CA Considers Taxing Solar Power Generation 107
California is considering a proposal by the state Public Utilities Commission to charge an 'exit tax,' proportional to the amount of power you generate, on electricity generated by means such as solar panels for your own use. I would expect a state like California to try and encourage the adoption of alternative power sources, but this seems a really odd way of doing it. Two groups have started lobbying against this tax. If passed, it sets a precedent that many fear will lead to similar taxes outside CA.
LA LA Land (Score:1, Interesting)
give illegal aliens drivers licenses.
Re:LA LA Land (Score:1)
Re:LA LA Land (Score:1)
This is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if you think about it, taxing real estate is sort of like taxing an 'unrefined, natural resource', and people have done that for a whole lot longer than they've taxed almost anything else.
Not that I think this new tax is a good idea, just that I don't think it's completely out of left field.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Funny)
If they pee, do they get credit?
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
If they pee, do they get credit?"
Only if they're wearing one of those suits from Dune.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
Air, for all purposes currently, is effectively unlimited. Would we even consider the idea of taxing breathing?
Don't hold your breath (Score:2)
We may not do so, but I think it's a safe bet that the idea has passed or will pass through the mind of more than one idle bureaucrat. Consider the following scenario - which is easy to envision in California:
Due to the continued degradation of air quality, the state is going to mandate a pollution control tax which will be used as a subsidy to assist polluting industries in fulfilling the cleanup laws passed by the state. This tax can be considered a use tax; the more you use, the more you pay.
Never overestimate the depths to which a lazy, no account bureaucrat will stoop when searching for ways a) to spend your money, and b) to justify his own salary.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
What, is everything around you transparent? If your building casts a shadow on my solar panel i think it is certainly taking away my potential use.
Unfortunately, in an urban setting sunlight is a limited resource.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:3, Interesting)
Casting shadows over other people's land does raise some legal problems, but these people aren't building giant towers on their property lines in order to "steal" the light from neighbors. They have solar collectors on their roofs and gather light that wasn't going, nor could potentially go, anywhere else.
Well, no. But just because it's not being fully exploited doesn't mean its a permanently unconstrained resource. Even going with the theory that no one but you can use it (ie ignoring consideration of shadows, which makes for a very big caveat) it doesn't seem to me that this sort of taxation is in contradiction to past or present practices. The differences you're emphasizing just do not seem like a valid basis for evaluating a potential tax source.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Once it's 'lectricity, it's refined!
Further -you're talking about a state that
paid 20 billion dollars for what should have
cost 4-5 billion all brought to you by that same amazying leader that gave us the the 35 billion dollar deficit.
He has to pay for his mistakes some how -whoops - we have to pay for his mistakes!
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:1)
I would hope enough people object that this proposal is totally discreditted along with which ever buffoon suggested it.
This makes my view that the US government dont give a damn about pollution and the state of the earth even harder - that they want to tax people for generating cleaner energy than the state bother to.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
How about 4th amandment or something? (Score:2)
And if they try, I think this would be a great court case. Of course, it would probably only apply to those people who get entirely off-grid, which won't be much. But maybe not - does an existing business relationship make spyware from a private organization legal? Can such an exclusivity agreement be made part of a contract - particularly with a monopoly, and a utility (both of which are usually held to higher standards than typical companies)?
From a pragmatic point of view, Davis needs to crush this. If he still has ANY hopes of running for Pres in 2004, he better not let it go through - pissing off the Sierra Club crowd would be political suicide.
Re:How about 4th amandment or something? (Score:1)
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
aw, poor babies.
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
not to complain but (Score:5, Funny)
its our top level domain. damit
I don't care if California has a bigger economy or not.
we are not giving it up
Re:not to complain but (Score:1)
Re:not to complain but (Score:2)
Climate tells.... (Score:2)
Re:Climate tells.... (Score:1)
Re:Climate tells.... (Score:2)
Re:not to complain but (Score:2)
and those places where the sun doesn set for months at a time? guess what, the other half of the year it doens't rise for months at a time.
Re:not to complain but (Score:1)
As to the other commentor, I didn't mean that we got more energy at any one place (all though the southernmost point of Canada is south of Oregon) but that we just get more total energy given it's the 2nd largest country in the world.
Re:not to complain but (Score:2)
The land area of canada is barely larger than the US...
Total Land Area:
US - 9,158,960 sq km
Canada - 9,220,970 sq km
That's almost insignificant.. and if you consider how much further north a lot of our land is.. the US gets far more energy in total from the sun.
Even if we go by total area, it's still not that much of a difference...
US - 9,629,091 sq km
Canada - 9,976,140 sq km
Re:not to complain but (Score:2)
Re:not to complain but (Score:1)
I understand and I sympathize.
The Sunshine State! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The Sunshine State! (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, that'd be Florida, Bob.
Brandon
Re:The Sunshine State! (Score:1)
Exit Tax vs Incentives? (Score:4, Insightful)
This makes no sense? Why offer incentives if they are going to turn around and tax? California offers something on the order of a 50% rebate+tax credit on solar, why turn around and tax the system? If they are really having problems just lower the incentive to 10% rather then give the person 50% then take back 40%? What are they trying Enron accounting here?
Re:Exit Tax vs Incentives? (Score:2)
just when you think the bar is highest... (Score:5, Insightful)
While they're at it, they should count the number of compact florescents I installed and tax me on the amount of electricity I'm not using...
Re:just when you think the bar is highest... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tax job hunting too? (Score:1)
"You applied for 100 jobs? Okay, that'll be $10 please."
In other news, children are now required to pay to ride their bikes. They will be charged per Newton & per kilometre. Stationary bikes are included too.
Re:required to pay to ride their bikes (Score:1)
They should say, "If you don't wear a helmet, then automatically no medical coverage for bike accidents.", or something similar that draws a clean line. This gives everybody the right to choose. This way, if I am willing to bear the risks, I won't have to wear a helmet. It's a matter of who pays for the consequences.
Not just solar power... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not just solar power... (Score:1)
Stupid people.
Re:Not just solar power... (Score:2, Informative)
Relatedly, what if I was to (shudder!) move to CA? I've never been served by the utility(s) before, so there's no "departing load". ?
only taxes if you bank into the grid? (Score:3, Insightful)
So no, a geo-thermal heating/cooling system or turning off your air conditioner on a hot day could not be taxed.
This proposal appears to hide behind an attempt to say "running+managing the grid costs money, even power producers should pay if they are hooked up." That is only true to a point. Until a significant number of customers start doing consumer power generation (10%, etc) this makes no sense whatsoever except when you realize that the PUC would rather consumers live in completely cold black boxes that need tons of light and heat with no way to generate their own power and efficiently use it.
The PUC companies would be better served by scrapping this law and adjusting their variable rate schedule power prices at different times of day to recoup their grid operation and management enrichmet costs from consumer generation.
Wow, can't be (Score:3, Insightful)
Old trick. Always works too.
Re:Wow, can't be (Score:2, Insightful)
The precedent has been set. You missed the chance to stop it back when they started taxing blank casette tapes.
Re:Wow, can't be (Score:2)
Taxing wind and hydro generation will be legally interesting. To keep the generator from running away, they often divert unused power to a so-called dump load. When you draw power for useful loads, the regulator reduces the amount sent to the dump load. If the regulation is written as a tax on production, you'll pay for however much wind happens to blow on a particular day.
Desperation move (Score:1)
at least Washington State has Seattle to live in and The 'Beast of Redmond' to keep the taxes in line. I guess they are good for something.
Re:Desperation move (Score:5, Insightful)
I moved to a smaller town where the taxes are low, housing / land is cheap, and work can be had for anyone with a little ambition.
