US tax credits and the pending bill [Warning: NO POLITICS]

[rickinAZ]

So basically you're saying that because "Social Security" and "Socialism" both have the word "social" in them, they are the same thing?

Wait a minute...aren't you the guy who was a finance expert yesterday when explaining that an extended warranty company can pay out more than they take in and still stay afloat?

All of that said, I've seen your posts and appreciate your Jeep knowledge.

Let's agree to disagree.

Sponsored

 

[entropy]

The Rivian weighs in at 8577 lbs and pays zero, literally nothing, to up keep the roads it is destroying. That thing weighs more than my Cummins dually at 7700 lbs. It’s a luxury $80k vehicle that we shouldn’t be subsidizing when this country still has hungry kids and homeless veterans.

This country has its priorities so messed up. And that’s the thing, convenience and vanity will always take a front seat to the environment. As I said above, we don’t need to subsidizing luxury EVs for the wealthy. Incentivize work from home and make an immediate difference. If we really cared our EVs wouldn’t be luxury vehicles - they would be simple electric Smart cars.

How many people on here swap their cars out like shoes? You have to drive an EV for more than 7 years to start reducing the carbon footprint it takes to make them. The Tesla battery is only warrantied for 8 years for a 70% degradation. That’a just when the EV starts to help reducing its carbon footprint. What person is going to buy an 7 year old vehicle that has lost 30% of its capability?

I agree. incentivizing work from home would cause a way bigger impact than subsidizing luxury vehicles. This bill is absurd.

Also gas powered vehicles have come such a long way in terms of pollution and thermal efficiency. Sure you can still buy a V8, or a jeep, or any other vehicle that eats gas. But have you seen what the new sedans get? I am getting 45~50mpg on my 2020 Camry while commuting. The car performs really well too.

A Camry is a car that the middle class can afford. I paid like 21k for it before taxes, yeah I did get a huge discount but they're still under 30k. Why would they subsidize a 60k + EV but not my Camry?

But anyway, I think this money should be redirected to other things. Like incentivizing work from home.

 

[TheRaven]

Wait a minute...aren't you the guy who was a finance expert yesterday when explaining that an extended warranty company can pay out more than they take in and still stay afloat?

All of that said, I've seen your posts and appreciate your Jeep knowledge.

Let's agree to disagree.

Never said I was a finance expert. I'm an engineer, and as a result, a technology expert.

Aren't we all pretty versatile guys? I'm sure you know a lot about some things too. Just different things than me. For example - i'm no good at cooking/baking, teaching, video games, basketball or soccer. There's a lot more than that but i'm also not good at lists.

I agree. incentivizing work from home would cause a way bigger impact than subsidizing luxury vehicles. This bill is absurd.

Also gas powered vehicles have come such a long way in terms of pollution and thermal efficiency. Sure you can still buy a V8, or a jeep, or any other vehicle that eats gas. But have you seen what the new sedans get? I am getting 45~50mpg on my 2020 Camry while commuting. The car performs really well too.

A Camry is a car that the middle class can afford. I paid like 21k for it before taxes, yeah I did get a huge discount but they're still under 30k. Why would they subsidize a 60k + EV but not my Camry?

But anyway, I think this money should be redirected to other things. Like incentivizing work from home.

And this is how you can see proof for yourself that the the climate change fight is all political. You notice pretty quickly that all the proposed "solutions" require spending our money...whether that's at a consumer level or a public level...it's always "you need to buy this thing/service to save the planet". Any solution that involves less of something is immediately wiped from the table - because less for us means less (profit) for them.

Working from home was brushed aside because it means less profit for many sectors - transportation, real estate, energy...etc. It's a huge reduction across the board and does massive good for the environment. Remember it was briefly and quietly noted in the national news cycle last year that the shutdown had immediately noticeable environmental effects. If everyone working from home can make a noticeable difference in 30 days imagine what years would do. But they haven't figured out how to profit from us working from home so that's not a viable "solution" at this time.

 

[JoeBanks]

Joe, as long as you are personally willing to bypass Social Security and Medicare, I will see you as firmly anti-socialist. When you step up to the microphone, you need to have the courage of your convictions...and I will fully respect that. Otherwise, it's just lip service.

If you respond, so that we can see your dedication, please confirm your intention to waive off Social Security when you turn 65.

Let's get back to Jeeps! BTW, welcome to the forum. There is a ton of great information to be had here. [and...the members occasionally disagree, but that's cool]

LOL! I’d gladly forgo both social security and medicare AFTER the money TAKEN FROM me is returned. ???

 

[PocketsEmptied]

LOL! I’d gladly forgo both social security and medicare AFTER the money TAKEN FROM me is returned. ???

Add back the interest I would have made and adjust for it for inflation and I'd gladly take that deal as well.

 

[rickinAZ]

Add back the interest I would have made and adjust for it for inflation and I'd gladly take that deal as well.

Me too.
My problem that I would have lost all of my self-funded-retirement money during the dot-com bust and I'd be reduced to stealing spare tires that the owners forgot to secure with wheel-locks. Wait...that's another thread. Disregard.

 

[Newbalewb]

LOL! I’d gladly forgo both social security and medicare AFTER the money TAKEN FROM me is returned. ???

Kinda funny you think like that while younger people are contributing to it not knowing if they'll even be able to get much out of it.

 

[rickinAZ]

Kinda funny you think like that while younger people are contributing to it not knowing if they'll even be able to get much out of it.

Right now taxpayer contributions stop after income exceeds $143K. I've seen analysis that, by removing that hard ceiling, more than half of the SS funding shortfall is fixed. Seems like a relatively painless fix, even for the 2%ers.

 

[Jocko]

I agree. incentivizing work from home would cause a way bigger impact than subsidizing luxury vehicles. This bill is absurd.

Also gas powered vehicles have come such a long way in terms of pollution and thermal efficiency. Sure you can still buy a V8, or a jeep, or any other vehicle that eats gas. But have you seen what the new sedans get? I am getting 45~50mpg on my 2020 Camry while commuting. The car performs really well too.

A Camry is a car that the middle class can afford. I paid like 21k for it before taxes, yeah I did get a huge discount but they're still under 30k. Why would they subsidize a 60k + EV but not my Camry?

But anyway, I think this money should be redirected to other things. Like incentivizing work from home.

So, to me, I think this actually illustrates why subsidizing the EV market is the right thing to do. Everything you said about your Camry perfectly illustrates why it was exactly the right choice in the here and now and why you (and millions of others) buy them.

But, fossil fuels are a limited resource. There will come a time when that ICE Camry simply won't be an option anymore as fuel runs out. Either we work on those new propulsion systems now or we wait until closer to the end. If we start now, presumably whatever it is you must buy in that post-ICE world will be all the better because of the extra time we've had to iterate on it.

By incentivizing EVs, the market has artificially grown way more than it otherwise would have (since otherwise people would keep making the logical choice and "buying the Camry"). Due to the artificial growth of the market, manufacturers are jumping onboard and this is leading to a huge increase in R&D, startups and real world experience that will accelerate and improve these new technologies as we slowly draw closer to a time where ICE becomes a niche propulsion system.

When that time does eventually come, I think we'll be glad that we got a head start on advancing the technology. It's the same reason that I don't pay much heed to the fact that the majority of our power grid is still dirty energy. I view those as two separate problem spaces that can be worked on in parallel. I.E. we don't need to have the automative engineers sit around doing nothing until our grid is someday mostly clean. Let's advance on all fronts as best we can.

 

[TheRaven]

But, fossil fuels are a limited resource. There will come a time when that ICE Camry simply won't be an option anymore as fuel runs out. Either we work on those new propulsion systems now or we wait until closer to the end. If we start now, presumably whatever it is you must buy in that post-ICE world will be all the better because of the extra time we've had to iterate on it.

If this is true, then we have a predicament. We have to decide which is more important - preparing for the extinction of gasoline, or reducing our carbon emissions. Because the preparation choice requires pushing EVs into service at a time when they are still worse than ICE vehicles. If we truly want to reduce carbon emissions, we continue to refine ICE vehicles until both battery tech and infrastructure tech have made EVs the clear-cut better choice.

The truth is that we have more than enough fossil fuel stores to support us well beyond the point where we can responsibly switch to EVs, even in the worst case scenario...but this is a good discussion nonetheless.

 

[OINC]

And this is why we can't have discussions on world issues that don't devolve into political bickering. People can't tell the difference between politics and everything else anymore.

As a student of science holding two degrees in the discipline, and a long time weather enthusiast, I can tell you that THIS is what science says about climate change (that's relevant to the conversation):

<snip>

EVERYTHING ELSE - the idea that we know we are primarily responsible for climate change, the idea that we know how we can fix it, the idea that thousands of scientists can ever agree on something, the idea that there is this global conspiracy to use climate change as a vehicle to enslave humanity, the idea that a 3 degree change in GAT will cause human extinction...IS ALL POLITICS.

Don't misunderstand me - i'm not your opponent here. I'm not against reducing humanity's carbon footprint. I AM against handing hundreds of billions of dollars to rich people who use clever and complex marketing to scare us out of our money. They have no interest in helping us or the planet.

Thousands of scientists certainly can and do agree on things. Special and general relativity. The "laws" of thermodynamics. In fact, there's a whole host of things that we take for granted now because thousands of scientist agreed and continue to agree on them.

In any case, your assertions of what "science" says come without any proof. So, no offense, but I will continue to rely on climatologists and the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals for my understanding of what "science" says over a "weather enthusiast" on the internet.

(Side note -- there is a different group of rich people with a vested interest in stopping the transition from fossil fuels because we, as a society and as a government, are currently handing them hundreds of billions of dollars annually. They too are mounting a well-funded campaign to keep things the way they are because they don't want the tap to be redirected.)

There is no comparison between now and the 1960s. That was a completely different world. You might as well be comparing 2021 in America to the Roman empire. You are dead on that that spirit is gone...it was shipped out to Asia in the last part of the 20th century. We no longer have the ability to just make things happen like we used to because back then, the entire supply chain was under our roof. Now it barely comes near our roof. Furthermore, we now rely on tech to develop tech. That wasn't the case 80 years ago when it was our "best and brightest" that did the development. These days we need the tech to develop the tech to develop the tech. The idea that "all we need is money" is obsolete.

I have other theories as to why that spirit seems to be gone (hint: the supply chain thing is a symptom but not a cause), but yes, it's a different world from fifty years ago. I want to believe that we are not so far gone as a nation that we can't pull together and do hard things any more, but maybe I'm wrong on that. We certainly failed the test of the pandemic, that's for sure.

 

[TheRaven]

Thousands of scientists certainly can and do agree on things. Special and general relativity. The "laws" of thermodynamics. In fact, there's a whole host of things that we take for granted now because thousands of scientist agreed and continue to agree on them.

No. You are talking about scientists agreeing on past research. Completely different. I am talking about scientists, doing their own current research, and coming to agreement. The claim is that thousands of climate scientists who all study climatology agree. That's entirely unprecedented in the field of science period. Let alone in progressive fields like weather and climate. Without getting into a long discussion about how unique the study of climate is, you are never getting climatologists to agree like that and even if they did, it would be meaningless to us.

This is not even brushing on the fact that the "scientific consensus" trope has long been debunked in every form. But again, that's politics, so it needs to be addressed elsewhere.

In any case, your assertions of what "science" says come without any proof. So, no offense, but I will continue to rely on climatologists and the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals for my understanding of what "science" says over a "weather enthusiast" on the internet.

Normally I would encourage this. But it's obvious that what you mean by "climatologists and the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals" is what political media tells you that "climatologists and the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals" said...and that's not remotely science. I implore you to stop going to news outlets and "non-profits" to get your science and start going directly to the science itself.

(Side note -- there is a different group of rich people with a vested interest in stopping the transition from fossil fuels because we, as a society and as a government, are currently handing them hundreds of billions of dollars annually. They too are mounting a well-funded campaign to keep things the way they are because they don't want the tap to be redirected.)

On this we agree but it is important to note that all sides of this debate have the same interest. Green energy is the same as big oil. Both are huge interests that have their claws deep in our political system and are driving our government. The fight is indeed over massive amounts of money, as you alluded.

I want to believe that we are not so far gone as a nation that we can't pull together and do hard things any more, but maybe I'm wrong on that. We certainly failed the test of the pandemic, that's for sure.

WE didn't fail the test of the pandemic, our leaders did. I suppose you could argue that we failed by putting too much trust in our leaders, but I don't look at it this way. Our government (and this applies to all levels and both parties) completely blew the response to the pandemic and continued to do so even after we had far better visibility and data on what was happening.

But I do think that the political fallout from the horribly botched response should prove that any ability for the American public to "pull together" towards a common cause is gone for good. That's not happening anymore and that's the way they want it. The more divided we are the more scared we are, and the more scared we are the more they can profit from us.

 

[OINC]

No. You are talking about scientists agreeing on past research. Completely different. I am talking about scientists, doing their own current research, and coming to agreement. The claim is that thousands of climate scientists who all study climatology agree. That's entirely unprecedented in the field of science period. Let alone in progressive fields like weather and climate. Without getting into a long discussion about how unique the study of climate is, you are never getting climatologists to agree like that and even if they did, it would be meaningless to us.

This is not even brushing on the fact that the "scientific consensus" trope has long been debunked in every form. But again, that's politics, so it needs to be addressed elsewhere.



Normally I would encourage this. But it's obvious that what you mean by "climatologists and the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals" is what political media tells you that "climatologists and the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals" said...and that's not remotely science. I implore you to stop going to news outlets and "non-profits" to get your science and start going directly to the science itself.

It's not completely different, but thanks.

I do tend to review papers in journals; I'm no stranger to how scientific research works. In addition, there are several meta-analyses of published climatology papers, also published in journals; these show the research converging on support for anthropogenic climate change. (Yes, "consensus" is a bad fit as a word for what happens, but it's the word we use. It's like "could care less" or "literally" -- not technically correct but current vernacular.)

Regardless, your "sheeple" trope (admittedly dressed in fancier words) is tired, condescending, and more than a little annoying. Try harder.

WE didn't fail the test of the pandemic, our leaders did. I suppose you could argue that we failed by putting too much trust in our leaders, but I don't look at it this way. Our government (and this applies to all levels and both parties) completely blew the response to the pandemic and continued to do so even after we had far better visibility and data on what was happening.

But I do think that the political fallout from the horribly botched response should prove that any ability for the American public to "pull together" towards a common cause is gone for good. That's not happening anymore and that's the way they want it. The more divided we are the more scared we are, and the more scared we are the more they can profit from us.

We are our government, our nation, and our leaders. If our government failed (which it did), then we failed. Trying to separate "we" from "our government" is part of the problem, too. "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" and all.

And the infamous "they" of story and song makes an appearance.

At the end of the day, this has turned into https://xkcd.com/386/ so I bid you farewell and good Jeeping, internet stranger.

 

[TheRaven]

Regardless, your "sheeple" trope (admittedly dressed in fancier words) is tired, condescending, and more than a little annoying. Try harder.

I said nothing about "sheeple", nor did I intend to. Again, staying away from politics.

We are our government, our nation, and our leaders. If our government failed (which it did), then we failed. Trying to separate "we" from "our government" is part of the problem, too. "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" and all.

This a fair argument however. I don't look at it this way but I can't say you're completely wrong either. My complaint about this sentiment is that we are literally no longer allowed to do our duty as voters. We don't even have the choices we would need in order to do so and all avenues down which to get those choices have elaborate roadblocks in place. Our government is not representative of us. But yes, it is technically our job, even if we have long abandoned it.

 

[Jocko]

If this is true, then we have a predicament. We have to decide which is more important - preparing for the extinction of gasoline, or reducing our carbon emissions. Because the preparation choice requires pushing EVs into service at a time when they are still worse than ICE vehicles. If we truly want to reduce carbon emissions, we continue to refine ICE vehicles until both battery tech and infrastructure tech have made EVs the clear-cut better choice.

The truth is that we have more than enough fossil fuel stores to support us well beyond the point where we can responsibly switch to EVs, even in the worst case scenario...but this is a good discussion nonetheless.

I agree with that, but I'm looking at it as a catch 22. The EVs are currently worse, but will there be enough drive to improve them if we don't start getting them out there in the first place. My hope is that we figure out how to improve them now while they are still a relatively tiny part of the overall vehicles on the road. So then when we do reach that critical point and we really do have to switch en mass, hopefully those vehicles will be much better environmentally speaking due to the lessons we learn in the near future.

Sponsored