Americans Totally Want China Joe To Give Them Electric Cars Or Something

There’s a vast, monumental difference between wanting something and actually buying something. I’d love a nice beach house, but, I don’t have$500k+ sitting around for a place I’d used every couple of weeks for a day or two. There’s also a significant difference between wanting something and being forced to get that thing, especially when it is pretty far out of your budget

Opinion: Americans increasingly want electric cars — and Biden really wants you to buy one

Electric vehicleIf I moved to Norway — it’s a wonderful country to visit — one of the first things I’d probably do is run out and buy an electric car.

Why? Two reasons: First, gasoline costs the equivalent of about $7.86 a gallon, and second, the government tosses huge tax breaks at citizens to do so.

Just one giveaway alone makes it worthwhile: An exemption from the 25% value-added (VAT) tax on new car purchases. There’s also no import tax; no emission fees; no fuel taxes; cheaper insurance; and on and on. How could you not buy one?

Because they are pretty darned expensive and inconvenient for America. If you have to add huge numbers of taxes and fees to force people to purchase them, doesn’t sound like they really want them.

But it’s artificial. Manipulating the market with these things — extortion-level fuel prices and giant tax giveaways — isn’t a sign of true demand. What would consumers do if such sticks and carrots didn’t exist?

Ya think?

Perhaps a bit more impressive is the surge we’ve seen here in the United States from consumers who are buying EVs on their own, despite far lower gasoline prices and tax breaks that, while attractive, don’t equal what’s dangled before our Norwegian friends.

Pew Research Center data says that while 7% of U.S. adults report owning an electric or hybrid vehicle now, nearly two-fifths — 39% — say they’re “very” or “somewhat likely” to seriously consider buying an electric vehicle the next time they’re in the market for some new wheels.

Considering isn’t actually buying. I’d consider getting an iPhone next time. I won’t actually get one, but, I’d consider it. Lots of people consider things, they just do not move forward. Lots consider the hybrid versions, but, then go with the regular. And, while hybrid buyers are hot to trot consider buying (from the Pew survey)

Just 7% of U.S. adults say they currently own an electric or hybrid vehicle. Most of these owners (72%) say they are very (43%) or somewhat (29%) likely to seriously consider an electric car or truck the next time around.

It doesn’t mean they will

By the way, if you’re thinking about buying a Tesla TSLA, +2.29% or General Motors GM, -1.43% EV, it looks like you won’t get any federal tax credits. That’s because both automakers are being punished for their success: Once a manufacturer sells 200,000 units, EV tax breaks go away, and both automakers have passed this cap (this tells me that Tesla CEO Elon Musk and GM’s Mary Barra need to hire some better lobbyists and get those tax breaks restored).

That’s always been that way.

In fact, there’s evidence to show that even if these less-than-Norwegian tax breaks went away, sales could collapse. At least that’s what happened in Georgia a few years back when lawmakers ended the state’s $5,000 state tax credit. EV sales crashed 89% in two months.

So people won’t buy without tax incentives? Which do not equate to actual cash, just a reduction of your taxable income.

In a May “fact sheet,” the White House said the administration will “support market demand” for EVs with “point-of-sale incentives that encourage EV deployment.”

Translating this to simple English, it sounds like it’ll take $100 billion in subsidies to support market demand. The president proposes to use dollars from Taxpayer A so Taxpayer B can buy an electric car. This isn’t real market demand, of course; it’s artificial, as it is in Norway. Is this the right way to go? It’s quite a debate.

Do we really need tens of billions in tax breaks for people to buy an electric car? If U.S. automakers can build electric cars that can compete with foreign rivals on price and performance — and I believe they can — then perhaps the president could save taxpayers a bunch of money, and we could still move toward the future the president envisions.

The majority of those tax breaks will benefit the corporations and upper middle class/rich folks. Regardless, the unero numero problem here is that China Joe and his Democrat Party Comrades aren’t just going to attempt to incentivize EVs, they’re going attempt to force people to buy them and out of their fossil fueled vehicles.


Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Americans Totally Want China Joe To Give Them Electric Cars Or Something”

  1. Animal says:

    My next vehicle will be a new F-450 Diesel. I won’t buy that whopper solely to piss off lefties – I have hauling and towing to do – but pissing off lefties will be a nice fringe benefit.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    How dare Norway price petrol to account for the negative externalities associated with CO2-associated global warming!?!

    In the US we ignore these negative externalities, resulting in a trillion dollar a year subsidy to gas-oil concerns.

    Hmmm. So when gasoline costs more people look for ways to purchase less gasoline. Funny that.

    • david7134 says:

      What negatives? I see you are still running around in your gas car. We spotted you several times. Then one year of greatly diminished auto use did zero. Then what subsidies? We schooled you on depreciation long ago, you didn’t learn. I have been contributing my part. I found it is easier to burn my trash and as a result I am helping the environment.

    • Jl says:

      Sorry, J, not really subsidies. Again, for the most part fossil fuels receive tax breaks and depreciation allowance, which technically aren’t subsidies, because a subsidy is the government giving money. No “giving” with a tax break. Anyway, no matter what they’re called, the act of receiving a handout from the government is not the same as keeping more money that was already yours to begin with. Hence, the two definitions-tax break and subsidy.

    • est2000 says:

      I would be interested in you providing the source of your 1 trillion in gas-0il concerns.

      Are you concenrned that the richest man in the world pays zero income tax because he owns the Washington Post? Are in concerned that Warren Buffet another democratic donor pays less income tax than his secretary?

      Are you concerned that we need illegal immigrants to replace women who are NOT HAVING KIDS and who are now more and more supporting TRUMP. A Harris-ex poll just released show trump with 39 percent among Hispanics and rising.

      Is it any wonder the left has suddenly realized that they are losing grip on the Hispanic aka Illegal immigrant vote and are now going to central America(VP HARRIS)and telling them NOT TO COME?

      There are many things to be concerned about in our world but a trillion dollar subsidy to the oil-gas industry is no different than a trillion dollar subsidy to Democratic interests. The difference is that aborting children does not benefit Conservatives where EATING and appreciating the 100’000’s of thousands of things made by petroleum using fossil fueled provided power greatly benefits all of mankind including Democrats.

      So again I would be interested in you pointing to what subsidies of the oil-gas industry you are most concerned with so that my team might address them for you.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        EST: Are you concerned that the richest man in the world pays zero income tax because he owns the Washington Post?

        Very much so. As America deteriorates, our wealthiest contribute less and less to maintaining our nation. Jeff Bezos is the wealthiest in the US because of his workers. Understand that the US is a plutocracy managed for the benefit of the wealthy and corporations and the expense of the middle class. Our strong democracy cannot survive without a thriving middle class. For the past 40 years or so, the Political Donor-Congressional Complex has been looting the nation at the expense of the workers.

        Today’s conservatives pay lip service to the working class but support laws and policies that weaken them.

        Regarding subsidies for gas and oil for “your team” (LOL) to consider, consider that the Earth is warming rapidly because of the past and present burning of fossil fuels. SOMEONE will pay the price for this and it will cost trillions. Norway, replete with their own oil supplies, was wise enough to include climate change remediation costs at the pump.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Notice Rimjob avoids and fails to provide the source of his claim for the uh,trillion dollar a year subsidy to the oil and gas industry.

          Then goes on to spout the Marxist-Leninist trope about how the um, “wealthy” (like himself supposedly) don’t pay enough taxes.

          But then again a dipshit he is.

          Bwaha! Lolgf

        • est2080 says:

          The “pause” in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, global temperatures rose 0.5 °C over a period of 25 years. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero.

          The earth will perish. NOT. In fact in the next 40 years as the earth enters the grand solar minimum expect temperatures to flat line.

          Once again ample and plenty of time to transition to Nuclear fusion, and many other types of energy not associated with producing trillions of batteries per year and STRIP MINING the planet to the mantle.

          AGW is filled with terrorists and as much as you Elwood claim whites are White Supremicists, it is every bit the truth that AGW proponents are eco terrorists bent on destroying the worlds economies fed by billionaires and China, Russia and other bad faith actors driving the lunacy that is Global Warming.

        • Jl says:

          Here we go again—“warming rapidly..”. Not any more rapid than earlier in the Holocene. And “rapid” by itself is irrelevant-it would be the alleged effects of the rapid warming. Many just mutter “rapid warming!”…..

  3. david7134 says:

    Maybe if we had the legitimate president in office we could get things done.

  4. Hairy says:

    The 2nd highest selling electric CSR in china sgter Tesla costs $5000
    A small 4 seater city car with 70 mile range ( enough for you to commute to work) or about what is average daily use here in the USA

  5. Kye says:

    My lovely wife who a mere few years ago swore that if we bought her a Mulsanne it would be the “last car of her life” has a friend who wants a Tesla Model S Plaid and to those ends held a “Tupperware ” party for the Tesla guys at her Main Line home. I’m trying to keep up with the Park’s (Asians being the “new WASP’s”). Six Korean and Chinese ladies with more money than brains decided they want the new Tesla Plaid, my wife among them. Now, at about $170,000 the Tesla (should) price in about half that of the Mulsanne, it still voids our agreement. When or IF the car actually comes in I guess her Bentley will be MY last car instead. Irony!

Pirate's Cove