backtop

Print 81 comment(s) - last by TSS.. on Aug 6 at 4:34 PM

Brammo Empulse Electric Motorcycle
Tax credit for an electric bicycle?

The United States Senate Finance Committee has voted to approve a new tax credit for the purchase of electric bicycles and motorcycles. The Senate hopes that the tax credit will help improve sales in the electric bike industry within the United States. The actual amount of the tax credit will depend on the purchase price and of the electric bicycle or motorcycle.
 
Buyers will be granted a 10% federal tax credit to a maximum of $2,500. The Senate also voted to end a tax credit for golf carts that weren't legal to be driven on public roads. Senator Ron Wyden said, "There's no reason to have a credit for a golf cart."
 
Wyden continued, "This is about good-paying American jobs. These jobs are going to go somewhere. … Are they going to be red white and blue jobs or are they going to be developed by our competitors?"
 
Not all Senators supported the tax cut for electric vehicles and bicycles. One senator who opposed the tax credit is Orrin Hatch. Hatch warned, "Do we really want to portray ourselves as members of the Finance Committee to drive over the fiscal cliff riding on the back of an electric motorcycle?"
 
The Detroit News reports that last year about 25 million electric bikes were sold in China compared to fewer than 100,000 in the United States. The tax credit will cost $15 million over two years and will reportedly create thousands of new jobs.

A similar tax credit already exists for electric vehicles.

Sources: Detroit News, InautoNews


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is beyond ridiculous
By amanojaku on 8/3/2012 10:15:35 AM , Rating: 3
Why is the government giving credits like this? Where are the books and candles credits? Where are the raw foods credits? Where are the walking on two feet credits? Seriously, if these devices are so great at reducing energy consumption, they should pay for themselves in operating cost savings. I like EVs, but I'm not willing to subsidize them. We got a deficit to shrink.




RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By xenol on 8/3/2012 10:38:04 AM , Rating: 1
I rode a bike to college for four years, while everyone else I knew who had a car drove it. And it was like 1.5-2 miles. Where's my tax credit for that?


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By BZDTemp on 8/3/2012 11:15:45 AM , Rating: 3
Good point. It's the same over here in Europe. The politicians wanna get more people to use electric cars because it's better for the environment so there are huge incentives. But when someone does even better and chooses to ride a bicycle there is no reward.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 11:33:23 AM , Rating: 3
You guys are trying to apply common sense here, big mistake when talking about Government actions :)


By myleftnutishuge on 8/6/2012 12:16:19 AM , Rating: 1
Well, obviously the idea is to spark nascent technologies that aren't yet financially sustainable so that they can make it to the point where advances in that technology and economies of scale can make it a massive success.

Now that I've spewed the democratic talking points, it's worth mentioning that electric vehicles have been around forever and if a few tax breaks were going to make it into a profitable and sustainable business, it likely would have happened decades ago.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Apone on 8/6/2012 1:59:01 PM , Rating: 1
@ Reclaimer77

LOL, good one!


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 1:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
wah, 1.5 miles on a bike you hardly even notice you went anywhere.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 2:01:24 PM , Rating: 1
Not so wiener boy, it's a PITA to get up early and ride 1.5 miles with a lot of books and a hangover from partying the night prior.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By NellyFromMA on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 11:57:39 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
overall I tend to think more highly of Obama than say, Mitt Romney.


I'm boggled that anyone can look at Obama's record at this point and make that statement. Shows what a radical Liberal one can become. There's really nothing to think highly OF at this point.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By crashinghero on 8/3/2012 12:32:39 PM , Rating: 1
I'm boggled that anyone can look at Obama's record and call him a liberal, let alone radical. His two signature bills, health care and financial regulation, are about increasing competition, and are overwhelmingly pro-free market. It's fine to call him names if you don't like the guy, but at least pick one that applies to who he really is. To call Obama a liberal must have LBJ and FDR rolling in their graves.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By crashinghero on 8/3/2012 12:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yep... wow.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Samus on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
By EricMartello on 8/4/2012 2:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was actually settling on the idea voting for Mitt, until he revealed taxing my 401k.


Source?

quote:
This precise agenda is why Obama can't do a damn thing. He was given an impossible situation to fix in an impossible amount of time, refusing to implement temporary fixes to long term problems, and people give him crap for it? Wow.


So, spending his term focusing on obamacare (which is a tax) and failed attempts at making a "eco-green economy" are attempts at helping to revitalize our economy?

People who understand the situation can also see that he did nothing of consequence to help the economy.

What could he have done? He could have promoted a national infrastructure repair and improvement campaign, providing tax breaks/credits and low-cost loans for equipment financing to people and companies involved with projects like repairing roads, bridges and highways. Adding new power lines, upgrading existing ones...this would have a very immediate trickle-down effect, allowing many people to find gainful employment...and how many people would complain that their tax dollars are finally being used to provide a tangible improvement to the country rather than being pissed away on idiotic ventures like solyndra?


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2012 12:17:53 PM , Rating: 1
Show me where Romney has EVER said anything about taxing your 401k?

Obama on the other hand and other big liberals want to do away entirely with 401ks and add ANOTHER Social Security type program. Seizing all the money in 401ks in the process.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 1:36:10 PM , Rating: 1
Don't forget he has left in the tax break for the extreme rich.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2012 12:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
Not out of choice.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Ringold on 8/3/2012 9:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Dodd-Frank, increasing competition? Watch CNBC some time, listen to folks that know what they're talking about.

The fact is Dodd-Frank is so onerous that smaller firms will be, and already are, forced to merge or move operations out of the country, as they can't compete with larger ones that have the economies of scale of, say, a Citigroup, to afford the lawyers and accountants to parse the rules and make sure they're in total compliance with the 10,000 or 15,000 or whatever the total pages of regulation are now. Some smaller banks might be able to stay under the radar by staying very small, but there's going to be a large hollowing out of the middle of the market.

As any economist can tell you, that's not increasing competition, it's reinforcing a trend towards oligopoly. Also, btw, makes it near impossible for someone outside the finance world to come up with some idea and just enter the market. He's hit with the artificially created Dodd-Frank barrier of needing a legion of lawyers and accountants upfront, before $1 of revenue comes in.

And be realistic about the health-care bill. Whatever that huge thing is about, it's hard to say its competition. And it's pretty obvious from Obama's own statements that is just the best he could feasibly do politically, but a precursor to a public option, which is a precursor to single-payer. Marxists know they have to move in baby steps when operating in a nominally free-market country, but especially on Dodd-Frank, you can't possibly know what you're talking about and see it as pro-free-market. More like, how can we maximize employment of lawyers?


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By NellyFromMA on 8/6/2012 3:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone knows NO ONE on cnbc speaks the truth.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2012 12:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
There is literally no hope for you.

I'm glad I didn't have anything to drink in my mouth or it would be on my computer screen now after reading this dumbassery.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2012 12:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
You just made my quote of the day by the way. This kind of blindness deserves recognition.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By GotThumbs on 8/3/2012 1:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think the main point to remember is... We need a person in the WH that as a history of being a leader. I'm sure Obama is a nice man and a great husband and father. Thats not the point. Carter is the same I'm sure, but both are ineffective national leaders.

When it comes down to the financial and national security of the country...I'd rather have a leader in charge...than a "nice" guy. I'm not going to marry the president or be friends with him. It's business...not personal.

There is no perfect person for that job...but what we need is someone to do what the position requires...make decisions based on the best economic interests of the country. Let the states deal with social choices on birth control and social behaviors. The WH needs to focus on the BIG picture items....and so far they've been avoiding them.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By FITCamaro on 8/6/2012 12:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
You mean because Democrat governor's were barring black students from going to "white" schools?

The government forcing state's to abide by a constitutional amendment is a lot different than the federal government doing things they have no authority to do. They have no authority over things like health care, retirement, schools (as far as what schools teach or what kids eat is concerned), or any other of the myriad of things they do now.

And before you try to say the Supreme Court says otherwise, bear in mind the Supreme Court has ruled that blacks are inferior to whites in the past (but after 13th and 14th amendment were passed). The Supreme Court is hardly flawless. Hell look at the Obamacare decision. Roberts, for whatever reason (only he knows truly why), completely got it wrong since the mandate is not a tax under any of the three ALLOWED taxing powers of the federal government.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Ammohunt on 8/3/2012 3:13:56 PM , Rating: 2
thats it exactly! i would trade Obama for Clinton any day at this point Clinton wasn't a very good president but at least he had enough sense to govern from the center and work with congress to reap the benefits of Reagans policies set in motion the previous decade; Obama makes fidel castro look conservative.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 2:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
No, no, NO!

