Your sentiment is miscalculated. People who don’t pay taxes probably won’t be buying these cars. See the post right above yours.
But each taxpayer is contributing only a small fraction of that $3500 rebate through their tax bill. So for each person who takes advantage, most of that rebate is “free” money. For the other hundreds who do not, it is just more spending.
You’ve just explained how taxes work.
1 Like
no no no, our govt should not work for, or spend any funds on the people! That’s communism, very bad.
The govt, and our taxpayer dollars, should only be spent bombing third-world countries and subsidizing too-big-to-fail corporations. That’s capitalism and capitalism = freedom. `merica!
The sarcastic quip is appropriate in general. But in this case it misses the point - it isnt being spent on the people, it’s being spent on select people. Only people who can afford such a purchase ($3k isnt going to be what makes or breaks the ability to purchase), and only people who’s use case fits within the limits of current EV technology (it simply isnt a viable option for many of people). Not the people who make decisions based on what best fits their needs, it’s only for the people who make the “correct” choice regardless of what’s best for their circumstances.
The program runs counter to typical such spending like roads and parks - look at the almost heavy-handed push to make parks handicap accessible, because public spending shouldnt inherently exclude anyone by design. This program is not only virtue signaling, it is using economic incentive to manufacture that virtue.
1 Like
It’s actually a subsidy to billion $ corporations, let’s be real.
1 Like
You lost me here. Why would anyone make the “correct” choice regardless of what’s best for their circumstances? Why would anyone buy an EV if it’s not the best choice for them?
That’s the point. A majority of people dont even have the option of benefitting from this government spending, unless they want to make the poor choice.
Are you implying that EV is the poor choice for everyone? I don’t think that’s true. Also we discussed this a few months ago only a few posts above – it’s not for everyone, but it maybe good for some.
Purely from a financial perspective and assuming similarly priced vehicles, it depends on the price of gas vs electricity. By my estimate, as long as gas is > $4/G, EV costs less than HEV to run. By local utility companies estimates gas would have to be < $2/G for HEV to cost less. That’s charging from the grid. I’m guessing the numbers favor EV more with owned solar panels.
Also a slightly higher initial cost of EV can be justified with cheaper long-term maintenance.
Last I checked, a majority doesnt mean everyone. A majority of people either cant afford it, or it doest fit their use constraints. And I’d bet that a significant chunk of the rest (dare I say, a majority of the rest?) will be people who if they receive the rebate it’ll be for an EV they were likely to buy anyways.
You are ignoring the fundamental question: why should the taxpayers of California provide this subsidy? Is it for a mythical carbon dioxide emissions reduction? First, the EPA endangerment finding has been rescinded. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is actually a beneficial gas. For example, it leads to higher crop growing efficiency, thus reducing the price of food.
Another factor is the much higher resources required to manufacture an electric versus ICE vehicle. One rough measurements is to compare the weights:
According to Google AI,
The Tesla Model 3 is significantly heavier than a standard Toyota Corolla. A Toyota Corolla weighs roughly 2,900 to 3,100 pounds (1,315 to 1,405 kg), whereas a Tesla Model 3 weighs between 3,800 and 4,050 pounds (1,720 to 1,835 kg) due to its heavy battery pack. [1, 2]
that is nearly 1000 pounds more of mostly heavy metals. Most calculations I’ve seen ignore the carbon dioxide required to produce the energy to manufacture the EV battery.
The EPA finding was rescinded on political, ideological basis, not a scientific one.
CO2 is a pollutant. It’s settled science. Nobody is arguing about this except the oil and gas industry and everyone they’'ve been paying since 1970s.
I suppose it is possible that higher CO2 leads to higher crop efficiency, since plants consume CO2. But it also leads to global warming, which leads to melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and drying rivers, which will cost way more and lead to farms drying (see satellite photos in that article), rendering higher farm yields moot. But also we don’t need higher crop efficiency, we waste a lot of food already. What the world needs is better food distribution.
You said “higher resources”. You mean it requires heavier materials. So what? Are you saying that the greenhouse gases created during the production plus the expected lifetime operation of an EV are equal to or higher than GHG created during production plus the expected lifetime operation of ICE or HEV? If you never even saw complete calculations, why would you assume this? All the estimates I’ve seen say EV still wins, by a lot.
Your entire post is lies and misdirection.
But more to the point, you made an environmental argument, I think. I was making a strictly financial one – it can be cheaper to buy and operate an EV than a HEV (definitely cheaper than ICE, no point in even arguing that, I hope), especially so when gasoline is expensive (> $4/G) and electricity is cheap (owned solar).
As usual, it is pointless to discuss anything with you since all you do is make a bunch of assertions with no backup whatsoever.
This assertion is obviously BS. If EVs are cheaper than ICE cars, why does the government have to pay subsidies to get people to buy them? I have made many posts on this thread showing that car companies who are pulling out of the EV business because they can’t sell them without subsidies to customers who are buying ICE cars
That’s the fallacy.. I filled up most recently at $3.26/gal. And I’ll call your solar panels with grocery store fuel benefits, if you want to artifically lower the costs. Electric prices can vary significantly, and solar panels are not an option for many, many car owners.
So yeah, there’s a point in arguing it. Your numbers are not everyone’s numbers.
I meant that, as shown in my example, EVs can be cheaper to buy and operate than HEV, and in that same example they’re obviously cheaper than ICE, because HEV is always cheaper than ICE, and that is the one with no point in arguing – HEV runs on less gas than ICE.
I agree with this. I misread your statement about this being a poor choice for the majority. I thought you meant it’s a poor choice for absolutely everyone.
Good that you phrased it as “can be”. Because it also may not be cost effective like if your house does not support charging without substantial electrical work, if you cannot install a charger easily at your home (maybe due to space or HOA rules), or if you don’t drive a lot and especially if you drive a smaller model with good gas mileage and reliability, etc… There may be a lot of scenario where switching to an EV is actually not cost-effective.
3 Likes