my company: Yes, we do get tax breaks. They are pretty small in scale and since we are pretty small in scale we don't have lobbyists on payroll out stumping for them. The ones we use are generally structured to be an incentive to behaviors that the locals want to encourage. So we get breaks for installing high efficiency equipment which lowers the burden on the power grid. We get a few breaks on large capital expenditures because the .gov was trying to get business to step up and spend a bit the last couple years (if you hadn't noticed there was sort a slump going on). We get breaks for providing health care coverage to all our employees - we're still tuning our health care down here, but we're trying to model a couple of things like universal coverage that we see working elsewhere. There are lots more, but I don't think you really care much so I'll stop here.
We take them because they are there, that's good business. We don't actively lobby for them, and I'm not out trying to take positions that specifically limit my competitors. Heck, in my industry a sizable number of my competitors are my customers as well, I don't want them folding up or going away. We've all found a way to add value and co-exist, especially where it benefits the customers.
My other statement was specifically targeted toward the solar panels removed from the White House - I said nothing about vehicle technology (although I could have, but it would have been directed more toward weight and feature creep than to conspiracies). This was done by Reagan, who was a good friend to big oil. Oil companies have had sweetheart lease deals, and tax breaks galore for ever. They are also making record profits while the prices of their products (which are to some extent a necessity for many) are exceeding the pace of inflation by double digit multiples. I'm just saying maybe we should consider cutting back on the mammoth breaks that we give to these well established companies and redirect some of that to alt.energy field and see if they make any substantial gains in the next decade. This is what we should be using tax (public money) incentives for. If they don't we look for another place to redirect that money. And if by some chance the oil companies profits tumble to the point where they are only making 10 BILLION dollars a year in profit, then maybe we reinstate those breaks to prop them up again... or not, either way.
Reconsider my statements... No thanks, I'm pretty happy with them.
I truly appreciate your considered input into these matters. Now, if they put up a Republican who espoused such clarity, the RNC might have a whippersnapper's chance at gaining the Presidency. Oh hell, if the DNC were to put forth such a candidate, they might be worthy of winning.
Hey, let's move the conversation to something more local to you - your own company.
Is your company the recipient of any tax breaks?
If yes, why do you need them? If no, how do you possibly manage to survive in such a cut throat environment?
Surely just to exist, your company must offer either innovative technology that no one else has, or a value proposition that makes your competitors curse you. —- Are you suggesting in any way that all significant innovation has had government subsidization? Being in the IT field, surely you have heard talk, maybe the odd rumour of angel investors located in Sillycon Valley. Are you suggesting that no one ever was interested in 'refining and improving' vehicle technology as that is the exclusive domain of the government handout/subsidy/tax break?
I think you might want to reconsider your statements a tad.
my company: Yes, we do get tax breaks. They are pretty small in scale and since we are pretty small in scale we don't have lobbyists on payroll out stumping for them. The ones we use are generally structured to be an incentive to behaviors that the locals want to encourage. So we get breaks for installing high efficiency equipment which lowers the burden on the power grid. We get a few breaks on large capital expenditures because the .gov was trying to get business to step up and spend a bit the last couple years (if you hadn't noticed there was sort a slump going on). We get breaks for providing health care coverage to all our employees - we're still tuning our health care down here, but we're trying to model a couple of things like universal coverage that we see working elsewhere. There are lots more, but I don't think you really care much so I'll stop here.
We take them because they are there, that's good business. We don't actively lobby for them, and I'm not out trying to take positions that specifically limit my competitors. Heck, in my industry a sizable number of my competitors are my customers as well, I don't want them folding up or going away. We've all found a way to add value and co-exist, especially where it benefits the customers.
My other statement was specifically targeted toward the solar panels removed from the White House - I said nothing about vehicle technology (although I could have, but it would have been directed more toward weight and feature creep than to conspiracies). This was done by Reagan, who was a good friend to big oil. Oil companies have had sweetheart lease deals, and tax breaks galore for ever. They are also making record profits while the prices of their products (which are to some extent a necessity for many) are exceeding the pace of inflation by double digit multiples. I'm just saying maybe we should consider cutting back on the mammoth breaks that we give to these well established companies and redirect some of that to alt.energy field and see if they make any substantial gains in the next decade. This is what we should be using tax (public money) incentives for. If they don't we look for another place to redirect that money. And if by some chance the oil companies profits tumble to the point where they are only making 10 BILLION dollars a year in profit, then maybe we reinstate those breaks to prop them up again... or not, either way.
Reconsider my statements... No thanks, I'm pretty happy with them.
Well I hope it works out better than catalytic converters that the Germans had the EU impose on us, killing off the much cleaner (and platinum-free) true lean-burn engines that would have been a much better bet.
We've had manditory catalytic converters since 1975 here in the states. Heck, my 1963 Corvair got 35 mpg even after is was 8 years old, with a pair of crappy single barrel carbs. And our gas still has lead in it, they still can't find a way to keep the valves from burning without it.
You are getting your revenge on us with those mercury laced CFL's the EU is so hot to trot about.
I shouldn't think so. The Germans (as in general public) seem to genuinely not want nuclear, they have had strong Green politicians for years. I wasn't being ironic, I'm genuinely interested in how they propose to do it. I was, however, being ironic about the electric cars as the very same people who are against nuclear (and coal, and oil, and gas) power are often the very same who want electric cars - they just seen to think electric cars run on magic moonbeams rather than the output of power stations.
Exactly. Like it's all effin magik.
And of course the evil oil and car mfr corporations have been withholding these 'free-energy' cars from us for decades.
The public can be such a stupid bunch some times.
Although I agree with your base sentiment that it's not free/magic, The oil/car manufacturers have spent a lot of money successfully lobbying to hold back competition.
Himin Solar park in China has a museum that holds one of the solar panels that Reagan had removed from the roof of the White house (Carter had them installed). Imagine the progress that we could have made if we spent the last 30 years working on refining and improving that technology instead of giving tax breaks and sweetheart deals to established companies that were already making a healthy profit.
The legislators can be such a stupid bunch some times.
I shouldn't think so. The Germans (as in general public) seem to genuinely not want nuclear, they have had strong Green politicians for years. I wasn't being ironic, I'm genuinely interested in how they propose to do it. I was, however, being ironic about the electric cars as the very same people who are against nuclear (and coal, and oil, and gas) power are often the very same who want electric cars - they just seen to think electric cars run on magic moonbeams rather than the output of power stations.
Exactly. Like it's all effin magik.
And of course the evil oil and car mfr corporations have been withholding these 'free-energy' cars from us for decades.
The public can be such a stupid bunch some times.
In the US, our magic moonbeam technology has mostly been hydrogen-fueled cars promoted as a way to become energy independent and pollution-free. Nary a State of the Union Address passes without sunshiney references to promoting alternate fuels, sometimes hydrogen specifically by name.
It's not as if they're turning them all off tomorrow - they have at least 10 years to figure stuff out. That could be a pretty long time for one of the most technologically advanced and economically potent nations on the planet...or maybe not.
Well I hope it works out better than catalytic converters that the Germans had the EU impose on us, killing off the much cleaner (and platinum-free) true lean-burn engines that would have been a much better bet.
It's going to be interesting to see how they are going to replace the 23% of their generating capacity - plus power all those electric cars that are being touted so hard.
It's not as if they're turning them all off tomorrow - they have at least 10 years to figure stuff out. That could be a pretty long time for one of the most technologically advanced and economically potent nations on the planet...or maybe not.
one factor in the groundswell in favor of renewables here is a feeling of optimism that German engineering will rise to the challenge and find new technologies / refine existing ones to a point where they can compete against fossil fuels / nuclear. One of my mates is R&D director of a specialist engineering company here and he thinks it can be done so it's not just utopian greenies who are on the bandwagon.
This might explain why there is less resistance from big industry here than one would normally expect
I am so happy about this.
Well, they have been known to fail before
But, you're right, good luck to them. It would be great if they succeeded.
In the simplest terms possible: If we haven't figured out a safe way to work with and dispose of waste from nuclear power plants, we aren't ready to use them. Of course we are capable of achieving most anything.
one factor in the groundswell in favor of renewables here is a feeling of optimism that German engineering will rise to the challenge and find new technologies / refine existing ones to a point where they can compete against fossil fuels / nuclear. One of my mates is R&D director of a specialist engineering company here and he thinks it can be done so it's not just utopian greenies who are on the bandwagon.
This might explain why there is less resistance from big industry here than one would normally expect
Gee- The german government bonkers? Whoulda ever thunk it?
beamends wrote:
I shouldn't think so. The Germans (as in general public) seem to genuinely not want nuclear, they have had strong Green politicians for years. I wasn't being ironic, I'm genuinely interested in how they propose to do it. I was, however, being ironic about the electric cars as the very same people who are against nuclear (and coal, and oil, and gas) power are often the very same who want electric cars - they just seen to think electric cars run on magic moonbeams rather than the output of power stations.
one factor in the groundswell in favor of renewables here is a feeling of optimism that German engineering will rise to the challenge and find new technologies / refine existing ones to a point where they can compete against fossil fuels / nuclear. One of my mates is R&D director of a specialist engineering company here and he thinks it can be done so it's not just utopian greenies who are on the bandwagon.
This might explain why there is less resistance from big industry here than one would normally expect.
Exactly. Silly kniggits. Perhaps the German people will throw the clowns out of office once they figure out they've elected dunces.
Now about those threats to big coal in the U.S. of A....
I shouldn't think so. The Germans (as in general public) seem to genuinely not want nuclear, they have had strong Green politicians for years. I wasn't being ironic, I'm genuinely interested in how they propose to do it. I was, however, being ironic about the electric cars as the very same people who are against nuclear (and coal, and oil, and gas) power are often the very same who want electric cars - they just seen to think electric cars run on magic moonbeams rather than the output of power stations.
My observation- this move by the German government is bonkers.
It's going to be interesting to see how they are going to replace the 23% of their generating capacity - plus power all those electric cars that are being touted so hard.
Thorium makes perfect sense....therefore it won't happen....