I do not want a "leader". I want a representative of the people, THEIR will not his. When Obama was elected we had no idea he'd screw up so badly (though to be clear, I did not vote for him).


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Brutus1234 on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 6:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Why must Bush continue to be the measuring stick by which Obama is defended against? I'm not sure why you think I support those things Bush did. Or why Obama is somehow beyond criticism because of Bush? About the only thing on your list I don't agree with is that the "Bush Tax cuts" somehow hurt us. Tax cuts NEVER hurt the economy, they always stimulate it. The 4 year period after the Bush Tax Cuts, the IRS received record tax revenues. But I guess that little fact doesn't matter.

As far as your language and anger, well, it's cute. I remember when I had my first beer too :)


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By TSS on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 9:38:53 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you, more people need to realize that both repubs and dems are colossal A-holes. I don't get how people can really get behind any of these guys.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Ringold on 8/3/2012 9:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
Woah, I could see some claims about Carter, but plugging his interest rates? Inflation is highly disruptive to all sorts of economic activity, and is devastating to people mid career up through retirement who see the real value of their life savings destroyed. Stagflation is something most people are sane enough to know is a "Bad Thing."

And higher interest rates will only cause disaster if we don't get our deficit under control. If we put out a credible plan for a small surplus over a short period of time, say 4 or 5 years, we might not see a European-like surge in bond yields. Certainly a doubling from current levels, but no 7% and higher madness. It's entirely up to us.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By TSS on 8/6/2012 4:34:53 PM , Rating: 1
Inflation isn't magic. It exists because of a reason.

Ysee, if there was no inflation, there would automatically be deflation. Goods are produced and value is added to the economy, so unless money is too, the money in existance will be worth more. That's why a small inflation target is desirable.

Jimmy carter realised this (i keep saying that like it's some monumental achievement but it's SIMPLE COMMON SENSE! for fucks sake...). That there was already more credit then money available to pay down those debts. That's why you had such high inflation - it was fixing the problem! it was expanding the monetairy base to encompass the monitairy promises. And i'll say again if you'd stuck with him another 4 years rates would've probably gone up to about 20-22%, stabilized, then dropped again and you'd be in a healthy ecnonmy. Paying with what you have instead of what you promise.

Currently the federal government is $16 trillion dollars in debt. That means $16 trillion dollars in economic activity has to be added to pay off that debt. It's never going to happen. The only other way to pay it off is to print new money and inflate away the debts.

Without going into detail about why it would take >1 dollar to print 1 dollar of last years money in actual value, let's assume a 1 to 1 print ration. $1 of debt, $1 printed. It would mean you'd have to print $16 trillion. Even with everything you've gone through the M2 money supply just passed $10 trillion. So you're looking at 150% inflation. In the best case scenario (so good its completly unrealistic) over whatever time period it's spread out over.

Realistically it's going to be more like 700%-800% This means 700%-800% interest rates as well.

Keep downvoting me. I don't mind. One day some of you will wake up and smell the ashes, and you'll atleast remember what caused it. I don't care either way i've got my bases covered.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Ringold on 8/3/2012 9:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
-it's pointless to tell you that the CBO shows that nearly 4 trillion dollars of the 5.2Trillion added to the debt during Obama is due to Bush Tax Cuts and Iraq War.


Pointless to point out to you that he promised to cut the deficit in half, or that Congress, which he had party control of for 2 years, didn't touch the tax cuts, or that many Democrats voted for the Iraq war.

quote:
- it's pointless to tell you that the TARP was approved by Bush with a Republican Senate and Republican congress and that half of it was spent, most of it was committed before Obama took office.


Pointless to point out to you Obama had quite a bit NOT committed, and could've let go unspent, but asked Bush to release it early prior to his taking office for use in GM and other adventures.

quote:
- it's pointless to tell you that any expenses from Obamacare are not currently reflected in the budget because the 1st stage just launched on August 1st and the bulk doesn't hit budget numbers for 2 years.


Pointless to tell you Obama sold Obamacare on one number, but the CBO has since come out and said it'll cost about twice its original estimate. Woops!

