Solar ... In the news

Cardew

Originally Posted by zeupater



There are vested interests on both sides of the argument ... those connected to industries which would see their position weakened if AGW was universally considered as being correct, and on the other side stand representatives of renewables industries, governments
interested in increased tax-take or using a 'terrible foe' approach,
scientists themselves hoping that the research 'gravy-train' will spill more gravy towards their area of interest ...

The arguments put forward in this article are not the reason for posting. It is the conclusion that is relevant:

"Our results stress the need for further research of the regional climate variations," comments Dr Heinrich. He and his colleagues set out their work in this article published by the journal Climate Dynamics. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/30/global_warming_didnt_happen_at_all_according_to_new_treering_study/

The_Green_Hornet

Cardew wrote: »

Surely moving funding for the 'green levy' from electricity customers to the Treasury would be indirect taxation.

Definition of 'Indirect Tax'

A tax that increases the price of a good so that consumers are actually paying the tax by paying more for the products. An indirect tax is most often thought of as a tax that is shifted from one taxpayer to another, by way of an increase in the price of the good. Fuel, liquor and cigarette taxes are all considered examples of indirect taxes, as many argue that the tax is actually paid by the end consumer, by way of a higher retail price.

Investopedia

Cardew

The_Green_Hornet wrote: »

Definition of 'Indirect Tax'

A tax that increases the price of a good so that consumers are actually paying the tax by paying more for the products. An indirect tax is most often thought of as a tax that is shifted from one taxpayer to another, by way of an increase in the price of the good. Fuel, liquor and cigarette taxes are all considered examples of indirect taxes, as many argue that the tax is actually paid by the end consumer, by way of a higher retail price.

Investopedia

Isn't that a USA website?

The term indirect tax has a different meaning for U.S. constitutional law purposes: see direct tax and excise
tax in the United States.

I found this UK definition. Although not sure it helps.

In the case of a direct tax, the taxpayer has to bear the burden of tax personally; in case of indirect tax the taxpayer and the taxbearer are not the same person

I think I will give up as I am totally confused!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

I found this UK definition. Although not sure it helps.

"In the case of a direct tax, the taxpayer has to bear the burden of tax personally; in case of indirect tax the taxpayer and the taxbearer are not the same person"

I think I will give up as I am totally confused!

I'm not surprised you're confused, that definition seems almost designed to confuse. However, applying it to the earlier examples (cigarettes, alcohol and petrol) my interpretation would be that the taxpayer is the retail shop, since it pays the tax to the government, whilst the taxbearer is the consumer, who pays the tax indirectly via said retailer. But I'm sure most of us buying such products would consider ourselves taxpayers.

Mart.

The_Green_Hornet

If in doubt it is always best to consult the HM Revenue & Customs for their definition

For the purposes of this Unit 'Indirect' taxes include:

VAT
Customs Duty
Excise Duties
Insurance Premium Tax
the environmental taxes including Air Passenger Duty
Climate Change Levy
Aggregates Levy
Landfill Tax
money laundering decisions.

HMRC Website

EricMears

EricMears wrote: »

Apart of course from the fact that the present government are very keen to be seen trying to reduce direct taxation.

We're getting some very complicated messages about what I might have meant !

The basic point was that if the cost is moved from bills to "the taxpayer" then taxes would have to be increased. That isn't what our government like to be seen as doing.

zeupater

EricMears wrote: »

We're getting some very complicated messages about what I might have meant !

The basic point was that if the cost is moved from bills to "the taxpayer" then taxes would have to be increased. That isn't what our government like to be seen as doing.

Hi

I think that we're simply going over old ground here. Previous discussions on this forum have already established that the 'levy' is treated as taxation by HM Treasury (re-discussion: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/55826813#Comment_55826813,) therefore, from balancing the books point of view, the 'source' and 'take' of the income makes no overall difference.

The mess we find ourselves in regarding the FiT levy and taxation all comes down to one root cause .... yes, whatever anyone's political affiliation & viewpoint, it's down to Gordon Brown's particular love of 'off book' 'off budget' (stealth) taxation & spending - it's a pretty simple megalomaniacal "I'm clever, so they won't notice" approach ... the problem is, people did notice and HM Government had to concede and account for 'off book'/'off budget' revenue & expenditure in a transparent way.

When all is considered, simply changing the name or source makes absolutely no difference if the revenue is maintained ... so the only change that would happen around here is that there would be less bleating about how unfair the FiT levy element of our energy bills is to those without the ability to have panels, and the argument will move towards whether the money which those without panels contribute through 'general taxation' would better be spent on something else .. (same argument, different words )

HTH
Z

Cardew

Agree 100% about the Gordon Brown sleight of hand taxation. With regard to energy prices not only is the 'green levy' included in charges, but the 'social tariffs' for those on certain benefits, and even the pay as you go charges.

However I simply don't agree with your last paragraph. It is nothing to do with bleating from those who cannot have panels.

If the green levy was paid from the Treasury the better off taxpayers would contribute more than the less well off.

At the moment a couple struggling to live without getting benefits, and paying say £1,500 pa for an all electric household, are paying far more toward the green levy than a well off couple paying say £500 electricity and with gas CH.

P.S. The green levy is not just the FIT for householders but all the subsidies paid for 'green generation' so please let us not go over the justification for your FIT again.

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

When all is considered, simply changing the name or source makes absolutely no difference if the revenue is maintained ... so the only change that would happen around here is that there would be less bleating about how unfair the FiT levy element of our energy bills is to those without the ability to have panels, and the argument will move towards whether the money which those without panels contribute through 'general taxation' would better be spent on something else .. (same argument, different words )

HTH
Z

Very true. Some people, especially those that consume large amounts of energy, will always fail to understand the need to spend more to invest in the future, despite what is happening right now.

The recent evidence is very interesting, with the US study showing that renewables are cheaper than coal 'IF' you include all costs. And in the UK we have seen PV go from one of the most expensive sources of leccy, to current subsidy levels that are extremely competitive and still falling. Eg ROC's or CfD's where PV subsidies sit between off-shore and on-shore wind, despite the UK having relatively low solar levels, and relatively high wind levels.

As to there being no difference, can I assume you mean in tax revenue terms, since I think there is a crucial difference, or two when it comes to energy use:

1. Having the levies added to energy prices means that 'the polluter pays'.
2a. Higher direct prices (as opposed to indirect prices) will encourage energy conservation.
2b. Higher direct prices (as opposed to indirect prices) will encourage the purchase of more efficient items.
2c. Higher direct prices (as opposed to indirect prices) will encourage more demand side generation.

Even the use of standing charges, rather than an all in 'petrol forecourt' price is probably detrimental to the above.

Mart.

Martyn1981

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Fair point. The big news recently is probably the growing demand for PV, and the estimates going ahead.

Global solar installations to hit three-year high in 2014, say IHS

The analysts estimate that 41 GW of solar power will be installed next year, generating global revenues in excess of $86 billion.

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/global-solar-installations-to-hit-three-year-high-in-2014--say-ihs_100012928/#axzz2gb9ZqeJK

Mart.

Update, and a differing view, suggesting 2014 roll-out could be even higher:

NPD Solarbuzz: Record PV demand in 2013

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/npd_solarbuzz_record_pv_demand_in_2013_45gw_to_55gw_expected_next_year

NPD Solarbuzz has issued the latest Solarbuzz Quarterly report, in which the market research firm reports that end-market demand in the photovoltaic (PV) industry reached a record 9GW in the third quarter of 2013 globally. The report also features a forecast estimate for 2014 demand, in the range of 45GW to 55GW.

Mart.