• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the best use of tax subsidies?

Lord Tammerlain said:
So you don't die from lung cancer? Or similar environmental infuenced disease
Click to expand...

You said green tech, which includes pollution reduction. Coal plants emit a lot of particulate matter which is bad for lungs. Wind power does not
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... why limit that "free" Yang money given to each consumer (age 18 to 64) to only $1K/month? Folks could use more than a $12K/year "allowance" - let's go for $3K/month ($36K/year). Yang's basic idea is to empower the individual and folks making $12K/year are not exactly empowered.
Click to expand...

If you are making twenty eight thousand a year, a thousand dollars a month is a windfall that the average joe would dearly welcome. Anyway it's not empowering one person, it's about allowing the vast majority of america to maybe be able to breathe a little easier not having to worry to death about bills. Maybe even be able to take a little vacation? Americans maybe even being able to bring jobs back to america, become the manufacturing power we once were. It's about empowering the economy as a whole for everyone's benefit even corporate america.
 
bongsaway said:
If you are making twenty eight thousand a year, a thousand dollars a month is a windfall that the average joe would dearly welcome. Anyway it's not empowering one person, it's about allowing the vast majority of america to maybe be able to breathe a little easier not having to worry to death about bills. Maybe even be able to take a little vacation? Americans maybe even being able to bring jobs back to america, become the manufacturing power we once were. It's about empowering the economy as a whole for everyone's benefit even corporate america.
Click to expand...
Will they actually see the money, or it just a shell game? Taking the money form one pocket, and placing in the other.
Remember the government has no money that does not come from taxpayers.
 
longview said:
Will they actually see the money, or it just a shell game? Taking the money form one pocket, and placing in the other.
Remember the government has no money that does not come from taxpayers.
Click to expand...

I would rather see the money go to americans than some military project where we spend hundreds of millions of dollars only to cancel the project three years in.

Also remember the money the farmers are getting from the government, are your tax dollars. The money for trump's wall, your tax dollars.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The overhead of a VAT (or sales tax) is much lower than the overhead of an income tax.
Click to expand...
You are making one of my primary arguments for abolishing the income tax system and replacing it with a federal sales tax. That switch would eliminate the majority of work for the IRS, CPAs, tax attorneys, and everyone who pays taxes. The system of collecting taxes based on incomes is a big drain on our resources.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
bongsaway said:
I would rather see the money go to americans than some military project where we spend hundreds of millions of dollars only to cancel the project three years in.

Also remember the money the farmers are getting from the government, are your tax dollars. The money for trump's wall, your tax dollars.
Click to expand...
Oh I know, that is why I said it all comes from taxpayers, bit if every taxpayer gets $1000 a month, where does the money come from?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It's hard to imagine a more subjective taxation system than taxing "adjusted" income based on how and upon who it was later spent.
Click to expand...

Has anyone actually implemented a real universal income like this though? I haven't seen it actually implemented anywhere.
 
trouble13 said:
You are making one of my primary arguments for abolishing the income tax system and replacing it with a federal sales tax. That switch would eliminate the majority of work for the IRS, CPAs, tax attorneys, and everyone who pays taxes. The system of collecting taxes based on incomes is a big drain on our resources.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is far too diffcult to play social engineering games with a sales tax and very easy to so with an income tax - for that reason it will never happen.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is far too diffcult to play social engineering games with a sales tax and very easy to so with an income tax - for that reason it will never happen.
Click to expand...
Im sure many argued that breaking away from england and creating a new form of government was far too difficult and never would hsppen too. Some things are worth fighting for.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Im sure many argued that breaking away from england and creating a new form of government was far too difficult and never would hsppen too. Some things are worth fighting for.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Getting about 300 congress critters to agree to change anything is tough - getting that much agreement on changing something major is even tougher.
 
longview said:
For the most part, I am also, but the Solar subsidies, do appear to have expanded the market
to the point that market forces lowered the prices.
Click to expand...

Gas and electric prices seeing surges probably helped more than solar subsidies.
 
Drawdown said:
Gas and electric prices seeing surges probably helped more than solar subsidies.
Click to expand...
Electricity prices are down, and people do not really relate gas prices to home improvement.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Getting about 300 congress critters to agree to change anything is tough - getting that much agreement on changing something major is even tougher.
Click to expand...
Especially if its something that would give them less control over how money is collected.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
longview said:
Electricity prices are down, and people do not really relate gas prices to home improvement.
Click to expand...

They are today but this trend didn't just start today, and people do not equate electric price with home improvement
 
Obscurity said:
Has anyone actually implemented a real universal income like this though? I haven't seen it actually implemented anywhere.
Click to expand...
while this is certainly not dispositive, it is an opinion from an economics professor identifying the perceived shortcomings of a basic income plan similar to that advocated by yang

Saudi Government Proves Basic Income Is No Solution To Slow Economic Growth
Click to expand...
Saudi Government Proves Basic Income Is No Solution To Slow Economic Growth
... Basic income proponents talk of a day when robots and computers have taken almost all our jobs. With no way for most of us to earn a living, they claim the solution is for the government simply to give everybody money—a basic income—to live on. This free, no-strings-attached income will allow people to spend more on all sorts of things. That spending becomes somebody else’s income and continues to circulate through the economy, creating more economic growth, or so the story goes.

Saudi Arabia proves this is a fantasy. Somewhere around two-thirds of Saudi nationals work for the government. Many of these people do virtually nothing, they are employed simply for social purposes, to keep the population happy. Thus, their incomes are very similar to universal basic incomes. The Saudi government gets 90 percent of its income from oil revenue, which given the ease of producing oil in Saudi Arabia and the use of foreign partners to do much of the producing makes this revenue source pretty similar to simply printing money. In Saudi Arabia money doesn’t grow on trees, but it does bubble out of the ground.
Yet, even with a seemingly endless stream of money and every Saudi essentially having (at least) a basic income, Saudi Arabia’s economy is not doing very well. Apparently, simply making sure that everyone has money to spend is not enough to create economic growth. The basic income advocates are either wrong or they have been lying to you.

The reality is that economic growth and wealth come only from producing things. Giving people money cannot create anything except inflation because more money doesn’t make a country richer, only more stuff for people to consume makes us richer.

Basic income (or make-work jobs as in Saudi Arabia) could free people up to be creative and produce art, poems, websites, clothes, or anything else that people might be interested in. If people turn out to want these new goods and services, and to be willing to pay for them, then there would be new production with economic value and the economy would benefit from that. However, if people just take the basic income and are satisfied, little will be produced and the country will be poor regardless of how much notional income people are granted by the supposedly benevolent government. ...
Click to expand...
 
justabubba said:
while this is certainly not dispositive, it is an opinion from an economics professor identifying the perceived shortcomings of a basic income plan similar to that advocated by yang


Saudi Government Proves Basic Income Is No Solution To Slow Economic Growth
Click to expand...

So basically SA is employing people for no real reason, which is the equivalent of a UBI? I'd like to see a real program where UBI is implemented on a working population. Yang is correct, Skynet is going to take alot of our jobs, after all.
 
Drawdown said:
They are today but this trend didn't just start today, and people do not equate electric price with home improvement
Click to expand...
I think people do equate some home improvements to electricity prices.
Better insulation, new windows, high efficiency appliances, are all slated to reducing electrical usage.
 
longview said:
I think people do equate some home improvements to electricity prices.
Better insulation, new windows, high efficiency appliances, are all slated to reducing electrical usage.
Click to expand...

Amazon wants to generate all its energy from solar so it doesn't have to pay a light bill. This has always been the problem with solar. The people who have money--businesses--are primarily interested in profits. The government's focus has been on maintaining the big energy stranglehold on consumers. There is no incentive for Joe Blow in most places, particularly outside the southwest, to convert because it is still too expensive for them and the return on investment window is too long.
 
Drawdown said:
Amazon wants to generate all its energy from solar so it doesn't have to pay a light bill. This has always been the problem with solar. The people who have money--businesses--are primarily interested in profits. The government's focus has been on maintaining the big energy stranglehold on consumers. There is no incentive for Joe Blow in most places, particularly outside the southwest, to convert because it is still too expensive for them and the return on investment window is too long.
Click to expand...
The too expensive argument is over, if we only consider actual Kwh not used, Solar would still be viable.
They market Solar poorly, and depend on things like net metering too much,
but a Panel array could easily justify it's cost.
Granted many other energy saving improvements would have a greater return, but solar has a place.
Consider someone with an average $150 a month electric bill, likely using 1400 Kwh per month.
A 1000 Kwh per month system might be $17K installed.
7.56 kW Grid‑Tied Solar System with SolarEdge inverter and 24 Mission Solar 315w Panels - Wholesale Solar
The system would save ~$80 a month in electricity not purchased, or the equivalent of that $17,000 earning a 5.6% rate of return.
This is without subsidies, net metering, just savings.
 
longview said:
The too expensive argument is over, if we only consider actual Kwh not used, Solar would still be viable.
They market Solar poorly, and depend on things like net metering too much,
but a Panel array could easily justify it's cost.
Granted many other energy saving improvements would have a greater return, but solar has a place.
Consider someone with an average $150 a month electric bill, likely using 1400 Kwh per month.
A 1000 Kwh per month system might be $17K installed.
7.56 kW Grid‑Tied Solar System with SolarEdge inverter and 24 Mission Solar 315w Panels - Wholesale Solar
The system would save ~$80 a month in electricity not purchased, or the equivalent of that $17,000 earning a 5.6% rate of return.
This is without subsidies, net metering, just savings.
Click to expand...

$17K is a big chunk of change for most people so no the argument is not over considering most people have no money for emergencies, let alone prepaying their electric for the next 10 years
 
longview said:
The too expensive argument is over, if we only consider actual Kwh not used, Solar would still be viable.
They market Solar poorly, and depend on things like net metering too much,
but a Panel array could easily justify it's cost.
Granted many other energy saving improvements would have a greater return, but solar has a place.
Consider someone with an average $150 a month electric bill, likely using 1400 Kwh per month.
A 1000 Kwh per month system might be $17K installed.
7.56 kW Grid‑Tied Solar System with SolarEdge inverter and 24 Mission Solar 315w Panels - Wholesale Solar
The system would save ~$80 a month in electricity not purchased, or the equivalent of that $17,000 earning a 5.6% rate of return.
This is without subsidies, net metering, just savings.
Click to expand...
What is the life span of the battery cells and the solar panels, and what are the upkeep fees to maintain that system. Its my understanding that when you factor everything into the equation there is no savings.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Drawdown said:
$17K is a big chunk of change for most people so no the argument is not over considering most people have no money for emergencies, let alone prepaying their electric for the next 10 years
Click to expand...
I am not saying that $17 K is a small amount, but many people do have that kind of money in savings, and the return is better
that most get on savings. If they took advantage of all the subsidies, the rate of return is much better.
 
trouble13 said:
What is the life span of the battery cells and the solar panels, and what are the upkeep fees to maintain that system. Its my understanding that when you factor everything into the equation there is no savings.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The panels and inverters are rated at 25 years, but panels have been out there longer and are still working.
Most systems do not use batteries, but rather are grid supplements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom