Support NeoGAF

[Darryl M R]

I haven't read the article because I'm switching back and forth from mobile, and the website isn't loading on for me correctly, but I wonder how this would work for someone that owns real estate but their main residency is elsewhere.

 

[Coolness]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135223101630187X

From your article:

However, brake wear of EVs tends to be lower because of their regenerative brakes (Barlow, 2014). There is very little literature which has investigated the actual reduction in emissions, so we have assumed a conservative estimate of zero brake wear emissions for EVs.

 

[///PATRIOT]

Who is gonna pay for that subsidy?

Free lunch again.

 

[Mutanthands]

I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, anything that encourages faster adoption of electric vehicles is good.

On the other hand, this almost seems like an indirect hand out to the auto industry, when they should really be using their own capital to make electric cars cheaper and more appealing to consumers. If they want to increase the volume of sales and push the economics of scale over the top, earn it.

Electric cars aren't going to go away. The auto industry can see that. I don't think Trump can do anything to stop it.

 

[WaterAstro]

Here's an incentive program in my area in BC Canada.

Looks like $8,000 to $12,000 depending on the type of car and whether you're getting it used or new.

https://www.cevforbc.ca/clean-energy-vehicle-program
https://scrapit.ca/incentivechoices/

Of course, this is Canadian dollars lol.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Electric cars have many of the same problems as combustion vehicles. They take up too much public space, use huge amounts of energy to transport often just one person around, make neighbourhoods unpleasant places to live and kill and maim both by accident and by those who use them maliciously. Increasingly research is finding they may produce particulate emissions from brake and tyre wear due to their weight.

Don’t waste money subsiding cars even more than they already are. Spend it on public transit and bicycle infrastructure and increase taxes on motoring to reflect the huge costs it represents for society.

And yet they are magnitudes better than internal combustion engine cars. If you want to personally revamp the entire infrastructure of the continental United States to support bicycle infrastructure, but you deeply underestimate how much a personal car is an absolute necessity once you leave a city center.

 

[DopeyFish]

This. This sounds good in theory, unless you actually live in CA and understand it has far more issues it needs to address than this. CA can't even afford to fix the roads, but they're going to subsidize electric cars for people? The only way this is going to get paid for, if it passes, is even more taxes on top of the already absurd amount Californians pay.

By getting cars to become EV, they remove dependence on gas and force dependence on the electrical grid.

Essentially, it keeps the upkeep in state and is new revenue for the state.

So while people may look at this from the perspective of money California can't afford to give out, they are also banking on the electrical dependence.

 

[numble]

By getting cars to become EV, they remove dependence on gas and force dependence on the electrical grid.

Essentially, it keeps the upkeep in state and is new revenue for the state.

So while people may look at this from the perspective of money California can't afford to give out, they are also banking on the electrical dependence.

Transportation infrastructure in California (including money for subways and high speed rail) comes from gas taxes that are very high. I don't think revenue from utility taxes is comparable. Do you have figures that show otherwise?

 

[the-pi-guy]

Who is gonna pay for that subsidy?

Free lunch again.

1.) If someone is buying an electric car, they are probably spending somewhere around that amount in taxes. So you could argue that they are simply getting a tax refund from themselves.

2.) Even if you didn't consider that. The actual cost per person for these subsidies is actually very small. Take the 7500$ subsidy, even if every car got the full subsidy, the cost per person is around 12$. (Assuming 500k cars, 300m people) And many don't get the full subsidy.

 

[grumble]

Power companies are whining about needing to increase fees due to solar users not buying enough power.

It isn't whining. There is a certain amount of fixed capital that is required to service homes. If people use less power, then the price of power goes up to concentrate those fixed costs.

 

[numble]

1.) If someone is buying an electric car, they are probably spending somewhere around that amount in taxes. So you could argue that they are simply getting a tax refund from themselves.

2.) Even if you didn't consider that. The actual cost per person for these subsidies is actually very small. Take the 7500$ subsidy, even if every car got the full subsidy, the cost per person is around 12$. (Assuming 500k cars, 300m people) And many don't get the full subsidy.

1) A tax refund that has a regressive effect, as it is higher income people that are more likely to buy a car, while lower income individuals ride buses and trains.

2) There are not 300 million people in California to spread the cost to.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Yes?

Should I have said half that?

hmm, default WordPress theme, this site looks trustworthy

maybe I should get me some of that driverless car hopium

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Electric cars have many of the same problems as combustion vehicles. They take up too much public space, use huge amounts of energy to transport often just one person around, make neighbourhoods unpleasant places to live and kill and maim both by accident and by those who use them maliciously. Increasingly research is finding they may produce particulate emissions from brake and tyre wear due to their weight.

