Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this >video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
poison everyone accessing that water.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they >determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in >rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under
this video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like
Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar
farm are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar
panels, especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the
groundwater and poison everyone accessing that water.
Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how
they determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes
they are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for
the amount of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like
roofs, driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain
landing on these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow
makes it necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach
the sewers.
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's
any fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting
rainwater? That keeps it out of sewers.
Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this >video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
poison everyone accessing that water.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they >determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this
video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
poison everyone accessing that water.
Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they
determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any
fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
That keeps it out of sewers.
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in >>rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this >>video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm
are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels, >>especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
poison everyone accessing that water.
Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they >>determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any
fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
That keeps it out of sewers.
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time
in rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments
under this video, is already being levied in other Canadian
cities, like Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar
farm are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar
panels, especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the
groundwater and poison everyone accessing that water.
Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the
proposed rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is
levied on Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not
clear on how they determine that people are collecting rainwater
and what volumes they are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are
assessed tax for the amount of non-porous surfaces they have on
their property, like roofs, driveways, and concrete patios, on the
theory that rain landing on these surfaces will end up in the
sewers, which somehow makes it necessary to charge homeowners for
what they allow to reach the sewers.
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's
any fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting
rainwater? That keeps it out of sewers.
My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
– thousands of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all
water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
sixth our water bill for sewer.
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700 anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>:
. . .
My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
– thousands of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all
water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
sixth our water bill for sewer.
That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it
went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700 anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>:
. . .
My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
– thousands of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all
water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
sixth our water bill for sewer.
That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it
went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?
How? Taxes and fees have do not measure consumption nor benefit and they
are never fair. It's fairly common that sewer charges are simply
surcharges on water bills. The fact that water exiting the house into
the main drain to the sanitary sewer isn't measured is of no interest.
There's typically a second surcharge for "infiltration" which is all the water that enters the sanitary sewer that cannot be related to water
bills. That has absolutely nothing to do with you.
On 3/31/2024 11:40 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700 anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>:
. . .
My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
– thousands of dollars – that is based on the assumption that all
water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
sixth our water bill for sewer.
That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it >> went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?
How? Taxes and fees have do not measure consumption nor benefit and they are never fair. It's fairly common that sewer charges are simply
surcharges on water bills. The fact that water exiting the house into
the main drain to the sanitary sewer isn't measured is of no interest.
There's typically a second surcharge for "infiltration" which is all the water that enters the sanitary sewer that cannot be related to water
bills. That has absolutely nothing to do with you.
The really stupid part of all this is they should have simply increased
the sewage fee WITHOUT saying "this is a new charge for being rained
on". People would have grumbled for a bit and paid but the way this was handled apparently comes across as a punishment for the weather.
Thought, would this new "rain tax" apply to a home lot entirely covered
by a geodesic dome, diverting away before it reaches the property? :P
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:46:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in >>rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this >>video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm >>are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels, >>especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
poison everyone accessing that water.
Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
Yeah that toxic waste they become when being disposed of should be
ignored?
Eyeroll.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed >>rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on >>Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they >>determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount >>of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs, >>driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it >>necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any >fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
That keeps it out of sewers.
Because it increases government control and money. That's why.
In article <0fri0j57rt9ujmt1q38rs5vh3osn1lgp97@4ax.com>,
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 01:46:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time in
rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments under this >>>> video, is already being levied in other Canadian cities, like Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar farm >>>> are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar panels,
especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the groundwater and
poison everyone accessing that water.
Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
Yeah that toxic waste they become when being disposed of should be
ignored?
Eyeroll.
Just like the batteries in EVs. Mining the rare earth minerals for them
is an environmental nightmare. There's a whole swath of Canada that
looks like the surface of the moon where they mine for EV battery
components.
Africa. Instead of wondering whether your engagement gem is a blood
diamond, you'll be wondering whether your EV battery is a blood battery.
And the disposal of millions of those batteries is going to make our
nuclear waste disposal problems look like child's play.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they >>>> determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount >>>> of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers. >>>
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's any
fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting rainwater?
That keeps it out of sewers.
Because it increases government control and money. That's why.
They seem to be operating on the principle that "anything that
happens, whether we in the government are responsible or not, is
taxable". I can't see any other conceivable rationale.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the proposed
rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is levied on
Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not clear on how they >determine that people are collecting rainwater and what volumes they
are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are assessed tax for the amount
of non-porous surfaces they have on their property, like roofs,
driveways, and concrete patios, on the theory that rain landing on
these surfaces will end up in the sewers, which somehow makes it
necessary to charge homeowners for what they allow to reach the sewers.
Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything
harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
any costs associated with the broken solar panels?
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 00:46:40 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything >>harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
any costs associated with the broken solar panels?
