backtop


Print 130 comment(s) - last by Dan Banana.. on Mar 18 at 12:46 AM

California rebate brings total incentives to $10,000

Ford's upcoming Focus Electric may be a compact hatchback from a mainstream auto manufacturer, but it's priced more like an entry-level luxury sedan. The Focus Electric has a base MSRP of $39,995, which makes its a few thousand dollars more expensive than the smaller Nissan Leaf.
 
However, buyers in the U.S. can take advantage of a $7,500 federal tax credit to soften the blow. And now, Ford has announced that Californians that purchase a Focus Electric can take advantage of an additional $2,500 rebate under California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP) to bring total incentives to $10,000.


Ford Focus Electric [Source: Ford Motor Company]
 
The $2,500 rebate will no doubt come under scrutiny considering that California is facing an ongoing budget crisis. California State Controller John Chiang previously warned that the state could run out of cash by the end of this month.
 
“Californians have a legacy of embracing electric vehicles, and programs like the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program provide an excellent incentive for the continued wider adoption of electric vehicles,” said John Viera, Ford’s Global Director of Sustainability and Vehicle Environmental Matters.
 
The Ford Focus Electric features a 23 kWh lithium-ion battery pack mounted under the rear cargo area and a 123hp electric motor. It is rated at 105 miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe) and has a maximum driving range of 106 miles.

Sources: Ford, LA Times



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Disapointing
By KrayLoN on 3/13/2012 10:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter what incentives or tax credits you get.... the car will still cost you 40K to get into at the door and more if you want something other than the base model. I think if you want electric vehicles to become mainstream to help the environment, you need to price these vehicles where the majority of people can afford them.

One could argue that you can afford the monthly payment on fuel you save but what about the electric bill that goes up?

I drive a gas guzzling Dodge Challenger with 5.7L hemi right now. I was really considering selling it to buy either this or the focus hybrid when it was first announced. I get 18MPG which is going to kill me when gas goes up to $5.00 a gallon here in MI. My 30K vehicle is $500.00 a month and im guessing this 40K vehicle would be about 650-700 a month. Taking 15K miles and dividing it by 18 and multiplying by $5.00 a gallon is about $4200.00 in fuel for the year. That's about $350.00 a month in fuel.

So right now i'm going to be paying $850.00 a month for my car which is a fully loaded Dodge Challenger RT between fuel and the car payment.

If i get the focus base model my loan amount assuming i'm not putting anything down just like I did for my Dodge Challenger would be about $42400 which includes a 6% MI sales tax.
If i take a 72 month loan at 5.8% my car payment will be $700.00 a month. That is a savings of $150.00 a month without taking into consideration what it would cost me in my electric bill to keep it charged for the year.

Now based on the fact that this thing can go 100 miles before charging in one year I will need to charge it 150 times. I am assuming the 100 miles is not based on normal use and is rated if you do not turn the air on or use the raido or anything else.

Now take the fact that it would need 4 hours to get a full charge. That is 600 Hours of electricity used which is 50 hours a month.

At 50 hrs a month, how much will your electricity bill go up?

My guess is that my electricity bill is going to go up 150.00 to $200 a month... if not more because i would probably need to charge it more often from the fact that I would want to listen to the radio and have the AC on.

This is not worth me trading my Dodge Challenger RT which has 375HP and 400lb-ft torque and has a fantastic sounds system to something that is base model and gives me 123HP and 100lb-ft torque just to save the environment... and I am sure a majority of americans would feel the same way.




RE: Disapointing
By 225commander on 3/13/2012 2:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
^ this, the main reason 'why' most Americans wont buy any electric of phev right now. Not to mention the hosing you will take on trying to resell that 30k charger RT, putting you even further down the road to break even. which means that without the subsidy these cars would not sell at all. Over time the cost will come down and the first people to buy these are no different than early adopters except with a subsidy. I don't agree with it purely on principle of taking money from one to help another moderately well off person own some new tech. Saving money has been shown to be patently false as illustrated above. More likely is that as prices come down and people's current gas guzzler's start to age they *may* be replaced by an electric as the second vehicle. The other issue with the idea of making gas more at the pump to 'force' consumers into new elec/phev's is that not only does it hurt your monthly outlay in gas cost vs income, but also exaggerates the decline in value of your current gasser!
Double Whammy.


RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 4:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just an American thing. EV's are failing all around the world to sell.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 5:16:35 PM , Rating: 3
20k units world wide is "selling like mad"? I love the criteria you EV proponents use to determine success and failure.

The average buyer of a Leaf in the U.S has an income of around $130,000. Just another impracticable toy for the upper class.

quote:
Been driving a Nissan Leaf for two month now and am so happy be off of oil.


Clearly you're an unbiased observer then :-)

quote:
I'm sorry petroleum is not going to last forever Reclaimer77.


Neither are the compounds used to make batteries. Point?


RE: Disapointing
By Mint on 3/13/2012 5:36:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Neither are the compounds used to make batteries. Point?
Are you that dense? Can't you grasp maybe number A is much smaller than number B?


RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 5:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Mint there is far more recoverable oil on Earth to be discussing this. It's just another biased angle for EV proponents like yourself to harp on. We've supposedly been at "peak oil" for 30 years now, and we probably will be 30 years from now.

Again, I'm not arguing against EV's or for oil to last forever. Again, free market. If EV's really are the better technology today, why the subsidies?

Batteries are simply an inferior method to power a vehicle compared to gasoline ICE's. Sorry, this is a fact. The scale of economics don't even begin to support a mass adoption of EV's in the first place.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/13/2012 5:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've supposedly been at "peak oil" for 30 years now...


While you're correct, it's because the media listens to anyone who wants to talk their mouth off instead of going to actual backed-by-measurment sources. Here's an excellent set of videos discussing the exponential funtion and using actual measurements to estimate things like peak oil. It uses Math. Not belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature...

Video 5 discusses peak oil. I highly recommend that everyone watch all videos.


RE: Disapointing
By Mint on 3/13/2012 6:09:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Again, I'm not arguing against EV's or for oil to last forever. Again, free market. If EV's really are the better technology today, why the subsidies?
How many times do I have to explain this to you?

The point of subsidies is to kickstart the industry. Without the subsidies, you have a chicken and egg problem. Battery prices don't come down because nobody is buying them in auto volumes, and people aren't buying them in auto volumes because they're too expensive. There's a cost function like this:
http://origin-ars.sciencedirect.com/content/image/...
Nuclear power had the same issues. Without the government putting a cap on liabilities, how does the industry ever get started? It doesn't. That tweak was all that was 90% of what was needed to kickstart the industry.

If you're an automaker, do spend millions developing a car when the final price is going to be $10k too high and thus would only sell 1k units per year? Hell no. Do you lose money on each car until you sell enough that battery prices come down? You could, but then your competitors jump in without any of the bleeding in the first few years. So instead everyone waits. Throw in a very limited subsidy (0.1% of the auto industry), however, and things suddenly get moving.


RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 6:14:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The point of subsidies is to kickstart the industry.


In this case that's not the point. Open your eyes, look at what's going on in our Government.

quote:
Nuclear power had the same issues.


Nuclear power benefits EVERYONE. That's a terrible example. How is my taxes going to help my neighbor buying his Volt anything close to nuclear power?

quote:
If you're an automaker, do spend millions developing a car when the final price is going to be $10k too high and thus would only sell 1k units per year? Hell no.


GM apparently developed the Volt on their own before the bailout, without Government funds or a guarantee of a subsidy. So umm HELL YES, idiot.

Mint just do me a favor and fuck off about this, okay?


RE: Disapointing
By Mint on 3/13/2012 6:50:47 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't care about your conspiracy theories. It's a limited run EV credit, and it will spur cost reduction. It's already started.

A reduced trade deficit benefits EVERYONE. Lower gas prices benefit EVERYONE. Yes, genius, ramping up EVs two years earlier bends the cost curve of gas two years earlier. Even if gas is going up 5 years from now, it doesn't mean the price wouldn't be even higher without EVs.

GM developed the Volt while the HEV credit was $3400. The writing was on the wall. Even if the Volt was going to be produced without the credit, MSRP would be even higher without the credit because lower volumes always necessitate more profit.


RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 7:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
Reduced trade benefit? We'll be shipping millions of batteries from China and other countries yearly if EV's become mass adopted. They absolutely will NOT be produced here. That's a fact. What reduced trade? Please get a clue.

quote:
Lower gas prices benefit EVERYONE.


The push for EV's at the cost of purposefully restricting our supply of fuel isn't benefiting ANYONE. Please start comparing apples to apples here, because you haven't yet.

And don't call absolute documented facts a "conspiracy theory". CAFE increases, choking off supply, EV's subsidies. You must be blind to claim there isn't an agenda here. You just happen to agree with it, that's your problem.

quote:
It's a limited run EV credit, and it will spur cost reduction.


Reduction? In places like California a full QUARTER of the cost of EV's are being subsidized by taxpayers. That's a little bit more than a helping hand, Mint. If a fourth of the cost of something actually needs to be subsidized to spur "cost reduction", it's simply not ready for the market. Or it should be forced to stand on it's own.

You're on the losing side of this because you're afraid of something you claim to be believe in having to stand on it's own and competing on the open market. You lose. It's NOT the Governments responsibility or Constitutional mandate to pick winners and losers in the open market. YOU LOSE!

We're all suffering because of idiots like you. Don't sit here and tell me I have to pay for someone else's transportation just because it's more "green" than the alternative. How dare you sir!


RE: Disapointing
By Mint on 3/13/2012 8:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
By the time China replaces a significant portion of the EV batteries, the EV tax credit will be expired. Right now, companies are using batteries built in America and will continue to do so for a while. These battery plants probably wouldn't have been built without the demand fueled by the credit.

What agenda? You think there's a conspiracy to increase gas prices? If that was the case, then CAFE is the worst thing Obama could do: inefficient competition is what the EV makers want. What supply is being choked off? Keystone?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0309/In...
You think oil is just sitting in Canada without the pipeline? Nothing is being choked off. All Keystone will do is reduce the cost of transporting oil to Gulf Coast refineries, which currently export most of their oil.

If you don't believe battery cost projections in scientific journals, or don't think 200k sales will make a massive difference in battery costs, then there's nothing more I can say. Of course, I can already see you in a few years pretending that costs would have dropped anyway without any production in the meantime...


RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 9:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Mint you aren't going to SEE 200k EV sales at this rate for a ridiculous amount of time. We only have TWO realistically priced EV's to choose from, and one of them just stopped production entirely from lack of demand. What ass are you planning on pulling 200k EV sales out of?

quote:
Right now, companies are using batteries built in America and will continue to do so for a while.


Who? Only GM is as far as I can find. The Leaf's are made in Portugal. Tesla's oversees in Japan.

quote:
What agenda? You think there's a conspiracy to increase gas prices?


/facepalm

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,”

Steven Chu, US Energy Secretary

This administration has declared an all out WAR on oil drilling and exploration. Have you been in a closet?

quote:
What supply is being choked off?


Uninformed and ignorant, dangerous combination.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/23/10-things-you-...

I hope you get a clue one day.


RE: Disapointing
By Breathless on 3/14/2012 10:04:53 AM , Rating: 4
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,”

Steven Chu, US Energy Secretary

CHECKMATE


RE: Disapointing
By Mint on 3/14/2012 5:22:38 PM , Rating: 2
How dumb do you have to be to make a projection qualified by "at this rate"? There are 400k hybrid sales each year without a tax credit, and every one of those cars is only a bigger battery and a charger away from being a plug-in. I guarantee you that before 2014 you'll see plugins cost only a couple thousand more (after credit) than their hybrid counterparts. In a few years the latter won't even exist, because the payback time will only be a few years.

As for battery manufacturing, I already posted about it:
http://gm-volt.com/2011/04/15/lg-chem-opens-ochong...
http://green.autoblog.com/2012/03/09/nissan-will-d...
http://ir.a123systems.com/releasedetail.cfm?Releas...
GM, Ford, Nissan, Fisker all get their batteries from companies manufacturing them in the US, and they build almost all EVs sold in this country.

Stephen Chu can wish what he wants, but it's not going to happen. He wanted a carbon tax (or cap and trade) and Obama gave up on that without a fight. Please tell me how much drilling you think Obama prevented instead of continuing with this handwaving nonsense.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/is-obama-to-blame...
Though it's not like you're interested in facts when your Heritage Foundation link uses metrics that it wouldn't dream of using in Bush's 8 years.

Your conspiracy theory is rife with inconsistencies:
-The higher gas prices are, the lower his chances at re-election
-If he wanted higher prices, he would have at least tried cap and trade
-If he wanted to help his EV startup buddies, he wouldn't have pushed for CAFE. They want inefficient competition, not 60MPG cars that kill their sales.

One day you'll realize it's safe to take off that tin foil hat...


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/13/2012 5:30:31 PM , Rating: 1
"Selling like mad" in proportion to not selling at all is all relative. If you had 20k inventory and you sold 18k. That's pretty good. If you have 20k items and you have sold all of them and you have a waiitng list of over a year. That's awesome!
Sure if you compare it to the F150 then 20k is very small. But how many F150s does Ford make in the first place?

quote:
The average buyer of a Leaf in the U.S has an income of around $130,000. Just another impracticable toy for the upper class.

Not for every case though. I make 70k a year and I bought it without too much of a problem and yes I do also have a mortgage.
quote:
Clearly you're an unbiased observer then :-)

And I never said I was unbiased.

quote:
Neither are the compounds used to make batteries. Point?

Oil cannot be recycled. Lithium from old batteries can. It's more expensive but at that point battereis will use less lithium than current batteries for the same charge.


RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 5:50:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Oil cannot be recycled.


....

Okay.


RE: Disapointing
By Manch on 3/14/2012 9:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
You feel that vein in your head throbbing yet? lol

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=c...

Hopefully the morons will click on it and read it.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/14/2012 12:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
lol!

Your link talks about MOTOR oil (aka lubricant). Not oil that's burned as a fuel source which we're talking about.


RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2012 4:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
Why would you recycle something you are consuming? Stupid point you are trying to make in face of real facts.

44% of our electricity in the U.S is generated from burning coal. You can't recycle that last time I checked either. Yet you EV crowd paints a picture of a completely renewable power source. You people honestly believe a car can be powered for free apparently.


RE: Disapointing
By Mint on 3/14/2012 5:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, coal burning doesn't take place in a city with millions of people breathing the air.

More importantly, almost every new kWh generated is going to come from natural gas or wind. Natural gas is now cheaper than coal, and is the free market solution for new electricity, not coal. You should thank Obama/Chu for turning against their base and supporting nuclear, too, as without them the Nader types would keep it dead.

Take off every EV from the streets today and I seriously doubt that you burn an ounce less coal.


RE: Disapointing
By Cerin218 on 3/14/2012 9:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
"First of all, coal burning doesn't take place in a city with millions of people breathing the air."

You are sooooo right. It happens in a magical dimension where pollution is turned to fairy dust and pixie stix.

Either your car can make pollution or the plant that turns one source of energy into into another polluter. EV's don't solve a problem, they shift the problem. And Natural gas is still a fossil fuel.

"Take off every EV from the streets today and I seriously doubt that you burn an ounce less coal."

Replace every car in America with an EV and see if that is still true.

And then see if the owner of your company will let you charge it at work. Or your neighbors when you stop over for a visit. How about batteries in climates like mine that approach 10's of degrees below zero.


RE: Disapointing
By Mint on 3/15/2012 6:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that post completely flew over your head.

Electricity generation is centralized and remote. If 10,000 people inhale coal pollution, that's better than 1M people inhaling auto pollution. But none of that matters because of my next point:

Start replacing millions of cars with EVs, and no more coal gets burned. Natural gas does. It is now the cheapest way to generate electricity, and far cleaner burning than either coal or gasoline. Either that or wind, which I don't support, but that's another topic.


RE: Disapointing
By Manch on 3/15/2012 6:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
The article talks about the recycling of all oil. It leads off talking about motor oil bc that's what people are most familiar with. You said oil cannot be recycled. Not only can it be recycled, it can also be repurposed as fuel.

READ THE ARTICLE MORON! Not just the title or the first sentence. The ENTIRE ARTICLE. If you had you would have seen this.

quote:
There's about 1.3 billion gallons of used oil generated in the U.S. each year. Ten percent goes into a re-refining process like ours. The majority of that used oil is collected and sold as a combustible fuel, mainly used in power plants or industrial boilers.


And thats the best part. A lot of this used oil will be repurposed as fuel for power plants to charge your batteries.


RE: Disapointing
By Solandri on 3/13/2012 10:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oil cannot be recycled.

Actually it can, via biofuels. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking of oil as an energy source. Yes it can be, but it's also an energy storage medium.

In transportation applications, the primary role of the fuel is as an energy storage medium. Nobody really cares if your oil came from the ground, from grease left over from making french fries, or from processed algae. All that's important is that it contains a certain amount of energy per gallon. That's really where EVs have to compete if they want to succeed. Yes its price is lower compared to oil pumped from the ground. But if you advocate EVs because of that, what happens if successful biofuels drop the price of diesel to (say) $1/gal?