Don’t waste money subsiding cars even more than they already are. Spend it on public transit and bicycle infrastructure and increase taxes on motoring to reflect the huge costs it represents for society.

So essentially scrap all the suburbs in the southern portion of the country and move everyone to new higher density areas. I'm glad California has people in charge who are coming up with practical responses to problems and not pipe dreams such as this.

 

[kamspy]

When you consider the lithium mining and transportation through the manufacturing chain, do these really have less impact than a super efficient 4 cylinder?

 

[the-pi-guy]

1) A tax refund that has a regressive effect, as it is higher income people that are more likely to buy a car, while lower income individuals ride buses and trains.

2) There are not 300 million people in California to spread the cost to.

1.) California is more likely than other states to push things to help lower income people.
Pushing these kinds of subsidies are supposed to help more middle class people to buy more electric. Which I consider to be a pretty Noble thing. It might not have a big impact on climate change, but it's more of a step in the right direction than what anyone else is doing.

2.) Assuming the rate is similar across the US and California, the rate will most likely be similar. Because there aren't 300 million people in California buying cars either. Something like this will of course increase the rate in California. But even then the cost wouldn't be as massive as the amount suggests unless electric basically replaces gasoline cars as the dominant in California which is unlikely to happen.

 

[tokkun]

1.) California is more likely than other states to push things to help lower income people.
Pushing these kinds of subsidies are supposed to help more middle class people to buy more electric. Which I consider to be a pretty Noble thing. It might not have a big impact on climate change, but it's more of a step in the right direction than what anyone else is doing.

Whether or not California is more likely to help lower income people in general (which is a highly dubious claim given that it has the highest inequality and highest poverty levels adjusted for cost-of-living) is not the question here. The question is whether this particular bill represents regressive wealth transfer to people on the higher end of the income scale.

I find this argument that a tax subsidy is needed to sell more electric cars to be very weak as well. The Tesla Model 3 has a backlog of orders that is expected to go past the end of 2018. In that context, can you explain how this subsidy is actually encouraging significantly more electric car sales in a practical sense? It appears that there is already more than sufficient demand at current price levels. The subsidy would give thousands of dollars in tax money to people who had already committed to purchasing vehicles.

If you are willing to put down $1000 to preorder a new car with an indefinite delivery date, it seems fairly obvious that you are not poor. Hence, this seems like a regressive transfer of wealth.

 

[Ogodei]

TIL the feds are still doing electric vehicle subsidies.

 

[rokkerkory]

One thing we need to address in Cali is that taxes for gas is gonna be lower due to more EVs. While EVs may be better for our environment, we need to find a way to fix our roads, they are getting SO CRAPPY. Gas taxes are used to help fix roads so yeah EVs will have to pitch in somehow.

 

[WaterAstro]

TIL the feds are still doing electric vehicle subsidies.

Need a nation-wide carbon tax to wake people up.

 

[AstroNut325]

Need a nation-wide carbon tax to wake people up.

This. But I also agree with the proposed bill that adds a bigger subsidy for EVs.

 

[RuGalz]

Whether or not California is more likely to help lower income people in general (which is a highly dubious claim given that it has the highest inequality and highest poverty levels adjusted for cost-of-living) is not the question here. The question is whether this particular bill represents regressive wealth transfer to people on the higher end of the income scale.

I find this argument that a tax subsidy is needed to sell more electric cars to be very weak as well. The Tesla Model 3 has a backlog of orders that is expected to go past the end of 2018. In that context, can you explain how this subsidy is actually encouraging significantly more electric car sales in a practical sense? It appears that there is already more than sufficient demand at current price levels. The subsidy would give thousands of dollars in tax money to people who had already committed to purchasing vehicles.

If you are willing to put down $1000 to preorder a new car with an indefinite delivery date, it seems fairly obvious that you are not poor. Hence, this seems like a regressive transfer of wealth.

This. Plus if one can afford a place that they can install a charging station at home in areas with high concentration of people/cars, which has biggest impact on environment, they don't really need the subsidy to afford an EV.

 

[Dreamwriter]

This. Plus if one can afford a place that they can install a charging station at home in areas with high concentration of people/cars, which has biggest impact on environment, they don't really need the subsidy to afford an EV.

Disagree with that statement, quite a lot of people can afford apartments who couldn’t pay $35,000 for a car (in CA most apartment buildings cannot by law refuse a tenant’s request to install a charger in their parking space).

