Man, comments on that article are certainly ugly. I wonder why subsidies for Solar/EVs are viewed so negatively while ones for farming/oil/etc are almost ignored.
People focus on SpaceX's government contracts, disregarding the MASSIVE subsidies ULA receives and disregarding the fact that SpaceX is dropping the price of rocket launches like a brick off a cliff, which will (obviously??) save far, far more taxpayer money in the long run than if SpaceX had not done this.
People focus on Tesla's subsidies, but ignore the massive bailouts given to the other auto manufacturers and ignore the future potential of Tesla to bring large amounts of jobs and money into the US as the cars are exported around the world. They ignore how much money will be saved by a cleaner environment in the long run, in healthcare costs and environmental costs. They overlook that Tesla paid back all its government loans with interest, making it a solid investment. They ignore everything relevant.
And with SolarCity, people focus on it having received some small amount of subsidies while disregarding the fact that a future where we don't have to pay electric bills or gas bills will save us all far more than we might have to spend in taxes now.
These people seem to imagine that Musk's companies are taking up valuable money that could have been used elsewhere, but truly, what better use for money than to break the mold of dysfunctional legacy infrastructure?
Your argument seems a little silly.
That seems much more clearcut than who exactly benefits from various economic policies and government actions.
A few reasons why it's silly. You can't accurately measure it, so it's a somewhat useless metric. Also, everything is interdependent if you look at it that way.
Rich people are being subsidized by landlords due to rent control!
Alcohol companies are being subsidized because they don't pay for crashes caused by drunk drivers.
It goes on and on and it doesn't add much value.
E.g. healthcare costs go up with age because that's when people start dying. Smokers die at an earlier age, so they experience those costs earlier. Is this correct? Who knows, but it's one of the many ways in which the argument you wrote could be invalid.
Furthermore, healthcare costs don't reflect the complete picture. Firstly, lost productivity is an issue. Secondly, we may not want a society where ritual suicide is encouraged at a pre-determined age with the goal of reducing healthcare costs.
Obviously I know this isn't what you're arguing. You're right in saying that alcohol and tobacco taxes aren't used to offset higher costs to healthcare. In most cases they're supposed to be a cost pressure to change consumption.
Smokers are subsidizing everyone!! How do you solve for that?
is a really impressive moment in history
Once Tesla stabilises, they'll be looking to move manufacturing jobs offshore, just like any other manufacturer. 'Future manufacturing jobs aplenty', without some significant social changes, is a pipe dream.
I'm sure that some jobs will be created offshore, but I doubt that the worlds largest battery factory is just going to be shut down and moved to Shenzhen.
Is your claim that solar energy would not collapse if subsidies were removed? I can think of a few examples of solar firms that failed even after being given massive subsidies.
I'm not sure to which conflict you refer when you mention an alignment of interests between fossil fuels and conservatives.
And I'm not sure how the conflict, whatever it is, relates to whether or not solar companies have a viable business model.
Many car companies have collapsed over the last century. I assume the intention of a subsidy is to support the industry as well as the specific company?
Every year of delay in renewables supplanting fossil fuels means hundreds of billions of dollars to the fossil fuels industry.
You can actually make exactly the same argument about renewable energy. We invested in clean energy because it is a superior, but more expensive product. Fossil fuels are able to compete unfairly by selling a dirty product for less. Without subsidies solar would be forced to track the price of fossil fuels. As oil gets cheaper, solar becomes less profitable.
- Harmful emissions killing thousands [1]
- Degradation of environment such as water contamination.
- Geo-political implications.
And I'm not sure how you are relating that point to "clean energy". You say solar should be subsidized because it is a superior product. Are American farm products somehow superior as well? Is grain from the mid-west some how better than grain from Europe? Or is corn syrup cleaner than sugar cane from Cuba?
And unfair? We use that word to describe cars, steel, electronics but not grain? A Brazilian farmer can grow grain, haul it using donkeys to a barge, sail it down river to the coast, pay for shipping on a grain scow, and load it on a train to Chicago, for less than farmers in Iowa can afford to grow it. Its got to mean miserable working conditions for people in that whole chain. Is this any different from clothing or iPhones?
Source?
My roommate in college worked on his parents farm every summer and while he worked a lot of hours, he made would make about $25,000 dollars. That's more than any of anyone I know made during the summer except for me (I only made more cause my company paid for my hotel that I lived in plus the taxes on it which were both ludicrous).
I strongly assert that you do not understand the political impetus behind farm subsidies, the damage they do, and the strong economic case that they should not exist
Perhaps you would explain to which oil subsidies you are referring?
Renewable energy subsidies are not even 1% of them aggregate.
* Consumer purchases of the final products of oil are heavily taxed (especially in Europe).
* Oil companies pay significant income tax. Exxon alone paid over $5.5B, or about 25% of net profit, in taxes last year, while in 2013 they paid closer to 42%. [1]
* After they pay income tax, their dividends are taxes again.
I'm sure there are other invisible taxes throughout the production and rights-acquisition process.
[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM+Income+Statement&annual
Or maybe I misunderstood and you are trying to make a different point?
You need to show what portion of the road cost is paid for by income taxes before you can claim the rest.
I don't understand why you brought any of this up. A subsidy is a subsidy no matter who pays.
I took the parent at face value for the claim that 50% of roads are funded by use fees. That means the other 50% are paid for with general income taxes. Nearly all income taxes are paid for by the top half of earners. If we assume that everyone drives about the same amount, then the bottom half of the country gets the full value and use of roads while only paying for 25% of the total cost.
I bring this up because the parents point seemed to be that road subsidies are an implicit subsidy to oil companies. But people need to get around somehow, and the current way of funding roads should be perfectly compatible to conventional morality.
At the same time, I oppose all subsidies and can only imagine the amazing methods of transport that would exist if the government did not actively interfere and manage this market.
For this sub-thread, that is where. Unless you think the US military is out defending foreign oil companies?
What is the salient data point from that link that you would like to highlight?
Which part confuses you?
You left out the part where the report covers the period of 1950-2010 - a 60 year period. A multi-decade accounting isn't useful when we are discussing the current state of subsidies across industries.
The tax-based "subsidies" appear to just be referring to the ability to write off expenses, an aspect of the tax code that is nearly universal to every industry in all nations. There are very, very few examples of income taxes that do not allow the write-off of expenses.
The second part of that summary, referring to "exemptions" from economic regulations, is bizarre. We don't generally have price controls or limits on the rate of return in the United States. It seems like that report probably just chose arbitrary numbers for what it felt the profit rate should have been, and added the difference between that and the real numbers into the subsidy number. That is more an argument for communism than anything related to a discussion about subsidy policy.
You also left out the part where the real subsidies, those to the renewables industries, are actual giveaways of money.
I'm not sure how an honest inquiry could make these mistakes and engage in these false comparisons, which probably explains why you used a throwaway account to post.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fu...
Repealing farm subsidies isn't the best way to use your precious political capital as President. The fact that these programs are so hard to repeal is the reason why Republicans are obstructionists. A government program is the closest thing to eternal life in this world, so the best chance to stop it is at genesis. An honest leftist understands this too and accounts for it in their policies.
Also, it's not really true that oil is that subsidized in the US. Most of the headline numbers include general foreign tax credits and business expense and R&D write-offs, which have nothing to do with oil in particular, as well as heating assistance for poor families.