We get the point you worship at the alter of Obama, and he can either do no wrong or any wrong he's done is for the greater good or, well, it's all Bush's fault! We get it.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By Brutus1234 on 8/3/2012 11:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think you kinda missed the point. The only reason I would vote for Obama is because the alternative is worse.

You want to have some rational conversation, let's do it...

The federal government spends 4.5 Trillion and takes in about 3. Military spending, social security and medicare add up to about 3.0-3.2 You want to take about cutting spending on welfare and discretionary let's do it. Let's cut it to 0. But first you decide how we're going to cut about 750 billion out of military spending and 500 billion out of medicare to get to break even.

You don't want to give the welfare queen 500 bucks a month for every crack addicted brat she squeezes out of her crotch, I'm with you. Then don't bitch when some wants to spend 30 bucks a month to put her on birth control.

You can't just whine about how bad everything is and have no options. Man up and put some idea out there.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By knutjb on 8/6/2012 4:02:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
-it's pointless to tell you that the CBO shows that nearly 4 trillion dollars of the 5.2Trillion added to the debt during Obama is due to Bush Tax Cuts and Iraq War.
The combine costs of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars are still lower than what the Stimulus Plan costs. Ok, so you think tax cuts are adding to the debt? Where does spending come into this? We are spending more than we are taking in shows how responsible Obama is? Let me put the cart BEHIND the horse for you and yes the distinction is very important. People earn their money , they are kind enough to give some of it to run services. They do not earn money for the government to give them some of it as the government sees fit. It is emotion not mathematics that affect how people pay taxes. The tax code is progressive which means those who make more pay more.
quote:
- it's pointless to tell you that the TARP was approved by Bush with a Republican Senate and Republican congress and that half of it was spent, most of it was committed before Obama took office
Get your facts correct from 2006 to 2010 the DEMOCRATS had total control of the house and senate. Look at Obama's votes on those programs. Bush and the Republicans were the only one responsible? Bush only ran the program for a few months, Obama a few years.
quote:
- it's pointless to tell you that any expenses from Obamacare are not currently reflected in the budget because the 1st stage just launched on August 1st and the bulk doesn't hit budget numbers for 2 years.
Go and get the real truth about Obamacare. The program started taxing TWO years before the body of it is implemented. To simplify it for you were will pay two years before any insurance benefits are provided from it. Also when the Dems had the CBO score it the Dems provided the conditions as how to score it, i.e. double counting the $500b Medicare cuts, expected tax revenues,... Also Obamacare is written to push everyone into single payer. AT&T will save over $4B by dropping its health care plans and paying the fee, penalty, or tax as the SC calls it. Because all their employees will have to buy their own coverage without the benefit of AT&T's purchasing power.

I could go all day correcting your errors. Get a clue.


RE: This is beyond ridiculous
By NellyFromMA on 8/6/2012 3:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, I'm so far from liberal extremism it's not even funny. I just don't promote extreme conservatism. Dealing with those who promote extreme ideology on either side is roughly equivalent to trying to speak to a def person in terms of productive conversation


Math?
By Dr of crap on 8/3/2012 10:10:46 AM , Rating: 2
Just take the max rebate - $2500
the number of electric bikes sold - 100,000
multiply and I get 250 million - NOT 15 million.

Congress and some new math. And yes I know not everyone gets the max, but you have to plan - right?




RE: Math?
By bug77 on 8/3/2012 10:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
If the tax break is 10%, I doubt you'll get $2500 for a bike. You could get that much, but no way in hell 100,000 people will buy those bikes.


RE: Math?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/3/2012 10:18:00 AM , Rating: 3
They're assuming that not everyone is going to buy a $25,000 bike (10% credit, max $2,500).


RE: Math?
By Souka on 8/3/2012 11:10:33 AM , Rating: 2
For $25,000 I'd expect one helluva bicycle!!!!


RE: Math?
By Dr of crap on 8/3/2012 12:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
Have you priced them?
Most are ABOVE $15,000.


RE: Math?
By Pirks on 8/3/2012 1:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
Did you check with a doctor lately? You need to fix your head. Expensive electric bicycles go for 3000 dollars or so, maximum 5000 dollars. Fix your broken brain dude or check local e-bicycle prices.


RE: Math?
By lennylim on 8/3/2012 2:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
$5000 doesn't bring you near top of the line. Check out the Optibike R series. Starts at $10000, almost $17000 with options. But yeah, if I actually get one for myself (highly unlikely) it'll be in the below $2000 range.


RE: Math?
By jimbojimbo on 8/3/2012 4:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're thinking motorcycle. Even some of the top models of electric bikes only cost $3k. I have a kit that I got for $850. I wonder if they'll give credits for kits which will get me a whopping $85.


RE: Math?
By lennylim on 8/3/2012 4:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
The line gets a little fuzzy when a bicycle has a motor, but since the Optibike has a pedal and a top speed of ~30 mph without pedaling, I consider it an electric bicycle rather than an electric motorcycle. Check them out, I think they look pretty good. I tried to post a link but I got tagged as spam.


RE: Math?
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 2:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's irrelevant. Exotic bikes that cost far more than any sane person would pay can be categorically excluded as only an idiot would buy one at that price.


RE: Math?
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 1:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/

Very well engineered bikes for about the same price as standard bikes.


Potential Job Creation
By NVResident on 8/3/2012 11:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
As someone who is investing significantly in building an assembly plant for electric bikes here in Southern Nevada that will employ more than 25 full-time employees over the next 12-18 months, I am excited to see the added incentive. Even without such government support a recent survey showed that our industry in the US alone will triple in size over the next 6 years.

As for the true savings, the 10% credit will yield an average of $150.00 to $250.00 total for the majority of purchases and remember, this is a credit, not a discount. You must be in a position of paying taxes to utilize a credit. Unfortunately I suspect there will be some cumbersome paperwork that will filter out almost 40% of the possible recipients simply because of the added pain. This is just like the mail-in rebate that can only be mailed on Tuesday if it rained on Monday...

Contrary to a number of the comment author's sole belief of cutting a non-existent budget as the only way to resolve the country’s crisis, this is designed to help small businesses and startups such as ours to grow and employ unemployed workers. As for those who feel entitled to credits for walking, I suspect you would immediately become a quite supporter if this somehow passed.

This is not a handout, only an incentive for American companies to reach into an already dominant Asian market and I have yet to hear whether this is required to pass a vote on the other side or is it an actual rule? If so, it would be nice to know for how long?




RE: Potential Job Creation
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 11:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As someone who is investing significantly in building an assembly plant for electric bikes here in Southern Nevada that will employ more than 25 full-time employees over the next 12-18 months, I am excited to see the added incentive.


LOL yeah okay, good luck with that.

I'm glad you're "excited" that the Government is going to prop up your business, which would be doomed to fail otherwise, and force all of us to help others to pay for your product. That's Capitalism baby!

quote:
Contrary to a number of the comment author's sole belief of cutting a non-existent budget as the only way to resolve the country’s crisis, this is designed to help small businesses and startups such as ours to grow and employ unemployed workers.


This is like bailing out the Titanic with a cup though. Obamacare represents the single biggest tax increase on small business and the middle class in America. All kinds of new taxes and fees are coming that will further impact the middle class. Inflation crisis is on the way, unemployment, wage stagnation, and everything else that comes along with a debt crisis...

And you think hiring 25 people to makes bikes, subsidized by a bankrupt Government, is going to help out this situation?

This is just more evidence that our President and Congress don't have a clue about job creation and how to grow the private sector. These things happen best with LESS Government involvement. The only thing we need for small businesses to flourish and decrease unemployment is for the Government to get out of the way!

quote:
Even without such government support a recent survey showed that our industry in the US alone will triple in size over the next 6 years.


Then why do we need this?


RE: Potential Job Creation
By crashinghero on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Potential Job Creation
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Potential Job Creation
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 1:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
yes but our economy has been in the most extreme condition since the great depression, not a fair comparison. Clinton had the only balanced budget I can remember, but he also had the best economy I can remember.


RE: Potential Job Creation
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 1:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
The Clinton era economy might go down as the best Economy in the entire history of the US.


RE: Potential Job Creation
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 1:52:57 PM , Rating: 1
And by the way the Republican strategy has been to make the president a lame duck. They wont compromise on anything so when you say the Democrats wont pass a budget you are being a little naive aren't you?


RE: Potential Job Creation
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 3:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my...

It would be SO nice if people knew how our Government works. The Senate passes budgets, not the Republican controlled House. Furthermore it's been Harry Reid (Democrat and Obama stooge) who's personally prevented the passing of budgets through the Senate.

