Why California's EV-Rebate Proposition Lost - Slashdot

Posted by EditorDavid

• ›

  They shift those expenses onto their employees by calling them contractors. So the opponent's argument is nonsensical on the face of it.
  
  Give me the amount of money involved the reason this didn't pass is because a lot of money was spent making sure it didn't. That said I'd rather see the money going to public transportation and building walkable cities then subsidizing car sales. Still as someone who has to breathe air I would have settled even for this.
  
  Seriously about half the people reading this p
  • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    In California we already have the strictest emissions standards, and the highest per capita electric cars. I would have rather seen a proposition that simply ended the subsidies for all cars and all fuels.

    • Re:

      EV subsidies end after a certain number are sold. It's no coincidence that shortly after Tesla's subsidies stopped, Elon suddenly became a conservative republican.

      • 1 hidden comment

      • • Re:

          Tesla cars stopped having a subsidy once the 200,000 units delivered was crossed. However the boondoggle and borderline criminally names Inflation Reduction Act reinstates subsidies for EVs including Teslas. My first car was one of the original subsidized 200,000 cars (2018 Tesla Model X P100D).
          
          Elon had practically no benefit from the first round of subsidies. Do you think they would not have sold their cars if the buyers had to pay an additional $7,500? Don't be ridiculous. Reservations for Teslas were

      • Re:

        The previous round of subsidies had a cap based on sales. The new subsidy program, which comes into force in 2023, does not have a cap on number of vehicles sold but instead based on things like price and where the materials used come from.

        =Smidge=

      • Re:

        While Republican-led states are pursuing EV manufacturing plants, many (most?) Republican politicians are against EV/hybrid subsidies / tax credits for vehicles sold. With regard to tax credits and/or subsidies for either EV manufacturing or especially vehicle purchases I imagine it would be in Elon's better / best interest to back Democrats.

        From: House Republicans slam EV tax credit plan as 'perverse' and 'unfair' [detroitnews.com]:

        From: Despite rhetoric, GOP-led states start to embrace EVs" [eenews.net]

        And from 2017: Republicans [natso.com]

    • Re:

      Compared to Norway, it's all baby steps anyway... EVs per capita is much, much higher in Norway than in California. In October, 77.5% of new cars were EVs, 17% hybrids (most of them chargeable), and the rest - less than 6% - pure gas / diesel.

      You can really smell and feel the difference in the air from 5 years ago.

      • Re:

        In Norway, gasoline prices have hit $10/gal equivalent, and because they are blessed with geography, they export electricity because they have so damn much of it. Hydropower production in Norway makes electricity unbelievably cheep. I envy your air quality.

      • Re:

        And off the shore? i see Royal Carribean's Icon class is intended to be built with fuel cells, but I bet the Norwegian fishing fleet, and all the boats that provide services to the North Sea oil production are all burning diesel or heavy fuel.

  • • Re:

      Because the tax wouldnt have been for everyone. The measure likely would have passed if not for Lyft backing it. Many voters just look at who's for/against a proposition to figure out how to vote, because often they're too complex to figure out quickly from the text and the official voting guide explanations.

      • Re:

        You think that is too complex to understand? It did not pass because it was yet another tax, in a state that is already the most expensive. If the state REALLY wanted to boost EV demand, they would stop threatening roof-top solar panel projects which makes operating an EV considerably expensive, and they could have done something like make EVs Sales Tax exempt (8%, or $13,000 for a Tesla Model X) or discounted the registration fees. This was not about boosting EV demand. This was about taxing rich people.

  • There is no end to noble causes that cost money. The sheer fact that someone has more money than you does not make it ok to help yourself to their bank account to fund your favorite noble cause.

    The "because they can afford it" argument is an attempt at making theft sound moral. Noble causes DO need funding of course, but there is more than one way to do that, and so simply forcing wealthy people to pay is not automatically the best solution (nor is it automatically morally justified).

    • Re:

      The justification is that your wealth wasn't created in a vacuum. You became successful because there is a functioning society which found the products/services/labor/expertise you offered to be worth exchanging their money for, and has laws in place to enforce property rights.

      That being said, even the wealthy are entitled to democratic representation regarding how their tax money is used. BEV subsidies are unpopular even among many folks that lean left, because there's other social causes in more dire ne

      • Re:

        So? Those who are wealthy usually have an outsized impact on the development of that society. Should they be gifted excess money because of that outsized impact? That is what your argument is actually advocating for.
        
        To illustrate, should homeless drug users be excessively taxed because they, rather than have an increasing impact on the functioning of the society, diminish it to an extent? Obviously not. But that is the point. Taxes should be uniform in the form of a national Sales Tax, and every measure w

    • Re:

      Lol a "taxes are theft, actually" take in 2022!

      • Re:

        Excessive taxes (especially) based on income are theft.

    • Re:

      The government is doing that all the time.

      One can use a tax salary calculator with few different salary values.

      • Re:

        That doesn't make it right. In fact, I think more often than not, it demonstrates it is wrong.

    • Re:

      If wealthy people don't want to pay taxes, they're welcome to move someplace without taxes. I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.

  • Re:

    Except when their "employees" can't afford the electric cars that will be required by law soon [ca.gov], their entire business model crashes to the ground. Lyft is afraid that the existing EV subsidies won't be enough to keep their economically desperate "employees" in the rideshare business and they may be right.

  • Re:

    That's the usual justification. Thing is, we're talking about subsidies that are going to people who have the financial means to buy brand new vehicles. Even if those cars sold were instead ICE-powered, they still have to meet today's emissions standards. Yes, they emit CO2, but that's a climate change issue, not an air quality issue.

    If you wanted to improve air quality, you'd need to remove older vehicles from the road. Older vehicles were manufactured under looser emissions standards, and also likely

    • Re:

      Improving air quality would require two very simple laws that would have no associated taxes or spending by the state government.
      1. No non-current compliant vehicle should be operated commercially (this means you, old semi trucks).
      2. No non-current complaint vehicle should have its's registration renewed. So, effectively you have 1 year from change in standards to address the issues with your car's emissions.
      
      I see your point wholeheartedly on the CO2 vs soot. A difference few acknowledge.

      • Re:

        Now that's a rich joke.

        Having the entire fleet of vehicles replaced every three years or so would cost the state huge amounts of money, and if you think cars cost a lot now, just wait until you're on a ten year waiting list to buy a new one.

• And I voted against the measure. Electric vehicles are not having a hard time selling in our state. In fact, we have the highest per capita electric vehicles among the 50 states. This would also raise taxes even higher on those already paying the most. I have two electric vehicles (both Tesla Model X), and I would not want my next one subsidized at tax payer's expense. The government needs to stop trying to transfer wealth. They suck at it.
  • 2 hidden comments

  • Re:

    >This would also raise taxes even higher on those already paying the most.

    By total amount, or by percent of income? Because I guarantee it's not the latter. Another way to look at it, is it would have raised taxes even higher on those who could actually afford it.

    > The government needs to stop trying to transfer wealth. They suck at it.

    Right; Everyone knows the best way to transfer wealth is from the poor to the rich. Capitalism ho!
    =Smidge=

    • Re:

      Tax only on income amount over $2 million. That's a smaller fraction of people than the 1 percenters. But that's America, tax the poor and everyone's fine, tax the rich and suddenly there's a well funded opposition campaign.

      • Re:

        The poor don't pay income taxes. The rich pay almost all of them.

        • Re:

          Turns out you actually need an income before you can pay income taxes.

          So what percent of their income does someone making over $2mil per year pay in food, transportation, and housing? Because for someone making near minimum wage it's probably well over half, with a good chunk of the rest going to debt servicing. They absolutely pay more taxes as a percent of their income than someone making >$2mil per year, even if the taxes aren't on the income itself.
          =Smidge=

      • Re:

        Both. If you are in the bottom 47%, you pay no taxes as it is, and we have a graduated tax rate. Can we afford it? Depends on what you mean by afford. Should we? No, of course not. Just because you have 16 shirts, does not give me the right to come into your house, confiscate your clothing, and distribute them among people who have 2 shirts, under the color of authority. You worked for and bought your shirts. Others are free to do so.

        • Re: I am a Californian

          Nobody is taking about 16 shirts. They're taking about 1600 shirts, and the removal of even 320 not substantially impacting the number of shirts you own. Add to that the fact that most of the people supporting your ability to own 1600 shirts can't afford 16 themselves, and you can see why those 1600 shirt motherfuckers should be hung by their own entrails from the nearest tree.

          Taxes are how we pay for society. The people who benefit most from that society can afford to pay more to support the society whi

    • Re:

      Why do you guarantee that California has a regressive income tax? Where's your evidence for that idea?

      • Re:

        There is no evidence for it, because our taxes are progressive. Sounds good though, especially as a virtue signal.

      • Re:

        There's more to taxes than just income tax. People like you always seem to have extremely convenient tunnel vision when it comes to this... income tax isn't regressive, but cost of living always is.

        Let's say you have two people; Alice, who makes $75,000/yr, and Bob, who makes $5,000,000. Both Alice and Bob buy the same new car, which costs $50,000, from the same dealership, which is in a county where state + local sales tax is 10%. So they both paid $5,000 in tax on that new car. Alice paid 6.67% of her ann

    • Re:

      Yep, that's how it works. The rich get all their money from people who by definition don't have any.

  • Re:

    There are a number of countries examples that show us that we could be doing much better though https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . Being the "best" in a country that isnt doing a very good job of something isnt a great metric to base decisions on.

    and with a middle class that's been steadily shrinking for the last half century to the benefit of our affluent https://www.pewresearch.org/fa... [pewresearch.org] I'll take any wealth redistribution I can get. A great way for the US to decline is to let such things like this go un

    • Re:

      America is definitely the best at telling ourselves we're the best.

    • Re:

      I see. Why not just work to earn the fruits of your desires?

      No. The great way to decline is for the US to reinforce to people like you that instead of being productive for the fruits of your desires, you can just rob someone else of the fruits of their labor, rather than produce your own.
      
      I find it staggering that you can put those two statements by each other. Where do you even find the nerve?

      • Re: I am a Californian

        Because a lot of the things that 'made America great' were financed by progressive taxes on the super wealthy. It wasn't until the advent of St Reagan and the flawed concept of 'trickle down economics' that we were put on this path. The rampant greed of the 80's has been obvious in public policy ever since. Just another reason the FYGM generation needs to die.

  • Re:

    Although I agree with your general assessment (except also for the "paying the most" part), this particular statement at face value is very ignorent.

    THIS is the the very reason WHY we even have governments at all. Throughout history, throughout the world over. There really is NO other real purpose for "government". I put that in quotes because it includes kingdoms, villages, states, countries, etc etc.

    And they do a FAR better job than any other concept. Gangs, Mafias, Yakuza, Armies, Pirates, Robbers, S

    • 1 hidden comment

    • Re:

      So you would want to live in Haiti right now? If America ran like Haiti, with street gangs running everything, that would be a perfect life for you?

  • • Re:

      Ive lived in FL during college years, I found it amazing. Emissions standards are great, and FL should implement them. They would require no taxes or "wealth distribution" to achieve. Just enforce a code. The smog check stations are private. The costs are borne to the people getting the tests, and the remediation or procurement expense of emissions control devices are also private. Not everything the government does should be in the form of a tax. In fact almost none of it should be.

  • Re:

    *golfclap*. Being the smartest kid in the class for mentally challenge doesn't mean you shouldn't try and elevate yourself further.

    Yes. That's the point.

    Ahh right, a wealthy person voting against taxes on the wealthy. Not surprised.

    • Re:

      That was a bad way of trying to achieve it. Which is why I am glad it failed. I will put this here from a comment I made earler. If the state REALLY wanted to boost EV demand, they would stop threatening roof-top solar panel projects which makes operating an EV considerably less expensive, and they could have done something like make EVs Sales Tax exempt (8%, or $13,000 for a Tesla Model X) or discounted the registration fees. This was not about boosting EV demand. This was about taxing rich people. The peo

• The Democratic party is in sad shape. A truly tragic number of our most influential politicians are DINOs, and everyone knows it, but there's no appetite to kick them out of the party because their centrism makes it easy for them to hold onto their seat. This is one place the Republicans have really done their homework, they do not tolerate RINOs. You either fall into line, or you GTFO.

  Too bad about the ed funding thing though, it seems like they could have thrown the requisite percentage at education. Our

  • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    Except Trump and his acolytes think anyone who does not worship and kiss Trump's ass is a RINO, when actually the opposite is true.
    
    Liz Cheney for example was as traditionally Republican as they come. The current GOP indeed does not tolerate Reagan Republicans, but don't know shit about actual RINOs (they should look in the mirror).
    
    Hopefully this election will allow them to finally throw Trump under the bus where he belongs. Maybe real Republicans can finally retake their party.

    • Re:

      Oh good. I was hoping that the people who destroyed public education to create low-information voters would make a comeback.

      • Re:

        Certainly those who think a reality TV show is qualification to be President are the culmination of low information voter policies. Hopefully the real GOP does have a takeaway from that.

  • Re:

    For Democrats, the center-left position is traditional membership, so they're not DINOs, and for Republicans, center-right is the traditional membership, so they're not RINOs. MAGA is not really Republican and Trump himself is by most sane definitions the RINO in the party.

  • Re:

    The GOP has done an excellent job kicking The Overton Window so far to the right that "liberals" are unelectable outside of a few deep blue cities. Yes, centrist Democrats aren't ideal, but the alternative is the seat going to a Republican.

    • Re:

      That's really total BS. Most of the most progressive democrat candidates won their seats during this last election, including the ones that the democrats opposed. The fact is that real liberals are way more electable than the centrists.

  • Re:

    I can't recall ever hearing a Democrat refer to another Democrat as a "DINO". It's just not a thing. As far as I can tell, Republicans invented the concept of a "RINO", and then assumed the same thing must exist for Democrats as well. But it doesn't. Democrats don't demand ideological purity. That's a Republican thing. A lot of prominent Republicans are trying hard to purge the party of anyone whose positions are considered unacceptable (for example, supporting abortion) or who is disloyal to those in

    • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    I'm not sure why you're assuming that the Democratic Party is left wing.

• I am confused at teachers being against this. Are so many of them multi-millionaires? Time to vote against the next bill to raise funding for education.

  • Here's their rationale:

    "Prop 30: Stop the Lyft Tax Grab
    Increases income taxes to pay for zero emission vehicle subsidies and infrastructure improvements. It is funded by the Lyft Corporation to get taxpayers to pay for improvements. The tax increase side-steps current law that requires half of any new revenues to go to public education. It also doesn’t raise any additional money for health care and other essential services."

    In general they're against taxes that are too specific because you can't reallocate where the funds go after the fact.

• Newsom's opposition was key. Environmentalists have a lot of respect for him. When he says it's a bad measure, people take that seriously.

  Lyft's support was also key. When a single company spends that much money to pass a measure, people get really suspicious. They obviously think it would be incredibly profitable to them. By spending such crazy amounts of money on it, they probably ended up hurting its chances instead of helping.

  I'm sure people will try to spin this as reflecting on California's attitudes toward the environment and taxes, or something like that, but it really wasn't. It came down to an unpopular company spending tons of money to pass it, while a popular and widely respect governor opposed it. A lot of people who support more money for the environment and higher taxes on the wealthy concluded, "This isn't the right measure to do it."

  • 1 hidden comment

  • Re:

    Definitely this. Years ago Austin passed a law demanding background checks on uber drivers. Uber did not like it and spent like 100M on a campaign to have a voter initiative repeal it. The repeal measure failed. Uber then wisely went to the state leg, probably paid a fraction of a 100mil on hookers and blow and got a state measure to override Austins. The voters saw what uber was doing and were not going along for the ride. The leg is easily bought with far fewer people to schmooze. Uber management demonstr

• The laws should state what they want in general. In this case no ICE cars. That should be the extent. The market should dictate what the solution is, and laws should not tilt towards any particular technology to solve it. It's like the time when there was a general consensus to move away for incandescent light bulbs because they wasted too much electricity. Instead of saying light bulbs should use only 25% of the energy they currently used, many, many places mandated a switch to fluorescent bulbs, which are

• People don't want to pay for things that are good for society. Also, America has given power to the wealthy to escape laws and funding anything that society needs and they use that power to refuse even though they are the ones who can best afford it. They leverage the country's policies and take the money to make their lives better and don't care about the lives of everyone else. It's that simple.
  
  I'm actually one of the more successful ones, but I'm not going to volunteer to give more than everyone els

• I realize people are eager to push forward clean energy plans, but it might be good to wait until the current funding has been implemented, at least partially, and then reassess the situation. I know someone working at the California Energy Commission. Currently, the Energy Commission already has a huge amount of money that will be encumbered for a variety of clean energy programs. The money is coming from many state and federal sources (for example: the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act). G