Buy a new EV in California and receive up to $17,000 in cash and rebates.  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2020, 07:35:23 pm
content: Would you like $17,000 off the price of your next new EV? Come to California and you will receive rebates and cash from Federal and state programs of $17,000. Thank your fellow tax payers for paying part of your new car bill.What a deal!https://ev.pge.com/

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 08:35:13 am
content: A reminder that the US Government spent over $1.9 trillion on the Iraq War, in part to secure oil from the Middle East.Talk about a fossil fuel subsidy from Uncle Sam, eh!

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 02:22:55 pm
content: Yup.! And we get to expand our imperialistic intentions.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 02:58:11 pm
content: Bonjour, So, Calif and US taxpayers shall pay 17K per EV bought by the rich guys?PAY FOR YOUR OWN CAR, I cant afford to subsudize you!(:-:)j

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 03:27:21 pm
content: no, the rich guys don't care.The subvention is good for the less rich, makes EVs affordableSame is true for gas. Subventions made gasoline extremely cheap in the US, in the past, compared to most countries.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 03:49:26 pm
content: In fact, EVs don't need this high level of subsidy any more.We just would need to remove any subsidy for gas cars and gas fuel in order to level the playfield.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 05:12:21 pm
content: Flip it around:Below $60k net salary you get the subsidyBetween $60k ~ $99,999 you get no subsidy or taxAfter $100k net salary you pay 10% luxury car tax

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 05:32:27 pm
content: why index a car tax on salary ?doesn't make any sense at all.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 05:45:27 pm
content: The idea is that people with money can already buy them if they want so you only help people if it would actually be required for them to make the purchase. It doesn't matter we're going to ruin our economy to push to be green which will be very successful because when nobody buys anything we're carbon free.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 06:13:49 pm
content: makes no sense at all.When your lifestyle implies that you "need" a car, then the alternative to an EV is not "buy nothing", but to buy a gasoline or diesel car.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 08:16:20 pm
content: EVs already make sense for a lot of luxury car buyers.Model S/X for instance is same price as equivalent BMW/Merc/AudiModel 3 is same price as BMW 3 series/Audi A4It's just a matter of choice but for petrol/diesel cars added tax plus fuel duty should be levied.As those cars become less common increasing taxes on the fuel is the only way to price them out of the market.

author: DougSpindler
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 08:25:23 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 11, 2020, 08:16:20 pmThis just hurts the poor.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 09:09:30 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on November 11, 2020, 08:25:23 pmCurrent UK petrol price is around £1.13 / litre. Of that £0.58 is government duty and another 20% (of the total) is VAT. That's a lot of government revenue shortfall in an EV world. I wonder how that will affect the affordability of benefits etc. I think the overall equation is a lot more complicated.I suspect that the revenue hit in the US is alotsmaller.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 09:24:17 pm
content: About $0.50 a gallon in CA.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 09:33:58 pm
content: Ouch, only around $0.15 / litre then... ~ £0.11 / litre.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 09:34:37 pm
content: Quote from: DougSpindler on November 11, 2020, 08:25:23 pmWell this is why I am not really a fan of the present way we tax vehicles and fuel.A better solution is a so-called revenue-neutral carbon tax.Basic idea is:You pay income taxes and get a $2,000 rebate from the stateFuel taxes are raised so that the average individual pays about ~$2,000 more in tax.So on average no one is paying any more. But now you have an incentive to try to save $2,000 a year. By driving a more economic car. Or choosing an electric one. Or driving less, or driving more efficiently.As for what governments replace fuel tax with, I suspect taxing electricity will be difficult. In the UK fuel tax raises about 1.3% of national revenue. So it doesn't sound disastrously hard to replace. A 1% rise in income tax for instance. There are almost certainly health benefits from having less polluted air too, may mean less healthcare stress (but also longer lives and more state pension - may not be so cut and dry.)

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 09:36:41 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on November 11, 2020, 09:33:58 pmSorry I was wrong, that's just our state excise tax. It's about $0.82 with all state and federal taxes included. Goes up to about $1.13 a gallon for diesel. Supposedly that's also the highest in the nation.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 09:39:38 pm
content: Ah ok, thanks. Still down at ~£0.18 / litre then.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2020, 09:40:00 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 11, 2020, 08:16:20 pmThe people barely making a living will thank you for taxing their holiday away because they need to spend more on fuel to get to workPlease think how and why the 'yellow jackets' movement started in Francebeforemaking statements like these. In the end the only thing taxes on fuel do is increase inflation because people will need to get to their work.And your view on taxation is utterly naive. Once taxes from fuel start to drop (which is happening in the Netherlands) there will be taxes on car usage. In the NL plans are in the making to tax electric cars per km (and do the same for all cars instead of fuel taxes in the future). In the end the amount of tax that comes in has to be constant whatever the cars are running on.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 01:56:59 am
content: What about heavily tax new cars that get less than 35 MPG highway, the lower the MPG, the higher the tax? I realize that will self defeat as car manufacturers make cars more efficient but that's the point.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 10:08:06 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on November 12, 2020, 01:56:59 amThat is exactly what they are doing in the Netherlands (and maybe other countries in Europe as well). For example: a Lada Niva costs around 12k euro. The CO2 taxes add up to 37k euro which makes the total price of the car nearly 50k euro. As a result this model is no longer sold in the Netherlands. This is a much more effective & targeted method compared to blindly taxing fuel.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 10:21:36 am
content: It doesn't work with older cars though.For instance, you can still buy a Range Rover SUV in the UK. 30 miles to the gallon is optimistic, especially with the bigger engine. No additional tax due, bar the annual ~£300 or so in VED, which is peanuts to someone buying a £60k car.These cars will be on the road for the next 15-20 years yet (well, maybe not for the Range Rover!, but true for other SUVs) yet we are told that we need to hit net-zero by 2040 or earlier.Need to retroactively tax big, expensive cars too. SUVs are needless for most people going to and from work. Unless you have 3-4 kids, an SUV is still unnecessary. A Golf comfortably seats a family of four, a Golf/Passat Estate seats more, yet the market share of these cars is decreasing year on year because SUVs with their tall & heavy profile are proving more attractive.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 10:30:08 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 12, 2020, 10:21:36 amBut the number of such cars is neglectible. Put some numbers on it and you'll see it doesn't matter at all. The average age of a car in the UK is 8.3 years. SUVs are just a fact of life until car manufacturers are no longer allowed to compensate CO2 emissions from SUVs with the so called 'zero emission' from EVs they sell themselves or buy CO2 emission certificates from other manufacturers. Either way: when new rules go into effect it will only take a few years before they will have a significant effect.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 10:48:01 am
content: I really disagree, they are not negligible. SUVs outsell hatchbacks by almost 30% nowadays and it continues to grow.People have moved from the Golf (which is already a big car) into cars like the Tiguan, Vauxhall/Opel Mokka, Peugeot 2008, etc. These are principally taller cars, slightly wider, and considerably heavier.Then we have ridiculous cars like the Audi Q7 that has caused a major supermarket in the UK to repaint their car parks because these SUVs are now too big to fit into normal car parking spaces assuming vehicles ~1.8m wide.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 11:02:34 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 12, 2020, 10:48:01 amI agree about SUVs but the only way to mitigate that is by making SUVs insanely expensive to buy. Not make operating cars in general more expensive. I think SUVs will become more expensive to buy anyway because car manufacturers in Europe are having a really hard time selling enough EVs to compensate enough to avoid CO2 emission fines from the EU. At some point they have to stop selling EVs at a loss and add the CO2 emission fine to the price of the cars. And at some point the loop hole needs to be closed as well. It is rather insane that for every EV sold there is a car out there creating the CO2 emissions anywayFrom all the car manufacturers it seems only Toyota is ready though -and they don't make EVs-.BTW: your original point was about cars being on the road for 15 to 20 years but that is not the case.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 02:03:42 pm
content: SUVs can be quite efficient if the manufacturers weren't cutting corners so much. For example, the Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid gets 32 MPG on gas only after 33 miles of all electric driving.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 02:26:14 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on November 12, 2020, 02:03:42 pm32MPG (US Gallons) is not efficient at all. My current non-hybrid (big station wagon) car does better than that. Come back when they do 45MPG.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 02:35:40 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 12, 2020, 02:26:14 pmWhich large non-hybrid gasoline powered station wagon does considerably better than 32MPG (38.5MPG imperial) on general mixed driving?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 02:50:06 pm
content: Ford Focus 1.6

