By on August 13, 2021

Michele Ursi/Shutterstock.com

The current $7,500 Federal electric vehicle tax incentive could get a boost to $12,500 if the “Clean Energy for America” bill ever makes its way to reality – but it’s absolutely the wrong way to go, in my opinion. And, I know – “Who cares what Jo thinks about EV incentives,” right? Right –except that very, very few people in the industry have as much “green cred” as I do, so maybe you’ll want to give this one a read.

WHAT QUALIFIES AS GREEN CRED

You’re not hallucinating. That is, indeed, Leslie Nielsen unironically (and, hilariously) hawking a Warren Mosler-built Consulier GTP convertible in the pages of the Neiman Marcus catalog. And, yes, it does indeed say “Solar Electric” on the … I guess that’s the hood? Let’s go with hood.

This ad is relevant because, a long, long time ago, I was lucky enough to work for Warren and beyond lucky enough to actually drive some of these fantastic cars – including one of the early US Electricar GTPs. This was the 90s, and these guys were talking about how the battery tech was too far away to make the cars practical, but also talking about things like range-extending generators to keep power flowing on longer trips while taking advantage of electric motors’ low-end torque … all stuff that’s familiar now, almost 30 years later, but seemed like the stuff of fantasy to me, back then.

A few years later –and just a few miles up the road from the old Mosler Auto Care Center – I was at RENNtech, building one of the first hybrid show cars for Mercedes-Benz that would, eventually, go on to win a couple of awards at SEMA.

It was around that time that I met a guy named Nick Chambers, who asked a whole lot of questions about how the RENNtech-built hybrid powertrain worked before eventually telling me, “You actually explain this quite well, do you want to just write the article? I’ll publish it under your name.”

That was in 2008, and I started writing for Nick’s blog, first. Then another one. Then a few more, all while building and racing cars running CNG and ethanol. I was tuning on alternative fuels because, well – I didn’t really believe that electric cars were going to “win” the future. I thought biofuels had a real chance, especially biodiesel, right up until they didn’t.

These days, my 9-5 involves training car dealers to sell EVs by helping to develop tools that explain “electric fuel” in a way that’s easy to understand and simple enough to communicate without the need for engineering jargon and memorization.

So, green cred = nearly 30 years playing with EVs, hybrids, and alt-fuel cars that absolutely did not suck. There’s no climate change denial here, no lack of familiarity with the concepts of the space, and I am very deeply invested in the success of electric vehicles in the marketplace.

Why do I, a consummate green-car guy, think these huge incentives to promote EV sales are a bad idea? I’m glad you asked!

THESE TAX CREDITS ARE DUBIOUSLY POLITICAL

Matt Posky outlined the proposed $12,500 tax credit very nicely in his own article on the matter and summed up his take nicely with the use of a burning pile of money as the featured image. But there’s a passage in his article that I think is worth repeating here.

“While the $7,500 tax credit persists, the bill now adds special exemptions depending on how the vehicle is manufactured,” explains Posky. “For example, the government will tack on another $2,500 if final assembly takes place inside the United States and another $2,500 if the factory in question happens to be represented by a union.” (Emphasis mine.)

This is one of those perfect examples of concerning political language that just about everyone – regardless of whether you identify with the Republicans or Democrats – can take issue with. Huzzah!

On the one hand, that “final assembly” language is incredibly sketch. Does it include vehicles like the Ford Transit Connect, which are fully built in Turkey, then shipped to the US and partially disassembled in order to skirt the Chicken Tax? If you’re a free-market/Right to Work critic, you might argue that this language actually does very little to ensure that the legislation leads to more US-based manufacturing jobs. You might even argue that the government has effectively rewarded exactly the kind of tax-skirting action Ford is being accused of by giving them $2,500 per unit to help absorb the billion-dollars in fines they’re staring down over it.

If you’re a proponent of Right to Work, you might take issue with that second $2,500 bump specifically for union-built vehicles.

Want to buy a Tesla Model 3? They’re not a UAW manufacturer, so you don’t get the $2,500. Or, your $2,500 credit, depending on how you look at it. Want a Volvo C40 Recharge? A Mitsubishi? A BMW i, Mercedes EQS, or VW ID.4?  No $2,500 for you, either.

That second one reads, to me, like a very public bribe being paid out to the UAW – and God bless ‘em, as far as I’m concerned. We don’t talk about the Battle of Blair Mountain enough, these days—but the guys and gals who led that bloody workers’ revolt against the Stone Mountain Coal Company had balls, and whoever wrote this sort of spineless, mealy-mouthed “something for them, something for us” piece of policy clearly does not.

Granted, almost all bipartisan legislation is weak sauce – but that would be forgivable if it was the worst part of these tax credits.

THESE TAX CREDITS HELP THE WRONG PEOPLE

The latest round of proposed EV tax credits imposes a $40,000 price cap on qualifying vehicles. If you’re curious about why they chose that $40,000 as the limit, it was almost certainly because the average transaction price of a new vehicle in 2020 was $40,000 according to Cox Automotive’s smart people.  The problem? That’s nearly $10,000 more than the median annual income in the United States.

Really.

I don’t think you’ll find many financial planners out there telling you to spend 130 percent of your annual income on a new car, but that’s exactly the thinking that the people advocating for these kinds of new vehicle incentives seem to be pushing – and that means one of two things: either they’re truly clueless about how the bottom 50 percent of the population lives, or they don’t care.

I, admittedly, tend to fall on the “politicians don’t care about voters, they care about donors” side of these things. Even so, it seems to me that a better way to distribute these tax incentives would be to give individuals making less than $40,000 per year $12,500 to go buy an EV – any EV, not just a new one.

Doing so would, almost overnight, wipe out the national inventory of used Nissan LEAFs, Mercedes Bs, BMW i3s, etc., and transform the class of people least likely to buy an EV into the class of people most likely to buy an EV.

If you’re about upward mobility and social justice and the redistribution of resources, you have to kind of love that idea. If you’re genuinely interested in taking the most polluting, least safe vehicles off the road, you have to love that idea. If you believe that inner-city and low-income populations are disproportionately impacted by harmful vehicle emissions and air pollution you have to at least kind of like it a little. Heck, even if you already own an EV, you’d probably be happy about getting an extra few g’s out of it when it comes time to trade it in for a newer one.

I imagine the other side would argue that it’s unfair to reward failure or that brown people shouldn’t have EVs – but no opinion piece is really complete without a straw man or two thrown in, right?

Right.

But, obviously, I’m no policy expert. I’m sure I’m missing some super relevant and blatantly obvious argument that makes my idea seem laughable – so let’s hear it in the comments. You’re the Best and Brightest, after all, so scroll on down to the bottom of the article and tell us how you think those EV tax dollars might best be used in the comments.

[Lead Image: Michele Ursi/Shutterstock.com. All other images courtesy of the author.]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

58 Comments on “Opinion: EVs Should Not Get More Government Incentives...”


  • avatar
    Lou_BC

    What you are saying makes sense. I can afford a $40,000 regardless of whether or not it runs on electrons.

    • 0 avatar
      morrinsville

      Whos going to pony up $40k when you are on a low income
      It will be a lease deal, say $250 pm

      Plus if $40k is the median price , then by definition half of new cars are sold for less

  • avatar
    Varezhka

    And there’s the whole matter of this $12500 being a tax credit, so you have to owe more than $12500 in tax to qualify for the full value.

    So this just end up being more tax cut for the affluent who would or would not buy EV regardless of the cut.

    It would make a lot more difference environmentally if we had, say, a $1000 tax cut on all vehicles over 40mpg combined, regardless of the powertrain type.

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “And there’s the whole matter of this $12500 being a tax credit, so you have to owe more than $12500 in tax to qualify for the full value.”

      This right here. Jo missed the entire point about why this affects the wrong people. I can afford a $50K vehicle–and I did–but I had to do some Roth conversion shenanigans to make sure my tax bill at the end of the year is sufficient for this non-refundable credit.

      Nowadays, people spend $50K on a vehicle, no problem. And the do it without having the steady income to support the $7500 tax credit, let alone a $12500 one.

      • 0 avatar

        What bank is loaning $50k on vehicles to people who can’t prove a steady income? I’m legitimately asking, because I want a new crushed ice CVO Road Glide.

        • 0 avatar
          jalop1991

          I never said they don’t have steady income. I said they don’t have steady income to support the $7500 non-refundable tax credit.

          Understand how that works: you get a credit up to $7500 OR the amount of tax you owe for the year, whichever is lower.

          Upping it to $12,500 is meaningless. It’s a gesture, and it looks good on paper, but the only ones who can take advantage of it are higher income people. Nobody’s buying a Leaf and getting a $12,500 tax credit.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            It’s all relative and this tax credit scheme discriminates against those that live in areas with a low cost of living, and the commensurate wages that go along with it.

            If they want to really have an impact they need to make either make any unused portion carry forward or just give an option to elect to take the credit over 3-5 years.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Who said that banks were making loans to people without verifiable income? Though that was fairly common in home loans and was one of the things that helped fuel the housing price crash.

    • 0 avatar
      Freddie

      Agreed on your last point. For example, putting more hybrids on the road would yield faster, more cost effective carbon emissions reduction.

      • 0 avatar
        SoCalMikester

        instead of a 500 mile battery, it makes much more sense to build 5 plug-in hybrids with 100mi range on electricity alone. a lot of people drive less than that a day

        • 0 avatar
          jalop1991

          “instead of a 500 mile battery, it makes much more sense to build 5 plug-in hybrids with 100mi range on electricity alone. a lot of people drive less than that a day”

          Absolutely agreed.

          With 89 miles range showing on the Pacifica Hybrid, my wife decided just a couple days ago to fill up again–the first time since June 6.

          Yep. Even with a 38 or so mile EV range, the PacHy serves my wife’s needs perfectly well such that she rarely uses gas. If it had a 100 mile range, the few times she does use gas on a regular basis–visiting family about 45 minutes away–would go away.

          At that point we’d probably end up using gas a couple times a year, frankly, at vacation time.

        • 0 avatar
          probert

          t makes more sense to build 5 charging stations and have a 250 – 300 range. In terms of pure driving joy, a BEV puts PHEV in the shade, and the other idea is to get away from fossil fuels.

          • 0 avatar
            jalop1991

            “In terms of pure driving joy, a BEV puts PHEV in the shade”

            Define “driving joy”. I imagine you and I have completely different viewpoints on what makes us happy.

            Me, I like having EV behavior at home while being able to go on trips without D-Day level planning of where and how I’m going to fuel up. That’s what gives me pleasure.

            I realize you are alone in life and never do these kinds of things.

            I have 4 cars. I chose the most flexible one, the minivan, to be the most flexible of all, a PHEV. Nothing–NOTHING–beats a PHEV with regard to fueling flexibility.

  • avatar
    Crosley

    Remember this was always about just getting the industry “off the ground”.

    When companies like Tesla alone are worth more than the Big 3 combined (and some other big foreign car companies) it’s now “off the ground” and just a form of corporate welfare.

    • 0 avatar

      Absolutely, 100% right! I forgot about that!!

    • 0 avatar
      Number6

      You can make a solid argument that the DoD largely exists to keep cheap gas in the states.

      So if we take issue with the silliness of the EV thing, it’s only fair to consider the obscene amount of tax money that goes to keeping internal combustion on the top of the pile. Im sure the area under the curve is a disturbing percentage of the US GDP.

  • avatar
    mcs

    I’m a fan of EVs, but not the subsidies for the cars themselves. Use the money for battery and material science-related research instead. Lighter more energy-dense batteries solve a lot of charge and infrastructure issues. Sodium-ion technology will bring safer and more environmentally friendly materials for battery production.

    The subsidies also screw the owners of used pre-subsidy cars. A used Bolt that’s now going for $18k will have it’s value drop overnight.

    • 0 avatar
      dwford

      Used 2017 Bolt LTs were going for $13k at the beginning of the year, but are now going for $20k. The market is that messed up right now

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      we subsidize oil both directly and indirectly (military, no penalties for health issues that cost billions, etc..) so subsidizing the future of transport seems fine to me. Also, if you don’t give industry a push, we will be thrird rate in yet another field. The world isn’t just lounging around.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “EVs Should Not Get More Government Incentives”

    Agreed.

    Tesla still dominates the EV landscape in North America even after its consumer tax incentives dried up.

    – EVs don’t need to be super cheap to sell.

    – Tesla leads because their cars look nice and perform well. A Bolt is functional, but it ain’t a Model 3.

    – Tesla leads because they’re all in. If the Administration wants to see other mfrs get into the EV market, then they need to ask why those mfrs haven’t taken the risks that Tesla did. You won’t sell many cars with half-measures.

    I don’t get the obsession by some to make EVs affordable for ‘poor people’, because poor people don’t buy new cars, anyway. When similar measures were taken in the housing market, poor people defaulted on the loans they never should have taken in the first place.

    • 0 avatar

      There’s a lot to be said about the branding and image, too. I know a woman on my block who drives a T8 Volvo XC90 ($70K ish car) who told my buddy she wishes she could afford his Tesla … which was about $50K. The general public thinks Teslas are big money.

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      There was just a big article about why they want to make EV’s affordable to poor people. I was surprised by how this incentive was written after reading that article which I thought was congressional think tank sponsored.

      The people who are buying EVs are affluent and don’t drive as far or as regularly as people who are buying gas vehicle. Something like 10% of the population was burning 40 something % of the gas and they tended to drive more polluting vehicles like trucks (often for work), much further because they were driving from cheaper affordable homes that are further away from their jobs. Meanwhile the people paying those people are telecommuting.

      The upshot was that the people who are buying EVs aren’t moving the needle on improving the greenhouse gas emissions. They wanted to target those blue-collar drivers because it would effect more co2 change.

    • 0 avatar
      SoCalMikester

      but the bankers and RE agents got their commission, so who cares if the poors can “afford” to actually live there. “liars loans” became a thing because the bankers wanted that commission, instead of telling people theyre going to have to live off ramen noodles and store brand soda to actually KEEP the house. property taxes ALONE on a “fixer upper”are about $500/mo. thats my monthly mortgage.

  • avatar
    Steve Biro

    “It seems to me that a better way to distribute these tax incentives would be to give individuals making less than $40,000 per year $12,500 to go buy an EV – any EV, not just a new one.

    Doing so would, almost overnight, wipe out the national inventory of used Nissan LEAFs, Mercedes Bs, BMW i3s, etc., and transform the class of people least likely to buy an EV into the class of people most likely to buy an EV.”

    You have a point, Jo but, while I agree generally with your piece, you can expect that $12,500 gift to buy an EV result in the price of used Nissan LEAFs, Mercedes Bs, BMW i3s, etc rising by exactly $12,500.

    EVs should sink or swim on their own merits.

    • 0 avatar

      You can’t say EVs should sink or swim on their own merits when we have a trillion dollar military empire parked in the middle east to ensure we keep getting cheap oil. Or, I guess you can– all you have to do is scoop up all those bases and bring the boys home. I’d be all for that!

      • 0 avatar
        Crosley

        Why do two wrongs make a right?

        I hate it when there’s a public policy debate and “whataboutism” is the excuse for bad policy to continue.

        For the record, I want a vastly smaller military and I also want zero subsidies for people who decide to buy electric vehicles. I don’t need both to happen simultaneously.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        We have spent more in the last year on Covid Relief than we spent on the entirety of the war in Iraq and it isn’t close. And we don’t have a ton of Military parked over there anymore as evidenced by the fact that the US embassy in Kabul is being evacuated because the Taliban has surrounded the city.

        The whole “war for oil” trope is about 10-15 years out of date. The big money on Military build up is being spent in the Pacific and to a smaller degree, Eastern Europe.

      • 0 avatar
        probert

        Thank you – thousands die for oil, while SUVs idle in the parking lot.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “That’s nearly $10,000 more than the median annual income in the United States.
    Really.”

    This makes me think my life should be more luxurious than it is.

  • avatar
    NigelShiftright

    If there must be subsidies for green energy conversion let them go to building more nuclear plants, more hydropower, more natural gas plants, and hardening the transmission network.

  • avatar
    jalop1991

    “A few years later –and just a few miles up the road from the old Mosler Auto Care Center – I was at RENNtech, building one of the first hybrid show cars for Mercedes-Benz…”

    Ummmmmm…..really?

    Or were you just the web developer?

    That whole “almost 30 years” thing is a bit of a stretch too, don’t you think?

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    It’s 95 degrees here on Long Island and the LI Power Authority isn’t sure if they can keep up with the demand tonight. They advise us to set our AC at 78 degrees and not run washing machines and other appliances tonight. I can find one EV in my neighborhood. I’m sure they would frown on folks plugging in their 20-40 amp chargers as well; there just aren’t enough of them to take notice of. Since the whole EV proposition is built around charging your car at home overnight, and it gets this hot every summer, how can they tell me with a straight face that EVs are the future?

    • 0 avatar
      Luke42

      “Since the whole EV proposition is built around charging your car at home overnight, and it gets this hot every summer, how can they tell me with a straight face that EVs are the future?”

      Because that’s a Long Island problem, not a systemic problem.

      The power grid out here in flyover country can run A/C just fine on hot days. And we get gigabit FTTP, too. Life’s good on the prairie!

      • 0 avatar
        gasser

        “Because that’s a Long Island problem…” Please visit Los Angeles. The whole area of California is subject to brown-outs and black outs in the summer. Part of that is demand, part is the fires destroying cables from the Pacific Northwest, part is the drought reducing hydroelectric power on the whole west coast. The point is that the grid is NOT up to supplying power on peak usage days, before we even consider plugging in 4 million cars to recharge.

        • 0 avatar
          SoCalMikester

          “brown-outs” are usually between 10am to 8pm because demand is greater during the day. plenty of overcapacity to use the power generated overnight, which cant be stored

  • avatar
    dwford

    My state of Connecticut actually offers larger EV incentives to people who have to prove they are on some sort of government assistance program like SNAP or Medicaid. So either it’s some sort of law enforcement trap to get these people to admit they actually make money, or it’s a useless feel good program that no one can actually use. What person who qualifies for SNAP will magically also qualify for a new car loan on a $30k vehicle?

    • 0 avatar
      aja8888

      They can probably pay cash for the car. Lots of free money flying around these days.

    • 0 avatar
      Crosley

      The idea of someone on food stamps getting EXTRA free money from the taxpayer in order to buy a brand new car is infuriating to say the least.

      How about you use some of that money to buy your own food?

      I sometimes wonder if public policy is just done to make the “other” side as angry as possible.

      • 0 avatar
        mcs

        @crosley:

        “The idea of someone on food stamps getting EXTRA free money from the taxpayer in order to buy a brand new car is infuriating to say the least.”

        https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-helps-13-million-low-income-veterans-including-thousands-in-every

        https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/19/524563155/when-active-duty-service-members-struggle-to-feed-their-families

      • 0 avatar
        SoCalMikester

        ive seen how the food stamp crowd lives. not how i would want to live, god bless em

  • avatar
    slavuta

    “either they’re truly clueless about how the bottom 50 percent of the population lives, or they don’t care”

    BOTH!!!

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    A $12,500 is not going to help most low income and middle class families. Most will not be able to use this tax credit. This credit is more to appease the UAW and the Big 2 1/2. If the Government were that concerned about more affordable EVs then they need to fund development of low cost higher range batteries and more infrastructure to support EVs. Requiring breathalyzers and automatic braking will make new vehicles less affordable for many and increase the age of the average vehicle on the road which will increase emissions, decrease fuel efficiency, and keep less safe vehicles on the road longer. How about a Cash for Clunkers targeting older less efficient vehicles giving incentives for those with older vehicles getting less than 40 mpgs for buying new EVs or hybrids with 40 or more mpgs. Hybrids should be included because many who don’t own their own homes do not have access to charging. This proposed EV tax credit is more of a handout to the Big 2 1/2 and to placate the UAW than it is to help those who cannot afford safer, cleaner, and more efficient vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “Hybrids should be included..”
      Yeah, I think I agree now. I see your points and agree with you.

    • 0 avatar
      Varezhka

      One thing that I think Japan did right was making two classes of automobiles, one for the basic mobility/rural area public transportation replacement (kei cars), and another for everything else.

      If all you needed was a way to get from A to B, you can buy these 660cc cars “lite” that will fulfill your basic needs for $7K and a $100/yr registration fee. If you want more, you’ll pay for the luxury with higher taxes based on displacement ($300~$1000/yr).

      Most rural two car homes will have one regular car that does everything and another kei car for your everyday errands. That strict separation between the two classes keep the kei cars affordable for people who really need it.

  • avatar
    Dartdude

    We need for Big Govt to get out of everything that is not about doing it’s job (defending the country and court system for laws being fairs all the states) Our founders never imagined that the federal govt would be this big and powerful.

    • 0 avatar
      Imagefont

      Our founding fathers are dead, what they wanted or envisioned for “our” country 200+ years ago is pointless and irrelevant.

      • 0 avatar
        dwford

        I think the idea of free and self reliant people coming together as minimally as possible for their common good is more relevant than ever. We have turned into a nation of dependents demanding wealth extractions from productive people as well as a nation of opportunistic vultures using every loophole for personal gain, regardless of the societal costs.

  • avatar
    craiger

    “I imagine the other side would argue that…brown people shouldn’t have EVs.”

    Seriously? Is that how your mind works?

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    This EV madness has just gone too far, it’s all going to blow over soon when people come to the realization that:
    A) electric cars do not follow “Moore’s Law” and batteries will only get marginally better and marginally cheaper with time, still making EV’s 50% more than their gasoline powered counterparts.
    B) the trillions in infrastructure will not be spent as needed to let everyone and his dog charge for an hour, all at the same time.
    C) range anxiety will always be a thing and these EV toys will remain second and third cars for rich people who don’t need them in the first place.
    Prove me wrong.

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      @imageferont:

      A) electric cars do not follow “Moore’s Law” and batteries will only get marginally better and marginally cheaper with time”

      They don’t have to follow Moores law to be more than marginally better. Original Leaf batteries were about 140 Wh/kg. The Model 3 2170 cells were about 280 Wh/kg, and 8640 cells are 380 Wh/kg. That’s not a marginal increase. So, you’ve been proven wrong with actual numbers.

      Teslas for the most part are comparable to V-8 powered cars as are most EVs. You get all of the power, smoothness, and quiet of a V-8. Trraditionally, V-8 cars have cost more than 4 and 3 cylinder car. You can compare the price of a 3 or 4 cylinder with a CVT against an EV because EVs are in a different performance class.

      Furthermore, in higher-end performance classes, the prices are pretty much the same. BMW 3 and 4 series and the M cars are comparable in price. An M3 sedan that does 0- in 4.1 seconds is $70k and doesn’t have AWD. A Model 3 Performance does 0-60 in 3.1 seconds, has AWD, and is only $56,990. So, it’s actually cheaper. Again, real numbers prove you wrong as always.

      “range anxiety will always be a thing and these EV toys will remain second and third cars for rich people who don’t need them in the first place.”

      What kind of data do you have to support that? Nothing. I have a daily driver and sport/toy cars and use planes for long-distance. The toys, for now, are exclusively high maintenance ICE vehicles and the daily driver (and most road trips) is an EV. The EV is perfect as the workhorse of the fleet because I never have to take it to be fueled away from home and it’s always ready to go. What’s the problem.

      EVs are also not toys. I don’t get where you get an idea that they are. You can get enough range to drive at 70 MPH for over 4 hours (280 miles). Charging isn’t bad because after driving 4 hours, a 30 to 40 minute stop isn’t a bad thing. I’m ready to eat after that amount of time and I’m not going to rush through a meal.

      Plenty of Teslas make coast-to-coast trips, so that doesn’t make them a toy. I own cars that qualify in my mind as toys and they have worse range than many EVs, no storage space, and they give a whole new meaning to range anxiety. Coast to coast in a real automotive “toy” is far more formidable of a task than any Tesla.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        All great points. Still for the overwhelming majority of Americans, it’s a long way off before the stars align. And for too many reasons, thankfully so.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Interested in the solid state batteries Toyota is developing. Also if there will be more affordable options like being able to convert an ICE vehicle into an EV at a competitive price.

  • avatar
    Hayden535

    Dont subsidize clean energy, tax dirty energy. Just raise taxes on gas if you want more people to drive electric. Simple and generates revenue rather than consuming it.

    • 0 avatar
      random1

      Good luck getting a tax like that passed in the USA. It doesn’t matter if it makes sense. And also, more simply, we should eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and there are plenty.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • akear: The android phone accounts for 73% of all smartphones purchased. Apple in comparison has a much smaller...
  • EBFlex: Scotty I get it. But that’s a very specific case. Plus a gas powered generator is a much better option...
  • el scotto: Flexy, on a farm almost nothing breaks in close vicinity to a wired power outlet. F-150’s, which you...
  • el scotto: @deanst Sir, we also sent oil back to our polite neighbors to the north.
  • el scotto: @DenverMike Sir, perhaps GM or Ford might -gasp- give away a few fleet vehicles. Have companies run them...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

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