California has lost it completely. With the scools ranked 49th in the country, taxes approaching the highest, Loopy laws and fruitcake bezerkely behavior all over the place, housing prices among the top in the country, no jobs, environmentalist protecting fucking common garden worms, some of the most corrupt government officials (Davis and crew) on the planet, why the HELL would you stay?
Re:Desperation move - a reason to stay (Score:1)
what about power saving ads ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what about power saving ads ? (Score:2)
Market forces at work: Once the generation was split from the load serving entities, they realized how much money was in gen, so everyone and their neighbor started building cheap units. Result: Over-supply. That drove down the average price of electricity, which is hurting the gen owners in 2003, because they cannot recoup the 2002 investment costs (because the average price of electricity is too low for their margins).
California is just screwed up. Look at the east coast: you have NEISO, NYISO, PJM... all successful cases of deregulation, because of a diverse fuel type & willingness to invest. Now look at CALISO's f-up: they didn't build generation, relied on northern hydropower, then one hot dry summer wiped it out. Their PUCs locked the consumer rates lower than the economic cost of the gen they had to run, and the LSEs ran out of money. Then the state gets in the mix, and locks in long term rates; two years later, they're trying to get the courts to negate the contracts, because now the spot market price is low... well damn! what the heck is a price-protection contract for then?
The rest of the country is trying to increase their distributed gen & load management programs, and California is taking two steps back. Kind of dampens that whole myth about how "progressive" they are out there...
Beatles said it best... (Score:2)
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Taxman!
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!
Well solar panels... (Score:2)
This means solar panel factories are not solar powered, so they must be using something.
Taxing SOLAR PANELS is not so daft as they are not energy efficient (yet).
Sam
Re:Well solar panels... (Score:5, Insightful)
What they're proposing here is basically to put an electric meter on your panels and charge you for the sunlight you collect.
Sounds to me like the power companies are lobbying this to try and make up for lost revenue, just in case too many people decide solar would be a good investment. (Which is probably would be)
I didn't see anything about solar thermal heating, though. Hmm...
=Smidge=
That is not true. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should try to figure out if it is because that person needs education, or because (s)he has a vested interest in deceiving you.
Second, the point of solar panels is not always lifetime efficiency anyway, it is often control of power generation by the person(s) needing the power - intelligent people act to secure the resources they need to survive, and the power grid (in California, at least) is not reliable and cannot be secured by consumers.
There is a wealth of data available online from the IPP and Sandia that will refute your claim. Or you could directly contact a vendor such as Siemens (German) or AstroPower (Delaware, USA).
The proposed tax is simply the latest move in the long-running war between the centralised dirty energy producers (championed by GWB and Cheney, among others) and the promoters of distributed clean renewable energy production (a grassroots movement championed principally by the Home Power [homepower.com] crew).
This war is primarily being fought in and around California; mostly because of the high availability of sunshine and engineering talent in that area. The recent fake energy crisis that the Enron crowd purposely created was the most effective offensive in the same war so far.
Hopefully, the decentralized nature of grassroots opposition will prevent the current administration's attempt to crush distributed renewable energy producers. The "Solar Guerilla" movement was started for just this reason.
Yes, scary, but read the first line. (Score:5, Informative)
Proposed by the "Utilities": the power people. "Considering" could just mean they are deciding whether to laugh milk or coke out their nose. Then again, it might not...
Re:Yes, scary, but read the first line. (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right; Utilities Commissions worldwide try to chew waay more than they can bite. Normal. My conjecture is that 1) this is only a publicity stunt and will never become law, and 2) it's meant to deflect attention from another issue which is equally or more controversial, but one that the power companies would like to pass through with minimum fuss.
Of course, I could only be peddling conspiracy theories, but Californians would want to closely read about *everything* they propose.
Re:Yes, scary, but read the first line. (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is to stop a utility company from setting up a gas powered generator next to a factory and avoiding state taxes by not using the electric grid.
I don't think anyone here even read the law before going on another anti-tax bender.
(shocked expression) (Score:1)
(1) White-collar criminals conspire to artificially inflate power rates....
(2) Incompetent pols lock-in overpriced longterm energy contracts based on 'classic' non-renewable fuel sources.
(3) Certain individuals/companies go "off-grid",lessening demand on the infrastructure and for non renewable fuels
(4) Those individuals are charged for the power that they DO NOT buy in order to deal with the longterm effects of (1) and (2)
(5) PROFIT
Duhh.... sounds fair to ??whom??
attention stupid people... (Score:4, Insightful)
just like they wrote the energy privatisation bills in california and tons of other states. so all you moronic, short-sighted, ignorant libertarian "privatisation-at-any-cost!" now have *EXACTLY* what you want.
congratulations. go team. ra-ra.
so i really only have one question - why in the hell are you complaining?
Re:attention Sheep (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah... where did you get that idea??? Liberals wrote the law not the power companies. The supposed deregulation set up a fix rate for the consumer but the distributers still had to pay the whatever the wholesaler wanted. Which is to say that it wasn't deregulated it was infact regulated. As demand rose the wholesalers started to charge more so that they could afford to build new cabling to supple the demand. Only problem was that the distributer was not allowed to raise the rates to cover his increased cost because his fess where, say it with me, REGULATED!
"so all you moronic, short-sighted, ignorant libertarian "privatisation-at-any-cost!" now have *EXACTLY* what you want."
If it was truely private the government wouldn't be making all these laws to, say it with me again, REGULATE the market.
What this is, is an example of QUINN'S FIRST LAW [warroom.com] - "Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
Re:attention Sheep (Score:3, Informative)
Another version would go like this; because of high electricty prices, California decided to privatise it's power generation system, but thanks to only partial deregulation, and market manipulation it ended up with large increases in the cost of power, and blackouts to go with it.
Re:attention Sheep (Score:4, Interesting)
because of high electricty prices which were caused by an increase in demand.
California decided to privatise it's power generation system, but thanks to only partial deregulation which was written into the laws by the liberal government that could not let go, because we all need managed, left to our own we would all perish. (that last part was sarcastic!)
and market manipulation I assume you mean the fact that the wholesalers didn't lower their prices and the distributers had to layoff their workers that maintain their systems.
it ended up with large increases in the cost of power caused by the fact that the wholesalers still needed to build new infastructure to supply demand. And the distriubuters now had to replace infastructure that had not been maintained due to lack of a paid work force.
and blackouts to go with it. caused by the fact that the orginal law did nothing to solve the problem of demand outstepping supply. It just swept it under the carpet for a few years. When the lights started to go out it suddenly became a huge issue.
Re:attention Sheep (Score:1)
But LIBERAL means open-minded or free-thinking. And CONSERVATIVE is related to CONSERVATION; it means one is unwilling to change things that already work. But that's only the dictionary definition, by those definitions one could easily be strongly in favor of both!
It seems that for most Americans CONSERVATIVE means "willing to go along with whatever radical agenda the wealthy plutocrats are currently backing" and LIBERAL means "willing to go along with whatever impractical scheme the bleeding heart do-gooders are currently preaching".
Both sides put up straw-men for you to fear and hate. Fearful, hateful people are easily manipulated.
Free your mind.
Re:attention Sheep (Score:2)
Never said it was a conspiracy! It's more of a socialist agenda, or the belief that people need managed and can not think for themselves.
For you, I suspect phrases like "reverse discrimination" and "giving in to multiculturalism" and "liberal media" have some meaning.
Not really the only one that I have ever used is "liberal media". Feel free to disagree but most of the major media outlet's top journalist admit that they are leftist and call themselves liberal.
But LIBERAL means open-minded or free-thinking.
So how come only the judges that think like they do get approved? While those that think different are not allowed to proceed? Why are they not open-minded to them? Why is their freedom of thought not allowed?
And CONSERVATIVE is related to CONSERVATION.
Yes, conservation of the ideals and values that this country was founded on. Things like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I missed where in the constitution or the declaration of independence it stated that everyone was entitled to be rich and not have to work.