To compete as an energy storage medium, batteries, gasoline, biofuels, alcohol, hydrogen, liquid propane, compressed natural gas, compressed air, twisted rubber bands, hamsters in wheels all have to provide the following:

- High energy density per volume and weight
- Rapid and safe refills when the needle hits Empty
- Ease and safety of transporting the energy
- Low cost per Joule of energy delivered to the wheels

Electric batteries score very high on the last two, but are absolutely dismal at the first two. It's by no means certain that EVs are the future. Hydrogen sucks at all four, which is why I think it's out of the running as a transportation fuel. Gasoline scores very high at the first three, and has only recently become worse at the last metric.

Biofuels are pretty much identical to gasoline, except their cost is currently even higher. But with enough research the cost should drop down (it's basically solar energy, using plants/algae as your solar collectors). For this reason, unless there are major breakthroughs in electric battery energy density and charge rate, I think biofuels are going to become the energy storage medium of choice for transportation applications in the future.


RE: Disapointing
By FITCamaro on 3/14/2012 9:35:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Been driving a Nissan Leaf for two month now and am so happy be off of oil.


How about you drive to the next major city?

Whoops you can't because its too far.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/14/2012 11:30:29 AM , Rating: 2
And that matters because???

I never drove to the nearest city when I had a gas-powered car anyway.


RE: Disapointing
By tng on 3/14/2012 10:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've more than likely already passed peak oil (or we're very close (a year or two)) so gas prices will only go up.
Really? Is there anyone out there who still believes in "Peak Oil"? Despite what you hear from alarmists who push doom and gloom, oil is not going to run out anytime soon.

Carbon is one of the most abundant natural substances, huge amounts were trapped in the Earths crust as it formed. Billions of years later, compressed into Hydrocarbons, we now use it as fuel. Fossil fuel myths still are perpetuated even though there is good research to cast doubts on it.

Prices will continue to go up thanks to a weak Dollar, speculation, cartels that have no interest in lower prices, increased demand from places like China/India and people who push for cutbacks on production because of accidents like the BP incident.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/14/2012 11:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
It amazes me that people are so inclined to believe that hydrocarbons will last forever at our current consumption rates. Please watch these videos to understand how the exponential function works and why hydrocarbons will not last forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature...

PM me in 10 years and we'll see who was right ;)


RE: Disapointing
By tng on 3/14/2012 11:46:29 AM , Rating: 2
I understand the exponential function and yes we may run out of hydrocarbons someday. However, it wont be in my lifetime or my children's or even their children's lifetimes.

You seem to think that the system will continue as is supporting that exponential increase, it wont. Systems as complex as the total oil market are dynamic and change as different demands are put on them.

I didn't want anybody here to think that I am against any particular EV, they have their place, but I couldn't use one for my everyday commute. I just wanted to make the comment on the doom and gloom that peak oil proponents push, often to make a profit for themselves. Kinda like Al Gore in that way, position yourself favorably and start a crisis to make money off of it for you and your friends.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/14/2012 1:33:14 PM , Rating: 2
Oil consumption is not going to stop growing until the supply hits its output limit (peak oil). At this point supply will be so constrained that gas prices will spike up ($10/gal anyone?) and destroy the US economy.

If you truly follow the false belief that there is an almost unlimited supply of hydro-carbons in the earth than hopefully you're for doubling the number of oil drills and oil refineries. Otherwise there is no way we can even come close to producing as much oil as has ever been consumed, over the next 14 years (doubling rate). Otherwise the supply will be so constrained that gas prices will go through the roof destroying the US economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hubbert_peak_oil...

Peak oil does not mean the end of oil. What it means is the price of oil will spike. Anyone dependant on a regular and cheap supply of oil will not be able to continue. Will we have oil in 100 years? Sure. Will it be cheap? Hell no.


RE: Disapointing
By Reclaimer77 on 3/14/2012 4:14:48 PM , Rating: 1
And it amazes me that we've been at "peak oil" for the past 30 years somehow.

Nice video lol. Some crappy sensationalized "documentary" on Youtube. Man, I'm sold! Great source material citing too, oh wait, there are none. So it can't be fact checked at all.

Oil doesn't have to last "forever" by the way. It just has to last until something better comes along, at which point, the free market will choose it as it once chose oil.

Nothing you're saying justifies these subsidies or our reckless energy policy. All it does is increase prices and our debt. Which hurts everyone.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/14/2012 7:07:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nothing you're saying justifies these subsidies or our reckless energy policy. All it does is increase prices and our debt. Which hurts everyone.


I have not been arguing for the subsidies or the energy policy. Both political parties have added equally to the problems of energy and subsidies. I will say this though: Nuclear (Gen III+ or IV) is the only way to go for energy.

As for driving, the future is EV. CNG is less sustainable than our current fuel and hydrogen will always be 10 years away - ie it'll never happen (you either get H2 from hydro-carbons or water - which itself is vital for life!). Even if 100% of my electricty comes from coal I'm still as clean as a Prius and it's much easier to change a power source than a million vehicles.

I've driven 128 miles in a day (I could have gone further) and I will be able to go further once my employer installs a plug for me to plug into (normal 120 socket). Once shopping centers install charging stations (already a few around me) I'll have no difficulty getting anywhere.

I'm sorry that some people don't want the future to come. I'm personally very content to be able to drive 100 miles for $2.85 (free actually with solar panels on my house). I hope everyone will be able to experience the freedom from gas and its prices like me.


RE: Disapointing
By twhittet on 3/13/2012 2:21:07 PM , Rating: 2
I am also sure the majority of Americans will feel the same way.
Is your current car meant for the majority of Americans? No.
Is this car meant for the majority of Americans? No.

This car is a niche car, similar to yours. Different people value different things, and marketing and tax incentives can also (sometimes wrongly) sway people to a different direction.

Your numbers don't take into account vehicle trade-in, and are possibly otherwise skewed - but you are correct that this car won't make financial sense for most people. Not everyone could afford a car when they first came out either. Technology takes time, and it will be interesting to see where we are in 20 years.


RE: Disapointing
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 2:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This car is a niche car, similar to yours.
We know this. But right here in the same thread are people that advocate/want EV's to be mainstream and are making arguments for this as if it's feasible today. It's not and that's the point. Please read.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/13/2012 4:14:38 PM , Rating: 2
Note: I will use 100 miles a day for the max amount of electricity. You should not consider an EV if your daily driving takes you past 70 miles a day every day.

As for cost:
-If you drive 100 miles a day or ~23 kwh of electricity.
-Electric rate 12 cents (you'll need to find yours for correct amount)

23 kwh * 30 days * $.12 per kw = $83 per month in electricity.

For a 60 mile commute it'd be more like:
13.6 kwh * 30 days * $.12 per kw = $48.96

Over a year this'd be a total of:
Max Range a day: $996
~60 miles a day: $588

In KrayLoN's example that'd make the savings: (at 60 miles a day) be $9612 a year! Minus car payments it'd be ($700 a month): $1212 a year savings. The savings goes up as gas prices do.

I bought a Nissan Leaf 2 months ago and I love driving electric. I will never go back to gas. I had fear of how far I could drive the first week but after that all my fear was gone. (I do not live in a city, i live on the boundries of Denver, Colorado (outside of the 470 loop) and am still able to get where ever i need to go)


RE: Disapointing
By Mint on 3/13/2012 5:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
That's a bit unreasonable (it's silly to compare an 18MPG car to an EV), but cars last 17 years on average and it's going up.

Even if you need a replacement, somebody is going to save over the lifetime of the vehicle. That will be reflected in the used price, thus residuals, lease rates, and monthly costs. We just need an automaker to connect the dots...


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/13/2012 6:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
How's this:

My previous car was a 2005 Prius. I was able to get 45 miles per gal average.

At $3.50 per gal. It cost me 7.8 cents to drive a mile.
With my Leaf I can drive 4.2 miles per kw. 1 kw costs me 12 cents (free actually with solar panels on my roof) or 2.8 cents per mile.

To drive 12k miles a year it costs:
Prius: $0.078 * 12000 = $933.33
Leaf: $0.028 * 12000 = $342.86

I got $6,500 for the trade in. I got a good rate a little over 4% for 72 months for ~$550 a month.

I'm saving, over my Prius, ~$40 a month or $480 a year. With solar it's actually $4600 a year! With price going up it's only getting better.


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/13/2012 9:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
oops got carried away at the end:

To drive 12k miles a year it costs:
Prius: $0.078 * 12000 = $933.33
Leaf: $0.028 * 12000 = $342.86

I'm saving, over my Prius, $590 a year. With solar it's actually the full $933.33 a year! With gas prices going up it's only getting better.

Though for 6 years I will be down 5k car payments.


RE: Disapointing
By kattanna on 3/14/2012 11:36:16 AM , Rating: 2
im still waiting to see what kind of special tax will be placed on EV's since they dont use gas and therefore dont pay the taxes included with gas for highway/street maintenance


RE: Disapointing
By toffty on 3/14/2012 11:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
The best thing to do would tax every vehicle for the distance driven. Thus if you drive further you pay more. Drive less you pay less.


By jharper12 on 3/13/2012 10:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I aim for alliteration in my subject lines.

I'd like to see articles like this stick to facts, a better title, "Ford Focus Electric Qualifies for California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program - $10k In Total Rebates"

Ford qualified for the program, any manufacturer who qualifies will help their customers by allowing them to receive this credit. They aren't an evil corporation for qualifying for this rebate. Why even bring up the, "come under fire" stuff? People know California has a debt problem, and if they don't know that, why would you even want that person forming an opinion in the first place? People know this comes from taxes, and they know there are budget constraints. Don't suggest to people that they consider whether or not they should be outraged over the expenditure. People can draw their own conclusions.

Congrats to Ford and their potential Focus Electric buyers who will benefit from this program. If you're not a fan of the credit, don't hate on Ford, hate on policy makers.




Great car - just tested
By darcotech on 3/14/2012 7:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
Comparing to Nissan, Ford Focus is much higher offer with better quality and equipement.
I just tested it at Geneva Car show it is great.I also tested Leaf, while good, it is not as good as Ford Focus.

I think that this should be clear to all:
Electric cars are still not the mass market products like other ICE powered cars.So not easy to compare.I do not believe that this generation is cheaper but this step is needed to bring the economy of scale for this products and than it will be no brainer.

For the time been, it is recommended to the people that can afford it and use in their everyday.

- A monthly bill for electricity should go up gor no more than 100USD. How much do you spent for the same in gas?

- Centraly produced energy or solar panels at home are mcuh cleaner than any ICE engine. Your kids(and you) get to breath cleaner air. Not worth it for you?

- Less or no dependance to oil.Less war to be made around the world.Less taxes to go for that.Not worth it for you?

The effects are not in the short term, but they are definately positive and if I had money I would definately buy it.Even if I lose in the start, me and my kids benefits from this.




Education or yuppie cars
By lightfoot on 3/12/12, Rating: 0
Stupid
By chmilz on 3/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/2012 6:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention that CA is the worst place in the country to own an electric vehicle, because they have THE highest electric rates in the country. No wonder the government is paying people to buy these things!


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/12/2012 6:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
There are lower rate plans but they're still subject to tiered pricing (the more electricity you use the higher the rates). And from what I understand (I have not researched this part myself), you will more up to the next tier. The lowest rates are if you have a second meter but pricing can be $800 or $12,000 (depends on if they have to upgrade your service or even install a new transformer). And some towns will NOT allow a second meter install on a private residence.


RE: Stupid
By Bytre on 3/12/2012 7:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
Second meter added $400 to the cost of running a 220v line to my garage. With it, I get off hour electric rates of 12 cents per kWh, or about 3 cents per mile to drive a leaf.

I happily took advantage of the federal and state incentives totaling $10k. I would have bought the car without them, though.


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/12/2012 8:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, just wait. Obama wants a $10,000 federal credit :)


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 10:41:02 AM , Rating: 1
I couldn't get an answer from the usual suspects, so I'll ask you instead:

Why is that not worth it? 200k EV miles over the lifetime of a car = 5000+ gallons = 250+ barrels = $25k lopped off the trade deficit. That's underestimating the car's life, and I'm not even considering environmental benefits.

This is precisely the kind of investment that the US government SHOULD be doing to improve the long term economy: Substitute $25k of a foreign resource with domestic production (car + electricity), and it costs only $10k. On top of that, the $10k stays in the country and will ultimately come back to the gov't in increased revenues anyway.

This is not one of those things that substitutes one US product for another and that last statement is just selective bookkeeping.

This directly leads to increased GDP, lower TCO (after credit), ultimately lower gas prices for all, and reduces urban air pollution. Why on earth are so many people on this blog dogmatically opposed to it?


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid
By Ringold on 3/13/2012 11:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
Environmental benefits? What environmental benefits? We'd be substituting relatively clean gasoline for, mostly, coal-powered electricity. Sounds like a wash to me there, at best. Plus whatever goes in to making those batteries.

Chasing a balanced current account is also too complicated to try to pin on a car subsidy. If, say, the batteries ended up being made in Canada or Mexico, well, then your policy would've failed. There's better ways of going about that, because unlike what you said, there is no gaurentee that everything would be in the US or stay in the US. Unless, of course, we throw yet more subsidies at it.

Also questionable to assume it'd boost GDP. Assuming it has a positive impact on trade, then there is that adjustment for the net foreign factor, but taxes inherently are robbing Peter to pay Paul. There's efficiency losses there and inflationary implications, so the real, as opposed to nominal, GDP gains are dubious at best to speculate on. The impact of many government pick-a-winner schemes tends to be negative on growth, so it's not nearly such a slam-dunk case as you present. Economics isn't that easy. "There's no such thing as a free lunch."


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 12:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
So I put a sentence saying I'm NOT considering environmental benefits, and that's the first thing you attack? BTW, you're wrong: Every new kWh consumed in the US will be generated by natural gas or wind (because natural gas is the cheapest now, and hopefully nuclear keeps moving forward), and gasoline is not nearly as clean as decentralized power.

Nice theory, but the batteries are not made in Canada or Mexico:
http://gm-volt.com/2011/04/15/lg-chem-opens-ochong...
http://green.autoblog.com/2012/03/09/nissan-will-d...
Virtually all electricity used in the US is generated here. Almost all EVs (cars in general) sold in the US are built here.

If the numbers were a wash, or if these weren't built in the US, or if we didn't have underemployment, I couldn't be making this GDP claim. However, the disparity is large enough that these quibbles you bring up won't change my central argument. We won't rob Peter to pay Paul, because we are borrowing a real rate of -1% or -2%, and taxes from additional domestic activity will pay it back.

I am NOT endorsing this kind of gov't activity in general. It's a specific case that makes sense from all parties. If you want to oppose it for philosophical purposes ONLY while admitting that it's a good move otherwise, go right ahead and I will respect that, but that is not what 99% of the people here are doing.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 1:04:18 PM , Rating: 2
(EDIT: Oops, I meant centralized power. Burning gasoline in cities hurts health a lot more than a natural gas plant away from the city.)


RE: Stupid
By Ringold on 3/13/2012 1:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every new kWh consumed in the US will be generated by natural gas or wind


Now that's a good point, marginal load on the grid will be met by clean fuels, if not renewable ones. I *think* I read just last week that for 2011 more new capacity added was renewable than fossil fuel powered. I concede this point, good sir!

quote:
Nice theory, but the batteries are not made in Canada or Mexico:


I know they're mostly made here now, but considering how many vehicles and the parts that go in them are currently sourced from our neighbors, and particularly considering how Canada would probably like a piece of that EV pie, seems folly to assume that our dominance would be maintained if that market were to balloon.

Not that it bugs me really if Canada or Mexico gets more jobs; wealthier neighbors is good for the US too.

quote:
We won't rob Peter to pay Paul, because we are borrowing a real rate of -1% or -2%, and taxes from additional domestic activity will pay it back.


Those negative real rates will last only until people figure out better things to do with their money than sit in Treasuries, losing value, terrified to invest elsewhere. Barring that, they'll spike if, after this election, the new government (be it Obama and Democrats or Republicans) seems to have no plan to cut this trillion-dollar-a-year BS out and combat entitlement spending.

The latter part there is just supply-side growth theories in reverse; tax cuts leave more money in the private sector, which generates more activity, which generates more taxes.

Really, I think you're just a little early. I see companies investing in battery tech with their own money enough to not need help, especially for applications in different industries (mobile tech). Wait a few years and I think EV ranges could be significantly improved, and cheaper. In fact, don't know why within a decade or so this may even still need subsidies. Just seems more efficient to me to keep our taxpayer money idle and let the free market keep going in its present direction, which is vastly improved batteries that should enable EV's for most people. That'd avoid market distortion and spending, while requiring just a little patience while the forces of Darwin bring the best EV/battery technologies to the surface, rather than risk blowing money on an automotive Solyndra.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 3:09:41 PM , Rating: 1
As an aside, I'm not actually convinced about how fossil-fuel-free renewables are. It's not just construction and EROEI, but the intermittency is brutal, even when you theoretically connect everything together. If without wind you can run a 60% efficient CCGT plant fairly steady, but ramping up and down to fill in the blanks left behind by wind/solar means you need to use 40% efficient OCGT, what did you really save? Renewables need energy storage to be really effective, but that's unfortunately a really tough nut to crack.
quote:
I know they're mostly made here now, but considering how many vehicles and the parts that go in them are currently sourced from our neighbors, and particularly considering how Canada would probably like a piece of that EV pie, seems folly to assume that our dominance would be maintained if that market were to balloon.
Well this credit isn't indefinite. It's only 200k cars. In 2-3 years economies of scale will bring the cost down and the credit won't be needed anymore. Right now everything is built in the US, and that's all that matters w.r.t. my argument.

