[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

What is the efficiency requirements for EV's. Does it matter? The least efficient EV for sale in the USA get the equivalent of 70 mpg. Do you think we need to start regulating EV efficiency at this point?

You're missing the point of why I mention such an absurd notion; that the government already implements massive carrots to purchase EVs and massive sticks to dissuade ICE sales.

The proper way to frame my assertion that EVs are massively subsidized and ICE is penalized isn't to see what Norway is doing and compare that to us, but to imagine what things would be like if we reversed them.

Imagine ICE vehicles receive a $7,500-$10,000 tax subsidy, but EVs do not.

Imagine EVs must meet certain miles per kWh requirements or face penalties, but ICE vehicles don't have such requirements.

Imagine you had to pay for a yearly inspection to make sure battery fluid wasn't leaking, but ICE vehicles had no inspection requirements.

Imagine if electricity to charge the EV had an extra 20% tax on it to fund infrastructure.

Have I made a convincing argument yet? Is there any disagreement except some people just don't feel like the truth is the truth (or we can quibble about the term "massive)?

I don't point all this out because I'm anti-EV, because I am among the most enthusiastic about them. I'm just against retarded ideas.

Why do people arguing against tax credits always go to the extreme case?

Tax credits are extremely dumb, so perhaps an extreme aversion to extremely bad ideas is the only reasonable position.

The USA still has a pretty broad middle class that owns their own home and buys new cars. They could charge at home if they had an EV. However, they don't have the budget to spend $5,000 to $10,000 more on a car to get an EV. These are the people that incentives can be the deciding factor. However, middle class people don't get the full EV tax credit. A family of 3 making $70K a year would only get $3029 for the Federal EV tax credit. They would need to make $107K a year to get the full $7500.

My helicopter budget is a bit insufficient too. Perhaps a tax credit for people exactly in my position could be created to help push us over into a purchase. Making the tax credit refundable would help even more if I didn't have sufficient tax liability (not paying my fair share).

Where is the logic that a family making $70K a year should get a smaller EV tax credit than a family making $107K a year?

Where is the logic that anyone capable of fronting the money in the first place should pay less of their share of taxes that society has deemed is necessary for governmental operations? What is the logic in the government choosing which technologies to support, and which to harm to address a problem so complex that nobody could ever understand it sufficiently well enough to prescribe any particular remedy?

Why quote the extreme case instead of the average case?

CA consumes more gasoline than any other state, and there are probably more people that visit this site from CA than any other state. It's also a good proxy for the whole US. The national average price now is $2.89. The average federal/state tax is $0.50, or about 17% of the fuel is taxes. The tax rate is higher when prices are lower as was the case a few months ago, and the rate is lower when fuel prices are high.

If we are talking federal incentives the Federal gas tax is 18 cents a gallon and hasn't changed since 1993. Paying 18 cents a gallon in fuel taxes isn't going to make someone decided they need to go out a buy an EV.

Your statement seems to suggest the conflicting ideas that it's a problem that the federal tax rate hasn't changed in a long time, and that changing the tax would have little impact on consumer behavior. As I'm constantly saying, the most reasonable way to change fossil fuel consumption is to change the tax rate. Any other proposal is less efficient, less effective, and less ethical.