"willing to go along with whatever radical agenda the wealthy plutocrats are currently backing"
Did you know that the average Democrat in congress has more wealth that the average Republican? But believe me I don't agree with every repub on face value... They can and do support and vote for bad laws. It just seems to me that they don't do it as often.
Re:attention Sheep (Score:2)
This piece [pkarchive.org] by Paul Krugman, presents another view of the power crisis.
As I understood it, the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government, if this is true, then your comment about the liberal government not being able to let go, should apply to the conservatives as well.
Interestingly one can test these two competing views. One observation is that the highest prices hit not during summer when power usage is highest, but during a cooler period. The market manipulation theory is fine with this observation, as it predicts that the crisis was caused by power companies cutting supply rather than trying to meet demand. How would you explain this observation?
Re:attention Sheep (Score:2)
The legislature was democrat dominated, but that is beside the point, since I think the vote was unanimous (maybe 1 dissenter).
Interestingly one can test these two competing views. One observation is that the highest prices hit not during summer when power usage is highest, but during a cooler period. The market manipulation theory is fine with this observation, as it predicts that the crisis was caused by power companies cutting supply rather than trying to meet demand. How would you explain this observation?
As for what caused the crisis, it is simple. One of the reactors at San Onofre Nuclear plant was down during the entire so called crisis. From memory I think it was a 1200 Megawatt reactor. Which is something like 5% of all the power used in the state. Initially it was down for refueling, I don't remember the exact timeline, but it was early in the crisis, and I don't think there were any rolling blackouts at the time. It came back online for about two weeks, before a turbine blade was destroyed. This downed the reactor and took about 60 (give or take) days to replace (could have been a lot longer, but the vendor really pulled through on this one.) As I recall all of the blackouts and stage 3 alerts, etc. All occurred after the turbine blade broke.
What does this suggest... Simple, there was just barely sufficient capacity to keep things going with the reactor down for refueling. Maintenance at other power plants was probably scheduled for after the reactor was refueled in order to guarantee enough power. But, with the turbine failure, the reactor was down longer than needed and the other plants started scheduled maintenance which pushed everything over the edge. This was also exacerbated by reduced hydro-electric available from the Pacfic Northwest due to drought. And, finaly the trader's jumped in to make a killing.
So, what was the correct way to deal with power short falls.
1) Tell the truth. San Onofre was down, tell people they need to conserve in order to prevent blackouts. This also makes profiteering traders look really bad, since instead of taking advantage of a bad system they are taking advantage of basically an Act of God failure.
2) Put up extra money to get the turbine blade done early. i.e. The power company pays the normal cost for the blade. The state puts up $xxxxx per day before a certain date that the reactor comes up.
One other point, I think that nuclear reactor produced more power than all the plants that came onlien in the next year or two combined. i.e. they kept shwoing Davis celebrating the building of 100-200 megawatt plants. Which is a joke.
Dastardly
Re:attention Sheep (Score:2)
Doesn't really present anything different, he just attempts to spin all the bad on to the power companies. Hell he starts the article with "unlikely that California would ever get anything back from the energy companies" which is the battle cry of the left. "We are entitled to cheap energy. It doesn't matter if we set up bad rules and they used them to their advantage."
"the deregulation bill was passed under the earlier Republican government"
I don't know this either... but this is California where even the Repubs are leftist. To explain, I would consider myself a constitutionalist not a repub. I just happen to aggree with more Repubs than Dems.
How would you explain this observation?
I would say that the power companies reacted in their best interest. The rules were perverted by the government and then everyone acted surprised when the power companies played by those rules.
To say it another way they left a kid in a candy store alone and then were surprised when they kid started eating candy.
Now before you jump on your horse about how this proves that a free market doesn't work allow me to counter that this was not a free market. It was still infact regulated, as very very few new power companies were allowed to enter the area and provide the power. This was due to regulations on both who could provide power as well as green activist who would not allow new power plants to be built. ( As a side note I remember reading about a gold mine that shut down mining gold and sold their power to the distributers. Why? Cause they could make more money selling their power than MINING GOLD!!!)
To put it another way if your buddy is selling porkbellies and making a 500 percent profit, are you not going to look into doing the same thing and maybe only making a 499 percent profit?
Re:attention Sheep (Score:2)
Wholesale prices were lower. PG&E and SoCal Edison made a killing buying the much lower priced electricity on the open market and selling at the higher fixed price. Right up until the one time when demand outstripped supply because a San Onofre reactor was down and there was drought in the Pacific Northwest. Then they went crying to the government about how they got screwed for a few months after screwing ratepayers for years. And, government turned around and said "Here we will raise rate so you can screw ratepayers some more."
California ruins it for the rest of us. (Score:2, Interesting)
-> Fritz
Massachusetts taxes perscription drugs (Score:3, Informative)
They call taxes on things that government wants to discourage (like tobacco and alcohol) sin taxes. I guess that makes these virtue taxes.
idiots (Score:2)
What is the incentive for spending thousands of dollars to put solar panels on your roof, to try to help out the state, and then get TAXED for the amount of power you produce for yourself?
I thought CA was interested in reducing their load. I guess the rolling blackouts were for other reasons.
Politics as usual.
Why is it so odd? (Score:1)
This is why they tax whatever moves, without regard for common sense, or empirical logic. When they take away your ability to spend they also take away your right to move freely, to vote with your feet, or your pocketbook.
I recall when Grey Davis was merely a superintendant of a school system, he was ambitious then, instituting many of the policies which have served to destroy one of the best school systems in the country. Unless you move to Cupertino, your chance of getting a decent school is pretty much nil.
If you built a solar power system in hopes of avoiding the cost of utilites and the hidden taxes attached to it, think again. Citizen Davis has calculated the exact amount of pain to inflict upon California to push Joe sixpack into the party of the miserable. Using two-faced promises to the power industry, he used them to orchestrate the largest finantial meltdown in American history, as many with mortgages in the silicon valley may already know.
Citizen Davis does not have the welfare of California or America in mind, but rather is using a cynical minimax scheme to enact as much destructive legislation as possible before his party looses power, knowing that the opposition will not be able to undo the mess without getting their blame as a result.
I remember when this scoundrel was merely a petty low level opperatchik, but does anyone remember when he was a member of the American Socialist Party?
These guys know that as long as the opposition plays by the rules, they will always win, since they fully intend to cheat. When they levy a tax on solar panels, they are doing it because they cannot believe you actually trusted them when it came to what you thought to be a sacred cow. Thus internet taxes, solar power taxes, next taxes on clean air.
If you are kept a margin of misery, you are exactly where they want you, in a position to vote for the guys who "Feel your pain". Hmmm. aren't these the same guys who faught against freeing the slaves, who fought for segregation, and who insist on "no eye contact" when they enter the room? (One of the more persistent traits of the American Democratic "Peoples" Party.
The California government has become, for all intensive purposes, a socialist one. Socialism at its heart is based opon the principles of active appropriation. Where appropriation is a polite word for legalized theft. Leave it up to the Democratic party hacks in California who have control of the entire state government to create as many taxes as possible before being swept away in the next elections.
By the time people figure it out, it will be too late, since the strategy they are using engages ignorance and the law of averages to control the population.
Re:Why is it so odd? (Score:2)
Uh, no. It's not.
Socialism is simply the idea that the economy should be based on labor, rather than on property; that the workers - the people who actually do stuff - should control the means of production, rather than a state-designated and backed class of "owners".
One form of socialism is Marx's communism, which took an authoritarian, command-economy approach towards this goal. But there are also libertarian socialists - indeed "libertarian" originally refered to these libertarian socialists, and was hijacked by followers of the inherently contradictory doctrine of "libertarian capitalism" in the mid-20th century.
Re:Why is it so odd? (Score:2)
I don't know if I would go quite as far as socialist. But, California Democrats are a bunch of tax and spend morons who don't know the first thing about balancing a budget, planning for the future, or what the average person wants. You know why there is a budget crisis according to them, the wealthy are not making enough money, so they have decided to take a larger proportion from them. I also use the term wealthy loosely, since just about anyone who still has a decent job is going to get raped.
Of course all their spending increases of the last few years were based on profits from stocks and options, which couldn't possibly last. But, what do they care. They are only in office for 6 or 8 years maximum (term limits). So, there sole priority is to pass as much legislation that will get them publicity and campaign donations so they can run for som eother office. While there are issues with career politicians who lose touch with their constituency, there appears to also be a serious problem with term limited politician whose sole purpose is to get as much publicity, campaign contributions, and/or special interest legislation to get them a job after office.
On top of this we have an election system whose purpose is to maintain the status quo. There are maybe 1 or 2 contested elections for legislature seats in California. Reapportionment was a collaboration by both parties to solidify party seats. The closed primary system guarantees that only the most liberal democrats and conservative Republicans get on the general election ballot because you win primaries by pandering to the most extreme members of your party, then because of reapportionment it is already decided which party's candidate will win. So, you end up with the most extreme examples of both parties in office.
Dastardly
Recall Gray Davis. (Score:2, Flamebait)
recallgraydavis [recallgraydavis.com]
calculators (Score:1)
Read the Full Law (Score:4, Informative)
Every time the word taxes appears in the story, everyone goes crazy flaming the government.
Very, very strange, and backwards... (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, since 2000 [solarexpert.com], California has:
If you put solar panels on your roof, Fairfax Virginia county will allow you to deduct the value of the panels from the cost of your roof, for tax purposes. HOAs sometimes prevent this when they're obtrusive, but they [doe.gov] don't have to be [westernsun.org].
In short, way to backpedal California! I have an idea. Why don't you also give tax breaks for the rich, and support failing business models based on absolute control of copyright? Same mentality involved there, also. Kill your own economy early off for a few extra bucks before your die.
Re:Very, very strange, and backwards... (Score:2)
Doesn't that sound a lot like the idea of governments collecting taxes on solar panels? WE'RE STEALING MONEY/ELECTRICITY FROM LA DWP! WE'RE STEALING FROM THE RIAA.
There's four kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Valenti-brand Statistics.
In related news (Score:1)
This tax problem exists with many use taxes. (Score:3, Insightful)
* Governments tax electricity, if you generate your own or conserve they loose tax money.
* Governments tax gasoline. If you use fuel cell cars or more energy efficient cars they loose tax money.
* Governments tax cigarettes. If you smoke less of them they loose tax money.
Use taxes and sin taxes often seem like a good idea, but the government quickly get used to the income, and when one activity falls out of favor they must hit up some other activity with a new use or sin tax to pay for it.
Reminds me of this one, from the fortune file... (Score:1)
Will they call this the "Ed Begley Jr. Tax"... (Score:2)
In other news, California Public Utilities Commission Chairman C. Montgomery Burns was quoted as saying, "Since the dawn of time man has longed to destroy the sun. We shall do the next best thing, tax the energy it provides."
Seriously, this is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever heard. On the other hand, it makes me feel better about living in Philadelphia, PA, where we pay a 4% tax on our income for the apparent "privilege" of having a job.
This country gets more ass-backwards every day. We're supposed to conserve fossil fuels, but people get a tremendous tax break when they buy gas-guzzling, killing-machine SUVs. And now some shithole state wants to tax the energy people collect from THE SUN??? If you're going to start taxing the use of solar energy, will Californians have to pay tax based on how tan they are? Where will the madness end?
~Philly
Re:Will they call this the "Ed Begley Jr. Tax"... (Score:2)
Just to make you feel even better we pay 9% in California. Although it is progressive and doesn't start to kick in until $40,000.