Of course, this subsidy isn’t just for people who “need” it, it’s an incentive for people who are already planning to buy a new car, to choose electric instead of gas.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

One thing we need to address in Cali is that taxes for gas is gonna be lower due to more EVs. While EVs may be better for our environment, we need to find a way to fix our roads, they are getting SO CRAPPY. Gas taxes are used to help fix roads so yeah EVs will have to pitch in somehow.

That's pretty simple to solve. When you take the car in every 2 years for smog check, the inspector also checks the mileage of the car. And then the amount you pay in road taxes is a function of the weight of the car times the number of miles you drive.

In this case, EVs would go to smog check station every couple years but rather than getting a $40 smog check, it would be like a $10 mileage check or something. Basically make sure that people pay for the exact amount of damage they do to the roads rather than what their power/fuel usage is.

 

[RuGalz]

Disagree with that statement, quite a lot of people can afford apartments who couldn’t pay $35,000 for a car (in CA most apartment buildings cannot by law refuse a tenant’s request to install a charger in their parking space).

How many are willing to pay for the cost associate with installing and maintaining it knowing they aren't living in a permenannt place if they can't afford the 35k to begin with? Hybrid just makes way more sense for a lot of people.

Also, how many people buy an EV as the only car without a secondary car for distance travel? I get that it's an incentive but for the most part benefits higher income people without having subsidy scaled by income and limit of how many one can get.

 

[Earthbound64]

The actual cost per person for these subsidies is actually very small. Take the 7500$ subsidy, even if every car got the full subsidy, the cost per person is around 12$. (Assuming 500k cars, 300m people) And many don't get the full subsidy.

For someone named "The Pi Guy," you're not very good at mathematics.

1) There are not 300,000,000 people paying taxes in the United States. Unless you think that 4-year-olds are paying taxes or something. According to this from 2016, in 2014 there were ~139,600,000 people paying taxes in the United States

2) Why assuming 500,000 cars? Just to make the numbers work for you? What if all 139,000,000 people wanted to buy a car? Heck, what if each of them wanted to buy 2 cars?

You're basically just making up numbers to fit what looks good.
And that's even without touching your "California is more likely than other states to push things to help lower income people" assertion, which is basically just fantasy. Especially given your idea of having every person in the country contributing just to help California.

 

[the-pi-guy]

For someone named "The Pi Guy," you're not very good at mathematics.

1) There are not 300,000,000 people paying taxes in the United States. Unless you think that 4-year-olds are paying taxes or something. According to this from 2016, in 2014 there were ~139,600,000 people paying taxes in the United States

2) Why assuming 500,000 cars? Just to make the numbers work for you? What if all 139,000,000 people wanted to buy a car? Heck, what if each of them wanted to buy 2 cars?

You're basically just making up numbers to fit what looks good.
And that's even without touching your "California is more likely than other states to push things to help lower income people" assertion, which is basically just fantasy. Especially given your idea of having every person in the country contributing just to help California.

1.) It's the average per person. Of course the average is ultimately offset by most people not paying taxes. That's generally how averages work.
For example, if I were to say people on average are sick once a year, would you find it "bad math" to exclude the people that weren't sick?

With the current federal tax subsidies for electric cars, the average person spends about 12$ for this initiative. This means the average family of 4, spends 48$, family of 6 spends 72$.
Putting in the average terms is much meaningful because it is much easier to calculate the rate for a 4 person family or an X person family.

The fact that some people don't pay taxes and others pay quite a bit in taxes, ultimately means that the analysis gets much more complicated for determining how much a particular individual gives to these subsidies.

Not to mention, other forms of tax such as sales taxes, which makes it even more difficult to assess.

Sure, it's missing a lot in it's analysis. All I was really trying to do was give a reasonable estimate for the impact that this has. Theres tons of math dedicated to giving estimates, when computing the reality is too costly.

But sure, bad math.

2.) Because that's how many electric cars have been sold in the US total. Unless you are expecting a ~106,800% increase (compared to the last year) in electric cars, for some reason.

I never said that other states would be helping California.

Basically if 10 people buy 1 electric car, then expecting 100 people to buy 10 electric cars is not unreasonable.
Basically California has a smaller population to buy cars, so they are likely to buy less cars.
There aren't 139 million in California to buy cars.

The rates under California's proposal will probably be a doubling of what the federal is. So, if the average US citizen is paying 12$ towards the subsidy, the average California citizen is paying closer to 25$ (this is of course dependent on how aggressive they end up being). Could even be much higher, especially if more people start buying electric cars like they are expected to.


That 12$ is total, spread out over the past several years. It would have been around 3$ on average last year.

It's impossible to make actual estimates of how much this would cost the average CA citizen, (let alone taxpayer) because we don't know how big the subsidies will be quite yet, and how much it would affect car sales.

 

[Earthbound64]

But sure, bad math.

Indeed.

It's impossible to make actual estimates of how much this would cost the average CA citizen, (let alone taxpayer) because we don't know how big the subsidies will be quite yet, and how much it would affect car sales.

So what have you been doing, then?

 

[Just_myles]

If you live in CA, your condo HOA cannot prohibit you from installing a charger in your parking spot. So consider your dice returned.

I was not aware of that. I'm going to check my cc&rs and see if I can should I ever decide to invest.

 

[the-pi-guy]

Indeed.




So what have you been doing, then?

Very rough guestimates based on the past 8 years of US electric car sales.

If you wanted to take issue with the fact that I included all citizens including non-tax-payers, that should be extended that usually any given year that only about 95 million Americans actually owe tax.


My only point that I was trying to make in the above posts is that the costs for these subsidies aren't that massive.

The federal government had set aside $2 billion for the subsidies, between 2009 and 2019.

That's $200 million dollars a year, which is tiny for the federal government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-electric-vehicles-what-are-we-getting-back/

 

[ponpo]

Musk retweeted this today lol

https://amp.theguardian.com/environ...fuel-subsidies-are-a-staggering-5-tn-per-year

Fossil fuel subsidies are a staggering $5 tn per year.

A new study finds 6.5% of global GDP goes to subsidizing dirty fossil fuels

 

[numble]

1.) It's the average per person. Of course the average is ultimately offset by most people not paying taxes. That's generally how averages work.
For example, if I were to say people on average are sick once a year, would you find it "bad math" to exclude the people that weren't sick?

With the current federal tax subsidies for electric cars, the average person spends about 12$ for this initiative. This means the average family of 4, spends 48$, family of 6 spends 72$.
Putting in the average terms is much meaningful because it is much easier to calculate the rate for a 4 person family or an X person family.

The fact that some people don't pay taxes and others pay quite a bit in taxes, ultimately means that the analysis gets much more complicated for determining how much a particular individual gives to these subsidies.

Not to mention, other forms of tax such as sales taxes, which makes it even more difficult to assess.

Sure, it's missing a lot in it's analysis. All I was really trying to do was give a reasonable estimate for the impact that this has. Theres tons of math dedicated to giving estimates, when computing the reality is too costly.

But sure, bad math.

2.) Because that's how many electric cars have been sold in the US total. Unless you are expecting a ~106,800% increase (compared to the last year) in electric cars, for some reason.

I never said that other states would be helping California.

Basically if 10 people buy 1 electric car, then expecting 100 people to buy 10 electric cars is not unreasonable.
Basically California has a smaller population to buy cars, so they are likely to buy less cars.
There aren't 139 million in California to buy cars.

The rates under California's proposal will probably be a doubling of what the federal is. So, if the average US citizen is paying 12$ towards the subsidy, the average California citizen is paying closer to 25$ (this is of course dependent on how aggressive they end up being). Could even be much higher, especially if more people start buying electric cars like they are expected to.


That 12$ is total, spread out over the past several years. It would have been around 3$ on average last year.

It's impossible to make actual estimates of how much this would cost the average CA citizen, (let alone taxpayer) because we don't know how big the subsidies will be quite yet, and how much it would affect car sales.

Very rough guestimates based on the past 8 years of US electric car sales.

If you wanted to take issue with the fact that I included all citizens including non-tax-payers, that should be extended that usually any given year that only about 95 million Americans actually owe tax.


My only point that I was trying to make in the above posts is that the costs for these subsidies aren't that massive.

The federal government had set aside $2 billion for the subsidies, between 2009 and 2019.

That's $200 million dollars a year, which is tiny for the federal government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-electric-vehicles-what-are-we-getting-back/

The draft of the California bill asks for $3 billion at $500 million/year, which is a large amount for the California government.

The federal budget is $4 trillion/year, while the California budget is $125 billion. Unlike the federal government, they cannot just deficit spend, and raising taxes requires a 2/3 vote of the voters or the legislature. So the money will likely need to be taken away from somewhere else.

That amount of money can fund a subway line or other rail line that could be used for millions of rides per week by lower income individuals. The newest rail line in Los Angeles has 1.7 million rides per week and cost less than $3 billion.