Since you can't control the offer's existence, I understand. If you like it and want to do it, more power to you. Personally I don't like paying for other people's cars, but that's just me.
I'm simply pointing out why EVs aren't taking off. They are expensive, limited in range, and generally not very appealing to most buyers.
Sure, they'll sell a few, and they are, but that is all they'll sell. The uptake rate won't go anywhere until the price comes down $10K and the range triples.
When will that happen? Who knows, but it won't be next year.:)
---
As a side note, I'm well aware that in select limited use cases, an EV can make sense today. Someone with a 40 mile each way commute with a place to plug in at both ends, who doesn't need to drive anywhere else (second car), and high gas prices, an EV can make sense, even at today's prices, if you plan to keep it for 5+ years.
That being said, that is a rather narrow use case, most people want more flexibility and the reality is that you can go lease a Toyota Corolla or Ford Fusion for $199 a month with nothing down and have no range worries. Both cars get great gas milliage and while both might cost more over 3 years to drive than a Leaf, they won't cost THAT much more.
What is the removal of range concerns worth?
What would it cost to give the Leaf a 200 mile true range in all conditions with the AC cranked to max when the battery is 3 years old?
The problem is that a Fusion does that today, for the same monthly price and doesn't require tax payer money to make that happen.
But that's just it... it is a terrible car for a second vehicle...
For half the price you can get a perfectly nice second car. Yes the Leaf saves on gas to drive, but power isn't free and the payback period is still way longer than most people will keep it.
Sure, using other people's money, it appears cheaper, but it really isn't and until it is, it is a terrible option.
You're a fan, we all get it... that's fine, enjoy it if you like it...
The sales numbers do not lie, people don't want EVs today, at least not beyond the most dedicated fanboys...
That day may come, and that is fine. The price has to come way down and the range has to go way up for that to happen however. When the Leaf is $20k without rebates and has a 200 mile range, they'll start moving in more volume.
The Leaf isn't really $20k, and that is for the base model with nothing in it.
That $32,500 "average" car is larger and nicer inside than a Leaf is as well, and has no range issues.
For under $20k, you can buy very nice new cars about the same size and equipment as the Leaf, with no issues or funny tax dollars trying to make it work.
I know, you're a fan, more power to you, but the reality doesn't match the fantasy.
You want proof? EVs were 0.7% of new vehicle sales in the US in 2014. The fanboys are buying them, but pretty much no one else. That number might grow to 1 or 2 percent over the next 3 years, but it won't go mainstream until the cost comes down and the range goes up.
Yes, it really is... your saying it isn't doesn't make it so. But I won't bother addressing the rest of your post because you weren't listening the last time and won't this time.
We had a real problem in Sweden that physicians (M.D.'s) only worked 6 months a year because that was enough to sustain them for the other 6 months and the government would take 75% of what they earned the other 6 years. So we had a shortage of doctors.
We had that problem back in the 50's when the US tried a super high tax rate.
Ronald Reagan talked about it, actors back then would work for 3 months and then take the rest of the year off, because most of what they earned after that was taken by the government, making it pointless to earn more.
A 75% tax rate is just criminal, the idea that the state is entitled to 75% of whatever you produce beyond a given point is evil.
The laws changed and you can no longer discharge debt less than 100k.
Just for the record, this isn't true.
There is a means test, which is put into place to try and keep people from discharging debts they could otherwise pay.
My brother went through this 2 years ago after his divorce and he had to do a chapter 13 because he failed the means test, he makes enough that he can pay something towards his debts.
If you're well and truly broke without an income, then chapter 7 discharge is still an option.
I'm in pretty bad shape financially. I had 3 close family members get hit with major illnesses all at once. I'm still recovering and I'm not sure I ever will.
I'm sorry to hear that, but that is what bankruptcy is for. A fresh start. If you're that far in the hole, it may be time to hit "reset" and start over.
Zero is a better number to start from than negative $100,000, just as an example.
Now take a Donald Trump. No matter how greedy he is there's only just so much he can buy. At some point his money is just sitting around, doing nothing. He'll invest some of it, lose some of it, etc. But He's only got so much time in the day to do that. Eventually it becomes a war chest laying around doing nothing.
Except, that isn't how it works. That money is doing something, somewhere, all the time. No, he doesn't have it in a shoe box.
It is also not sitting idle in a bank account, but even that has benefits to the balance sheets of a bank. It is in investment companies being invested into new companies that will create jobs.
If you have a job, it is likely due to those millions creating it. If it wasn't, then you could go create jobs yourself, but you can't because you're poor.
If the above sounds complicated it's because it is. That's what makes cutting the marginal tax rate so seductive. It sound like an easy answer to the world's problems. Supply side economics, right? But there really is a reason we called them Voodoo Economics...
It isn't complex at all.
The thing is, most people don't have a major problem with a millionaire paying 30% taxes while a poor person pays 10% taxes. The real issue is that some people want poor people to pay no taxes (that is a horrible idea, everyone should have some investment into the system) and rich people to pay 90% taxes (that is a horrible idea, people will go to any lengths to avoid such taxes).
The real question is: "How high can you raise marginal tax rates before people either stop bothering to earn more (thus not creating any more jobs), or before they take whatever measures are required to avoid paying them (see Apple and company with fancy accounting).
So to double the fleet would take at least a decade.
It would not be the response to a sudden emergency, but to a longer term assessment of the strategic situation.
You go to war with the military you have, not the one you want.
10 years might as well be infinity. Our leaders are not in office that long, decisions are simply not made that far in advance.
We learned from WW1 and WW2 that you have to build the military first, not after the war has started. We got lucky, but the world is smaller today.
It is quite possible our standing army has prevented wars over the past 50 years, but you can't prove a negative. I'd hate to find out the hard way however.
Surprisingly enough, the production line is not gone, though it is shut down. The decision to shutdown production was coupled with a deliberate decision to preserve the F-22 production capability for possible reactivation. The estimated cost for reactivation of the mothballed line is on the order of 200 million dollars, the cost of one or two aircraft.
If you think it really can be restarted for $200 million (this is the US Military Industrial Complex we're talking about), then I've got a bridge to sell.
If we have 1 to 2 years warning, sure, we might be able to do that...
500, perhaps 700, would have been a good force number...
You station 120 in Europe, 120 in Asia, 120 are in for upgrades, heavy overhaul, mx, etc., and the rest are based in the US.
As it stands, they are a token force, much like the B2 bombers.
Ask the Germans how effective their ME-262 jet fighters were in 1944. They were 100 mph faster than anything we had, nearly untouchable, but they just couldn't build enough of them.
When you find the missiles don't work, don't track, and can't keep up with a next-gen fighter, what do you do? Call it names?
A cannon has the benefit of always working, only physically moving out of the way helps, but the rounds are fast enough to make that a challenge.
The gun is also useful against ground targets, you run out of guided missiles and bombs really fast, but a good gun with a lot of ammo can take out a lot of ground vehicles.
The F-35 doesn't have enough ammo to be useful anyway, they either need 600+ rounds in there or drop the idea of the gun.
What fucking planet do these military industrial parasites and hawks live on where they believe that the next War of Any Size will involve dogfighting? Fucking unbelievable the complete and total disconnect from reality.
Go look in the mirror... you might be shocked at who is disconnected from reality...
If we end up, for whatever reason, going to war with Russia or China, there will be a LOT of dogfighting involved to control the skies.
The Russians have some very nice planes that can do that, and can stand up to our F-15 and F-16.
Our F-22 is likely better than anything they have, but we simply don't have enough of them.
Frankly, it would likely be much cheaper and just as effective to buy some of those for the US Air Force rather than the F-35.
The F-35 is too small to do all that it is asked to do. It doesn't carry enough bombs, it doesn't fly fast enough, it isn't stealthy enough, and it isn't a dogfighter.
Two engines, not one, are needed to really be an effective plane. Yes, the F-16 is a great airplane, once you already have effective control of the skies, but you need the F-15 to get that control.
The F-22 wasn't built in large enough numbers to provide that.
But how many US pilots have been in an actual dogfight since, say WWII.
Really? WWII?
How about... A LOT!
Korea and Vietnam, they were a regular occurrence... Even in the first Gulf War we were in a bunch of dogfights the first week.
Sure, if we keep bombing third world countries, we don't need a modern fighter, but if we ever go up against anyone who has an actual air force, we're gonna wish we had one.
Slashdot Mirror
How about we also remove all those oil subsidies
Sure, I'd be happy to remove them all... except, there aren't any...
The oil companies get the same tax breaks for capital investment everyone else gets, nothing new there...
Oh, and also the cost to the environment from burning fossil fuels
That is another conversation... Perhaps there should be a cost for that, however if the money goes into the general fund, then it just gets wasted...
If the money from the tax could be tagged to only going to environmental cleanup, you'd get more support for it, but it never works out that way.
let's see, how much will it cost to move everyone out of Florida?
Now who is the troll? If all the ice in the world melted Florida wouldn't be underwater. Your Democrat talking points are showing.
I'd call you a troll, but that would overstating the case, and it's possible you're something stupider, like a republican.
So... your Democrats are somehow better? Give me a break and stop drinking the Koolaid.
Since you can't control the offer's existence, I understand. If you like it and want to do it, more power to you. Personally I don't like paying for other people's cars, but that's just me.
I'm simply pointing out why EVs aren't taking off. They are expensive, limited in range, and generally not very appealing to most buyers.
Sure, they'll sell a few, and they are, but that is all they'll sell. The uptake rate won't go anywhere until the price comes down $10K and the range triples.
When will that happen? Who knows, but it won't be next year. :)
---
As a side note, I'm well aware that in select limited use cases, an EV can make sense today. Someone with a 40 mile each way commute with a place to plug in at both ends, who doesn't need to drive anywhere else (second car), and high gas prices, an EV can make sense, even at today's prices, if you plan to keep it for 5+ years.
That being said, that is a rather narrow use case, most people want more flexibility and the reality is that you can go lease a Toyota Corolla or Ford Fusion for $199 a month with nothing down and have no range worries. Both cars get great gas milliage and while both might cost more over 3 years to drive than a Leaf, they won't cost THAT much more.
What is the removal of range concerns worth?
What would it cost to give the Leaf a 200 mile true range in all conditions with the AC cranked to max when the battery is 3 years old?
The problem is that a Fusion does that today, for the same monthly price and doesn't require tax payer money to make that happen.
My point is that you may be paying $200 a month, but that isn't what the leasing company is receiving.
Without the huge government tax credits, that car is a $30K vehicle that would lease for about $440 a month with nothing due at signing.
Think of it this way. Imagine if the government was willing to pay $400 of the payment.
Then you could say, "OMG, go lease a Leaf, they are only $40 a month!".
But that would be silly, wouldn't it?
But that's just it... it is a terrible car for a second vehicle...
For half the price you can get a perfectly nice second car. Yes the Leaf saves on gas to drive, but power isn't free and the payback period is still way longer than most people will keep it.
Sure, using other people's money, it appears cheaper, but it really isn't and until it is, it is a terrible option.
From East to West?
It is quite possible it would never arrive, or if it did, could take months.
My BMW X3 is quieter than a Leaf at highway speeds. and it has a 3 Liter V6.
Yes I know this is a fact. Rode in a friends leaf, they are not quiet unless they are sitting still.
^ This is the truth...
You're a fan, we all get it... that's fine, enjoy it if you like it...
The sales numbers do not lie, people don't want EVs today, at least not beyond the most dedicated fanboys...
That day may come, and that is fine. The price has to come way down and the range has to go way up for that to happen however. When the Leaf is $20k without rebates and has a 200 mile range, they'll start moving in more volume.
That, and when they aren't butt ugly of course. :)
The Leaf isn't really $20k, and that is for the base model with nothing in it.
That $32,500 "average" car is larger and nicer inside than a Leaf is as well, and has no range issues.
For under $20k, you can buy very nice new cars about the same size and equipment as the Leaf, with no issues or funny tax dollars trying to make it work.
I know, you're a fan, more power to you, but the reality doesn't match the fantasy.
You want proof? EVs were 0.7% of new vehicle sales in the US in 2014. The fanboys are buying them, but pretty much no one else. That number might grow to 1 or 2 percent over the next 3 years, but it won't go mainstream until the cost comes down and the range goes up.
Yea, we have two people in our neighborhood who have Leafs. Nice idea, but the reality doesn't match the pretty numbers fans like to toss out.
I leased an egolf for $200/month
No, you didn't.
You leased an eGolf for $440 a month, the taxpayers are paying $220 a month of your payment, leaving you with $200 left.
Clearly that can't happen for anything but a very small fraction of the new car buyers or that tax incentive will go away in a big hurry.
The next question is, would you have leased it if you actually had to pay the real payment of $440 a month?
No it's not. It's really not.
Yes, it really is... your saying it isn't doesn't make it so. But I won't bother addressing the rest of your post because you weren't listening the last time and won't this time.
So carry on...
We had a real problem in Sweden that physicians (M.D.'s) only worked 6 months a year because that was enough to sustain them for the other 6 months and the government would take 75% of what they earned the other 6 years. So we had a shortage of doctors.
We had that problem back in the 50's when the US tried a super high tax rate.
Ronald Reagan talked about it, actors back then would work for 3 months and then take the rest of the year off, because most of what they earned after that was taken by the government, making it pointless to earn more.
A 75% tax rate is just criminal, the idea that the state is entitled to 75% of whatever you produce beyond a given point is evil.
The laws changed and you can no longer discharge debt less than 100k.
Just for the record, this isn't true.
There is a means test, which is put into place to try and keep people from discharging debts they could otherwise pay.
My brother went through this 2 years ago after his divorce and he had to do a chapter 13 because he failed the means test, he makes enough that he can pay something towards his debts.
If you're well and truly broke without an income, then chapter 7 discharge is still an option.
I wish I could give you a million mod points...
Finally someone who gets it. Way too many people think that if we take money from rich people, poor people suddenly won't be poor.
That just isn't true.
This doesn't mean rich people shouldn't pay taxes, of course they should. But there is a limit to how much you can take before it becomes a problem.
I'm in pretty bad shape financially. I had 3 close family members get hit with major illnesses all at once. I'm still recovering and I'm not sure I ever will.
I'm sorry to hear that, but that is what bankruptcy is for. A fresh start. If you're that far in the hole, it may be time to hit "reset" and start over.
Zero is a better number to start from than negative $100,000, just as an example.
Now take a Donald Trump. No matter how greedy he is there's only just so much he can buy. At some point his money is just sitting around, doing nothing. He'll invest some of it, lose some of it, etc. But He's only got so much time in the day to do that. Eventually it becomes a war chest laying around doing nothing.
Except, that isn't how it works. That money is doing something, somewhere, all the time. No, he doesn't have it in a shoe box.
It is also not sitting idle in a bank account, but even that has benefits to the balance sheets of a bank. It is in investment companies being invested into new companies that will create jobs.
If you have a job, it is likely due to those millions creating it. If it wasn't, then you could go create jobs yourself, but you can't because you're poor.
If the above sounds complicated it's because it is. That's what makes cutting the marginal tax rate so seductive. It sound like an easy answer to the world's problems. Supply side economics, right? But there really is a reason we called them Voodoo Economics...
It isn't complex at all.
The thing is, most people don't have a major problem with a millionaire paying 30% taxes while a poor person pays 10% taxes. The real issue is that some people want poor people to pay no taxes (that is a horrible idea, everyone should have some investment into the system) and rich people to pay 90% taxes (that is a horrible idea, people will go to any lengths to avoid such taxes).
The real question is: "How high can you raise marginal tax rates before people either stop bothering to earn more (thus not creating any more jobs), or before they take whatever measures are required to avoid paying them (see Apple and company with fancy accounting).
So to double the fleet would take at least a decade.
It would not be the response to a sudden emergency, but to a longer term assessment of the strategic situation.
You go to war with the military you have, not the one you want.
10 years might as well be infinity. Our leaders are not in office that long, decisions are simply not made that far in advance.
We learned from WW1 and WW2 that you have to build the military first, not after the war has started. We got lucky, but the world is smaller today.
It is quite possible our standing army has prevented wars over the past 50 years, but you can't prove a negative. I'd hate to find out the hard way however.
Not sure what the point was, or why you replied to me...
I said the F-22 was the best in the air, but we simply don't have enough of them. I'd rather have 1,000 F-15/F-16 fighters than 100 F-22 fighters.
170 or so that we have, just isn't enough for a major war.
We probably should have done just that, bought 500 F-22 Raptors and filled in the gaps with the F-16/F-18.
Once you have control of the air, you can use the older planes, to some extent.
The F-35 is an amazingly expensive airplane for something that can't actually do anything well.
Surprisingly enough, the production line is not gone, though it is shut down. The decision to shutdown production was coupled with a deliberate decision to preserve the F-22 production capability for possible reactivation. The estimated cost for reactivation of the mothballed line is on the order of 200 million dollars, the cost of one or two aircraft.
If you think it really can be restarted for $200 million (this is the US Military Industrial Complex we're talking about), then I've got a bridge to sell.
If we have 1 to 2 years warning, sure, we might be able to do that...
What happens if we have 6 weeks warning?
How many would have been the "right" number?
500, perhaps 700, would have been a good force number...
You station 120 in Europe, 120 in Asia, 120 are in for upgrades, heavy overhaul, mx, etc., and the rest are based in the US.
As it stands, they are a token force, much like the B2 bombers.
Ask the Germans how effective their ME-262 jet fighters were in 1944. They were 100 mph faster than anything we had, nearly untouchable, but they just couldn't build enough of them.
Numbers matter...
When you find the missiles don't work, don't track, and can't keep up with a next-gen fighter, what do you do? Call it names?
A cannon has the benefit of always working, only physically moving out of the way helps, but the rounds are fast enough to make that a challenge.
The gun is also useful against ground targets, you run out of guided missiles and bombs really fast, but a good gun with a lot of ammo can take out a lot of ground vehicles.
The F-35 doesn't have enough ammo to be useful anyway, they either need 600+ rounds in there or drop the idea of the gun.
Which is like bragging about Pluto because it's closer to the Sun than to Proxima Centauri.
Ahh, we've sent probes to Pluto... We can do so again and again...
We aren't even in the realm of dreaming of sending probes to Proxima Centauri...
So, Pluto ain't half bad...
What fucking planet do these military industrial parasites and hawks live on where they believe that the next War of Any Size will involve dogfighting? Fucking unbelievable the complete and total disconnect from reality.
Go look in the mirror... you might be shocked at who is disconnected from reality...
If we end up, for whatever reason, going to war with Russia or China, there will be a LOT of dogfighting involved to control the skies.
The Russians have some very nice planes that can do that, and can stand up to our F-15 and F-16.
Our F-22 is likely better than anything they have, but we simply don't have enough of them.
http://www.militaryaerospace.c...
Frankly, it would likely be much cheaper and just as effective to buy some of those for the US Air Force rather than the F-35.
The F-35 is too small to do all that it is asked to do. It doesn't carry enough bombs, it doesn't fly fast enough, it isn't stealthy enough, and it isn't a dogfighter.
Two engines, not one, are needed to really be an effective plane. Yes, the F-16 is a great airplane, once you already have effective control of the skies, but you need the F-15 to get that control.
The F-22 wasn't built in large enough numbers to provide that.
But how many US pilots have been in an actual dogfight since, say WWII.
Really? WWII?
How about... A LOT!
Korea and Vietnam, they were a regular occurrence... Even in the first Gulf War we were in a bunch of dogfights the first week.
Sure, if we keep bombing third world countries, we don't need a modern fighter, but if we ever go up against anyone who has an actual air force, we're gonna wish we had one.