Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2017, 07:49 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,059,937 times
Reputation: 17865

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
another lie.

The tax break goes to the person who owns the pv system, not the seller.
LOL.... the seller would not be able to sell them anything without that credit.

Seller sells for $100K
Total revenue for seller: $100K

Buyer buys for: $100K
30% tax credit: -$30K
Total cost to buyer: $70K


================

Seller gets credit for: $30K
Seller sells for $70K
Total revenue for seller: $100K


Total cost to buyer: $70K

Where you account for it makes no difference.....knowing your trouble with simple numbers in the past you mistakes are understandable.Keep trying, some day you will succeed. I hope you have figured out the difference between 2% and .02% by now.

Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies - LA Times

 
Old 05-04-2017, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Montgomery County, PA
16,569 posts, read 15,278,266 times
Reputation: 14591
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
another lie.

The tax break goes to the person who owns the pv system, not the seller. The seller benefits due to more people buying pv systems, but get none of the subsidy.
No difference. You are admitting that if there was no subsidy, there would be no sales, hence subsidies helped the manufacturer. Where is the "lie?"

PS

Just saw the coalman's post. LOL.
 
Old 05-04-2017, 11:39 PM
 
27,624 posts, read 21,129,736 times
Reputation: 11095
I hear that coal burning locomotives are coming back. So proud that the USA is no longer the innovative nation it once was and instead becoming a laughing stock.
 
Old 05-05-2017, 06:36 AM
 
Location: USA
18,499 posts, read 9,164,949 times
Reputation: 8529
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
I hear that coal burning locomotives are coming back. So proud that the USA is no longer the innovative nation it once was and instead becoming a laughing stock.
Coal may be perceived to be low-tech, but it's still one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity (as long as the negative externalities like pollution from mining and burning are ignored).

Arguably, nuclear power is more high-tech and doesn't pollute the air, but it does generate nuclear waste and there is the risk of accidents.

Wind and solar are held up as the optimal energy source, but they will not be able to displace many coal and gas plants until the electricity storage problem is solved. How many batteries would be required to power New York City during a windless night?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top