LexBob2

So when the Prius gas-eletric hybrid had a tax credit, that was to prop up sales of the car and to help out Toyota? And raising it to $10k from the current $7.5k will help only the Volt and not the Nissan Leaf, Toyota Prius and others? Sounds like too much selective thinking. I agree the Volt needs help and will benefit but if it continues to sell pooly it won't cost the Feds much at all. Toyota, Nissan etc. would gain more out of the credit - Which probably won't pass anyway.

-J-P-L-

There's a number of reasons why this administration wants to do this, and I do think saving the Volt is priority #1. Face it, the Volt is the poster child vehicle of this administration. GM did develop it separate from government (before the bailout saved it), but the President and many others attached themselves to this car. It's success is crucial to avoid another Solyndra-like embarrassment. Obama went as far as doing a photo-op with the Volt, as he did in the Solyndra factory.

Obama also made a "promise" 2-3 years ago to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. That goal is way behind. People don't want electric cars but the government says that we should have them. I get what they're trying to do, but only the market can decide what really succeeds. The government can try to pick the winners, but people want what people want.

What's next, the feds dramatically raise the gas tax in order to force us into electrics?

All the while, they don't have a plan on where all the extra electricity is going to come from.

All this class warfare garbage about how the rich should be punished for their success, yet the same party doing it wants tax credits for the wealthy who are the very people buying these high priced electrics. Go figure.

LexFather

Its amazing the interest some people suddenly have in a balanced budget and the debt and deficits all of the sudden. Quiet as **** during 2000-2008, 1980-1992 and vocal as hell for 1976-1980 and today. The excuses used for the Reagan administration for debt/deficit can't be applied today. Its amazing some people woke up in the election of 2008. I strongly suggest reading about the United States before 2008. The 1980s was very interesting debt wise

Its sad.

TF109B

I agree with you. People are quick to point out Obama and how he's 'spending out of control'. Namely rebuplicans talking this, and saying they're comparable to Reagan. I laugh so hard at that though! Reagan RAISED taxes, and had big spending. He's their role model though. Vote Republican in 2012 though! They're just like ol' Double R! That means we would have a president that spends money, and raises taxes! How this pertains to the Volt and this tax credit is beyond me, but oh well.

Kamikaze2b

How dare the governent try and support a fledgling American industry that one day can help of wean us off of imported oils!!! Damn that commie Obama!!! They took eeeer jobs!!!!

How many that are against this subsidy happpily take their yearly mortgage interest deductions that prop up the housing market and home builders?

How many are against the MASSIVE government subsidies that are paid to corn farmers every year? To feign outrage over this is either short-sided or just plain moronic. There are much bigger fish to fry imo.

LexFather

Kamikaze2b

LOL, glad you got it.

gengar

To expand on J-P-L's point about government picking winners for the common guy, the problem is that the Volt subsidies also serve to push competing products out of the way. The fact that the Volt can't profitably sell at market demand means that it is an unfeasible product. Usually this results in the product's failure, and the creating company as well as competing companies are left to figure out whether or not they can tailor a replacement product to the desires of the general public and at a price point such that the consumer values the product higher than the price. This is a fundamental part of wealth creation and what drives up society's standard of living (i.e., in excessively simple terms, that a good is produced for cost x that is sold for y and that consumers value at z, where x < y < z; everyone is happy with this positive transaction, because all parties involved win - and by repeating this transaction over and over, society wins).

The Volt is obviously not an x < y < z situation, in fact it could even be that z < x (yikes). But using taxpayer dollars to "fix" the equation is even worse, as subsidizing an unfeasible product does the opposite of wealth creation; it not only destroys wealth (because taxpayer money is used to fund a negative transaction over and over) but also disincentivizes the producing company and competing companies from improving the existing product or funding new products that consumers value more and could potentially create an x < y < z situation that benefits society. That's the real problem: Society loses doubly (or perhaps more accurately, in an exponential fashion?) with these subsidies.

As a side note, I think it's funny how there are so many people in this thread bemoaning the politics or how people are just finger-pointing about Obama, yet they themselves are responding with finger-pointing of their own with their Reagan this and Republicans that and blah blah. I think that just proves the politics behind the government intervention with this tax credit, and IMO this thread needs to move away from that. The bottom line as I see it is completely apolitical, in that this is an issue about society and our well-being. When the government interferes with market forces - especially on the consumption side - consumers are prevented from accurately expressing what they value, which means they don't get what they really want, and so destruction of wealth is a very common outcome. If you want to cheer against society and cheer for destruction of wealth, I guess that's your right, but just admit that that's what you're doing.


Funny that you pick another awful example of government intervention and inability to respond properly to market forces that eventually factored into the creation of one of the worst bubbles and subsequent bursts in recent times. I really hope you are not actually arguing that because the government failed miserably once, we should not criticize the government for failing in the same way again and again? Frankly, I think it's amazing that the mortgage interest deduction still exists. But hey, at least it's not a credit like with the Volt, right?

The notion that jobs should be created for the sake of creating jobs is also a bad argument, as unsustainable and/or unproductive job creation is not beneficial to society. For example, if you would simply like to create jobs, you can go out to the nearest parking lot and go to every car and break every window, slash every tire, and dent a bunch of the body panels for good measure. You've just created a lot of need for production and thus jobs at tire and glass manufacturers, body repair shops, and the like. In fact, why don't you also be particularly ruthless and just blow up any Lexus vehicles out there to help out the Lexus dealerships a bit more. Anything that spurs job creation is great, right? Of course not. You must understand that "job creation" does not implicitly benefit society, and in fact when improperly mandated can wind up greatly harming the well-being of our society and our overall wealth.

Hopefully you can also refrain from describing others as moronic or accusing them of being dishonest just because they disagree with your point of view.

Jewcano

iTrader: (4)

Fledgling is the wrong term here......that implies new. Chevy is far from new. Also you don't wean us off foreign oils by throwing money at a failed product. You wean us off by not making poor investments, you wean us off by giving incentives to companies to produce new technologies (incentives come after a successful product is produced), and you harness natural resources that we have at home.


I do, for good reason. When I go to the pump, I don't want to pay 3.84 for 85% gas, 15% corn. I want 100% gas. I pay that kind of money for worse gas mileage? I pay that money for a product that can potentially harm the internals of my engine? Ethanol subsidies are beyond stupid. Government is paying corn farmers for a fuel that is both inefficient and potentially damaging to many engine parts. Corn based ethanol is not the way to go, but good luck having them change that. I'm sure there are PLENTY of backroom deals going on.

SLegacy99

I'd be interested in the demographic that is buying the Volt. I see them around on the roads, but I also live in the wealthiest county in Pennsylvania. My guess would be that this is all about good PR for the Volt. In reality, anyone who can truly afford a Volt pays the AMT and would therefore automatically be disqualified from getting the tax credit.

gengar

The Volt credit can even be applied to AMT liability - has been that way for a few years.

-J-P-L-

The average buyer makes $170,000 a year, as I mentioned in the opening post.

It's good that the rest of us are helping these poor folks out with their car purchase. People need to get around after all.

BTW, I just saw my first Volt this weekend. It's taken over a year after release to see one on the road.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

#math-and-history-fail

about reagan - ending the cold war after the disastrous carter presidency was worth it for one thing. also, as a percentage of GDP, reagan's debts were FAR lower than today.

about obama - he, like reagan, inherited a horrible economy. difference is, reagan cut taxes and inspired confidence and believed a rising tide lifts all boats (and it did). obama has ranted endlessly about making anyone making decent money (not even rich) pay "their fair share" (more) while offering more and more 'credits' and breaks and welfare for those who pay NO taxes, and endlessly ranting about unfairness, etc. and also massively increasing regulation on business, he killed most energy exploration, killed the pipeline, passed or pushed insanely bureaucratic and expensive programs and the national debt now exceeds 100% of GDP, a national disgrace.

i am HOPING gas prices skyrocket this summer, to show once and for all, what a terrible, terrible president he has been and hopefully people will come to their senses and vote him out. this guy actually wants high prices to push his green agenda when high gas prices are the MOST regressive hit on low income people.

however, the republicans are busy shooting themselves so obama will probably get a second term. his contention that things are getting better is absurd. foreclosures will also skyrocket this year, and unemployment numbers don't include those who have given up... it's more like 15%.

mmarshall

Those who want to waste their money.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)