If the Gov'ment want's us to switch to "Green" living, shouldn't they offer a tax break for an incentive?

Question

It takes money (sometimes) to switch over, and change things. Not everyone cares enough to want to do this, so I think the Gov should offer tax breaks for incentive.

Answer 1

a lot of incentives are offered, through tax breaks such as for owning a hybrid car. Also PG&E offers a discount or rebate when you buy an energy efficient appliance. Its just research, the breaks ARE out there.

Answer 2

If Senator Obama might superb be president for 4 to eight years, what's the area of a 20 365 days question? African individuals have been terrorized in the rustic for countless generations. domicile financial and social terrorism is the enemy of many African individuals. This additionally has impression upon Mainstream the rustic. Jim Crow media is terrorizing Senator Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr.

Answer 3

I agree. The more tax breaks, the better. I think the federal government should give people tax breaks if they can prove that they use public transportation, bike commute, carpool, or walk to work at least three out of five workdays. This would encourage people to move to high-density living areas instead of sprawling all over the place in subdivisions and then having to drive to every single place they need to get to. Less taxes would also make it easier to afford to buy a place in the city (since places in the city tend to cost more.)

Answer 4

The government creates many incentive and dis-incentives for many forms of behavior and choices. Green or Black living is one where the government is highly involved, but the programs are related to specific choices where there is a commercial constituency that advocated for the special treatment.

Choose your shade of green by color matching against government programs and you should be able to reduce your personal tax burden.

Answer 5

They do, but that is a bad way to encourage conservation. The best way is to leave energy prices alone -- as they go up, people adpat by buying more energy efficient products.

In Arizona we once had a tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles. It turned into a boondoggle as auto dealers put small compressed gas tanks in Chevy Suburbans and left the original fuel systems intact. The vehicles qualified for huge credits even though people actually used regular gasoline in the pigs. When government gets into the act, there is always the risk for foolishness and abuse.

The best direct way government can help is to do things like mandate higher fuel economy in vehicles, mandate higher SEER ratings for air conditioners, mandate more efficient motors and energy ratings for refrigerators. It might help to mandate better efficiency for plasma and LCD televisions as well. Those devices are now consuming as much energy as refrigerators and much more than the old picture tube televisions.

Answer 6

I think there should surely be incentives for not only that, but for other social programs as well.
ex:
Being in an organ donor program
No accidental insurance or speeding tickets
Non regulated charities( like a good samaritan break)
I've got more if you want to hear em

Answer 7

Here is a site that will help you find tax break incentives for your area. I am going to research it too, I would love to have solar panels to help power my house, but it is too expensive to do without help.

Answer 8

Simply that isn't the way of government thinking, its much more likely they will introduce a new tax and you would then not have to pay that if you make your house 'Green' or at least pay less.

Add:

I live in England so it may be slightly diferent

Answer 9

Does the Government really want us to switch to "Green" living?

Perhaps the current focus is actually just a response to the public's voiced concern?

Consider the following:

By switching to LED lighting (which I recently did of all my reading lights), I am reducing the amount of electricity used for each bulb. Additionally, each bulb lasts for 8,000 to 10,000 hours as opposed to 800 hours for a standard bulb. I paid less than $10.00 per LED bulb - I won't buy another one for 4 years. At 8.25% tax - the government got $0.82 in sales tax from me. That needs to last them for 4 years.

The light produced by my LED bulb is similar to 20 - 25 watts from an incandescent bulb, but my bulb draws 4 watts. I'm using less energy from So Cal Edison, the tax levied on my energy bill every month is less in result. Additionally, So Cal Edison posts a slightly lower profit and pays less in corporation taxes to the government on a yearly basis.

Granted - by myself it's not much of an impact.

Multiply my reduction of 16 watts for one hour a day by 100,000 people in the So Cal area (a drop in the bucket still) is 1,600,000 watts less a day or 1,600 Kwh (Kilowatt Hour). Multiply that times 365 days in a year for 584,000 Kwh. I've been billed at $0.106 per Kwh fairly consistently, so 584,000 Kwh times $0.106 per Kwh is $61,904.00 less in revenues per year.

Recap - change out 1 incandescent bulb for an LED bulb.

I spent less than $10.00 (I checked - incandescent bulbs to fit my lamp - $2.08 each -and I use 1 a year so my cost would have been $8.32 pre-tax if I bought 4 this year).

I save $2.47 in utilities over 4 years (not including the tax and energy surcharges).

The government got $0.82 in sales tax from me over 4 years.

99,999 other people in L.A. buy 1 LED bulb - the local electric company sees $61,904 less in taxable revenue every year for 4 years (a total of $247,616.00), so the government sees less in corporate income taxes, state surcharges and utility taxes.

All from changing 1 light bulb in 100,000 homes.

Imagine if 100,000 homes went off the electrical grid entirely.

Now ask yourself - does the government really want us to go "Green"?

So does looking for an incentive from the government make any sense?

Answer 10

It would be nice if they did. But you should do it whether they did offer incentive or not.