Solar Roads?

[Shadowrider]

So the government paid big oil 630 billion of our tax dollars? I'd really like to see some documentation of that. A tax incentive is not a subsidy, though the democrats spin it that way constantly. They actually write checks to alternative which is a subsidy.

 

[tulsanewb]

So the government paid big oil 630 billion of our tax dollars? I'd really like to see some documentation of that. A tax incentive is not a subsidy, though the democrats spin it that way constantly. They actually write checks to alternative which is a subsidy.

Those are lifetime numbers. I'm on my phone but will post the source when I get home. I would also disagree that tax incentives are not subsidies. Anytime the government places more money in the pocket of a business it is a subsidy. Whether they write a check or say "just keep 5%" the end result is the same. The business had that money on the books where they otherwise would not have. It isn't a democrat or republican thing, it is an accounting thing. In accounting, the subsidy or thr incentive would both be marked as a credit in the ledger. Alternatively, say you owe me 100 dollars for writing a simple program for you, but you have a box of 22 I want to buy for $20. If I say "just give me $80 and the bullets" did I not pay for the bullets? To me that is the same as you paying me $100 and me giving $20 back.

Edited to add sources:

Source, which cite's their sources as well. http://www.energyfactcheck.org/slid...-handouts-and-let-renewables-compete-with-fo/

Also: http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

And another for good measure, the IEA: http://www.iea.org/weo/quotes.asp

The IMF (International Monetary Fund) has a slightly different number, but for 2011 so that likely explains the discrepancy: They say 480Billion pre-tax, or "On a post-tax basis, which also factors in the negative externalities from energy consumption, subsidies are much higher at $1.9 trillion (2½ percent of global GDP or 8 percent of total government revenues)"

 

[tulsanewb]

Those are lifetime numbers. I'm on my phone but will post the source when I get home. I would also dosagree that tax incentives are not subsidies. Anytime the gobernment places more money in the pocket of a business it is a subsidy. Whether they write a check or say "just keep 5%" the end result is the same. The business had that money on the books where they otherwise would not have. It isn't a democrst or republican thing, it is an accounting thing.In accounting, the subsidy or thr incentive would both be marked as a credit in the ledger. Alternatively, say you owe me 100 dollars but I need a box of bullets from you for $20. If I say "just give me $80 and the bullets" did I not pay for the bullets?

I think I have taken this discussion off track. While I think subsidies and lobbying play a part, overall I am just interested in the technology of these systems. I think these are a promising start to more innovative ways of harnessing energy that is currently untapped. Plus this is crowd funded

 

[n423]

So the government paid big oil 630 billion of our tax dollars? I'd really like to see some documentation of that. A tax incentive is not a subsidy, though the democrats spin it that way constantly. They actually write checks to alternative which is a subsidy.

gubment waste

 

[Shadowrider]

Those are lifetime numbers. I'm on my phone but will post the source when I get home. I would also disagree that tax incentives are not subsidies. Anytime the government places more money in the pocket of a business it is a subsidy. Whether they write a check or say "just keep 5%" the end result is the same. The business had that money on the books where they otherwise would not have. It isn't a democrat or republican thing, it is an accounting thing. In accounting, the subsidy or thr incentive would both be marked as a credit in the ledger. Alternatively, say you owe me 100 dollars for writing a simple program for you, but you have a box of 22 I want to buy for $20. If I say "just give me $80 and the bullets" did I not pay for the bullets? To me that is the same as you paying me $100 and me giving $20 back.

Edited to add sources:

Source, which cite's their sources as well. http://www.energyfactcheck.org/slid...-handouts-and-let-renewables-compete-with-fo/

Also: http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

And another for good measure, the IEA: http://www.iea.org/weo/quotes.asp

The IMF (International Monetary Fund) has a slightly different number, but for 2011 so that likely explains the discrepancy: They say 480Billion pre-tax, or "On a post-tax basis, which also factors in the negative externalities from energy consumption, subsidies are much higher at $1.9 trillion (2½ percent of global GDP or 8 percent of total government revenues)"

I know how the math works. I also know that one of the sources you use frames it exactly like you state. Because I read it.

Here's the definition of "subsidy" from Merriam Webster

sub·si·dy noun \ˈsəb-sə-dē, -zə-\
: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function
plural sub·si·dies

Full Definition of SUBSIDY: a grant or gift of money: as
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


A tax exemption is NOT a grant of money no matter how much politicians want it to be.

Lets say I hired you to do landscaping in my yard:

1) You did the job for $1000.
2) Your tax rate is normally 25%.
3) There was a government program that allowed you to collect that income totally TAX free because you planted certain plants that eat more co2 than others.

After you've done the work and deposited my check does your bank account increase by $1250 or by $1000? Would you show $1250 on your books? I think not because you didn't get $1250.
Only in politics do they get to make up their own definitions. I'm not a politician and don't play their game...

 

[tulsanewb]

I know how the math works. I also know that one of the sources you use frames it exactly like you state. Because I read it.

Here's the definition of "subsidy" from Merriam Webster

sub·si·dy noun \ˈsəb-sə-dē, -zə-\
: money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function
plural sub·si·dies

Full Definition of SUBSIDY: a grant or gift of money: as
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


A tax exemption is NOT a grant of money no matter how much politicians want it to be.

Lets say I hired you to do landscaping in my yard:

1) You did the job for $1000.
2) Your tax rate is normally 25%.
3) There was a government program that allowed you to collect that income totally TAX free because you planted certain plants that eat more co2 than others.

After you've done the work and deposited my check does your bank account increase by $1250 or by $1000? Would you show $1250 on your books? I think not because you didn't get $1250.
Only in politics do they get to make up their own definitions. I'm not a politician and don't play their game...

I believe your math is off. But with the math corrected, I believe you actually are proving my point:

Your example:
With taxes: I do yard work for you and get $1000, but have to pay 25% taxes: My net profit/deposit is $750 and the government gets $250.
My acct bal: $750

Without taxes: I do yard work for you and get $1000, but the government waives tax: My net profit/deposit is $1000. The government "gives up" $250.
My acct bal: $1000

Without taxes I can now charge you $750 for a service that with taxes I would charge $1000 for, and have the exact same profit, or "keep the price of a product or service low". If I still charge you $1000, I am walking away with the "extra" $250.

While I certainly won't argue politicians (on all sides) often use very "creative" math and statistical analyses, I don't think this is one of those cases. It is a simple system of debits and credits. Any CPA (I have many in the family) would use this EXACT same logic doing the books for a company or themselves, or any person filling in their checkbook.

Again, if you owe me $100, and I want to buy a box of 22LR from you for $20, and I say "just give me $80 and the bullets" would you say that I did not pay you for the bullets? Or would you agree that by offsetting your debit by $20, I paid you for the bullets?

Say you are doing your checkbook:

You buy $100 of stuff and run your card. In your ledger you would then subtract $100 from your balance. But then say the store said "we are giving you a $20 credit on your last purchase back to your account". Would you not then add that $20 back into your ledger to show what the actual balance will be?

Lastly, also from the Merriam-Webster.com site where I assume you got your definition, below the first definition of subsidy it has:
Financial assistance, either through direct payments or through indirect means such as price cuts and favourable contracts, to a person or group in order to promote a public objective.

From Investopedia (I know, not the best source I could find. But shows that in common language it is used to refer to tax reductions):
Definition of 'Subsidy'

I understand you are trying to argue semantics here, but I am not able to agree with your logic on this one. I also am unsure why we are so hung up on subsidies when this is a crowd funded project being funded by the populus at large that believes in the idea, or at least thinks it is a nifty experiment.

 

[uncle money bags]

Tax incentive= I get to keep more of my money, which was mine from the start.

Subsidy= I get some of your money, not having earned it to begin with.

 

[tulsanewb]

Tax incentive= I get to keep more of my money, which was mine from the start.

Subsidy= I get some of your money, not having earned it to begin with.

On its face that does seem like a fair distinction to make. However, in my opinion (worthless to all but me) that definition for subsidy would only apply if the industry as a whole had to pay no taxes, otherwise it is the same. Giving someone a break on something they owe is the same as paying them.

For example, I would say that if all restaurants have to pay for a $300 occupancy permit from the city, but then the city says "Pizza restaurants are going under at an alarming rate. We will waive the occupancy fee for them", that they have just subsidized the pizza industry as it now has $300 less in fees than the rest of the restaurant industry, making it easier for them to stay in business and not have to raise rates. Even though no one is actually being given any money. In my opinion you only start giving someone something when they no longer owe you in the first place.

If you owed a friend $1000 and he wanted to help you out, would he say "I'll give you $1000, but you still owe me the $1000" or would he say "just don't bother paying me back?" Either way he is giving you something to help "subsidize" your income.

A) Incentive: I owe John $100 for using his lawn to sell lemonade. I give John $100 and he says "nah, it was really only worth $75" and gives me back $25. I have made another $25 (a penny saved is a penny earned).

B) Subsidy: I owe John $100. I give John $100. John says "Thanks for using my lawn. I will give you $25 to encourage you to use it again and lower your operating costs". John gives me back $25. End result... I made an additional $25 that day over what I would have otherwise.

A == B

 

[Shadowrider]

Tax incentive= I get to keep more of my money, which was mine from the start.

Subsidy= I get some of your money, not having earned it to begin with.

Exactly....

 

[uncle money bags]

in both cases money was earned. How about applying the exercise to someone who pays no taxes, and receives the benefit of my tax dollars for simply being in the position of earning less than me.

Or, lets say john is ordered to allow the use of his lawn to our lemonaide stand operator at less than market value.