• MotoAsh@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Passing the savings off to the consumer, as was the entire fucking supposed point of the subsidies.

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Not OP, but I’m pretty sure the point was to increase adoption of EVs. That includes the buyer, the seller, and even third parties like charging stations and equipment.

      Although I will grant that the implementation was presented as savings for the customer.

    • blarghly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That might be how the subsidies were sold to you, but any economist will tell you that isn’t how subsidies work, or why they are implemented as policy. As the other poster noted, subsidies don’t exist to benefit consumers, but to increase the use of a particular product. A faction of political power determined that increased adoption of EVs would be in the public interest, so subsidies were instituted to speed up EV adoption. Who gets the money or who benefits is completely besides the point.

      (As a side note, I think EV subsidies are not really the best idea in terms of the public good, and the money would be better spent on public transit improvements micromobility subsidies. But EVs thread the needle of political palatability, so here we are.)