Project 2025 and Conservation

[BigHornRam]

Bottom line, a tax credit to entice homeowners to put expensive solar panels on their roofs, is irresponsible policy, no matter what the wealth class of the purchaser is.

 

[SAJ-99]

Comical statement.
A $1000 tax credit takes $1000 off taxes owed. A $1000 tax deduction is worth $120 if you’re in the 12% tax bracket, $320 if you’re in the 32% bracket. So, “effectively” they are not the same thing at all, unless you live in an alternate universe.

LOL. Good point. But the tax credit is only applied if you purchase the item (EV for example). Car companies jack up the price of the vehicle so they collect the credit. The individual might get compensated by the government, but that money went straight to the manufacturer. I argue the credit is actually worse than the deduction for the individual. It incentivizes manufacturing more than purchasing.

 

[whatnot]

In my fifteen years on this forum ... 'guess I somehow missed that "non stop" Buzz-talk. ???

Over 17,000 posts says different

 

[BigHornRam]

LOL. Good point. But the tax credit is only applied if you purchase the item (EV for example). Car companies jack up the price of the vehicle so they collect the credit. The individual might get compensated by the government, but that money went straight to the manufacturer. I argue the credit is actually worse than the deduction for the individual. It incentivizes manufacturing more than purchasing.

And the mortgage interest deduction benefits the lender more than the borrower. If anything it incentives reckless borrowing amounts. Same with student loan bailouts.

 

[SAJ-99]

A tax deduction lowers your adjusted gross income. Your tax liability depends on what tax bracket you are in. A tax credit is a direct reduction in your tax liability. Big difference.
At any rate trumps tax cuts for the rich, made the mortgage interest deduction basically worthless.
View attachment 333703

True, if that was the ONLY deduction. But when you add it to the other items it is still quite popular. The article estimates 45% of the people with incomes over $200k still use it after the TCJA. With rates going up, I'm sure that will keep it around.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/is-it-time-for-congress-to-reconsider-the-mortgage-interest-deduction/#:~:text=Higher%2Dincome%20households%20benefit%20more,taxpayers%20making%20over%20%24200%2C000%20itemized.

 

[SAJ-99]

Bottom line, a tax credit to entice homeowners to put expensive solar panels on their roofs, is irresponsible policy, no matter what the wealth class of the purchaser is.

I agree somewhat. But if Cali proved anything, it’s that decentralized rooftop solar can make up a significant % of power needs. It’s just a matter of paying for it. Maybe power companies can just put them on roofs of the poor and charge them for the energy used?

And the mortgage interest deduction benefits the lender more than the borrower. If anything it incentives reckless borrowing amounts. Same with student loan bailouts.

Talk to FNMA and Freddie. They send a ton of money back to the government each year. Both sides talk about winding them down, as does Project 2025, but it can’t happen because their contribution to the revenue side of the budget. Wind down those two entities and You will have a great time watching the housing market implode.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Over 17,000 posts says different

"... he talks non stop about his stock portfolio ..." 17,000 posts about his stock porfolio ... I think NOT, whatnot.
Just cite three examples ... or credibility is what? ... if NOT!

 

[Bonasababy]

Mortgage interest is tax deductible, not a tax credit. The increase in the standard deduction to 20k and limits on the mortgage interest tax deduction amounts have only negatively effected the "rich" people. So the mortgage tax deduction is now basically worthless. As it should be.

So trying to turn this towards what I think might be more of a positive--would you be OK if their were means tests for any incentive to install solar? So that only those of middle class or lower means would typically qualify?

 

[BigHornRam]

So trying to turn this towards what I think might be more of a positive--would you be OK if their were means tests for any incentive to install solar? So that only those of middle class or lower means would typically qualify?

That was answered in the above post.
Post in thread 'Project 2025 and Conservation' https://www.hunttalk.com/threads/project-2025-and-conservation.325318/post-3803722

 

[SAJ-99]

So trying to turn this towards what I think might be more of a positive--would you be OK if their were means tests for any incentive to install solar? So that only those of middle class or lower means would typically qualify?

Taxes are used to influence behavior. Trying to use taxes to influence the behavior of someone living paycheck to paycheck is a sure way to go nowhere. To be clear, this topic isn't about the poor and middle class or the rich benefitting more. To borrow from BHR, anyone with a 5th grade education can see The Heritage Foundation doesn't care about the citizens earning an average income or below. It is about the outrage around change.

 

[BigHornRam]

Taxes are used to influence behavior. Trying to use taxes to influence the behavior of someone living paycheck to paycheck is a sure way to go nowhere. To be clear, this topic isn't about the poor and middle class or the rich benefitting more. To borrow from BHR, anyone with a 5th grade education can see The Heritage Foundation doesn't care about the citizens earning an average income or below. It is about the outrage around change.

Caution: Snark factor 10 in this post.

 

[SAJ-99]

Caution: Snark factor 10 in this post.

I want an 11.

No way to debate solutions if people are going to constantly point out negatives-
Some real, some imaginary. So we lose public land in the transition.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Lots of comments on solar on rooftops or urban solar in lieu of grid scale. As ive said previously - thats not a solution that works for efficiency, safety, maintenance, or ownership the way that our power grid works from a technical, regulatory, and financial standpoint.

 

[noharleyyet]

I want an 11.

No way to debate solutions if people are going to constantly point out negatives-
Some real, some imaginary. So we lose public land in the transition.

How about 12?

https://flic.kr/p/2q5DZNY

 

[Forkyfinder]

You got to be fool to install solar in Minnesota. Anyone with 5th grade math skills can figure out it won't pay for itself by the time it needs to be replaced.

Google Image Result for https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-annual-dni-2018-01.jpg

Theres more to it than that - though. Like power usage.

If MN (grid scale) is primarily heated by nat gas - and power demand is low - solar could be quite complementary especially with longer summer days. Theres lots of over simplification in this thread.

 

[SAJ-99]

Lots of comments on solar on rooftops or urban solar in lieu of grid scale. As ive said previously - thats not a solution that works for efficiency, safety, maintenance, or ownership the way that our power grid works from a technical, regulatory, and financial standpoint.

As I pointed out, it worked for California enough that they had to cut net-metering and instead work on installing battery storage to capture the excess electricity.

When it comes to protecting public land, or even saving good private habitat, from large-scale energy development, I don't want to hear why things can't be done. Particularly when a lot of those "obstacles" are self-created.

 

[BigHornRam]

Theres more to it than that - though. Like power usage.

If MN (grid scale) is primarily heated by nat gas - and power demand is low - solar could be quite complementary especially with longer summer days. Theres lots of over simplification in this thread.

Short mostly gray snowy winter days make solar a poor option in Minnesota. Wind makes more sense.

 

[Forkyfinder]

As I pointed out, it worked for California enough that they had to cut net-metering and instead work on installing battery storage to capture the excess electricity.

When it comes to protecting public land, or even saving good private habitat, from large-scale energy development, I don't want to hear why things can't be done. Particularly when a lot of those "obstacles" are self-created.

Vast oversimplification again.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Short mostly gray snowy winter days make solar a poor option in Minnesota. Wind makes more sense.

My point is that it "makes the most sense" based on when the power is being consumed and generated.

I.e. if the spring and fall are windy - but power use is very low, it might make more financial sense to put in solar where use and generation needs would follow.

 

[SAJ-99]

Vast oversimplification again.

Maybe. But it seems hard to believe California is just an oversimplification. Then Texas does the same thing.

If we want progress, people need to be as creative in their solutions as they are in their criticisms.