The real deciding factor has always been, and will likely always be, which state gives them the biggest bribe. The rest of the stuff is nothing but noise.

They’re paying. It’s pretty simple. They’re promising ongoing subsidies worth up to $200 million per year - that assumes 13,000 jobs - that’s over $15,000 per year that they give to Foxconn.

Now, if you think Foxconn and their employees would pay $15,000+ in taxes to the state per employee per year, then you could…

Labor costs for a car today make up only a small % of the overall costs of a vehicle.

“Who was it that said “growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell”?”

Certainly not a real estate developer in Northern Kentucky where they’re pushing for nearly $4 billion in construction to add one lane’s worth of additional capacity to two highways simply to encourage more sprawl and development.

2nd:

We all know where the plant will be built - it will be built in the location that offers Toyota/Mazda the greatest taxpayer bribe. That’s pretty much how all of these decisions are made nowadays.

ULA already cut the costs of the Atlas V by 40% in just the past 5 years. A good portion of the cost difference we see is simply made up of contractual differences at this point - ULA was more expensive because we fixed a contract years ago before cost cuts and required rapid response. SpaceX you can get in line for…

It isn’t slightly higher - its much higher.

Cash for Clunkers peaked out at $4500. EV tax credits peak out at $7500. But that’s not the only subsidy there - because there have been subsidized loans and pollution credits that in some quarters have been worth more than the tax credits. Overall, you’re looking at 2-3x…

Not exactly. No one is really as shitty as BP (a real safety and environmental menace)

Their advertising is arguably false. Cars, not vehicles. And average domestic content is still lower, though they have some models that are high.

Checks the validity of your claims and finds out that its completely false, as the Focus was never built in Canada.

That’s pretty normal in any business... so cry me a river. Besides, fuel costs are a small % of overall construction costs. It isn’t like fuel going up 50% raises construction costs 50%.

I would agree with putting some portion towards properly maintaining existing infrastructure (we focus too much on expansion rather than maintenance, IMO).

But what I propose as a pigouvian tax wouldn’t necessarily “hurt the poors” at all -in fact, if you couldn’t afford a vehicle, you would still get the tax credit,…

You are correct... I was thinking too much on the business aspect.

You have no idea how economics works. If all companies face the same increased cost, they all can increase prices without losing competitive advantage.

1) True, but you can carryforward unused credits. So if your tax bill would have been $4000, and you had a $7500 credit, you can carry the remaining $3500 forward to the next year

2) Not at all true. Nothing prevents you from adjusting your withholding and claiming the money early. I did just that when I installed…

Oh, I’d go for far more than double.

I’d add an additional $3-4 per gallon, minimum (phased in). Make gas look really expensive, but give the money back via uniform refundable tax credits. Use less gas than average, you get more than you paid in. Use more, you get less. Everyone gets to freely choose their type of…

I never would have believed it, either - the newer ones look absolutely massive compared to the old, don’t they?

And I’m a huge fan of a giant pigouvian fuel tax increase used to provide uniform refundable income tax credits. You could make gas expensive, pushing demand to naturally go towards small vehicles, and at…

The entry cost into the market is already so mind-blowingly high that you don’t see new upstarts, regardless of increased fuel economy requirements.

You’re grossly underestimating the competitiveness of the business. It’s brutal - plain and simple. You don’t get new entrants because the cost to enter is high and the…

The old standards (pre-footprint) were weak and easy to meet. Automakers could bloat freely knowing they could still meet the standards.

The new standards, though, were designed to make it equally challenging for all vehicles, regardless of size, to increase fuel efficiency. So, yes, a 115 sq ft footprint would lead…

Like this?