backtop


Print 110 comment(s) - last by xti.. on Oct 10 at 2:42 PM


Chevrolet Volt
Bush signs bill which grants the Volt a $7,500 tax credit

In mid-September, DailyTech brought you news that congress was working on a new round of tax credits targeted at plug-in electric/hybrid vehicles. The tax credits were projected to weigh in at $3,000 for plug-in vehicles with at least a 6 kWh battery and top out at $7,500.

Toyota, which sells its Prius featuring a 1.3 kWh battery pack, balked at the tax credits as its hybrids wouldn't even qualify for the entry-level tax credit. Toyota also was unhappy that the only vehicle in the near future likely to qualify for the maximum $7,500 tax credit is the Chevrolet Volt.

Despite its opposition, Toyota's fears became law last week when President Bush signed the legislation which passed in the House by a vote of 263 to 171 as a part of the massive $700 billion Wall Street bailout package. The entire 10-year tax package for plug-in electric/hybrid vehicles is worth $1 billion.

Requirements to qualify for the tax credit have changed slightly since its inception in the Senate. The 6 kWh battery minimum dropped down to 4 kWh, while the base tax credit rose from $3,000 to $4,168. The maximum credit remains at $7,500 for the Chevrolet Volt with its 16 kWh lithium-ion battery pack.

The Chevrolet Volt gets its primary power from a 150 HP, 273 lb-ft electric motor. A 1.4 liter gasoline engine is also used to recharge the lithium-ion battery pack once the Volt's 40-mile battery range is depleted. According to GM, the Volt can save customers $1,500 per year in fuel costs based on a daily commute of 40 miles.

The $7,500 tax credit should go a long way towards making the Chevrolet Volt more affordable. Current estimates place the base price of the vehicle at $40,000 or higher.



Comments     Threshold


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

Not Enough at $699 Billion
By dreddly on 10/5/2008 9:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing like sticking in a little more to support a technology that will benefit a few at everyone's expense...

Using a crisis to subsidize this technology is a straightforward abuse and should be loudly chastised.

This is not the way to go about developing green technology.




RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2008 9:39:55 PM , Rating: 5
Just one of the many pieces of pork added to an already unnecessary and catastrophic piece of legislation.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Fnoob on 10/5/2008 10:03:41 PM , Rating: 5
Ain't it truly amazing that with the eyes of the whole country (and the world) fixated upon this bill... that they actually put ANY pork in there? It was deemed 'super duper important' that they got this bill passed by (hopefully) last monday before the asian markets opened - and they were spending time cramming 37 cent excise tax exemptions for Oregonian makers of childrens wooden arrows!

We pay these morons why?


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Gul Westfale on 10/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By MrSmurf on 10/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Samus on 10/6/2008 1:21:40 AM , Rating: 5
The Volt should be considered a luxury car. It's going to be pretty fast, its pretty light (compared to a Prius at least) and it's cutting edge. So, comparing it to a $20,000 car is like comparing a Audi to a VW, or a Volvo to a Ford. They're engineered by the same people and sometimes even come from the same factories, but they are completely different animals.

Have you not seen the inside of the Volt? It's like a life-sized iPod ;) Just so you know who this vehicle is targeting.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By paydirt on 10/6/2008 8:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
$20,000 to be officially cool. Not too shabby.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By silversound on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Doormat on 10/6/2008 12:12:51 PM , Rating: 5
At 13,000 miles per year (which is about what I drive), 2,000 of which is on gas and 11K on electricity, and assuming an average price of $4/gal between 2011 and 2018, I would not have to buy 440 gallons of gas per year (vs. the 25mpg vehicle I now own). Thats $1760 per year in gas not purchased, instead replacing that with $300 worth of electricity per year.

From there, add in the better fuel economy (48MPG Volt vs 25MPG my car) for the 2,000 gas miles, and thats $153/yr saved, for a total of $1,613 saved per year. At seven years thats $11,291. And remember that the battery is warrantied for 10 years or 150,000 miles, so really you could calculate the savings over 10 years, which brings it up to $16,130 over the 10 years for the battery.

Take a $40,000 Volt, minus $7,500 in tax credits is $32,500. Minus $11,291 is $21,209.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By bigboxes on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Lord 666 on 10/6/2008 8:12:40 AM , Rating: 5
Do you have a source for the .37 tax in plain english?

My favorite example of nonsense goverment legislation is within the PATRIOT Act is the verbiage to restrict sales of psedoephedrine.

We only pay them because average americans are too busy watching "dancing with the stars" or other mindless distractions to actually focus on what's really important.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Lord 666 on 10/7/2008 1:54:04 AM , Rating: 5
Researched it; the wooden arrow thing is on page 263 of this piece of poop http://financialservices.house.gov/essa/essabill.p...

