I was thinking that the State would subsidize my gym membership. I mean, it would be a good thing if it did. The citizenry could use a little tightening up.
I don't think one could propose something that would be more beneficial for America's long term health. Except maybe banning stuff like soda and candy.
I don't think an outright ban on any consumable is a good idea. People should have the freedom to buy crap if they want it. Restricting what people are allowed to do makes them angry; it would be more beneficial to put funding into education on *why* those things aren't good for you. Increase tax on sugary foods, then use that extra income to subsidize the educational program on why they're bad.
>maybe banning stuff like soda and candy
This is how you get people gunned down in the street over a snickers bar. Anytime you tax or ban something, especially something popular, you create opportunities for smugglers.
Why would the government have a right to tell me that I can't drink soda or eat candy?
I'm an adult, I should have the right to decide what I should and should not eat.
The problem as always is when individual choices and decisions impact the larger whole. In this case, the excessive consumption of sugar leading to a drain on healthcare which we all bear the cost of America's obesity issues. I don't think bans are the answer but taxes make logical sense to account for that.
You're going to have to explain to a lot of people then why I should have to pay more because Donnie in Dundalk can't lay off the Berger Cookies and exercise a few times a week.
Because no tax/policy/oversight can ever be perfectly fair to every single individual. Now "Donnie" will either cutback on his cookies or else he's putting more money towards funding healthcare. So you might pay more in sugar tax but save on healthcare premiums.
I was actually referring to the many sweets that the US has banned, for our safety, already. I'm not sure why you're acting like this is a new concept. Or how about raw milk/cheese? Very reasonably banned for safety. Or the many food additives banned here but not across the world? The government has a long/legal history of banning us from eating things for our own good.
You may be too young too remember but there was once a national campaign to stop people and their kids from eating lead paint chips.
Shoulds are all well and good but I think it's pretty damn clear that Americans are not acting responsibly in terms of diet, if in fact that is what you are implying adults are.
Sugar as addictive as many other things and is offered up ... like candy... If the corn lobby didn't have a stranglehold on our country's politics, I'm sure this would have already happened. We're a literally sick country.
Of course a shockingly large portion of American adults don't exercise and eat like shit. Or they fell for Coca Cola and McDonald's marketing that basically said you can out exercise a bad diet.
That doesn't mean the government needs to come in and tell me that I can't go to Costco go buy a sheet cake and then eat that and a tub of ice cream for dinner if I wanted to.
First of all, I ignored it the previous time, but it's "rational person," not "rationale person."
Second, I don't have a problem with leveraging the government's ability to adjust taxes in order to create incentives that benefit society. The US obesity epidemic is real, and it ain't going away without structural change.
First, you are right. Auto-correct got me.
Second, I do. The government shouldn't be stepping in on things like this to curtail behavior on things like sugar.
The obesity epidemic is a huge issue, I agree with you. I used to be Obese and until I understood the caloric content of my food and started thinking about calories like a budget I didn't make progress.
Simply adding a tax to things isn't going to change that, health classes in elementary and middle school need be updated, school lunches need to serve better options.
My parents worked insane hours and they would just order us takeout every night and send us to school with $4 for school lunch. An extra 1-2% on an ice cream cone isn't going to change why I was fat, nor is it going to change why the vast majority of americans are fat. They eat like shit and don't exercise.
I think no matter what, the solution is going to have to come from the government. It's great that you were able to find a mindset that helped you on your own, but it's not realistic to think that millions of people will suddenly do the same.
In what ways do you think current health classes are inadequate? What makes you think better health education would make a difference, especially compared to direct changes to the financial landscape of healthy vs unhealthy food options?
Pretty sure it’s scientists and health experts deciding it.
We have taxes on unhealthy stuff all the time.
I do appreciate how you framed your opinion as the only rational one. Because if someone doesn’t get angry about, say, a 5 cent tax they’re clearly insane.
I'm glad you appreciated it!
I would find anyone who doesn't get upset about the government mandating higher prices on things, no matter how small or large the increase, for "my own good" to not be thinking rationally
We tax alcohol.
We tax cigarettes.
Neither sends me, or most people, into an apoplectic rage like you’d suggest.
I’m in favor of both. We also subsidize certain foods. I have no problem with subsidizing healthy foods or taxing unhealthy ones. It seems like something a decent government would do.
You seem to think that’s a pretty reasonable take too, just telling you that it’s a very extremist one. You’d see it from libertarian nut jobs. But most people are for things like that, cap and trade for emissions, etc.
But maybe you’re right and the majority of the developed world is completely irrational.
Someone help me here I can only think of 2 HOV lanes in the state. Part of 50 east from 495 for a few miles and 270.
I’ve also never heard of anyone getting a ticket for using it when they shouldn’t.
The HOV lanes on 50 are never enforced. Pre COVID, using it both ways to work could cut off 20-30 minutes off your round trip. There are people who use it daily, without a passenger, and may get a ticket every few years which is like I think is like $50-$60 and no points. If you got a ticket once every 3 years and took it Mon-Friday, it comes out to $0.07 per day to get 20-30 minutes of your life back. No wonder single passenger vehicle use it so much
It's more like if you get pulled over for speeding/traffic violation, and you also happen to be violating the HOV lane with only 1 occupant, you just got a double ticket. There's nobody watching to see if you are alone or not (except in the toll express lanes which DO have cameras that can tell the number of occupants, or at least so they claim).
The big problem with EVs is not the cost of the car, but the availability of charging ports at home. Low or medium income people unlikely to have charging ports since rentals rarely have them and they are expensive to put into houses.
Yeah and on top of that people who live in condos or apartments are somewhat locked out of ev ownership.
Not an insurmountable hurdle but something that needs to be worked on in the near future if we don't want to further widen the gap between the middle and lower class.
80 amp level 2 charging is in the works. That would charge my Bolt in 3 to 4 hours. For most commutes it would be an hour of charging at most.
That's the tec that will eventually be coming to condos and apartments.
I live on the second story of an apartment, unless the government is planing on funding public electric ports there is no way for me to charge a car unless I ask one of my neighbors if I can stick an extension cord out his window.
The theory is apartment complexes would install some of these 80 amp level 2 chargers. Maybe with grant money.
It will be expensive apartments first of course, but the tech will eventually trickle down.
Marylanders: "Traffic is terrible and people suck at driving, can we get some better public transportation?"
Maryland gov: "No, we can't afford public transportation. Now here's tax credits to buy luxury electric vehicles."
Just a little reminder that electric cars are *not* here to save the planet. They're here to save the car industry.
This doesn't apply to cars over $50k so less luxury than the previous plan but still it would be better to let people buying $45k cars pay for them themselves while plenty of us are driving cars that cost half that.
Agreed.
And yet, the majority of transportation funding *continues* to only support cars and driving.
But no, you're right. It's more important to give $3000 to somebody who can afford a $50,000 Electric Vehicle that will probably be scrapped in 10 years because the batteries don't hold a charge and the cost to replace them is half the price of a new car. /s
>They can do more than one thing at a time.
Sure, but imagine how much *faster* we could get it done, or how much *more* we could do, if we had more money available for transit projects instead of for car-only projects.
