By on August 13, 2014


California’s low- and mid-income residents may soon be able to board the EV train with help from a bill now working its way through the state’s legislature.

The Los Angeles Times reports California Senate Bill 1275, sponsored by Sen. Kevin de Léon of Los Angeles, would mandate the California Air Resource Board to place an income cap on rebate and incentive eligibility, democratizing electric vehicles in so doing.

As it stands, four-fifths of residents currently receiving the credits have an average annual income of $100,000 or more:

A $2,500 rebate to purchase an electric vehicle is not likely to matter to someone earning over $300,000 a year, but it does make a big difference to someone earning $60k a year. Every community deserves clean air, regardless of wealth.

On top of the $7,500 federal credit, low- and mid-income residents — who would be favored over high-income residents under the bill — would receive $2,500 for buying an EV, $1,500 for ditching a high-polluting vehicle, and $3,000 or more (depending on air quality of residence) for buying a clean-air vehicle. A $3,000 credit toward public transit passes or car-sharing memberships would also be available for those who give up their vehicles with no intention of replacement.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

68 Comments on “California Bill Aims To Democratize EVs Among Low, Mid-Income Residents...”

  • avatar

    Ah, what they should have done in the first place, let the people who can afford the cars pay full boat, and people who may need a little help/incentive to step into an electric vehicle get the credits if they need the help.

    How long before the rich sue for discrimination with the argument that “Ultra-Moneyed-Americans should be eligible for all the same tax breaks and incentives as the poors!”

    I suppose this isn’t as strange as the Japanese government announcing they may incentivize the ENTIRE COST of some new Fuel Cell Vehicles just to get people into them and buying fuel in cells, apparently, it’s “The Coming Thing!”

  • avatar

    California is going to continue to be a welfare state until the government stops interfering with the free-market, taxing people or actually working more, and secures the border.

    They’ll keep losing jobs and keep gaining low skilled workers who need welfare to survive.

    That whole place is going to look like America does in the movie ELYSIUM- in 10 years.

    • 0 avatar

      LOL. Are you actually qualified to make comments about California? Do you live there? I don’t but you don’t see me making ASSumptions about it either.

      That being said, I love the typical conservative answer of “let the free market decide”. How many times have we left things up to the market only for the market to screw people?

      If they want more people to adopt electric vehicles, then they need to offer some kind of incentive. It’s really not right when only the ultra-rich can afford such vehicles and yet, hog all the incentives.

      • 0 avatar

        Electric vehicles are too expensive to build and the free-market shuns them in favor of internal combustion cars – Which are far cheaper to operate and far more time efficient.

        The Free-market does work if you let it.
        But do not confuse the free market with crony capitalism.

        Furthermore – if people can’t afford a car then they shouldn’t have one. I can’t afford an F 35…so I don’t have one. California’s roads are already crowded and traffic is a nightmare so the way I see it: if they can’t afford a car, no welfare or subsidies should be afforded for them to afford a car.

        Let them take the bus.

        The bus is the most efficient form of mass transit there is.

        • 0 avatar

          How do you support claiming that ICEs are “cheaper to operate”? Running a car on electricity is about one-third the cost compared to gasoline, and while it’s expected that maintenance of the motor system to be significantly less, the data isn’t in yet.

          Perhaps you mean if a battery needs to be replaced? Those are likely good for 100k+ mi, and replacing them is similar in expense as replacing a transmission, which also should last 100k+ mi.

        • 0 avatar

          The free market forces will work. However let’s not forget that its a global market. If other nations foster the production of EV’s, when EV’s do become mainstream the US will wake up and wonder why the rest of the world has the market to themselves.

          This is a golden opportunity to swap oil imports for domestically produced electricity and additionally the export of EV technology. If we don’t foster the EV technologies domestically we will miss the boat, and the boat will only make one call at the port of opportunity.

          • 0 avatar

            JP, if other nations make a switch to EV, which doesn’t seem to be the case, then its best for us to not worry about it.

            Having access to the entire worlds supply of oil and all that jazz.

            Either way there’s no advantage to being first.

            Additionally, stop the entire oil importing crap, we get the vast majority of our oil from North America and its not a secret.

          • 0 avatar

            And let’s not forget that the EV world will be one where we’re buying battery materials from places that make the middle east look like Vermont. I can’t WAIT to see what genocidal African warlords do when they have inexhaustible wealth.

          • 0 avatar

            There will be no such time as “when EV’s do become mainstream”. The constraints of battery chemistry will see to that just as they always have.

          • 0 avatar

            And JPWhite, your argument sounds identical to the one used when we created a market for a previously-non-existent Chinese solar industry. Learn from your last set of mistakes. The country can’t afford your brand of ineptness any longer.

          • 0 avatar

            fincar1, I would be interested in buying a Fuelcell-powered car, if it can be had in my price-window, like the conventional ICE vehicles. The novelty of the Fuelcell would attract me.

            Batteries only give me range anxiety. And IMO, Hybrids can easily be displaced/replaced by small ICE cars of the same size and shape, without the added cost and weight for the batteries.

            EVs, PEVs and Hybrids will never be on my shopping radar.

      • 0 avatar

        Out of curiosity, why is it “not right” for wealthy people to be the main buyers of new, expensive technology?

        Clearly, EVs aren’t to a point where the median household will buy them in any appreciable numbers (even with subsidies), but the govt still wants them to sell. If incentives are made available, then the rich will necessarily “hog” those incentives.

        I don’t know if the incentives make a difference for whether they buy the cars, but I’m guessing they do to a greater extent than if the cars were simply cheaper by the same amount (due to the irrationality of getting a sale).

        • 0 avatar

          #1 You can BUY an ICE car for less than $30,000. (fully loaded in the case of some cars)

          #2 electric vehicles need heavy subsidies just to APPROACH the price of the equivalent ICE vehicle since their parts and batteries are so much more expensive.

          #3 Where are you getting all that ELECTRICITY from?

          #4 How LONG does it take to “recharge” an EV?

          Takes me no more than 3 minutes to refuel my Jeep or 300 I call that “time efficient”.

          The BEAUTIFUL THING about Darwinism is that it’s true. The reason EV haven’t done better is because they are more expensive, we lack the infrastructure to cater to them, they are less time efficient and fossil fuels are cheap and available – if you take out the geopolitical problems revolving their production.

          EV can’t survive without heavy subsidies and ICE can.

          I can run a damn car off of coal if I really had to. If I lived in West Virginia I could be ROLLING COAL.

          • 0 avatar

            It’s not Darwinism; just supply and demand. On the supply side, the EV market is not fully mature yet; causing high prices. Scale and production efficiency will help. On the demand side, there are a lot of people who can’t justify a $30k econobox or $60k midsizer. There are also a lot of people who aren’t ready to buy a car with EV technology still in its infancy.

            TIME will solve all of these issues, as the supply side brings prices down through efficiency and scale; AND new technology reduces charging time and extends EV range.

            ICE vehicles are enjoying a bubble right now due to fracking and tar sands, but gas is still touching $4 a gallon. EVs have the benefit of energy flexibility, and their operating costs are second to none. In 5-10 years once the market matures, I think we will see a larger shift away from ICE. CONVERSELY, as the ICE market shrinks, it will become more and more expensive to run an ICE vehicle, and consumer demand will shrink along with it.

            And BTSR, I’m not sure where you were going with that last comment, but everybody knows “rolling coal” means diesel

          • 0 avatar


          • 0 avatar

            #4 How LONG does it take to “recharge” an EV?

            If it happens while I’m sleeping or doing something else at home, it’s effectively zero minutes. I call that time efficient.

            Now, let’s add up the time you spend getting your oil changed, checking fluids, brakes replaced, coolant changed, oxygen sensor replacement, cat replacement, exhaust replacement etc.

