Source: Car tax explained - Which? £2,320 The new rules will mean you will pay £2,320 less on environmentally unfriendly cars like the Subaru, yet pay £1,285 more on green cars like the Toyota Prius over a 10-year period. Read more: Car tax explained - Which? - Which? This is what a Rupert Murdoch tax code looks like. Bob Wilson
Tax subsidies and such are strange things. An interesting article in the Economist magazine of last week on how green energy and the subsidies for same are upending the model of how we have been paying for the grid we all use with the question left of where will the capital come from that needs to be invested to clean up existing sources and expand the connections of the grid to millions more sources if the revenues aren't there to reward the investors. A look ahead. The unintended consequences of charging your EV from your solar and selling excess during the day to the utility.
This taxation reminds me of the portuguese ISV (Imposto Sobre Veículos), taxes both displacement and CO2. The result is also quite strange: 1.8 engines with 130hp (Prius) pay (195€ annual) more than smaller turbo engines, regardless of power...(145€-160€ average for a 1.6, 110€ for a 1.0)...
Are you saying taxes don't make sense in the rest of the world either? It's never made sense that I can deduct that my vehicle registration fee is deductible. So I pay it and then you give me some back? Why don't I pay you exactly what you want and skip the back and forth? And then the plug in vehicle tax credit is dependent on the size of the battery and not the efficiency of the vehicle. That's means a BMW i8 that gets 28 mpg gets a bigger tax credit than a PiP because the capacity of its battery is more.
Vehicle registrations are deductible? Is it considered a tax? In Pa, it would be paying the state, and getting a deduction on the federal. The battery credit is about supporting car traction pack production, not a specific pollution cutting goal.
In UK we pay a surcharge on our electricity bills to subsidize the wind energy producers (who make huge profits) to generate a very small part of the energy we use.
I'm curious, any credible sources with numbers? I follow Robert Llewelyn and he is a big time wind advocate but these are the numbers I wonder about: Capital cost per MWhr Operational cost per MWhr Maintenance cost per MWhr Duty cycle per MWhr Any other relevant costs This may require a separate thread and we need to understand U.K. vs USA differences. For example new wind is going to have significant capital costs whereas new fossil fuel plants MAY have less. Then too often the ash disposal is treated as free. Yeap, probably deserves a separate thread. Bob Wilson
This is from the British newspaper The Telegraph.... British energy firms charge most for electricity in Europe - why? - Telegraph
