Interesting question. Can 45 nuclear plants be built for "free?" By this I mean at no expense to the tax payer. Obviously, the public would buy the power, but that would occur regardless of how they were built.
Sounds silly, but consider this: To build these plants, the most imporant thing is that companies be allowed to do so and regulations be re-worked so that they can be built safely. In other words, there is no reason why the government has to actually build them and pay for them.
There are scores of private utility companies that already operate or want to build new plants, but are not allowed to do so.
For example, the San Onofre plant in S. Cal. is mostly private, with about 2% owned by the city of Riverside. It provides electricity for 1.5 million houses in Southern California.
It didn't cost the tax payers anything to build.
If other utilities built similar plants, private money would get these going, without costing the tax payers any significant money.
...don't ask for $934 million in earmarks like Obama does ($1 million for each day as a U.S. Senator), then I think the taxpayers can probably afford to fund some of it. However, each state should be allowed to vote for it rather than having Congress decide it for them.
No government funding.
Where did government building power plants with tax payer money come from?
McCain has advocated spending tax payer money to promote the proliferation of nuclear energy. He has proposed both tax breaks and grant incentives for the development of nuclear energy. There has been so much said on the issue that I will not provide a link for fear of missing some relevant material.
Tax breaks and incentives don't cost the tax payer in the same sense of giving government money. It is true that the government may "take" less from the corporation building the plant, but then that company is hiring 1,000 people to work on the plant, and they will pay taxes. It also buys tons of material - sales taxes. It will save oil - money not sent over seas.
In short, giving incentives is not "spending tax payer money." It is making revenue for the middle class workers who build and operate the plant and for the government itself from their taxes.
I live in L.A. and this theory is evident in our main industry every day. Other cities give tax incentives to film there, and the savings entices film companies to do so. Even having to provide transportation and per diems to the casts and staff, it is worth it to the companies to film else where. Having "given" the tax incentive, the hosting city gets millions in other revenue, which is why they do it.
Sounds funny, but this is proof that the theory works. Also proof of the theory that cutting taxes is good for the economy. Ask New York which just took Ugly Betty, or any of the dozens of cities that try to take L.A. business on that basis.
Of course, maybe the Democratic mayors of those cities are really closet GOP and their city councils haven't caught on.
You say that's not spending government money at the beginning, but that you say it does. Of course it's government spending of taxpayer money. You are just saying that you think it's a good expenditure. That is subject to debate, but that's a whole separate issue.
P.S. Perhaps you should reevaluate your definition of 'proof'.
First, my example - not definition, but I won't hold you to accuracy - of proof is the fact that dozens of cities engage in this very practice for this very reason, and continue to do see after seeing the exact results I am describing.
Why do you think NYC offers tax incentives for movies that film there? Why do you think that Ugly Betty just moved there? What do you think NCY got out of it, except for more traffic?
NYC GOT MORE MONEY.
This is just one example of cities and states granting tax breaks to spur economic development. I am sorry, but THIS IS NOT A GOP THEORY. I would wager that almost every jurisdiction in the country engages in this type of practice for this very purpose in one area or another. It may be granting tax breaks to avocado farmers so they can have an orchard, or tax breaks to businesses so they will build a shopping mall, or a tax break to a ball team to build a stadium.
It is all the same. The government takes less, but earns more the next year. And they earn more the second year, and the third. The new mall in Glendale will provide millions of dollars in tax money for 100 years. They got tax breaks to build it.
They all take less in the expectation of earning more.
Hey, OBAMA believes in this. Part of his plan is tax incentives to businesses that will go green. He regards it as an "investment." (And yes, a broken clock can be right twice a day.) His theory is that if he takes less from them, in the long run they will turn into good business and not only help the environment, but generate profits and salaries. (Why he does not apply it to other areas is a mystery.)
Finally, you fail to understand the difference between "not taking" and "giving." If you have $100 and I let you keep it, I didn't give you anything. Even if I have a claim to that money, I didn't give it to you by renouncing my claim. When the government reduces taxes it is taking less. It isn't giving anything.
Tax breaks to corporations aren't "giving" them anything. They are "taking" less.
Correct...you have to have been a leader, as in myor or governers to understand this concept, these lawmakers with law degress make lousy leaders. You never accomplish anything when you are so busy picking the ant shit out of the pepper
It's all the governments money. The government is wiser and more capable of making financial decisions than individuals or businesses are. Any of your own money the government allows you to keep is really their money and you should be thankful that they are willing to trust you with it. It would be preferable to many of them just nationalize all business and dole out a stipend to each of us to live on.
Taxes are the dues you pay to be a member of the club called the United States. It has nothing to do with relative intelligence.
For an independent, you're certainly quick with the empty conservative platitudes.
but when people like you start deciding what is fair that's when I have a prolblem. You and the rest of the libs don't believe that there is such thing as "too many taxes" if you can convince yourself that it is going for the common good.
As far as some people, yourself apparently included, there is no reason that a person should be able to achieve any real degree of success. If I were to make $5 million a year and were taxed a rate of 70% your response most likely would be that I was still netting $1.5 million after tax. I'd also be willing to wager that if a person made a billion a year it would be perfectly acceptable to tax him 90% because after all he would still have a hundred million which is more than anyone person should ever need.
Your sense of right and wrong is that anyone who has achieved any type of success should give most of it to others, and if they selfishly don't want to, the government should forcibly take their money for the common good.
It's government restrictions and enviornmental activists preventing same. For new nike plants to be built, moving forward it will require government participation to allow it, properly re-regulate the present day technology and pass legislation that keeps the courts out of the way from the lawsuits sure to be filed in the wake of new construction.
Sure the energy corporations are going to be looking for financial support, but we should resist it.
That is true. The only thing the government has to do is get out of the way and avoid the temptation to help subsidize. Let them do it
exactly free is it? dncphil.
Of course it is not exactly "free." Someone has to pay for it, and I didn't expect it to appear by magic or have the Martians come down and build it for us.
By "free," I mean that money is not coming from the tax payers. I.e., I give X dollars to the treasury and the treasury spends the money.
I do consider tax incentives to be closer to "free" than subsidies, since, once again, the governement is not spending anything.
If you want to be hyper-technical and parse each word to look at the 17th meaning in Oxford English Dictionary, you may be right.
But again my working definition of free is the tax payers are not handing over money to go to someone else. Then it is close enough for me.
(If you really want to parse it down, maybe we can agree on "a really good deal" instead of free )