          • 0 avatar

            #1 Apparently BigTrucks doesn’t understand the difference between capex and opex. But besides that point, compare the eFocus to the Focus Ti. I went to the Ford website and compared the eFocus with leather to the Ti trim. eFocus = $25,240 net price if you take delivery from stock. Note: that’s WITHOUT the fed/state subsidies as far as I can tell. Ti Focus = $23,400. So, without govt incentives, it costs about the same as an engine upgrade, and with govt incentives, it costs LESS. Oh, snap!

            #2 See #1. Again, capex versus opex. Again, even without tax rebates, the cost is comparable. I don’t care what it cost Ford to make either car. I only care what it costs me. Oh, snap (again)!

            #3 For myself, my electricity is 100% renewable from wind and costs ~$0.12/kWh. One energy provider in my area offers free electricity at nights.

            #4 If someone plugs in at home, it takes about 20 sec, which is shorter than your 3 min, plus, they don’t have to drive to a gas station (assume another 3 min each way at least). Oh, snap (yet again)!

            Sigh, no BigTrucks. EVs haven’t caught on for other reasons, not because they are simply “more expensive.” Let’s consider that eFocus. Per Edmunds, the eFocus should use 0.32 kWh/mi (Edmunds’ drivers actually did better than that). At $0.12/kWh, over a car’s lifespan of 150k mi, that equals $5,760 worth of fuel. For comparison, let’s say the regular Focus averages 30 mpg. At $3.50/gal over 150k mi, that’s $17,500 worth of fuel.

            It’s not hard to see that $5,760 is a lot less than $17,500. And that’s not including maintenance costs. Furthermore, it’s not hard to see that the eFocus doesn’t cost $11,740 more than its ICE equivalent. Therefore, no, the EV is NOT more expensive to operate.

            EVs do typically have higher price to purchase. There are only three EVs available nationwide. Range is an issue for many. Having a place to recharge at night is a problem for many. The infrastructure already exists, and as the example of ‘free nights’ programs, we don’t have an electric capacity issue so much as a distribution issue.

            And finally, clearly there are exceptions to Darwinism. After all, you’re still here.

        • 0 avatar

          There’s nothing wrong with wealthy people being the buyers of new, expensive technology, they have been throughout history and I highly encourage them to do so. I don’t think we should have to subsidize them though. The $2500 isn’t really going to make any difference to the Tesla S target market, but it will for Leafs et al, so if you want to spend money to encourage more EVs, regardless of whether it’s actually a great idea or not, at least pay the people who wouldn’t be buying them unless you bribe them into it.

          • 0 avatar

            “The $2500 isn’t really going to make any difference to the Tesla S target market, but it will for Leafs et al”

            That’s the common talking point, but I don’t think the data supports it. It’s not the ‘common man’ buying Leafs et al. It’s rich people buying those, too.

          • 0 avatar


            They’re not having any problem selling Teslas in states that don’t have the state credit, so I doubt that the multi-millonaires who are buying them now are going to quit if that goes away. The Tesla is the most registered vehicle in 8 of the 25 wealthiest zip codes in the US, and I’m pretty sure that folks where the median home price is $6.6M aren’t going to flinch if they don’t get another $2500 off the price of their $100k car.They’re not buying them to save money, just like they’re not buying Rolexes because they keep better time. They going to let their neighbors know they’re too cheap to buy one because it just costs too much? I think not.

            And it makes sense that it’s the fairly affluent people who are buying EVs, because very few people can use an EV, especially the limited range commuters like the Leaf, as their only car. If your point is that all EV buyers are rich, then screw ’em all and quit giving any of them subsidies.

        • 0 avatar
          jim brewer

          Well, you don’t want to waste your tax incentive on people who would buy anyway, such as the 50% of the Tesla owners who make over 300k. Notice how quickly the complexity of these incentives ratchet up.

  • avatar

    I’m fed up to here with government social engineering to push economically unsound agendas. This is no different than the Feds mandating home loans for people who clearly had no business trying to buy a home, and you know where that got us. If the only way EV sales are going to happen in the marketplace is to throw taxpayer dollars at them, then perhaps they are a product whose time has not yet come.