PS - the pseudoephedrine section of the 2005 Patriot Act is here http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL33332.pdf on page 67


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By MrBlastman on 10/6/2008 9:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
You and I voted for them, that is why :P

You DO know why they put in that provision for wooden arrows, don't you?

It is so after the taxpayers digest what this bill really is, they can break those arrows in half and shove them up their tail ends and enjoy the splintering pain! ;)

disclaimer: This post does not indicate my support, or non-support of said bill; rather, it was done in pure gest.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By xti on 10/10/2008 2:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
heh


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By xphile on 10/5/2008 10:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well I guess as you drive to your tax supported silicon valley job, where you make cpu chips that control huge tax incentivised wind turbines for tax supported wind farms, safe in the knowledge that you are now both safe from the alternative minimum tax that threatened to plague you and that all your life savings are safe in the bank, it would be quite easy to justify a $7500 tax supported 30 thousand volt oops I mean dollar new car so your kids have someplace safe from which to fire their new tax-free wooden arrows at the neighbors...

It really smarts being a New Zealander when you Americans have life SO sweet .. damn!


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Totally on 10/6/2008 12:24:56 AM , Rating: 2
And here I thought it was us Americans that were bad at geography.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Samus on 10/6/2008 1:25:34 AM , Rating: 1
Just so you know Mr New Zealand, our country is somewhere between totally fucked and a depression right now, and over 80% of the American people haven't supported anything that's been going on in our government for years. We are powerless, and you're rubbing it in our face. So before you insult what little there is left to enjoy about our country, eat shit.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Ringold on 10/6/2008 3:25:07 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
.. the market, look what the market has done to you guys.


Okay, let me see what it's done for us, by comparing it to a place where capitalism dare not tread, say.. France.

GDP PPP: 40% higher
Unemployment: 1.1% points lower
Average Unemployment: ~5 to 6% points lower
Average home size: Hard time finding European data, but the difference appears to be huge. It's 2349sq-ft here, as of 2004.

Whats the downside? A cyclical economy where the average Joe actually notices what is going on, where as in Europe the government attempts to compensate with fiscal stimulus, huge unemployment benefits, and by simply replacing a large portion of the economy with government jobs.

It also appears that European banks and other institutions are starting to collapse at an even brisker pace then here! Europe is also regulated to death. What good has it done Europe? Higher unemployment when the times are good, and now that times are bad, even higher unemployment with almost none of the pain being spared. Even European economists seem to agree with those of us on this side of the pond; the European economy is going to be in worse shape and for longer than the US due to the flexibility of our markets (labor as well as capital). We hit a cyclical hard spot, and all the weaklings come flooding out of the woodwork with their doomsday talk, like they always do.

I'd prefer socialists be honest. Lets not pretend socialism/aversion to capitalism means all the upside with none of the downside. It means, in a best case scenario, where government is perfectly competent and happens to get most things right, smoothing out some of the pain while permanently lowering the long run rate of economic growth.

America isn't an outlier in the more-capitalism example, either. Ireland and Switzerland are hanging right up in there, and it sure wasn't socialist reform that started India and China's growth spurts.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 6:03:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
How many people are homeless


Many of our homeless choose to be. Because like in socialism, they have found they can survive by doing absolutely nothing. Some have turned panhandling into a career and own homes and drive nice cars.

quote:
have no health coverage


So I'm supposed to pay for it? In this country you have what you earn (or were born into unfortunately).

quote:
are incarserated


You do the crime, you do the time. No one forced people to commit crimes.

quote:
on minimal wages


That's what happens when you slack off in school. Again. No one's fault but their own.

quote:
How many homes now lay empty due to forclosure?


And it's my fault that someone who makes $2000 a month was stupid enough to buy a $300,000 home thinking it would work out? I'm sorry I guess I think people should use that thing called common sense and realize that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. And that people should actually read their mortgage before signing it. Yes Fannie and Freddie allowed these loans to exist by buying them from banks almost guaranteed. But if people had exercised basic common sense to realize that the chance of rates staying insanely low over a 30 year span was almost 0% then this mess wouldn't exist. Yes the banks were wrong to take advantage of the situation, but they were pretty much forced to by the government, especially under Clinton with Janet Reno threatening to go after banks who didn't issue the loans. So no, I have no pity for people who lost their homes because they wanted to live in luxury when they couldn't afford it. Or people who bought homes as an investment and it turned out to be a bad one (that's part of investing. there's risk).

Yes some basic checks on the market will always be needed, but many of the financial failures in the past 100 years have been due to government intervention in the market. Not raw capitalism itself. This situation wouldn't have existed if the government hadn't created the sub-prime market itself in the 70s with the Community Housing Act. It's bad business to give loans to people who can't afford them which is why those people never got the loans before that to begin with.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By BansheeX on 10/6/2008 9:44:12 AM , Rating: 5
You think it was capitalism that failed the markets? We are in the late stages of socialism, fool. 50% of our GDP is controlled by the government. Labor and interest rates are centrally price fixed. We have a non-market determined money with a ban on competing currencies. Banks can loan out money they don't have at interest while any other industry would be jailed for doing the same. Politicians regularly distribute our tax money to one industry and not another via subsidies or tax credits. We bail people out and remove the fear of bankruptcy that would have otherwise existed to deter risk. We offer federal insurance on deposits via the FDIC, removing the fear of losing a deposit that would otherwise deter depositors from ever loaning money to highly leveraged investment banks. We pass legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act in the name of social progress, essentially declaring lending standards discriminatory and forcing banks to make loans to low income people. We force every American to pay into a forced "retirement plan" at 12% of wages which is really just an unsustainable ponzi scheme. We nationalize industry and finance it with forcibly appropriated money, so it is far more resistant to failing from bad policy. Fannie and Freddie were government companies and accomplished the opposite of their initial goal by the time they corrupted. We ban products via the FDA, some of it is anti-competitive and the result of lobbying. These are all idealist socialist powers that the private industry doesn't have, but has access to as long as they exist. That's the problem. Buy a clue already.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 10:16:46 AM , Rating: 3
*waves hand*

These aren't the facts you're looking for.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Fnoob on 10/6/2008 11:14:18 AM , Rating: 2
LMAO!

'What do you think you are, some kind of Jedi? Your tricks won't work on me, I'm a Paulsonian!"


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Villains on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2008 1:42:13 PM , Rating: 5
Would you want to live in a world where you are only alloted just " what is needed " and nothing more ?

Oh wait... nevermind. You apparently already are.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 1:49:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Average home size is 2349 sq-ft?
Actually, it's 2434 sq ft and that size home is mostly concentrated in the southeastern US. The northeast would be second. The farther west you go, the more expensive homes get so they are generally smaller (there are exceptions). Homes are cheap here compared to most of Europe so we get larger one's.

In the south, depending on the neighborhood, you can get a 2400 sq ft house for well under $150k. More than affordable to your average American family.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, that sized home would go for a LOT more than that here. Almost without regard to location. We're probably two to three times more expensive (making wild assumptions about location and the like) -- and we're dirt cheap compared to the SF Bay area in California. And our property taxes are high too (although there is no sales tax).


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
My wife and I get by in a 2850 sq ft home (could use more).

I don't complain about those things (other than taxes). It was built in 1996 when we moved in, so although not real new, the insulation (and such) are decent -- but the central air conditioner could have been much higher in efficiency (now), so that is a problem in the summer -- but like buying a new Chevy Volt a spendy thing to "fix".

But then I didn't just graduate from college -- I used to be in apartments, then my first home was a whopping 1250 sq feet where my wife and I used to live. And that house still exists and is part of the average. I think the 2349 may be the average of new-builds rather than existing homes. As land becomes more expensive (very much the case here in my metro area where land zoned for houses is fairly scarce) it becomes more advantageous for builders to build larger houses on the land they have available to them. Of course at the very moment, houses aren't selling well and the smaller ones probably would sell better if it weren't for those looking for "entry houses" probably not being in good positions to get loans (at the moment) with good size down payments (speaking generally in a statistical way).

Of course, all of those nasty ARM and other 'creative' loans that the banks are now in trouble for having made had some part in driving up prices and house sizes seeing as how people could get loans for homes bigger than they could afford.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2008 10:01:09 AM , Rating: 3
Who are you or the government to decide how much space I "need"? One of the biggest fake environmentalists out there, Al Gore, owns a 10,000 square foot home.

And what does the size of a home have to do with the rate? In some areas a 1000 square foot home costs as much as a 3000 square foot home in other areas. What matters is what you financed and how you financed it. It doesn't matter the size of the home.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Rhaido on 10/6/2008 2:35:57 PM , Rating: 4
"who want NO rules on capitalism may just learn something about orderly regulation ."

"...look what the market has done to you guys."

The mortgage crisis was not a function of a free market. Government corruption (mostly Democrats buying minority votes), intervention, and moral hazard created the problem.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42...
>>>All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.
>>>Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.
>>>In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.
>>>The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0...
>>>Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
>>>In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
>>>Financial bail-outs of lending institutions by governments, central banks or other institutions can encourage risky lending in the future, if those that take the risks come to believe that they will not have to carry the full burden of losses.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By andrinoaa on 10/6/08, Rating: -1
By GiantPandaMan on 10/6/2008 11:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, your point is so full of crap that I had to reply to this one.

#1) The problems with ARM's started to show in 2006. These ARM's were not given back in 1994 but far more recently.
#2) Republicans ruled the Congress and Senate from about 1995 to 2007. The White House since 2001.
#3) Neither Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac were small players in the ARM's market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's problems were they had too much SUB-PRIME mortgage debt. No dodging there.

Blame everything on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? Umm, no. The problem is far larger and reaches into far more companies than that. What hand did the federal government or Democrats have in Lehmann Brothers? Was it the federal governments fault that AIG, Wachovia, WaMu and others were about to go insolvent? Stop putting your head in the sand so you can point fingers and feel better. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were simply the first to show signs and go down.

Blame everything on Democrats? Umm, your timeline is way off.

Inevitably, EVERYONE in government, the people who got the loans, and the people who gave them is to blame. Painting one single group as the culprits is oversimplifying, ignorant, and knee-jerk. The mortgage mess was caused by lack of regulation. Let me repeat. The mortgage mess was caused by lack of regulation! If you're fine with this happening every once in awhile (and no bailout) then you're a true free market capitalist. This is what free market capitalism, along with growth, can cause. As with all systems, it has its pros and cons.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Dark Legion on 10/6/2008 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it wasn't 80% when he was voted back into office almost 4 years ago. Unfortunately, we made our own bed with this one; when we had the power to show we learned our lesson, we just put him in office for another four years, and now we complain that it got worse.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By winterspan on 10/5/2008 10:20:53 PM , Rating: 3
What the hell are you talking about? This is an excellent thing and should be expanded to include traditional hybrid vehicles as well. Federal investment in green technology, and yes that includes tax breaks on hybrid vehicles, is absolutely essential to transition this country off of foreign oil and onto renewable energy. So far, the total investment in renewable energy production has hardly been a drop in the bucket compared to every other developed country, and this being the country that uses almost 25% of the world's foreign oil. It's pathetic and it needs to change, and the ignorant "less taxes no government" crowd life yourself is certainly not helping anything.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By ZmaxDP on 10/5/2008 11:45:57 PM , Rating: 4
There is this thing called an opinion, and last I checked we're all entitled to one. So, drop the "ignorant" remarks unless you want to look that way yourself. Less taxes and less government (not no government, duh) was one of the major opinions that lead to this country even existing, so show some respect.

My issue is that this tax rebate is going to a car that will likely end up costing well over $40,000 and doesn't quite frankly make any economic sense at that price range. It also prices it out of the range of most of the market. A large percent of the tax dollars in this country come from people who will be unable to afford this car. This is the problem. Why don't we have a $7,500 tax rebate for ALL cars that exceed the CAFE standards by 10 MPG or something. That means 37.5 mpg avg or better. Not that many cars meet that but the price range is far greater than a single car at $40,000. Now, you have viable options for most of the market which means the rebate is at least fairly available. This would also help more than just one US manufacturer sell cars. Worse, this bill gives incentives to a particular technology, not efficiency in general. So, what if someone makes some great technology that gives the same performance as the Volt's 16kW battery but with a much smaller battery? Too bad, no tax credit for you. What about a much more efficient gas or natural gas engine? Nope, no 16kW battery.

The idea of the government encouraging market innovations isn't something I reject on principle, but in this case they did a crappy job. As a result, companies are going to change their direction to get this tax credit regardless of it being the best way to make an energy efficient car. And, given the gas prices and recession, there is a lot of incentive to buy better performing cars already...


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Guttersnipe on 10/6/2008 1:13:58 AM , Rating: 1
yea part of it doesnt sit right with me. essentially well off yuppies are going to have their purchases subsidized by everyone. on the other hand at least its american:P


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By dubldwn on 10/6/2008 2:14:36 AM , Rating: 2
To add to your point, even if they are going to do the tax credit, this comes across as premature. GM will be lucky to make 100,000 of these through the first two model years – all of which will be sold anyway, so why is this even necessary right now? PR? They should wait a couple years to catch all the people who really need the credit to be able to get in on it.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 12:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
Production will be limited to 10,000 units per year.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By theapparition on 10/6/2008 8:36:23 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
So, what if someone makes some great technology that gives the same performance as the Volt's 16kW battery but with a much smaller battery? Too bad, no tax credit for you. What about a much more efficient gas or natural gas engine? Nope, no 16kW battery.

Congradulations on missing the entire point of the credit. To address you're points:
1. Smaller batteries would still be eligible for a tax break, starting at $4100, and increasing up to a maximum of $7500.
2. More efficient gas engines don't reduce DEPENDANCE on foreign oil. A plug-in with a 40 mile range could potentially never use a single drop of gas in it's lifetime.

Prius isn't eligible since it's not a plug in, however, if Toyota marketed one, it would immediately be eligible for that $4100+ tax credit too.

FYI, I'm not a big fan of tax credits.....but I also saw no one screaming when the Prius and Insite got a tax credit. Now that those credits have exprired, and they want to give a credit to new technologies, the Japco fanboi's want to cry. Cry me a river, because it's done.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By piroroadkill on 10/6/2008 8:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
Address you are points?


By theapparition on 10/6/2008 11:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
Typical Daily Tech reader reply.

Apparently, when you can't refute the content, the intent is to discredit the post by pointing out spelling or gramatical mistakes.

Replies like that just make you look small.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:48:44 PM , Rating: 2
Problem he has probably is the word "performance" and different interpretations of it.

Also suggested is an idea that this particular tax advantage is singular and will not, no, can not be changed or added to in any way forever should some other technology come by. I think this idea is faulty.

This law does not have to fully encompass all possible things that might be tax enhanced. Additional laws are possible, there isn't a shortage of them. More can be added if a technology coming along is suitable for whatever reasons they're done. Not like something completely different will just show up next week in auto lots having been developed in complete secrecy before actual delivery.

I wonder if Toyota complained about the tax credits that helped their sales.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2008 9:18:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
A large percent of the tax dollars in this country come from people who will be unable to afford this car.


How do you figure this when the top 10% of earners in this country pay 70% of the personal income taxes. And the top 1% paid 40% of the taxes.

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetCh...


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By OrSin on 10/6/2008 9:58:52 AM , Rating: 2
First the Heritage Group is A republican think tank, so they present the data to make them look good. Now they dont lie, off center fact to make the rich look much better.

YEs the top 10% of earns bay 70% of the taxes. But what they dont show you is they make 92% of the money. SO no they are not paying thier fair share of taxes.

Also also most none of those people will be buying the volt or really need the tax credit. In case your wondering the top 10% of this country make over $180K a year in house hold income. They are not buying a volt when they can get a BMW. Sorry just not happening


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 1:40:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In case your wondering the top 10% of this country make over $180K a year in house hold income.
Not entirely correct. It depends on the age group counted in the statistics that the US Census Bureau collects. If we're talking 15 years old and over then the top 10% make $75k and over.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2008 10:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
1/3 of the country pays 97% of the taxes(that would be $60,000/yr and up which I fall into). It doesn't matter that they have the majority of the money.

We have another 1/3 that doesn't pay any taxes. Is that their fair share? Nothing? And they still got the "stimulus" check. And they're more likely to draw from Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and the other social entitlement programs than me(I'll in all likelihood never draw from any of them). But that's fair to you? That they should be able to suck money out of a system they pay nothing into?

The fact is one third of the country is paying practically all the income taxes while a lot of another third is using it all. And don't get me started on Social Security which is money that I'll never even see again but the media and Democrats trashed Bush when he suggested I be able to keep some of that money instead and put it in a private account for myself.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By omnicronx on 10/6/2008 10:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
What incentive would there be for car companies if the tax rebates were issued for existing gasoline cars? Or for that matter, what incentive would there be for the public to buy these newer technologies if the same tax rebates were available for a cheaper gasoline car. Your thinking is kind of one dimensional, sure in the short term it may not be economical, but in the long term it will lead to much more efficient cars, and it should eventually trickle down to the lower models like technology always does.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Lord 666 on 10/6/2008 8:00:22 AM , Rating: 1
There will be another bailout deal coming soon enough for the US automakers. Bush quietly signed favorable loans for them last week as well.

What would be interesting is if the Volt sales chain adopted the OLPC model; to purchase one of the first series, you had to buy two with the second being donated to some truly needy households.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Spuke on 10/6/2008 5:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you had to buy two with the second being donated to some truly needy households.
And how do these families pay for maintenance costs on cars like the Volt? The price of entry is just one barrier to poor families being able to afford a car. Maintenance is a huge consideration as well. While you are able to afford to upgrade your computer every 3 months (or shorter), these people can barely afford ONE computer (which was probably bought on credit) period.


RE: Not Enough at $699 Billion
By Oregonian2 on 10/6/2008 9:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
Government will provide free Volt auto maintenance for the poor as well as electric power credits.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Related Articles













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