New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[strat61caster]

Originally Posted by weederr33

OEMs have the same logic with CUVs. Not everyone wants/needs them, but that's what sells.

ftfy

[weederr33]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

ftfy

No. It only sells because it's what the manufactures what to push. Therefore it will sell. You start flooding the market with one thing and limit another, of course it will sell more

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I fail to see how, 20 years later, a new Hummer being 1000 lb heavier is progress.

It's progress in the same way the original Tesla Roadster was progress. It's an expensive car that will help forge the way for everyday cars while GM gets it's battery plant up and running.

GM also offers a couple of other very good EVs if you prefer something smaller, with more coming.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I will speak for everyone else that already knows this: no one is forcing a Hummer EV on you, but the Hummer EV is miles ahead of the H2 even if it wasn't an EV, in size and features, so the weight of the Hummer isn't the best apples to apples comparison that someone made for EVs vs ICEs.

Yep. I'm actually tempted by the Hummer EV, but would not, in a milllion years, have bought any version of the original Hummer/H2/H3. In fact, I would say the new Hummer EV is a hell of deal when you look at it feature for feature over the Hummer ICE.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by weederr33

No. It only sells because it's what the manufactures what to push. Therefore it will sell. You start flooding the market with one thing and limit another, of course it will sell more

Actually there are plenty of choices that will accomplish the same mission
as CUVs, but that seems to be the new family car of choice.

CUVs are the new large coupe/station wagon/minivan and they will run their course. Even in the EV space we are seeing alternatives starting to pop up.

[mav1178]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

As I recall, earnings on stock options are considered regular income rather than capital gains. I could be wrong on that portion though.

Only if you cash it out. And only if the sell price is higher than the price you paid for it.

If you sell anywhere from 1 day to 365 days after receiving it, it is taxed under your personal income tax brackets (ordinary income), progressive brackets up to 37%.

After 1 year, it is taxed as long term gains, 0/15/20%, usually 15% or lower for most... except Elon. And other people with more than $500k worth of capital gains.

But if you have a good accountant, you'd have one massive year of loss and spread it out over the next few, and cash out other long term gains over the same period for a net 0% tax liability. This is how people with a lot of money avoid taxes, by 1) selling it after at least 1 year, and 2) pair it up with losses to make the taxable amount from proceeds to be as low as possible.

https://www.investopedia.com/article...-tax-rates.asp

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I fail to see how, 20 years later, a new Hummer being 1000 lb heavier is progress. There's these things called advances in material technology. And for vehicles that are being designed and forced on us "in the name" sustainability, vehicle weight should be a priority.

And I realize that some EVs weigh less than comparable ICEs, but the list is very short. It's basically the Model 3...and nothing else.

I'm in favor of higher road use/gas taxes across the board, TBH. The roads are underfunded as it is. Of course we know that govt's love raiding transportation funds for other purposes...so hard to win these days

Current status for EVs (I hope we see further improvements soon):
Avg US EV: 125 gCO2e/MJ
Gas US avg: 88 gCO2e/MJ
California EV: 60 gCO2e/MJ
E85: 54 gCO2e/MJ

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I will speak for everyone else that already knows this: no one is forcing a Hummer EV on you, but the Hummer EV is miles ahead of the H2 even if it wasn't an EV, in size and features, so the weight of the Hummer isn't the best apples to apples comparison that someone made for EVs vs ICEs.

I am not really for "flat" taxes (fixed dollar amounts) because I believe in a more progressive tax system, and as a percentage of someone's income/wealth, "flat" or use/consumption taxes are actually regressive. Yes, the rich and wealthy pay a lot more taxes, but not as a percentage of their income. Add to that the idea that the average person contributes far higher of a percentage of their income to live and less to savings or for excess, and it is clear that taxes on use/consumption isn't as fair as it seems.

Hah, I was just using as an example, mostly because that information just dropped the other day. I have no purpose for owning a truck currently, but in near future may need one for towing a race car. Also currently blessed with being in a WFH position, so I have no use for an EV to DD (the only thing they're currently good for). Perhaps that will change one day.

I agree with you in principle about taxes on certain things and how they can be regressive. However driving an automobile isn't regressive in the sense that higher energy costs are essentially a regressive tax. Automobile ownership and use isn't mandatory for most of the country. Electricity is.

Overall though, totally agree in restructuring being needed to get the rich to shoulder their fair load.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

I agree with you in principle about taxes on certain things and how they can be regressive.

It's an interesting video, but there are a couple of things they conveniently left out.

First, they point out how payroll taxes reduce salaries, but don't mention how corporate income taxes are really embedded taxes in goods and services we purchase, thus basically serving as an extension of the sales tax.

Second, they leave out the reason why payroll taxes are capped. The reason is because the benefit is capped. This is to avoid having to pay "rich people" a higher social security payout once they reach retirement age. That's OK since they should be able to save and take care of themselves, but they shouldn't have to pay a higher tax then the benefit they receive since this is not a government funding program but a defined benefit.

Medicare is like other healthcare insurance, you pay based on the cost of the service you receive, not based on your ability to pay.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Stonehorsw

Current status for EVs (I hope we see further improvements soon):
Avg US EV: 125 gCO2e/MJ
Gas US avg: 88 gCO2e/MJ
California EV: 60 gCO2e/MJ
E85: 54 gCO2e/MJ

Where did you source this? Is this average use based on where electricity is generated from; ie, coal, oil, natural gas, etc? Is this End-Of-Product and/or End-Of-Life carbon footprint considering the differences in producing an ICE vs EV, or in the production and refining of ethanol vs petrol?

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/110752...rbon-footprint

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

This chart makes me wonder, does "Efficient Corn Ethanol" get you drunk faster too?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

It's an interesting video, but there are a couple of things they conveniently left out.

First, they point out how payroll taxes reduce salaries, but don't mention how corporate income taxes are really embedded taxes in goods and services we purchase, thus basically serving as an extension of the sales tax.

Second, they leave out the reason why payroll taxes are capped. The reason is because the benefit is capped. This is to avoid having to pay "rich people" a higher social security payout once they reach retirement age. That's OK since they should be able to save and take care of themselves, but they shouldn't have to pay a higher tax then the benefit they receive since this is not a government funding program but a defined benefit.

Medicare is like other healthcare insurance, you pay based on the cost of the service you receive, not based on your ability to pay.

Convenient for them because it would have taken more work to add them in, or convenient because you believe those points would contradict their argument?

Your first point would have been a good point for them to add because that would make the tax on goods and the hidden price increase on goods that much more regressive. There is the reality that corporations are in a far more powerful position than consumers when it comes to passing the buck to the consumer. In some cases, the consumer has no choice, which is why we pay huge prices here for pharmaceuticals, or why the US doesn't tax many business like oil companies because those companies will just pass the price to the consumer. Unfortunately, this means the US needs to find ways of raising taxes from other places, and it means consumers often have a false idea about the true cost of products. For instance, we heavily subsidize farming industries, which for instance gives us cheaper corn. Cheap corn is used to cheaply fatten livestock or to make high fructose corn syrup, which is why the true cost of beef or a soda would be higher. I actually don't know by how much, but more. Interestingly, we have taxes on soda and subsidies for corn sugar lol But going back to the point, the corporations don't have an endless ability for most products to pass the buck to consumers. Eventually consumers would stop buying the product or find an alternative, so there would be a balance or bell curve maximum that we could impart on corporations, and it would be product specific.

Your second point is a good add-on to explain the situation, but it doesn't really change the fact that it is a regressive tax. Moreover, I can't pass my Social Security to just anyone when I die like how I could will my savings. Since income is proportional to life expectancy, where there is a 15 year difference in life expectancy between the top 1% and bottom 1%, those who are the poorest are least likely to pass on their wealth to their next generation and family. This is essentially a regressive wealth/inheritance/estate tax. Don't get me wrong; Social Security overall is better than having a system where people are not guaranteed an income when they retire.

I'm not really sure what your point is about medicare, but consider this: if the difference in life expectancy between the poorest 1% and the richest 1% is 15 years for men, and the average life expectancy is 72.6, and for most people collecting Medicare doesn't start until roughly 65, then doesn't it seem like the poor are paying into a program they may never use more often than those with more money, who are more likely to live longer to use the program? Isn't this also regressive?

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Convenient for them because it would have taken more work to add them in, or convenient because you believe those points would contradict their argument?

A little of both, but more the former than the latter. It would have changed the final numbers a bit, but not enough to matter to those on either side of the fence. It's just inconsistent.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Social Security...This is essentially a regressive wealth/inheritance/estate tax. Don't get me wrong; Social Security overall is better than having a system where people are not guaranteed an income when they retire.

Not sure I agree its a regressive tax because it's technically not a tax but a "buy in" with an expected payment at the end based on how much you pay in over the years, but I agree with your other points, including I'm glad it's there as a safety net, although I do think it gives many a false sense of security and they don't plan appropriately because of it, even when that is an option.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I'm not really sure what your point is about medicare, but consider this: if the difference in life expectancy between the poorest 1% and the richest 1% is 15 years for men, and the average life expectancy is 72.6, and for most people collecting Medicare doesn't start until roughly 65, then doesn't it seem like the poor are paying into a program they may never use more often than those with more money, who are more likely to live longer to use the program? Isn't this also regressive?

No, at least not to me. It's a fixed percentage payroll tax. If you earn less, you pay less. If you earn more you pay more (in $ amount). There is no max as there is with Social Security. A person at the top of the income chain pays more for the same benefit, all else being equal. Of course, neither Medicare nor SS are a "prepaid" plan. People paying now are paying not for themselves but for people currently in the plan, it's all sort of moot.

[Stonehorsw]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Where did you source this? Is this average use based on where electricity is generated from; ie, coal, oil, natural gas, etc? Is this End-Of-Product and/or End-Of-Life carbon footprint considering the differences in producing an ICE vs EV, or in the production and refining of ethanol vs petrol?

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/22/110752...rbon-footprint

The unity is gCO2e/MJ, which means lifecycle carbon intensity.

I really thibk that EV will be good in a short future, and will eventually buy one. I like how it drives (cannot mention the platforms).

PS: let me go back and find again the source. And it always changes based on the assumptions.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

No, at least not to me. It's a fixed percentage payroll tax. If you earn less, you pay less. If you earn more you pay more (in $ amount). There is no max as there is with Social Security. A person at the top of the income chain pays more for the same benefit, all else being equal. Of course, neither Medicare nor SS are a "prepaid" plan. People paying now are paying not for themselves but for people currently in the plan, it's all sort of moot.

"If you earn less, you pay less" can still be regressive, depending on how you look at it.

In a progressive system, as income goes up people should have to pay a higher percentage, but the video illustrates that in our system, when accounting for all taxes, we have more of a flat taxation system. In a flat system, those with higher incomes and wealth still pay more, but not as a percentage, which is bad. In fact, when we account for other things, I wouldn't be surprised if our tax system is more regressive than flat.

When it comes to Medicare, we all pay the same percentage, which isn't progressive, so it is bad. If we all used the services the same then that would be a flat tax, but we don't. The more money someone makes, the longer their life expectancy is, so the more likely they are to use Medicare's services. They are more likely to get a heart transplant, a heart bypass, a stent or two, several colonoscopies, that breast cancer surgery, those hip replacements, etc. Yes, the rich pay more into the system, so it seems fine that they would get to use it more, but this isn't progressive.

When it comes to Social Security, the more you make, the more you get. It is based on how much a person contributed to their Social Security. Not everyone receives Social Security. If a person didn't work enough then they don't get anything. If someone worked a minimum of 11 years and contributed the smallest amount then they would be entitled to the minimum distribution of $41.90/month. If they worked 30 or more years then they get at least $872.50/month. The maximum distribution is $3,895/month, which is like saving $623,200 and cashing out the 7.5% in yearly interest/dividends. The regressive part of Social Security is that it is a flat tax (fixed percentage), but the ones who are receiving the highest percentage back are the ones who live the longest, which are the those who earn more.