That doesn’t account for state and local taxes which tend to be more sales based and therefore more regressive. If I remember correctly if you look a quintiles, the tax burden as a percent of income much flatter. From the chart here:
0-20%: 17.4% of income
20-40%: 21.2%
40-60%: 25.2%
60-80%: 28.3%
80-100%:~30%*
*The article breaks the 80-90% down to show that the rate goes up slightly until you get to the top 1% and then starts to drop.
I agree that it’s reasonable to want solar users who are connected to the grid to contribute to the infrastructure maintenance of the grid.
But if they are required to do this, then power providers should also be required to purchase excess power from solar customers at the same cost at which the provider sells power. Too many providers, right now, want to double-dip with solar users. They was solar users to pay the fixed costs of infrastructure, and they also want to pay for solar-generated electricity at much-lower-than-sale prices so they can make extra profit on electricity generated by their own customers.
OTOH, isn’t solar power a thing important enough to be worth subsidizing?
Yes. Not just “Yes”, “HELL, yes!!!”.
Still, the prospect of charging customers for the amortized costs of infrastructure brings up the whole issue of transparency and accountability. What is the true cost of that maintenance divided up amongst all the customers? How would we account for major users of electricity as compared to the ordinary citizen? And, of course, how do we get a reliably honest accounting from the energy companies?
If the power companies can get their way without all this needless poking around in their finances, they will, Hugh Betcha! How about if they can’t? How do we assure ourselves that they are not simply trying to stifle solar power? Perhaps more importantly, which ones are, and which ones are not?
Well, you know, if you are dissatisfied with the power company you have, just switch to another one, np. Lots of competition in that arena.
In Houston (and I think the rest of Texas) we have more choices for power company than I can even name. If the rest of the country is different, whose fault is that?
I’m not sure I’d agree completely with that. If you think of the power-distribution company as a distinct business, they would buy power where it’s available, and sell it where it’s needed at a slight markup. And that markup (part of it, at least) goes to pay their expenses in shipping the product. I can see the case for buying energy at a lower price than they sell it.
I don’t know if that’s what’s being proposed, though. If they’re really trying to fine homeowners who install solar panels, that seems more punitive than simply putting them at parity with other energy producers.
Let us consider two cases:
Joe Blow pulls 1% of the average power draw from the grid because, while he uses as much power as the next guy, he put up solar panels that provide the other 99%.
John Doe pulls 1% of the average power draw from the grid because he operates no electrical devices other than a little transistor radio he only uses to listen to his favorite preacher man on Sunday.
Oklahoma proposes to impose a special tax on Joe, and not on John (gee, I thought Republicans regarded taxes as the work of the devil), even though the above argument clearly applies with equal force to both. Ergo, they are acting specifically to discourage solar generation, and any attempt to rationalize it in this manner is to offer an excuse rather than an explanation.
So says the 300 lb lardass about the healthiest, thinnest, and happiest state in the country. What a maroon.
Dammit, a long reply got lost.
In addition to the points that Robot Arm brought up, this seems totally normal. Name one product or service where you can sell it to a business for the same cost that you’d buy it from the business. Gas? Gold? Milk? Dreams? Nope, nope, nope.
It is subsidized, and greatly so. I mean, how severely misinformed are you? I can only think that you’re being intentionally stupid here.
My assumption is that where you live there is a regulatory agency for utility companies that scrutinizes rate proposals. Are you saying that you simply don’t have a public utilities commission where you live? I thought they were literally everywhere in this country.
In the real world, you damn well know that John Doe is poor as shit in this scenario. You’re not seriously proposing that utilities should raise their rates on the near-indigent, as you’ve laid it out? Because that’s fucking stupid, and had Oklahoma done that instead, you know for sure there would be a hell of a lot more outrage.
Here’s the gist of the longer post that got lost: we have a stupid business system in this country as it relates to infrastructure, in that we expect a close correlation between the users of the infrastructure and their payments to maintain the infrastructure. This model is stupid. Here’s why: if tomorrow we invent cold fusion cars that don’t require a drop of gasoline and are cheap, our highway trust fund goes broke because nobody is paying the gas tax anymore. It’s an unsustainable model: as energy efficiency goes up (for either home, business or transportation) revenues go down and investment in infrastructure suffers. We should break this stupid model for revenue as soon as possible – or we liberals should stop talking about how important the infrastructure is to this country because we cling to an unrealistic idea of how it ought to be paid for.
Probably the power companies’.
No, what I’m doing is calling for a so-small-the-power-co-would-hardly-notice-it subsidy in this particular instance, where no such subsidy yet exists.
How do you know that, exactly? You just assume that if a company is sufficiently large, they can give out freebees until you’re satisfied?
I bet the homeless guy on the corner thinks that you can afford to give him $100 a week.
Conversely, do you have evidence to believe otherwise? The level of your sarcasm would imply a significant degree of certainty, is it founded upon anything?
Linked on the same page (not a Republican story specifically, but too good not to mention here): “KKK Forms Neighborhood Watch Group In Pennsylvania.”
Ray Moore is the poster child for eradication of religious “values”. How dare he refer to those who collectively make a public education system as “the enemy”? And home-schooling should mean NO chance at college-- community, university, etc.
If you home school kids, AND you’re religious, why aren’t child services visiting them every two days?
But again, like other posters on this board, hope he wins the primary. 
As I understand it the original proposal was for $100 or more a month fees to be connected to the grid and the final bill was $5.
One could make the argument that there is an expense to hooking up, but hundreds?
On the other hand, if utilities don’t have to make huge capital investments in new generating plants due to solar being hooked up at a large number of private residences, then the utility is benefiting much more than any hook up costs.
Also, plants need to be built to meet peak demand which occurs during the hot and sunny summer months, just when solar works the best. So I’m not certain any fee is justified.
Your quote is about income. Income is not the same thing as wealth. There are quite a few ways to be wealthy other than having a large income.