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

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Prepare for every possible contingency. This is why long term disability insurance exists. If you're trying to get the gubmint to pay for your unwillingness to prepare in this simplified means, you're in for a rude awakening.

Sure.

Try that on a middle class salary. After insurance costs, living expenses, and taxes there isn't much left. Insurance is the tax that really kills you.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Sure.

Try that on a middle class salary. After insurance costs, living expenses, and taxes there isn't much left. Insurance is the tax that really kills you.

If I can do it, so can they.

 

[joecct]

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

I have no qualms with a simpler but still progressive tax code that captures more income. I take it from joecct's postings that we be eliminating all tax shelters, Romneyesque offshore loopholes, carry forward provisions, etc. I can live with a 40-50K deduction limit too. Only changes I'd make are around the fringes, particularly in the case of high medical bills you could go over that amount and I'm curious where he'd fall on capital gains.

Rover

Count everything, but if you count everything right now, you can disrupt the economy. I propose a 10 year phase on "it's not taxed now" stuff to "everything is taxed". This allows orderly planning.
Capital gains -- interesting thought there. The rates are particularly low in the plan. max is 25% of the gain. Perhaps, you can postpone the gain if you buy a similar asset with the proceeds of the sale. Eventually you cash out and Uncle Sugar will get the money.
Medical bills -- folks $40 - 50K of your income is not taxed. Insurance is risk sharing. If you want to assume 100% of the risk then you have more discretionary income, but may get gonzo'd later if you have a humongous bill that exceeds your coverage (my health plan has a lifetime max and a yearly $5K limit on my costs - thanks Uncle Sam!). If you want to share the risk, then buy a policy that lowers your risk to an acceptable level.

As to the corporate world -- since corporations, in reality, pay no taxes (they pass it on), it makes sense, at the theoretical level, not to tax them. However, this is the real world, and since we all know corporations are persons in the eyes of the law (thank you John Marshall), they should pay something towards the country that allows them to practice capitalism. But let's have one set of books, not two.

 

[FreshFish]

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

Some useful historical perspective from economist Peter Schiff:

In 1958, the top 3% of taxpayers earned 14.7% of all adjusted gross income and paid 29.2% of all federal income taxes. In 2010, the top 3% earned 27.2% of adjusted gross income and their share of all federal taxes rose proportionally, to 51%.

So if the top marginal tax rate has fallen to 35% from 91%, how in the world has the tax burden on the wealthy remained roughly the same? Two factors are responsible. Lower- and middle-income workers now bear a significantly lighter burden than in the past. And the confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today. [emphasis added]

In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher.

In 1958, approximately 28,600 filers (0.06% of all taxpayers) earned the $93,168 or more needed to face marginal rates as high as 30%. These Americans—genuinely wealthy by the standards of the day—paid 5.9% of all income taxes. And now? In 2010, 3.9 million taxpayers (2.75% of all taxpayers) were subjected to rates that were 33% or higher. These Americans—many of whom would hardly call themselves wealthy—reported an adjusted gross income of $209,000 or higher, and they paid 49.7% of all income taxes.

In contrast, the share of taxes paid by the bottom two-thirds of taxpayers has fallen dramatically over the same period. [emphasis added] In 1958, these Americans accounted for 41.3% of adjusted gross income and paid 29% of all federal taxes. By 2010, their share of adjusted gross income had fallen to 22.5%. But their share of taxes paid fell far more dramatically—to 6.7%. The 77% decline represents the single biggest difference in the way the tax burden is shared in this country since the late 1950s.

So today the "rich" already pay most of the tax burden compared to 1958; while I don't have the data handy, I'd bet that the "rich" today pay a higher portion of income taxes than at any time since before WWII [important historical note below]. Most people conveniently overlook that most of the reduction in tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 were for lower income people: the level at which income taxes were due at all was raised, and the lowest rate was reduced from 15% to 10%. The preponderance of Bush tax cuts were for lower and middle income people, NOT the rich (notice that the Confiscator-in-Chief wants to preserve those rates, eh?).

So from 1913 to 1942, only the truly rich paid income tax (it was FDR, the "protector of the poor" who implemented the highly-regressive payroll tax in 1936, you know...), and from 2003 onward, the "rich" paid most of the income tax. So if the "rich" are already paying about 50% of all income taxes now, what exactly is their "fair" share??








Before WWII very few people paid income taxes. The income tax was extended far down the wage scale during WWII, not to raise revenue, but to fight inflation: nearly 100% of wages were paid in the US but only about 75% of goods produced were available for consumption in the US, with the remainder being ammunition, equipment, and supplies for our soldiers in Europe and the Pacific. The government had to get money out of people's hands to prevent a vicious inflationary spiral. That's why paycheck withholding was introduced as well: before 1943, everyone paid their income tax in quarterly estimated installments and "settled up" on April 15 of the subsequent year. Paycheck withholding was an emergency anti-inflation method that proved so useful in its secondary role of collecting revenue that it was kept in place ever after, and became the excuse to allow a far greater expansion in government spending than we'd ever seen before.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

So today the "rich" already pay most of the tax burden compared to 1958; while I don't have the data handy, I'd bet that the "rich" today pay a higher portion of income taxes than at any time since before WWII [important historical note below]. Most people conveniently overlook that most of the reduction in tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 were for lower income people: the level at which income taxes were due at all was raised, and the lowest rate was reduced from 15% to 10%. The preponderance of Bush tax cuts were for lower and middle income people, NOT the rich (notice that the Confiscator-in-Chief wants to preserve those rates, eh?).

So from 1913 to 1942, only the truly rich paid income tax (it was FDR, the "protector of the poor" who implemented the highly-regressive payroll tax in 1936, you know...), and from 2003 onward, the "rich" paid most of the income tax. So if the "rich" are already paying about 50% of all income taxes now, what exactly is their "fair" share??

You know, this sort of thing came into mind when I was arguing with a UAH student about their hockey program. He/she had made a point to only consider revenue that was collected from adult-priced tickets in the argument about attendance. This also came into mind when I was attending a Silver Knights game. I thought to myself, "Wow, not only are they really pushing youth ticket prices, but I see a lot of children at this game!" One thing I noticed is that it's a very loyal fan base, and that it's still both people walking through the door and money going into the till.

One thing I do understand is the class warfare argument. History tells us, and I don't know how much it was exaggerated, that lower-class feelings of a regressive system was a spark of the French Revolution. In addition, Europe is showing us, through the expatriation of the rich, that pushing for a more progressive system doesn't work, either. This is why I recommend that if we need to change to tax rates, we change them across the board. I understand that, even when it comes to ticket prices for sports, it's a progressive system based upon age (actually more of a parabolic system since seniors are typically given a lower price), so it's liveable, but don't put too much bang on it, or else you will start to have these large divides.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Some useful historical perspective from economist Peter Schiff:




So today the "rich" already pay most of the tax burden compared to 1958; while I don't have the data handy, I'd bet that the "rich" today pay a higher portion of income taxes than at any time since before WWII [important historical note below]. Most people conveniently overlook that most of the reduction in tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 were for lower income people: the level at which income taxes were due at all was raised, and the lowest rate was reduced from 15% to 10%. The preponderance of Bush tax cuts were for lower and middle income people, NOT the rich (notice that the Confiscator-in-Chief wants to preserve those rates, eh?).

So from 1913 to 1942, only the truly rich paid income tax (it was FDR, the "protector of the poor" who implemented the highly-regressive payroll tax in 1936, you know...), and from 2003 onward, the "rich" paid most of the income tax. So if the "rich" are already paying about 50% of all income taxes now, what exactly is their "fair" share??








Before WWII very few people paid income taxes. The income tax was extended far down the wage scale during WWII, not to raise revenue, but to fight inflation: nearly 100% of wages were paid in the US but only about 75% of goods produced were available for consumption in the US, with the remainder being ammunition, equipment, and supplies for our soldiers in Europe and the Pacific. The government had to get money out of people's hands to prevent a vicious inflationary spiral. That's why paycheck withholding was introduced as well: before 1943, everyone paid their income tax in quarterly estimated installments and "settled up" on April 15 of the subsequent year. Paycheck withholding was an emergency anti-inflation method that proved so useful in its secondary role of collecting revenue that it was kept in place ever after, and became the excuse to allow a far greater expansion in government spending than we'd ever seen before.

Just proves numbers can show anything you want if you only display the ones that back your argument. The share of wealth in this country and pay in this country has grown exponentially on the 1-3% side while lower and middle class wages have been static over the last 30 years or so. That's the problem. Can you fix that with tax policy? Maybe not, but that's what everyone is going to ***** about. Especially if Mitt Romney is paying less by percentage than someone in the middle class. Hell, even Bill Krystol is starting to acknowledge that.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Just proves numbers can show anything you want if you only display the ones that back your argument. The share of wealth in this country and pay in this country has grown exponentially on the 1-3% side while lower and middle class wages have been static over the last 30 years or so. That's the problem. Can you fix that with tax policy? Maybe not, but that's what everyone is going to ***** about. Especially if Mitt Romney is paying less by percentage than someone in the middle class. Hell, even Bill Krystol is starting to acknowledge that.

Just remember that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones when it comes to pushing arguments about numbers. You make a case about how wages of certain people have been static over a certain number of years. Here's a follow-up question: How many of those people are proactively seeking this sort of increase?

Quite frankly, if I were the financial manager of a small business and were responsible for signing the labour cheques, I wouldn't consider giving a raise unless the person (or, if the person has hired a representative [read: union], that representative) came to me and asked me for it. As the old proverb goes, "No news is good news." If you aren't complaining, you're obviously happy in your job. If you want to complain about wages not being increased, perhaps we should be teaching those workers about how to be assertive when it comes to their wages instead of giving them a handout. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Just remember that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones when it comes to pushing arguments about numbers. You make a case about how wages of certain people have been static over a certain number of years. Here's a follow-up question: How many of those people are proactively seeking this sort of increase?

Quite frankly, if I were the financial manager of a small business and were responsible for signing the labour cheques, I wouldn't consider giving a raise unless the person (or, if the person has hired a representative [read: union], that representative) came to me and asked me for it. As the old proverb goes, "No news is good news." If you aren't complaining, you're obviously happy in your job. If you want to complain about wages not being increased, perhaps we should be teaching those workers about how to be assertive when it comes to their wages instead of giving them a handout. "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

Specious argument. People have been switching jobs to get pay raises more than ever the last decade. In fact in many ways it's the only way you can get a pay increase. On the union side many unions negotiated sweet benefits deals because they couldn't get traction on the pay side. Now there's backlash against their benefits programs.

Fact is it's pretty tough to ask for money nowadays when in many ways you have to consider yourself lucky to be employed. Know plenty of people who aren't.

 

[FreshFish]

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

Just proves numbers can show anything you want if you only display the ones that back your argument. The share of wealth in this country and pay in this country has grown exponentially on the 1-3% side while lower and middle class wages have been static over the last 30 years or so. That's the problem. Can you fix that with tax policy? Maybe not, but that's what everyone is going to ***** about. Especially if Mitt Romney is paying less by percentage than someone in the middle class. Hell, even Bill Krystol is starting to acknowledge that.

So your solution is to make everyone poor except the government?

We tried that once, we now call that period of feudalism the "Dark Ages" or the "Middle Ages." and we call the period that followed the "renaissance" (i.e., "rebirth").

Are you one of the people who protest the evils of capitalism on Facebook using your iPad??


Whatever happened to liberty and equality of opportunity?


Look, doofus, no one WANTs the poor to be poor! The solution is to raise up the people on the bottom. What good does it do anyone to tear down the people on the top if the people in the bottom remain in the same misery they were beforehand??


Redistribution through government almost never works. The only people who win in that case are the people who work for government!


You get so distracted by envy you completely forget what really matters, which is quality of life!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Simple solution. Have everyone pay the same percentage on everything.

This will be wrong but something like this.

10% taxes on the first 100,000
20% taxes on the next 100,000
30% taxes on the next 100,000
40% taxes on the next 100,000 +

Which I think something similar was proposed below and I was on board along with Rover.

Eliminate the payroll tax altogether. If that means moving the first bracket to 15, fine.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Specious argument. People have been switching jobs to get pay raises more than ever the last decade. In fact in many ways it's the only way you can get a pay increase. On the union side many unions negotiated sweet benefits deals because they couldn't get traction on the pay side. Now there's backlash against their benefits programs.

Fact is it's pretty tough to ask for money nowadays when in many ways you have to consider yourself lucky to be employed. Know plenty of people who aren't.

It's not misleading at all. A worker asked, the employer said no, so the worker went somewhere else. In your example, the representative asked, the employer said no, so the representative asked for something else, and the employer said yes. The biggest difference I see is that each had different knowledge regarding the sorts of things that should be requested and the justifications behind them. OK, so you are requesting more money. Why do you need the money? Is that expense, or another specific expense, something where the employer may be able to help, and perhaps you could ask for coverage on that specific expense? How would having that specific expense covered be able to benefit your employer in the long run?

Obviously, in your case about "backlash against their benefits programs", I see this as a specious argument by you, simply because one of the ways that workers (or hired representatives) are able to negotiate this sort of thing is that they place effective dates of contract on it. You may know it better as a collective bargaining agreement. Once the contract expiration date comes, the employer has done exactly as requested and completely filled their part of the contract, so there's no reason to expect that whatever was requested will be continued. Once again, you need to ask for it, and you need to show that it is beneficial not only to you, but to the company.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Simple solution. Have everyone pay the same percentage on everything.

This will be wrong but something like this.

10% taxes on the first 100,000
20% taxes on the next 100,000
30% taxes on the next 100,000
40% taxes on the next 100,000 +

Which I think something similar was proposed below and I was on board along with Rover.

Eliminate the payroll tax altogether. If that means moving the first bracket to 15, fine.

I think we're all glad that we're able to find some common ground and push for it, not to mention we aren't becoming greedy (pigs get slaughtered). Now is the time for us to propose this sort of thing to those in Congress.

 

[pirate]

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

Just proves numbers can show anything you want if you only display the ones that back your argument. The share of wealth in this country and pay in this country has grown exponentially on the 1-3% side while lower and middle class wages have been static over the last 30 years or so. That's the problem. Can you fix that with tax policy? Maybe not, but that's what everyone is going to ***** about. Especially if Mitt Romney is paying less by percentage than someone in the middle class. Hell, even Bill Krystol is starting to acknowledge that.

I know we've been down this road before but I will bring it up one more time...

1. benefits should be included in the comparison of compensation over time
2. most comparisons of wages over decades are done at the household level which are complicated by divorce rates, single parent families, immigration and the reduction of multi-generational households
3. There are few people who are making the same wage they were 30 years ago; the idea of a permanent middle class isn't the same as the idea of people permanently earning the same wage.
4. Every kid out of college starts in the low or middle class, as defined by income...since everybody in the >$250k group isn't 150 years old, somebody must be rising up through the classes.
5. Bill Gates can sell software all over the world...his plumber can't do that. Why would we expect the plumber's income to rise at the same rate as Bill's?


I'm not sure what the upside salary potential is for every job but wouldn't we expect most people to remain inside the middle class if they stayed in their field? Teachers, plumbers, office worker salaries don't range into the top 1% or the top 10%. So, for some huge percent of the people, the job they got when they were 22 determined they would always be middle class. Lawyers, doctors, investment brokers, small business owners, etc. could go from entry wage to top % but everybody else is going to be middle class for pretty much their whole lives. But even they won't earn the same exact salary their whole career.

As for tax rates, simpler is better, fewer nooks and crannies for people to hide behind. I would assume if the minimum deduction is greater than the amount paid in during the year, there isn't a 'refund'.

 

[FreshFish]

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

One of the most difficult parts of any conversation about taxes is that there is more than one theory of taxation, and people rarely describe their theory clearly, instead plunging directly into debates about minutia.

Also, we tend to segregate taxes into different categories, and then treat each category in isolation, sometimes ignoring how they might intersect. We have payroll taxes (one for Social Security, a different one for Medicare). We have income taxes, we have a wealth tax (capital gains tax) that is reported as income even though technically it is not (you are paying tax on a change in asset value if you sell but not if you don't sell), we have a wealth tax that is only assessed at death (estate tax and Generation-Skipping Transfer tax); we have a gift tax that is a hybrid of an income tax and a wealth tax (while generally viewed as part of the "transfer tax" system today; the gift tax was implemented when there was a severe gradation in income tax rates; parents in a high tax bracket would transfer money to children so that the interest earned would be in a lower tax bracket as a result), we have a dividends tax. We now have a "payroll tax" (Medicare tax) on investment income thanks to that farce called PPACA.

We also have all those federal taxes buried in the fine print of our telephone bills, wireless bills, and cable bills. We have taxes on some imports.

We have state sales taxes, state income taxes, state "use" taxes, and state wealth taxes (property tax, personal property tax, state estate tax). If you are fortunate enough to live in New York City, you even have a municipal income tax!



No wonder any kind of rationality is hard to find!


Some examples of various principles that contribute to the formation of a theory of taxation:
> taxation should be used to incentivize behavior (e.g., "sin" taxes to reduce tobacco and alcohol use)
> taxation should be used to promote broader social goals
> all income should be taxed only once
> people who have more should pay proportionately higher rates on an "excess" amount than people who don't ("progressive" tax system or "graduated rate structure")
> taxes should be economically neutral (which might easily conflict with the first two points!)
> taxes should primarily be used to raise revenue, economic side effects are secondary
> other people should pay more than me
> to name a few, I'm sure there are more.



If you then take some of these principles and use them to develop a theory of how taxes "should" operate, then you might well find that following one theory results in conflict when compared to another theory. There is no way to reconcile that conflict by debating the details; both sides need to take a step back to look at WHY they are advocating for (or against) a particular tax if agreement / compromise is to be reached.

 

[LynahFan]

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

It's not misleading at all. A worker asked, the employer said no, so the worker went somewhere else. In your example, the representative asked, the employer said no, so the representative asked for something else, and the employer said yes. The biggest difference I see is that each had different knowledge regarding the sorts of things that should be requested and the justifications behind them. OK, so you are requesting more money. Why do you need the money? Is that expense, or another specific expense, something where the employer may be able to help, and perhaps you could ask for coverage on that specific expense? How would having that specific expense covered be able to benefit your employer in the long run?

Obviously, in your case about "backlash against their benefits programs", I see this as a specious argument by you, simply because one of the ways that workers (or hired representatives) are able to negotiate this sort of thing is that they place effective dates of contract on it. You may know it better as a collective bargaining agreement. Once the contract expiration date comes, the employer has done exactly as requested and completely filled their part of the contract, so there's no reason to expect that whatever was requested will be continued. Once again, you need to ask for it, and you need to show that it is beneficial not only to you, but to the company.

If I were running a company, I wouldn't even care what people asked for - just what they *did* about it. As long as the turnover rate is tolerable and I'm attracting enough qualified applicants for vacancies, salaries don't need to increase. Actions and words...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

If I were running a company, I wouldn't even care what people asked for - just what they *did* about it. As long as the turnover rate is tolerable and I'm attracting enough qualified applicants for vacancies, salaries don't need to increase. Actions and words...

This is true, and is why I made specific mention towards the benefit of the company. There are cases where you want specific people and what they happen to bring to the table; you can't afford to take a chance on them. There are also cases where the labour is comparable to furniture. To think I'm saying that the chances of getting what you asked for is 100% is just plain hogwash, but it isn't necessarily 0%, either. If they're asking, they're obviously unhappy with their work. Either that, or they're pigs and need to be slaughtered.

 

[pirate]

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

This is true, and is why I made specific mention towards the benefit of the company. There are cases where you want specific people and what they happen to bring to the table; you can't afford to take a chance on them. There are also cases where the labour is comparable to furniture. To think I'm saying that the chances of getting what you asked for is 100% is just plain hogwash, but it isn't necessarily 0%, either. If they're asking, they're obviously unhappy with their work. Either that, or they're pigs and need to be slaughtered.

Furniture? Slaughtered?

Really?

What credible business leader would use those terms?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

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

Furniture? Slaughtered?

Really?

What credible business leader would use those terms?

Kevin O'Leary. Or someone else who is blunt and honest.

 

[pirate]

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

Kevin O'Leary. Or someone else who is blunt and honest.

whatever.

 

[5mn_Major]

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

Are we going to lead alternative energy or should we subsidize 'drill baby drill'? The real question is how bad do we want to own a major growth technology and the industry that accompanies it. Unfortunately as a conflicted nation, if you don't decide...you've made your decision:

Solar Panel Maker Doubles Output as Prices Drop: Corporate India

Surana Ventures Ltd. (SURA), an Indian maker of solar panels, is planning to double production after oversupply from Chinese manufacturers pushed prices down by almost 34 percent in the past year.

The company, based in the southern city of Hyderabad, plans to increase output of panels to 30 megawatts this year and invest 250 million rupees ($4.5 million) in a solar cell plant, Managing Director Narender Surana said in an interview. Rising demand for alternative energy driven by coal supply bottlenecks and blackouts may help reverse a slide in revenue, he said.

The biggest panel suppliers including China’s Suntech Power Holdings Co. and Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar Inc. say India is about to become one of the fastest-growing solar markets, countering waning demand in Europe where governments are cutting back clean-energy subsidies. Photographer: Ken James/Bloomberg

April 12 (Bloomberg) -- The villagers of Halliberu in southern India are on the crest of an electricity revolution. Bangalore-based Simpa Networks Inc. has been installing solar power equipment in their non-electrified houses. From the poorest parts of Africa and Asia to the most-developed regions in the U.S. and Europe, solar units and small-scale wind and biomass generators promise to extend access to power to more people than ever before. Bloomberg's Natalie Obiko Pearson reports on the story featured in the May issue of Bloomberg Markets magazine. (Source: Bloomberg)
.
Surana is counting on one of the fastest-growing solar markets where larger local rivals including Moser Baer India Ltd. (MBI), the country’s biggest maker, and Indosolar Ltd. (ISLR) are struggling to cope with the crash in prices. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government seeks to turn India into a global hub with rules to help almost triple manufacturing capacity to 5 gigawatts by 2020.

“The shortage in coal supply is a great opportunity for us as more and more people are looking at solar energy as a viable alternative,” Surana said. “As India’s energy needs rise, the shift towards solar power shall become more pronounced.”