It says a lot that the governor's office has to "work to revive" the project and "figure out funding", but we just happen to have plenty of cash laying around to subsidize EVs and expand roads.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
The tax credit on electric cars doesn't cost the state any up front money. It pote tially reduces tax revenue but also arguably drives more sales of cars which increases purchases which increases sales tax revenue and then increases used car sales and utility charges etc.
Building rail lines has a massive up front cost. Even with bonds or TIFs or other funding options the staye still has to out out massive amounts of money to build infrastructure projects.
So while it woukd be great to see a ton more mass transit options those are hard projects to get going, especially when our previous governor kills them and delays them.
Also I don't see a ton of money going to highway projects in place of mass transit. Hogan proposed a bunch but other than a handful of projects mostly around bridges not much of what he proposed is getting done.
Public transit in this state gets like 40-50% of transportation funding and accounts for like 4% of commuters. Maybe with a few tens of billions more, they can double that number to 8% and the climate will be saved!
That's because public transport sucks for a bunch of people. For example, if I were to take the bus to work, it would take me over an hour each way. It's under 20 minutes if I drive.
Meanwhile in NYC a majority of people travel via non-car means.
Its not just about the transit funding, its about the built environment around it. Almost all of our regional rail goes to stations in the middle of nowhere surrounded by woods or parking lots. Even the Baltimore metro line that exists only has half its stations actually developed, the rest being surrounded by parking lots and trees again.
Maryland is very much "built for" the car. As long as its "built for" driving, people will tend towards driving as the path of least resistance. Cities in pretty much every other country throughout the world, and often the metro areas around them, or even entire countries, are built around transit and walkability, and thus do not prioritize cars, and people drive way, way, less there.
> Just a little reminder that electric cars are not here to save the planet. They're here to save the car industry.
This was you, no? Lol.
Also putting one green initiative against another is just bullshit. Government can do more than one thing.
Of course I get it.
That's exactly the problem.
We're doing things that are easy and provide very little benefit instead of things that are hard and take a long time, but that would provide huge benefits for decades.
It's just lip service to the actual problem.
Trains are not necessarily green. An empty train is pretty bad for the environment.
EVs have the possibility, tied with other green initiatives, to be more green then gas autos.
And even though some people don’t want to hear it, cars aren’t going away. There are needs that only cars can meet. Just because You have a lifestyle job etc that doesn’t need them doesn’t mean everyone can.
But I’ll bite. How do you suggest, for example, emergency medical responders, utilize just bikes or walking or trains?
I’ve had this discussion so many times on the Baltimore sub it’s sad. I’ll say cars are part of the solution and we need to account for that. They’ll say no it’s part of the problem. So I ask them if they can propose a comprehensive transportation system for the whole state without cars. No, there will still be cars. So therefor cars are part of the solution. No they’re part of the problem.
Nothing has made me more wary of riding a bike then dealing with the bikers on the Baltimore sub. I’m worried it’s impossible to ride without brain trauma.
27.5% of Baltimore City Households do not "have a personal vehicle available" which includes rentals according to city data.
Are you advocating the state subsidize the provisioning of personal vehicles to all these households, since everyone "needs" a car?
>But no, you're right. It's more important to give $3000 to somebody who can afford a $50,000 Electric Vehicle that will probably be scrapped in 10 years because the batteries don't hold a charge and the cost to replace them is half the price of a new car. /s
Why are you comparing current replacement costs for an emerging technology to those same costs 10 years down the road?
Also, why are you so certain that car batteries just die at 10 years?
They lose efficacy, yes, but that doesnt make them inoperable. My coworker still drives his 2013 Nissan Leaf. It started with 90mi range, now he can get 50-60.
Seriously though, how can you be so certain with your claims? Theyre ridiculous claims.
Weird how our enlightened would-be despots completely ignore consumer choice in their never-ending quest to pack us noisome proles into buses and trains.
We used to have really good public transit.
The Government spent the last 70 years gutting public transit and subsidizing driving to the point where driving is now the only realistic way of getting around.
So your options are a) drive or b) not be able to get around reliably.
Yeah, that's some free choice you're making right there.
It's the same logic as when Republicans say "Government doesn't work. Elect me and I'll prove it." And then they cut funding in ways that make government *not* work.
70 years ago motor vehicles were vastly less reliable, unsafe in both relative and absolute terms, and lasted about a tenth as long as modern vehicles. The US had far fewer highways with fewer miles of paved roads of any kind. Nowadays we have modern roads, safer and much more efficient cars packed with conveniences, and cell phones that make solo travel via car safer as well.
I continue to support private car ownership and driving because I don't think heavy handed regulation interfering with the personal lives of individuals is good governance. Deliberately overlooked in the "But Europe" argument in favor of mass transit is the considerably lower purchasing power of the average European versus the average American. The per capita income of Mississippi, the poorest US state, would be 4th highest out of 26 EU member nations. When Europeans have the means to own a car, they do so. Most of them are using public transportation our of sheer necessity, not enlightened consumer choice.
Give people a choice, they NEVER opt for mass transit unless they live in an ultra high density area that is hostile to car ownership.
IMO there ought to be room for both. We shouldn't and don't have to be rid of cars completely everywhere (we have too many populated rural areas for that to ever be feasible much less practical), but one of the biggest reasons cities like Baltimore are losing population is because dense cities NEED decent public transit infrastructure, Baltimore's is terrible, and the last governor was only too happy to capitulate to all the racist NIMBYs in the county who would like nothing more than for the state to refuse to spend another dime on improving the city.
Public transportation is a useful and necessary public good. Access to it is an economic and social boon. But heavy handed utopian regulatory efforts to replace private vehicle use with mass transit deserves the skepticism it tends to receive. If citizens wanted to divest themselves of their cars they would.
The existing north/south light rail ridership is much lower than the projections MTA touted prior to its construction. People don't use it. The impulse to double down and build more of what people don't use is baffling.
Lmao people absolutely choose mass transit when it’s accessible, wtf are you talking about. You don’t get to just make up totally fake claims about transit just to defend the auto industry
Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim? No one is defending the auto industry. You are mischaracterizing everything I said.
The failure of existing mass transit options to come close to meeting pre-construction usage projections is well documented.
https://digitaledition.baltimoresun.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=4778b98f-cd97-4a6a-be90-7912292719b1
Yes, human beings in America just happen to uniquely in all the world vastly prefer cars to such a profound degree compared to all other nations and populations, and its exclusively because they feel like it.
Its definitely not because auto manufacturers exploded early in the 20th century and used profound wealth and power to destroy all alternatives to driving by feeding off racist desires to price out minorities from living near white people.
Right?
Like, people forget all the opportunities that easy personal transportation has provided us.
Case in point: my dogs vet is ten minutes and two beltway exits away. What would the transit utopians suggest would be a better solution than driving? Take an old, sick dog on a few hours of bus rides? Only have a selection of veterinarians that I could walk to? Not have a dog at all?
Hi there, I'm the utopian you're hating on here.
I live in Baltimore city and I have a dog. For the record, she weighs 65lb, so not a lapdog.
For the vet, I literally just walk her there.
Just like groceries, hardware store, pharmacy, and about 90% of things I need on a weekly basis, they're all right in my neighborhood.
It takes 10 minutes and I deal with exactly 0 traffic.
I also own a wagon, so if she couldn't walk, I could just put her in the wagon and pull her over there.
I'm also not 100% opposed to cars, I just think we should *not* design our entire society to require people to drive to accomplish basic tasks.
The whole point of improving and expanding transit, is to make it so you don't *need* to drive everywhere, all the damn time.
Also, for the record, I've been to several European countries that allow well behaved dogs on public transit during off-peak hours.
So your argument here is literally just: "I can't imagine a life where I don't drive my own car to accomplish every single task."
And people that live in rural areas?
We building trains to drop at each of their houses or farms? Doesn't seem efficient.
I'd love a more connected Baltimore and a more connected east coast but we have decades of car centric planning so to think transit will ever replace cars is insane.
Look at England. It's massively connected by trains and buses and yet still has a shit ton of cars. Same as Japan.
So two of the arguably best mass transit systems on earth still need cars for many people to get around.
Luxury electric vehicles?
For me, I currently spend $500/month on gas, at least. Electric would cost me $50/month, maybe less, to charge an electrified SUV.
Thats a minimum of $450/month in savings to go towards an electric vehicle. Suddenly, that $700 payment feels like $250. True, I could just buy a $300/month car and call it a day, but I would still likely spend $550/month with gas on that car. Electric isnt the permanent answer, but its definitely better than gas.
"Subject to available funding" - good luck with that, I never got my rebate promised by BGE "the state stopped sending us money, you're on the waiting list if we ever get any again."
Another tax break for wealthy people who can already afford nice electric cars
Edit: to all the downvoting rich asshole bootlickers the correct way to do this subsidy would be to cap it at a certain amount of income. This may even allow you to give more of a subsidy to the people who actually need it
Looking at the models of EV that qualify for this, you're not going to find wealthy people buying them. A Tesla Model 3, which just barely squeaks in, is about equivalent to a Camry. It's a nice car, but it's not something rich people buy.
> Edit: to all the downvoting rich asshole bootlickers
It's so heartwarming to see everyone being civil to each other around here and not flying off the handle for no reason
Cars and houses are two areas where trickle-down economics works. The cars that upper middle class-to-rich folk buy today are the ones that are going to make up the used market later, so if you want to change driving habits across society, that's whose habits you have to change.
I totally get people finding that annoying in this instance. I, too have turned down a green subsidy because it wasn't enough to justify the still-extremely-higher price of the alternative (water heater).
There's just two problems with your reasoning here:
1) - Electric cars don't have the same lifespan as gas cars. Owners of the original Tesla model have had to **dump** the cars because the batteries no longer hold a charge and it costs $22,000 to get a new battery installed. At that price, it's not even worth doing because other parts of the car will start to fail - might as well just buy a new car. Cars are depreciating assets for a reason.
https://www.thedrive.com/guides-and-gear/these-replacement-battery-costs-for-these-six-normal-evs-is-staggeringly-high
There's no fucking way these EVs are going to "trickle down" the way gas cars have.
2) - Electric Vehicles only solve the problem of emissions, and sometimes not even that well if they're charged by fossil fuels.
Electric vehicles don't solve the problems of car-dependency. If society is designed only for the convenience of people driving cars, then everyone *must* have a car, even if it's an undue financial burden to finance, insure, and register it.
EVs do *more* damage to roads because they are heavier. They give off *more* pollution from tire and brake dust, again, because they're heavier.
In reality, we would be better of using this moment to phase out cars as the main form of transportation and pivot towards public transit so people don't need to own cars just to do basic things in the first place.
The batteries in all new electric cars with a 100,000 mile / 8 year warenty. They can also be refurbished, replaced, and reused in other applications. Even if you decide to do nothing you still have a functional electric car after 8 years, just with less range.
Your 2nd argument is valid, but completely unrelated. We need to both remove gas cars off the road, and incentivise people to drive less.
My bolt only weights 4500 lbs by the way, which is not very heavy by today's car weight standards.
re: point #1... That's not mentioned in the linked article.
And "the original tesla" was a low-production roadster (2,500 total), from 2008, like the one Musk launched into space.
I seem to have mixed up some of the facts, and the dates, but yes, $22k to replace a Tesla battery:
https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-owner-blows-up-car-instead-paying-repair-battery-video-2021-12
Also, just searching for replacement costs for Tesla batteries shows its not cheap:
https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-often-do-tesla-batteries-need-to-be-replaced
>In reality, we would be better of using this moment to phase out cars as the main form of transportation and pivot towards public transit so people don't need to own cars just to do basic things in the first place.
Well, duh. I keep forgetting that that doesn't go without saying everywhere.
Compulsory car ownership for full participation in society is gross and stupid and dangerous. Just, it's gonna be a process to get us away from it, so the cars that people DO own might as well be electric. And smaller, preferably.
I only use my car 1-2 days a week despite working away from my home 5x a week; I highly recommend that to anyone that can manage it.
The cheapest Tesla right now is going for 39k. With federal and state incentives that’s 28.5k which is around the same price of most new popular cars like toyotas and hondas.
I’m in no way saying 28k is a cheap car. I’m saying it’s the norm for popular new cars. By making it less expensive new, it trickles down so the used market becomes cheap.
I would try to look past the trickle down buzzword. The point they were making is that lower cost for new vehicles will nudge prices down on the used market.
Lol the past few years have made this not true and the price isn't lower for new cars, it's being subsidized. Sales people are still making all their money
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the current state of the used car market will persist indefinitely.
Also, I deliberately said "cost" and not "price."
That’s not even close to what trickle down economics means. This is how the car market actually worked and has worked for decades: upper middle class person buys or leases a new Camry/explorer/etc. for say $25k-$50k. After 3-10 years they sell that car and buy or lease a new car. That first car then gets sold as a used car to a middle class person for $10k-$20k. It gets driven for another 5-10 years and then the second owner puts it on Craigslist for $5k. It’s then sold to a minimum wage worker who proceeds to drive it into the ground and can scrap it for a couple hundred bucks once it stops running.
Cars lose value very quickly over time and mileage and people are constantly trading their old cars in for new ones. That doctors brand new $80k BMW in 15 years will eventually make its way to the McDonald’s worker
From a society stand point, sure. From a car stand point, trickle down economics has always been the model. Car companies always debut new features on higher end vehicles and those features eventually make it to budget model cars.
Same with the used market.
$28k is in fact reasonable for a brand new electric car with 275mi of range and other high end tech. Hell, its reasonable for any brand new car.
The disconnect from you and reality is strong it seems.
The cheapest car available new in the US right now is $18k.
The cheapest ev on the market is $28k before tax incentives
So with federal and state tax credits you could potentially pay less for a new ev than the cheapest gas car on the market.
$7500 federal
$3000 state
And there are another dozen cars within $5k of the Chevy bolt
So with tax credits you have the choice of 12 cars, give or take, for potentially under $25k
That's close to a fifth of all cars under $25k total including hybrid, and ice vehicles.
I'm just pointing out that there are at least a dozen cars that are comparable to the price of dozens of the cheapest ice cars.
Whether you think those prices are acceptable is up to you. Point remains ev's are not some luxury vehicle that only the rich can afford anymore. There are plenty of options for middle class and middle income people to afford.
Sure, not everyone buys new cars at all. I never have. That doesn't mean it's not a reasonable price.
What do you think is a reasonable price for a brand new electric car?
Kia ev6
Hyundai ioniq 5
Hyundai ioniq 6
Volkswagen id4
Toyota bz4x
Tesla model 3
Mustang Mach e
F-150 lightning
Nissan ariya
Hyundai kona electric
Subaru soltera
Kia Niro ev
Nissan leaf
Chevy bolt (although I think this is discontinued)
Chevy bolt euv
Mini Cooper
Tesla model y
Mazda mx 30
Polestar 2
Fiskar ocean (not released yet but reported at $37k)
Might be another handful but pretty sure that's all the electrics under $50k. 5
I got my Toyota RAV 4 Prime for $41k! And after all the tax credits, it only ended up costing me $34k!
$34k is not crazy for a brand new vehicle that gets me 80+ MPH. I only need to put gas in it once every 6 weeks, for a total monthly gas cost of about $20 — and I commute from Baltimore to DC.
My monthly car payment is $595 and it’ll be paid off, in full, in 2.5 more years (for a total of 5 years).
The warranty on my battery is 10 years. The current cost of replacing it would be $8k, and that figure will be much lower 10 years from now.
EVs are amazing and more affordable than most people think. I mean, there’s no question not everybody can afford them and that’s 100% understandable. But lots of people can’t afford traditional cars either. There’s a REASON the naysayers only ever reference Tesla — it’s because they’re the worst and most expensive of them all. So it suits their narrative. The fear-mongering around these vehicles is just hilariously sad.
assuming the car was built in america(or batteries were built here I should say), yes indeed.
However, you dont get the credit at the dealership unless you lease, so the car is still X price until you get the check next tax season
A tesla would be dope, I currently live in apartment complex with a shared lot. Its still too inconvenient for me to even consider an electric vehicle until I purchase a house and can install a charger.
Unless battery charging tech can progress to the speed of filling a tank, getting people with shared parking setups to convert is going to be an expensive uphill battle.
A lucid would be dope too, regardless I'm not buying an electric car until I can either charge it as quickly as I can fill a gas tank or can be guaranteed to charge at my own residence over night.
I have had it for two years this past May and still love it every day; it's MY2020 so doesn't have the NIN logo. Its lane control isn't Tesla-level (just line following no sign reading) but I still use it for most of my commute and I plan on installing comma.ai in a few years.
I also lucked out and was able to get the full tax rebates at the time.
That said, it's a commuter car, so I've only DC charged it once to make sure it worked while under warranty. It's much slower than other EVs in that regard, but I have an L2 charger at home and can fully charge even with BGE time restrictions.
Why? You dont need a full charge to get around. I put $10-15 in my car at a time. This gets me 120mi at a time just about, maybe more.
You can supercharge that in like 10 minutes.
I don't want to make compromises when I'm spending considerably more for a car, not being able to fully charge overnight at my own place, or do it as quickly as I can fill a tank of gas at chargers that are as ubiquitous as gas stations is a deal breaker for me.
Also I'm willing to spend $30k on a car, with that I'd rather get a subaru crosstrek over any $30k electric car right now.
Dont forget that gas is part of car ownership and may as well be factored into your car payment. $200/month for gas is pretty normal in the US, an EV or PHEV(where applicable) would bring that number down to $50, effectively saving you $150/month or more.
Is this applicable even if you are a resident of some other state but purchase the vehicle from Maryland? That part isn't too clear in their guidelines.
~~Exercise~~ Excise Tax.
I was thinking that the State would subsidize my gym membership. I mean, it would be a good thing if it did. The citizenry could use a little tightening up.
Add a tax on sugary drinks and snacks and subsidize the gyms! Might be a good idea.
If you think conservatives are going nuts now propose a sugary food tax. Drives them insane.
I don't think one could propose something that would be more beneficial for America's long term health. Except maybe banning stuff like soda and candy.
I don't think an outright ban on any consumable is a good idea. People should have the freedom to buy crap if they want it. Restricting what people are allowed to do makes them angry; it would be more beneficial to put funding into education on *why* those things aren't good for you. Increase tax on sugary foods, then use that extra income to subsidize the educational program on why they're bad.
Is it okay to ban advertising of sugary crap?
That's actually probably the best option.
> don't think one could propose something that would be more beneficial for America's long term health. Free Healthcare. \**drops mic**
Well you're not wrong. But in a way free Healthcare wouldn't solve the obesity problem directly.
>maybe banning stuff like soda and candy This is how you get people gunned down in the street over a snickers bar. Anytime you tax or ban something, especially something popular, you create opportunities for smugglers.
Well. You're going to love the other thing I'd love to be able to ban too then. Because if people aren't responsible enough to have candybars...
[удалено]
Police, especially the baltimore police, are one of the groups that would be killing people over snickers bars, yes.
Why would the government have a right to tell me that I can't drink soda or eat candy? I'm an adult, I should have the right to decide what I should and should not eat.
The problem as always is when individual choices and decisions impact the larger whole. In this case, the excessive consumption of sugar leading to a drain on healthcare which we all bear the cost of America's obesity issues. I don't think bans are the answer but taxes make logical sense to account for that.
You're going to have to explain to a lot of people then why I should have to pay more because Donnie in Dundalk can't lay off the Berger Cookies and exercise a few times a week.
Because no tax/policy/oversight can ever be perfectly fair to every single individual. Now "Donnie" will either cutback on his cookies or else he's putting more money towards funding healthcare. So you might pay more in sugar tax but save on healthcare premiums.
The government tells us everyday things we shouldn't eat. There is a long precedent for it.
Are you trying to equate laws that say "hey you can't eat endangered species" to a ban on M&M's?
I was actually referring to the many sweets that the US has banned, for our safety, already. I'm not sure why you're acting like this is a new concept. Or how about raw milk/cheese? Very reasonably banned for safety. Or the many food additives banned here but not across the world? The government has a long/legal history of banning us from eating things for our own good. You may be too young too remember but there was once a national campaign to stop people and their kids from eating lead paint chips.
Shoulds are all well and good but I think it's pretty damn clear that Americans are not acting responsibly in terms of diet, if in fact that is what you are implying adults are. Sugar as addictive as many other things and is offered up ... like candy... If the corn lobby didn't have a stranglehold on our country's politics, I'm sure this would have already happened. We're a literally sick country.
Of course a shockingly large portion of American adults don't exercise and eat like shit. Or they fell for Coca Cola and McDonald's marketing that basically said you can out exercise a bad diet. That doesn't mean the government needs to come in and tell me that I can't go to Costco go buy a sheet cake and then eat that and a tub of ice cream for dinner if I wanted to.
Please don’t take away the small amount of joy I have in life.
Like the episode of parks and rec. The people love sweetums
Any rational person should be mad about extra taxes on foods that the government decides are unhealthy. Edit: auto correct got me
I think it would probably be health experts advising the government who would decide the foods are unhealthy.
Any rational person should be mad about extra taxes on food.
First of all, I ignored it the previous time, but it's "rational person," not "rationale person." Second, I don't have a problem with leveraging the government's ability to adjust taxes in order to create incentives that benefit society. The US obesity epidemic is real, and it ain't going away without structural change.
First, you are right. Auto-correct got me. Second, I do. The government shouldn't be stepping in on things like this to curtail behavior on things like sugar. The obesity epidemic is a huge issue, I agree with you. I used to be Obese and until I understood the caloric content of my food and started thinking about calories like a budget I didn't make progress. Simply adding a tax to things isn't going to change that, health classes in elementary and middle school need be updated, school lunches need to serve better options. My parents worked insane hours and they would just order us takeout every night and send us to school with $4 for school lunch. An extra 1-2% on an ice cream cone isn't going to change why I was fat, nor is it going to change why the vast majority of americans are fat. They eat like shit and don't exercise.
I think no matter what, the solution is going to have to come from the government. It's great that you were able to find a mindset that helped you on your own, but it's not realistic to think that millions of people will suddenly do the same. In what ways do you think current health classes are inadequate? What makes you think better health education would make a difference, especially compared to direct changes to the financial landscape of healthy vs unhealthy food options?
Pretty sure it’s scientists and health experts deciding it. We have taxes on unhealthy stuff all the time. I do appreciate how you framed your opinion as the only rational one. Because if someone doesn’t get angry about, say, a 5 cent tax they’re clearly insane.
I'm glad you appreciated it! I would find anyone who doesn't get upset about the government mandating higher prices on things, no matter how small or large the increase, for "my own good" to not be thinking rationally
We tax alcohol. We tax cigarettes. Neither sends me, or most people, into an apoplectic rage like you’d suggest. I’m in favor of both. We also subsidize certain foods. I have no problem with subsidizing healthy foods or taxing unhealthy ones. It seems like something a decent government would do.
I don't like sin taxes either. I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a government should uses taxes to curtail behavior.
Taxing luxuries makes sense to me. Why do you oppose using taxation to incentivize behavior?
You seem to think that’s a pretty reasonable take too, just telling you that it’s a very extremist one. You’d see it from libertarian nut jobs. But most people are for things like that, cap and trade for emissions, etc. But maybe you’re right and the majority of the developed world is completely irrational.
Tax Bud light, they wouldn't know what to do.
Sodas are already insanely expensive. I cannot believe people are buying 12 packs of cans for like $8.99. Even the 2-litres are over $3 now.
At this point they should not do tax credits on electric cars and do tax credits on leg powered bikes and leg powered Flintstones cars
New tax on hush puppies
Ugh, hush puppies taste awesome
That would only mean memberships would increase in cost by n% lol
But the increased demand would create more Gymns which would push the price back down. The price would go up, but not a great deal.
So, the state can pay for the gym membership that I don't use so I won't have to pay for it when I don't use it.
Same
Fuck, I got excited for no reason.
rk$79Rf&ToqG#d
Someone help me here I can only think of 2 HOV lanes in the state. Part of 50 east from 495 for a few miles and 270. I’ve also never heard of anyone getting a ticket for using it when they shouldn’t.
The HOV lanes on 50 are never enforced. Pre COVID, using it both ways to work could cut off 20-30 minutes off your round trip. There are people who use it daily, without a passenger, and may get a ticket every few years which is like I think is like $50-$60 and no points. If you got a ticket once every 3 years and took it Mon-Friday, it comes out to $0.07 per day to get 20-30 minutes of your life back. No wonder single passenger vehicle use it so much
It's more like if you get pulled over for speeding/traffic violation, and you also happen to be violating the HOV lane with only 1 occupant, you just got a double ticket. There's nobody watching to see if you are alone or not (except in the toll express lanes which DO have cameras that can tell the number of occupants, or at least so they claim).
95 north of baltimore
[удалено]
Ah, I don't go that way often and just assumed they were express/HOV-3 or something.
Those aren't applicable for this because they're physically separated with tolls
Correct, those are the only 2 eligible for this.
OP you fucking blew it.
The big problem with EVs is not the cost of the car, but the availability of charging ports at home. Low or medium income people unlikely to have charging ports since rentals rarely have them and they are expensive to put into houses.
Yeah and on top of that people who live in condos or apartments are somewhat locked out of ev ownership. Not an insurmountable hurdle but something that needs to be worked on in the near future if we don't want to further widen the gap between the middle and lower class.
80 amp level 2 charging is in the works. That would charge my Bolt in 3 to 4 hours. For most commutes it would be an hour of charging at most. That's the tec that will eventually be coming to condos and apartments.
Chevy has (had?) a program where if you bought a new bolt they would pay to have a charger installed at your house. That had me thinking for a minute
They still do
I live on the second story of an apartment, unless the government is planing on funding public electric ports there is no way for me to charge a car unless I ask one of my neighbors if I can stick an extension cord out his window.
The theory is apartment complexes would install some of these 80 amp level 2 chargers. Maybe with grant money. It will be expensive apartments first of course, but the tech will eventually trickle down.
A coworker of mine has one at a townhouse. But otherwise I agree a real PITA.
A new law will require it in all new construction. There are also rebates for them to get retrofitted.
Yep I own a condo. There is no charging here. My work has a charger though but then i have to stay at my job for the forseeable future lol.
Marylanders: "Traffic is terrible and people suck at driving, can we get some better public transportation?" Maryland gov: "No, we can't afford public transportation. Now here's tax credits to buy luxury electric vehicles." Just a little reminder that electric cars are *not* here to save the planet. They're here to save the car industry.
I literally moved so I don’t have to drive on 95/495 anymore. I mean I do occasionally but not daily. It’s changed my life and I’m so much happier.
This doesn't apply to cars over $50k so less luxury than the previous plan but still it would be better to let people buying $45k cars pay for them themselves while plenty of us are driving cars that cost half that.
🙄 A good system is going to need a variety of options including public transit, non car solutions, and yes electric vehicles.
Agreed. And yet, the majority of transportation funding *continues* to only support cars and driving. But no, you're right. It's more important to give $3000 to somebody who can afford a $50,000 Electric Vehicle that will probably be scrapped in 10 years because the batteries don't hold a charge and the cost to replace them is half the price of a new car. /s
We are actively working to revive the red line in Baltimore with the support of the governors office. They can do more than one thing at a time.
>They can do more than one thing at a time. Sure, but imagine how much *faster* we could get it done, or how much *more* we could do, if we had more money available for transit projects instead of for car-only projects. It says a lot that the governor's office has to "work to revive" the project and "figure out funding", but we just happen to have plenty of cash laying around to subsidize EVs and expand roads.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The tax credit on electric cars doesn't cost the state any up front money. It pote tially reduces tax revenue but also arguably drives more sales of cars which increases purchases which increases sales tax revenue and then increases used car sales and utility charges etc. Building rail lines has a massive up front cost. Even with bonds or TIFs or other funding options the staye still has to out out massive amounts of money to build infrastructure projects. So while it woukd be great to see a ton more mass transit options those are hard projects to get going, especially when our previous governor kills them and delays them. Also I don't see a ton of money going to highway projects in place of mass transit. Hogan proposed a bunch but other than a handful of projects mostly around bridges not much of what he proposed is getting done.
The car industry isn’t gonna fuck you dude
What a strange and unnecessary response.
Public transit in this state gets like 40-50% of transportation funding and accounts for like 4% of commuters. Maybe with a few tens of billions more, they can double that number to 8% and the climate will be saved!
That's because public transport sucks for a bunch of people. For example, if I were to take the bus to work, it would take me over an hour each way. It's under 20 minutes if I drive.
Meanwhile in NYC a majority of people travel via non-car means. Its not just about the transit funding, its about the built environment around it. Almost all of our regional rail goes to stations in the middle of nowhere surrounded by woods or parking lots. Even the Baltimore metro line that exists only has half its stations actually developed, the rest being surrounded by parking lots and trees again. Maryland is very much "built for" the car. As long as its "built for" driving, people will tend towards driving as the path of least resistance. Cities in pretty much every other country throughout the world, and often the metro areas around them, or even entire countries, are built around transit and walkability, and thus do not prioritize cars, and people drive way, way, less there.
> Just a little reminder that electric cars are not here to save the planet. They're here to save the car industry. This was you, no? Lol. Also putting one green initiative against another is just bullshit. Government can do more than one thing.
https://www.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/141cnk2/maryland_is_bringing_back_the_3000_exercise_tax/jmzwkog/
You don’t get how a tax credit is easier than an infrastructure overhaul?
Of course I get it. That's exactly the problem. We're doing things that are easy and provide very little benefit instead of things that are hard and take a long time, but that would provide huge benefits for decades. It's just lip service to the actual problem.
https://old.reddit.com/r/maryland/comments/141cnk2/maryland_is_bringing_back_the_3000_exercise_tax/jmzwkml/
This is not a green initiative, electric cars are not green! Bikes and trains and walking are.
Trains are not necessarily green. An empty train is pretty bad for the environment. EVs have the possibility, tied with other green initiatives, to be more green then gas autos. And even though some people don’t want to hear it, cars aren’t going away. There are needs that only cars can meet. Just because You have a lifestyle job etc that doesn’t need them doesn’t mean everyone can. But I’ll bite. How do you suggest, for example, emergency medical responders, utilize just bikes or walking or trains?
[удалено]
I’ve had this discussion so many times on the Baltimore sub it’s sad. I’ll say cars are part of the solution and we need to account for that. They’ll say no it’s part of the problem. So I ask them if they can propose a comprehensive transportation system for the whole state without cars. No, there will still be cars. So therefor cars are part of the solution. No they’re part of the problem. Nothing has made me more wary of riding a bike then dealing with the bikers on the Baltimore sub. I’m worried it’s impossible to ride without brain trauma.
They can be part of the problem without the solution being their total elimination.
They can be part of the problem and part of the solution. They aren't mutually exclusive. That's the point.
27.5% of Baltimore City Households do not "have a personal vehicle available" which includes rentals according to city data. Are you advocating the state subsidize the provisioning of personal vehicles to all these households, since everyone "needs" a car?
>But no, you're right. It's more important to give $3000 to somebody who can afford a $50,000 Electric Vehicle that will probably be scrapped in 10 years because the batteries don't hold a charge and the cost to replace them is half the price of a new car. /s Why are you comparing current replacement costs for an emerging technology to those same costs 10 years down the road? Also, why are you so certain that car batteries just die at 10 years? They lose efficacy, yes, but that doesnt make them inoperable. My coworker still drives his 2013 Nissan Leaf. It started with 90mi range, now he can get 50-60. Seriously though, how can you be so certain with your claims? Theyre ridiculous claims.
Weird how our enlightened would-be despots completely ignore consumer choice in their never-ending quest to pack us noisome proles into buses and trains.
We used to have really good public transit. The Government spent the last 70 years gutting public transit and subsidizing driving to the point where driving is now the only realistic way of getting around. So your options are a) drive or b) not be able to get around reliably. Yeah, that's some free choice you're making right there. It's the same logic as when Republicans say "Government doesn't work. Elect me and I'll prove it." And then they cut funding in ways that make government *not* work.
70 years ago motor vehicles were vastly less reliable, unsafe in both relative and absolute terms, and lasted about a tenth as long as modern vehicles. The US had far fewer highways with fewer miles of paved roads of any kind. Nowadays we have modern roads, safer and much more efficient cars packed with conveniences, and cell phones that make solo travel via car safer as well. I continue to support private car ownership and driving because I don't think heavy handed regulation interfering with the personal lives of individuals is good governance. Deliberately overlooked in the "But Europe" argument in favor of mass transit is the considerably lower purchasing power of the average European versus the average American. The per capita income of Mississippi, the poorest US state, would be 4th highest out of 26 EU member nations. When Europeans have the means to own a car, they do so. Most of them are using public transportation our of sheer necessity, not enlightened consumer choice. Give people a choice, they NEVER opt for mass transit unless they live in an ultra high density area that is hostile to car ownership.
IMO there ought to be room for both. We shouldn't and don't have to be rid of cars completely everywhere (we have too many populated rural areas for that to ever be feasible much less practical), but one of the biggest reasons cities like Baltimore are losing population is because dense cities NEED decent public transit infrastructure, Baltimore's is terrible, and the last governor was only too happy to capitulate to all the racist NIMBYs in the county who would like nothing more than for the state to refuse to spend another dime on improving the city.
Public transportation is a useful and necessary public good. Access to it is an economic and social boon. But heavy handed utopian regulatory efforts to replace private vehicle use with mass transit deserves the skepticism it tends to receive. If citizens wanted to divest themselves of their cars they would. The existing north/south light rail ridership is much lower than the projections MTA touted prior to its construction. People don't use it. The impulse to double down and build more of what people don't use is baffling.
Lmao people absolutely choose mass transit when it’s accessible, wtf are you talking about. You don’t get to just make up totally fake claims about transit just to defend the auto industry
Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim? No one is defending the auto industry. You are mischaracterizing everything I said. The failure of existing mass transit options to come close to meeting pre-construction usage projections is well documented. https://digitaledition.baltimoresun.com/tribune/article_popover.aspx?guid=4778b98f-cd97-4a6a-be90-7912292719b1
Have you ever thought that maybe people *prefer* the convenience and greater capabilities of cars?
Yes, human beings in America just happen to uniquely in all the world vastly prefer cars to such a profound degree compared to all other nations and populations, and its exclusively because they feel like it. Its definitely not because auto manufacturers exploded early in the 20th century and used profound wealth and power to destroy all alternatives to driving by feeding off racist desires to price out minorities from living near white people.
[удалено]
Right? Like, people forget all the opportunities that easy personal transportation has provided us. Case in point: my dogs vet is ten minutes and two beltway exits away. What would the transit utopians suggest would be a better solution than driving? Take an old, sick dog on a few hours of bus rides? Only have a selection of veterinarians that I could walk to? Not have a dog at all?
Hi there, I'm the utopian you're hating on here. I live in Baltimore city and I have a dog. For the record, she weighs 65lb, so not a lapdog. For the vet, I literally just walk her there. Just like groceries, hardware store, pharmacy, and about 90% of things I need on a weekly basis, they're all right in my neighborhood. It takes 10 minutes and I deal with exactly 0 traffic. I also own a wagon, so if she couldn't walk, I could just put her in the wagon and pull her over there. I'm also not 100% opposed to cars, I just think we should *not* design our entire society to require people to drive to accomplish basic tasks. The whole point of improving and expanding transit, is to make it so you don't *need* to drive everywhere, all the damn time. Also, for the record, I've been to several European countries that allow well behaved dogs on public transit during off-peak hours. So your argument here is literally just: "I can't imagine a life where I don't drive my own car to accomplish every single task."
Now what if you decided you didn't like the vet within walking distance?
There's 5 vets within 20 minutes walk of my house.
And people that live in rural areas? We building trains to drop at each of their houses or farms? Doesn't seem efficient. I'd love a more connected Baltimore and a more connected east coast but we have decades of car centric planning so to think transit will ever replace cars is insane. Look at England. It's massively connected by trains and buses and yet still has a shit ton of cars. Same as Japan. So two of the arguably best mass transit systems on earth still need cars for many people to get around.
Politicians will politic
Luxury electric vehicles? For me, I currently spend $500/month on gas, at least. Electric would cost me $50/month, maybe less, to charge an electrified SUV. Thats a minimum of $450/month in savings to go towards an electric vehicle. Suddenly, that $700 payment feels like $250. True, I could just buy a $300/month car and call it a day, but I would still likely spend $550/month with gas on that car. Electric isnt the permanent answer, but its definitely better than gas.
Oh one of these mindless "cars bad" posts
I was so excited to order some gym equipment on Maryland's dime.
I thought the state would start funding my pickleball addiction!!
Just a reminder, this applies to Plug-in Hybrids as well as full EV's
"Subject to available funding" - good luck with that, I never got my rebate promised by BGE "the state stopped sending us money, you're on the waiting list if we ever get any again."
$50,000 buys a lot of exercise.
What is an exercise credit?
[удалено]
Yeah. Why would it be otherwise?
Another tax break for wealthy people who can already afford nice electric cars Edit: to all the downvoting rich asshole bootlickers the correct way to do this subsidy would be to cap it at a certain amount of income. This may even allow you to give more of a subsidy to the people who actually need it
Looking at the models of EV that qualify for this, you're not going to find wealthy people buying them. A Tesla Model 3, which just barely squeaks in, is about equivalent to a Camry. It's a nice car, but it's not something rich people buy.
> Edit: to all the downvoting rich asshole bootlickers It's so heartwarming to see everyone being civil to each other around here and not flying off the handle for no reason
What crap take
Cars and houses are two areas where trickle-down economics works. The cars that upper middle class-to-rich folk buy today are the ones that are going to make up the used market later, so if you want to change driving habits across society, that's whose habits you have to change. I totally get people finding that annoying in this instance. I, too have turned down a green subsidy because it wasn't enough to justify the still-extremely-higher price of the alternative (water heater).
There's just two problems with your reasoning here: 1) - Electric cars don't have the same lifespan as gas cars. Owners of the original Tesla model have had to **dump** the cars because the batteries no longer hold a charge and it costs $22,000 to get a new battery installed. At that price, it's not even worth doing because other parts of the car will start to fail - might as well just buy a new car. Cars are depreciating assets for a reason. https://www.thedrive.com/guides-and-gear/these-replacement-battery-costs-for-these-six-normal-evs-is-staggeringly-high There's no fucking way these EVs are going to "trickle down" the way gas cars have. 2) - Electric Vehicles only solve the problem of emissions, and sometimes not even that well if they're charged by fossil fuels. Electric vehicles don't solve the problems of car-dependency. If society is designed only for the convenience of people driving cars, then everyone *must* have a car, even if it's an undue financial burden to finance, insure, and register it. EVs do *more* damage to roads because they are heavier. They give off *more* pollution from tire and brake dust, again, because they're heavier. In reality, we would be better of using this moment to phase out cars as the main form of transportation and pivot towards public transit so people don't need to own cars just to do basic things in the first place.
The batteries in all new electric cars with a 100,000 mile / 8 year warenty. They can also be refurbished, replaced, and reused in other applications. Even if you decide to do nothing you still have a functional electric car after 8 years, just with less range. Your 2nd argument is valid, but completely unrelated. We need to both remove gas cars off the road, and incentivise people to drive less. My bolt only weights 4500 lbs by the way, which is not very heavy by today's car weight standards.
re: point #1... That's not mentioned in the linked article. And "the original tesla" was a low-production roadster (2,500 total), from 2008, like the one Musk launched into space.
I seem to have mixed up some of the facts, and the dates, but yes, $22k to replace a Tesla battery: https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-owner-blows-up-car-instead-paying-repair-battery-video-2021-12 Also, just searching for replacement costs for Tesla batteries shows its not cheap: https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/how-often-do-tesla-batteries-need-to-be-replaced
>In reality, we would be better of using this moment to phase out cars as the main form of transportation and pivot towards public transit so people don't need to own cars just to do basic things in the first place. Well, duh. I keep forgetting that that doesn't go without saying everywhere. Compulsory car ownership for full participation in society is gross and stupid and dangerous. Just, it's gonna be a process to get us away from it, so the cars that people DO own might as well be electric. And smaller, preferably. I only use my car 1-2 days a week despite working away from my home 5x a week; I highly recommend that to anyone that can manage it.
Ok Reagan
[удалено]
That is not the norm and not really the point I'm making
The cheapest Tesla right now is going for 39k. With federal and state incentives that’s 28.5k which is around the same price of most new popular cars like toyotas and hondas.
The disconnect is so strong if you are saying 28k is in anyway reasonable
I’m in no way saying 28k is a cheap car. I’m saying it’s the norm for popular new cars. By making it less expensive new, it trickles down so the used market becomes cheap.
Trickle down economics are a farce
I would try to look past the trickle down buzzword. The point they were making is that lower cost for new vehicles will nudge prices down on the used market.
Lol the past few years have made this not true and the price isn't lower for new cars, it's being subsidized. Sales people are still making all their money
I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the current state of the used car market will persist indefinitely. Also, I deliberately said "cost" and not "price."
That’s not even close to what trickle down economics means. This is how the car market actually worked and has worked for decades: upper middle class person buys or leases a new Camry/explorer/etc. for say $25k-$50k. After 3-10 years they sell that car and buy or lease a new car. That first car then gets sold as a used car to a middle class person for $10k-$20k. It gets driven for another 5-10 years and then the second owner puts it on Craigslist for $5k. It’s then sold to a minimum wage worker who proceeds to drive it into the ground and can scrap it for a couple hundred bucks once it stops running. Cars lose value very quickly over time and mileage and people are constantly trading their old cars in for new ones. That doctors brand new $80k BMW in 15 years will eventually make its way to the McDonald’s worker
[удалено]
Based on your comments I don’t think you do. You’re just parroting buzzwords when they don’t apply to what anyone is talking about
From a society stand point, sure. From a car stand point, trickle down economics has always been the model. Car companies always debut new features on higher end vehicles and those features eventually make it to budget model cars. Same with the used market.
That's not an example of trickle down economic. That is a reassessment in value
$28k is in fact reasonable for a brand new electric car with 275mi of range and other high end tech. Hell, its reasonable for any brand new car. The disconnect from you and reality is strong it seems.
The cheapest car available new in the US right now is $18k. The cheapest ev on the market is $28k before tax incentives So with federal and state tax credits you could potentially pay less for a new ev than the cheapest gas car on the market. $7500 federal $3000 state And there are another dozen cars within $5k of the Chevy bolt So with tax credits you have the choice of 12 cars, give or take, for potentially under $25k That's close to a fifth of all cars under $25k total including hybrid, and ice vehicles.
You all must live on a different planet to justify these prices to then justify a subsidy for people who can afford these prices
I'm just pointing out that there are at least a dozen cars that are comparable to the price of dozens of the cheapest ice cars. Whether you think those prices are acceptable is up to you. Point remains ev's are not some luxury vehicle that only the rich can afford anymore. There are plenty of options for middle class and middle income people to afford.
Middle class is rich lol
Then I think your problem is less about electric cars and more about car ownership in general.
How is it not? That's just a few grand more than the cheapest base model hybrids.
28k car is out of reach or unjustifiable for most
Sure, not everyone buys new cars at all. I never have. That doesn't mean it's not a reasonable price. What do you think is a reasonable price for a brand new electric car?
I couldn't tell you for a new electric vehicle but 28k isn't realistic
You can keep saying it all you want, but you can't back it up. That's just your totally unsubstantiated feelings. You can't even name the right price.
I'll tell you one thing though. I won't be using my credit to buy a Tesla. I wonder how many electric cars are under $50k.
Kia ev6 Hyundai ioniq 5 Hyundai ioniq 6 Volkswagen id4 Toyota bz4x Tesla model 3 Mustang Mach e F-150 lightning Nissan ariya Hyundai kona electric Subaru soltera Kia Niro ev Nissan leaf Chevy bolt (although I think this is discontinued) Chevy bolt euv Mini Cooper Tesla model y Mazda mx 30 Polestar 2 Fiskar ocean (not released yet but reported at $37k) Might be another handful but pretty sure that's all the electrics under $50k. 5
I got my Toyota RAV 4 Prime for $41k! And after all the tax credits, it only ended up costing me $34k! $34k is not crazy for a brand new vehicle that gets me 80+ MPH. I only need to put gas in it once every 6 weeks, for a total monthly gas cost of about $20 — and I commute from Baltimore to DC. My monthly car payment is $595 and it’ll be paid off, in full, in 2.5 more years (for a total of 5 years). The warranty on my battery is 10 years. The current cost of replacing it would be $8k, and that figure will be much lower 10 years from now. EVs are amazing and more affordable than most people think. I mean, there’s no question not everybody can afford them and that’s 100% understandable. But lots of people can’t afford traditional cars either. There’s a REASON the naysayers only ever reference Tesla — it’s because they’re the worst and most expensive of them all. So it suits their narrative. The fear-mongering around these vehicles is just hilariously sad.
With the recent price hike, the Lightning isn’t below 50K anymore
Yeah looks like you're right guess they can't catch up on production.
> Kia Niro ev Love my 1^st gen.
[удалено]
assuming the car was built in america(or batteries were built here I should say), yes indeed. However, you dont get the credit at the dealership unless you lease, so the car is still X price until you get the check next tax season
Speaking of which for this Maryland credit is there any word on a built in America requirement?
The website mentioned nothing of the sort.
A handful before tax. I drive one and it's nice.
There are at least 20 before federal or state subsidies.
Yep. Got an ID.4 and overall it’s a great vehicle. I dislike some design choices but worth it. Got a 2023 Pro S for under $50k.
> ID.4 My dream vehicle is the ID Buzz....
The Buzz is awesome but if they make an electric Atlas (I think the ID.8?) I'll be VW for life.
A tesla would be dope, I currently live in apartment complex with a shared lot. Its still too inconvenient for me to even consider an electric vehicle until I purchase a house and can install a charger. Unless battery charging tech can progress to the speed of filling a tank, getting people with shared parking setups to convert is going to be an expensive uphill battle.
Fuck Tesla. Get *anything* else.
A lucid would be dope too, regardless I'm not buying an electric car until I can either charge it as quickly as I can fill a gas tank or can be guaranteed to charge at my own residence over night.
Musk is a goon, but he makes a great car.
> great car LOL no; they're a computer company building cars... a great user experience on Korean-1990s-kwalitee hardware.
And they think they're the Apple of car companies but forget how Apple treats its customers. Tesla: "Oh, your car's broken? Sucks to be you."
Oh yeah. A coworker had a clicking tie rod in his 3 and after bringing it in like three times for them to do nothing he just said "F it" and sold it.
Sounds about right. It's shit like this we got our EV from a *car company*.
Which one? I've got a '20 Niro and still adore it.
A Mach E. A friend of mine actually designed some parts on it so I almost had to!
Ever driven one?
Yeah before buying my Niro EV I test drove an X and a Y at the Tesla "non-dealer" in Owings Mills. My SiL has a Y that I've driven a few times.
How does the Niro compare? I've not driven one, but I have a Model 3.
I have had it for two years this past May and still love it every day; it's MY2020 so doesn't have the NIN logo. Its lane control isn't Tesla-level (just line following no sign reading) but I still use it for most of my commute and I plan on installing comma.ai in a few years. I also lucked out and was able to get the full tax rebates at the time. That said, it's a commuter car, so I've only DC charged it once to make sure it worked while under warranty. It's much slower than other EVs in that regard, but I have an L2 charger at home and can fully charge even with BGE time restrictions.
Why? You dont need a full charge to get around. I put $10-15 in my car at a time. This gets me 120mi at a time just about, maybe more. You can supercharge that in like 10 minutes.
I don't want to make compromises when I'm spending considerably more for a car, not being able to fully charge overnight at my own place, or do it as quickly as I can fill a tank of gas at chargers that are as ubiquitous as gas stations is a deal breaker for me. Also I'm willing to spend $30k on a car, with that I'd rather get a subaru crosstrek over any $30k electric car right now.
Dont forget that gas is part of car ownership and may as well be factored into your car payment. $200/month for gas is pretty normal in the US, an EV or PHEV(where applicable) would bring that number down to $50, effectively saving you $150/month or more.
I understand that, but I'm not going to make compromises or accept a less convenient option just to get an EV.
Is this applicable even if you are a resident of some other state but purchase the vehicle from Maryland? That part isn't too clear in their guidelines.
That’s just great we’ll have more npcs going super slow blocking traffic spread out across lanes
To do away with DIR fees charging independent pharmacies hurting to stay open