Featured EV inventories at 2x industry Avg?

i agree with the article about tax credits. perusing websites for various manufacturers inventory, and seeing pricing starting around 50k and increasing rapidly, it's a non starter compared to a m3 base around 30k.

 

That's just plain funny. Under 30 days probably has some meaning in inventory-management land, but in the real world every Toyota HV or PHEV is pre-sold when it arrives to a months long waiting list.

 

it's certainly not funny to the manufacturer - Toyota, as it's a glaring failure to adequately secure the necessary supply chain of batteries for building their traction packs. Not enough traction packs means less $$ for the manufacturer. That enables stealerships' disgusting behavior - price gouging - thousands above MSRP, which leaves bitter tastes in buyer's mouth - which makes otherwise loyal buyers look elsewhere to other manufacturers. Example ;
We traded in Lexus & Toyota hybrids for plugin chrysler minivan & a plugin chevy because way limited toyo plugin inventory enabled ripoff sales tactics at toyota.
.

 

Lol... Only poor people think that they have to work hard and earn their money because that's what all the rich people who stole their wealth tell them. As long as we have obedient people like you the disparity of wealth will get worse and worse and justice and equality and especially democracy will be lost and you'll keep thinking that you just aren't working hard enough rather than you got robbed and didn't even know it.

 

The terminology of remaining supply of vehicles based on an estimate of time in days or months is dishonest phrasing the Toyota Stealerships make up to help sell cars faster. It's not a standard measure, nor is it honest.

 

This sounds like pure politics and nothing about cars.

By the way your math is far off. The federal incentives are far higher than if you split up the 1000 richest and distributed equally to everyone else. Not sure what kind of dictator could do that, rich people would just move if one country tried it on their own. Look at the brain drain in russia right now because of the war.

 

didn't england have a 95% tax rate in the sixties?

 

Ours was pretty high in the 50’s during the largest bought of prosperity in our history.

 

The US had a top bracket rate 91% up to 1963. Income for that bracket started at $400k, which is over $4 million today.

It was cut the next year to.......

77%

That cut actually stimulated the economy. Not because the rich went and invested it or started a new business, but because they simply had more money to spend on stuff(things and services). Using money to 'create jobs' as supply siders claim would happen, was likely already a deduction before the cut, so didn't need a cut to happen.

The tax cuts in the 1980's had little to no impact, because the rich could only spend so much on stuff in a given year. So the money ended up in a bank or the market. There it doesn't do as much good for the economy as moving around being spend on stuff.

https://taxfoundation.org/historical-income-tax-rates-brackets/
That goes way back.

 

Nice to know that you support obscenely rich people and are convinced they haven't stolen your piece of the pie event though they have. I'm sure they'll sleep more comfortably tonight knowing that stealing the wealth of 8 billion has your unequivocal support and you'll continue to support their outrageousness no matter how much poorer they make you.

 

Or maybe he's saying that Priuschat has a politics specific forum, and that he doesn't want this specific thread banished to there.

 

Please take your politics out of this forum.

I am offended that you think that my parents that grew up poor - my father an orphan - and worked hard to make it into the middle class are suckers, and you should be handed everything. Then you get offended that I won't join your crusade.

 

Wealth inequality is very real. It's not political, it's a huge problem that's way more than political.

 

Wealth inequality is very real, I don’t think anyone would say it isn’t.
Wealth inequality not only is political, it is 100% created by the politics of the governing body.
It is a worthy topic, and I would welcome a topic of it, in the Politics forum.

 

It's political & historical. 99% of people throughout history for 1,000's of yrs were poor & 1% were wealthy. Nothing new Under the Sun. We are blessed modernly there are so many that are NOT in abject poverty during the last 150 ish yrs. Even modernly - we remember - 2nd Thessalonians 3:10

.

 

"Wealth inequality" in the USA is not as bad as in Russia.

Bob Wilson

 

Socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor. Seriously, the wealthy get all the tax breaks while we poor folk have to foot the bill with higher taxes or failing infastructure. It's not even a question of taking money from the rich. It's asking that they pay their fair share. I don't know what tax bracket you fall into, but I can guarantee that Jeff Bezos, who probably makes at least a hundred times more than you, pays less in taxes than you.

My dude, most people don't want handouts. I don't want handouts. I bet PriusCamper doesnt want handouts. What most of us want is our fair share. The same opportunities the baby boomer generation had. The ability to buy a house at a reasonable rate. The ability to support oneself on even a minimum wage job. The ability to pay for college working only a part-time job flipping burgers. To be able to reasonably afford healthcare without bankrupting oneself.

Federal minimum wage was last raised in July 2009 to $7.25. Accounting for inflation, that would be worth $10.18 in 2023. How is it a handout for wages to match inflation?

I am not sure about many things in life, but one thing I am sure of is that no billionaire will go to bat for you like you are going to bat for them.

 

as a boomer, interest rates were 13% when i first wanted to buy a house

 

I had to pay 14.5% and I thought I was lucky because a good friend paid 17 or 18% a year or two before.
But at least I didn't have to walk uphill in the snow, both ways to get to the bank to make my payments.
They had invented mail by then. And we didn't have snow.

Mike

 

I clearly responded in post #4 and Post #5 with an analysis of the article, as well as an analysis of the source of the article and how the writer was poorly spinning it. The reply that you are referencing is devoid of this context because it was a responce to someone who was trolling me me with right wing political rhetoric. And again the discussion isn't about politics it's about the chart I posted that points out where to cut the most carbon emission while inconveniencing the fewest number of people. I will post it again: