fireman15 wrote: “You just stated, in plain English: “the cost of those centers will be paid by consumers.” You finally dropped the corporate PR spin and admitted that everyday consumers are indeed going to pay for Big Tech’s private buildouts.
Consumers include Big Tech. It’s absurd to believe that someone other than consumers pay. Just like believing that a tax on corporations is always paid by consumers.
“fireman15 wrote: A true Luddite is someone who stubbornly refuses to learn how modern systems work and clings to obsolete concepts when confronted with real-world facts.”
You just described yourself. Therefore, you are a Luddite.
fireman15 wrote: “Now that you have openly agreed that local consumers are paying for these corporate facilities, the question remains: why do you support forcing everyday retirees to subsidize the power grid expansion of the richest corporations on Earth?”
I have agreed that all consumers will pay a portion of the costs. Consumers (which include big tech) always are the ones who pay. You’re clinging to the fiction that corporations can be taxed.
Here is why this latest attempt to dodge the issue completely falls apart:
1. Playing Word Games with "Consumers"
In utility law and state regulatory accounting, there is a strict legal distinction between a Residential Ratepayer and a Large Commercial/Industrial Customer. An 80-year-old retiree cooling their home in the Florida summer is not the same class of "consumer" as a multi-hundred-megawatt hyperscale server farm. Conflating the two is a desperate attempt to disguise the fact that regular homeowners are being forced to fund infrastructure built specifically for giant corporations.
2. Confusing Corporate Taxes with Utility Rate Bases
Pivoting to corporate tax theory shows a complete misunderstanding of utility grid accounting. We are not talking about government taxes. We are talking about capital infrastructure costs. When a tech company pays 100% of its own dedicated power generation and line construction costs upfront, that expense comes out of their corporate budget. When a utility builds that same infrastructure and folds it into the general "rate base," it gets added directly to monthly delivery charges on local residential bills. That is a direct cost shift onto local families, not a tax.
3. The "I Know You Are But What Am I" Rebuttal
Resorting to a playground reversal of the "Luddite" label only highlights that your argument has run completely out of facts. Explaining how utility accounting actually operates, how capital costs enter the rate base, and how circular corporate financing inflates tech valuations is the exact opposite of Ludditism. It is called understanding how the real world works.
4. Time to Call It
At this point, it is obvious that no amount of real-world utility law, financial data, or technical explanation is going to land here. Expecting you to debate complex rate-base accounting and infrastructure economics was clearly asking for more than you are equipped to comprehend, and continuing to drag you through details you cannot process is simply unfair. I apologize for subjecting you to a debate so far outside your depth. I will leave the thread here so you can have the last word.