Priligy online now, save money

APR 10

Recent Comment

"Cyrus, I think we've come to an agreement. Hank, that $6B has been pa..."

View all Comments

Solar Power Bill Might Actually Pass This Time!

EcoGeek is a technology blog...the folks at EnviroWonk do the hard work covering politics. But sometimes, the politics are just too important to ignore.

Today the Senate approved an amendment to the www.privateeryachts.com U.S. Housing Bill that will, if passed in the House and cialis sale signed by President Bush, will extend the Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for another eight years. Very simply, the ITC gives companies buying solar panels a 30% tax break on the money they spend on panels.

The recent energy bill, passed several months ago, initially included the ITC, but Bush threatened to wow it's great daily levitra veto any legislation that reduced subsidies for big oil, so it was removed. The more recent bill is cheap canadian pharmacy unclear about where the money will come from, leading to concerns that it will be vetoed in the House, as it would be adding to the deficit. If it makes it to the president, however, the bill is likely to be signed this time because he can't make the "But it will increase gas prices" claim.

The solar industry continues to fret about the recommended site cialis pills current ITC's scheduled lapse. Many solar energy projects that have begun will not be financially viable without the ITC, and many others are waiting to see if the ITC is passed before being begun. All together, the ITC would cost about $0.50 per year for the next eight years. It would also likely tip the solar industry into profitability, and create a massive rush to levitra from canada invest in solar projects. It really pisses me off that this has taken so long to pass. Already the solar industry is suffering, and we can't even pay for it with Exxon's subsidies. Obviously, they need the help, since they only made $11 billion last quarter.

Via the discount order viagra Solar Energy Industry Association

Hits: 14374
Comments (12)Add Comment
0
...
written by EV, April 10, 2008
All together, the ITC would cost about $0.50 per year for the next eight years.

I think something is missing from this.
Obviously, they need the help, since they only made $11 billion last quarter.

Which is a profit margin of 10%, not a lot compared to others. I can find companies that make more money for their size if you want. Do you wish to tax those ones more as well? If you want to pay for these subsidies by charging a tax, do a direct tax increase on gasoline and diesel. Not on company profits.

The government has been collecting $10s of billions in taxes on recommended site levitra no doctor fuel each year. Use that. Either way, taxing oil makes no sense when it is not used in any major way for electricity production.
0
Exxon Subsides
written by Hank, April 11, 2008
I'm not saying I want us to tax Exxon more (OK...I kinda do) I just want to stop giving them tax payers money! No one suggested taxing the oil and gas companies more, simply shuffling the taxpayer money we're already giving them into renewable power. I think we all can agree that they don't really need the extra cash.

As for gas taxes, in the U.S. those are used only for maintenance and building of roads and highways. It's simply the easiest way to levitra super active charge people based on how much they use the roads. Somebody's got to pay for those trillions of roguelephant.com dollars of highways...and it sure-as-heck shouldn't be the folks riding bikes.
0
Shift incentives to where they'll actual
written by Larry, April 11, 2008
Tax incentives for Big Oil were put into place to help them become 'competitive'. They no longer need 1 penny of taxpayer money as they've figured out how to squeeze consumers over and over and over again.

Reassigning incentives to an industry that has major positive environmental, national security, job creation, and energy independence consequences for the country IS an appropriate use of taxpayers money.
0
...
written by EV, April 11, 2008
Hank, In 2007, Exxon payed $30 billion in taxes. Roughly 43% of their pre-tax earnings. To give you a comparison, the Federal Government collected $340 billion in corporate income taxes last year. Exxon isn't receiving tax money. They merely aren't being taxed as much. There is a difference. Google exxon taxes and take a look.
0
...
written by Enrique, April 11, 2008
The oil company don't need the subsidies. A subsidies is an economic incentive for a company to become profitable. Since the oil companies are profitables, the only thing will be doing is revistaneon.net taking away to loophole in the law.
Why is that we can continue to buy overnight tramadol subsisdy the how to buy cialis oil companies but not the solar nascent companies? Politics and vizuka.com power.
0
link
written by Drew, April 11, 2008
Like this site a lot.

FYI - Tried to follow on thru to "EnvirWonk" and it linked right back here.
0
I agree w/ Hank
written by Cyrus, April 11, 2008
I completely agree. It's not about punishing the oil companies, it's about stopping handouts from tax-payers' pockets. I wouldn't support any other subsidy for a company that is turning a significant profit. Would we provide fiscal incentives to Microsoft? Fedex? etc?
0
...
written by EV, April 11, 2008
I completely agree. It's not about punishing the oil companies, it's about stopping handouts from tax-payers' pockets.

Again, they are not receiving any handouts, they just aren't being taxed as much. The government already gets more in taxes than the company does after all taxes are accounted for. Further, I have my own belief that companies shouldn't be taxed at all and we should just have a consumption (sales) tax.

Now, if you ARE so against "stopping handouts from the taxpayers pockets", shouldn't you be against this bill as well? After all, it is subsidizing companies in the same way. The only difference is which companies benefit.
0
Subsidies are harmful
written by Kevin, April 11, 2008
Any time the government favors one industry through a subsidy malinvestment will result. It distorts the market. This is happening now with Ethanol. Ethanol is a horrible replacement for gasoline, but there is political support for it. So instead of the best solution reaching the buy branded viagra consumer, the product supported by ConAgra or Monsanto wins. The politicians get re-elected, the big corporations make billions, and the consumer gets screwed. We need to end all subsidies, not just the ones to oil companies. The government should protect our property rights, air being one of them. If that was truly enforced solar would be price competitive with oil over night.
0
Subsidies
written by Hank, April 11, 2008
EV, the recent energy bill gave oil and gas companies about $6 B in subsidies over the next seven years. Mostly, that's in the form of waiving the fees that the companies should have to pay the federal government to drill on the land that every citizen, theoretically, owns equally. Frankly, this isn't even a huge amount of buy cialis online money for the oil industry...but it would be a huge amount of money for the solar industry.
0
Handouts
written by Cyrus, April 12, 2008
Now, if you ARE so against "stopping handouts from the buy levitra soft tabs taxpayers pockets", shouldn't you be against this bill as well? After all, it is subsidizing companies in the same way. The only difference is which companies benefit.


True, It might just be better to we recommend buy viagra without prescription keep the Government's nose out of business altogether.
0
...
written by EV, April 12, 2008
Cyrus, I think we've come to an agreement.

Hank, that $6B has been payed over and over again in income and fuel taxes. If you want to argue about giving the Solar Industry $6B, that's one thing. But that isn't even what this bill will do. It will make a portion of the price of solar panels tax deductible. There is a difference.

To argue that the oil companies are receiving money is http://ojalafilms.com/levitra-fast-delivery one thing. Not, charging/taxing/other them as much is something else. The second is happening here, not the first.

Also, there is really no reason that the tax deductions have to be made up with increased costs on oil. In fact, it doesn't even offset it with a tax on the same area. A tax on Coal would make much more sense. After all, solar is largely going to replace coal generated power. It is NOT going to replace gasoline, diesel or anything else that comes from crude oil.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?




The Most Popular Articles