[giblfiz]

I'm the original author. I'm not sure why you got down-voted for this, this was absolutely a "tax dodge". The polite term is "tax mitigation strategy", I'm also not sure why this is seen as an openly negative thing? The government wants a type of thing done, they say "hey, we won't pay people directly to do it, but we will subsidize it thru tax incentives"

I was like "yeah, I like that thing (solar) and think it's good for the world, I will do it in return for tax incentives"

Why exactly is that bad?

[micromacrofoot]

because there's not necessarily a demand for this site, or even a personal interest — imo this sort of incentive produces worse outcomes than taxing people and farming it out to the lowest bidder, at least the lowest bidder has a business and reputation to maintain (thin, but not nothing)

[xboxnolifes]

Idk, there's a certain double standard that I see semi-frequently. Direct subsidies and/or rebates to incentivize renewable energy? Good. Tax subsidies to do the exact same thing? Awful, terrible, tax avoiding scum.

Sometimes I wonder if any of the people who complain about this bought an electric car or roof solar with tax credits or rebates.

Or maybe its just HN anti-crypto bias.

[jeffrallen]

> Why exactly is that bad?

Because you could have just paid your taxes like the rest of us have to. Instead you made a big drama and are asking us to agree with you how unfair it all is that you have to pay taxes.

[zekrioca]

What a nonsense. This is the government itself proposing the subsidie to build up long term renewables, which have a much more important role to local communities. Author then writes about their important experiences, listing important lessons and insights for future endeavours, and you call it a ‘drama’.

Tell me about your intentions without telling me about your intentions.