I don't expect subsidies in 10 years either. It's just here for a kick start. The reason they help investment is that without them, the first company to invest would take the brunt of the early losses while battery/electronics/motor costs remain high and sales low.

PHEV in particular should be really close to price parity. Hybrids today are cheap enough to sell well (400k+ this year), so why can't someone just add a few thousand dollars worth of batteries and a charger for a similar price increase? Everything else is already there.


RE: Stupid
By Keeir on 3/13/2012 1:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote>Why is that not worth it? 200k EV miles over the lifetime of a car = 5000+ gallons = 250+ barrels = $25k lopped off the trade deficit.

Lets start here.

A.) 200k EV miles is fairly generous. Given the limited range, and eventual degrading of the battery over time, any initial sub 100 mile EV will be lucky to be used to 200k. This is -20- years of 10,000 miles a year.

PHEV or longer range EV will probably get there. But a Leaf is going to have less than 40 miles per charge at 20 years of life.

B.) "5000" gallons of gas do come from 250 barrels of oil. But so do ~3000 gallons of Diesel and 2000 gallons of other important petroleum products.

A more fair number here is

150,000 miles (15 years of usage before battery replacement)/ 50 miles per gallon/ .8 (refining and transportation issues) / 42 gallons per barrel (A drum is 55) = 90 Barrels of Oil.

Even if we take ~125 dollars a barrel, this incentive is going to save ~11,000.

Now, the federal government will forgoe approx. 660 dollars in gasoline taxes as well and the state will (california) will give up around 900.

So the Federal Government and the State of California spend 10,000 today (all borrowed) to potentially save ~100 barrels of oil importation in the future.

This is at best a break even concept, and wouldn't pass any ROI investment criteria I've ever used.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 2:38:24 PM , Rating: 2
I think for a while EV buyers will be those that have higher daily mileage, e.g. 50 miles x 300 days/yr, as it makes sense for them before it makes sense for everyone else. Remember that his credit is currently only set for the first 200k cars, and I'm not endorsing the expansion to 2M or anything. I also expect replacement batteries down the road for a lot less (check out Dailytech's Envia article, and consider that a 15yo EV with a new battery can still save a lot of running costs), so an EV built today could even hit 300k given the drivetrain simplicity.

As for the amount it affects imports, fine, use 0.8*42 gallons per barrel (I don't agree, but whatever). But 50MPG? Only a Prius gets that. The direct replacement for this model is a regular Focus, and it gets ~33MPG. I think 40MPG is more than fair.

Even with your insight, I still think it's 200k+ / 40MPG / (0.8*42 gal/b) = 150 barrels. Remember that borrowing costs are all ass backwards nowadays for the gov't: real interest rate is -1.1% for 5y, 0% for 10y.

I appreciate your post, but I still think it's a clear win. Don't forget that this is only a trade analysis. The tax credit also reduces lifetime cost per mile for the car's owner(s).


RE: Stupid
By Keeir on 3/13/2012 3:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for the amount it affects imports, fine, use 0.8*42 gallons per barrel (I don't agree, but whatever).


Reading comprehension.

I used 150,000 miles/50 --> 3,000 /.8 --> 3750/42 --> 90

Data from the Leaf/Nissan

Average Trip Length: 7 miles
#1 Car owned side by side: Prius
Combined Household Income: 140,000

BTW, this was when California/Federal Rebates were topping 14,000 (7,500 + 5,000 + 2,000 charger)

The Leaf is projected to lose as much as 30%+ of its battery capacity in 10 years. After 20 years, its EPA rating will be less than 40 using best case senario.

UC Davis did a Study of the Mini-E and found that ~70% drove less than 40 miles a day.

The message is clear, even with 73-100 miles of EPA range, a typical purchase of an electric car doesn't mean people start using their car more. Quite the -reverse- I would think. The car is no longer capable of driving long distances and thus would not long the ~1,000 or so miles driven.

Today the average electric car purchase displaces a Prius for a upper middle class family and is used ~20-30 miles a day.

Over the lifetime of the battery (the object of the subsidy), the battery will displace ~100 barrels of oil (on average 60 imported).

The cash "savings" which are experience by the purchaser of the car come no where near the required amount to generate the type of return that would justify the subsidy from this angle. Health and Environmental issues -might-...


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 4:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reading comprehension.

I used 150,000 miles/50 --> 3,000 /.8 --> 3750/42 --> 90
Yeah, I know. You used 150k / 50MPG / (0.8*42) = 90. I say it should be 200k / 40MPG / (0.8*42) = 150. Where am I lacking reading comprehension?

I read the Mini study (thanks), and only people near service centers selected to lease (in traffic heavy cities where people try not to drive as much), and people said that it being a 2-seater with no cargo room held them back from more usage. I don't think you can draw conclusions from that. As for the 7 mile average trip, read all the info:
http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/10/nissan-says-lo...
37 miles per day * 15y = 200k, and the car likely isn't dead yet either. In 2027, someone will put a refurbished battery in it for $2k and prevent another 50-100k miles being run on an old car by someone that can't afford anything else, but we can ignore that if you want.

Just because the #1 car owned side by side is a Prius doesn't mean they all are, nor does it mean that all miles on an EV displace Prius miles. 40MPG displaced is very reasonable, 50MPG is not.

So I'm sticking to $15-25k lifetime saved imports per EV.


RE: Stupid
By ender707 on 3/13/2012 2:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that it is saving YOU 25K in foreign oil at the expense of 10K from the rest of US. I can not afford a 30K car, so when my CA tax refund comes up light, I will just feel warm and fuzzy inside knowing I helped save you a little bit of money :)

Not necessarily you in particular, but you get the idea


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 6:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing the crux of the argument. All that would-be foreign oil spending is done domestically instead, and because we have underemployment, without displacing other economic activity. This economic activity now, the generation of more electricity in the future, and all the chain reactions after that, are what create government revenue to pay back the loan (which, BTW, is borrowed at ~0% interest nowadays).

My argument doesn't work in a normal economy, or with Chinese produced cars, or all domestic oil. It works for the situation that we are in now.


RE: Stupid
By mikeyD95125 on 3/12/2012 9:17:49 PM , Rating: 1
Why are you attacking him? The guy is taking advantage of the current regulatory environment to save himself 10 huge ones. Sounds like the obviously smart thing to do.

I'm pretty sure Brandon and Jason write these types of articles just for you, as you generate many hits and comment posts with your tired ideological rants.

I guess this is a personal comment to you Reclaimer:

I lurk this blog posts and news articles for a while now, and your opinions haven't really developed at all. You seem like an individual who can comprehend information and respond to criticism. However, I feel like you are stuck on the Fox News ticker, and not really evaluating ideas outside the false Liberal/Conservative dichotomy.

I believe you are intelligent. You just need to get outside all that pop politics crap, cause really there is no truth in that stuff.

I guess I just hope that instead of following the circus you will do a little philosophy and figure the real problems we face.


RE: Stupid
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/12/2012 9:25:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why are you attacking him? The guy is taking advantage of the current regulatory environment to save himself 10 huge ones. Sounds like the obviously smart thing to do.


I'll have to agree with this sentiment. If it's there to take advantage of, you'd be an IDIOT not to take it. I'm sure that even the people that are so against these tax credits would use them come tax time.

Child care tax credit? Home mortgage interest deduction? Hell, my wife and I took full advantage of the $8,000 first-time homebuyer's tax credit when we bought our house in 2009.

You think we're gonna leave that money sitting on the table? Fahgetaboutit!


RE: Stupid
By kjboughton on 3/13/12, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid
By Dorkyman on 3/13/2012 10:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
It's generally agreed that California is a textbook example of poor government run by special-interest groups, primarily public unions.

This latest decision demonstrates that they have not yet reached bottom. This will be interesting to watch now that the Feds can't/won't bail them out any more.


RE: Stupid
By NellyFromMA on 3/13/2012 8:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
... just like welfare right...

You could apply that statement to anything. It doesn't mean you're being a responsible citizen....

In fact, you sound like Mitt Romney a bit when you say that...

I guess that's American culture now. entitltement, regardles of reality and the fact that things actually still have to be paid for, even if not by you.

I'm not judging you yourself, but the comment you make is disheartening because its irresponsible and yet popular...

Sad, really.

I get what you're saying though. It speaks to the flaws in our tax system as well but people easily and conveniently forget, its special interest lobbying that gets this silly niche credits passed, and they pander to businesses and you with no regard for the fact that government still has to actually pay for these things...


RE: Stupid
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 3/13/2012 9:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
So let me get this straight...

You're a first time homebuyer and you qualified for the 8,000 tax credit, you would...
You buy a diesel vehicle that qualifies for a $3,500 tax credit, you would...

I'm not saying that it's the most fiscally responsible thing for the government to do to hand out these credits, but are you honestly telling me that you'd just "pass" on both of those credits because it's the "responsible" thing to do?


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/12, Rating: 0
RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 11:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know people who lost their job and refused to go on unemployment, out of principle. Even though their employer paid into unemployment insurance and that money is due to them.
I get the other stuff but I sure don't get this one. Why wouldn't you take unemployment? I take it you don't have a family, do you?


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 12:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying I wouldn't. Just an example from other people.


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 12:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not saying I wouldn't. Just an example from other people.
Oh gotcha.


RE: Stupid
By FITCamaro on 3/13/2012 1:18:30 PM , Rating: 2
I have no problem with state run unemployment. I have huge problems with the federal government providing almost three years worth of unemployment benefits. Nothing but trying to hide just how bad things are.


RE: Stupid
By NellyFromMA on 3/13/2012 1:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
No, Brandon, I didn't say I would pass or not pass on anything. However, I'm pretty active in both addressing the REAL problem (re-read the last part of my post...) and trying to promote responsibility among all.

By your response, if I wanted to take it at superficial value like in essence you did to mine, I could say that you look at 'responsiblity' (for some reason you quoted it as if it were a myth?) as something that maybe doesn't apply to you in the face of profit.

Now, that might be wrong, and I even tried to give you the benefit of the doubt there a little in my response as well, but then when you respond like this... actually, you are proving my point....


RE: Stupid
By Arsynic on 3/13/2012 9:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
That money isn't on the table, but in your other pocket. You're stealing money from one pocket to put in the other.


RE: Stupid
By Cerin218 on 3/14/2012 9:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
What you basically did was steal $8,000 from your fellow citizens. That simple. The government has taken money from all, and decided to gift a few with an unfair advantage. Which is all our tax code really is, the ability for the government to exercise favoritism. Why do you deserve 8K for buying a house, when others who didn't buy a house get nothing? Most people will take the money if offered, but the fundamental issue that the sane have here, is that it shouldn't be offered. It is not the governments place to decide winners and losers. Especially not while benefiting private companies. I don't really understand what makes you and the other people here feel that it is okay to take from your fellow citizens. If you can't afford it, you need to work harder and make more money, the government should GIVE you money simply because they've determined that you are more deserving than another. All the while the idiots rant about the 1% not paying when those who did are watching the money fly out of their pocket benefiting others. But of course this is how collectivism works.

From each according to ability, to each according to need. Sound familiar. That's what your EV tax credit is.

So be proud that in this instant you benefit over others.


RE: Stupid
By Dan Banana on 3/18/2012 12:46:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you basically did was steal $8,000 from your fellow citizens. That simple. The government has taken money from all, and decided to gift a few with an unfair advantage. Which is all our tax code really is, the ability for the government to exercise favoritism. Why do you deserve 8K for buying a house, when others who didn't buy a house get nothing?


The incentive is for using energy in a more efficient manner. If you don't want to participate you are completely free not to. If you don't like the policy you are free to vote for someone else with policies you like. Try to become a big boy though and stop being a whiner because no one is taking the money from you, it's a TAX CREDIT and that's not a tax increase.


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: Stupid
By Ringold on 3/12/12, Rating: -1
RE: Stupid
By FITCamaro on 3/13/2012 8:35:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Meanwhile, in reality, a black man lit up our primary season probably like no other candidate, and they're the ones looking down their nose.


Yup. They did to Cain what they've tried to do to every conservative black man who enters the national stage. Same thing happened to Clarence Thomas. When Bush nominated him, he was attacked with allegations of sexual misconduct. All turned out to be false. Just as with Cain. Was nothing but broke women out of Chicago who'd falsely accused him of harassment in the past wanting free money from the media to bring it up again.

I was excited about Cain as candidate(mostly, he still had issues) because he wasn't a politician. But oh right I believe in a small, limited government so I must be an inbred, racist hick with no teeth who lives in the backwoods clinging to my guns and religion.


RE: Stupid
By corduroygt on 3/13/2012 2:16:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I believe in a small, limited government so I must be an inbred, racist hick with no teeth who lives in the backwoods clinging to my guns and religion.

While there is nothing wrong with wanting a small limited government, the reason you're an inbred racist hick with no teeth who lives in the backwoods clinging to your guns and religion is because you say absolutely stupid and ignorant garbage like "evolution is just a theory..."


RE: Stupid
By ebakke on 3/12/2012 10:32:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
It's also wrong for the Government, state and federal, to be asking taxpayers to subsidize the purchases of certain vehicles that only benefit such few.
They asked you? Lucky. They threatened me with prison time if I didn't hand over my cash.

"Jokes" aside, I'm with Brandon on this one. It's simply foolish not to utilize every possible thing that can benefit you in our obscene tax code. I'm completely with you Reclaimer, that the tax code and the subsidies are nothing short of absurd. We should vote against them, and work to elect those who will change the system. But in the meantime, short of trying to stand on some moral high ground, it makes absolutely no sense to deny yourself the most economically beneficial outcome.


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 10:06:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But in the meantime, short of trying to stand on some moral high ground, it makes absolutely no sense to deny yourself the most economically beneficial outcome.


Well I guess I'm taking that high ground. I don't need an EV or help from the Government. Certainly not for my own personal transportation. I honestly couldn't live with myself if I did that.

But let's be clear, if we're talking about electric cars, there IS no economically beneficial outcome in the first place. We're all going to be paying it back in one form or another, later if not sooner.


RE: Stupid
By Dorkyman on 3/13/2012 10:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
Remember the movie "Chinatown?"

At the end of the movie the guy says "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown!" as a way of explaining that common sense didn't apply there.

Well, this is California, the very definition of poor government and unfair redistribution of wealth.

Forget it, it's just California.


RE: Stupid
By ebakke on 3/13/2012 11:34:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I honestly couldn't live with myself if I did that.
Fair enough.
quote:
But let's be clear, if we're talking about electric cars, there IS no economically beneficial outcome in the first place.
Sure, agreed. But there are plenty of other examples. As others have already mentioned: mortgage interest deduction, child deductions, energy efficiency tax credits, the first time homebuyer tax credit, cash for clunkers, etc.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 1:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure those other deductions are there as a way to get more spending power into the middle class.

Well, that and the votes they get...


RE: Stupid
By ebakke on 3/13/2012 1:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Not taking the money in the first place would get more spending power into the middle class. But that wouldn't do much for buying votes.

Make no mistake, the US tax code is entirely about getting and maintaining power.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 1:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But let's be clear, if we're talking about electric cars, there IS no economically beneficial outcome in the first place. We're all going to be paying it back in one form or another, later if not sooner.
Wrong. I pointed out the benefits to you very clearly and all you could do is make some Kool-Aid quip.

This is a very specific case. If we produced all our oil here, I would have no case. If the economy was like it was 15 years ago, I'd have no case. If EVs sold here weren't built here, I'd have no case. If we imported electricity and couldn't build more generation, I'd have no case. However, none of these are true. We have a confluence of factors that makes this an economically sound incentive.


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 1:08:39 PM , Rating: 1
Wrong.


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 1:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify, anytime there is an economic benefit for something, real or gimmick'd up (your technique), we need the Federal Government to come in and oversee it and subsidize it?

You people are so transparent it's hilarious. We all know this is just more of the same anti-oil crap that's leading us to prohibitive gas prices and nonsensical energy policies.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 3:54:13 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not endorsing everything the gov't spends on. I disagree with most left wingers about stimulus in this economy, because while I think it does improve aggregate demand, IMO once you remove it you're back to square one. I just want taxation high enough to pay for the basics (and that includes SS/healthcare/welfare) when the private market can't find anything for the unemployed to do despite people desperate for work and rock bottom cost of capital. But the way I come up with what falls under 'basics' is not rigid.

Consider a society without a police force and relying on private security. Maybe each house in a neighborhood hires some company. However, some of them think that they don't have to pay for it because everyone around them is protected. More people do the same, and the others get mad at them for not pulling their weight while their fees go up to compensate. Then to retaliate they tell the company to explicitly not protect certain houses, and those houses get someone else, and it all becomes this inefficient clusterfuck. If they all just had some rules to fix how much everyone contributed, then you can go back to a single security force that works better and costs way less. Eventually it just becomes the police.

Sometimes gov't action just makes sense. Another example is how mindblowingly expensive health care is in the US. In a free market, buyers need to evaluate the product the buy in order to achieve optimization. How can the free market optimize health care when it takes 10 years of post-secondary education to simply understand if you bought what you think you did?

Again, I don't think the gov't should step in all or even most the time. However, sometimes it just makes sense. This is one of those cases, and it took a perfect mix of circumstances to happen. Otherwise it would just be a hippie thing, and I rarely agree with that (see my post above for why renewable energy rather sucks, or my support for nuclear).


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 4:13:11 PM , Rating: 1
Mint you're in such a heap over this with police examples and health care...just..wrong. Wrong. You've failed to make a case for these subsidies.

You're entire argument, that oil is something evil that we MUST rid ourselves of, is the false premise you've built upon.

You brought up the free market. Free markets have a built-in ability to use the cheapest, most effective, most efficient method of something. That's what they do. That's why petroleum fuels from oil are THE primary method of transportation around the whole world. If something better existed, the free market would be USING it.

It's not the job of our Government, no matter how much "sense" you think it makes, to interfere in this process and redistribute money to effect a change in the type of vehicles consumers buy. This creates, among other poor consequences, artificial bubbles when the subsidies go away. Or ARE they ever going to go away?


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 5:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I say that it's something we MUST rid ourselves of?

I don't know why you have this obsession with twisting my argument into something it's not. I am not making a philosophical point. I am not being a hippie. I am not being an environmentalist. I am simply examining the facts as they lie in our particular situation.

Free markets do local optimization on things they can see. It is NOT a "built-in ability to use the cheapest, most effective, most efficient method of something". That is an illusion you are under because you don't understand the fundamental processes at play. Many times you will get an optimal solution, just like many times Newtonian mechanics will give you a correct answer, but sometimes you won't. It's a shame that you couldn't put two and two together to see that my examples showed you precisely that, so clearly I wasted my time. If you can't understand that, surely you must understand the benefits of public research.

The government is not going to create a bubble with an EV policy affecting 200k cars worth a sum of $1.5B in credits over several years in an industry worth $500B/yr to the economy. No matter how much hyperbolic trite you wrap yourself up in, 0.1% will remain 0.1%.


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 5:31:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well you can make all the crap numbers up you want ($500 billion a year worth HAHAHA). This subsidy is wrong and should not be happening.

Mint maybe you haven't noticed, but we're broke. And there are certainly more important things for Congress to be worrying about than what's in our goddamn driveways.

quote:
Free markets do local optimization on things they can see. It is NOT a "built-in ability to use the cheapest, most effective, most efficient method of something".


When it comes to commodities like oil, sorry, you are flat out WRONG! 100%. I dare you to disprove this with specifics.

quote:
If you can't understand that, surely you must understand the benefits of public research.


How is favoring car companies and models with a massive subsidy for selling EV's "public research" again?

This isn't research, it's market meddling!


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 7:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
God, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

I gave you a specific example already. You think it's impossible for there to be a chicken and egg problem with batteries replacing the commodity of oil? Does that mean it's impossible for there to be a chicken and egg problem with nuclear power replacing the commodity of coal?

I never said the EV subsidies are equivalent to public research. I said public research is yet another example of how the free market doesn't necessarily find the optimal solution on its own. Once again, local optimization vs. something more advanced.


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 8:01:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
God, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.


Which is at it should be. Because your ideas are as anti-capitalist and wrong as can be. I'm giving you NO quarter.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 8:36:45 PM , Rating: 2
What's the matter? Gave up when you finally painted yourself into a corner?

Government subsidies helped nuclear power become more cost effective than coal! NOOOOO!!! How could my precious free market have failed to do it by itself?


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 9:03:07 PM , Rating: 1
Again, NO comparison. Nuclear power and EV's? Really? EV's cost like $30k to make, a few million in R&D. Power plants cost hundreds of millions. And unlike EV's, there is a true and tangible benefit for everyone.

Also coal plants got subsidies too. Honestly your argument has such massive holes in it, it's humorous how hard you're trying while missing the point.

Coal accounts for 44% of power generation in the U.S. Nuclear is 20%. I would say coal is competing quite nicely. Whatever point you think you made, the facts have buried it.

Not to mention that the biggest roadblock to building a nuclear plant isn't the free market, it's the Government. The Government is also responsible for the inflated costs going into a nuclear facility.

This is about the dumbest analogy you could have used in your EV argument, nuclear power. There's such a massive disconnect between the auto and nuclear industry.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/14/2012 5:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
You keep bringing up irrelevant facts.

EVs cost $30k, but in order to hit the 10-100k volume needed to bring high-cycle batteries down in cost, it needs billions. There's no other market for those batteries aside from some niche grid applications. None of the battery plants I linked to would have existed without the gov't supporting EVs.

Nuclear is 20%, but it may be 0% without the government capping liabilities, and at the very least would have been delayed many years. Or do you think the "free market" is one where a corporation can mess around with atomic power without any responsibility for waste, accidents, etc?

You didn't bury anything. All you did was dodge the fact that I fully answered your challenge: Nuclear power needed gov't help to become a viable alternative to the commodity of coal when it did. I don't even know where you came up with that theory about commodities.


RE: Stupid
By Cerin218 on 3/14/2012 9:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
How many sales of EV's would there be WITHOUT subsidies? JUst like what would the demand for Ethanol be WITHOUT subsidies.

Your whole argument is how because the demand and the technology don't exist to make EV's viable, the government should step in and do so. They aren't viable because there is a current cheaper and more efficient solution in oil. Period. You have NO argument against it. It's like telling us that Amtrak is good even though it wouldn't exist if it weren't subsidized. If you need a subsidy, your product is a failure. Capitalism will ALWAYS find what succeeds in the marketplace.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/15/2012 7:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously haven't been paying attention.

No, capitalism won't ALWAYS find the optimal solution as fast as possible. I gave an example of how it wouldn't have found nuclear power by itself, because not only would the research not have taken place for many years, but the liabilities without a gov't cap would have been too high.

Say you have a cost reduction curve like this:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HiNiv139i60/SbdfDvbH1BI/...
We know the Leaf sold 10,000 in the US in a little over a year. So battery packs cost $375/kWh, or $9k/pack. With the subsidy, payback time is something like ~10 years over a $5k cheaper Prius, so it's worth it. After the subsidy runs out (just like the hybrid one did), you're at a volume of nearly 100k/year, battery cost is $4k less, other parts are $5k less, and the car sells itself.

Without the subsidy and assuming the same sales, it would be 20+ years payback, so that assumption is false, and the battery cost is now $15k. Now the price goes up to $45k, and buyers never achieve payback, so the only people who buy it are those that aren't looking that. Nissan may not even bother, as sales are projected at maybe 2k. None of the three battery plants in the US mentioned earlier would have been built. No other application needs these high-cycle batteries, so volume stays low. Battery cost reductions fall behind 5 years, and capitalism settles for gasoline in the meantime.

That's the logic here. We didn't do it 5 or 10 years ago because it didn't make sense then. It does now.


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 12:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
If there is any consolation Rec, no one gets the full $7500 UNLESS they owe $7500 in taxes. If someone gets a refund, there is no tax credit. That said, the CA deal is a rebate so everyone buying a qualifying EV will get that which sucks cause we really can't afford that here.

PS - I noticed that Rec got a rate down after a reply I made to him. My comment was to NOT bash him. I respect Rec's opinions, value his contributions here and wish I had his zeal. Please stop rating him down.


RE: Stupid
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2012 10:01:59 AM , Rating: 2
Ah Spuke, my brother from another mother. You are as constant as the northern star friend, thank you for your words and inspiring insight.


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 11:58:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are as constant as the northern star friend, thank you for your words and inspiring insight.
No, thank you for not drinking the kool aid.


RE: Stupid
By Keeir on 3/13/2012 2:03:49 AM , Rating: 3
I'm with you on this, Bytre was pretty smug about taking the credits.

Made me angry just to read the sentence.


RE: Stupid
By Ringold on 3/12/2012 10:24:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With it, I get off hour electric rates of 12 cents per kWh


The advantage of living not far from a well established nuclear plant: I can guzzle all the power I want, for .11/kWh, any time of the day. It'd be lower probably if not for the town long outgrowing that plant, probably just as much gas and coal electricity coming to me as that.


RE: Stupid
By lennylim on 3/12/2012 7:03:09 PM , Rating: 4
The rates may not make sense compared to the rest of the country, but the mild climate around SF and LA metro area is ideal for electric cars. No need to run the heater most of the year (major power drain) and no freezing temperature that causes battery output to drop. BTW this is not a new tax credit, it had existed for at least 2 years now, and was reduced from $5000 to $2500. It's only "new" for the Focus Electric, because the Focus Electric is new.


RE: Stupid
By FITCamaro on 3/13/2012 8:39:00 AM , Rating: 1
Hence why its a bastion of bad liberal ideas. Much of it only works in a place like California. They fail/don't care to think about the rest of the country and the fact that they have months of rain, snow, high heat, etc. But hey let's shove it on the rest of the country anyway so the hippies can sit around feeling good about themselves.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/13/2012 11:31:18 AM , Rating: 1
So you just assume that manufacturers will sell non-working cars in climates that can't support them? How about you put an iota of thought into your posts first?

The Focus Electric has a cooling/heating system for its batteries to keep everything in optimal range. An electric heater starts very quickly while engine heat takes some time, so that's an advantage for an electric car. The power draw is only a few hundred watts once the car is warm, and while getting it there could use some energy, it's not like a 20% change that flips the cost equation upside down. Remember that gasoline engines use more gas in the cold as well. Can't figure out why you mentioned rain...

The country is looking for jobs and things to produce, and will continue to do so for quite a while. The gov't pays $10k to subsidize an EV, and over its life you'll get $25k+ of foreign oil replaced by domestic production (EVs, batteries, electricity). That's not only net growth, but the subsidy will pay itself back. It IS a good idea for the whole country even without any hippie considerations at all.

You think this is a "bastion of bad liberal ideas"? This is as win-win as it gets. Don't jumble this together with other green initiatives like wind/solar which have much more questionable economic (and even environmental) benefits for a variety of complex reasons.


RE: Stupid
By FITCamaro on 3/13/2012 1:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
If they're so awesome why do we need to subsidize them?

And the only reason we import so much unrefined oil (which doesn't even stay here necessarily once its refined) is because of those bad liberal ideas that we've been following for the past 40 years. We should have plenty of clean cheap energy from nuclear power. We don't because of bad liberal ideas. We should have far more domestic oil production. We don't because of bad liberal ideas.

Even assuming your $25k number is correct, that's $10,000 of taxpayers money to erase the taxes and revenue generated from the importation, refinement, and sale of $25,000 worth of gas. Those things generate tax revenue too and aren't being paid for by the taxpayer.

So $10,000 paid from the taxpayers + $1700 lost highway fund revenue + eventually jobs lost from other areas like trucking. Oh lets not forgot the tens or hundreds of millions in loans from the taxpayers unlikely to ever be repaid to produce these vehicles.

Your argument that it results in net growth has a long way to go. 10,000 of these cars costs the taxpayers $100 million dollars. You think the jobs to produce those 10,000 cars will result in tax revenues to replace it? I doubt it. Especially when you consider the losses in revenue from other areas.


RE: Stupid
By Mint on 3/14/2012 6:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with nuclear, but that has nothing to do with oil. Oil is for portable energy, nuclear is for electricity. In fact, EVs are what allow nuclear to replace oil.

Liberal ideas barely make a dent in oil production. The Keystone thing didn't do a thing to oil production, as it's just a pipeline and there are plenty of buyers for the oil itself.

The highway revenue argument is bunk because that's just a tax shift. Only a fraction of the cost of gas pays truckers or refinery workers; on the contrary, almost all of the cost of an EV went into the factory and battery labor (raw material costs are low). The tax from the economic activity of building a car with $20k higher MSRP will definitely pay back the $10k after multiplier effects are considered (and again, they only apply in our underemployed economy).

My argument falls apart in a normal economy, as that's where you have lost production elsewhere.


RE: Stupid
By kamel5547 on 3/13/2012 11:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
Um... we also have some of the highest fuel cost in the country so I think it more than evens out. Currently the national average (per the AAA survey) is approximately $3.80. The California average is $4.36. This is for regular, so the per gallon price difference is close to 50 cents.

The reason there are rebates is the same reason fuel costs are so high, crappy air quality.

The real question is whether you will ever break-even on the additional cost of the car (even with all the rebates), which is probably the biggest issue with all hybrid/electric vehicles. The premium on cost makes it very hard to justify the purchase unless you drive many miles per year(and then you probably start to have an issue with the range if you look at a pure electric vehicle). Throw in the expected life of 10 years for the battery and it becomes even more of a challenge since the cost of replacing the battery down the road is a big question mark and will reduce resale as the dat gets closer.


RE: Stupid
By danjw1 on 3/13/2012 1:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
I bet it will still be cheaper to run then a gas car right now. Gas prices are well over $4/gallon. From what I have read they aren't going to be going down anytime soon.


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 2:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I bet it will still be cheaper to run then a gas car right now
Nope! My wife DD's a diesel pickup. Even with $4 diesel, parking the truck saves enough to pay for a $20k new car IF we drive the new car like we drive the present truck. No where near enough to justify a $40k limited range EV. You guys need to do the math and include ALL the costs.


RE: Stupid
By borismkv on 3/12/2012 7:08:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
every single person with a functioning brain knows the problem in CA is that taxes need to go up


Because there aren't 49 other states in the country for people and businesses to move to. The problem is that they spend way the hell too much money on stupid crap like this and outright refuse to make use of the natural resources they have available. I mean hell, there are oil deposits off the coast of California that are so full they're dumping loads of oil into the ocean without any human intervention.


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 12:19:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean hell, there are oil deposits off the coast of California that are so full they're dumping loads of oil into the ocean without any human intervention.
We can't ruin the views of all those multi-millionaires with oil rigs, can we? But it's ok to mar my view of the mountains with those ugly ass wind generators.


RE: Stupid
By LRonaldHubbs on 3/13/2012 8:37:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think the windmills look great. They can feel free to plop some onto the hilltops around my house.


RE: Stupid
By FITCamaro on 3/13/2012 8:41:26 AM , Rating: 2
I'd prefer them plop a nuclear plant near my house so I can have power all the time and for cheap.


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 12:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think the windmills look great. They can feel free to plop some onto the hilltops around my house.
They can put one on my property, it's certainly cheaper than solar works whenever there's wind (which is everyday here). I don't care. But don't make exceptions for the millionaires and tell me I have to live with the now crappy views. At least paint them to match the friggin landscape.


RE: Stupid
By FITCamaro on 3/12/2012 7:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Taxes need to go up!?!?

Yeah that'll work to bring more businesses into the state. /facepalm


RE: Stupid
By StanO360 on 3/12/2012 8:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
Or maybe all of the Democrats in Sacramento shouldn't have spent the State into oblivion. We had huge surpluses and they managed to outspend those.


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 12:22:24 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately FIT, raising taxes AND major spending cuts are our only way of getting out the mess we're in but I just don't see that happening. LAUSD refuses to lay off one teacher to get themselves out of that $500 million dollar (how the f$%k did that happen?) hole they're if that tells you anything.


RE: Stupid
By FITCamaro on 3/13/2012 8:30:07 AM , Rating: 1
I think 10% taxes are quite enough. Higher taxes will just drive the economy there further into the toilet.

Massive spending cuts are the only thing that'll work. More money coming in will just give the Democrats there more to waste.


RE: Stupid
By Spuke on 3/13/2012 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
More money coming in will just give the Democrats there more to waste.
I'm not talking about delaying tax increases and calling them cuts, or token cuts, I'm talking about MAJOR cuts across the board. The kind where the Dems CAN'T spend more because those programs are cut! We are simply in too much debt for a cuts only program to work.


RE: Stupid
By Kurz on 3/13/2012 10:05:45 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly Spending cuts are the only things that need to be done. There is so much wasteful spending if you were to actually look it up you'll be shocked and probably turn instantly into a Libertarian.


RE: Stupid
By Rukkian on 3/13/2012 12:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
I hear spending cuts all the time mentioned be many people, and if there were truly politicians for that, I would be completely in favor, however, all I see (from both sides) is lets cut from the one group and give to another. This happens both from dem and rep, lib and cons.

Cut spending on programs, but then also cut the tax breaks. I would be for a flat tax with no loopholes (maybe put in a floor near the poverty line, where you do not pay taxes). There are way too many loopholes for people to exploit. This would mean all income from all sources is treated the same.

Unfortunately this will never come to pass, as it would mean everybody would have to loose something, not just "The other guys".


RE: Stupid
By Arsynic on 3/13/2012 11:50:15 AM , Rating: 2
If taxes don't go up how will they be able to afford to educate and pay for the healthcare of the children of non-citizens for free.


RE: Stupid
By Dan Banana on 3/13/2012 8:35:57 PM , Rating: 1
You know that a tax credit is essentially a tax cut right? It's not a tax expenditure of any kind. Remember the days when conservatives were in favor of tax cuts? What happened? Oh yeah, Barack Obama became the president and Jerry Brown became the governor.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki