31–40 of 48 posts
Wow, if they're giving that much away to EV buyers, just think how much they'll hand out to people who walk to work!
yeah as someone that bikes 25 miles per day for commute it kinda bothers me how many tax breaks are given to other forms of commute like trains, buses, vansharing, EV, etc.
It's hardly a "bailout" when Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth. The sales tax alone on many of the current models exceeds this tax credit.
> Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth California collects a 7.5% sales tax on the purchase of new vehicles [1]. A $40,000 car would thus generate $3,000 of state sales tax income. That appears to be much less than the value of the proposed credits. [1] https://www.salestaxhandbook.com/california/sales-tax-vehicl...
I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. There are currently 4 other large volume production EV's being sold in California (Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, BMW i3). EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.
Because the benefits of the subsidy are disproportionately given to companies that exhaust federal subsidies. And Tesla will be the only one to do that for some time. EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet. It's not unreasonable to wait until battery costs come down so mass adoption comes naturally. They do make sense environmentally, but there is a far better way to compensate them for the actu…
Taxing vehicle sales and offering subsidies are dumb ways to incentivize reducing environmental impact. Instead, just tax that environmental impact directly and don't punish people who figure out how to live environmentally friendly using older, less environmentally friendly technology. People and companies will adjust their behavior accordingly. As a bonus, instead of costing the state billions, the state will collect billions, so they can spend the money building out renewable energy infrastructure, planting trees, creating more state parks and other programs that benefit the environment.
I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. There are currently 4 other large volume production EV's being sold in California (Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, BMW i3). EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.
Because the benefits of the subsidy are disproportionately given to companies that exhaust federal subsidies. And Tesla will be the only one to do that for some time. EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet. It's not unreasonable to wait until battery costs come down so mass adoption comes naturally. They do make sense environmentally, but there is a far better way to compensate them for the actu…
But how will battery costs come down if no one invests in it? You sound like the people in my country, forever waiting for the price of wind turbines to drop.
The Danish, German and Dutch government handed out massive subsidies for the first wind parks. Now, because of those subsidies, subsequent wind turbine parks can be built without any subsidies.
But that would've never been possible without those initial investments.
I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. There are currently 4 other large volume production EV's being sold in California (Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, BMW i3). EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.
Because the benefits of the subsidy are disproportionately given to companies that exhaust federal subsidies. And Tesla will be the only one to do that for some time. EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet. It's not unreasonable to wait until battery costs come down so mass adoption comes naturally. They do make sense environmentally, but there is a far better way to compensate them for the actu…
Also, CA already has a cap and trade program (a bill just passed to extend the program another 10 years). It has been around since 2012.
It's hardly a "bailout" when Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth. The sales tax alone on many of the current models exceeds this tax credit.
> Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth California collects a 7.5% sales tax on the purchase of new vehicles [1]. A $40,000 car would thus generate $3,000 of state sales tax income. That appears to be much less than the value of the proposed credits. [1] https://www.salestaxhandbook.com/california/sales-tax-vehicl...
Tesla sells expensive cars, revenue per car is currently near $90.000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. Because clearly the included plug-in hybrid subsidy is obviously a handout to Tesla, which doesn't even participate in that market. Or because it's a hit piece that doesn't cite anything in the actual bill, only claims in an email from a hostile legislator and reporting by other news outlets.
Why would any govt want to subsidize hybrids? isn't their goal to be all electric by 2050 something?
Because for many common usage patterns, plug-in hybrids get nearly all the emissions benefits of full-electric vehicles, but a practical for people to use who have a small fraction of use where a full EV would not currently be suitable for reasons of range and state of fast-charging infrastructure.
> isn't their goal to be all electric by 2050 something?
The real goal is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But, a subgoal of that cited by the governor's executive order that this bill cites is a target to have “virtually all” personal vehicle transportation be zero-emission by 2050. Some (possibly even significant) share of personal transport being by PHV that are used mostly within their all-electric range would not be incompatible with that.
And, in any case, the PHV subsidy in the bill phases out more than 25 years before 2050, because PHVs are seen mostly as a bridge, not a end-goal solution.
The Business Insider piece sourced it's information on what the bill does not on the bill text, but on a combination of an advocacy email from an opposed legislator and reporting by the Mercury News. The rebate plan does not do at all what the article claims; specifically, for instance, it does not establish a new general rebate that is designed to match the difference between an electric vehicle's price and that of…
Wow, if they're giving that much away to EV buyers, just think how much they'll hand out to people who walk to work!
Well, if you walk (or bike) to work, your public subsidy is not paying gas taxes (and, having the option to not even pay regular sales tax on your fuel.) If your personal vehicle choice is “I walk or bike everywhere, so I don't need a car”, your additional public subsidy is not paying Vehicle License Fee.
Sure, those are actually public levies on those making the alternative choice, but that's equivalent to a public subsidy for your choice, just with a shift in what is the baseline case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. Because clearly the included plug-in hybrid subsidy is obviously a handout to Tesla, which doesn't even participate in that market. Or because it's a hit piece that doesn't cite anything in the actual bill, only claims in an email from a hostile legislator and reporting by other news outlets.
Why would any govt want to subsidize hybrids? isn't their goal to be all electric by 2050 something?