Reply With Quote
I like it. Poor people shouldn't be driving anyways. This will definitely get them off the roads.
Not always. That 800/monthly is incremental and at least has the pretense of being somewhat controllable.
That 600 dollar car payment is not. Exchanging that flexibility for $450 in incremental savings might not be the easiest move.
I like it. Poor people shouldn't be driving anyways. This will definitely get them off the roads.
Edit: true, but not sure that many people will look at it as such. If they did, then they would just take the bus.
speaking of which, I will say this, we might get a decent public transportation system outta that.
lol -- it's the ultimate regressive tax
Just the cost of vehicles today. The cost of the required technology is going to put a damper of the poor buying a car.
State: Sorry, your vehicle doesn't pass emission tests.
Mechanic: It will cost you $1200 to fix it.
GM disputes claim it loses $49,000 per Volt sale
A Reuters report Monday said GM's plug-in hybrid was a big money-loser. GM, though, disputed the contention, saying Reuters' research "is grossly wrong" and accusing the news agency of bad math. The automaker said the news agency incorrectly "allocated product development costs across the number of Volts sold instead of allocating across the lifetime volume of the program, which is how business operates.”
The debate over the cost of the Volt is highlighting how much of a lightning rod GM -- and the Volt -- have become since the automaker’s federal bailout in 2009 and as the presidential election approaches, analysts said.
The car, which travels about 35 miles on electric power before a gasoline engine kicks in and extends the range by another 300 miles, has become a political football and favorite target of "GM haters" who are angry over the federal bailout, said Thilo Koslowski, an automotive analyst at research firm Gartner Inc.
"The Volt as a brand has become politicized," said Jeremy Anwyl, vice chairman of auto information company Edmunds.com.
That's in part GM's fault because it made the Volt a poster child for why it deserved the federal bailout, he said. More recently, "GM alive, Bin Laden dead" has become a theme of President Obama's reelection campaign.
Plenty of vehicles besides the Volt lose money when their development costs are included in the analysis, analysts said.
Even Honda may lose money on its conventional gasoline engine-equipped Fit because the sub-compact has a small profit margin that is eaten up by the unfavorable exchange rate between the Japanese yen and the U.S. dollar, Anwyl said. All of the Fits sold in the U.S. are made in Japan.
“Toyota lost a lot of money in the beginning when it brought the Prius to the world,” Koslowski said. “This is particularly true for cars with new powertrain technology like the Volt.”
The Prius is now a big seller for Toyota, rivaling conventional family sedans such as the Hyundai Sonata and Ford Fusion is sales. With sales likely to top 200,000 this year, it has become one of the best-selling passenger cars in America.
GM has sold more than 13,000 Volts so far the year, about half the volume that it had expected, and plans to idle the plant for four weeks starting later this month.
While sales are slow, the car is still doing better than other new-technology vehicles.
http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,3613718.story
and of course, Fox Repug Propaganda is pissing over the Volt, so you know the Volt's situation is a LOT BETTER than Fox lies.
http://nation.foxnews.com/chevy-volt...ds-dollars-car
Noticably absent from GM's rebuttal is any kind of number of their own. The number may not be -$49k per Volt, but they're definitely losing money on them.
"they're definitely losing money on them"
the article says ALL the new hybrid/electric vehicles, including the now-successful Prius, lost/are losing money. Why do you pick ONLY on the Obama-saved-GM Volt?
Might have something to do with this being a thread pretty much dedicated to the Chevy Volt. Could also have something to do with Toyota managing to make the Prius successful without extorting $50 billion from U.S. taxpayers.
"extorting $50 billion"
I know, I know, we've been down this road before. You're a fan of corporate welfare and I'm not.
I actually saw a Chevy Volt while driving to work this morning. First one I have seen. But that is to be expected as S.A. is not a particularly wealthy town.
This looks pretty promising right here, hopefully any PLEV can use this especially since Tesla makes most of their money providing the infrastracture and tech for many other EVs.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/13/t...september-24th
If USA was really serious about "energy independence", instead of letting the oilcos drill all over National Parks, private land, and US lands for next to nothing so the oil/gas companies have more oil to sell, the a steep tax on gas and diesel would work. In fact, BigOil sets national energy policy to enrich itself, not the US govt to direct the country for the benefit of its citizens.
Taxes Show One Way to Save Fuel
Just the other day, President Obama unveiled another example of how our hostility to anything that even remotely looks like a tax is leading us down the wrong path, ultimately making us worse off.
The president proudly announced energy-efficiency standards negotiated with the nation's carmakers, which will have to nearly double the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks sold, hitting 54.5 miles a gallon in 2025.
"It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle class families and it will help create an economy built to last," he said in an official statement.
The rules are a significant step in the battle against global warming. The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which developed the standards, said they will reduce our energy use by 12 billion barrels of oil and cut carbon emissions spewed by our cars, pickups and sport utility vehicles in half by 2025. They should also cut down on other forms of pollution, helping with problems like asthma and acid rain.
What the government didn't mention is that these improvements come at a high cost for drivers, automakers and society in general. They could be achieved much more cheaply by raising taxes on gasoline to a level comparable to that of pretty much every other industrialized nation.
The new mileage rules are so expensive, in fact, that even if one factors in all the expected gains from the policy - like less damage from climate change and fewer deaths from respiratory disease - many economists think that the costs actually outweigh the benefits.
The reason is fairly straightforward. Fuel-efficiency standards do not really change drivers' behavior in a helpful way. Gas taxes do.
Consider how a gas tax would work. Because it would make gas more expensive at the pump, we would drive less. When time came to replace the old family S.U.V., we would be more likely to consider a more fuel-efficient option. As more Americans sought gas-sipping hybrids, carmakers would develop more efficient vehicles.
This is not theory. We've seen it happen. In 2008, when the price of gas shot abruptly past $4 a gallon, Americans cut back sharply on their driving. Total miles driven on American highways declined for the first time since 1980 and gas use fell more than 4 percent. General Motors ditched the Hummer, and gas-guzzling pickups were briefly dislodged from the perch they had occupied since 1992 as the nation's most popular light vehicle.
Driving levels started creeping back up as soon as gas prices started receding, but a gas tax would be permanent and would lead to even bigger changes in habits. And the cost is lower than it seems. Economists point out that the energy savings would not change if the government returned all the revenue raised by a gas tax to Americans - perhaps through rebates for low-income people who spend a bigger share of their money on gas.
The weakness with the fuel-economy rules is that they don't affect people's behavior the way higher gas prices do. They apply only to new vehicles - not the ones on the road now - so it takes quite a long time to alter our overall gas use. And they carry perverse incentives: because new vehicles go farther on a gallon of gas, they give us a reason to drive more, leading to more congestion, accidents, pollution and gas consumption.
Christopher Knittel, an energy economist at the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology, estimated that if carmakers had devoted all their technological progress since 1980 to improving fuel efficiency, gas mileage would have improved 60 percent by 2006. Instead, they put most of their effort into more power and weight, and fuel economy gained less than 12 percent.
All this makes mileage standards an expensive way to restrain our energy use.
According to the government's analysis, the additional production and maintenance costs made necessary by the mileage rules will rise gradually to about $31.7 billion in 2025 - which will add about $1,900 to the average price of cars and light trucks. There are other costs, too. Some Americans will not be able to afford a new car. Profits of some automakers and dealers are likely to decline. Greater congestion will impose an added burden on health.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/12...r-own.xml?f=23
Shazbot. Just when I already think you are stupid, you sink to new lows.
Fuel usage can only be curtailed by a small percentage. Raising the fuel taxes will disproportionally hurt those who cannot afford it.
you don't have that sincere concern about regressivity when you want the (working) poor to pay income taxes, flat tax, and consumption taxes, do you?
The difference is that I believe all people should pay taxes, even if just a little bit.
There was study in TX that showed poor people paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes that the wealthy. But your blind ideology wants to punish the poor more.
The poor contribute more years, injuries, and deaths into your sacred military service than the wealthy.
Well, it depends on the criteria they used. Did they count SS and Medicare insurances? Did the deduct earned income credit, and other tax credits?
Fact is that about 48% of the tax filers get more money back in credits than was deducted from their paychecks in income tax. I say this is wrong. When you have a near majority of the population that doesn't give a rip about tax rates, because they don't pay any...
Think about what happens when more than 50% pay no income tax. It would be like having 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Doesn't negate his point. A gas tax is regressive as .
The article does mention a potential rebate for low income drivers to help offset the regresivity of the tax.
all countries with serious VAT, like 15% to 20%+, and higher for luxury goods, have huge deductions and allowances for the low-end incomes. It's the only way to make VAT approximate fairness, which is opposite of WC's blind, punitive "tax the moocher poor" ideology.
Very similar to the flat tax 2.0 with it's rebate program. Probably stands as good a chance at hitting legislation.
The gas tax does need to go up. Transportation infrastructure is pretty badly underfunded. $8 is ludicrous, but I'd at least like to see both the state and federal gas taxes get bumped by at least a dime.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions