California Rebates, etc.

[DarrenDonovan]

I thought the $2500 CA rebate is no more? Unless you're "low income", that is.

 

[michaellax]

I thought the $2500 CA rebate is no more? Unless you're "low income", that is.

You have it backwards: the rebate was eliminated for "high income" EV purchasers/leasees in CA.

 

[EastWestBrothers]

I thought the $2500 CA rebate is no more? Unless you're "low income", that is.

Funding bill was just passed last Friday. $140 million set aside to be used to fund the rebates. They can access the funds beginning October. Expect the flow of rebate checks to resume soon.

 

[michaellax]

I thought the $2500 CA rebate is no more? Unless you're "low income", that is.

Funding bill was just passed last Friday. $140 million set aside to be used to fund the rebates. They can access the funds beginning October. Expect the flow of rebate checks to resume soon.

The California rebates didn't end or otherwise stop; can you provide a link to the contrary.

This is a future funding bill.

 

[EastWestBrothers]

The California rebates didn't end or otherwise stop; can you provide a link to the contrary.

This is a future funding bill.

Funding ran low earlier this year so for everyone making greater than 3x the poverty level, the rebate was wait-listed. Now that the state legislature has approved additional funding, those on the wait-list will get their checks and the rest of us who apply going forward should get them until the funds run out again sometime next calendar year.

https://ngtnews.com/california-points-nearly-1-billion-toward-clean-transportation-funding

 

[michaellax]

The California rebates didn't end or otherwise stop; can you provide a link to the contrary.

This is a future funding bill.

Funding ran low earlier this year so for everyone making greater than 3x the poverty level, the rebate was wait-listed. Now that the state legislature has approved additional funding, those on the wait-list will get their checks and the rest of us who apply going forward should get them until the funds run out again sometime next calendar year.

https://ngtnews.com/california-points-nearly-1-billion-toward-clean-transportation-funding

Your quoted article makes no reference to your claim that "everyone making greater than 3x the poverty level... was wait-listed."

I have never heard of such claim based in fact! This is the last I will detract from the main topic to clarify these mistaken posts.

 

[EastWestBrothers]

Your quoted article makes no reference to your claim that "everyone making greater than 3x the poverty level... was wait-listed."

I have never heard of such claim based in fact! This is the last I will detract from the main topic to clarify these mistaken posts.

https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/faqs/what-does-rebate-waitlist-mean-me

https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/income-eligibility#income-rebate

It's all covered on the CVRP site.

 

[michaellax]

Funding ran low earlier this year so for everyone making greater than 3x the poverty level, the rebate was wait-listed. Now that the state legislature has approved additional funding, those on the wait-list will get their checks and the rest of us who apply going forward should get them until the funds run out again sometime next calendar year.

https://ngtnews.com/california-points-nearly-1-billion-toward-clean-transportation-funding

OK: You have it backwards, as well!

There was no wait list for those eligible for the regular $2,500 California rebate in either 2016 or 2017, plain and simple!

https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/faqs/what-does-rebate-waitlist-mean-me

https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/income-eligibility#income-rebate

It's all covered on the CVRP site.

These linked websites cover additional rebates over and above the $2,500 that were wait-listed that some may be eligible for, due to their earning less than 3x the Poverty Level

 

[EastWestBrothers]

OK: You have it backwards, as well!

There was no wait list for those eligible for the regular $2,500 California rebate in either 2016 or 2017, plain and simple!

These linked websites cover additional rebates over and above the $2,500 that were wait-listed that some may be eligible for, due to their earning less than 3x the Poverty Level

I think you need to read the links again. It clearly states that starting June 30, anyone applying for a standard rebate ($2,500), would be wait-listed until further funding becomes available.

If applying for the increased rebate, which applies only if you meet the poverty level restrictions, your rebate would still be sent regardless of when you filed.

 

[michaellax]

Well, with this week's signing by Gov Brown, this is all happily moot now!

 

[oilerlord]

Just wondering if I'm the only one that figures a $140M program / $2500 rebate could be better spent helping people living at the poverty level with the basic necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter) - rather than subsidizing the price of a shiny new car they probably can't afford.

 

[SeanNelson]

Just wondering if I'm the only one that figures a $140M program / $2500 rebate could be better spent helping people living at the poverty level with the basic necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter) - rather than subsidizing the price of a shiny new car they probably can't afford.

There's no reason a government can't do both.

 

[michaellax]

Just wondering if I'm the only one that figures a $140M program / $2500 rebate could be better spent helping people living at the poverty level with the basic necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter) - rather than subsidizing the price of a shiny new car they probably can't afford.

I think you are the only one, because you live in Alberta, not California!

How about Just wondering how much does Alberta spend on poverty programs and how much does it give in tax break subsidies (and other public perks) to the oil and gas extraction industry?

 

[oilerlord]

There's no reason a government can't do both.

I guess I just see a disparity between the audience that shops a $40,000 car, and the basic needs of someone that lives their life in poverty.

Sure, governments can do "both" but sometimes it makes more sense to direct funds where it can do the most help. A single mom at the poverty level is more concerned about feeding her kid than buying a car she can't afford. I'd rather see a piece of that $140M go to her...but that's just me I suppose.

Apologies to the OP for taking the thread sideways.

 

[SparkE]

Well, now that it is in its own separate thread ...

I am NOT a fan of big govt, or "the govt is here to provide for you". BUT I lived in France for quite a few years, and one of the most memorable quotes I can recall from a politician was during those years. There was a debate about the state-run medical insurance program (which is different than in many other countries - the govt runs the INSURANCE, but most medical practitioners are PRIVATE and not govt employees). Anyhow, a govt cabinet member was being grilled about the cost of the medical program (sort of like C-SPAN, but not quite). He looked the questioner straight in the eye and said "the cost overrun is less than half of {very expensive jet fighter attack plane}. Where do YOU think the money is best spent?"

While I AM (in general) a proponent of "less govt is better", I do have to recognize that the statement he made was both brilliant and spot-on.

 

[SeanNelson]

There's no reason a government can't do both.

...Sure, governments can do "both" but sometimes it makes more sense to direct funds where it can do the most help. A single mom at the poverty level is more concerned about feeding her kid than buying a car she can't afford. I'd rather see a piece of that $140M go to her...but that's just me I suppose.

If the government wasn't spending ANY money on easing the lives of people (and poverty isn't the only problem!) then I would be behind your statement 100%. But that's not in the case, at least not where I live.

Governments face multiple societal issues and they can't just throw all their money at whatever they deem to be the worst one. You can quibble with the ratio of funds spent on various programs, but I believe government incentives to kick-start green technologies is a worthwhile use of money.

 

[SeanNelson]

(duplicate post)

 

[IMAdolt]

There's no reason a government can't do both.

I guess I just see a disparity between the audience that shops a $40,000 car, and the basic needs of someone that lives their life in poverty.

Sure, governments can do "both" but sometimes it makes more sense to direct funds where it can do the most help. A single mom at the poverty level is more concerned about feeding her kid than buying a car she can't afford. I'd rather see a piece of that $140M go to her...but that's just me I suppose.

Apologies to the OP for taking the thread sideways.

I agree in principal that people who "need" or "deserve" the most help should get the most help and certain monies are better spent here or there this is such a small amount it's not really a game changer in any social support type situation.

Well lets say that some criteria is laid out for people at or near the poverty line with certain family structures and that ends up being ... < 5% of the population, it's really not enough money to effect any real bonus ..... might get a few boxes of wine on the table?

A social program of that type needs to be in the billions with a population that high, but it is a good little helper for en emerging industry to gain market share.

 

[oilerlord]

I believe government incentives to kick-start green technologies is a worthwhile use of money.

I do too. I'm just a little fuzzy on the concept of blending a green program with easing poverty - unless it's something like sustainable agriculture. I don't think money allocated for a poverty rebate to help someone buy a $40,000 car is a "kick-start" for green technologies, or makes a difference in helping with someone living in poverty.