From 
:
The Volt, G.M.’s Plug-In Car, Gets a $41,000 Price Tag
By Nick Bunkley
DETROIT — General Motors on Tuesday put the base price of its Chevrolet Volt, a plug-in car capable of driving about 40 miles on battery power without using gasoline, at $41,000 before a $7,500 federal tax credit.
G.M. had kept the Volt’s price a secret since introducing the model as a concept more than three years ago, though executives had hinted that it would cost about $40,000.
The price is substantially more than the starting price of $32,780 for the Nissan Leaf, a fully electric car that goes on sale in December.
Why is it that Government General Motors, mostly owned by the United States government, is putting out this much-ballyhooed electric car at a price that only those on whom President Obama promised to increase taxes can afford it? And why is it that the federal government is providing tax credits of $7,500 to buy the damned things?
Consider what’s being done here. GM is producing this car, supposedly the wave of the future, but at such a price that only the very well-to-do can afford it.
Even if you approve of the notion of a federal tax credit for buying a particular type of car — and I certainly do not — you don’t actually get that tax credit until you file your income taxes. Even if you are going to get a big $7,500 tax refund for having bought a Volt, that refund is going to come months, maybe even a year, after you bought the car. And that means you have to pay the $41,000 purchase price your self, through your down payment and the remainder that you finance.
So, let’s ask the honest and simple question: just how many working-class Americans can afford to buy a $41,000 new car?
I don’t approve of welfare, but at least when it comes to welfare for the poor, I can understand it: they need the help. But this, this is welfare for the well-to-do. The people who can afford to buy a Chevy Volt are precisely the people who do not need welfare, are precisely the people to whom we shouldn’t be giving welfare. Yet if you make $165,000 and have a nice garage in which you can park your Volt — it has to be near an electric outlet, remember — the federal government will give you a $7,500 break on your income taxes.
Of course, I also wonder about the Nissan Leaf mentioned in the article. Significantly less expensive than the Volt, it’s closer to with the price range of the working class in the United States. But is the United States government going to be giving out $7,500 income tax credits to people who buy foreign cars?
Yup! There is no requirement that you buy an American car to get the American tax credit.
I have absolutely no problem with electric cars or hybrids or anything like that. If manufacturers want to build them, and consumers want to buy them, more power to them! But the government shouldn’t be skewing the market by providing incentives to buy them, and the government shouldn’t be giving welfare to the well-to-do to buy them.
So, let’s ask the honest and simple question: just how many working-class Americans can afford to buy a $41,000 new car?
If you taxed the 1% richest in America an additional 5% or so – which would still leave them taxed less than in most other Western countries, and leave them taxed far less than they were in the boom years of America’s growth, you could afford to subsidise the price of those cars down to the point where every middle class household could afford to replace one gas-burner with them.
Which would mean a better environment, less demand for gas, and an economic stimulus spread throughout the widest section of society.
But I don’t want to tax the highest producing 1% an additional 5% or so, whether I think they can afford it or not, nor do I want the government subsidizing the purchase of electric cars; that shouldn’t be the government’s business! If people want to buy electric cars or hybrids, fine, let them; I sure wouldn’t penalize them for doing so. But I wouldn’t reward them, either. Individual choice and the free market should decide these things, not politicians.
And while an electric car or plug-in hybrid would have less demand for gasoline, they would create more demand for electricity; they don’t roll for free. You replace the exhaust fumes from a gasoline engine with the exhaust fumes from a coal-burning power plant! Tell me how that helps.
It goes 40 miles on a charge, assuming no traffic. And it has a gas charging engine. So, if you want to use it for work, only live 15 miles away. I think I can get get 5 miles out of my scooter on a single charge, and it only cost $1500.
First prototype:
I live 6.7 miles from work, and I could, if I wanted, park it over by the go-rage and plug it in. The company could pay my sparktricity bill for the car, but how that would be different from just pumping company gasoline into my truck is beyond me.
But I don’t want to tax the highest producing 1% an additional 5% or so
I didn’t say the “highest producing”, I said the “richest”. This comes back to my challenge for you to tell me exactly what Goldman Sachs produced and all you could do was splutter “Wealth!”.
Individual choice and the free market should decide these things, not politicians.
The “free market” doesn’t capture cost externalisations, Dana. I notice that you have no objection to the state providing the roading on which to drive your “free choice” of an automobile rather than leaving it to the market to provide.
And while an electric car or plug-in hybrid would have less demand for gasoline, they would create more demand for electricity; they don’t roll for free.
As I understand it, the carbon cost of delivering energy via electrictiy is cheaper than hauling gas to petrol stations. And, of course, not all electricty is produced by coal burning – which is a seperate policy issue.
A straight carbon tax (with or without carbon credits) would be better. but as a one-off stimulus, taxing the rich to ensure a wide-spread shift to electric cars sounds like a reasonable idea.
The richest normally are the highest producing; that’s how they got rich! However, since we tax income and not wealth, we are taxing production far more directly than wealth.
But it is not an American idea. I understand that in more liberal European countries, and perhaps even in the former English colonies in the southwest Pacific, such an idea might fit in more with their cultural norms, but it just doesn’t here, and we don’t want it to.
Nor, quite frankly, do we really want “a wide-spread shift to electric cars.” The conditions in the United States are simply different, with a lot more miles between home and work and recreation than many other developed nations have. If there were an alternative to the petroleum engine that produced the same horsepower and independence as the petroleum engine, we’d go with that, but little toy electric cars simply are not us.
Correction Dana, you don’t want it to. There are tons of us that would like nothing more than to see the US get to the point where we can sustain our own energy needs. Things like electric cars do that for us. To put it in terms that ropelight can understand: If you buy American made electric cars you are defeating terrorism.
The richest normally are the highest producing; that’s how they got rich!
No, the rich usually have other people working for them; that’s how they get rich. Want me to show you the stats?
But it is not an American idea.
Because Americans don’t emit carbon? Because America isn’t on the same globe that is heating up? Because America’s atmosphere and climate is completely isolated from the rest of the world? Help us out here…
How’s your constant interference in the Middle East in pursuit of control over oil reserves working out for you, anyway? I seem to recall some unpleasantness a decade ago from a Saudi who was a little miffed at your presence in his country…
And, again, what exactly does Goldman Sachs produce?
First, there are enough known oil reserves in the US that we could become a net exporter of oil instead of a net importer. Along those lines, if the fed would allow tapping the oil shale and business didn’t have to worry about the fed disallowing it at a later date, the tech would advance enough that oil shale would become much less expensive to refine.
Second, on the Marxist tangent: “what exactly does Goldman Sachs produce?” Business need investors and investors seek out businesses in which to invest. Goldman Sachs makes this possible. Businesses win, investors win, consumers win, employees win, retirees win.
[...] oil is depleting quickly enough to force alternative efforts. Hurrah to the Chevy Volt…and here’s hoping Dana Pico learns what an early adopter is! It’s somewhat expensive now, but the economies of scale are amazing things, aren’t [...]
Exactly what I told you they produce: they produce wealth! Goldman Sachs and other financial services companies are in the business of helping people invest their money in ways which provide a greater return, for both the investor-client and for the investment firm.
I understand that those who cling to the labor theory of value can’t comprehend that.
The wealthy usually have other people working for them because they worked harder and smarter earlier; call it a force multiplier if you will, but unless someone has just won the lottery, wealth in families has been produced by someone — sometimes an earlier generation — being harder working and smarter than others.
And of course Americans emit carbon! If y’all in New Zealand think that’s just such a hideous threat, we Americans will not begrudge you one bit if y’all want to take steps, even drastic steps, to reduce your carbon emissions. Please, feel free! But that doesn’t mean that we want to change our lifestyles over your concerns.
Well, go right ahead! Feel free to buy a Volt, JW. If you can afford it, I have absolutely no objections to you buying one. I do object to the government taxing me to help you buy one, though.
Yorkshire: “First, there are enough known oil reserves in the US that we could become a net exporter of oil instead of a net importer.”
So, you’d be upset at being locked in an airtight room to die, but you’d be okay about it if you found a door to another room of your prison because it doubled your air supply?
To be more clear: Oil is finite. We’re running out. We need an alternative.
The Volt is embarrassing. The United States can’t even develop a car as good as the Prius, and we’re trying to leapfrog over that technology straight to pure electric. It’s a step in the right direction, though.
Dana, if you’re upset about taxpayer subsidies for electric cars, how do you feel about subsidizing oil companies, who have grown fat over the single most profitable enterprise in history? How would you feel about shifting all that money to the R&D effort to develop better electric cars and/or refunds for buyers?
Nangleator wrote:
I would feel better if every industry was treated the same. As for R&D, private industry should do that, not the government.
Nagleator wrote:
Actually, the Volt’s concept is good: straight electric drive, with a gasoline engine to recharge the batteries if they get low, and plug-in when they need some charging, but not enough to kick in the gasoline engine. When you see a diesel locomotive go past, that’s exactly the same concept: electric drive, with the diesel engines powering generators. Whether or not Chevy has engineered the Volt well, I do not know, but it certainly seems as though they engineered it for the high-end market.
Nangleator says:
29 July 2010 at 8:32 am (Edit)
Yorkshire: “First, there are enough known oil reserves in the US that we could become a net exporter of oil instead of a net importer.”
Nang, that was John Hitchcock’s quote.
Whistler’s mother’s favorite son wrote:
Y’all have a 39-seat majority in the House of Representatives, and a 59-41 seat majority in the United States Senate, but it’s the Republican’s fault y’all couldn’t pass
a huge tax increase on the American peoplecrap and trade?If c
rap and trade can’t gain the support of a single Republican senator, when we have several RINOs in the Senate, have you ever considered that it might be because it’s a bad idea?Dana: “If crap and trade can’t gain the support of a single Republican senator, when we have several RINOs in the Senate, have you ever considered that it might be because it’s a bad idea?”
This is not necessarily true, because unfortunately, majority rule does not apply in the US Senate, and you know it!
If not cap and trade, how do you propose addressing the global warming problem that will impact both of your daughters, their children, and their children’s children. Or do you not care, Dana?
Perry wrote:
Well, in less than 96 days, we will be having yet another election, and there are 36 seats up in the United States Senate, almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Y’all need only a one — or two, to be on the safe side — net gain to produce the filibuster-proof majority you seem to want. If the American people agree with you, you’ll get it; if they don’t, you might see a bit of slippage in your majorities.
What y’all wanted to do was pass a huge tax increase — indirectly, of course, but a tax increase nevertheless — on the American people, on their utility bills, and on the prices that they’d have to pay for most of the things they have to buy, because corporations would have to pass their increased costs down the line. Are you really surprised that it wasn’t popular with the public?
“Nang, that was John Hitchcock’s quote.”
Sorry about that.
Dana: “Actually, the Volt’s concept is good”
Yes, the embarrassing part is the price compared to value. You could buy a hybrid for that price, and have plenty left over to improve your home’s energy efficiency.
Nangleator wrote:
As for R&D, private industry should do that, not the government.
Spoken like someone who’s not in the research field
I’d like to see a lot of research money coming from private industry, but the truth is that’s not going to happen. Companies will fund research that is likely to directly lead to a product, and they do so fairly well now, but the frontier stuff that leads to that research being possible? No company is going to fund that. Government-funded research on fundamentals and frontier technology leads to the kind of research that companies can invest in. Very few of the late-20th century technological innovations that made our country the leader it is could have occurred if not for government-funded research at the outset, and very few technologies that we could produce going forward are going to happen without government-funded research. In that respect, all industries are treated the same – chemical engineering researchers, for example, get money for research on oil, biofuels, photovoltaics, fuel cells, etc.
“Nang, that was John Hitchcock’s quote.”
Sorry about that.
No problem, stuff happens
Volt’s a POC. Chevy only needs a few buyers to accomplish its goals – they’re not going to make money off mass-producing this thing yet. If it gets out there and works, they know they can invest some money in improving it and making it cheaper.
Hitchcock: “First, there are enough known oil reserves in the US that we could become a net exporter of oil instead of a net importer. Along those lines, if the fed would allow tapping the oil shale and business didn’t have to worry about the fed disallowing it at a later date, the tech would advance enough that oil shale would become much less expensive to refine.”
There are a lot more challenges than cost that will have to be dealt with regarding transitioning to oil shale, one of which is a show stopper!
1. Global warming: Oil shale is a carbonaceous fuel that emits the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide upon combustion. This is a show-stopper!
2. Environmental Impact: Mining oil shale involves a number of environmental impacts, more pronounced in surface mining than in underground mining. They include acid drainage induced by the sudden rapid exposure and subsequent oxidation of formerly buried materials, the introduction of metals into surface-water and groundwater, increased erosion, sulfur-gas emissions, and air pollution caused by the production of particulates during processing, transport, and support activities.[9][10] In 2002, about 97% of air pollution, 86% of total waste and 23% of water pollution in Estonia came from the power industry, which uses oil shale as the main resource for its power production.Oil-shale extraction can damage the biological and recreational value of land and the ecosystem in the mining area. Combustion and thermal processing generate waste material.Some commentators have expressed concerns over the oil shale industry’s use of water. In 2002, the oil shale-fired power industry used 91% of the water consumed in Estonia.
3. Energy Return on Energy Investment: Oil Shale has the lowest EROEI of all the fossil fuels, in fact, mush lower.
4. Yield: Although it varies, typical yields of oil from shale is about 200 pounds per ton of shale. That’s 10%. What do we do with the 90% waste?
These issues are much more complex than you realize; it is not only about cost, which was the only challenge you addressed.
I repeat my question, which you ignored, Dana: “If not cap and trade, how do you propose addressing the global warming problem that will impact both of your daughters, their children, and their children’s children. Or do you not care, Dana?”
Dana: “But that doesn’t mean that we want to change our lifestyles over your concerns.”
Global warming is obviously a global concern, one to which you need to pay attention, instead of coming out with arrogant statements like the above.
I understand that GM is going to re-introduce the car later this year and rename it the “Re-Volt”!
“Look who’s running GM”! The only running this clown is doing is in place!
PiaToR: “As I understand it, the carbon cost of delivering energy via electrictiy is cheaper than hauling gas to petrol stations. And, of course, not all electricty is produced by coal burning – which is a seperate policy issue.”
I had not heard this before, and would be interested in where you ran across it, since it is a very important statement regarding electric cars.
Incidentally, about half of our nation’s electricity is generated by burning coal, the dirtiest of all fuels, both in the extraction and in the combustion – not so good!
I like the hybrid approach (which I have), because it squeezes out 15-20% more miles per gallon, good for the environment, good for the wallet (compared to my former vehicle, an Expedition). For the $5K more I paid for the hybrid compared to the non-hybrid, at about 15K miles per year, it took me 2.5 years to pay that cost differential back in fuel cost savings.
rename it the “Re-Volt”!
Good one!
“I do not know, but it certainly seems as though they engineered it for the high-end market.”
Gotta pay those union workers!!!!!
Here’s something else to piss you off, Dana – despite having lower emissions than the Prius plug-in, the Volt will not qualify for CA’s tax credit for… some reason.
Which workers are those? The ones that still have jobs because of the president? The ones still pumping money into the economy?
You’ve got no problem with a CEO of a failing company to get huge bonuses, but you don’t want union workers getting what they fought for? You don’t want them paid for their hard work? And you don’t want them getting unemployment when they lose their jobs? And you don’t want them on welfare when they’re destitute?
The right wing mind at work.
I understand they’re thinkin’ about calling it the Yorkie, it works best if you live at the top of a big hill and own a pick-up truck to drag it home. I hear there’s an alternative fuel version due out soon, runs on lemonade.
“You’ve got no problem with a CEO of a failing company to get huge bonuses, but you don’t want union workers getting what they fought for? You don’t want them paid for their hard work? And you don’t want them getting unemployment when they lose their jobs? And you don’t want them on welfare when they’re destitute?”
Typical leftist response.
I was just stating why I believe the car costs so much.
As far as the union worker, I say let them fight for what they believe they’re worth. But when the company goes belly up, let’s not bail them out via the taxpayer.
There you go again Dana, pointing out inconvenient facts, gettin’ in the way of an already well established talkin’ point. Big time Journalistas and their pissant blog echo relayers can’t let a carefully crafted song and dance be disrupted by irrelevant evidence they’re lying like dogs.
It upsets their holier-than-thou posturing and throws their self-esteem balancing act all out of kilter.
Firstly, you are still confusing money and wealth.
Secondly, really? I mean really? Are you really as ignorant as you make out, or just being disingeneous?
I was just stating why I believe the car costs so much
Yup – and you’d be factually wrong in your belief. As with most wingnut beliefs.
Well, one solution would be to ban moonbats from spewing hot air into the atmosphere, or we could make Obama’s MMS enforce the off-shore drilling standards, or we could tell Nasty Nancy she can’t have her own jet, or we could put a time clock in the Oval Office so Obama couldn’t pop off for vacations and golf outings willy nilly, or we could sign up Barney Frank at weight watchers.
There are lots of ways to mock global whoring, and it’s fun too, and is one of the most effective ways known to man for improving the planet and the well-being of all the creatures who call it home.
Citation please !!!!
Money is a measure of wealth, and a storage system for wealth; earning money is producing wealth.
Why, I propose that, if the world is really warming slightly, that we will survive it, as we always have done. The world has been warmer than it is now before, including times when human beings were alive. It was at least this warm in Roman times, as an example. And human beings have shown a remarkable ability to survive and thrive in every climate, from dry deserts to tropical rain forests to frozen tundra.
What I would not do is to impoverish people deliberately for some cockamamie scheme. If other nations wish to impoverish themselves, well, that’s up to them.
Why, I propose that, if the world is really warming slightly, that we will survive it, as we always have done. The world has been warmer than it is now before, including times when human beings were alive. It was at least this warm in Roman times, as an example. And human beings have shown a remarkable ability to survive and thrive in every climate, from dry deserts to tropical rain forests to frozen tundra.
Climate myth: It’s been far warmer in the past, what’s the big deal?
Climate myth : It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
Climate myth : It’s too cold where I live – warming will be great
You state “we will survive it, as we always have done”. Mankind has only been around for 3 million years or so, about average for a mammalian species before it goes extinct. Further, primate species are not particularly robust in evolutionary terms and don’t tend to last long – your assumption that we are “survivors” is based on little evidence.
And you ignore the fact that for much of our life-span, we were about 10 million people dressed in fur shivering in caves and hiding from predators. Even if mankind survives, civilization may be considerably more fragile. There are currently 7 billion people on this planet; a die-back of only 1 or 2 billion of them would involve wars in which your country is a prime target.
NO, Dana, it is not.
Money is a token of exchange which acts as a measure for wealth and a storage system for value. It can act well for those tasks or it can act badly for those tasks. When an economy rewards those who manipulate money more and more and those who produce less and less, the difference between money and wealth starts becoming pathological.
Goldman Sachs produces very little, if anything. It gets most of its money through manipulation – cf “frontrunning”. It does not materially contribute to the wealth of your society to any great extent, and the fact that it is so rich is ultimately a burden on your entire country.
uhm, its fugly. ill keep mine. thank you anyhow.
*ever see the southpark episode with all the liberals driving prius’s” they called them “pius’s” that was one funny episode…….. lol
for your friday evening comic pleasure:
#ChevyVoltSlogans- Pay No Attention to Those Negative Reviews, They’ll Change After We Bail Out the Car Magazine Industry
#chevyvoltslogans- For those of us who can’t afford $7 million yachts.
#ChevyVoltSlogans- The Car of the Future! The Bleak, Beige, Hope-Free Future
#ChevyVoltSlogans- The First Car Designed by Poli Sci Majors, Supervised By Escaped Drug Experiment Monkeys
#ChevyVoltSlogans- Ass, Grass, or Government Cash – Nobody Rides Free
#ChevyVoltSlogans- With No Carbon Monoxide, It’s the Only Car that Will Prevent the Same Owner Suicide Attempt It Will Inevitably Cause
#chevyvoltslogans- I can haz a lolcar
#ChevyVoltSlogans- Birth Control on Wheels
#ChevyVoltSlogans- Rahm Emmanuel Designed the Cupholders
#ChevyVoltSlogans- Gov’t Motors: You’ll Have To Buy It To Find Out If You Can Use It
#chevyvoltslogans- took my chevy to the levy and the battery died
#ChevyVoltSlogans -With mileage comparable to the Motorola Droid.
and my personal favorite is….
#ChevyVoltSlogans – Chevy Volt. Because any other car would be racist.