What is the best use of tax subsidies?

[longview]

Bill Gates Says Wind, Solar Subsidies Should Go to Something New
I saw this this morning, and perhaps Gates is correct, the wind and solar subsidies have done what they are going to do.
other areas like energy storage need encouragement.

 

[Helix]

Bill's right. The subsidies should go to oil barons and to research windmill cancer.

 

[Helix]

In reality, I'm fine with subsidizing wind and solar farms.

 

[chuckiechan]

Bill Gates Says Wind, Solar Subsidies Should Go to Something New
I saw this this morning, and perhaps Gates is correct, the wind and solar subsidies have done what they are going to do.
other areas like energy storage need encouragement.

Eliminate them and lower the cost of living for tax payers.

 

[MrWonka]

Bill Gates Says Wind, Solar Subsidies Should Go to Something New
I saw this this morning, and perhaps Gates is correct, the wind and solar subsidies have done what they are going to do.
other areas like energy storage need encouragement.

Or maybe we could take subsidies from the massive fossil fuel industry that doesn't need them. Taking away their advantage would have the same effect as subsidizing green, but it would save tax payer money instead of spend more of it.

 

[Eriech]

Wind and solar are a fugly blight on our skylines and will be a environmental disaster as units reach their expiration.

We are told Miami will be under water soon. Maybe subsidies and tax credits to help Miamians relocate to safe ground. /s

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[longview]

Eliminate them and lower the cost of living for tax payers.

That is also a possibility, but we really do need to work on a solution to our energy problem.
Solar looks good, but without storage, cannot fit the requirements, Wind I suspect will succumb to high maintenance costs.

 

[PoS]

As a principle I'm against any kind of subsidies.

 

[longview]

Or maybe we could take subsidies from the massive fossil fuel industry that doesn't need them. Taking away their advantage would have the same effect as subsidizing green, but it would save tax payer money instead of spend more of it.

Except that you would be hard pressed to identify actual subsidies the fossil fuel industry receives.
Ten years ago, an 11Kw panel system would have cost about $40,000, with a 30% tax credit bringing the price down to $28,000,
Today, the system can be purchased for $13,168.
SMA 10.98 kW Grid‑Tied Solar System with SMA Inverter and 36x Canadian Solar 305w Panels - Wholesale Solar
The price is now less than half of the subsidized price of a decade ago, the subsidy has done it's work.

 

[bongsaway]

I like andrew yang's proposal, give all americans a thousand dollars a month, that's the subsidy I would like to see. Giving it to industry doesn't so much help the average person. Giving it to that person directly would influence a lot of different things. Consumer spending is THE driving force behind the economy. Let the people decide where they want to spend the money and the whole economy would end up benefiting, not just corporate america and wall street.

 

[longview]

As a principle I'm against any kind of subsidies.

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.

 

[chuckiechan]

I like andrew yang's proposal, give all americans a thousand dollars a month, that's the subsidy I would like to see. Giving it to industry doesn't so much help the average person. Giving it to that person directly would influence a lot of different things. Consumer spending is THE driving force behind the economy. Let the people decide where they want to spend the money and the whole economy would end up benefiting, not just corporate america and wall street.

As long as people stick to buying domestic liquor and drugs.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I like andrew yang's proposal, give all americans a thousand dollars a month, that's the subsidy I would like to see. Giving it to industry doesn't so much help the average person. Giving it to that person directly would influence a lot of different things. Consumer spending is THE driving force behind the economy. Let the people decide where they want to spend the money and the whole economy would end up benefiting, not just corporate america and wall street.

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.

 

[longview]

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.

I think there are a few examples in History, but I suspect the value of free money would depreciate quickly!

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think there are a few examples in History, but I suspect the value of free money would depreciate quickly!

I don't think so since Yang's "free" money does not come from taxing income - it comes from a VAT. IMHO, the big problem with subsidies is that they tax production (income) to subsidize consumption (targeted spending). Under Yang's system that problem does not exist.

 

[longview]

I don't think so since Yang's "free" money does not come from taxing income - it comes from a VAT. IMHO, the big problem with subsidies is that they tax production (income) to subsidize consumption (targeted spending). Under Yang's system that problem does not exist.

I would be more concerned about the cycle loss. When the government takes in a dollar, it has an overhead cost such that
only perhaps $.75 can be paid out, it this goes on long enough, there is no actual money left.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would be more concerned about the cycle loss. When the government takes in a dollar, it has an overhead cost such that
only perhaps $.75 can be paid out, it this goes on long enough, there is no actual money left.

The overhead of a VAT (or sales tax) is much lower than the overhead of an income tax.

 

[longview]

The overhead of a VAT (or sales tax) is much lower than the overhead of an income tax.

that is true, as the mechanism is already in place in most places, but the overhead I am talking about is the dollar
moving around inside the government, from collection to distribution.
(I also think VAT taxes are far more dangerous than sales taxes, because the value added to something can be subjective.)

 

[ttwtt78640]

that is true, as the mechanism is already in place in most places, but the overhead I am talking about is the dollar
moving around inside the government, from collection to distribution.
(I also think VAT taxes are far more dangerous than sales taxes, because the value added to something can be subjective.)

It's hard to imagine a more subjective taxation system than taxing "adjusted" income based on how and upon who it was later spent.

 

[justabubba]

I like andrew yang's proposal, give all americans a thousand dollars a month, that's the subsidy I would like to see. Giving it to industry doesn't so much help the average person. Giving it to that person directly would influence a lot of different things. Consumer spending is THE driving force behind the economy. Let the people decide where they want to spend the money and the whole economy would end up benefiting, not just corporate america and wall street.

assuming the 18 and over population comprises 76% of the population gives us 250 million persons, each month receiving $1000 from the federal government. $250 billion monthly. $3 Trillion annually
the thread question was "What is the best use of tax subsidies?"
my answer is 'whatever best serves the public's interest'
does giving away a quarter Tillion dollars monthly achieve that public interest?
it will certainly stimulate the economy. but what will it also do to our nation's deficit balance. the USA and its dollar is the world's present safe haven for financial investments. that is what allows us to print each $100 dollar bill for only pennies, and spend the $99 and change to accomplish our federal government's purposes. are we willing to relinquish that spectactularly beneficial cash cow?
if wang's plan is to work, it must generate near sufficient tax revenue to offset its massive expense - otherwise another currency might displace our own as the world's destination to park assets. then our dollar would float against that preferred currency, probably depriving us of the di minimis cost to print new dollars
let's face facts. the yang proposal is a transfer of wealth from those with means to those without because those with means (and no unique tax breaks) will pay for the largesse received by those who pay no federal taxes

in my never humble opinion, there is a better way. this Nobel laureate suggested a common sense proposal for a reverse income tax over half a century ago:

 

[chuckiechan]

assuming the 18 and over population comprises 76% of the population gives us 250 million persons, each month receiving $1000 from the federal government. $250 billion monthly. $3 Trillion annually
the thread question was "What is the best use of tax subsidies?"
my answer is 'whatever best serves the public's interest'
does giving away a quarter Tillion dollars monthly achieve that public interest?
it will certainly stimulate the economy. but what will it also do to our nation's deficit balance. the USA and its dollar is the world's present safe haven for financial investments. that is what allows us to print each $100 dollar bill for only pennies, and spend the $99 and change to accomplish our federal government's purposes. are we willing to relinquish that spectactularly beneficial cash cow?
if wang's plan is to work, it must generate near sufficient tax revenue to offset its massive expense - otherwise another currency might displace our own as the world's destination to park assets. then our dollar would float against that preferred currency, probably depriving us of the di minimis cost to print new dollars
let's face facts. the yang proposal is a transfer of wealth from those with means to those without because those with means (and no unique tax breaks) will pay for the largesse received by those who pay no federal taxes

in my never humble opinion, there is a better way. this Nobel laureate suggested a common sense proposal for a reverse income tax over half a century ago:

It’s also dangling pogy bait in front of the noses of those who wait around for free money.

 

[justabubba]

It’s also dangling pogy bait in front of the noses of those who wait around for free money.

yea, surprised more low income voters are not loudly embracing this massive giveaway proposal targeted to them

 

[Visbek]

Eliminate them and lower the cost of living for tax payers.

LOL

Renewable energy subsidies in the United States is around $10 billion per year.

That is a whopping $28 per taxpayer. Per year.

Good to see you have a firm perspective on the costs of various government programs....

 

[PoS]

LOL

Renewable energy subsidies in the United States is around $10 billion per year.

That is a whopping $28 per taxpayer. Per year.

Good to see you have a firm perspective on the costs of various government programs....

$28 can buy you 3 large pizzas, a good dinner for 3 nights. Now why should I sacrifice that for some silly green tech thats inferior to the current tech we have right now?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

$28 can buy you 3 large pizzas, a good dinner for 3 nights. Now why should I sacrifice that for some silly green tech thats inferior to the current tech we have right now?

So you don't die from lung cancer? Or similar environmental infuenced disease