- Make it a point-of-sale incentive instead of a tax credit
- Increase it to $10,000
- The limit should not be per manufacturer
- Incentive persists until plug-in cars are 2% of sales
- Gradually decrease the incentive amount
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
My opinion: Leave the government (i.e. my tax dollars) out of it and let automakers make compelling electric cars and have the market sort out the winners and losers.
I think Tesla has already proven that the ICE age is coming to an end.
More details here <link>
- Make it a point-of-sale incentive instead of a tax credit
- Increase it to $10,000
- The limit should not be per manufacturer
- Incentive persists until plug-in cars are 2% of sales
- Gradually decrease the incentive amount
My opinion: Leave the government (i.e. my tax dollars) out of it and let automakers make compelling electric cars and have the market sort out the winners and losers.
I think Tesla has already proven that the ICE age is coming to an end.
That's just myopic. It isn't how the world works, it isn't how the world has worked, and it ultimately does not help the U.S at all. There are good government policies, there are bad government policies, but just letting "the market sort out the winners and losers" is simplistic trope.
There is no such thing as a market without government, unless you want to back to no legal system backed bartering. I doubt anyone actually wants that in the modern world. So we're not talking about no government, we're talking about what does the government do to establish the market such that the market operates in a functional way that hopefully leverages the best of capitalism and minimizes the downfalls of capitalism. We can argue over what that means, but the simplistic trope of "leave the government out of it" and "have the market sort out winners and losers" just doesn't logically add up.
Thing is, in the absence of regulatory nudges, the conventional automakers will do everything in their power to continue the status quo as long as possible - and riding that out to their eventual destruction harms a lot of people which will need support from... .Your tax dollars.
Pushing for an "orderly transition" helps the market allocate resources better, resulting in lower taxpayer impact all around.
So If I have $5 and you have 3 apples we can't do business without regulation?
But why not let the people vote on it with their bank accounts?
The purpose of the federal government is to do things that the state governments can't do, the purpose of the state governments is to do what our local governments can't do, and the purpose of the local governments is to do things that individuals cannot. In this case, individuals have already overwhelmingly voted with their bank accounts that they want compelling EVs. The government's job, at any level, is done at this point.
Nope, we can't. If we flip this, where you have the 3 apples and I have $5... did you use slave labor to work your apple orchard? What pesticides did you use? If you end up poisoning me or my family, do I have any recourse? Is there any way to stop you from poisoning others? What is even $5... is that fiat money? Why would you accept this government manipulated fiat money?
I like that idea. If Philadelphia can institute a tax on sugary drinks under the guise of using the money to fund schools then there should be a tax on gas guzzling vehicles with the reasoning being to raise money to help protect the environment.If additional nudges are needed, a bonus/malus system can work. If you want to choose the more polluting vehicle, you're going to have to pay more for it (IOW, revisit the "gas guzzler tax"), and that goes to people who buy the cleaner vehicles...