- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Wind subsidy lobbyist try to extend their raping of US taxpayers.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 11:40 am
Posted on 12/1/14 at 11:40 am
Every special interest you can think of is trying to get their special tax treatment added on to the tax-extenders legislation now being debated in Congress.
Wind corporate welfare grabbers are no exception.
LINK.
Republicans need to prove they are for sound, fair, lower tax policy and oppose this effort to continue this pork.
Watch the idiots here who call this a tax cut instead of subsidy try to defend this. Which one called me a communist the other day for speaking out against this tax extender bill with 51 special interest subsidies in it??
Wind corporate welfare grabbers are no exception.
LINK.
quote:
Thirty years and billions of dollars later, the wind industry is still saying it needs taxpayer support. Congress is currently hearing this argument as it debates whether to extend the 22-year-old “production tax credit” in the lame-duck session. The PTC, which gives wind producers a 2.3-cent tax credit for each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced over 10 years, expired at the end of 2013. Now wind-industry lobbyists are roaming the halls of Congress, asking legislators to renew it as part of a tax-extenders package before adjourning on Dec. 15.
quote:
The program operates as one of America’s least-known wealth-redistribution schemes, forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for wind farms beyond their borders. In 2012 more than 30 states paid more in subsidies than wind farms in those states received in tax credits. Citizens in five states paid more than $100 million more in federal taxes than they received from the PTC: California ($196 million), New York ($163 million), Florida ($138 million), New Jersey ($126 million) and Ohio ($104 million). Eleven states paid into the PTC even though they have no qualifying wind production. The unlucky losers included Florida, Virginia and North Carolina.
The credit also encourages abuse—both of the electricity grid and the taxpayer. Instead of paying wind producers based on how much of their electricity is used, the PTC pays them based on how much electricity they generate. Companies that invest in wind power thus receive tax credits to produce something that consumers may not actually want. In fact, producers often pay electricity-grid operators to take their product. This phenomenon is known as “negative pricing.”
Wall Street has figured out that it can use this system to its advantage. The PTC offers major corporations a chance to lower their tax rates by investing in wind energy. But investors also realize that wind farms make little financial sense if the taxpayer isn’t picking up the tab.
Republicans need to prove they are for sound, fair, lower tax policy and oppose this effort to continue this pork.
Watch the idiots here who call this a tax cut instead of subsidy try to defend this. Which one called me a communist the other day for speaking out against this tax extender bill with 51 special interest subsidies in it??
This post was edited on 12/1/14 at 11:42 am
Posted on 12/1/14 at 11:46 am to I B Freeman
"We need to calm down and subsidize more corn"
Posted on 12/1/14 at 11:47 am to I B Freeman
The libertarians and the environmentalists should team up on this one.
The environmentalists, in order to protect the poor birds that get sliced up by the windmills. The libertarians, in order to protest the giveaways.
The environmentalists, in order to protect the poor birds that get sliced up by the windmills. The libertarians, in order to protest the giveaways.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 11:53 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Wind subsidy
Little fish.
There are literally too many targets for taxpayers against subsidized businesses to focus on these days. Wind energy isn't even close to the most shocking, no pun intended.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 11:57 am to dewster
quote:
Little fish.
There are literally too many targets for taxpayers against subsidized businesses to focus on these days. Wind energy isn't even close to the most shocking, no pun intended.
Still wrong and should be allowed to die.
Where are the special interested supporters we saw on the biodiesel thread?? WeeWee, Morning something, caulfill, Jay Quest ect.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:05 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
The program operates as one of America’s least-known wealth-redistribution schemes, forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for wind farms beyond their borders.
Well, you trying to relate your biodiesl thread with this proves you don't know the difference between subsidy and a tax credit. This quote out of your article should explain the difference, and I agree with you. I am against subsidies too.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:28 pm to I B Freeman
I could support credits for investments in new equipment as incentives to reduce costs of production, but credits for production are a continuous subsidy which is an insane policy.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 1:51 pm to Poodlebrain
Every kilowatt hour produced by wind is worth it over coal generated electricity.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 2:02 pm to GeorgeWest
quote:Interesting. How does 1-kWh of wind-produced power produce more work than 1 kWh of coal generated power?
Every kilowatt hour produced by wind is worth it over coal generated electricity.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 2:27 pm to Taxing Authority
work =/= worth
This post was edited on 12/1/14 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 12/1/14 at 2:32 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Republicans need to prove
You certainly aren't in a position to tell Republicans what they need to do. Leave that to the republicans.
quote:
Watch the idiots here who call this a tax cut instead of subsidy try to defend this
Haven't read the bill. Are the credits refundable or transferable?
If you try to claim the government not collecting money is a subsidy...it is you who is the idiot.
Like a DOJ attorney once told me before a trial:
"Your client's problem is he thinks of it as his own money"
Imagine that....the money is the taxpayers...not the governments....
Posted on 12/1/14 at 6:51 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Watch the idiots
a credit so lucrative that a company can afford to PAY electric companies to take their product is not a subsidy.
Got it.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 10:23 pm to I B Freeman
Let's cap & trade and let the market pick the best energy source.
Posted on 12/1/14 at 10:27 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:When you're buying energy it does!
work =/= worth
Posted on 12/1/14 at 10:27 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Let's cap & trade and let the market pick the best energy source.
How is an enforced cap and trade policy letting the market pick?
Posted on 12/1/14 at 10:35 pm to HempHead
quote:
How is an enforced cap and trade policy letting the market pick?
Its easy. To emit carbon, you'll need to pay some other entity in the free market to sequester the same amount. They charge you what the market demands.
That's how zero emissions cap & trade would work.
Practically we can't start with zero, so we set the current cap higher than zero, and hand out free 'allowances' to energy producers based on how much energy they produce. If they need more than their allotment, they can buy from others who need less.
We start with the cap at what our current emissions are now - so the initial impact is zero and the credits would trade for basically nothing - and then gradually bring the cap down to zero over many decades, at which point carbon emitters would be paying the full market set price for emission.
This post was edited on 12/1/14 at 10:37 pm
Posted on 12/1/14 at 10:37 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
To emit carbon, you'll need to pay some other entity in the free market to sequester the same amount.
Why?
Posted on 12/1/14 at 10:38 pm to HempHead
quote:
Why?
Because you want to emit it and think that whatever you are doing to emit it will produce more revenue than the cost of emitting it.
This post was edited on 12/1/14 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 12/1/14 at 10:39 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Because you want to emit it.
Of course I do. But what about market conditions would convince me to pay to do so?
Posted on 12/1/14 at 10:41 pm to HempHead
quote:
But what about market conditions would convince me to pay to do so?
Ultimately it is government that enforces property rights, not the market.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News