SB 106-16: Energy Cost Reduction Act of 2021 (Failed)

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

In addition to what Senator WD said, why exactly would we want to tax electric vehicles? If anything, doesn't it make more sense to tax non-electric vehicles and gas and subsidize electric vehicles to make them more affordable?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

In addition to what Senator WD said, why exactly would we want to tax electric vehicles? If anything, doesn't it make more sense to tax non-electric vehicles and gas and subsidize electric vehicles to make them more affordable?

The idea is to give an incentive for the building of infrastructure while simultaneously reducing the cost. So yes, subsidizing electric vehicles would be necessary as well. There should be no new taxes involved.

Then why does your bill do exactly that with taxes on "electric vehicles and tolls"?

Also, Federal highway tolls are generally prohibited under current law. I will not support changing that and I will never support tolls.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I had to explain this like thirty different times on Discord, but the laws of economics dictate that when you tax something, consumers buy less of it, because even if the tax is indirect, it is still built into the price. This is a very basic law of economics. With the subsidy, the most we can expect is to break even.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I had to explain this like thirty different times on Discord, but the laws of economics say that when you tax something, consumers buy less of it, because even if the tax is indirect, it is still built into the price. This is a very basic law of economics. With the subsidy, the most we can expect is to break even.

What the president means to say is that he doesn't support subsidizing electric vehicles.

As opposed to what you're saying to consumers which is, "Buy electric vehicles! It's cheaper, we'll tax you!".

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I have told Spark I am willing to raise the gas tax. Otherwise, I don't see in what universe it makes sense to directly tax the people for the benefits that you're giving them (and may not even be constitutional) and only screwing over the environmentally conscious consumer instead of shifting the cost burden of renewables toward fossil fuels, which is the only viable economic strategy if you want more renewables. The bill as it stands just doesn't make sense.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I don't understand - who exactly is the electric vehicle subsidy going to? I have troubled understanding if the text means a subsidy to producers or one to consumers.

It is being provided to producers of electric cars.

Well, I will say that that sounds less useful than a subsidy to buyers if the objective is to encourage people to buy electric vehicles.

Spark and I had a (very long) back-and-forth about supply vs. demand, during which he argued that government promoting and advertising electric vehicles would be enough offset any increase in price, in addition to the subsidy, which makes no sense if you're trying to shift the cost burden from one energy source to another. I also said that if anything we should be giving tax credits to consumers who buy electric vehicles instead of tax increases (which would normally be built into the final price of the vehicle) but Spark seemed more interested in supply via bailing out Ford, despite the fact they recently announced a plan to build new plants and create thousands of jobs in the country.

A subsidy or tax benefit for consumers would make more sense. Car companies build more as private demand increases, and to my knowledge there isn't a shortage of electric vehicles. Just not enough people who can afford one.