Our community association had a guest speaker from a solar panel
company (who had a great slide show) giving his pitch and he said
their monthly maintenance fee covered that as part of your maintenance >contract. (Which you were free to drop out of any time but if you did
that specific charge was on you)
(I'm interested but realistically the breakeven on such a project
would be after I expect to be six feet under so it would benefit my
kids not me)
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:48:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 00:46:40 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything >>harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
any costs associated with the broken solar panels?
Our community association had a guest speaker from a solar panel
company (who had a great slide show) giving his pitch and he said
their monthly maintenance fee covered that as part of your maintenance >contract. (Which you were free to drop out of any time but if you did
that specific charge was on you)
(I'm interested but realistically the breakeven on such a project
would be after I expect to be six feet under so it would benefit my
kids not me)
Yes, we are still at a point where I don't see a solar system being
useful from a cost savings.
Where it does shine is being able to keep your home power going if you
are in an area with unreliable power subject to hours long black outs
or even brown outs.
I really hope the reasoning is something like that-- that powered homes >electrify the lines or something-- and that it's not some 'social
justice' bullshit where it's not 'fair' if some people have electricity
when everyone else doesn't. We already have the usual suspects bitching
about how solar power is racist because the majority of homes with
panels are in white/rich neighborhoods.
In article <jugn0j5urnlllccvpomu7sgmf2505uo5s1@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 23:48:13 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 00:46:40 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's an issue any time we build anything if there is anything
harmful inside and we let it rot or get damaged and don't repair it.
So why wouldn't you just tax the owners of the solar farms to cover
any costs associated with the broken solar panels?
Our community association had a guest speaker from a solar panel
company (who had a great slide show) giving his pitch and he said
their monthly maintenance fee covered that as part of your maintenance
contract. (Which you were free to drop out of any time but if you did
that specific charge was on you)
(I'm interested but realistically the breakeven on such a project
would be after I expect to be six feet under so it would benefit my
kids not me)
Yes, we are still at a point where I don't see a solar system being
useful from a cost savings.
And the big selling point-- that not only will you eliminate your own >electric bill, but you can make money by selling the extra electricity
back to the power company-- is going away.
Here in CA, the assembly passed a bill which Newsom signed, which cuts
the amount of power the utility has to buy back from you in half and
they're expected to eliminate the requirement altogether in coming years.
Strange move for a state government that is constantly preaching the
Climate Cult catechism. One would think they'd strengthen incentives to
go solar, not eliminate them. Kinda shows where their interests really
lie-- in money and perks and whores provided to them by lobbysists for >electric utility industry.
Where it does shine is being able to keep your home power going if you
are in an area with unreliable power subject to hours long black outs
or even brown outs.
Here in CA, we have a law that requires your home solar system to shut
down if the power grid goes down. So you have to suffer through a
blackout with everyone else even if you have solar power.
I always thought that would be one of the great benefits of a solar
system in your home-- that if the power went out, you'd still be up and >running. But the state requires that such systems must be configured so
that if the grid loses power, the homes with solar panels have to go
dark, too.
It supposedly has something to do with the problems that homes that are
still powered will cause to the grid and dangers to work crews trying to
make repairs.
I really hope the reasoning is something like that-- that powered homes >electrify the lines or something-- and that it's not some 'social
justice' bullshit where it's not 'fair' if some people have electricity
when everyone else doesn't. We already have the usual suspects bitching
about how solar power is racist because the majority of homes with
panels are in white/rich neighborhoods.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 23:06:46 -0700
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
Yeah, that's right, a tax on home owners that is levied every time
in rains. It's coming to Toronto and, according to the comments
under this video, is already being levied in other Canadian
cities, like Halifax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?vwrYL5OHFdE [6 minutes]
The video starts by pointing out the immense damage done to a solar
farm in Texas by hail. They mention that neighbours of this solar
farm are concerned that the toxic materials in the broken solar
panels, especially cadmium telluride, will leach into the
groundwater and poison everyone accessing that water.
Excuse me. Solar power has benefits only, not risks.
At about 4:15, they finally get to Toronto and point out the
proposed rain tax. They also mention the existing tax that is
levied on Torontonians that collect rainwater. (And no, I'm not
clear on how they determine that people are collecting rainwater
and what volumes they are collecting.) Apparently, homeowners are
assessed tax for the amount of non-porous surfaces they have on
their property, like roofs, driveways, and concrete patios, on the
theory that rain landing on these surfaces will end up in the
sewers, which somehow makes it necessary to charge homeowners for
what they allow to reach the sewers.
Can we fire these imbeciles yet?
I understand the concept as a fee, but I sure don't see how there's
any fair way to assess the tax. So why not encourage collecting
rainwater? That keeps it out of sewers.
My ex has a swimming pool and a lot of foliage in their backyard.
Every year they have to go down and protest their gigantic sewer bill
thousands of dollars that is based on the assumption that all
water used goes down the drain. They assess us something like one
sixth our water bill for sewer.
That is truly depraved! Surely, there is some evaporation from the
pool and the rest of the water stays in the pool. Charging them as if it
went down the drain is obscene. Has anyone ever tried to fight this?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:27:31 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,355,896 |