Toyota to make some EV's. Why are they so ass-ugly?

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Poor people aren't incapable of adaptive creativity.

Good point. I've often thought about what I would do if prices were to increase much higher than my income or if I were to lose much of my income. (Not that I'm not generally improving my economic situation or have fear of the future.) We are close enough to schools, stores, clinics, places to work, family, friends and the like that not all would be lost even if we had to go afoot, which would eliminate the expense of commuting. Long distance transportation would be a bit more difficult or impossible perhaps if we had no car. Camping, site seeing, trips to zoos, museums and such would just have to be reduced or eliminated.

Or we could do like a few I've known who have taken to the woods. It's a little hard to do in the winters here, especially when it's as cold as -40°F (-40°C). But some do it and get by. As long as you move 10 miles every two weeks you're not breaking any camping laws.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Most of the poor in the US do have access to public transportation because most of the poor live in cities and surrounding suburbs.

One thing I've read is that in many areas the poorer people are generally pushed farther away from their jobs and end up having less or no access to public transportation.

That's the way it is here where I live. The next town 30 miles north of here is a ski town, which is very expensive to live in but is where the great majority of work can be found. Renting a place there like where I live now would be about 75% to 100% of my income. There is, however, a free bus service between here and there. Here, in the town where I live, prices are cheaper with the average family/person paying a little over 32% of their income on housing with a some pay over 50%, according to a recent investigation, albeit with prices still increasing. Another interesting fact is that most of the hotels and motels here are all full of permanent residents that can't afford to live anywhere else, which is said to be having an adverse affect on the tourism that this town and the next live off of. Now you can live farther away where it costs less to rent or buy a home, but public transportation stops here in my town making personal transportation an absolute necessity if you want cheaper rent.

Now the question is if fuel tax were increased little by little if in those areas public transportation, or some other means of affordable and accessible transportation, would become available or viable. The alternative, which I've seen far too often, is you get apartments designed for a couple or small family with 10 to 20 people in them that share the rent. Now that is one way poor people can adapt. It's not a legal nor healthy solution though.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Regressive means treating people disproportionately such that the wealthy stand to profit more or lose less than the unwealthy. An example of this is tax subsidies for wealthy people to purchase new EVs.

An example of a flat tax is 17 cents per gallon of gasoline. It's agnostic to the wealth of who is purchasing the product because the proportion of tax remains the same if you purchase a gallon, or 50,000.

No, that is not the definition of a regressive tax. From Investopedia:

What Is a Regressive Tax?
A regressive tax is a tax applied uniformly, taking a larger percentage of income from low-income earners than from high-income earners. It is in opposition to a progressive tax, which takes a larger percentage from high-income earners.

Say two people both spend $100 a month on gas.

Bob makes $40K a year so $1200 is 3% of his income
John makes $120K a year so $1200 is 1% of his income.

If the Feds raise the gas tax and double their gas bill an extra $100 a month they are taking another 3% of Bob's income but only 1% of John's income. The gas tax increase hit Bob 3 times harder than John.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Most of the poor in the US do have access to public transportation because most of the poor live in cities and surrounding suburbs.

I've lived in the burbs in 5 states. Hillsboro is the first that has public transportation. The rural and suburban poor outnumber the urban poor almost 2 to 1.




Governments around the world want people to buy EVs to reduce CO2 and local urban pollution. They want them to buy EVs now because cars are durable goods so cars built today will still be on the roads decades from now. The problem is that today an EV costs more than a gas car. A logical person looking at dollars and cents will buy a gas car today. So if the government wants to change that calculation they have to make gas cars more expensive or EVs cheaper.

The easiest and most direct way to do that is when the car is purchased. Instead of giving an EV a $7500 credit they could add a surcharge to new car sales based on CO2 emissions.

The other option is doing what the EU did. Force automakers to make more efficient cars by make the fines so large that companies can't just pay the fines. See VW's fleet emission for the proof that it works.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Poor people aren't incapable of adaptive creativity.

You would be surprised to see how far such creativity extends itself in countries like mine. But anyway, there are always some compromises, which either I see as excessively dangerous or other folks would prefer to avoid as they perceive as "less prestigious". Trust me, the poorest often put a higher priority on how the others would see them either as winners or losers, sometimes getting in debt only to show-off as if they had a better income.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

You would be surprised to see how far such creativity extends itself in countries like mine. But anyway, there are always some compromises, which either I see as excessively dangerous or other folks would prefer to avoid as they perceive as "less prestigious". Trust me, the poorest often put a higher priority on how the others would see them either as winners or losers, sometimes getting in debt only to show-off as if they had a better income.

Like when I go to Mexico. It seems everyone there has to wear name brand everything, from shoes to shirt to pants. Hair must be styled and for the women, makeup must be put on just to go to the corner store. It's embarrassing for some to use the bus, even though they barely can make a vehicle work for them.

But you go to these rich towns around here where everyone has a multimillion dollar home. And as my brother puts it, they all dress like hobos. They have holes and patches on their clothes, torn shoes and hats, and love taking the bus or just walking instead of driving their car. Kids go to school in their pijamas and slippers without combing their hair in the rich towns.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by JSH

Your complaint is pretty much only relevant to early Leafs with crappy batteries.
BTW, what is the break-down of that $665? The Wisconsin DMV says a plate is $85 and EVs have a $100 surcharge.

The $100 is terrible but the title fee is where you get raped

Registration = State + County + municipality fees
Plug in Title = 2.5x your particular registration cost


The county+local can be as much as state taxes and the additional title fee is horrifying.

My complaint is true of every non-Tesla up through the Bolt even including PHEVs and hybrids that pay extra taxes.
A car that can’t drive at least 300 miles and has a real and useable charge network in the area should pay less registration than a gas car since it’s not possible to use it like a gas car. EVs in Wisconsin average under 5000 miles a year and are still very rare, with the pollution they avoid you should pay minimal title plus registration to encourage not discourage their use.

I much rather see reduced EV taxes to encourage ownership than a government subsidy on new cars nobody buys that I have to pay back in the form of increased BEV taxes.

It is worth noting most cars including EVs are bought used in Wisconsin, reduced taxes would be the only way to motivate our dismal 3500 REGISTERED EVs on the road number up.

And all this coming from someone who doesn’t own a modern BEV,
The people I talk to despise the title fees and the changes that skyrocketed insurance costs, these types of conversations do occur with people that buy cheap used cars whether plug in or not.
The new market isn’t the only thing we need to concern ourselves with if we want normal people who buy used cars to get into BEV

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

No, that is not the definition of a regressive tax. From Investopedia:

What can I say, Investopedia is simply wrong. I'm finding other sources that define regressive taxation as

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.

This is the commonly understood definition.

With Investopiedia's definition, everything is regressive. The price of eggs is regressive by that definition. Assuming they are correct, what would you call a tax rate that decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases? That scenario is then left undefined, and flat tax is defined twice; once as a flat tax, and once as a regressive tax. It's an unuseful definition.

Governments around the world want people to buy EVs to reduce CO2 and local urban pollution. They want them to buy EVs now because cars are durable goods so cars built today will still be on the roads decades from now. The problem is that today an EV costs more than a gas car. A logical person looking at dollars and cents will buy a gas car today. So if the government wants to change that calculation they have to make gas cars more expensive or EVs cheaper.

The easiest and most direct way to do that is when the car is purchased. Instead of giving an EV a $7500 credit they could add a surcharge to new car sales based on CO2 emissions.

Complete agreement there. Better to tax the thing you want to reduce consumption of than to subsidize your best guess alternative(or the one lobbyists are bribing politicians to pick). We wanted to reduce cigarette smoking, so taxation on it went up. We didn't provide subsidies for bubble gum and sunflower seeds.

The other option is doing what the EU did. Force automakers to make more efficient cars by make the fines so large that companies can't just pay the fines. See VW's fleet emission for the proof that it works.

Local air quality is a separate matter from what the federal government should be concerned with; CO2 emissions. Unilaterally curbing CO2 emissions at the expense of the economy (which hurts the poorest most) is a fool's errand. If we reduce emissions while everyone else doesn't (which actually happened despite withdrawal from Paris Agreement), and the world boils away all life, what point is there? Do we get to go to climate heaven then?

In every respect, there is a climate cult of religious leaders, prophecies of doom, paths to salvation, doctrine of morality, slavery to a higher being (Mother Earth) or purpose (environment)... and I don't intend that as an insult, as every religion has useful and good aspects. Conserving scarce resources and using them efficiently is a good thing.

I point this out because I run every idea through this understanding and determine if it's based in religious dogma, or if it fundamentally addresses a problem in the real world. Sometimes dogma addresses a problem in the real world, and sometimes it doesn't, but it's slow to adapt because the point is to streamline decision making for the masses and not to adapt to a changing problem landscape.

[redpoint5]

I just wouldn't try to do long trips on EV.

The Prius Prime has enough EV range for local trips, and is super efficient on the highway while maintaining very good interior utility. I wonder what used ones are going for these days?

The C-max Energi would also be on my radar. I think Fords had about a 20 mile EV range.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

The $100 is terrible but the title fee is where you get raped

Registration = State + County + municipality fees
Plug in Title = 2.5x your particular registration cost

Are these one time costs or yearly?

Originally Posted by redpoint5

What can I say, Investopedia is simply wrong. I'm finding other sources that define regressive taxation as

This is the commonly understood definition.

You didn't read far enough in the Wikipedia article. It clear states fuel taxes as regressive.

Non-uniform excise taxation based on everyday essentials like food (fat tax, salt tax), transport (fuel tax, fare hikes for public transport), energy (carbon tax) and housing (council tax, window tax) is frequently regressive on income. The income elasticity of demand of food, for example, is usually less than 1 (inelastic) (see Engel's law) and therefore as a household's income rises, the tax collected on the food remains almost the same. Therefore, as a proportion of available expenditure, the relative tax burden falls more heavily on households with lower incomes.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

With Investopiedia's definition, everything is regressive. The price of eggs is regressive by that definition. Assuming they are correct, what would you call a tax rate that decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases? That scenario is then left undefined, and flat tax is defined twice; once as a flat tax, and once as a regressive tax. It's an unuseful definition.

A flat tax is a flat tax as long as it is applied to all income. If we had a income tax of 10% and all types of income were subject to that tax it would be a flat tax. If there are multiple rates that go up with income it is a progressive tax. If there are multiple rates go down with income it is regressive tax.

Almost all sales taxes are regressive as the more a household makes in general the small percentage of their income they spend (at least on things that are subject to a sales tax)

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Complete agreement there. Better to tax the thing you want to reduce consumption of than to subsidize your best guess alternative(or the one lobbyists are bribing politicians to pick). We wanted to reduce cigarette smoking, so taxation on it went up. We didn't provide subsidies for bubble gum and sunflower seeds.

The problem with that analogy is that cigarettes are essential goods.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Local air quality is a separate matter from what the federal government should be concerned with; CO2 emissions. Unilaterally curbing CO2 emissions at the expense of the economy (which hurts the poorest most) is a fool's errand. If we reduce emissions while everyone else doesn't (which actually happened despite withdrawal from Paris Agreement), and the world boils away all life, what point is there? Do we get to go to climate heaven then?

Local air pollution is a federal matter because only the US government and California have the authority to regulate emissions. We did that so we don't end up with 50 or 500 different sets of regulations.

But now we get the the crux of the issue. You don't think CO2 emission are a real threat so you aren't an board with the government trying solve that problem. That is a topic that has been talked to death on Ecomodder so there isn't any reason to rehash it.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Like when I go to Mexico. It seems everyone there has to wear name brand everything, from shoes to shirt to pants. Hair must be styled and for the women, makeup must be put on just to go to the corner store.

I don't need to go to Mexico to see it.

It's embarrassing for some to use the bus, even though they barely can make a vehicle work for them.

A lot of slum dwellers prefer to lower the suspension and swap bigger rims into whatever car they get, even though it becomes a PITA to drive around with nearly no suspension travel and they often resort to lower-quality tyres and other makeshift approaches which compromise the safety of everyone else. And if anyone criticises them, they claim critics to be always driven out of "envy" and riding on buses.

Instead of being reasonably-minded enough to keep an econobox stock such as this one...


...local ricers claim a lowered one like this would catch more attention than a Porsche or a Ferrari

But you go to these rich towns around here where everyone has a multimillion dollar home. And as my brother puts it, they all dress like hobos. They have holes and patches on their clothes, torn shoes and hats, and love taking the bus or just walking instead of driving their car.

I have met really rich people who drove either an older luxury car they kept since new or some random econobox. Sometimes they perceive an econobox as the best option to go under the radar attracting fewer attemption from thieves and kidnappers.

[redpoint5]

The wealthy live as though they were poor, and the poor live as though they were wealthy.

I had a cousin that could go through any amount of money he came into within days to months. $150k could disappear in a matter of 3 months. Regardless of his income, any extra money went into some dumb mod to a vehicle, some accessory to a rifle, or just partying.

My grandfather was a wealthy attorney, and he'd contemplate for years his next vehicle purchase; to replace his 15 year old one. His financial caution passed on to me as I sit on the Chevy Bolt forum for 3 years contemplating a used EV.

There's some happy medium between wasting your life researching the best financial move, and spending cash on vanity.