Slashdot Mirror

Reality is the precise opposite.

Doubt that. Walmart is a bad corporate citizen. Taxpayers have been subsidizing Walmart's profits for years.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/#3301bbfa7cd8

Taxpayers are also subsidizing security for Walmart with police calls.

http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2016/public-safety/walmart-police/

That's the valuation of the company. If the editors had made it easier to get the the ACTUAL news report, you could see the explanation, which is that because of the way the investors are paid off before she is, her stake is what's now presumed to be worthless.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ma...

1. Not all transit providers are equal. Some make better deals with peers than others.

Not all watermelons are equal, either; some are larger and/or have fewer seeds than others. In fact, outside of mathematics, it is quite rare to find two truly equal entities. Basically, inequality is a given in the real world. Hell, not all streaming video providers are equal, which is why many people subscribe to two or more. In fact, Netflix uses multiple transit providers[1-8] for similar reasons.

2. Some transit providers are less expensive because they lack the ability to make the best deals with peers.

This is just plain backwards. A transit provider who makes better peering deals has lower costs, so they don't have to charge as much! I know this seems counter-intuitive when you consider that those providers also offer a better service, as you'd think that's something they could charge a premium for, but it should make a bit more sense when you consider the corollary: a transit provider who makes worse peering deals has higher costs, which they must recoup from their customer. Sort of like how Costco charges less because they make better deals buying in bulk; or, rather, other retailers must charge more because they didn't make the same deals.

3. To cut costs, Netflix chose a less expensive transit provider.

First of all, your assertion that Netflix uses a single transit provider is just plain wrong[1-8]. It has been made public knowledge (despite being none of our damn business) that their primary transit providers are Level 3 and Cogent[1-8], and that they purchase transit services from at least 4 other providers, Tata, XO, NTT, and Telia[1,3].

As for your assertion that Netflix only buys from the lowest bidder, well, it appears that the buy from anyone who can provide transit between them and the networks their customers are on[1-8]. Not only do they buy transit from all three available providers who route directly from their POIs to Comcast's[1], they even buy transit from Comcast now[3]. And, despite that, I still see buffering issues with Netflix on a 75Mbps Comcast Business connection, which points to the issue not lying with Level 3, Cogent, or any of Comcast's other providers with names not starting with C and rhyming with "bombast".

In case you want sources, here[1] are[2] a[3] few[4] you[5] can[6] check[7]. out[8].

At least you proved you weren't trolling; I guess that only leaves one other possibility.

Footnotes:
[1] "Netflix attempted to address congested routes into Comcast by purchasing all available transit capacity from transit providers that did not pay access fees to Comcast—which involved agreements with Cogent, Level 3, NTT, TeliaSonera, Tata, and X0 Communications. Although all six of those providers sold transit to the ent

I realize that people are emotional about abortion, but objectively this is no more creepy or unethical than anything else in the advertising industry.

Yes, but that was already fucking creepy.

This is admittedly not new but pardon while we continue to proclaim the fall of Troy.

You have no clue. There are millions of working people in America working for cash. Almost everyone on SS disability to start.

I don't doubt that there are a lot of cheaters out there, but actually the US's compliance rate is pretty good in comparison to many countries (83% or so, that is by dollar so the per capita rate could be a lot lower if a few people are doing big dollar cheating). Do you have any reference to the idea that "almost everyone on SS disability" are cheating to a significant degree?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/as...

The odds of being caught cheating are fairly low, but they are not insignificant, especilly in cases where someone turns you in, and anyone working for cash has a lot of people who know about their non-compliance, and who have incentives to turn them in.

Even if the crop wasn't consumed directly, it arguably displaces food crops from aerable land, and could be used to feed livestock. The same objection holds with switchgrass, which can also be used for grazing.

The link between ethanol subsidies and world hunger has quite a lot of data behind it. The New York Times editorialized specifically on the effect on Guatemalan food prices due to the shift of US corn production from food to fuel. Or there is this artcile from Forbes. Or the Wall Street Journal.

1) This is a non-event, about on par with the non-events in nuclear power that mdsolar regularly submits (which for some baffling reason gets approved). The reflected sunlight set a few wire bundles on fire, and the fire damaged some piping. That's it. Ars Technica has about the only non-dramatized coverage of it I've read. I suppose you could view the hype as counterbalancing mdsolar's anti-nuclear hype, but I'd just rather not have hype of any kind on /.

2) The danger of solar comes mostly during installation and maintenance. Working on the roof (where most PV panels are installed) is the most dangerous construction job out there. And the always-generating nature of PV panels makes them an electrocution hazard. Not really an issue here since Ivanpah is a solar thermal plant.

3) After fuels that you burn and Banqiao, solar is the most dangerous energy source once you normalize for amount of electricity generated. About 10x deadlier than nuclear power,

There is no corporate income tax in the Cayman Islands. But multinationals end up paying around 13% of their Cayman registered profits in taxes. Not quite zero. It's low at 13%, but not zero.

Ah, I finally understand why the military-industrial complex has been denying climate change for so long now...

Uh, what? To be sure, there are some industries with a vested interest in denying climate change (Exxon and Koch are an example) but the military? Not so much:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.defense.gov/News-Ar...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Apple is already the top taxpayer in [...] the whole fucking country!

Then why does Forbes list Exxon and Chevron as paying more tax? http://www.forbes.com/pictures...

Because that list is 3 years old? Which means the taxes paid in 2012, which based on the net income from 2011.

It's coming. Employers think you're suspicious (or even a psychopath) if you aren't posting on Facebook every day...

First US usage of power is about 4 times higher per household than Germany, possibly due to Germans mostly not having or using AC in the warmer months. This makes summer the power usage low in Germany. In the US the summer months are the usage high.
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com...
https://www.eia.gov/electricit...

The government (ie taxpayers) subsidize the tune of 20 billion Euros per year and rising (hiding the actual cost)

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/...
http://www.seia.org/research-r...

German prices per kwh are higher (~.34 per kwh) vs US (~.15) mostly due to tax/tariff on energy, and regulatory procedures related to the infrastructure payments of solar and other renewables. The prices are rising so fast the government has had to begin a more restrictive path on new solar.

https://www.eia.gov/electricit...
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...

Based solely on price per kwh and predictable capacity, solar is awful. More specifically awful for germany, because of geography and weather trends.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/qu...

This unpredictability is causing massive new production plants using coal. This is a reult of shutting down nuclear and building solar which only generates an average of >10% of potential capacity. Altogether the solar plan's end result is not bringing them closer to meeting their climate pollution goals.
https://carboncounter.wordpres...

"when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That's when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany's energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011. If there is still an electricity shortfall, energy-hungry plants like the ArcelorMittal steel mill in Hamburg are sometimes asked to shut down production to protect the grid. Of course, ordinary electricity customers are then expected to pay for the compensation these businesses are entitled to for lost profits."

http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

Apple is already the top taxpayer in [...] the whole fucking country!

Then why does Forbes list Exxon and Chevron as paying more tax? http://www.forbes.com/pictures...

You don't have to have Enterprise:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/go... ...you are slightly more screwed if you have the "Home" edition tho. ...and for the mod who marked my original post "Redundant" :-P

Seriously? Trump is worth $4.5 billion already. Everyone who is worth more than him would fit in a decently sized restaurant. He doesn't really want nor need more money - it's the power and ego stroke of being the most important man in the world. And he wants it for his legacy - which means he'll most likely do things that are big, economy-changing, and have long-term repercussions.

Good or bad, he's not doing it for money - he's doing it for legacy, and that will probably free him from any issues of corruption.

• Water pollution
• Corruption
• REDRUM

The lapdog media tells us that Brazil is a multicultural paradise, but in reality, it's a third world abyss.

Too bad, because they have some great metal bands: Sarcofago, Sepultura, Vulcano...

I don't think the company lasting will be a problem... http://www.forbes.com/sites/st... (Full disclosure, I work there)

The newer generations aren't Marxist, and no where does this poll suggest it. What you can gather from other sources such as marketing profiles is they reject wholly the "profit at any cost," "f--k you, you get what we offer and you'll like it" attitude that has become synonymous with capitalism. They care about social and environmental responsibility. From where I stand that's not a bad thing. I find its lack in the older generations chief among their flaws.

They received some TARP money, but they certainly didn't need it.

Goldman Sachs was made 100% whole by U.S. taxpayers via their customers and victims.

Prior to 2008, Goldman Sachs was hardly a household name, but on Wall Street this investment bank is arguably the most powerful non-government bank in the world. Nobody thought that a bank of this size could be brought down, almost overnight. It happened, however, and along with an investment by Warren Buffett, Goldman Sachs received $10 billion in TARP funds. Using funds raised from a $5 billion stock offering, Goldman Sachs paid back TARP funds less than one year later, but in the end, tax payers made $1.4 billion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2012/05/23/4-tarp-recipients-that-made-a-profit

In my state 30% of the power comes from renewable sources. There is virtually no coal and the rest comes from nuclear and natural gas. Every year our power gets cleaner as more renewable sources come online. Across the United States the use of coal is declining due to costs and pollution.

The carbon footprint of a typical electric car is far lower than that of a comparable internal combustion engine car..

> Not at Google

When you *interview* with Google, you're young and exciting. By the time they actually get a job offer, the kids have graduated and you're completed your midlife crisis. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/qu...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ry...

Bernie Sanders' Tax Return Has Some Odd Deductions

Late on a Friday afternoon, Bernie Sanders finally released his tax returns. For the most part, they are (to use his term) âoeboring.â But as Jim Geraghty writing for NRO pointed out, thereâ(TM)s more than a little hypocrisy to be found in that âoeboringâ 1040.

While Jimâ(TM)s piece was very well-researched and exhaustive, thereâ(TM)s a few more nuggets I would add on. Besides doing tax writing and policy activism, I have owned my own tax preparation business in the Washington, D.C. area for the past dozen years and Iâ(TM)m an IRS âoeEnrolled Agentâ (think a tax-only CPA).

So the nerdiness is strong here.

Below are three more weird parts of Bernie Sandersâ(TM) tax return:

Social Security benefits taxation

Bernie Sanders is, to put not too fine a point on it, old. As a result, he collects Social Security benefits. In 2014, he collected $46,213 in Social Security benefits. Because of his income level, 85 percent of this ($39,281) is taxable. So heâ(TM)s following what the tax law calls for.

But Sanders has quite a strong position on Social Security. He is adamant that âoethe richâ pay their âoefair shareâ into Social Security. Now, by that he means taxing all wages and self-employment profits with the Social Security payroll tax (right now just the first $118,500 in wages and self employment earnings are liable).

But there is no reason why he canâ(TM)t apply this principle on the other end. He should be for âoerichâ seniors like him paying taxes on all their Social Security benefit, not just 85 percent of it. According to the Social Security Administration, these taxes are earmarked for the Social Security and Medicare âoetrust funds,â so it would be a direct benefit to the programs he loves so much. And it certainly seems more âoefairâ to tax wealthy retirees with empty nests and paid off mortgages than it does to tax people raising families earlier in life.

There is nothingâ"absolutely nothingâ"stopping Sanders from adding in the rest of his Social Security benefit as taxable income. At his marginal tax rate, it would generate another $1733 in taxes if he did, taxes which would pay directly for Social Security and Medicare benefits for seniors poorer than he.

Business meals

Sanders also deducts $8946 in business meals. Most Americans donâ(TM)t get to write off their lunch, but Sanders chose to.

Assuming each meal averaged around $100, thatâ(TM)s about 90 business meals throughout the course of the year. Now, this is probably legitimate and legal. The IRS standard for a business meal can be found in IRS Publication 463. In it, we find that a business meal must be an ordinary and necessary expense in your line of work. In addition, the meal must basically have a direct business purpose thatâ(TM)s substantial and is expected to lead to business activity. Itâ(TM)s not a high standard.

If a legitimate business meal deduction was on a Republicanâ(TM)s tax return, you can bet that Sanders would be railing against it as just another âoefat catâ ripping off the U.S. Treasury. So why is he deducting almost $9000 worth of business meals himself?

Tax me more fund

Thereâ(TM)s good news for Bernieâ"itâ(TM)s not too late. He can either amend his 2014 return to include his missing Social Security benefits and exclude his business meals, or he can write a check to Uncle Sam directly.

Americans for Tax Reform has long documented how guilt-ridden rich people like Bernie Sanders can very easily give more of their own money to the federal coffer. They can either make a gift to the United States, or they can make a voluntary payment toward the national debt. Itâ(TM)s up to Bernie.

"4) We already do this for many people already. It's called Social Security and Disability. Not to mention Prison and Institionalized - though those last two are a lot more expensive, they basically do the same thing."

In re: #4, Social Security was paid into by most who are taking from it.

Even so, have you seen the state of the Social Security program and the other entitlement programs? $127 Trillion unfunded liabilities.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...

BTW, after reading the above article, take notice that the total assets of the US is worth about $188 Trillion.

http://rutledgecapital.com/200...

And you think it is a good ideal redistribute more money instead of encouraging them to work?

They may promise a nice retirement in a green field, but when you get ready to do so, you will find that they send you to the glue farm, just like Boxer in "The Animal Farm."

Here are a few.

This gravitational wave garbage has already been retracted for months now.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/pa...
http://www.nature.com/news/no-...

Yes, a woman (or man) can hate men - and be individually sexist. I don't think anyone debates that. But..

Women account for 10% of the Forbes Billionaires list in 2016, down from 11% last year.

- Forbes, 2016

... only 1.7% of all billionaires are self-made women and that only 17% of the women on our list got there without inheriting a big chunk.

- Forbes, 2013

Probably not a lot of people here who disagree that money equals power, right? This is just numbers, and doesn't even get into stuff like portrayal in media, glass ceilings, people assuming women programmers are secretaries, and other big and small stuff. Just numbers.

Yes, a woman (or man) can hate men - and be individually sexist. I don't think anyone debates that. But..

Women account for 10% of the Forbes Billionaires list in 2016, down from 11% last year.

- Forbes, 2016

... only 1.7% of all billionaires are self-made women and that only 17% of the women on our list got there without inheriting a big chunk.

- Forbes, 2013

Probably not a lot of people here who disagree that money equals power, right? This is just numbers, and doesn't even get into stuff like portrayal in media, glass ceilings, people assuming women programmers are secretaries, and other big and small stuff. Just numbers.

People say that, but look around, nobody is spending money on security. Job openings are slim compared to other IT positions.

According to Forbes, computer security was $75B in 2015 and expected to be $170B in 2020.

Worldwide spending on information security will reach $75 billion for 2015, an increase of 4.7â%â over 2014, according to the latest forecast from Gartner, Inc. The global cybersecurity market is expected to be worth $170 billion by 2020, according to Hemanshu âoeHemuâ Nigam, founder of security advisory firm SSP Blue, and an expert in online safety and privacy who has led security efforts at Microsoft and News Corporation. The cyber security market is estimated to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 9.8â% from 2015 to 2020, according to a report from Markets and Markets.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevemorgan/2015/12/20/cybersecurity%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bmarket-reaches-75-billion-in-2015%E2%80%8B%E2%80%8B-%E2%80%8Bexpected-to-reach-170-billion-by-2020/

Indeed it is money driven. We basically don't want to see our kids paying for our mistakes so we're trying to get started paying the debts we've incurred before then.

So how many $Billions will pay the debt; or better yet If a $100 Billion is available for Environmental Remediation, how much do you want to spend on the actual Environment and how much do you want to spend on Conferences about the Environment? How much do you want to spend on computer time to watch models spin off into chaos due to round-off error vs. spend on environmental remediation? If there's a "carbon tax" how many more people are going to starve because it costs more for fuel to plant and harvest crops, then transport the food around the world to fight famines?

We've spent $122.8 billion trough the Federal Government and regulatory compliance is estimated at $1.75 trillion per year The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria, is that enough?

The problem for me is that a lot of warmist articles include "facts" that were later proven wrong, and some years ago they were TOLD it is fine to lie in their studies, and deliberately misrepresent data to get people to accept climate change. So much of the warmist FUD looks like a scam to give to key politicians and astroturfing organisations a way to funnel the money back to their coffers.

FTFY

The problem for me is that a lot of warmist articles include "facts" that were later proven wrong, and some years ago they were TOLD it is fine to lie in their studies, and deliberately misrepresent data to get people to accept climate change. So much of the warmist FUD looks like a scam to give to key politicians and astroturfing organisations a way to funnel the money back to their coffers.

