OT Ford CEO on Lightning truck

[Perd Hapley]

A quick Google looks like it doesn’t apply if you truly cut all ties to CA.

So in other words, it isn’t real. Obviously if you still own property in CA (even if not primary residence), maintain a business there, etc. you are still subject to whatever state income taxes apply….wealth tax or whatever.

And the number of people affected by such a policy with more than $30M in assets is so small that its not really even worth discussing as far as being an impactful policy one way or another, anyway.

 

[johnson86-1]

You’re free to move out of California whenever you choose, don’t move out of California but go buy a vehicle in AZ, NV, etc, or vote for new representation that will make changes to the 2035 laws (which aren’t ever going to be enacted by that time anyway).

Otherwise, nobody is outlawing you from anything.

California is not the only one moving this way, but even if it were, lots of people live in California that don’t vote for stupidity and they shouldn’t be punished or forced to move just because they live around stupid people. But even ignoring that, these government mandates 17 up investment and increase the amount of wasted investment. Subsidizing stuff is bad enough on average, mandates are worse and make everybody worse off. Even if they eventually roll back the mandates, that doesn’t mean they are costless

 

[johnson86-1]

So in other words, it isn’t real. Obviously if you still own property in CA (even if not primary residence), maintain a business there, etc. you are still subject to whatever state income taxes apply….wealth tax or whatever.

And the number of people affected by such a policy with more than $30M in assets is so small that its not really even worth discussing as far as being an impactful policy one way or another, anyway.

I would say it is meaningful whenever a US state treats any of its citizens as serfs tied to the land and that it’s generally a poor sign if a lot of residents of a democracy or republic take the stance of “it’s only a small number of people being singled out so it doesn’t matter”. You’re going to have bad results from government policy that are small and unavoidable, but that’s entirely different than intentionally singling a group out because they are not politically popular and don’t represent a big voting bloc.

 

[o_Hot Rock]

Question about the expense of all these clean energy electric cars and solar panels. Is this stuff really this expensive or are we just seeing what happens when government subsidies start flowing without any control over what manufacturers are charging?

Maybe I’m off base, but when electric cars cost $85k and it takes 12-15 years to break even on solar panels, it sure doesn’t seem like your every day consumers are the ones benefiting from all this free money

The US Gov't subsidizes the Oil Industry a helluva lot more than EV's. Why? To keep US producing it's own fuels. If you had to pay the actual cost of gasoline in the US then even you would look a lot closer at all alternative fuels.

There may be a day when we don't subsidize either one. I see EV's getting there before ICE myself because the savings is real to drive one and the Oil industry can't make it without subsidies.

Here is a tidbit from an article.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

"But rather than being phased out, fossil fuel subsidies are actually increasing. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report estimates 6.5 percent of global GDP ($5.2 trillion) was spent on fossil fuel subsidies (including negative externalities) in 2017, a half trillion dollar increase since 2015. The largest subsidizers are China ($1.4 trillion in 2015), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion)."

If they stopped subsidizing the oil industry, the US wouldn't have an oil industry. That can't happen, we need energy independence so that can't stop but if we can get alternative fuels that work, those subsidies given to EV's are offset by what they give the Oil industry to keep your ICE on the road. The more EV's the less oil subsidies we will need in the future.

 

[johnson86-1]

The US Gov't subsidizes the Oil Industry a helluva lot more than EV's. Why? To keep US producing it's own fuels. If you had to pay the actual cost of gasoline in the US then even you would look a lot closer at all alternative fuels.

There may be a day when we don't subsidize either one. I see EV's getting there before ICE myself because the savings is real to drive one and the Oil industry can't make it without subsidies.

Here is a tidbit from an article.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

"But rather than being phased out, fossil fuel subsidies are actually increasing. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report estimates 6.5 percent of global GDP ($5.2 trillion) was spent on fossil fuel subsidies (including negative externalities) in 2017, a half trillion dollar increase since 2015. The largest subsidizers are China ($1.4 trillion in 2015), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion)."

If they stopped subsidizing the oil industry, the US wouldn't have an oil industry. That can't happen, we need energy independence so that can't stop but if we can get alternative fuels that work, those subsidies given to EV's are offset by what they give the Oil industry to keep your ICE on the road. The more EV's the less oil subsidies we will need in the future.

Not that there aren’t real subsidies, but that source is not reliable. It includes basic tax treatments that are generally available as a subsidies to oil and gas. It also looks like it values accelerated depreciation as the amount of the taxes deferred rather than the time value of money of the deferred taxes.

 

[thatsbaseball]

The US Gov't subsidizes the Oil Industry a helluva lot more than EV's. Why? To keep US producing it's own fuels. If you had to pay the actual cost of gasoline in the US then even you would look a lot closer at all alternative fuels.

There may be a day when we don't subsidize either one. I see EV's getting there before ICE myself because the savings is real to drive one and the Oil industry can't make it without subsidies.

Here is a tidbit from an article.

Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI

www.eesi.org

"But rather than being phased out, fossil fuel subsidies are actually increasing. The latest International Monetary Fund (IMF) report estimates 6.5 percent of global GDP ($5.2 trillion) was spent on fossil fuel subsidies (including negative externalities) in 2017, a half trillion dollar increase since 2015. The largest subsidizers are China ($1.4 trillion in 2015), the United States ($649 billion) and Russia ($551 billion)."

If they stopped subsidizing the oil industry, the US wouldn't have an oil industry. That can't happen, we need energy independence so that can't stop but if we can get alternative fuels that work, those subsidies given to EV's are offset by what they give the Oil industry to keep your ICE on the road. The more EV's the less oil subsidies we will need in the future.

And these subsidies allow every single American who buys gasoline or heats a home to do it a little cheaper. To me it is a tangible return I get for paying my taxes. Also this article is useless unless the numbers are compared to the tons of money we are now spending (and will in the future) on subsidizing renewables many of which are and will be complete shams.

 

[Perd Hapley]

California is not the only one moving this way, but even if it were, lots of people live in California that don’t vote for stupidity and they shouldn’t be punished or forced to move just because they live around stupid people. But even ignoring that, these government mandates 17 up investment and increase the amount of wasted investment. Subsidizing stuff is bad enough on average, mandates are worse and make everybody worse off. Even if they eventually roll back the mandates, that doesn’t mean they are costless

The federal government has been subsidizing everything from cell phone towers to oil and gas production to agriculture since 1776. Them offering subsidies for EV technology / investment is no different. Some of those subsidies are necessary, some are not, and some are disputable. If you think they aren’t good policy that’s fine. But they still aren’t outlawing anything. Nobody has outlawed ICE vehicles, not even CA in 2035.

And if you’re against CA shaping its own policy for its residents only based on what the people vote for, what is your alternative? That the federal government passes legislation to prevent laws that CA wants to pass regarding emissions, EV sales, etc. and applies them to the whole country? Seems like that’s far more tortuous and impactful than any subsidies….a much more “big government” solution if you will. As of now, CA is simply exercising its state’s rights the same way as other states are regarding abortion and other matters. Do you have a specific issue with that beyond just not thinking it’s a good idea?

 

[Perd Hapley]

I would say it is meaningful whenever a US state treats any of its citizens as serfs tied to the land and that it’s generally a poor sign if a lot of residents of a democracy or republic take the stance of “it’s only a small number of people being singled out so it doesn’t matter”. You’re going to have bad results from government policy that are small and unavoidable, but that’s entirely different than intentionally singling a group out because they are not politically popular and don’t represent a big voting bloc.

Except they aren’t treating former residents as serfs. It was stated that the proposed law (that may not have even passed) still doesn’t even apply to people that cut all ties to CA. Which is the whole point. A state has no jurisdiction or practical means to enforce any kind of tax penalty on people who A) don’t live there, B) don’t own property there, C) Don’t work there, and D) Don’t own a business that operates there. If you fall under any of the above, you’re subject to the state’s tax laws as they are written. No different than any other state.

As far as “it’s only a small number of people so it doesn’t matter”, that’s obviously not the whole story and you know it. The small number of people are all obviously going to be able to survive such a tax if they have at least $30M in assets. But that’s not the whole story, either. What is the whole story is that even in CA, there aren’t enough residents with $30M plus in assets AND who are trying to leave the state AND who are still trying to keep some form of their assets or income in the state for this added revenue to do anything substantial for the state. It’s a political football of legislation. Dems in their legislature and the governor can point to an action they passed that “increased taxes on the rich”….an action that in fact did nothing of substance. Huge nothingburger. No reason to be excited or upset about it, especially if you don’t live there.

 

[Beretta.sixpack]

Except they aren’t treating former residents as serfs. It was stated that the proposed law (that may not have even passed) still doesn’t even apply to people that cut all ties to CA. Which is the whole point. A state has no jurisdiction to enforce any kind of tax penalty on people who A) don’t live there, B) don’t own property there, C) Don’t work there, and D) Don’t own a business that operates there. If you fall under any of the above, you’re subject to the state’s tax laws as they are written.

As far as “it’s only a small number of people so it doesn’t matter”, that’s obviously not the whole story and you know it. The small number of people are all obviously going to be able to survive such a tax if they have at least $30M in assets. But that’s not the whole story, either. What is the whole story is that even in CA, there aren’t enough residents with both $30M plus AND who are trying to leave the state AND are still trying to keep some form of their assets or income in the state for this added revenue to do anything substantial for the state. It’s a political football of legislation. Dems in their legislature and the governor can point to an action they passed that “increased taxes on the rich”….an action that in fact did nothing of substance. Huge nothingburger. No reason to be excited or upset about it, especially if you don’t live there.

not disagreeing with anything here.....my dad lives in Ca and can't get back to MS quick enough....but it is of my personal opinion that Gavin Newson has a greater than 50% chance to be the Dem candidate for president next year.....just think about that....

 

[johnson86-1]

The federal government has been subsidizing everything from cell phone towers to oil and gas production to agriculture since 1776. Them offering subsidies for EV technology / investment is no different. Some of those subsidies are necessary, some are not, and some are disputable. If you think they aren’t good policy that’s fine.

None of them are necessary. Mostly they aren't good policy and on net, they're probably destructive, but yes, they are fine.

But they still aren’t outlawing anything. Nobody has outlawed ICE vehicles, not even CA in 2035.

They are outlawing the sale of ICE vehicles. That's not likely where they're going to stop, but even if that's all they do, they are still being *** holes to car dealers especially and to people that want to drive ICE cars. I wouldn't want to have to drive 4 hours to get to the nearest place I could buy an ICE for no real purpose other than people wanted to make it difficult.

And if you’re against CA shaping its own policy for its residents only based on what the people vote for, what is your alternative? That the federal government passes legislation to prevent laws that CA wants to pass regarding emissions, EV sales, etc. and applies them to the whole country? Seems like that’s far more tortuous and impactful than any subsidies….a much more “big government” solution if you will. As of now, CA is simply exercising its state’s rights the same way as other states are regarding abortion and other matters. Do you have a specific issue with that beyond just not thinking it’s a good idea?

I'm against California's voters and government officials being *** holes. I'm not necessarily opposed to the federal government stepping in to protect US citizen rights although I'm not sure how to articulate when that's justified. Possibly to protect the ability to buy ICE cars just because that is fundamentally tied to the right to travel for so many people but probably not to protect their ability to buy it within a 4 hour drive. But I'm especially against people outlawing the sale of something some distance in the future and then claiming it doesn't matter because you'll be able to get around it and also it's in the future, and the future for some reason doesn't count.

 

[dorndawg]

California is not the only one moving this way, but even if it were, lots of people live in California that don’t vote for stupidity and they shouldn’t be punished or forced to move just because they live around stupid people. But even ignoring that, these government mandates 17 up investment and increase the amount of wasted investment. Subsidizing stuff is bad enough on average, mandates are worse and make everybody worse off. Even if they eventually roll back the mandates, that doesn’t mean they are costless

Boy do I know THIS feeling...

 

[BigDawg0074]

Oh look, an EV thread. Haven't read thru it yet, but I bet...

- someone will claim it's not ready while also saying it's the future.
- someone will claim that until EVs go 500mi and charge in 10min, it's not for them.
- someone will say 'it's just an option and it's nice to have options'.
- someone will claim it isn't an option and all the US will soon be forced into compliance just because CA passed a law recently.
- someone will point out that since the grid can't handle the power demand right now, it's a bad idea/unrealistic to set expectations for 12-17 years from now.



Time to read the thread and score my guesses.

5/5 nailed it!

 

[Perd Hapley]

They are outlawing the sale of ICE vehicles. That's not likely where they're going to stop, but even if that's all they do, they are still being *** holes to car dealers especially and to people that want to drive ICE cars. I wouldn't want to have to drive 4 hours to get to the nearest place I could buy an ICE for no real purpose other than people wanted to make it difficult.

Again, they aren’t outlawing the sale of ICE vehicles. Only new ICE vehicles. The nearest used car dealership likely won’t be 4 hours away. As far as “not gonna stop there”, take it from someone in the industry that they are almost certainly going to augment the legislation to include plug-in hybrids at a minimum, and likely conventional hybrids also. So yeah, they may not stop there because they won’t make it there by 2035 in the first place.

And being A-holes to car dealers? You’ve got to be kidding. Profit margin is sky high on EV’s, which is why Ford / GM have gladly taken the subsidy investments to help build their market share there without their own investment. Dealers are loving this a lot more than you realize, even though it’s inherently comical that one would be up in arms about anyone being A-holes to a business faction that are notorious for being the biggest A-holes on planet earth themselves. And the increased demand on used ICE vehicles that will come about is going to shoot that margin even further through the roof, too.

 

[patdog]

Again, they aren’t outlawing the sale of ICE vehicles. Only new ICE vehicles.

This is absolutely outlawing sales of ICE vehicles. Sure, you'll be able to buy used cars for a while. But within a decade, your choices for decent ones are going to be about nil.

 

[Perd Hapley]

This is absolutely outlawing sales of ICE vehicles. Sure, you'll be able to buy used cars for a while. But within a decade, your choices for decent ones are going to be about nil.

So by 2045 (22 years from now) you’re saying it’s going to be hard to find a straight ICE vehicle with no hybrid functionality? No kidding. Because they will no longer be nearly as practical as they are now. CA is leading the charge on this is because they are already pretty impractical there for a majority of residents with what they have to pay for gasoline.

But they will still be out there, for those who choose to do the impractical thing, even if they are just hobbyists / enthusiasts who like to tinker and restore old cars.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Couldn't the same thing be said about the above in 1990?

Did you pull this crap post from 1990?

 

[o_Hot Rock]

And these subsidies allow every single American who buys gasoline or heats a home to do it a little cheaper. To me it is a tangible return I get for paying my taxes. Also this article is useless unless the numbers are compared to the tons of money we are now spending (and will in the future) on subsidizing renewables many of which are and will be complete shams.

How is a tangible thing to make people that don't have cars pay for people that do. Socialist much?

EV's subsidies are better because they can end when and if it gets more cost effective to build them or better batteries. Oil Industry cannot sustain itself. 6.4 % of the world GDP is spent on it.