Jaff
Active Member
I use the wealth redistribution comment because I do not feel that the EVIP program should not be tainted by a socialistic goal...it should be based on pure EV merit alone, and the expediency of getting as many EVs on the road asap.
We are dealing with a very limited supply of vehicles that will be impacted by this (as the Bolt and Model III are not available yet), all this change to the EVIP does is keep some of, what is currently the best, EV off of the road...illogical imo.
We are dealing with a very limited supply of vehicles that will be impacted by this (as the Bolt and Model III are not available yet), all this change to the EVIP does is keep some of, what is currently the best, EV off of the road...illogical imo.
I don't really see it as a wealth redistribution system. I believe there is an argument to be made that economic incentives are more meaningful, and therefore more effective at the lower income brackets. I think tax incentives should be structured to get the biggest return on the investment, which is why I support income phase-outs. To be fair, I'm falling short on pulling up good data on the efficacy of tax incentives as a function of income. Therefore, it's possible that my basic assumption is flawed, despite seeming "obvious".