FTFY

It's pretty well known, and I personally have seen it occur several times, that the trick to getting disability is hiring a lawyer and being persistent. They almost always reject on the first and second try unless you're an actual invalid confined to a bed. I have several relatives that have worked the system and get their monthly "gubbmint check." It's not exactly a windfall but it does enable you to sit in front of the TV all day and eat potato chips. This article is pretty informative. A lot of people like to blame President Obama for the surge in SSI recipients but in fact the rules were loosened by President Reagan back in 1984.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...

Very interesting read that is.

Jeff Bezos is also a landowner. He's actually number 26 in the country, which seems to suggest he owns more than Trump.

Why would Americans wanting to hide stuff go off-shore when they can do everything they need to do right in the USA?

My links were unfortunately deleted from my post above, but here:
http://arstechnica.com/informa...
https://bgr.com/2016/02/10/win...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/go...
https://theintercept.com/2015/...

Bill Gates could buy Elon 5 times over, and still have enough money left to crack the the top 50 wealthiest people in the US. And much of the wealth of Musk is in Tesla shares - shares that would be worthless if the company cannot deliver cars (and would take a big hit if he started liquidating large numbers of the shares to try to finance Tesla himself).

Federal income taxes, I just did a bit of googling and found I was off a smidgen, in 2013 the 50th percentile paid 2.8% of the Federal Income taxes and 45% are estimated to pay no income taxes, therefore 55% are tax payers.

Because it is. The taxes from fossil fuels and the economy they fuel are the only thing that makes the Green scam possible.

Putting the fact that fossil fuels don't have to pay their external costs aside, let's look at some basic business facts: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2014/08/10/five-hazards-of-growing-a-business-quickly/#5c64e0fb12e1

It’s hard to run any company, but there are specific challenges that are especially hard about running a fast-growth company. If you’re not careful, these challenges can turn into hazards.

That's why Zuckerberg, for example, has claimed that having multiple online identities is fundamentally "dishonest."

Never mind that Zuckerberg uses Limited Liability Companies (LLC) to conceal his real estate purchases and keep his name off the public records.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/morganbrennan/2013/10/11/facebook-billionaire-mark-zuckerbergs-quietly-expanding-real-estate-portfolio/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

The direct costs of the Fukushima disaster will be about $15 billion in clean-up over the next 20 years and over $60 billion in refugee compensation. Replacing Japan’s 300 billion kWhs from nuclear each year with fossil fuels has cost Japan over $200 billion, mostly from fuel costs for natural gas, fuel oil and coal, as renewables have failed to expand in Japan. This cost will at least double, and that only if the nuclear fleet is mostly restarted by 2020.

There is a lot of garbage in the glassdoor data. I personally always inflate my salary when I report it to 'help' HR realize they need to pay programmers more. In any case, here is some better data:

Women make more than men in some tech jobs.
Overall in tech, men make as much as women.
Another study, women are paid as much as men after graduation, and tech is one of the most equal fields to go into (see page 17). And I believe it. You want to see sexual harassment? Look at the sales team, not the programming team.

These sorts of stories are harmful, because they make women say, "I shouldn't go into tech, look how bad it is!" Then they do something mis-informed, like go into sales.

If you want to know what it's really like for a woman in tech, here is a good blog post. It's a great field for women.

It is actually a completely unreasonable position. No government will ever return to using commodity money. Some discussions of the issue here, here, and here. Probably any number of textbooks cover the issue as well.

Generally, just being subject to (large) volatility having nothing to do with the actual need for money for exchanges is a bad enough trait to disqualify it, without getting into any other issues. Anyone who is willing to ignore the problems with commodity money is put into the position of needing some alternate explanation for its abandonment by one and all. A conspiracy theory of some sort is a requirement; the exact form is immaterial. Lizard men are only slightly sillier than Rothschilds (Rothschildren?), Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Jews, or whichever other group our gold bug decides to blame: a difference of degree, not character.

All other justifications aside, I sure as shit don't need to pander to any given worldview in the context of a joke.

Wrong: http://www.forbes.com/sites/al...

Look at the polls of him vs Clinton in a theoretical general. He most certainly does.

He most certainly does not.

And no, he does not have good ideas. It's been pretty well documented by some pretty smart folks that his policies would be financial suicide for our country. His ideas go beyond protectionism and instead veer out into utter fantasy.

"Paid for by the corporations through taxes because they put all of the people out of work."

Corporations simple pass any added taxes and costs on to the customer. Thus if you add taxes to a corporation they simple raise the price and pass that added expense on to the customer.

Except that it isn't true. Look, for example, at this discussion by conservative economist, and former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett.

Some key excerpts:

All economists reject that idea. They point out that prices are set by market forces and the suppliers of goods and services aren’t only C-corporations, which pay taxes on the corporate tax schedule, but also sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-corporations that are taxed under the individual income tax. Other suppliers include foreign corporations and nonprofits.

Therefore, corporations cannot raise prices to compensate for the corporate income tax because they will be undercut by businesses to which the tax does not apply. It should also be noted that the states have substantially different corporate tax regimes, including some that do not tax corporations at all, and we do not observe that prices for goods and services vary from state to state depending on its taxation of corporations.

In 1962, the University of Chicago economist Arnold C. Harberger, published an important article arguing that the corporate tax was borne entirely by shareholders. This was unquestionably true in the first instance; that is, when the corporate income tax was first imposed. The tax simply reduced corporate profits and had to come out of the pockets of shareholders, given that it could not be shifted onto consumers.

But as time went by, some economists argued that a substantial portion of the corporate income tax was ultimately paid by workers in the form of lower wages...

...The Treasury economists conclude that 82 percent of the corporate tax falls on capital and 18 percent on labor. This is very close to the methodology of the private Tax Policy Center, whose analyses are frequently cited in policy debates. It assumes that 80 percent of the corporate tax is borne by capital and 20 percent by labor.

So no, consumers do not pay that tax. Those with capital, the shareholders do, and to a small extent, eventually, workers. 70% of all shares are held by the top 5% of the population (by wealth) by the way, 42% by just the top 1%. But if productivity gains from automation are being passed on to workers (unlike what has happened since 1972) then their real wages will be rising anyway.

Support for minimum wage laws illustrates the economic and historical illiteracy that is so widespread in this country: not only are minimum wage laws ineffective and economically harmful, historically, they were motivated by a desire to hurt racial minorities. Minimum wage laws actually hurt low income and low skill workers twice: not only does it price many of them out of the labor pool, it also increases the cost of goods and services, which hurts low income groups the most. After a couple of centuries of enlightenment, history, and basic economics, you'd think that people would be smart enough to catch on to this, but I guess some superstitions just take a long time to die out.

Yeah! Let's bring back slavery!

Support for minimum wage laws illustrates the economic and historical illiteracy that is so widespread in this country: not only are minimum wage laws ineffective and economically harmful, historically, they were motivated by a desire to hurt racial minorities. Minimum wage laws actually hurt low income and low skill workers twice: not only does it price many of them out of the labor pool, it also increases the cost of goods and services, which hurts low income groups the most. After a couple of centuries of enlightenment, history, and basic economics, you'd think that people would be smart enough to catch on to this, but I guess some superstitions just take a long time to die out.

Then you haven't checked recently:

"On Friday, Congress passed legislation making the solar investment tax credit (ITC) available for several years and creating a new production tax credit for wind power projects.

The solar ITC, which was scheduled to expire at the end of 2016, was extended for as many as eight years as part of a $1.15 trillion spending bill."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/wi... - December 18, 2015 - not even 4 months ago.

I don't believe you because you linked to Forbes.com - and I don't have the time to dive through the ad-blocker-blocker bullshit and the malware.

Also "as part of a bill" means that probably 90% of the $1.15 trillion was going to something totally unrelated. Spread over several years again.

So to take your line of thought to it's logical conclusion, the 45% of tax returns with zero tax due are actually getting a subsidy from the Federal Government.

Then you haven't checked recently:

"On Friday, Congress passed legislation making the solar investment tax credit (ITC) available for several years and creating a new production tax credit for wind power projects.

The solar ITC, which was scheduled to expire at the end of 2016, was extended for as many as eight years as part of a $1.15 trillion spending bill."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/wi... - December 18, 2015 - not even 4 months ago.