Featured Cheep Gas, Less than electric Power?

the body of the article with my headline could do the same thing, that's what makes it so inappropriate.

 

Just want to point out that you can personalize the fuel costs, city:highway split, and annual miles at fueleconomy.gov, and there is a more in depth calculator for PHEVs.

How about you write such an article so we can all see this.

 

i wouldn't be so disingenuous as this author.

how about this headline: 'driving ev may be cheaper than gas in some places'. or is that too long for you?

or, 'if you drive a guzzler, electricity will be cheaper in all 50 states'.

or, 'if you drive a prius, electricity may cost you'.

 

How about "Hummer greener than a Prius".

You appear to be claiming that the title of this article is as misleading as the infamous study.

It is just the title. It is to convey a general idea of the subject of the article, while also enticing people to read further.

If the article itself is misleading, please point out how it is to the average person in the US. Such using cheery picking data, like using average full size pick up data, or the lowest electric rates in the country?

 

Two of the three of those are misleading.

The first implies driving an ev is unlikely to be cheaper.

The second is true, but understates the case for EVs and is much more vague.

The third is extremely vague. Electricity always costs people, weather they drive a Prius or not.
At my former house, enough electricity to drive 50 miles cost me much less than a gallon of gas.

How about something like:
"For the average driver, driving electric is cheaper in every state, than driving a gas powered car"?

That implies, more explicitly, that the statement is considering averages.

 

good one.

 

Fair enough, however, that isn't just an outlier, it is a niche of a niche of a niche of a niche
PV is paying for all of our EV driving (2 cars) as well as our house.
The panels have not paid for themselves yet though, so I can't quite yet join that elite group.

 

NJ is raising the fuel tax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/01/nyregion/new-jersey-gas-tax-23-cents.html

 

NJ doesn't apply the sales tax to necessities like clothing, food from the market, and medicine. So lowering it only benefits those that have the income for the 'luxuries'. Gas is a necessity for many regardless of income level. So NJ is raising the tax on everybody to lower in for the better off.

 

And who benefits from the estate tax? The guy who dies with the average net worth or the guy with many millions? Seem to recall an article recently telling how much wealth the billionaire class would pass down in the next 30 or so years and it was in the trillions.

What I can't understand is why some politician doesn't run an ad showing how many $ the millionaire class has saved from the tax cuts of the last 40 years. Percentages don't have the same impact as when you show the dollars of us versus them. Then connect that amount to the shortfall in funding for the things we all agree need to be paid for like education and transportation and re-education.

 

i think that is what tb was saying.

 

Yep, the estate tax cut was obviously for the wealthy. Sales tax in other states, though, is applied to food and clothing. The people there, a cut to NJ sales tax would appear to benefit everybody more than it actually does.

 

Probably makes some sense to increase gaso tax in NJ. In VA the anti-fuel-tax argument is our vast land area makes it hard for rural folks but NJ is more compact and I assume greater number of tourists. As a South Jersey alum, I know the estate tax has been too high and had been driving some retirees out of NJ. They can go to PA or DE for lower estate/other taxes. So this looks like possible good move.

I used to live near and battle with NJ Senate Pres. Sweeney. At the time he was union organizer, pro-coal and pushing hard for new coal plants in my area. Interesting he is backing out of Gov Race.

 

The tax doesn't fix the problem of paying more for each mile of road than any other state.

Sweeney was told to make way for Murphy.

 

The high taxes in general is what drives people out of the state. Then weather is a reason for retirees. My parents went to NC.

 

The top 0.1% represent 8% of those that pay estate taxes and pay about 30% of estate taxes.
The top 10% of income are 84% of the estate taxed. Outside of this top 10% very little money is taxed.

Perhaps the cap should be lifted slightly to help those not in the top 10% of incomes deal with inheriting farms or small businesses, but almost all the money comes from the very rich.

The chief ways these top 1% save is not because of tax percentage cuts its because of loopholes. Mr. Trump and Mr. Romney have big loopholes that need to be closed. Both paid a lot of campaign contributions to put those loopholes, in to the tax code or keep them there. Both parties like the loopholes because it gets their candidates campaign contributions.

I'm kind of scared of your re education ;-) Job training hasn't worked well for the old coal miners and steel workers, but perhaps better training could.

 

not lumberton i hope.

 

It wasn't taxes for me. Or weather though it was a plus factor (I did sell the snow blower). But the real reason for retiring south was the DC area traffic (Rush hour began at 6:15 and was creeping earlier every year. Ends at 10PM!!).

So a 4 season but mild climate, housing less than half price, and 42 mile proximity to the grandkids made NC attractive.

And in 9 years we have had a tornado and a hurricane. And bought a Prius. We visit the gas station most frequently to buy her mug of 79 cent coffee.