There's no "strategy" to make Obama look bad. He does that just fine on his own. The Republicans are trying to save the country from this madness. I think we've compromised quite enough, don't you?


RE: Potential Job Creation
By jimbojimbo on 8/3/2012 4:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's only because he resided as the bubble got bigger and bigger and we all know how that ended.


RE: Potential Job Creation
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 5:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
True but I think some missed the point, the president and the economy aren't necessarily that connected. People who think Romney is going to magically turn the economy around are laughable.


RE: Potential Job Creation
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2012 6:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
He doesn't have to "magically" turn the economy around. But we know for a fact that Obama won't. He's demonstrated fully that not only does he not know how, but he doesn't WANT this to happen. He wants to fulfill his agenda, damn the costs.

Nobody can magically fix this in one or two terms, but if they can stop the slow slide into mediocrity, that's good enough for now.

Hell if he just makes good on ONE thing, getting Obamacare off the books, his Presidency will have been a success.


RE: Potential Job Creation
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 9:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
Although, he does wear magic under pants. I could be wrong.


RE: Potential Job Creation
By Ringold on 8/3/2012 9:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As someone who is investing significantly in building an assembly plant for electric bikes here in Southern Nevada that will employ more than 25 full-time employees over the next 12-18 months


Just remember, no matter how hard you work, you didn't build that.


still limited range
By kattanna on 8/3/2012 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
the bike shown in the picture is interesting..

City: 121 miles* (195 km)
Highway: 56 miles** (90 km)
Combined: 77 miles*** (124 km)

http://www.brammo.com/empulse_specifications/

it still has the limited range issue, though it seems to perform well enough if kept within the city

but then we still have the recharge issue

Level I maximum charging time: 8 Hours. (0 – 99% SOC, no cell imbalances)
Level II maximum charging time: 3.5 Hours. (0 – 99% SOC, no cell imbalances)

and it seems they range from $17,000 to $19,000




RE: still limited range
By Dr of crap on 8/3/2012 1:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
WHY does everyone always bring up the range issue?

We know it won't go far on battery power. It's a given. It's powered by batteries!

IF it doens't work for you ok.
It does have a place for a small population to use, I said SMALL population.
They will never sell millions of these in our lifetime.

Can we please get away from always pointing out how far it can go?


RE: still limited range
By kattanna on 8/3/2012 2:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
though it seems to perform well enough if kept within the city


you seemed to have missed that last bit where i was actually complimenting it.


RE: still limited range
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 2:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
Range is always a factor because if it won't go as far as you need to, you have to own another vehicle or rent with the associated wasted time and addt'l cost, plus the relatively long charge time compared to filling a gas tank.

Plus, the majority of motorcycle riders like to get out and put more miles on than that, it's sort of the point as you don't usually take a bike to go grocery shopping or suit up and then change clothes back and forth commuting to work. Some people do of course but it gets to be a PITA to do it every day.


RE: still limited range
By Wererat on 8/3/2012 2:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
You've answered the other post, but I wanted to point out that many motorcycles have (roughly) similar ranges. The big cruisers don't get stunning MPG and still have 3-5 gallon tanks. My relatively efficient Ninja gets 55mpg or so and holds a bit over 4 gallons.

However, the ROI isn't quite there even with the tax incentive, unless your price standard is a BMW or H-D bike. It'll come along, though.


RE: still limited range
By lennylim on 8/3/2012 2:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
Difference is that your bike takes less than 5 minutes to refuel.


RE: still limited range
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 9:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hey what a coincidence my ninja also gets 55mpg.


RE: still limited range
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 2:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
The type of person who buys a cruiser is probably the last one who'd get an electric bike.

Outside of cruisers there are lots of bikes that get under 40 MPG including a Ninja ZX-6R, or just about anything over 400cc in an older bike or out of tune.


What's the difference?
By bug77 on 8/3/2012 9:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
If there's a motor in both, what's the difference between an electric bike and an electric motorbike?




RE: What's the difference?
By troysavary on 8/3/2012 9:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
An electric bike is like a traditional pedal bike, but with an added eletric motor. Generaly, just a small motor used to assist on hills and the like. The motors can be purchased as an add-on to a bike you already have.

On the other hand, an electric motorcycle looks more like a real motorcycle, or maybe more like a scooter. They tend to have larger motors, more battery capacity, and go faster than electric bikes.


RE: What's the difference?
By Jeffk464 on 8/3/2012 1:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
Freeway legal, licensed, full lights, etc


RE: What's the difference?
By jimbojimbo on 8/3/2012 4:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
In Illinois anyway if an electric bicycle is 1hp or less and can only go 20mph on its own power on flat ground with a 170lbs person riding it it's considered a bicycle and can ride on any of the bike lanes and paths. The rider must be 16 years or older and does not require a drivers license or any type of insurance or registration.
If it's more powerful it must be treated as a motorized vehicle kind of like a scooter and must be registered and insured.
It's different for every state though but that's the common US trend. In the UK they limit the power to 400watts which is pretty damn weak. 750watts is about 1hp.


China vs USA comparison?
By othercents on 8/3/2012 11:19:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The Detroit News reports that last year about 25 million electric bikes were sold in China compared to fewer than 100,000 in the United States. The tax credit will cost $15 million over two years and will reportedly create thousands of new jobs.


Really they are going to compare the number of electronic bikes sold in China vs the number sold in America? We have and sell way more cars than China does. It just isn't practical to drive cars in China and bikes are a more practical means of transportation, while in America, cars are practical and bikes can be dangerous with so many cars around. Bikes are left for recreation or in some cases commuter when talking short distances.

Other




RE: China vs USA comparison?
By NVResident on 8/3/2012 11:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you may want to re-evaluate your comments about the number of cars sold. With 1.3 billion people in China and just over 300 million in the US, even with the difference in the dependency on cars here, they are projected to sell more than 17.9 million vehicles this year. Reports show that the US will not reach 16 million until 2015.

As for the number of e-bikes manufactured and sold in China actual industry reports place the number closer to 29 million and less than 10% are exported.

As for the society's dependency on cars over mass transit, this is a loosing battle. An electric power-assisted bike can deliver an average urban commuter's daily distance for less than $.20 in electrical fees. There is a place for everything.

Regarding your last comment, the roads are to be shared by all and as an licensed driver you must allow for all types of approved vehicles, bicycles, motor scooters, motorcycles and things bigger then you.


RE: China vs USA comparison?
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 2:22:51 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't matter what the ideal is about sharing the road, the fact remains that with motorcycles being a small minority drivers aren't expecting them and not checking for them as well as they should so the reality is constantly riding everywhere on a bike is more dangerous.


I'm tempted
By PaFromFL on 8/4/2012 8:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
I've been thinking about getting an electric bike, and this might get me to do it. The subsidy is designed to stimulate the economy by creating new US jobs and reduce our balance of payments problem by cutting oil consumption. One purpose of our government is to tweak the economy to benefit society in general. I really don't mind paying taxes for this particular subsidy.




RE: I'm tempted
By mindless1 on 8/4/2012 2:25:47 PM , Rating: 3
No, all the government is doing is making everything cost more, reducing domestic product per dollar which is an impossible situation to be in if we hope to improve the economy, or reduce national debt.

You can't play shell games with the money and pretend that helps. The answer is to produce more and consume less, to NOT buy that new gizmo instead trying to rationalize it because someone else is paying for part of it.


Where's the budget?
By siliconvideo on 8/3/2012 10:25:27 AM , Rating: 3
This is a suggestion from a senate finance committee? What a waste of time. They haven't passed a real budget in over 3 years which is their primary responsibility, not this fluff/feel good tax credit for electric bikes.




Contradictory, Senator Wyden
By JohnThacker on 8/3/2012 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Senator Ron Wyden said, "There's no reason to have a credit for a golf cart."


But he then goes on to talk about American jobs building the things. If American jobs justify electric motorcycles, why don't they justify Americans building the golf carts? Every tax credit and complication of the tax code can scream "Jobs!"

Seems a good reason to me to have a level playing field, and none of these credits.




By taisingera on 8/3/2012 8:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
Based on what I read about Obama and his anti-suburb stance from here,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312807/burn...

Obama is anti-suburb, and wants to redistribute wealth between cities and suburbs and pass it off as helping the environment by preventing sprawl. I can see why the Senate would pass this crap. They want to give credits to people to buy electric bikes, so they can live in the cities, and no more polluting cars.




"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki