Electric vehicles are 'direct wealth transfer' from owners of gas-powered vehicles to EV owners

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,608
2,369
113
.
If EV's are a good idea then why are ICE vehicle owners required to pay for them?

It is not a legitimate function of government to confiscate one person's money and give it to another person. The Constitution outlaws it as a "taking".

Electric vehicles are 'direct wealth transfer' from owners of gas-powered vehicles to EV owners, experts say

----------------------------------------------
Energy experts are warning about numerous potential issues for electric vehicles, including affordability, range, weather, infrastructure and economic concerns, even as the government and car companies increasingly push them on Americans.

Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA operations officer and host of the podcast "The Wright Report," told Fox News Digital that American society has shifted to EVs largely because some people are "just so hellbent on making sure that this transition happens, even if that means wrecking the economy, in terms of electricity, its reliability, the grid, getting brownouts or blackouts or economic wreckage by people who otherwise can't afford these new vehicles."

"That cost is being shouldered by buyers and car companies by raising the price of gas-powered vehicles, [which] is basically just a direct wealth transfer, just paying for EV subsidies and that will grow over time, if we continue to keep this regime in place," Brent Bennett, a policy director for Life-Powered, an initiative of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told Fox News Digital.

California, Wright said, is likely a "really sad test case" for what the rest of the country could face, where he said it currently costs about $250 an hour to service an EV. The state has made a strong push for EVs under Gov. Gavin Newsom, and Californians will by 2035 not be allowed to buy new gas-powered cars and light trucks.....
----------------------------------------------
.
 

Duffy LaCoronilla

Duke status
Apr 27, 2016
39,333
29,094
113
If ConserBBatives are upset about subsidies for EVs, wait until they find out about fossil fuel subsidies :violin:
I’m opposed to all subsidies but an argument can made for a government interest in the MOST IMPORTANT SUBSTANCE known to man (oil).
 

sizzld1

Phil Edwards status
Mar 31, 2009
7,384
1,365
113
I’m opposed to all subsidies but an argument can made for a government interest in the MOST IMPORTANT SUBSTANCE known to man (oil).
A case can be made for subsidizing both industries - or neither. Generally, I'm more for subsidizing emerging industries, rather than deeply entrenched ones that make billions in profit annually. But the selective outrage and absurdity underlying claims of a "direct wealth transfer" because of EV subsidies are what I was trying to highlight.
 

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,702
14,528
113
Is it, or is it not a fact?

Hint: It is.
None of it is a fact.
It even opens with a lie.

"Experts say" :roflmao:
Which ones? :unsure:

Fox "EXPERTS" LoL said:
Energy experts are warning about numerous potential issues for electric vehicles, including affordability, range, weather, infrastructure and economic concerns, even as the government and car companies increasingly push them on Americans.
 

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,702
14,528
113
Do you need an Expert to tell you that if government subsidizes something (i.e., gives you taxpayer money to buy your Tesla) that that is in fact, a Wealth Transfer?
So are we not going to talk about $40 billion in government subsidies for Big Oil?

That's not wealth transfer? :roflmao:

Subsidizing innovation, new technology and cleaner air, is at least useful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hump

Lance Mannion

Duke status
Mar 7, 2009
26,586
2,435
113
In Gods Country
So are we not going to talk about $40 billion in government subsidies for Big Oil?

That's not wealth transfer? :roflmao:

Subsidizing innovation, new technology and cleaner air, is at least useful.
You're deflecting, and you're assuming.

Govt "subsidizing innovation" is government picking winners.

This is problematic when the winning innovation that your govt picked is not actually a winner (EV's for example).
Are they going stop subsidizing?
No, they've doubled down on this idiocy by mandating the manufacture of EV's by a certain year.
It's great for jobs! (in China)

Since the Euro's are already triple down on this stupidity, the German auto industry is looking to die off, they can't produce an EV at a price point that will keep them afloat. Kraut's are expensive!
The Chinese can.
Oh, but VW/Merc/BMW are too big to fail!
Subsidize! What's a few trillion euro's +/- a few billion of (relatively) good money thrown into bad?

We'll just pluck The Money Tree that Barry O'Bama discovered!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: afoaf

plasticbertrand

Duke status
Jan 12, 2009
21,702
14,528
113
This is problematic when the winning innovation that your govt picked is not actually a winner (EV's for example).
Bull sh!t. The dumber the people are the more they hate EVs for no reason, other than made up ones.


Government is not "subsidizing" innovation and clean energy, it's incentivizing it.

Should be stop paying oil subsidies then, or is it just EVs you have a problem with, for some reason?
 

Mike_Jones

Tom Curren status
Mar 5, 2009
11,608
2,369
113
Bull sh!t. The dumber the people are the more they hate EVs for no reason, other than made up ones.


Government is not "subsidizing" innovation and clean energy, it's incentivizing it.

Should be stop paying oil subsidies then, or is it just EVs you have a problem with, for some reason?

Call government subsidies whatever you want. They represent an immoral, unconstitutional taking.
.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: plasticbertrand