And a lot of later editing of your own posts.....I will have to start making screen captures
Edit: but you're not worth the trouble.....everyone knows your M.O.
Edit: but you're not worth the trouble.....everyone knows your M.O.
The 36 Obama-Funded Green Energy Failures…
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Once again I notice that you have not managed to refute a single thing I said. But that is not surprising considering that you have yet to do so in any of our exchanges. Here is a little bit more info to cheer you up.
Did you watch the Daily Show tonight? Jon Stuart had some interesting things to say about US energy projects. It seems that the failure rate for thses government funded projects was only 8%. How about comparing that with the failure rate of private ventures - let's say those of Mitt Romeny? Turns out Mitt's failure rate was 22% in spite of his vaunted and much ballyhooded economic expertise. Apparently a 78% success rate in the private sector is considered excellent while a 92% success rate in government endeavours is considered terrible.
Let's face it. You are not opposed to alternative energy sources because you think they won't work. You are opposed to them because you are terrified that they will work. What scenario could possibly be worse for a supporter of Big Oil than the development of alternative energy sources that actually outperform the oil industry? Better get used to it. The gap between the cost of energy from oil and coal and that from wind and solar is steadily decreasing. All that is required is a method of storing wind and solar energy to put the oil and coal industry on its heels. And thanks to various government and privately funded ventures around the world that breakthrough is only a matter of time.
Too funny... You've been burned on each ill informed comment you've made. The only option you have left, as we've seen, is to continue to move the target in the hopes that you get something right.
I especially like to comment about the only thing required for renewables is 'a method of storing the wind and solar energy'... To be honest, you're way ahead of yourself. First, the tech has to be competitive such that the public buys in, second, transporting it over any reasonable distance is a major hurdle and lastly comes the storage issue... The solutions do exist, although sadly, only on sci-fi programs and movies.
In the meantime, I'll dig around for a consolation prize for ya as thanks for playing the game.
I especially like to comment about the only thing required for renewables is 'a method of storing the wind and solar energy'... To be honest, you're way ahead of yourself. First, the tech has to be competitive such that the public buys in, second, transporting it over any reasonable distance is a major hurdle and lastly comes the storage issue... The solutions do exist, although sadly, only on sci-fi programs and movies.
In the meantime, I'll dig around for a consolation prize for ya as thanks for playing the game.
Oh, it'll happen - eventually - as soon as "private enterprise" discovers the technology and has the ability, they'll invest in it. But there has to be the reasonable expectation of making a profit before they do any of that, and, apparently, we're not there yet. If we were, it'd already be happening and government wouldn't have to get involved at all.
What the government CAN do is just get out of the way and ensure regulations aren't hindering the process. I suspect that that's one of the issues businesses are currently facing - government interference.
JMHO
A flat tax, if Alberta is any example, would NOT affect the poor. In fact, they would not pay any tax at all. The exemption rate determines what, if any tax you would pay, thus eliminating the poor from paying. I don't know why there is such a "kurffle" about the flat tax or the "poor" paying taxes, when in fact, if you are actually poor, you don't pay any taxes at all. Please tell me, where in Canada (or the US for that matter) do the "poor" pay taxes? It's a false issue, period and I'm tired of hearing how badly the poor have it. Yes, the tax system needs to be revamped, but let me tell you, the poor DO NOT PAY TAXES!!
JMO
Oh, just to clarify, I'm speaking of income taxes - sorry!! In Canada the poor do pay GST like everyone else but do get some of it back. I don't know how it works in the US.
Let me dispel some of the fallacies you seem to believe about a flat tax system. I'll start with a note that my major was economics and my dissertation was on taxation just so you know I do have an idea. The big misconception is that our system is really progressive when, in reality, it quickly becomes regressive due to sales taxes and licenses but I will explain that further down.
First, you obviously missed the part where I mentioned a minimum threshold for taxation. This level should be somewhere in the $25-30k area depending on the average family income at the time. Or if you want to look at it another way the lowest 20% of families will pay NO income tax at all. This is a far cry from the $10,000 threshold we have under the current progressive system. This ensures that a minimum standard of living is easily maintained for the lowest earners.
Second, as it stands the average tax rate across Canada is about 26% combined fed/prov yet studies show that most of those earning $150k+/yr have an actual average rate after deductions of close to 14%. The reason for this is of course the disposable income is used in investment and certain tax-sheltered vehicles in the financial sector. These are things that the average family cannot utilize because they are trying to make ends meet. Rough estimates using a 15% flat-tax rate with no deductions project an increase in revenue from the top 20% of earners somewhere in the range of $14 billion and another increase in revenue from the next lowest 20% of about $5 billion. That is almost $20 billion in increased revenues by lowering the rates which far outweighs the loss of revenue at the low end projected at about $5.5 billion. So we see a net gain to tax revenues of nearly $15 billion with a lower overall rate. The lower income earners (<$80,000/yr) will see 10% more of their money in their pockets. Our budget deficits for 2011/12 & 2012/13 are 25 & 21 billion respectively so while this doesn't cover the entire deficit it makes huge strides in the right direction.
Third, while most believe we have a progressive tax system (the more you earn the more you pay) we don't. By using the above mentioned deductions the very wealthy are able to drop their effective tax rate by over 10% to levels lower than the average family, this is unfair and makes our system regressive. We also have to factor in sales taxes. As a percentage of income sales taxes are extremely regressive targeting the poor and low income earners who spend a disproportionate amount of their disposable income on these various sales taxes or value added taxes (ie gas). There is also a factor of licenses. Though this is a much smaller issue but still adds to the regressive nature of govt funding. $75 to renew a DL is nothing to me and not even noticed by those wealthier but to a family with an annual income of $25k it is a huge amount. There are changes to be made here too, little tweeks like removing the fees for very low-end earners would be able to be covered by increasing fees on those who can afford it.
As you can see, a substantially lower rate applied as a flat tax while protecting the working poor results in net gains to govt revenue.
NB: my study & numbers are from 2002.
Got some input on this:
Employing an avg rate of 26% is misleading at either end of the spectrum. The lower earning demographic (ie < $42K) pays a fed rate of 15% and the upper earners (ie > $130K) pay 29%. The difference on the high earners is small (3%), but the lowest income pays 15% which is significantly different from 26%. Add to this that the provincial component on income ranges from 7.7% on the first $32K (Nfld) and a high of 21% on income over $150K (PEI)... Note: Manitoba has a 17.4% prov tax on all income over $67K.
Do the math and the system is highly progressive.
In terms of deductions, there is a finite amount of personal deductions that can be applied against your personal income. An individual (self employed for example) can defer business expenses against the income that can be significant, however, that would occur under the corporate entity at which point the income is taxed (after deductions) and if the individual 'pays themself', that money is taxed again on a personal income level... The underlying point being that 'sheltering' via a corporate entity results in having the money taxed twice (assuming they take a salary).
Lastly, the only real personal investment deduction comes in the form of RESPs, RRSPs and RIFs. These are effective in the short/medium term (AND have max limits that don't come close to the high income bracket); however, the system is set up such that at the time of retirement (as is commonly the case), the monies must be withdrawn in a (relatively) short time at which point the retiree pays the full tax load... The message here is that the personal deductions are not very deep.
We can talk about capital gains/losses as well, but it gets more complex
Employing an avg rate of 26% is misleading at either end of the spectrum. The lower earning demographic (ie < $42K) pays a fed rate of 15% and the upper earners (ie > $130K) pay 29%. The difference on the high earners is small (3%), but the lowest income pays 15% which is significantly different from 26%. Add to this that the provincial component on income ranges from 7.7% on the first $32K (Nfld) and a high of 21% on income over $150K (PEI)... Note: Manitoba has a 17.4% prov tax on all income over $67K.
Do the math and the system is highly progressive.
In terms of deductions, there is a finite amount of personal deductions that can be applied against your personal income. An individual (self employed for example) can defer business expenses against the income that can be significant, however, that would occur under the corporate entity at which point the income is taxed (after deductions) and if the individual 'pays themself', that money is taxed again on a personal income level... The underlying point being that 'sheltering' via a corporate entity results in having the money taxed twice (assuming they take a salary).
Lastly, the only real personal investment deduction comes in the form of RESPs, RRSPs and RIFs. These are effective in the short/medium term (AND have max limits that don't come close to the high income bracket); however, the system is set up such that at the time of retirement (as is commonly the case), the monies must be withdrawn in a (relatively) short time at which point the retiree pays the full tax load... The message here is that the personal deductions are not very deep.
We can talk about capital gains/losses as well, but it gets more complex
First thing to remember is these rates are applied to 'taxable income' not gross earnings. This is where the big disparity occurs. If I make $250k but invest $100k into a business under venture capital my taxable income drops dramatically. I could also use the forward averaging tax credit program to spread investment losses over a period of years further reducing taxable income and, as you mentioned, capital losses can cause a major reduction in taxable income.
Using only the rate of taxation the system would seem progressive but my study looked at the tax rates as % of total income. This is where the system becomes regressive.
This is one of the biggest problems. Allowing people to pay all their living expenses through their business means they have no taxable income personally and then take advantage of the myriad of corporate loopholes to significantly reduce the tax payable by the business. They in fact use the payments on mortgages and cars and utilities for personal use to reduce the taxable amount of the business.
I am of the opinion that if we are going to tax retirement savings when redeemed they should be taxed at a much lower rate. As it stands, like you point out, There is only very short term benefits in these programs that are recouped by govt later anyway and sometimes at a much higher rate than if taxed initially. What I found was a culture among the very wealthy of knowingly investing in companies that are failing or losing money to advantage themselves of the capital loss/forward averaging credit programs.
The whole system is complex...far too complex. The flat tax and removal of deductions from gross earnings simplifies everything. I would also mention closing most of the ludicrous deductions from the corporate tax system should also be a part of revamping the tax structure.
I am not a tax expert in any way, but I can speak on this based on my dealings and experience with accounting/tax professionals and my experience.
Regarding the $100K investment (ven cap); and to the best of my knowledge, you are not able to deduct that capital investment from your current personal tax bill. My understanding is that any investment of that nature (ie outside of RRSP, RESP, etc) are paid-for entirely with after-tax dollars. An individual can flow after tax dollars into a corp and the corporation can allocate monies (on a deductible basis), but the seed capital is not deductible on my personal taxes.
At the point of transaction on this investment, the result will qualify as a capital gain or capital loss at which time the exemption (or tax contribution) is booked.
Fair enough, but lets recognize that there is a relative nature to this. 2 separate people that make the same income and have the same costs could expend those monies very differently leading to 2 very different situations 5 years down the road.... Depending on the situation that is an*lysed (above reference), teh system can be regressive for one and progressive for the other.
That is highly unlikely. I'm sure that many people try, but one CRA audit will kibosh that in short order.
I agree for the most part, but will contest the idea of investing in losers for the tax bennies that may be associated... That is extremely tough to do on a personal basis. Income Trusts were the last one to be omitted by the Feds. One can do it through REITS, but the sector has been under-performing as of late. That said, it puts the individual into a loss position and although you can claim a capital loss on the investment, it still doesn't change the fact that you lost money
Agreed... Simplifying the system would be of overall benefit (except to the tax accountants)
It is not deductible directly but the tax liability can be deferred over a period of years and offset completely through various other means over that time. It can be a direct deduction if a self-employed has incorporated themselves.
I can agree with this. Depending upon ones financial management and use of tax codes it can result in a wide variety of outcomes.
You would be surprised. The biggest culprits are those who incorporate themselves (consultants, accountants etc.) but work from home. By maintaining assets under the corporate entity they avail themselves of most living expenses.
This is something that is not that common but does still occur. Some would rather incur a loss of $300,000 than pay the govt $150,000 but there are few that can afford it. We are talking about the top 0.01% and they have many other ways to avoid taxation. Operating out of a haven like Barbados seems to be the current rage.
So true!
Political Nick:
If people pay taxes at different rates then its not a truly flat tax system. We essentially agree regarding low and middle incomes. We both recognize that as people have more disposable income, they can take advantage of incentives and write offs to reduce their taxes even though their base tax increases. You propose a flat tax and closing off incentives and write offs available to people. I propose a progressive tax and closing off write off and incentives.
I support people living at or below the poverty line paying no income tax and even getting social assistance to bring their living standard up to the poverty line. Any income of any type earned above the poverty line should be taxed at progressively greater rates. I'd even support all my income going to the government first, where they take their cut and I get to keep what's left. All I should have to do is submit my expenses and they do the math. Then I'd fire my accountant, and none of us would ever have to file income tax... or pay someone to file our income tax.
I would also support corporation not being allowed to make a profit. Any money left after expenses deduct from revenue, should either be re-invested in the corporation (growth, buy back shares, acquisition...) or paid out as dividends to share holders. As soon as a person gets money by any means, it should be taxed as income.
Anyone who writes off personal expenses as business expenses is committing fraud. Some business expenses like meals, travel and so on are legitimate business expenses. But when business is mixed with pleasure, only the business portion should be deductible as an expense.
I'm not an accountant.
If people pay taxes at different rates then its not a truly flat tax system. We essentially agree regarding low and middle incomes. We both recognize that as people have more disposable income, they can take advantage of incentives and write offs to reduce their taxes even though their base tax increases. You propose a flat tax and closing off incentives and write offs available to people. I propose a progressive tax and closing off write off and incentives.
I support people living at or below the poverty line paying no income tax and even getting social assistance to bring their living standard up to the poverty line. Any income of any type earned above the poverty line should be taxed at progressively greater rates. I'd even support all my income going to the government first, where they take their cut and I get to keep what's left. All I should have to do is submit my expenses and they do the math. Then I'd fire my accountant, and none of us would ever have to file income tax... or pay someone to file our income tax.
I would also support corporation not being allowed to make a profit. Any money left after expenses deduct from revenue, should either be re-invested in the corporation (growth, buy back shares, acquisition...) or paid out as dividends to share holders. As soon as a person gets money by any means, it should be taxed as income.
Anyone who writes off personal expenses as business expenses is committing fraud. Some business expenses like meals, travel and so on are legitimate business expenses. But when business is mixed with pleasure, only the business portion should be deductible as an expense.
I'm not an accountant.
Sorry to disappoint you, but with proper storage, wind and solar will not only be competive, but will be cheaper than oil and coal without the deleterious environmental effects. Transportation of power is a snap. The electrical grid already exists. It's those large toweres carrying wires in case you missed it.
Dig around all you want. I would welcome an intelligent reply from you that actually contains proof. But as I said before I don't expect one. True to form you are great at blowing smoke, but when it comes to hard facts you don't have any.
I made a reference to liguid metal batteries in my original post. Did you even check to see what they are? I am guessing that as usual you didn't. After all, why would you want to confuse your neo-Luddite views with facts. Here is are a couple of links just in case you are interested. Interestingly the first article uses the words "science fiction" to describe this breakthrough. Who would have guessed?
Giant liquid metal batteries could make renewable energy sources more viable | The Verge
TR10: Liquid Battery - MIT Technology Review
I can hear the rushing sound right now... The sound of capital fleeing the country, closely followed by the companies that would have otherwise operated here
You never fail to disappoint
I found the solution for you... Unfortunately, you'll have to wait until 2369
Little known fact: when Scotty retired in 2369, he went into business supplying quality Starship-ready Dilithium Crystals.
... And how effective it is... School yourself on the tangible losses that occur over distances, you'll be singing a different tune.
They are always wasted on you. BTW - pointing out the obvious and already accepted standards doesn't require any digging
I can hardly wait to have a giant liquid battery filled with toxic components AND molten salt in my neighbourhood... It even sounds eco-friendly and extra safe
One audit will reverse that and then some.
I know lots of consultants and without exception; not one goes overboard in deducting their personal expenses... The cost of getting caught far outweighs the risks that are assumed
Generally when we talk about a flat tax we are inferring that there is a minimum income below which there is no tax. Basically the poor pay no taxes now because of all the credits they get. Just that there are a lot of parasites administering the system we now have that don't want it to change.
The few that try it usually get caught soon. Ever notice how many accountants get nailed with fraud?
The big irony in this 'taxing the poor' argument is that it is the social justice crowd that have pushed an expensive agenda over the years. The take-away is that the provinces and the Feds have been pushed to institute PSTs and GST in order to pay for the system.
Had the basics been raised simply through incomes taxes, the lowest income earners would have had a complete pass. Instead, they get nicked for sales related taxes to compensate for the freebies
I have zero sympathy for those that try and buck the system... The accountants have even less of an excuse as their livelihood is entirely dependent on working (legally) within the system
I can hear the rushing sound right now... The sound of capital fleeing the country, closely followed by the companies that would have otherwise operated here
You never fail to disappoint
I found the solution for you... Unfortunately, you'll have to wait until 2369
Little known fact: when Scotty retired in 2369, he went into business supplying quality Starship-ready Dilithium Crystals.
... And how effective it is... School yourself on the tangible losses that occur over distances, you'll be singing a different tune.
They are always wasted on you. BTW - pointing out the obvious and already accepted standards doesn't require any digging
I can hardly wait to have a giant liquid battery filled with toxic components AND molten salt in my neighbourhood... It even sounds eco-friendly and extra safe
As usual your reply contains little more than innuendo and supposed witticisms along with your usual dodge of the issues. Once again I note you have failed to answer a single one of my arguments with any evidence, either because you were too lazy to look for it, or more likely because you couldn't find any. But I didn't really think you would, so no disappointment there. Given your usual complete lack of substance in this debate i won't waste any more time on it.
BTW I really have to laugh at your liquid battery comment given the toxic entities you champion. I doubt very much that several thousand liquid batteries would produce anything equal to what the Alberta tar sands produces in a day.
Pardon the NIMBY-ism, but the tar sands isn't situated at the end of my street.
Correction - Those aren't 'supposed' witticisms; they are the real McCoy.
... But on a more practical note: Exactly what kind of response are you expecting when you are basing your argument on potential what-ifs at some undisclosed point in the future?
That said, it would appear that you are the one that is wasting your time.
Oh, I see... So it A-OK to backstop one set of toxins as long as they are in a novel format.
Liquid, molten salt with some antimony and magnesium for a little extra spice.
Say, I wonder what would be the consequences if the battery walls were breached?... I attached an MSDS sheet for your convenience on the toxicity for antimony.
http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927438
Suffice to say, there are a lot of blanks still open on the carcinogenic nature of the substance, but it does suggest that "The substance is toxic to blood, kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, liver, mucous membranes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage."
Sounds fun, eh?...