Whoa... that only happened because George W Bush was President.
Everyone loves us now, thanks to Obama.
Printable View
Where did I say I DIDN'T know that.
Notice the part where I said I hate ALL Subsidies? I don't pick and choose which I hate, I hate them all. And yes, things are very black and white. Subsidy, no subsidy. I think that's pretty black and white. Don't do them. Period.
The Federal Government should have nothing to do with a company succeeding. I mean seriously... what kind of company goes.. "Our business model only works if we get a 20% subsidy from the government".
As for tax rate.. We are among the highest in the world. if we reduced it, and got rid of tax breaks, we would see a net increase in tax from them.
Here is the thing. I understand you would love it if everyone richer then you paid their "fair share" and all. But getting rid of these stupid tax breaks for everyone would be a good thing. A rich person doesn't need a tax break for buying a home. maybe a poor person could use it, but it still shouldn't be there. "Congrats for buying the home, now your neighbor will proceed to pay part of your taxes until you sell the home!" Explain to me how that makes any sense at all.
Most of the people ~I~ know that live paycheck to paycheck live in apartments or rent. So not sure how a subsidy for buying a home helps them, they are just subsidizing someone else.
Hmm.. Never said anything about me being republican. Go Figure. I think both parties are shit. I believe I have said that enough. Not that I expect you to understand the difference.
Ya, Virgin Galactic went to the moon in 1969.
You get in such a rage that you just fire away at the keyboard and keep blowing us up with drivel. Just Pause, take some deep breaths and engage your brain a little bit. THINK. That's all you have to do is T H I N K.
I don't expect you to believe anything. If you honestly want to know how good the model is, I expect you to look at the model.You've conflated two very different things here: making a profit relative to coal and making a profit at all. The first does not occur because as we agree the two break even. This necessarily implies that the second does occur, because no one would make coal plants if they ran at a loss, therefore coal plants run at a profit, therefore solar plants (which break even with coal plants) run at a profit. How much earlier than 20 years depends on exactly how profitable coal plants are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Surely we agree that barriers to entry are real, and surely we agree that measured competition in the marketplace is a good thing. To create as much competition as possible, we want the barriers to entry to be as low as possible. It's not a question of profit vs. loss, it's a question of start-up capital. The GM dealership example is not analogous because GM entered the market many years ago.Quote:
And why should I give that company money, not knowing if I will ever get it back, so I can buy their product? This is why I hate ALL subsidies. We may not see some, but could you imagine if when you went to a GM dealership, they asked you for a 1,000 $ check. Then told you to come back in 3 months and buy a car for full price? You would ask them what the 1,000 was for, and they would say.. "So we can afford to build your car, duh". You would ask, "then why don't I get 1,000 off the price of the car?" ... "We have to make a profit" they would respond.
This is an incorrect application of the Laffer Curve. It does not say that taxes higher than the global average reduce tax revenue, but that taxes higher than the optimal tax rate do. American history demonstrates that we are far below that optimal tax rate.Quote:
As for tax rate.. We are among the highest in the world. if we reduced it, and got rid of tax breaks, we would see a net increase in tax from them.