http://www.americanthinker....c_car_subsidies.html

quote The White House intends to boost government subsidies for wealthy buyers of the Chevy Volt and other new-technology vehicles - to $10,000 per buyer. That mammoth subsidy would cost taxpayers $100 million each year if it is approved by Congress, presuming only 10,000 new-technology autos are sold each year. But the administration wants to get 1 million new-tech autos on the road by 2015. The subsidy cost of that goal could reach $10 billion.

Read more at the link.

What about all those people who just bought a hybrid, boy, will they be POed

So, my tax dollars are going to pay for someone else to buy a car. hmmm... Another tax break for the wealthy?

I guess I don't understand how car sales is a function of our government.

If people really wanted these electric cars, and if they really made sense... why would the government need to bribe people with a tax break to go and purchase them? (/rhetorical question/)

When they get the subsidies up to $45000 on a $38000 vehicle I’m going to get one.

quote Originally posted by BlackThunderGT: When they get the subsidies up to $45000 on a $38000 vehicle I’m going to get one.

They will be giving them away to those on Welfare, soon.

Hasn't allot of these rebates gone to the old farts in Sun City for those so called street legal electric cars(golf carts)?

and look where the subsidies are going. What about that 'tax the rich' thang?

The startling $170,000-per-year earnings number for Volt owners was revealed by General Motors CEO Dan Akerson in a Dec. 16 interview with the Associated Press.

That income puts them in the top 7 percent of households, according to census data, and slightly above the rankings held by households with BMWs, Lexuses or Cadillacs.

“The average purchaser of a Volt is earning $170,000 a year … some of them — I think roughly half — are either [Toyota] Prius or BMW owners,” Akerson said.

The average income of BMW buyers is almost $170,000, according to a May 2010 article in Bloomberg Business Week. Cadillac buyers earn almost $130,000, and Lexus buyers take home an average of $141,000.

Only Mercedes-Benz drivers earn more than Volt drivers, an average of $174,000 per year.

“There is probably a niche market out there for the Volt, regardless of its taxpayer support,” Hohman told TheDC. But the company won’t just serve that niche market, he said, “because they’ve been offered this subsidy.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011...althy/#ixzz1mT7FfpaO

Well, who can afford to pay $32+K for something that is basically a $18K Cruze? I see a few in town here and I have to wonder if the buyers have money to burn?

Would I own a Volt? Sure, if it actually saved me money, but it has already been calculated (on this forum) that the Volt will never save enough money to justify the cost over an equally equipped Cruze.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero:

quote Originally posted by Fformula88: If people really wanted these electric cars, and if they really made sense... why would the government need to bribe people with a tax break to go and purchase them? (/rhetorical question/)

Why does everyone say this, when they know the answer?

1. New technology is always expensive, often more expensive than the market will support.
2. Economies of scale and learning curves reduce costs of production.
3. The subsidy is to allow the new technology to compete in the market while the economies of scale reduce the cost.

The end result is new technology that can directly compete in the market. Without the subsidy, it would never exist (or take longer to penetrate the market).

You can argue all day whether affordable EVs are "worth" the cost of the government subsidy.

[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 02-15-2012).]

On a side note, WA state is voting to slap an extra tax on electric cars to make up for gas tax they don't pay.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: On a side note, WA state is voting to slap an extra tax on electric cars to make up for gas tax they don't pay.

This is becoming a trend. Government encourages you to save and use less, but if you do, they raise prices.
Our city government did the same thing with water service here. After mandatory water restrictions and a campaign encouraging people to cut usage, they said they aren't bringing in enough revenue, so the water rates were raised.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 02-15-2012).]

Doesn't that say all that needs to be said about governments?

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: ...At current fuel prices, but motor fuel has probably the most volatile pricing of any commodity. No way to know what it will be in 2020 but since its risen 400% in the past 10 years and there's no good reason that oil consumption globally will go down, I'd wager that oil will continue to get more expensive.

Same sized car, same number of passengers....same function.... Cruze = Volt. Of course, you can't compare drivetrain, as the Cruze is more economical, especially when looking at the diesel version. If you want a luxury car, then get one, but don't get a Volt and tout the "luxury" as it is not a performance sedan, it is not a luxury sedan.. it has the performance of a Cruze, with added features to get someone to pay twice as much for similar driving characteristics. If you want to "green", the Cruze is the way to go. If you want to drive an electric car, then sure, buy it, but don't tell anyone that it costs more to operate when considering the high purchase price.

Gas and Oil prices will rise, but if you look at the comparison data (on this forum), it still shows that the Volt will never return the MPG vs the extra cost a purchase time. Of course, if gas jumps to $20 a gallon, but I think we will have bigger issues at that point.

We have argued this before.... the Volt is not "green", nor is it economical based on the current price. If someone wants one for their ego, then I have no problem, but for the government to provide tax breaks for something that is not cheaper to own than a Cruze, that is stupid and wrong. Why shouldn't the total cost of ownership be included in these tax rebates? Why not look at the real cost of ownership and those vehicles with the lowest cost get a rebate? Oh... then who would buy a Volt? Maybe about 1000 people?

I bought an HHR for a few reasons, room, manual tranny, price and MPG. I could have bought two HHRs for the price of the Volt. Why doesn't the government reward me for being fiscal? Where is my tax rebate? I will never buy $18K worth of gas over the next 15 years...

Oh, and we talked about this... charging... you will need a charging station installed at home, unless you want to wait overnight to charge. So the cost for the Volt just jumped $2K.

Let the rich buy them, but don't spend my money as an incentive.

Until Ford makes an electric car, I'm not considering one.

The Volt is too small, does nothing well, and catches fire.

I'll just keep the Fiero and save money doing it.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: What about all those people who just bought a hybrid, boy, will they be POed So, my tax dollars are going to pay for someone else to buy a car. hmmm... Another tax break for the wealthy? I guess I don't understand how car sales is a function of our government.

Thats some clear thinking there, you should run for office.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: I'll just keep the Fiero and save money doing it.

At least until it catches fire.

Some things for starters that might help them "compete".

A place to plug it in at work, the ability for it to drive electrically all the way to my work and back home, the ability to plug into a regular socket at home too. Stop making electric cars ugly.

That is a philosophical unity, 2.5. The cars are economically ugly, so designers make them physically ugly, too.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Same sized car, same number of passengers....same function.... Cruze = Volt.

You cannot compare them directly in price by saying, as you did earlier, when they have a very different level of standard content. The $18k Cruze you reference wouldn't even get you into a completely base model with the 1.8 liter and an automatic transmission, complete with steel wheels.

quote Gas and Oil prices will rise, but if you look at the comparison data (on this forum), it still shows that the Volt will never return the MPG vs the extra cost a purchase time. Of course, if gas jumps to $20 a gallon, but I think we will have bigger issues at that point.

We've been through this before but the break even point is way less than $20/gal. Let's pretend that a driver does a 70/30 split, electric and gasoline driving, which would be a fairly typical routine. I'll even use the 1.4l turbo numbers for the Cruze to be extra conservative.

2012 Cruze: 26/37, 31 combined
2012 Volt: 77/75, 76 combined (70/30 average, electric and gasoline)

At $4/gal, the Volt would save $1145/yr in fuel costs, assuming 15k miles/yr. So if you consider the price difference w/o rebate to be $15k, that's about 13 years, right?

At $6/gal, the Volt saves $1718/yr, with a payback period of about 8.5 years. While this ignores electricity, the cost to charge is minor compared to the cost of fuel, and its obviously possible to use far less fuel with more short range driving. You really think $6/gal is far fetched? And again, this is ignoring the tax rebate.

quote but for the government to provide tax breaks for something that is not cheaper to own than a Cruze, that is stupid and wrong.

As I posted in another message earlier today, it's pretty obvious that the subsidy's purpose is to allow a new technology to compete in the marketplace while economies of scale reduce the cost. This is typical in all industries and it would be much more difficult to innovate and bring new products to market in highly established industries (such as automotive) without them.

quote I bought an HHR for a few reasons, room, manual tranny, price and MPG. I could have bought two HHRs for the price of the Volt. Why doesn't the government reward me for being fiscal? Where is my tax rebate? I will never buy $18K worth of gas over the next 15 years...

The government is assuming long term benefits of having inexpensive EV technology and is trading money now for benefits later.

quote Oh, and we talked about this... charging... you will need a charging station installed at home, unless you want to wait overnight to charge. So the cost for the Volt just jumped $2K.

There are plenty of people who don't need 240v charging. The Volt was always designed to be a commuter, and generally commuters would have time between uses to charge their cars.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: The government is assuming long term benefits of having inexpensive EV technology and is trading money now for benefits later.

For some people the point is whose money are they assuming and trading with? Whose money are they choosing losers and winners with? Did we have a popular vote on this?

Would those "benefits later" include near term results at the November voting booths?
Or later, as in trying to somehow get GM's stock price up high enough ($51/share) for the govt to shed itself of the remaining stock share the taxpayers now own without taking a screwing?

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-15-2012).]

Weve gotten into the cost of electric already many times. Based on our recent rates, charging a volt with a 120v plug took 10 hours and cost you $2-3 for that overnite charge which might get you 25-30 miles on a good day. We recently had a huge electric price jump...mine is over 400% from last month. Simple math shows that overnite charge will now cost me $8-12 for one nite. At current gas price (of course I know it will increase) that roughly $10 gives me enough gas at 30 mpg to drive that same 25-30 miles per day drive to get me to work and back at least 3 days. To me it looks like in my case it costs me 3 times as much to go totally electric as my current ICE car. Even if gas doubles in price ($6.00 @ gal), im still getting 2 times as far on my dollar over the electric one and I still save $30,000 I dont spend on the electric car ...with a $10K rebate.

I agree that when they give me a $25-30K rebate, id look into it. There are days an electric would do me just fine, but Id still own an ICE too. Ive never seen any numbers, but Ill bet every Volt owner has AT LEAST one other ICE vehicle.

BTW, here is what I wrote before (below). Even if gas hits $10/gal, you could still drive 45,000 miles before reaching the additional cost of purchasing a Volt. But if you factor in the Cruze Eco or Diesel, then it is harder to justify a vehicle like the Volt.

quote The Volt runs about $15K more than a Cruze. For your $15K, you can buy 3750 gallons of fuel ($4/gal), and if you get 30 miles to the gal in the cruze, you will be able to drive 112,500 miles. That is 10 years at 12K miles. Basically, it will take 10 years of Cruze ownership before you even spend what it would cost to buy a Volt. How is a Volt supposed to save me money again? The numbers are just not there for the Volt, yet. As you said, is it coming. Most people don't need 1 hour chargers, just like they don't need smart phones, or 20Mbps internet, or 300 channels on TV.... but they want it.... they expect it. Only the greenies will wait 10 hours, and in the mean time, they will walk or bike around, just so as they don't have to use gas in their Volt. Oh, lets not forget that here in the cold north, you need heat, will the Volt supply enough power to heat the interior and provide 35 miles of range? Nope, the engine will have to kick in, and the miles number will go down. Again, if the Volt and Cruze were similar in cost, then people would be snatching them up, but the technology is just not there.. close... very close. BTW, to get 240V at my house, I would have to upgrade my box, have a wire run from the box to the garage and probably even have to up my amp service..... just to get the faster charging.... and then spend more money to buy the charger. Sure, it isn't necessary, but what is the point of having an electric car if you are always waiting for it to charge, or you are running it on gas to charge the battery? I agree with you, I really do, but the Volt like the first Cell phone... a toy. The technology will get better, but right now is not viable for the masses, based on cost of ownership.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: For some people the point is whose money are they assuming and trading with? Whose money are they choosing losers and winners with? Did we have a popular vote on this?

Since the US is certainly not the manufacturing juggernaut it used to be, we rely a lot on innovation to maintain our high standard of living. We lose our cutting edge and everyone here loses.

Subsidizing new products isn't perfect by any means, but I think it's better than the alternative and not innovating at all.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: For some people the point is whose money are they assuming and trading with? Whose money are they choosing losers and winners with? Did we have a popular vote on this?

The government can provide other ways to increase the demand of electric vehicles, and paying auto companies via a rebate is just throwing money away.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Would those "benefits later" include near term results at the November voting booths? Or later, as in trying to somehow get GM's stock price up high enough ($51/share) for the govt to shed itself of the remaining stock share the taxpayers now own without taking a screwing?

For the record, I think it's beyond dumb to raise the EV subsidy since the issue has become fairly sensitive...and no, my conclusions were intended to be more general for any new technology subsidy, not for the Volt in particular.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Well, who can afford to pay $32+K for something that is basically a $18K Cruze? I see a few in town here and I have to wonder if the buyers have money to burn? Would I own a Volt? Sure, if it actually saved me money, but it has already been calculated (on this forum) that the Volt will never save enough money to justify the cost over an equally equipped Cruze.

In theory its not just about raw "payback", its also about using energy generated using cleaner technology in the process.

And : dont forget the vast majority of people are lucky to make $250@ week income. There not going to afford $300+ @ month car payments on a Volt. Thats why you see so many 15 year old cars on the road. Those people can barely buy a $2000 used car.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: In theory its not just about raw "payback", its also about using energy generated using cleaner technology in the process.

My wallet doesn't supporting spending twice as much for "clean energy"....

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: Since the US is certainly not the manufacturing juggernaut it used to be, we rely a lot on innovation to maintain our high standard of living. We lose our cutting edge and everyone here loses. Subsidizing new products isn't perfect by any means, but I think it's better than the alternative and not innovating at all.

I just look back and see individuals starting companies to be innovative. What has changesd is we now have a global economy. But I still don't like Government messing with it. If they want to spur innovation lower taxes on anything in that area of expertise across the board.

BTW, here is a Car and Driver comparison of a Cruze Eco and and Volt. Cruze won. And they didn't even factor in winter weather and the need for the Volt engine to turn on and off more often.

http://www.caranddriver.com...-eco-comparison-test

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Based on our recent rates, charging a volt with a 120v plug took 10 hours and cost you $2-3 for that overnite charge which might get you 25-30 miles on a good day.

At $0.14/kwh (national average), a full charge would cost $1.40 and would take you 35 miles. Again, using national averages and EPA ratings because there are also localities with lower rates, and there are also people who can get far more than 35 miles per charge. At $3.60/gal, an ICE would have to get 90 mpg to get the same economy.

quote We recently had a huge electric price jump...mine is over 400% from last month. Simple math shows that overnite charge will now cost me $8-12 for one nite.

That's crazy. I would agree, it wouldn't make sense for you (or anyone) to purchase an EV if electricity was $0.50/kwh (or whatever your current rate is).

quote but Ill bet every Volt owner has AT LEAST one other ICE vehicle.

You may be right, but the point of the Volt is to have the ability NOT to have two vehicles. Of course ICE vehicles will have their place in the forseeable future and, for the record, I love ICE's and V8 engines...My point, entirely, is that 1) EVs have their place next to ICE's and 2) Promoting new technology through subsidies is sometimes better than the alternative (of not having the new technology at all).

Remember the promise of "too cheap to meter" nuclear power and electricity? What happened to that? Our government should have been pushing nuclear power for decades.... cheap electricity would facilitate electric cars, just like cheap gas brought about SUVs.

2012 Cruze: 26/37, 31 combined
2012 Volt: 77/75, 76 combined (70/30 average, electric and gasoline)
I'm not sure where you get 76 miles for combined driving unless you only drive less than 20 miles per day. Following Roger's estimate for refueling the electric $3/for 20 miles, then $4 in gas for the next 30 miles. It still looks cheaper in a gas powered car.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Should our government be innovating or should manufacturers? Why does the tax payer have to pay for "innovation"? For the good of the country? Not in this case, as we just won't see electric cars be affordable for quite some time. What the government is doing is artificially supporting a technology that is not ready for mainstream and will not be ready for quite some time. If we want to reduce our dependance on oil, then provide incentives for individuals to buy fuel efficient vehicles, like the Cruze Eco.

EVs won't be ready for a long time if they aren't subsidized. I do agree that a better way to encourage efficiency would be to tax fuel and/or electricity and let the market figure it out. I'm not advocating a net increase in tax, just a reallocation of where tax revenues come from - reduce personal income tax rates to offset it, for example. The problem is that Americans vehemently oppose raising the price of fuel for ANY reason and thus its political suicide to suggest it.

A year or so ago I was looking @ a ZERO electric street bike for work and around town trips, price was $10k, but with the state and federal tax rebates it would have been only $6k. It was very tempting.