Ebikes in the USA Now a Top Priority

AOSTIRMOTOR EBIKE

New Member
Region
USA
City
ONTARIO
President proposes purchase subsidy.Domestic politics in the USA currently know only one topic – US President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act.
The Verge reports that The bill may be in its final stages before approval, giving it a strong chance of landing.
The package of measures is intended to revive the economy of the world power, but in an environmentally friendly way. One of the many pieces of the puzzle is ebikes. Biden wants to promote their use in society through tax incentives. But the final decision is still up in the air.
 

Tom@WashDC

Active Member
Region
USA
City
Loudoun County, VA
Yup, the country will go deeper into debt, and the borrowed money will go straight to Chinese coffers.
and... retailers will most likely raise prices.
 
Last edited:

AOSTIRMOTOR EBIKE

New Member
Region
USA
City
ONTARIO
Yup, the country will go deeper into debt, and the borrowed money will go straight to Chinese coffers.
and... retailers will most likely raise prices.
However, if the new law is implemented, won't it significantly reduce the cost of buying goods for consumers?
The bill would provide a pre-tax commuting allowance for those who commute on electric bikes or shared bikes, which would be 30 percent of the parking allowance, or $81 a month, or about $1,000 a year, according to the proposal. To qualify for the e-bike subsidy: an e-bike that costs less than $8,000.Well, that's an unknown quantity. There are always two sides to a coin.
Have a nice day!
 

Elkman

Active Member
President proposes purchase subsidy.Domestic politics in the USA currently know only one topic – US President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act.
The Verge reports that The bill may be in its final stages before approval, giving it a strong chance of landing.
The package of measures is intended to revive the economy of the world power, but in an environmentally friendly way. One of the many pieces of the puzzle is ebikes. Biden wants to promote their use in society through tax incentives. But the final decision is still up in the air.
Far better to give tax breaks to the billionaires as they create jobs. The jobs may be in Vietnam or China or Malaysia, but they are still jobs which is all that matters.

The way to get people out of cars and riding bicycles is to make the roads safer. Since WW II the auto and construction and real estate industries have shut down light rail and promoted suburban sprawl (helps with segregation so a win win) and we now have more than 50% of our cities devoted to motor vehicles, including providing their owners with free parking. Eliminate on street parking and use the space now free for moving people and create safe bike lanes. But this will never happen as inefficient and polluting motor vehicles are more profitable for the companies that make campaign contributions to legislators and public officials. The U.S. Supreme Court made bribery 100% legal and opened the floodgates.
 

john peck

Well-Known Member
Saw an item on MSNBC an hour or so ago. A fella was making a very good case for free ebikes for all
citing the reduction of emissions & taking stress off hwys, hence safer
 

rich c

Well-Known Member
Top priority? That's funny. Cycling is hardly anything more than recreation in Peoria, IL. A bicycle stand outside a business is lucky to have a single bicycle locked to it. Easily 85% never have a bicycle in it. Too many giant pickups at the grocery store to pick up a gallon of milk. They won't pass those up to pedal anywhere. They won't even give up the monster gas guzzling vehicles for a small car. An eBike is a foreign word to the great majority around here. I'd say it's an easy decision to provide a subsidy with less than .2% of Americans buying them in 2020. Hardly a top priority for the citizens!
 
Last edited:

Mr. Coffee

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
City
A Demented Corner of the North Cascades
Just a provocative thought experiment: we could completely fund US government operations with an approximately $10/gallon tax on fuel. That would mean no income tax, no corporate income tax, no estate tax. Just pay for the fuel you use.

Effectively such a tax would act like a value-added tax, which the conservative economic theorists have been arguing in favor of for decades. Such a tax would tax consumption, as opposed to taxing honest labor and investment.

Such a tax would also save literally billions of dollars because it would be simpler and less expensive to collect. I guess it would suck if you were an accountant though.