    Why should someone who can afford an EV, which means they are probably already paying a hefty amount of income taxes, be denied the same benefits as and be forced to subsidize someone who shouldn’t be considering a car they can’t afford in the first place?

    It’s not government’s function to take money from people who can afford something in order to help other people buy something they can’t afford. Especially when the something is a questionably bad investment and a luxury at best, not a necessity for getting by in life.

    This bill is the last thing we need for two reasons. 1.) Without government bribes to buy an EV, CPAs will tell their clients it’s a bad deal to buy one so sales will drop, causing politicians to scream for even more government subsidizing of EVs because “it’s not faaaiiir” that poor people can’t have one. SO the cycle will continue. 2.) If New EVs aren’t selling well now without huge gov’t bribes, how much will we be expected to subsidze the repo EV business when all these people who couldn’t afford one to begin with stop making their payments and there are tons of ragged-out repossessed used EVs for sale?

    Next step: Senator Kevin De Leon proposes a bill requiring taxpayers to cover the power bills for those poor people who now can’t afford their electricity because of that damn EV plugged in outside.

    • 0 avatar

      Oh boo f***** hoo! No one feels sorry for the ultra-rich and their bullshit. They’re the very reason why this country is in the dumps (see: Bush-era tax cuts that were SUPPOSED to “trickle-down”..which they did, in the form of PISS!).

      You can tell that someone watches a lot of Fox News when they develop that “Screw the Poor” attitude like yours.

    • 0 avatar

      Fed up? Okay, gonna do anything about it more drastic than just posting a comment on a website where the majority of posters share your sentiments?

    • 0 avatar

      The home loan crisis was brought to you by banks, not by the feds. The feds simply failed to regulate banking as they should have.

      MOre generally, your reasoning assumes that rich and poor play on a flat playing field where politics has no influence. But as one example out of many, wealthy corporate moguls have succeeded in getting provisions in the tax code which enable them to pay lower taxes, percentagewise, than their employees.

      the US has a higher gini index (measure of income inequality) than any european country, and as high as a lot of third world countries.

      • 0 avatar

        “The home loan crisis was brought to you by banks, not by the feds. The feds simply failed to regulate banking as they should have.”

        And why do you suppose that is?

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “Next step: Senator Kevin De Leon proposes a bill requiring taxpayers to cover the power bills for those poor people who now can’t afford their electricity because of that damn EV plugged in outside.”

      PG&E already has electricity subsidies for low income families. It’s called the CARE program. Rich whiteys like myself get to pay $0.38 / KWh marginal rate while poor brown folks get to buy all the electricity they want for around $0.10 / KWh.

      We’re paying reparations without even recognizing it. Reparations now have cute names like CARE and SNAP.

      • 0 avatar

        “We’re paying reparations without even recognizing it. Reparations now have cute names like CARE and SNAP.”

        Oh, we recognize it alright!

        “Rich whiteys like myself get to pay $0.38 / KWh marginal rate while poor brown folks get to buy all the electricity they want for around $0.10 / KWh.”

        I’m far from rich, but I am White. Too White to qualify for “money for nuttin’, foodstamps and cellphones for free.”

        Find a way to keep from paying taxes to fund all these racist, special programs and subsidies. Concentrate on “taking out” of the system rather than paying into it. I do! Millions like me, all White, are doing the same.

        It works for me and millions like me. Too White to qualify, but no longer paying to fund these O* welfare programs.

        Life is good.

  • avatar

    Cannot believe citizens would rather have these drooling, nitrous-inhaling nanny-monkeys take and spend their money rather than just keep it themselves.

  • avatar

    Unfortunately, this program to ‘democratize’ EVs will backfire because as evidence already indicates, lower- and middle-income families aren’t the ones buying these cars. The question then becomes will removing the rebate really not affect wealthy people buying the cars?