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 03:06:16 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 12, 2020, 02:50:06 pmWhich part of "large" or "big" did you miss? A Pacifica is over 5m long. If you want to compare it to a European station wagon try comparing it to a BMW 5, Mercedes E, or Volvo V90.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 03:28:28 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on November 12, 2020, 02:03:42 pmAbout 38 mpg(uk) when my Golf plugin hybrid (similar parallel-hybrid powertrain when electric range depleted) achieves more than 50 mpg(uk).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 05:43:59 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 12, 2020, 03:06:16 pmBut the fact still is that you can buy a car which has a large amount of space but doesn't need an insane amount of fuel to move around. Calling a Pacifica efficient is just silly. BTW: A Volvo V90 and BMW 5 series wagon have a similar amount of cargo space compared to a Ford Focus wagon.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 06:08:57 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 12, 2020, 05:43:59 pmI own a V90, and I've rented a Focus. The amount of space is massively different. The Focus is quite a small car. You do know that the smallest Volvo, which they are just phasing out, the V40, is basically a Focus reskined and moved up market, don't you?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 06:21:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 11, 2020, 09:40:00 pmReally? That sound much saner than what we have now. I'm paying about 60 EUR/month for a Toyota Prius, that I used about 200Km in the last 3 month. This "tax based on weight" was a completely uniquely stupid idea from this country, that resulted everyone driving a 20 year old Daevoo Matiz, and other shitboxes.Honestly, a country with it's taxation should encourage people to have a nice car, that is environmentally friendly, and affordable. They could solve it that most people can afford a nice house, but they force these disgusting vehicles on people.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 07:21:03 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on November 12, 2020, 06:08:57 pmJust look at the specs. 1700liter for the Volvo versus 1620 liter for the Ford (at least the model I own). Maybe you rented a Ford Focus hatch back which is much smaller indeed. But it is a hatcback. Either way the difference is not significant (less than 20%).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 07:25:46 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on November 12, 2020, 06:21:50 pmAgain numbers... the average age of cars in the NL is 11 years and the Die-who Matiz cars are long gone. I haven't seen one in ages (good riddance BTW). Still tax based on weight is a good system in itself. It allows people to buy a car and does justice to road usage because heavier cars do more damage to the road.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 08:15:02 pm
content: Trucks do cause far more damage to the roads. The damage a vehicle causes to a road is essentially related to the 4th power of its weight - I didn't believe it until I read it.https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/design/design-parameters/equivalent-single-axle-load/So, a 20 tonne truck does the damage of 625 x 2-tonne SUVs. Therefore if we are concerned about road damage, we would do better to focus on banning trucks and heavy vehicles from built up areas where they have no business being (if they are not collecting or making a delivery, then they should not be cutting through smaller towns unless there is no feasible alternative route.)The SUVs are more a problem because their extra weight causes more fuel burn, tyre and brake wear all contributing to increased pollution. They also use more road space than smaller vehicles, and generally are more hazardous to pedestrians in a crash.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 09:26:26 pm
content: So a tesla model s does about the same damage as a ford expedition. Both right about 5000 lbs.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 09:43:49 pm
content: Quote from: maginnovision on November 12, 2020, 09:26:26 pmTo the road and tyres, probably. (Actually given it has 400+ hp, probably a lot more to the tyres if the driver uses that all the time!)There will be less braking dust due to regen braking, and no tailpipe emissions, of course.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 12, 2020, 10:41:07 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on November 12, 2020, 08:15:02 pmEven small family cars are considerably heavier than they were 30 or 40 years ago. That all adds to road damage. If you think a 20 tonne truck is bad, a full sized articulated truck and trailer does tens of thousands times the damage of a family car.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2020, 12:23:24 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on November 12, 2020, 07:21:03 pmI just looked at the specs. You are right about the numbers they quote. However, I just watched a short video on the Ford UK site, showing the flexibility of the space in the back of the Focus Estate. Its really small, the way I remember, but it seems able to gain height by dropping the floor. It looks like there is no spare wheel. That gives in considerable extra space. as the V90 can't drop the floor - there is a spare wheel under there. On the other hand, it looks like the Focus can't drop the back seats flat, which should reduce the cargo volume. The cargo space in the V90 is compromised by its sloped off back. It looks elegant, but it means the V90 has similar cargo space to the smaller V60. However, everything else about the V90 is much larger and more comfortable.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2020, 08:50:03 am
content: An under-advertised feature of many vehicles is that you can remove the rear seat bench fairly easily and if the seats don't fold flat then, they will if you do that. In the case of my Peugeot, they actually hinged up and sat in front of the folded down seats, but you could also remove them and store them at home if you didn't need them while moving a big thing.I got a 55" plasma TV in the back of a 206 with the seats down - now that is impressive, I dare say!