California bill AB 117 to incentivize ebikes

[Jeremy McCreary]

Here is what I read and it says 300% below the poverty level. Unless I'm missing something that means hey I'm broke but I need to be broker!

The 300% referred to in the screenshot puts the cut-off at 3 times FPL (Federal poverty level).

Besides, how could the cut-off possibly be 300% below FPL? That would put it at FPL - 3 FPL = -2 FPL. So only folks going into debt at twice the poverty rate would qualify. Do you really think that was the program's intent?

 

[JoeDirt]

I'm just going by what it says I'm just reading what it says. And When I read below 300% the poverty level that tells me that it's 300% below the poverty level which is pretty low.

I'm not going to speculate that it's a negative 2% or anything , I worked for the state for 25 years with the Orange County Health Authority, I know from the statistics that most people are riding on our resources that hit that poverty level, So they're not going into debt, more like the state is going into deeper debt!

I just know there's a lot of people that are riding on our system here and our resources. So they probably would qualify in that sense of it, but buying a brand new eBike at that poverty level? I won't digress any further.
I'm just glad to wake up everyday and these type of problems are not on my list any longer. The state can do whatever the hell it wants to do it's already gone down the drain to my thinking. And again I won't regress anymore,
Also very cold this morning riding! 54°

 

[Jeremy McCreary]

I'm just going by what it says I'm just reading what it says. And When I read below 300% the poverty level that tells me that it's 300% below the poverty level which is pretty low.

Sorry, "300% below" and "below 300%" mean 2 very different things. Your first 2 posts on the screenshot in question said the former, which can't possibly be the case for the reason I gave.

If you care to reread it, what the screenshot actually says amounts to the latter, which is entirely plausible in this context.

 

[JoeDirt]

You make a good politician

 

[PedalUma]

@JoeDirt, Would you rather be handed $1,000,000 by the state lottery board or 300% of $1,000,000 because you also won the bonus multiplier number? The choice is up to you. What would you do? Or if you really want you can just settle for 30% of a million bucks or even 3%.

 

[mschwett]

Yeah I'll chime in again! Instead of sucking 10 million out of taxpayers here in Southern California why not build a light rail system to really help this freeway congestion system.? Yeah sure having that incentive for ebikes? Well I won't further digress! They'll probably do the same thing like they've done with EV cars if it's not assembled or the parts aren't made here like batteries you only get a portion of that rebate. It's a big bait and switch! But again I won't regress anymore and I will not respond anymore to this post. Just ridiculous when California has so many other real problems and better ways to address over crowding in a car Centric area.

LA has spent over $40 Billion in recent decades on rail transit, has another $120 billion planned, and ridership has recovered post pandemic better than most cities in the country. no other American city is doing as much to try and reduce their dependence on the automobile at this scale. it is entirely possible to choose to live somewhere in LA near a rail station and work somewhere near a rail station.

try it some time!

 

[il Munduato]

The screenshot actually reads 300% of the FPL which means 3 times the FPL


But no matter as this along with most energy saving credits require purchase through authorized sellers and/or contractors who end up charging full MSRP and in the end the savings to the consumer are minimal especially when compared to other similar offerings from not authorized incentive sellers.