-and-demand, cost of production goes down on these system as more and more are produced, giving the economy a nudge in the right direction. The electricity flowing out of these homes would collectively help alleviate burden off powerplants (especially in the summer, when every AC in north america is blowing full blast, and there's plenty of sun). Basically, it would encourage a larger presence of cheap, clean power within this power-hungry nation.
And maybe make the production of renewable-energy systems tax free too while we're at it... give those companies a little break. At least for a limited time.
Now, I laugh my ass off every time some idiot says this in a movie cause you know he's just about to get his ass kicked, but what could possibly go wrong!
04-05-05, 07:28 PM
I don't know about "tax free", but most states/power companies already will buy a homeowner's surplus energy from any number of sources. Where have you been?
As to "surplus energy", as far as I know, any system available to the homeowner doesn't produce enoough energy for the home, let alone enough to sell to anyone. You should check your sources.
As to the equipment being paid off in a short time, that's foolish and is only true in advertising of said equipment! That stuff is expensive. Please check your sources, you'll be mildly surprised.
04-06-05, 09:00 PM
i know the power companies will buy their power, that's kinda what i meant by selling power to the grid, but it's still taxed as household income, is it not?
And surplus energy can be generated if the homeowner chooses to invest in the required equipment. Born and raised in Germany, I've seen shitloads of windmills dotting the ridgelines of many farm lands. Obviously those farmers found some gain in buying these systems (and no, they were not in the middle of nowhere, they could've jacked up to the local gid if they wanted to) so I'm assuming this attraction can be replicated in America, where we have plenty of farming country.
As for the expense of equipment, one can build a steam-based solar array (a roof-top or ground-set system) to heat their home, if not drive a generator, for only a few thousand dollars (if that) and some spare time. Understandably, solar panels are still pricy and wind turbines are practically buildings all to themselves. But if it works for some countries...
04-07-05, 07:51 PM
Weed_Eater, you should do lots more investigating before you make allegations that have no/little basis in fact.
Household income? Of course it's taxed ...it's household income, isn't it?
That "shitload" of windmills you saw on that farmer's land was most probably NOT his windmills! He sold or leased the land to a power company to install those expensive windmills.
...solar panels are still pricy and wind turbines are practically buildings all to themselves. But if it works for some countries...
Works for some countries? Which countries? Almost any other fuel-used generation is cheaper than wind or solar in almost any country on Earth. Please tell me which countries use solar or wind instead of fuel-fired generation. And please check your sources ...some companies that sell those products are going to slant the cost and returns.
04-12-05, 07:50 PM
yes, it's household income. that's what i said. The idea i've been trying to push is that it SHOULDN't be taxed. And as far as i know, Iceland has been trying to use alot of geothermal power, and that's more expensive to maintain than solar and wind power due to corosion. And okay, so let's say the farmers rented out parts of their land to local power companies. Why do those power companies build the windmills in the first place if they're not as effective as fire-fueled generation? Good conscience? Beautify the ridgelines (which is ludicrous seeing as alot of people don't even like their presence)? Obviously there's some gain from these systems, so why not develop it? Make it cheaper by erasing the tax, increasing demand, encouraging businesses to further improve the technology so that it's more efficient. Seems like common sence to me. Please enlighten me.
04-13-05, 01:55 PM
yes, it's household income. that's what i said. The idea i've been trying to push is that it SHOULDN't be taxed.
Well, that's all well and good, but I don't know anyone, anywhere, who is actually making any money sell electricity to the power companies. So the point is moot, isn't it?
Why do those power companies build the windmills in the first place if they're not as effective as fire-fueled generation? Good conscience? Beautify the ridgelines ...?
I don't know about other nations, but in the US, those windmills, etc are SUBSIDIZED by our government! We, the people, are paying the power companies to experiment with such power generation possibilities. And none of them are producing electricity at rates even close to as cheap as coal-fired, fuel oil-fired or nuclear power plants.
Obviously there's some gain from these systems, so why not develop it?
Necessity is the mother of invention! ...as well as utilization. When oil and coal and nuclear fuel is no longer feasible, we'll start producing power from other sources. At the prestent time, why should powr companies produce higher priced electricity? Who would buy it? And why?
"Common sense" plays no part in this situation ....nor in most situations! But it's just like most other things in real life ...no one wants it or needs when there's no necessity for it. You can make all the excuses, give all of the "common sense" bullshit that you want, but until the need is forced upon us, we're not going to do it. You're probably not old enough to see how it really is in life, but it sure ain't like "common sense", I can tell you that!
Most of America's energy is subsidized; not just wind generators, but nuclear plants, coal plants, pipelines, wars in other countries for oil....
04-14-05, 08:18 AM
Most of America's energy is subsidized; ....
Hmm? I don't think that's true. Do you have any valid sources for that bit of information?
It is intesting to bring up tax free energy because consumers pay roughly 2 or more times as high a tax on gasoline at the pump than they do for their normal sales tax. For instance, in Austin, where I live the sales tax is 8.25 % but the gasoline tax is 20 %. on average in the state.
Here is a chart to see where your state falls on average.
Here for nuclear energy:
Here for Oil:
And let's not forget the relative ease at which Enron gets off from screwing millions of Californians.
If you don't like my sources, you can go fuck yourself. After you're done, provide contrary evidence, yes?
In my search to provide Baron with evidence, I found this little site:
04-15-05, 08:17 PM
Roman, I'm not so sure that incentives can be considered as government subsidies, do you? I mean, I suppose you could say that "money is money", but....? I don't think it's the same.
As to how Enron screwed over so many people, I think it was simple greed on the part of the investors ...they didn't WANT to see the handwriting on the wall. I invested in Enron and did quite well. But I was also smart enough to see that something was going on that shouldn't have been going on ....a company just can't do so well for so long without something causing it. I couldn't find out what was causing it, but I got out in fear of the "bubble bursting". Those others believed exactly what they WANTED to believe ......Enron didn't fuck them, they fucked themselves!
Here's what I would say a subsidy is:
A direct or indirect benefit granted by a government for the production or distribution (including export) of a good or to supplement other services. Generally, subsidies are thought to be production and trade distorting, resulting in an inefficient use of resources. Arguably, subsidies may be justified on grounds that they adjust for nonmarket considerations that are as important as market values. This term also is used to refer to federal reimbursements for meals served through child and elderly nutrition programs.
and here's your definition:
a grant paid by a government to an enterprise that benefits the public; "a subsidy for research in artificial intelligence"
I would defend that a government using monetary capital to encourage growth of a certain industry would count as a subsidy, whether through direct cash to support a developing technology, or tax breaks to keep an existing corp. afloat.
The over all effect, either through taxation or handouts, is our money being redirected to small groups, is it not?
Why does nuclear energy cost so little? The cost of disposal, security and construction are massive, up in the billions of dollars. Compare that to the relative cheapness of coal, gas or oil plants. If it weren't for the government subsidizing costs, either through tax exemption or kicking in cash, nuclear energy would cost more.
The overall effect, whether through tax breaks or direct federal aid, I would say is the same. Either the government gives someone money, then takes some away, or just doesn't take money. Cash has to come from somewhere else to make up for the tax break granted to energy companies. However, by not taxing energy companies as heavily, the operating costs of the companies become lower, meaning prices are lower. This encourages consumer spending, generating more revenue.
Just giving energy companies big fatty stacks of cash would have the same effect, essentially letting the companies operate a deficit.
The effect of Enron cheating does more than hurt shareholders. It hurts any consumer who associates with Enron, through oblivious consumerism or whatever.
05-29-05, 02:01 AM
I have an idea:
The US government, in order to ween America from dependency on foreign oil (at least in means of energy production) should make any energy a household
You realise America has a 15 year supply of strategic oil stored in undergroud salt caverns ? That goes back to the Cold War . America can easily be self sufficient in oil needs from domestic production if it needed to . America only imports oil as a balance of Trade with Mideastern nations thats how international commodity trade operates . Say Venezuela imports some $7 billion in US manufactured goods in return Venezuela expects the US to purchase $7 billion in Venezualan oil . Thats all it is a balance of trade .