...cost the taxpayer >$50K above what you paid for the car...

 

Do you care to substantiate your claim?

 

Not really. But 5 seconds of Google indicates I might have underestimated by a factor of 5. I was being generous.

Gov?t subsidies for Chevy Volt up to $250,000 per car? « Hot Air

 

OH NOES!! This unsubstantiated right wing article from 2011 with a single failed agenda (sorry the President still won the 2012 elections) that has been considered ridiculous since day one...

Anyone that passed third grade math (even with a D) understand that the author included the loan from the Government as a "subsidy" in his calculations but this loan was paid in full. 3 billion divided by 12,000 units is $250,000.

There are also articles running around that mention the Volt cost GM hundreds of thousands of dollars each which again, anyone with basic understanding of how product development works for every business out there knows that development costs are amortized over the lifespan of the product and technologies that develop from it. That would be as stupid as saying that the first 1,000 iPhones cost Apple a million each and people were paying $500...

You need to hone up your Google fu

It would be really cool that I paid $22,600 for a $250,000 car though

 

I'm with you there bro.

 

You really needn't jump to these baseless attacks. For a minute there I thought you might be interested in having a meaningful discussion.

Anyway, I will assume you have primary education from an American public school like so many of us do, myself included, where they fail completely to teach economics. It is well known that a) GM received large subsidies (not just loans) specifically to create an electric car, and also it is well known that buyers also had a major portion of the purchase price of this and other electric cars subsidized by the Fed. Now, even if you choose to ignore the GM subsidy (or as I do, choose not to bother with the research just so you can argue on a forum), you cannot ignore the fact that there is a taxpayer-funded "rebate" of up to $7500 if you buy an electric car. If we had learned even the most basic economics then we would know that GM would not have taken the risk to build this car to begin with given the extremely poor demand, and even after they were incentivized to build it, they still were reliant on the government's rebate in order to stimulate demand. And this was still not effective. Any other car that GM made would have been cancelled after the terrible sales numbers of the Volt even without any government manipulation of the market. Any major automaker would.

I think I initially suggested that I was not interested in substantiating the claim and that this was literally the first result in the most rudimentary of google searches. I mean, do you care to spend hours researching to substantiate an implied suggestion that GM did not get a subsidy to cover costs of creating what was an unmarketable car with tremendously low demand? Maybe you'd like to google my name and see if you can substantiate my poor math skills.

You did pay whatever you paid for a $250,000 car, or at least a >$22,600 car, by what margin, well everyone is careful to hide the actual numbers so that those without a natural sense of economics are easily convinced that only those who are politically opposed to their viewpoint and also apparently stupid and uneducated would accuse the government of such market manipulation.

Anyway, I won't bother to debate any longer. I don't blame you for buying a Volt, especially considering that, as you say, you get what would be a six-figure car for under $25K, it's like buying a new Wrangler for $3K. That's a windfall any way you slice it. Never mind what happens when you have to dispose of the batteries or the repair costs etc. It's green, right? Right up until those heavy metals get into the water table. But it's all about the carbon.. that's politics.

 

First, sorry if I offended you in anything other than a lighthearted conversation. Personally I don't take offense in anything posted on the web.

Yes, I took the 7,500 Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicle Credit (IRC 30D) and another incentive from my job. This is no different or worse than the child tax credit or "cash for clunkers" that many have taken and will continue to take, yet it is much better than the subsidies the Federal Government provides to gasoline manufacturers (why do you think gas prices in the US are so much lower than the rest of the world) Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Overview - Oil Change InternationalOil Change International or risking our troops lives to protect it.

The Volt has a 8 year/100k warranty that will cover everything related to the electric drive system and likely by then I will have another daily driver in my garage. But if I decide to keep it, I will have some peace of mind knowing that there are Volts aproaching 250,000 miles without problems as the car was overdesigned from the start 2012 Volt Approaching 250,000 lifetime miles - GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Electric Car Site and the cost won't be as high as any other car especially when the warranty is over in 2022 The real costs of keeping a Chevy Volt on the road

Again, If I choose to keep it for any longer than the 8 year warranty coverage, why would disposing of any parts be any different than any other car? Batteries will be recycled like any other from laptops or phones.

 

I think it's a great thing that our government and also private industry is investing in moving away from ICE in the automotive market. In every fledgling industry, there are massive expenses to undertaking new technologies and market segments, especially where adoption of that tech might be slow or influenced by other competing factors, like falling oil prices. The Volt is a great car--even if it's not profitable, it's a car that turns perception, and that's vitally important. So, I think those are tax dollars well spent because it's moving our country in a direction that we NEED to go.

Edit: Personal vehicle preference would normally lead me away from small cars like the Volt. It's small, not very powerful, and to get the most bang for your buck out of it, the dang thing needs to be plugged in. And then there's the whole tree-hugger stigma of being a borderline socialist, just by driving one. I'd be sure to litter the rear end with "Guns and Coffee" stickers just so the local redneck cohort wouldn't run me off the road.

Let's forget about the earth and politics for a second. I'm driving a gas-chortling V8 that gets exactly 19mpg. I drive 25,000 miles/year. If gas is an average of $2.25/gallon right now, that's $2960 per year JUST in fuel costs. Even worse if gas creeps back up.

The 2016 limits for Roth IRA contributions is $5500. I could be buying gas to burn in my truck, or funding an earlier retirement. Or taking a trip to Hawaii ever year. Or saving up cash to replace my vehicle every 10 years or so. No matter your income, lowering expenses equates to more independence and freedom.

 

I'm pretty sure you intended to offend with your "3rd grade math" comment. Nevertheless, it was a misguided attempt and also makes meaningful discourse basically impossible.

Nice. Didn't you just complain about what you perceived as a politically-biased article, and now you post one of your own?

Anyway, whatever. I am personally in favor of ending all subsidies of any kind, along with those tax credits, since every last one of them is a clear and obvious violation of the 10th Amendment.

 

And with that, we will disagree 100%. It's not the government's role to prop up businesses who have unmarketable business ideas. If the technology is worth investment, then let private industry invest it and reap the benefits. Government should never pick winners and losers. This is my whole beef with this. This is at the core of everything that's wrong with American government.