Such a tax also could be managed by a currency board to maintain a target price for fuel, and you could adjust the tax rate as necessary, similar to the way the Fed adjusts interest rates. Doing so would eliminate any pricing power the Russians, Arabs, and big oil companies have in the oil market worldwide, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

You might argue that such a high fuel cost would destroy the US economy. On the other hand, many rich European countries (France) have very high fuel costs due to very high fuel taxes and there seems to be no shortage of people driving and it doesn't look like people are starving there.
 

mschwett

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
Just a provocative thought experiment: we could completely fund US government operations with an approximately $10/gallon tax on fuel. That would mean no income tax, no corporate income tax, no estate tax. Just pay for the fuel you use.

Effectively such a tax would act like a value-added tax, which the conservative economic theorists have been arguing in favor of for decades. Such a tax would tax consumption, as opposed to taxing honest labor and investment.

Such a tax would also save literally billions of dollars because it would be simpler and less expensive to collect. I guess it would suck if you were an accountant though.

Such a tax also could be managed by a currency board to maintain a target price for fuel, and you could adjust the tax rate as necessary, similar to the way the Fed adjusts interest rates. Doing so would eliminate any pricing power the Russians, Arabs, and big oil companies have in the oil market worldwide, which wouldn't be a bad thing.

You might argue that such a high fuel cost would destroy the US economy. On the other hand, many rich European countries (France) have very high fuel costs due to very high fuel taxes and there seems to be no shortage of people driving and it doesn't look like people are starving there.

I think it’s an interesting thought experiment… with a few major issues.

Such a tax would be highly regressive - because the United States has such poor transit infrastructure, the working poor and middle class predominantly drive to work and would be hit proportionally very hard. someone who drives 60 miles a day to clean houses, work retail, etc would pay $20 a day in taxes on their gross income of $75 a day, while someone who drives 60 miles a day to run a Fortune 500 would also pay $20 a day in taxes on their gross income of $1M a day. That’s the big problem with use taxes.

It would cause people to drive less, which is really really good, but our public transit and biking infrastructure is terrible outside a handful of major cities, and then the driving less would reduce revenue

Similarly, you’d have to come up with a way to tax electric and other alternative fuel vehicles, otherwise the massive shift to them would again starve the government of revenue, and probably overwhelm the electrical grid in the short term.

It would probably also have a massive effect on real estate, with far flung suburbs totally decimated by the sudden and incredibly high (proportionally) cost of getting anywhere. This would be a good thing in the long run, encouraging higher density, more sustainable, more walkable and rideable communities, but it couldn’t be done this quickly without causing a lot of suffering.
 

ruffruff

Well-Known Member
Top priority? That's funny. Cycling is hardly anything more than recreation in Peoria, IL. A bicycle stand outside a business is lucky to have a single bicycle locked to it. Easily 85% never have a bicycle in it. Too many giant pickups at the grocery store to pick up a gallon of milk. They won't pass those up to pedal anywhere. They won't even give up the monster gas guzzling vehicles for a small car. An eBike is a foreign word to the great majority around here. I'd say it's an easy decision to provide a subsidy with less than .2% of Americans buying them in 2020. Hardly a top priority for the citizens!
I drive a full size pickup truck. I'd love to safely bike to the grocery store! I'd also like to commute to work!
But I regularly get emails from friends and family about people getting squished,

1637852838555.png
 

ChezCheese:)

Well-Known Member
Region
USA
City
Kitsap Co, WA
It is an unfortunate part of human nature, it seems, that people don't take care of free stuff. Subsidize ebike purchases, by all means, but "free" just means worthless to people, not priceless.
 

john peck

Well-Known Member
I drive a full size pickup truck. I'd love to safely bike to the grocery store! I'd also like to commute to work!
But I regularly get emails from friends and family about people getting squished,

View attachment 107833
Been there, cycling is dangerous, no doubt about it. Got all busted the hell up, but it doesn´t have to
be that way & is getting safer. For now though one needs to be ever vigilant & totally situation aware.