This country is paying car drivers nearly $4,000 to switch to an electric bike

[Solarcabin]

"Ooh la la! France will now pay you €4,000 (nearly US $4,000) to swap your old polluting car for a cleaner, more efficient, and more city-appropriate electric bicycle. That marks a major increase in the incentive designed to improve French cities.

Pedal bicycles are also included in the generous incentive package, though e-bikes are contributing to one of the biggest jumps in cycling ever across Europe and much of the world.

As reported by The Times, the full €4,000 incentive is awarded to those in lower income brackets that live in low-emission urban zones. Wealthier two-wheel converts will receive a reduced incentive commensurate with their income level. For those looking to buy a new electric bike but not ready to give up their polluting car, a subsidy of up to €400 is available.

Some cities have even more generous electric bicycle subsidies. The Socialist-Green council of Paris offers up to €500 toward the purchase of an e-bike or a folding pedal bike."

This country is paying car drivers nearly $4,000 to switch to an electric bike

France is paying car drivers up to $4,000 to swap their polluting car for an efficient electric bicycle or pedal bicycle.

electrek.co

The incentive in the US climate bill for ebikes was removed!

Your thoughts?

 

[Roamers]

The federal government should not be involved in anything that favors or disfavors any person, organization, group, community, or state.

No subsidies, period.

 

[Solarcabin]

The federal government should not be involved in anything that favors or disfavors any person, organization, group, community, or state.

No subsidies, period.

I wonder if you or someone in your family was disabled, sick or injured and couldn't financially care for your self or your family you would feel the same way?

 

[Roamers]

I wonder if you or someone in your family was disabled, sick or injured and couldn't financially care for your self or your family you would feel the same way?

Prefer taking care of people at the state and local level.

 

[Solarcabin]

Prefer taking care of people at the state and local level.

States would go broke without Federal money to help them take care of people in those situations or any large disaster.

Charites are great but religious charities generally only help their own members.

 

[Alaskan]

The federal government should not be involved in anything that favors or disfavors any person, organization, group, community, or state.

No subsidies, period.

No subsidies? Does that include the oil industry? How about farm subsidies? No more sweetheart deals for defense industries, tax exemptions for real estate transactions or capital gains exemptions? what about tax exemptions for religious organizations? Have you really thought this through?

The government is well within its proper function when it uses financial incentives to encourage people to do things that contribute to the overall well being of the country and discourage people from doing things that are destructive to that well being.

 

[Alaskan]

Prefer taking care of people at the state and local level.

Every time there is a major storm or natural disaster, a public health crisis, state and local governments become overwhelmed and turn to the federal government for assistance.
And the plain fact of the matter is that state and local governments are a truly mixed bag when it comes to "taking care of people" Some states do a pretty good job and other just plain suck at this.

Funny how most of the states that care for their people the least are south of the Mason Dixon line, the same states that pull the biggest subsidies from the Federal Government and howl the loudest about high taxes.

 

[Roamers]

States would go broke without Federal money to help them take care of people in those situations or any large disaster.

Charites are great but religious charities generally only help their own members.

Reduce federal taxes to align with philosophy. Increase taxes at state level to compensate. Federal acts as a middleman (skims $) when sending $ back to the state the $ came from in the first place.

 

[Roamers]

No subsidies? Does that include the oil industry? How about farm subsidies? No more sweetheart deals for defense industries, tax exemptions for real estate transactions or capital gains exemptions? what about tax exemptions for religious organizations? Have you really thought this through?

I'm good with that. Also encourage a flat tax.

 

[Roamers]

Every time there is a major storm or natural disaster, a public health crisis, state and local governments become overwhelmed and turn to the federal government for assistance.

Time to eliminate that crutch.

 

[Alaskan]

Fact is there are "giver" states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive in return and "taker" states that get far more in return than they pay in.
I must say I am curious what state you live in.

The States That Are Most Reliant on Federal Aid

MoneyGeek’s analysis identified the states most reliant on federal funding and found an intriguing correlation between dependency and political leaning.

www.moneygeek.com

 

[Roamers]

Grew up in NY, split between IA and IL for ~45 years; currently retired in IL.

 

[Solarcabin]

Reduce federal taxes to align with philosophy. Increase taxes at state level to compensate. Federal acts as a middleman (skims $) when sending $ back to the state the $ came from in the first place.

That doesn't help in a disaster of any significant size and states would go broke without all states putting in to FEMA to help cover the expense.

Didn't you just experience a major flood disaster in your state that all states are subsidizing FEMA to help people with?

FEMA to Canvass St. Louis-Area Neighborhoods to Assist Flood Survivors​

FEMA to Canvass St. Louis-Area Neighborhoods to Assist Flood Survivors

FEMA will begin canvassing St. Louis-area communities affected by recent flooding starting Wednesday, August 10.

www.fema.gov

In 2019 — the 2nd wettest year ever in the U.S. — flooding cost Illinois and the Midwest $6.2 billion. Scientists predict more waterlogged days ahead.

In 2019, Chicago was pelted by by 49.54 inches of precipitation, which ranks as the third wettest year on record for the city and more than 12 inches greater than normal, according to the National Weather Service.

www.chicagotribune.com

No man and no state is an island and if we didn't pool our resources states and people would not recover from any major disaster.

Have a great day!

 

[Roamers]

Having a great day, thank you!

 

[Alaskan]

There are two ways to share risk and help one another out in the event of catastrophe. One is through private insurance and the other is through government relief and assistance programs. There is a perennial argument going on in the USA as to which route is more humane and which one is most efficient in its use of peoples dollars.

I was once in the health insurance business and president of our state health underwriters association. At the time I truly believed that the private sector was always superior to the public sector in managing the money and delivering benefits in the most equitable and humane way. I spent time lobbying in both Olympia and Washington DC for leaving heath care administration to the private sector. It turns out I was wrong.

The private sector has been managing the administration of health care dollars for decades. That has resulted in soaring costs, denied benefits and exclusion of too many people from any coverage at all. Medicare pays out 93 cents on every dollar to health care providers, keeping 7% for administrative costs. Private health insurance pays out 72% and keeps 28% as they not only have to pay administrative costs but also profits and dividends to stock holders.

There are some things that the public sector does better, like maintaining a court and justice system or creating and maintaining roadways and transportation infrastructure. It is not a question of one side being good at everything and the other being totally incompetent. It is a matter of determining which function is best performed by which sector. Typically it is a matter of scale with larger projects and systems better coped with by the public sector and more modest projects and services better suited to private sector efforts.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Prefer taking care of people at the state and local level.

How does this work, exactly? And would it be efficient?

I'll give a concrete example. Aircraft used for fighting wildfires are enormously expensive, there aren't that many of them, and there aren't that many people who know how to operate them. So are you arguing that every locality should maintain its own air attack resources locally?

This fails horribly for a number of reasons:

• You can move aircraft and crew around with the seasons. You have active wildfires in SoCal in the fall and Arizona and New Mexico usually in early spring, and in Oregon and Washington in late summer. So it doesn't make sense to contract for an Air Boss year-round in Sedona or Bend.
• No locality can afford to support an adequate number of aircraft for a truly big disaster, but on a national scale it is affordable to have enough aircraft on hand for any imaginable combination of local disasters at any given time.
• What aircraft and crews you have spend most of their time being under-utilized and the crews also don't gain experience as quickly, which means they are less effective at fighting fires (which is what you are paying them for, I think).

I think you can make similar arguments for most other large-scale natural disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, floods) that pooling resources and sharing risks makes more sense than have everyone be on their own.

 

[pxpaulx]

There are two ways to share risk and help one another out in the event of catastrophe. One is through private insurance and the other is through government relief and assistance programs. There is a perennial argument going on in the USA as to which route is more humane and which one is most efficient in its use of peoples dollars.

I was once in the health insurance business and president of our state health underwriters association. At the time I truly believed that the private sector was always superior to the public sector in managing the money and delivering benefits in the most equitable and humane way. I spent time lobbying in both Olympia and Washington DC for leaving heath care administration to the private sector. It turns out I was wrong.

The private sector has been managing the administration of health care dollars for decades. That has resulted in soaring costs, denied benefits and exclusion of too many people from any coverage at all. Medicare pays out 93 cents on every dollar to health care providers, keeping 7% for administrative costs. Private health insurance pays out 72% and keeps 28% as they not only have to pay administrative costs but also profits and dividends to stock holders.

There are some things that the public sector does better, like maintaining a court and justice system or creating and maintaining roadways and transportation infrastructure. It is not a question of one side being good at everything and the other being totally incompetent. It is a matter of determining which function is best performed by which sector. Typically it is a matter of scale with larger projects and systems better coped with by the public sector and more modest projects and services better suited to private sector efforts.

This is a great take! I grew up in Canada but am a US citizen by marriage for over 20 years. I truly cannot understand how something as basically human as health care can be run for profit. Illness that we have the means to manage should be a fundamentally human right, paid for collectively and managed outside of for-profit industry. Does that create more government overhead? Certainly, but we effectively already pay that tax directly to healthcare insurance, reduced wages via employer 'health care' compensation and exorbitant out of pocket costs.

If the housing market in Canada weren't a clown show, health care would be the 1 and only reason I would go back in a heartbeat.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

One more thing about what @Alaskan said,

Insurance markets are inevitably backstopped by governments at some point. In the United States in practice most states act as insurers or last resort, and the Federal Government either backs up the states or subtly messes around with the risk markets where insurance companies park your premiums. The next effect is that government is insuring the insurance companies.

 

[Roamers]

How does this work, exactly? And would it be efficient?

I'll give a concrete example. Aircraft used for fighting wildfires are enormously expensive, there aren't that many of them, and there aren't that many people who know how to operate them. So are you arguing that every locality should maintain its own air attack resources locally?

This fails horribly for a number of reasons:

• You can move aircraft and crew around with the seasons. You have active wildfires in SoCal in the fall and Arizona and New Mexico usually in early spring, and in Oregon and Washington in late summer. So it doesn't make sense to contract for an Air Boss year-round in Sedona or Bend.
• No locality can afford to support an adequate number of aircraft for a truly big disaster, but on a national scale it is affordable to have enough aircraft on hand for any imaginable combination of local disasters at any given time.
• What aircraft and crews you have spend most of their time being under-utilized and the crews also don't gain experience as quickly, which means they are less effective at fighting fires (which is what you are paying them for, I think).

I think you can make similar arguments for most other large-scale natural disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, floods) that pooling resources and sharing risks makes more sense than have everyone be on their own.

Nice example of groups playing nice together. It appears Federal Wildfire Fighters are responsible for fires on Frederal land, but through a mutual aid agreement, many local, state, federal agencies show up to help each other. As the referenced article says "Wildfires will not stop at property boundaries."

Partners | US Forest Service

Looking at a land ownership map of the U.S., it is easy to understand why wildland fire management must be an interagency effort. There are very few places where large blocks of land are under the jurisdiction of just one agency. Instead, federal, tribal, state, local, and private lands are...

www.fs.usda.gov

Although I see what happens around the country since I watch the news, most familiar with wind and water. Have lived spitting distance to the Mississipi River for 45 years. It's been obvious for a long time where people should not live; if they choose to, it is on them. With private insurance, there is an incemtive to watch where you build. With Federal Relief, not really. We made our own problems by populating along the rivers and developing "flood mitigation systems" perhaps it's time to stop giving people $ to rebuid and give the land back to the rivers.

As with most forum posts, this has grown from no e-car subsidies opinion to No Disaster Assistance. Kinda different subjects, but that's OK.

 

[J.R.]

"Ooh la la! France will now pay you €4,000 (nearly US $4,000) to swap your old polluting car for a cleaner, more efficient, and more city-appropriate electric bicycle. That marks a major increase in the incentive designed to improve French cities.

Pedal bicycles are also included in the generous incentive package, though e-bikes are contributing to one of the biggest jumps in cycling ever across Europe and much of the world.

As reported by The Times, the full €4,000 incentive is awarded to those in lower income brackets that live in low-emission urban zones. Wealthier two-wheel converts will receive a reduced incentive commensurate with their income level. For those looking to buy a new electric bike but not ready to give up their polluting car, a subsidy of up to €400 is available.

Some cities have even more generous electric bicycle subsidies. The Socialist-Green council of Paris offers up to €500 toward the purchase of an e-bike or a folding pedal bike."

This country is paying car drivers nearly $4,000 to switch to an electric bike

France is paying car drivers up to $4,000 to swap their polluting car for an efficient electric bicycle or pedal bicycle.

electrek.co

The incentive in the US climate bill for ebikes was removed!

Your thoughts?

The French can afford it! They fine ebike riders 30,000€ for riding non compliant ebikes. 250 watts, 15.5 mph. ooh la la!

French Government lead on e-Bike tuning with threat of €30,000 fine

The French Government had legislated against e-Bike tuning, as well as speed pedelec modification. CONEBI has outlined the consequences of being involved.

cyclingindustry.news