Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

[LynahFan]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Your conclusion is wrong. The study is focused on land currently in use. In other words, coal uses about the same area as solar would...it doesn't move on to destroy some other part of the landscape.

"Making electricity from solar energy rather than from coal will require plenty of land: as much as 6 million acres to replace all coal. But that amount compares favorably to other land uses including continuing to use coal (7 million acres over the next 60 years)."

The question isn't how much land is "used" or "ruined." Even if the one-time mining operation ruins the land for all eternity (doubtful), it's still a completely different order of magnitude of a problem to go over all that land once at some point over the next 60 years than to continuously maintain a solar array of the same size for 60 years.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

The question isn't how much land is "used" or "ruined." Even if the one-time mining operation ruins the land for all eternity (doubtful), it's still a completely different order of magnitude of a problem to go over all that land once at some point over the next 60 years than to continuously maintain a solar array of the same size for 60 years.

The problem is the land is ruined whether its a generation or whatever. Why use forested land in the somewhat populated northeast that people can enjoy and where wildlife lives...than land that will be forever innaccessable for development and inhospitable for all life.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

The problem is the land is ruined whether its a generation or whatever. Why use forested land in the somewhat populated northeast that people can enjoy and where wildlife lives...than land that will be forever innaccessable for development and inhospitable for all life.

Wow, you've really been all over the map on this. First solar was going to replace petroleum, then coal, now the land destruction is the important factor. If you're not willing to put solar panels in the northeast, don't forget to double the size of the plant in the southwest to account for transmission losses.

My cousin with a PhD in desert ecology would be quite interested to hear your theories on how deserts are inhospitable for all life...

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Subscribed because I came in here expecting to talk tax policy and we're still whining about energy policy.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Subscribed because I came in here expecting to talk tax policy and we're still whining about energy policy.

Let's talk tax policy! What do you have to say?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I bring little to the table since taxes aren't entirely the problem. The only thing I'm for is uncapping the $110k limit on the OASDI tax and moving towards treating all income as regular income (dividends, capital gains, etc.).

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I bring little to the table since taxes aren't entirely the problem. The only thing I'm for is uncapping the $110k limit on the OASDI tax and moving towards treating all income as regular income (dividends, capital gains, etc.).

Are you OK with distributed earnings being taxed twice? Wouldn't it be better to see the shareholders instead be paying the tax on earnings for each share they own, and then eliminate the corporate tax on that altogether?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm not sure what you mean by being taxed twice...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I'm not sure what you mean by being taxed twice...

As earnings per share, it is taxed. Then, if it happens to be distributed, it is taxed again. Since you are a shareholder in the company, those are technically your earnings that are taxed. Everything else, whether it's royalties paid, interest paid, wages paid, realising the difference in valuation of an asset (i.e. capital gain), they're all taxed once.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

I guess "them's the breaks"

Revenue has to be generated from somewhere. You can either tax the populace, the corporations, or both. Honestly, it doesn't matter which one is taxed. We have to meet somewhere in the middle and if it means raising revenues and cutting spending, that's what needs to be done. I've stated many times my stance on Social Security benefits reform. That alone should cut a serious chunk of spending out.

 

[Almington]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

As earnings per share, it is taxed. Then, if it happens to be distributed, it is taxed again. Since you are a shareholder in the company, those are technically your earnings that are taxed. Everything else, whether it's royalties paid, interest paid, wages paid, realising the difference in valuation of an asset (i.e. capital gain), they're all taxed once.

It's taxed at the corporate level and any distributions are is taxed again at the individual level. Everything is taxed multiple times, I pay income tax and then that money is taxed again when I buy something when I pay sales tax or any excise tax. Whomever I buy something from is going to have to pay taxes on the money that I already paid taxes on that I used to pay them.

What you are saying is that a corporation who doesn't pay anything out to its shareholders shouldn't have to pay any taxes on their profits? Something about that doesn't sit well with me at all.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

It's taxed at the corporate level and any distributions are is taxed again at the individual level. Everything is taxed multiple times, I pay income tax and then that money is taxed again when I buy something when I pay sales tax or any excise tax. Whomever I buy something from is going to have to pay taxes on the money that I already paid taxes on that I used to pay them.

What you are saying is that a corporation who doesn't pay anything out to its shareholders shouldn't have to pay any taxes on their profits? Something about that doesn't sit well with me at all.

Hey, someone else who didn't understand a word I said. What a shocker.

It's a big surprise that you would think I would think only dividends should be taxed, and as usual, you didn't read any of my previous posts on this. What I said was the shareholder, who I'm sure we can agree is part owner of the company, should be taxed on the EARNINGS PER SHARE, which would effectively eliminate a corporate tax on net income because it is bore upon the shareholders themselves. From there, it's entirely the company's prerogative on what to do with that money. Want it put back into the company? Want it distributed? A little bit of both? That's entirely the prerogative of the company, and is none of the government's business until that money is used to earn more.

There is a fundamental difference between the transaction you described and this one, and that is that the number of mutually exclusive transactions are different. Sales and excise taxes are not paid twice.

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Hey, someone else who didn't understand a word I said. What a shocker.

Do you still believe that the utilization of solar power is limited to daylight hours?

You never did respond to that...


People don't understand what you're saying because on the rare occasion that you get a cogent thought out, you are usually proven wrong and then change your angle in the next post and then change again in the post after that and then pretend like you weren't even in the conversation. You just move on to your next bout of keyboard diarrhea.

BTW, the sun's just coming up here. My solar powered lights are still on. I cannot verify that they were on all night long as I was asleep, but since they don't have a manual on/off switch, I'm gonna assume that they shone brightly all through the nighttime hours. IN THE DARK!

It's like magic or something.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Hey, someone else who didn't understand a word I said. What a shocker.

It's a big surprise that you would think I would think only dividends should be taxed, and as usual, you didn't read any of my previous posts on this. What I said was the shareholder, who I'm sure we can agree is part owner of the company, should be taxed on the EARNINGS PER SHARE, which would effectively eliminate a corporate tax on net income because it is bore upon the shareholders themselves. From there, it's entirely the company's prerogative on what to do with that money. Want it put back into the company? Want it distributed? A little bit of both? That's entirely the prerogative of the company, and is none of the government's business until that money is used to earn more.

There is a fundamental difference between the transaction you described and this one, and that is that the number of mutually exclusive transactions are different. Sales and excise taxes are not paid twice.

Here's a potential compromise: If you wanted to separate the shareholder form the company, putting aside my belief that since the shareholder owns part of the company that he/she is therefore responsible for his/her share of the finances, what if the company were to be able to deduct any dividend paid to shareholders as an expense against the company? I believe that if you did that, not only would it be justified to charge the full taxation amount for the dividend, but you're not double dipping. We already see things similar to this in how interest paid on a loan for an appreciable asset may be counted as a deduction. At least for tuition, real estate, and market investing, this is true.

 

[Almington]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Hey, someone else who didn't understand a word I said. What a shocker.

It's a big surprise that you would think I would think only dividends should be taxed, and as usual, you didn't read any of my previous posts on this. What I said was the shareholder, who I'm sure we can agree is part owner of the company, should be taxed on the EARNINGS PER SHARE, which would effectively eliminate a corporate tax on net income because it is bore upon the shareholders themselves. From there, it's entirely the company's prerogative on what to do with that money. Want it put back into the company? Want it distributed? A little bit of both? That's entirely the prerogative of the company, and is none of the government's business until that money is used to earn more.

There is a fundamental difference between the transaction you described and this one, and that is that the number of mutually exclusive transactions are different. Sales and excise taxes are not paid twice.

If the company doesn't pay any money out how to the shareholder, with what money is the shareholder going to pay those taxes?

All a dividend is is a company deploying capital to generate the best value to shareholders (in this case give it back to them), it is as much a separate transaction as any of my examples.

 

[Almington]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Here's the issue, though: You must be able to generate TWICE the electricity that you normally would in order to meet the demand. Sure, you could look to store energy through a battery, however you're also needing to provide power during the day. Here's a catch-22 with that: How do you know you're going to store up enough power for the evening without running out? You're still depending on fossil fuels in the case of evening redundancy. Therefore, you're doubling your cost because you think your vapour-excreting fossil fuel plant will cause global warming. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Why in the would I need to produce twice the energy to meet demand (and transmission losses). The solar installation would need to generate an excess to store, but you would still have other power generating operations running that also produce energy that can be used at night (the wind still blows at night). In addition, the amount of energy that is I used from 11pm to 6am is small compared to the amount that is used during the day. Even in the case of needing supplemental fossil fuel generation you would not need sufficient capacity to meet peek demand which generally falls right during the sunniest part of the day. Electricity demand is also lowest during the parts of the year with the shortest daylight: people don't run the AC during the winter.

 

[Rover]

Why in the would I need to produce twice the energy to meet demand (and transmission losses). The solar installation would need to generate an excess to store, but you would still have other power generating operations running that also produce energy that can be used at night (the wind still blows at night). In addition, the amount of energy that is I used from 11pm to 6am is small compared to the amount that is used during the day. Even in the case of needing supplemental fossil fuel generation you would not need sufficient capacity to meet peek demand which generally falls right during the sunniest part of the day. Electricity demand is also lowest during the parts of the year with the shortest daylight: people don't run the AC during the winter.

Let me save you some trouble. Flag painted himself into a corner with blatant ignorance of how solar power works, but refuses to give up the ghost. In fact, since all results have yet to be certified he also still thinks there's a chance Romney will be declared the President. I used to think Flag was like 21 years old, but I think I mixed that up because he seems more like 12.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Why in the would I need to produce twice the energy to meet demand (and transmission losses). The solar installation would need to generate an excess to store, but you would still have other power generating operations running that also produce energy that can be used at night (the wind still blows at night). In addition, the amount of energy that is I used from 11pm to 6am is small compared to the amount that is used during the day. Even in the case of needing supplemental fossil fuel generation you would not need sufficient capacity to meet peek demand which generally falls right during the sunniest part of the day. Electricity demand is also lowest during the parts of the year with the shortest daylight: people don't run the AC during the winter.

Tell that to those who have electric heaters.

You know what, since we're focused so much on the southwest, let's look at Vegas. You're telling me that the energy used to light up the strip, run night life events (dance clubs, concerts), keep casinos running 24/7, and so on and so forth is less than what is used during the day? Are you telling me the same is true in Miami and NYC (the city that doesn't sleep)?

If I wanted to push renewable energy that was fairly reliable, I would find a nearby river, and (get a couple of THE SIOUX ('n)) DAMMIT! throwing that phrase in was necessary

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Inflation continues.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/12/fed-buys-treasuries/1762459/

 

[joecct]

Re: Strands in the Tapestry: the Business, Economics, and Tax Policy Thread

Tell that to those who have electric heaters.

You know what, since we're focused so much on the southwest, let's look at Vegas. You're telling me that the energy used to light up the strip, run night life events (dance clubs, concerts), keep casinos running 24/7, and so on and so forth is less than what is used during the day? Are you telling me the same is true in Miami and NYC (the city that doesn't sleep)?

If I wanted to push renewable energy that was fairly reliable, I would find a nearby river, and (get a couple of THE SIOUX ('n)) DAMMIT! throwing that phrase in was necessary

Vegas has the Hoover Dam. NYC still blames that **** Hoover.