hodr

Why would you pick a PHEV for comparison? They are going to get a worse MPGe (because of the extra weight) and have a smaller battery (no catching up on charging during the weekend).

But more importantly, they can backup to gas so if you can only do 80% of your trip electric there is no real problem, you still are getting great fuel economy.

Average commute for the US is 26 miles a day, but more than half drive considerably less than the average.

For the people for whom an electric car makes sense, the overwhelming majority could make due with a level 1 charger (12 amps 110 volts).

L1 charger provides 4-5 miles of charge per hour, so 8 hours in the garage at night would more than make up for the commute. If you have a larger range (200+ miles) you can make it up on the weekends.

If you have a 100+ mile commute each day, sure get a L2 charger. Or better yet, buy a hybrid.

It only took Kia 6 years to out-Toyota Toyota, that is to go from producing the worst mainstream cars in the us to the best in initial and 3 year quality metrics (and well above Toyota).

(2009 when they built first US production line to 2015).

In my case the panel is in the basement and about 50 feet away. More importantly, I would need to be upgraded to 200 amp service which my older house doesn't have. So well over 2k.

A little bit larger battery lets me catch-up on charging during the weekend or days off from work without the need to get a level-2 charger.

I'd rather have the price cut than the tax credit it they are for the same nominal amount ($1,875). First, you don't pay taxes or licensing on that amount and second if you financed the car you don't pay interest on that amount.

Restated: 78% of adults work. 58% of workers are "wage earners" (paid hourly, not salary) 2.3% of wage earners earn minimum wage.

Therefore 0.0230.580.78 = 0.0104, or just over 1% of adults earn minimum wage.

Voice is solved? Then wider hall cunt my giggle nexus ever get thaddeus tribbleshits?

Are you sure it's illegal? Like 80+ percent of the doctors in my metro area got their degrees in India (where they immigrated from). There is some form of reciprocity going on.

There is no opportunity cost deduction. Unless the doctor can show that he is losing money (amortized cost of office/staff overhead etc) on that $100 service, there is no deduction. They can't arbitrarily say they sell their services for a certain amount and deduct when they don't reach that amount.

If you have a widget that cost $50 to make/market/sell and you sell it for $100, then have a "sale" or "friends and family" discount to $60, you don't get to write $40 off your taxes. If you sold it for $40 you could write the $10 loss off of your taxes.

Yes. Let's go with this logic. Do you know what percentage of people in this country make minimum wage (or less)? According to the BLS it's 2.3% of wage earners, which are 58% of workers, which are 78% of the population of adults.

So, 1.04% of the adult population of the US makes minimum wage.

In your logic, why should we set national economic policy based on 1%?

Isn't that an argument for addressing the costs of tuition, and not an argument for artificially setting the value of labor?

Well that's blatantly false. Everyone willing to minimally contribute to society should have an expectation of a living wage.

Able bodied people that choose to do nothing deserve to receive nothing.

Sorry, that meme started on YTMND in 2005 based on a post in a newspaper from the 90s. Saying the references in this thread are of the movie is like saying any mention online of "Gandalf" is a reference to the Lego Lord of the Rings game.