BigInch
Petroleum
- Jun 21, 2006
- 15,161
I've always evaluated solar power and other alternative energy sources in a classical engineering method, by adding up the total costs of the system, including some maintenance, an interest rate and dividing by projected power output over the life of the system. As a result you can compare $/kWh with $kWh of your power purchased from the local utility. It never looked extremely favorable, but if you're willing to save the planet for a relatively small cost, it was more or less feasible. Today I thought about something new.
The actual cost of power that you buy for your home from the utility co may include sales taxes, so be sure that those are included in the utility power cost. But that's not all. If you have to pay for that power with income you earn and have paid taxes on, that there is another big cost to add. If you pay $100/month including sales tax, of say 10% to keep the math easy, then depending on your actual income tax bracket, you probably had to earn about 30% more to be able to write that check for the $100 power bill, therefore the real cost in gross earnings to pay for $90 worth of electrical power from the utility was not $100, but a hefty $130. I have never seen any comparative cost of power that includes the income tax that an individual needs to pay before he can pay for the power. Why is that? Is it correct to compare "earned cost" that includes your tax rate. I think it is, as long as you pay taxes on your income that is used to pay that power bill. Companies power is a deductable expense, so no need to do that there, but personal power paidd for with personal income, it seems to me, must include the tax you pay on that income used to pay that power bill. That could push an alternative energy system far cheaper than utility company power. What do you think?
The actual cost of power that you buy for your home from the utility co may include sales taxes, so be sure that those are included in the utility power cost. But that's not all. If you have to pay for that power with income you earn and have paid taxes on, that there is another big cost to add. If you pay $100/month including sales tax, of say 10% to keep the math easy, then depending on your actual income tax bracket, you probably had to earn about 30% more to be able to write that check for the $100 power bill, therefore the real cost in gross earnings to pay for $90 worth of electrical power from the utility was not $100, but a hefty $130. I have never seen any comparative cost of power that includes the income tax that an individual needs to pay before he can pay for the power. Why is that? Is it correct to compare "earned cost" that includes your tax rate. I think it is, as long as you pay taxes on your income that is used to pay that power bill. Companies power is a deductable expense, so no need to do that there, but personal power paidd for with personal income, it seems to me, must include the tax you pay on that income used to pay that power bill. That could push an alternative energy system far cheaper than utility company power. What do you think?