published Sunday, March 11th, 2012

Typical buyer of subsidized Chevy Volt earns $170,000 per year

You may already know that buyers of the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid electric vehicle get a huge, $7,500 tax credit from the federal government.

But did you hear what General Motors CEO Dan Akerson recently said about the income level of the people who buy the Volt?

"The average purchaser of a Volt is earning $170,000 a year," Akerson told The Associated Press.

So even if your income is far lower than $170,000 and you have no interest in buying the Volt -- which has proved unpopular with consumers -- you are still having to help pay the cost of the vehicle for people whose average annual pay is $170,000!

The Volt has also gotten massive federal assistance for production and development, meaning its total subsidies per vehicle run well into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Does that seem like a wise federal "investment" of your tax dollars in the interest of promoting "green" vehicles?

20
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
328Kwebsite said...

I'm surprised you forgot to rant against their free parking spaces with free recharging stations in the primo parking spaces curbside at TVA.

Next door to what used to be the Free Press Garage and motorpool, was TVA's motor pool. Back in the 90s TVA had fully operational all electric pickup trucks built on Ford F150 chassis. With electric engines, they would really move.

Electric vehicles have been parking next door to the newspaper for almost 20 years. I guess y'all don't get out of Editorial much. You might want to try a walk around the block to pick up some facts.

March 11, 2012 at 12:33 a.m.
conservative said...

Let's see if any of the usual suspects will rail against giving taxpayer subsidies to the rich even though the car is promoted by Obamination.

March 11, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.
rick1 said...

conservative, good point and what the editroial failed to mention is that Obama wants to raise the tax credit up to $10,000 for the Volt. If that doesn't increase sales Obama will require all of us to purchase one.

March 11, 2012 at 9:34 a.m.
conservative said...

There is something bad wrong when the federal government has to pay people $7,500 to purchase a car.

March 11, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.

As bad as when the federal government has to pay a company to drill for oil from a well that will make them millions of dollars?

Get rid of oil subsidies first.

March 11, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
Plato said...

It's strange the when Republicans whine about tax rebates for electric vehicles the only vehicle they ever mention is the Volt. The BMW i3, Ford Focus Electric, Honda Fit, Nissan Leaf and others also qualify for tax rebates but are never mentioned.

The purpose of the rebates is simply to allow the manufactures of cars and components primarily the batteries, to reach the economies of scale that will allow vehicles to reach a price point where consumers will buy them. Electric vehicles reduce our dependency on foreign oil, do not pollute and have a smaller carbon footprint that gasoline powered vehicles.

Once there is a clear cost/benefit that favors the consumer which will occur so long as gas prices trend upward and the cost of the vehicles decline, these vehicles will reach significant sales volume which will be a big help to our economy and our national security - which after all is governments roll.

March 11, 2012 at 11:18 a.m.
conservative said...

Plato....... The article was about the Volt and no one has claimed to be a Republican. However, if you assume Republicans are opposed to giving their money to others ( here the rich ) to buy a car they could already afford, then I would agree, but I don't see anything "strange" about that.

You then stated : "The purpose of the rebates is simply to allow the manufactures of cars and components primarily the batteries, to reach the economies of scale that will allow vehicles to reach a price point where consumers will buy them."

You got that one right! No one is buying them, relatively speaking, so the feds are robbing poor Peter to pay rich Paul before even rich Paul will buy one.

I don't believe for a second that you want us to be less dependent on foreign oil any more than refuse to drill Obamination. Unless your driving privilegies have been withdrawn you drive or depend on gas powered transportation just like the rest of the railers against oil.

Your playing the national security card is laughable. You oppose more drilling but our national security will depend on oil far beyond your lifetime. A Passat that gets 43 mpg, has more room, doesn't need charging, and cost $26,000 with a four month waiting list is prefered over the Volt by a longshot.

March 11, 2012 at 2:49 p.m.

Yeah, you just say everything the Republicans do, follow their every command, but no, you're not a Republican at all.

Why should we believe that for a second?

But hey, if oil is so profitable, why are we subsidizing production to the tune of 4 billion a year?

March 11, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.
rick1 said...

Bulbs let's get rid of all energy subsidies and let the free market work it out. This would include ending subsidies for Oil, Gas, Coal, Nuclear, Ethanol, Biodesiesel, Wind, Solar, Hydropower, Biomas, and Geothermal.

March 11, 2012 at 3:54 p.m.

rick1, well at least that position would have more integrity, but until you make sure you account for the externalities, I'm going to pass on deregulation.

March 11, 2012 at 4:21 p.m.
Plato said...

Con - you get it wrong again.

No one is being "robbed" to pay for EVs including the Volt. The government is simply incentivizing their purchase by offering tax breaks just like they have done in the past for home insulation and solar panel purchases. Your taxes won't go up one dime because of this.

Why would any American not want less dependance on foreign oil? Do you think I enjoy watching trillions of dollars and American lives squandered in the MidEast? Domestic oil production is up 11% under Obama and was down 15% under Bush. Therefore your allegation that Obama is against drilling is not supported by the facts:

http://www.enviroknow.com/2011/05/15/oil-production-up-under-obama/

The difference between my outlook on energy and most other reasonable moderates compared to yours and the far right is you think drilling is the ONLY answer, while we believe responsible, safe drilling, along with other energy sources like nat gas, electric, nuclear, solar and wind all work together to form an energy mix to reduce the dependency on foreign imports.

You did get one thing right, petroleum will likely always be with us not only as a fuel, but also in numerous other application from making paint, furniture, vinyl interiors, pvc pipe, solvents, fertilizers, chemicals etc. but it's a finite resource and it is getting more expensive all the time to pump. Therefore the most prudent energy policy would call for us to conserve oil so we will have it for the things we need in the long term.

March 11, 2012 at 4:23 p.m.
conservative said...

OK Plato, I will concede that the rich who purchase the Volt will get a $7,500 Tax Credit which means they will have to send the feds $7,500 LESS in taxes. So in a strict sense the $7,500 is not directly coming out of Peter's pocket and going into Paul's. However, the difference is going to come out of someones pocket, probably mine

Also, I strongly suspect you are a member of the crowd who believes the rich already do not pay their fair share of taxes. This crowd pays little or no income taxes but benefit from the programs which are funded by the rich. They strongly believe tax cuts for the rich takes money out of their pockets.

Obamination has all but stopped new drilling on federal land. He has been unable to stop drilling on private property. The supply of oil must keep up with the demand for oil or oil prices will skyrocket. We must drill to keep up with the demand.

Your crowd opposes nuclear, and has opposed drilling for natural gas. Wind and solar is so expensive it will only contribute a pittance to national needs for a long time. The kooks will hold up the eyesore windmills forever with lawsuites and enviornmental studies. Solar is also a joke.

We don't have a shortage of oil or natural gas here or in the world, just an artificial one because of the obstacles your crowd imposes on our country.

March 11, 2012 at 6:41 p.m.

Hey conservative, did you ever look up how many of the no-tax paying crowd you so despise were senior citizens? Disabled?

But you think there's no shortage today? What about tomorrow? What is your estimate of US oil reserves? How long will it last at expected consumption levels?

March 11, 2012 at 6:55 p.m.
Plato said...

Con - you aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with a fictional stereotype figure from the far left that the right wing media has created in your mind. I'm sure that type person exists but I'm not one of them.

Yes I am part of the crowd that thinks the rich should be taxed a little more, but the caviet' is, I'm in that tax group and like many others in that group have spoken out for more tax fairness.

Lastly apparently you didn't even bother to fully read my post that you responded to. Had you done so you would have realized that I am an advocate of both nuc power and nat gas, contrary to your assertion that I'm part of your (imaginary) crowd that opposes these things.

Try to find you way into the real world and discuss things with real people - not strew men that you can easily knock over.

March 11, 2012 at 7:56 p.m.
conservative said...

PLATO :

Perhaps you have not listened to Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Obamination, the OWS crowd to name a few and the kooks that comment both here and the cartoon page. The fiction is in their minds, not mine.

I want to test you on your willingness to discuss things. Tell me who the rich are, how much more in taxes they should pay and what is their "fair share" or even define "fair share". Remember, you are on record in favour of a $7,500 dollar tax cut for those making $170,000 per the article.

March 11, 2012 at 8:37 p.m.

conservative, that's a foul, trying to push a question on another, when you still have that challenge applied to your bottom 50% who you protest against.

You have to answer the question on your table first.

March 11, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.
Plato said...

Con - the topic was energy and the electric vehicle. You have now leaped over that and landed on tax policy which is very different animal. You also have a very interesting way of contorting what I said into something quite different.

The only thing I have to say about taxes is we really need comprehensive tax reform, elimination of loopholes and a fairer way to fund the government. Our present systems is full of waste, unnecessary complexities and abuse. I'll just leave it at that.

March 11, 2012 at 9:34 p.m.
conservative said...

PLATO :

You wrote at 7:56 PM : "Yes I am part of the crowd that thinks the rich should be taxed a little more, but the caviet' is, I'm in that tax group and like many others in that group have spoken out for more tax fairness."

Then at 9:34, you wrote : "Con - the topic was energy and the electric vehicle. You have now leaped over that and landed on tax policy which is very different animal." ---- You wrote those words, they were not mine. You brought up tax fairness.

Also at 7:56 PM you wrote : "Try to find you way into the real world and discuss things with real people - not strew men that you can easily knock over".

I was willing to discuss your idea of what "tax fairness" was and wrote at 8:37PM : "I want to test you on your willingness to discuss things. Tell me who the rich are, how much more in taxes they should pay and what is their "fair share" or even define "fair share". Remember, you are on record in favour of a $7,500 dollar tax cut for those making $170,000 per the article."

You signed off with general thoughts on taxes that anyone could say whether they were very Conservative or very Liberal. I will sign off as well, but I would love to find out from you are anyone who writes of "tax fairness" or "fair share" what they have in mind. Feel free to define it to me in the future.

March 11, 2012 at 10:15 p.m.

conservative, why aren't you defining what you want now, can't you lead by example?

You've already been called on it, and remained silent.

Now's your chance to show virtue.

March 11, 2012 at 10:16 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.