    However, what I think is actually happening has nothing to do with fairness, but just a method to reduce costs for the state. They use democratization because it makes their efforts sound noble, but really it’s just a way to reduce expenditures.

  • avatar

    “I’m fed up to here with government social engineering to push economically unsound agendas. This is no different than the Feds mandating home loans for people who clearly had no business trying to buy a home, and you know where that got us.”

    Seriously? The Feds caused the 2008 meltdown by interfering *too much* with the financial sector? Is that they right-wing spin? Holy crap. I guess the feds invented the fancy derivatives that concealed the crappiness of all those subprime loans too. And for sure it was the federal government that bought insurance against all those shit bonds so it could make *billions* of dollars when they failed, leaving the taxpayers to prop up the entire financial sector before the world economy imploded. Yep, that’s how I remember it. It wasn’t a bunch of derivatives traders who did it, it was the federal government!

    • 0 avatar

      The government didn’t do its job at policing banks because the agencies policing banks are run by ex-bank execs who are political appointees. Both parties are to blame. Fingering one party and making excuses for the other only exacerbates the problem.

      No worries though. You just keep voting down party lines and I’m sure it’ll all work itself out.

  • avatar

    California has shut down construction of new Electric Power Plants, so here come the blackouts, there isn’t the electricity surplus available to charge electric cars. California is bankrupt, where is the money coming from for any EV subsidy? A EV subsidy might make sense for some other states, but not California.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    I’m mystified by the $100k+ income claim for EV buyers.

    The ~$28-38k Leaf remains the best-selling EV; this means ‘rich people’ are buying Leafs, too. Yet Tesla’s $60-100k S is the EV poster child – built for ‘rich people’.

    Without rebates, the Leaf costs less than a pickup truck; with rebates, it’s nearly at econobox levels.

    Since Leafs are almost never primary vehicles, I guess only ‘rich’ people have 2 cars?

    One thing the senator is missing: prudence would say that low-income people should probably be buying USED (not new) cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Don Mynack

      How are the poors supposed to charge these things?

      • 0 avatar

        How are the poor supposed to fill their gas tank when doing that costs nearly 3x as much?

        On the other hand, if we talk about middle-class America (whatever that means), many if not most of them live in houses and have access to garages.

    • 0 avatar

      My brother in Manhattan (NYC) owned a Leaf for a while but found it difficult to apply to real life (at that time).

      Whenever he and his wife took it into the city, finding a parking place with a charger was time consuming and most of the time not near anywhere they were going.

      He doesn’t like walking after leaving the Leaf parked somewhere and taking a cab to get where he needed to go kinda defeats the whole purpose of owning a Leaf.

      Often, parking slots with a charger had a non-EV parked in it thereby defeating the whole idea of the Leaf. No law-enforcement either. That, and handicapped parking, just are not high on their list of to dos.

      And then there was the whole range-anxiety issue. They constantly had to calculate if they had enough juice left to make it home if they went on an impromptu side trip.

      So he sold it to his buddy in Huntsville who owns a Golf course with tons of electric Golf carts. It works for him!

      My brother and his wife went back to driving his F150 and her Camry. And no more range anxiety or having to hunt for special parking spaces that have a charger.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        I’ve been to NYC a few times; I thought Manhattan WAS the city.

        No offense to your brother – but I don’t understand why anyone would make an EV trip that hinged on the hope of finding a public charger (Superchargers are different, being private chargers).

        I think much of the blame goes to the EV mfrs, Nissan in this case. I know how the winter affected his car (mine’s in western PA), but Nissan doesn’t tell you this part when you shop.

        Fortunately (as an engineer who helps design lithium ion powered products), I knew enough to buy cautiously. This meant I could buy (lease) the car with lowered expectations with respect to my commuting needs. So far, it’s worked out very well, with only one range anxiety mishap that I blame myself for (had to borrow electrons from my brother in law – ugh).

        My rule for EV shopping: Its stated range should be at least 2-3x the average daily miles you put on your ICE car, NEVER equal. This permits you to do the daily commute plus side errands.

        • 0 avatar

          SCE to AUX, the whole EV thing was new to my brother too and he didn’t know what to expect, nor did he know what he didn’t know about PEVs. I advised him against going with the Leaf, suggesting the Prius instead.

          My brother came out of Huntsville, AL, where he had been the manager/co-owner of a new-car dealership that featured several brands, prior to his retirement. His move to Manhattan was fortuitous and unanticipated, at least on his part. He wanted to stay in the Huntsville area where he had a really nice home on Magna Carta.

          His wife’s mom and dad own an apartment near Manhattan’s Financial District where they both worked, which they gave to their daughter when my brother retired from the car business, so the parents could move away to the Santa Fe, NM area where they had bought a big chunk of heavily-forested property, in the middle of nowhere.

          Living in a high-rise with only a 110volt outlet available to that parking space meant that the Leaf was rarely fully charged overnight. And explore their new territory they did, my brother and his wife.

          And he said they constantly watched the range gauge on that Leaf to make sure they had enough juice to get home IF they could not get a charge along the way while shopping or dining.

          Anyway, that’s behind them. They have rejoined the ranks of sole ICE ownership using his F150 and her Camry to get around the area.

          Personally, I have found nothing that would attract me living in NYC or Manhattan. Too damn many people. Too crowded. Too much traffic. Just like living in the LA area in SoCal.

          I’ll take the wide-open spaces any day, and so did my brother’s in-laws, by moving to New Mexico.

  • avatar

    How many of TTAC’s Best & Brightest live in California?

    As a resident of California, I see more and more EVs on the road every day.

    I think this a good move by the state. California is the most populous state, the air quality here is getting worse, and gas prices here can be a killer.

    Besides a lot of people use their car for commuting to work. ICE cars have place when it comes to long trips or car-pooling with more than three or four people.

    While there are more and more charging stations popping around California, unless they are willing to spring for charging stations at apartment complexes and other rental properties (since there’s a lot of people renting), that would be the biggest problem.

    • 0 avatar

      I have been told that an increasing number of EVs in CA now tow a tiny trailer with an AC generator on it and that ALL roadside assistance vehicles in CA now have a robust AC generator (~50amp/230volt) on-board to quick-charge stranded EV motorists.

      Of course, the fees these operators charge are also robust and often exceed that of what they charge for stranded conventional vehicles since these operators are essentially stuck in one place for 30 minutes waiting for the EV battery to quick-charge.

      Not as simple as delivering 5-gals of gas or calling a tow truck for a dead ICE vehicle. And they do insist on getting paid before they perform the charging.

      • 0 avatar

        A trailer with a generator behind a modern commercial EV just doesn’t work unless you are bypassing the factory charger and connecting directly to the battery pack. That can be done if you know what you are doing but very few do so I don’t see more than a couple of people doing that. The way that the chargers in the factory EVs work they won’t let the vehicle “start” and run if they sense that it is plugged in. The charger won’t work unless it senses that it is plugged into a power source. So plug into the onboard charger and the car won’t move.

        • 0 avatar

          Scoutdude, I read an article about a guy in San Francisco, CA who did just that; bypassed the factory charger (thus voiding his warranty).

          However, it is my understanding that the portable generator is used only when the EV is parked at places without a commercial charger.

          My brother in Manhattan (NYC) was doing the research when he still owned a Leaf. Since he sold his Leaf it has become a moot issue.

      • 0 avatar

        I have not heard or seen such things, but I can believe tow trucks and the like doing something like that in Los Angeles.

        Neat city, but the traffic, especially on the 405, is a nightmare.

        • 0 avatar

          Not just LA.

          Last time I went to Fallbrook to visit my grandson, I saw two roadside assistance trucks on I-5 and I-15 with big generators on board.

          I was born in Huntington Beach, grew up there and graduated HS there. But the place has changed so dramatically for the worst that I cannot find anything enjoyable about visiting my old haunts, since where I grew up in my young years has morphed into a Barrio.

          Ditto with the last parental home my mom and dad bought in Palos Verdes, after I had left home. It isn’t that the home is now old. It is that the whole neighborhood and area has gone slum.

          My brother lives in that parental home now and it is the nicest kept house on the block but that hasn’t reduced the neighborhood crime any because the rest of the new neighbors don’t give a damn about anything.

          And the place reflects it.

      • 0 avatar
        SCE to AUX

        The trailer idea is a false economy; I once figured out that towing a trailer behind the Leaf (stupid and embarrassing, IMO), would yield the equivalent of 16 mpg.

        Besides, Nissan and other EV mfrs offer free roadside assistance, so the trailer thing sounds a little like an urban legend.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      I live in CA; used to live in GA. The air here is equally clean (or dirty if you want) than the air in Georgia, where they actually build power plants and the cost of electricity is one third of what it is here.

  • avatar

    “Every community deserves clean air, regardless of wealth.”
    Every community and every citizen deserves clean air, free electricity (Greece), free diapers, free medical care, a living welfare income …”
    Poor things!

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    Why can the class warfare crowd not get it through their thick skulls that the purpose of an EV tax credit is not to help people afford EVs, it’s to make EVs more appealing to people who might buy them. The goal of a subsidy is to stimulate production of the subsidized, not “help” the buyer. Idiocy.

    • 0 avatar

      Sorry, not clear to me which side of this you are arguing. Presumably for the very wealthy the cost of the vehicle is not much of an impediment, so providing a subsidy wouldn’t much affect their decision. For the less well-heeled, the subsidy could make all the difference. So, if you want to stimulate production, you target the subsidy where it is more likely to affect the purchasing decision, yes?

      • 0 avatar
        S2k Chris

        You’re falling into the same trap. Why do you need to “target” the subsidy by restricting people of higher income from it? The subsidy is the subsidy, and as it is to stimulate production, you should be neutral on who buys that production. A person making $500k a year using the subsidy does not prevent a person making $60k from using it, so why restrict people making $500k, unless your goal is something other than stimulating production (inciting class warfare for instance)?

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          It’s called envy. It drives about 60% of what happens at the governmental level these days.

          As I said, we’re paying reparations. It’s just not called that. It’s called:

          SCHIP State Supplemental Health Insurance Program
          Medical General Assistance
          Consolidated Health Center/Community Health Centers
          Maternal & Child Health
          Medical Assistance to Refugees
          Healthy Start

          Food Stamps, SNAP
          School Lunch Program
          WIC Women, Infant and Children Food Program
          School Breakfast
          Child Care Food Program
          Nutrition Program for the Elderly, Nutrition Service Incentives
          Summer Program
          Commodity Supplemental Food Program
          TEFAP Temporary Emergency Food Program
          Needy Families
          Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program
          Special Milk Program

          Section 8 Housing (HUD)
          Public Housing (HUD)
          Low Income Housing Tax Credit for Developers
          Home Investment Partnership Program (HUD)
          Homeless Assistance Grants (HUD)
          State Housing Expenditures (from SWE)
          Rural Housing Insurance Fund (Agriculture)
          Rural Housing Service (Agriculture)
          Housing for the Elderly (HUD)
          Native American Housing Block Grants (HUD)
          Other Assisted Housing Programs (HUD)
          Housing for Persons with Disabilities (HUD)

          LIHEAP Low Income Home Energy Assistance
          Universal Service Fund Subsidized Low Income Phone Service

          Pell Grants
          Title One Grants to Local Education Authorities
          21st Century Learning Centers
          Special Programs for Disadvantaged (TRIO)
          Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants
          Adult Basic Education Grants
          Migrant Education
          Formerly State Student Incentive Grant Program (SSIG)
          Education for Homeless Children and Youth
          Even Start
          Aid for Graduate and Professional Study for Disadvantaged and Minorities

          TANF Work Activities and Training
          Job Corps
          WIA Youth Opportunity Grants
          Formerly Summer Youth Employment
          Senior Community Service Employment
          WIA Adult Employment and Training
          Formerly JTPA IIA Training for Disadvantaged Adults & Youth
          Food Stamp Employment and Training Program
          Foster Grandparents
          Migrant Training
          Native American Training

          TANF Block Grant Services
          Title XX Social Services Block Grant
          Community Service Block Grant
          Social Services for Refugees Asylees and Humanitarian Cases
          Safe and Stable Families
          Title III Aging Americans Act
          Legal Services Block Grant
          Family Planning
          Emergency Food and Shelter Program
          Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grants
          Independent Living (Chafee Foster Care Independence Program)
          Independent Living Training Vouchers
          Maternal, Infants and Children Home Visitation

          Childcare and Child Development Block Grant
          Childcare Entitlement to the States
          TANF Block Grant Child Care
          Community Development Block Grant and Related Development Funds
          Economic Development Administration (Dept. of Commerce)
          Appalachian Regional Development
          Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities Renewal

          • 0 avatar

            You bet. As income inequality grows and grows and grows unabated you can expect more “envy” to surface. We live in a society where someone who does absolutely nothing of any social utility can earn hundreds of millions of dollars, while someone else can do honest, hard work for 60 h per week and not make enough to afford the bare necessities. That disparity really isn’t sustainable over the long haul, so we had better start thinking seriously about how to lift people up a bit, and not cry about “class warfare” every time someone proposes to even the playing field a little.

          • 0 avatar
            SCE to AUX

            That’s an excellent list, MB. For the 47%, it isn’t enough.

        • 0 avatar

          Simple. You do it that way because you want to get the most results for every subsidy dollar you spend. If the rich guy would have bought the car anyway without the subsidy, you just wasted the subsidy dollars.

          But I think I already explained that so perhaps you are not really trying to grasp my point?

          • 0 avatar

            It’s not like the rich guy is using other people’s money, I’m sure that $2,500 is a drop in the bucket compared to what he pays in taxes, he deserves the credit more than any other group of people.

  • avatar
    S2k Chris

    The other cold, hard question to ask is how many people with houeshold incomes under $100k have any business considering buying a new $30k+ car anyways. Maybe there are a few higher-earning single people who can accept the limitations inherent in an electric car, or who own multiple vehicles, but that’s a pretty small minority. The people who earn under $100k for a family of 2+ in a high cost of living area like CA do not, IMO, have any business entertaining the thought of buying a $30k+ car anyways. So what’s the friggin’ point.

    The harsh reality for the rich-haters is that they NEED high earners to buy bleeding-edge electric vehicles to push the market. Without those people, the technology will never advance and trickle down.

  • avatar

    good popcorn – crunch crunch crunch

  • avatar

    Nope. You guys aren’t racist at all…not one bit. When I was a poor white person, I qualified for energy assistance and snap. Guess my swarthy Italian features threw them off, even though everything was handled over the phone and online. perhaps you aren’t all that poor…what with owning multiple properties, living off the government teat, sorry not going to glamorize military retirement, and able to buy nex cars with cash and give multiple grandkids relatively new cars. If that is broke, you would probably shoot yourself in the face if you had to live the life that qualifies a person for those programs.

    P.S. Hate to burst your victimization bubble, but most aid recipients are white.

  • avatar

    Eliminate the subsidy. Problem solved. If California has excess money to piss off, then rebate the taxpayers.

  • avatar

    Families with $60k income in CA are not going to buy an EV.
    The issue is hype rather than substance.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Inside Looking Out: I mean from solidarity point of view.
  • ToolGuy: And now a word from The Man Who Was Almost President:
  • Inside Looking Out: The whole point of review is to tell the truth. And it is very valuable data point for company to...
  • Inside Looking Out: Slavuta, like most slav you are too sentimental
  • Inside Looking Out: Russian oligarchs do not care about budget brands like BMW -it is for teenagers. They drive or...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber