I assume that you meant "Low MPG clunkers" or "High mileage polluters." When the cash For Clunkers program was announced, I was skeptical, but it really did get a *lot* of terrible old gas guzzlers and oil burners off the road. They were largely replaced with Hyundais, which probably wasn't intended, but a few Fords and Hondas were added as well. In balance, it both helped the working poor and helped the environment.
Free EVs for the poor! Seriously!
- Thread starter tkdbrusco
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
I assume that you meant "Low MPG clunkers" or "High mileage polluters." When the cash For Clunkers program was announced, I was skeptical, but it really did get a *lot* of terrible old gas guzzlers and oil burners off the road. They were largely replaced with Hyundais, which probably wasn't intended, but a few Fords and Hondas were added as well. In balance, it both helped the working poor and helped the environment.
Slow1
Well-known member
tkdbrusco said:
Well, on the bright side it should help support the used car prices a bit eh? Those selling their used cars are unlikely to go below the available rebates eh?
Artificial (government) intervention in markets typically has many unanticipated consequences... Someone will benefit, others may not as much...
2k1Toaster
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2013
- Messages
- 506
It does also say you have to replace a "scrapped car". So factor in a few hundred bucks to buy and register a clunker in the first place. It is obviously intended for people with crappy cars to trade it in for an EV, but I am sure american greed can find a way to ruin it for those that need it.
And the 2015 400% of poverty for a family of 4 is $97K. That's not that much for a family of 4 assuming it is 2/2 adults/kids in California. Average rent prices for a small home would be in the $3K to $4K a month range. $77K after taxes optimistically, and then $36K a year in rent alone. Add in utilities and food and you're essentially working to barely survive. I don't think most people realize how expensive the world is right now. They are stuck in the "back in my day we bought a whole meal for a nickel down at the diner" mentality. It costs about $40 every time I go out for a 2 person dinner at a little hole in the wall, $100 for 2 in a moderate restaurant around here. Singapore is $100/pp per meal around dinner even the crap places.
And the 2015 400% of poverty for a family of 4 is $97K. That's not that much for a family of 4 assuming it is 2/2 adults/kids in California. Average rent prices for a small home would be in the $3K to $4K a month range. $77K after taxes optimistically, and then $36K a year in rent alone. Add in utilities and food and you're essentially working to barely survive. I don't think most people realize how expensive the world is right now. They are stuck in the "back in my day we bought a whole meal for a nickel down at the diner" mentality. It costs about $40 every time I go out for a 2 person dinner at a little hole in the wall, $100 for 2 in a moderate restaurant around here. Singapore is $100/pp per meal around dinner even the crap places.
DaveinOlyWA
Well-known member
there is little doubt in my mind that unless there is a program to assist low income, any program to reduce carbon emissions will cost a ton and have little effect. so why not spend a ton in the right places? where it will do the most good.
DNAinaGoodWay
Well-known member
Low income people and governments should receive higher wages and more tax revenue. All that's required is for corporations to increase wages and along with billionaires, pay much, much more in taxes. Vote Bernie!
dhanson865
Well-known member
there is a used leaf on autotrader for $6,995, another for $7,995. If those eventually become $4,000 cars would you be OK with lowering the cap on the incentive?
As in if it bothers you that its a trade in of a clunker that might be worth less than $2,000 for a EV that is worth $10,000 would it still bother you if it is a trade in of a clunker that is worth less than $2,000 for an EV that is worth $4,000?
At that point the dollar value of the trade up is minimized but you still get people into cars with no emissions, that require less maintenance. Maybe that person doesn't need 300 mile range, maybe it'd be very helpful for them to have a reliable 50 mile range vehicle.
As in if it bothers you that its a trade in of a clunker that might be worth less than $2,000 for a EV that is worth $10,000 would it still bother you if it is a trade in of a clunker that is worth less than $2,000 for an EV that is worth $4,000?
At that point the dollar value of the trade up is minimized but you still get people into cars with no emissions, that require less maintenance. Maybe that person doesn't need 300 mile range, maybe it'd be very helpful for them to have a reliable 50 mile range vehicle.
Slow1
Well-known member
My point of view here is that if there is a "gas guzzling clunker" to remove, it doesn't matter what the income of the owner/driver is. If the policy is to pay someone to get it off the road and into an EV, it should be available to any/all. IF we (the citizens of a given area who make up the government) consider it work $X to permanently retire a vehicle, then it's worth that much to retire the vehicle whoever the driver is.
When you start only discriminating based on anything (income included) then it makes me believe that there is a different objective being pursued.
When you start only discriminating based on anything (income included) then it makes me believe that there is a different objective being pursued.
dhanson865
Well-known member
How many people with a 6 figure income will buy a $4000 EV? Not 40 thousand, 4 thousand. As in a Leaf with 70,000 miles on it, no warranty, limited range.
Does it matter if you put an income limit on the benefit if it is to buy a vehicle that a high income person wouldn't want to drive?
Does it matter if you put an income limit on the benefit if it is to buy a vehicle that a high income person wouldn't want to drive?
DNAinaGoodWay
Well-known member
+1, if today's used LEAF value is under $10k, what will it be in a year or two or three when next gen cars are out? Even without a subsidy, these cars will still benefit people and the environment.
TimLee
Well-known member
Mitt Romney still fails to understand the difference between illegal and immoral.Slow1 said:
Having so many $ that you can hide part of it outside the US and only pay 14% tax may be legal.
But it is totally immoral.
mjblazin
Well-known member
If you pay tax on it and the IRS agrees, by definition you are not hiding it.
To answer some of the above questions...
Yes, I would agree with this program at a reduced incentive, but that is only because the existing $7500 federal credit can only be utilized by someone who pays $7500 in federal tax, thus making it at least partially off limits to lower income earners, so something that allows them to buy an EV at a reduced price (other than leasing) would make sense. That being said, I think it should be correlative to the credit given on a new car, so if I get $7500 off a $28,000 new Leaf, a comparable credit of roughly $3-4,000 would be totally justifiable.
Secondly, I don't think you will ever see used leaf prices fall much below $8K, except for maybe very high mileage 2011 models. The new ones are holding up very well battery wise and once they get below $8K, they become a downright steal. Especially if Nissan starts selling 30kwh packs for them at reasonable prices.
Lastly, I agree, if the IRS says its legal then there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing immoral about using the tax code to your benefit. What's immoral is how the government wastes and misappropriates so much of our tax dollars. They have a moral obligation to not run the country into debt, and operate pyramid schemes with my tax dollars.
Yes, I would agree with this program at a reduced incentive, but that is only because the existing $7500 federal credit can only be utilized by someone who pays $7500 in federal tax, thus making it at least partially off limits to lower income earners, so something that allows them to buy an EV at a reduced price (other than leasing) would make sense. That being said, I think it should be correlative to the credit given on a new car, so if I get $7500 off a $28,000 new Leaf, a comparable credit of roughly $3-4,000 would be totally justifiable.
Secondly, I don't think you will ever see used leaf prices fall much below $8K, except for maybe very high mileage 2011 models. The new ones are holding up very well battery wise and once they get below $8K, they become a downright steal. Especially if Nissan starts selling 30kwh packs for them at reasonable prices.
Lastly, I agree, if the IRS says its legal then there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing immoral about using the tax code to your benefit. What's immoral is how the government wastes and misappropriates so much of our tax dollars. They have a moral obligation to not run the country into debt, and operate pyramid schemes with my tax dollars.
