
Solar-powered UK schools face an 800% tax increase - petewailes
https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/09/solar-powered-uk-schools-face-an-800-percent-tax-increase/
======
pjc50
The whole thing is bonkers. A more detailed briefing on _exactly_ what the
change is: [http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/Sta...](http://www.solar-trade.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/Stakeholder-briefing-business-rates-rooftop-
solar-v0.8.pdf)

The UK does not have property tax per se, it has "business rates" which are
collected by the local authority. State schools are considered to be
"businesses" (WTF#1), while private schools which are nearly always structured
as "charities" do not have to pay rates (WTF#2).

Business rates are calculated based on the value of the building + fixed
equipment (plant). This change counts solar panels producing energy used
predominantly on the premises as "plant" and imposes a requirement to pay tax
based on their capital value. (WTF#3). This does not apply to sites generating
primarily for export (WTF#4).

It's unnecessarily penalising schools who bought panels in the hope that they
could use the future guaranteed subsidies as income. But that's about what
you'd expect from a Conservative government.

(Definition of "plant":
[http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/540/pdfs/uksi_200005...](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/540/pdfs/uksi_20000540_en.pdf)
)

(The whole thing brings up an unforseen disadvantage of trying to do
renewables through a "distorted free market" rather than just direct state
action: people taking advantage of the subsidies are called "gaming the
system", when the entire point of the subsidy policy was to pay them to do
exactly that. Also, UK local government and schools funding is a collection of
fudges to outdated systems, but nobody wants to go near that mess.)

------
andrewmu
One of the further absurdities is that the tax applies to state schools but
not private fee-paying schools.

------
stefek99
I don't get the solar business in the UK.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance)

$1000 worth of raw materials (photovoltaic cells) would be much better used in
countries like Syria.

In Winter there is not much Sun / daylight hours, and the energy usage is
higher due to heating and lightning so other electricity production methods
need to provide 100% of the demand anyway.

    
    
      installation slowed by 85 percent
    
      caused by the end of subsidies for solar farms and and incentives for homeowners
    

It's even more outrageous after considering - homeowners are on richer than
people who are renting. Giving taxpayers money to...

 _(I could never understood solar business in the the UK and rapid decline
after subsidies has ended only proves the point)_

Next time similar opportunity arise - I'll raise the money and hop on the
bandwagon... :)

~~~
rmchugh
globally the fossil fuel industry receives over four times as much in
subsidies as the renewable energy industry.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-
fu...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-
with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables)

~~~
qeternity
That's a bit misleading. Many emerging markets countries subsidize the cost of
gasoline and diesel at the retail level so that their citizens can afford it.
Effectively the governments import oil (or produce it) and then sell it
domestically far below where it would trade on the open market. And most
headline "subsidy" figures include things like R&D tax credits, benefits that
every other industry receives as well. In reality, the actual number of
bonafide subsidy is a small fraction of what you've suggested (on the order of
$15B in the US, one of the largest fossil fuel markets).

So yes, in some sense the "fossil fuel industry" is being subsidized, but it's
not like they're just receiving $550B in cash from world governments. Many of
these countries sell oil domestically far below what the cost of production
is. So if you don't subsidize it, their citizens simply wouldn't be able to
drive cars or run generators. The oil companies simply can't produce as
cheaply as these citizens would need to be able to afford it.

Of course, that would be a great force for incentivizing cheap renewable tech
(or bicycles, etc) but the motivation behind said "subsidies" are quality of
life and social unrest, and not corporate welfare.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Many emerging markets countries subsidize the cost of gasoline and diesel at
> the retail level so that their citizens can afford it.

Which is still a petroleum subsidy. They could just give the citizens the
equivalent amount of cash and then it wouldn't be.

~~~
qeternity
What? Either way it's the same. Those people would just go use the cash to buy
gasoline. It's the exact same thing.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
It isn't. They could use cash to do something else where possible, like help
pay for housing which is closer to where they work, or buy a computer so they
can work from home, or buy a hybrid car etc.

------
jankotek
Link does not provide much information, here are more details:

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/solar-
po...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/06/solar-powered-
schools-bill-business-rates-rise-england-wales)

> _The Valuation Office Agency said last year that small non-domestic solar
> installations would no longer be exempt from rates and bigger solar systems
> already subjected to business rates would see a hike of 600-800%._

> _Solar-equipped private schools will duck the changes because of their
> charitable status._

I think it is a sign that solar electricity has matured, does not need
subsidies, and can stand on its own (and be taxed the same way as other
industries).

~~~
jackmott
The fossil fuel industries in most countries have an extremely complex set of
tax breaks and subsidies of their own. So should solar also have that?

~~~
jankotek
I do not want to go into this discussion, but I doubt school would get any
subsidies for a coal plant.

By other industries I meant everything (manufacturing, IT, agriculture...),
not just electricity.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
But when evaluating whether to buy solar panels, they'd measure against the
price of electricity sold by subsidiized coal plants, so thoses subsizidies
would harm solar uptake.

I'm not sure this applies in the UK though, despite swinging rightward there's
a reasonable range of regulations that are basically putting coal out of
business anyway.

------
huffmsa
Oh, it's £1.2m COMBINED in new taxes.

I thought it was a per school rate.

Nonetheless, not great and an odd move

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
The Tories are basically kooks.

I'm sorry I can't offer a more intelligent analysis, but there doesn't seem to
be one to offer. Economically, politically, socially, and scientifically -
they're a greed-driven kookocracy.

------
transfire
Trick of the oil lobby. First you give subsidies, then take them away in one
fell swoop. It's very bad for the industry. They pulled the same crap in
Nevada.

------
nicky0
Wait a minute, schools pay tax??

------
jlebrech
couldn't they say they no longer use them and disconnect them when someone
comes to check? (this is how people get around paying their TV licence in the
uk)

What I also don't get is that they are taxing state schools, it's like taking
one's wallet from the right pocket and putting it in the left pocket.

~~~
pricechild
Surely nobody really gets away with that tactic? It won't fool the detector
vans?

~~~
lorenzhs
Detector vans are mostly a hoax. It's thought that they worked by detecting
electromagnetic radiation given off by CRTs, if they worked at all. Those are
obsolete, so the point is moot anyway. But how should they be able to tell
apart a TV and a computer monitor? Furthermore, you can use a TV and not
connect it to an antenna—Smart TVs and Chromecast/Roku/Fire TV/Apple TV/...
make that a perfectly viable use case. Such use isn't subject to TV licencing
in the UK, only watching live broadcasts (including streaming) is.

~~~
aninhumer
>only watching live broadcasts (including streaming) is.

Also using BBC iPlayer even for non-live content now requires a TV licence.

~~~
lorenzhs
Apparently this changed in September 2016. Previously, watching non-live
content didn't require a TV licence.

------
macu
How can they tax sun collection, that is sickening.

~~~
tsmarsh
Wouldn't be the first time:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax)

------
briandear
A loss of a subsidy is a tax hike? Seems like that terminology is misleading
while technically correct. If solar is so efficient why would it need a
subsidy; wouldn't the market make it more desirable? If it isn't so efficient,
then why subsidize it? It seems like the people that want solar should pay
what it costs.

