Good luck paying for that Chevy Volt with fuel savings

posted at 3:11 pm on April 6, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Gas prices would need to reach about $12.50 a gallon for Chevy Volt purchasers to actually recoup the cost of the car in fuel savings in the time they’re likely to own the car, according to The New York Times. The fuel-efficient technologies that enable a car to be battery-operated in the first place are just far more expensive than conventional internal-combustion engines, so what consumers save on fuel, they more than paid for upfront. That goes for other electric car models and, to a lesser extent, hybrid models, as well. From the NYT report:

[O]pting for models that promise better mileage through new technologies does not necessarily save money, according to data compiled for The New York Times by TrueCar.com, an automotive research Web site.

Except for two hybrids, the Prius and Lincoln MKZ, and the diesel-powered Volkswagen Jetta TDI, the added cost of the fuel-efficient technologies is so high that it would take the average driver many years — in some cases more than a decade — to save money over comparable new models with conventional internal-combustion engines.

That is true at today’s pump prices, around $4, and also if gas were to climb to $5 a gallon, the data shows.

Gas would have to approach $8 a gallon before many of the cars could be expected to pay off in the six years an average person owns a car. [And, again, in the case of the Volt, that number is closer to $12!]

Whatever motivates consumers to purchase the Volt and other cars like it, it’s not cost-consciousness. Volt buyers are extremely satisfied customers, price and fires aside, and it’s probably because they believe they’re helping the environment. Some buyers might think they’re saving money, but the truly cost-conscious consumer would run the numbers. No wonder the Volt hasn’t garnered a mass market yet: Most consumers do have to factor cost into their purchase of a car.

That’s the reality that the president recognizes, of course, and it’s why he’s so determined to bring consumer costs down through — you guessed it — tax breaks. The president recently proposed to increase the amount of the tax break for a Volt purchase from $7,500 to $10,000 — probably because, with just 12,000 Volts on the road right now, we’re a long way from his goal of 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

As always, if some customers want to pay out the wazoo for an electric buggy, they can be my guest — but I still cry foul on incentivizing the purchase through tax breaks. Why does someone’s desire to feel good about himself and the image his electric car projects justify a tax break? Why should producers of the vehicles receive a pass on having to innovate to bring costs down? They shouldn’t. The day I can recoup the upfront costs of an electric car in fuel savings in six years or so without any kind of a tax break, I’ll consider buying one. I suspect other consumers would be more amenable to electric cars at that point, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

But you’re saving Detroit!

newtopia on April 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Good luck paying for that Chevy Obama Volt with fuel savings

Fixed

Gas prices would need to reach about $12.50 a gallon for Chevy Volt purchasers to actually recoup the cost of the car in fuel savings in the time they’re likely to own the car

And Obama’s on the job seeing to it.

Bitter Clinger on April 6, 2012 at 3:15 PM

I never did understand the drive for electric vehicles, when hybrid technologies are pushing up MPG averages, are reasonably priced, and actually drive rather well.

JohnGalt23 on April 6, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Voltsel

aquaviva on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

As always, if some customers want to pay out the wazoo for an electric buggy, they can be my guest — but I still cry foul on incentivizing the purchase through tax breaks.

Is that why oil companies deserve huge tax breaks? To add incentives to the purchasing of gasoline? Because, I don’t think anyone has reaped the rewards… except maybe the oil industry.

RanchTooth on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Jousting at windmills.

John the Libertarian on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

If it breaks down completely or catches on fire, you will need to very little money to fuel the car itself.

Especially if you replace it with a horse and buggy.

Or just stay home drunk and collect government cheese.

Everything makes more sense when you view it through the eyes of a Democrat.

NoDonkey on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Sure but when you’re driving your Volt and manage to get into a minor collision, the battery gets cracked, and it spews corrosive acid across your body before bursting into flames, you will have the ultimate satisfaction of knowing that you kept a Polar Bear cub from drowning.

Bishop on April 6, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Volt buyers are extremely satisfied customers, price and fires aside,

Smug is a lifestyle.

the_nile on April 6, 2012 at 3:20 PM

more volt hating.

tlynch001 on April 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM

So I can get a $7,500 tax break if I buy a car this year that will have its fuel source cut off in a few years when the coal plants close? No thanks.

The Prius just keeps looking better and better.

Dee2008 on April 6, 2012 at 3:23 PM

As always, if some customers want to pay out the wazoo for an electric buggy, they can be my guest — but I still cry foul on incentivizing the purchase through tax breaks.

Is that why oil companies deserve huge tax breaks? To add incentives to the purchasing of gasoline? Because, I don’t think anyone has reaped the rewards… except maybe the oil industry.

RanchTooth on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Oil companies get to use standard deductions when doing corporate tax returns that all manufacturing companies get, including car manufacturing.

In fact, the IRS created a special additional tax break for GM and Chrysler, -they are allowed to deduct pre-bankruptcy losses from their corporate tax bill. This is not standard bankruptcy process. This is going to cost us about $15B over the next ten years. It’s another cost of the bailouts not generally discussed.

slickwillie2001 on April 6, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Do these numbers take into account the increased electricity bill you’re going to be receiving for all those years? The electricity where I live is provided by 3 power plants – 1 coal, 1 natural gas, 1 oil. So even if oil were to spike and make these crappers somewhat competitive, the energy I am charging them with is costing me a lot more too.

Kelligan on April 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Is there a pickup version that won’t have my boat and trailer dragging me screaming into the lake as I slide down the launch ramp to a watery grave?

Bishop on April 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The president recently proposed to increase the amount of the tax break for a Volt purchase from $7,500 to $10,000 — probably because, with just 12,000 Volts on the road right now, we’re a long way from his goal of 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

Somebody should tell our idiot president that electricity isn’t generated by a socket on the wall. It comes from oil, coal, nuclear, or hydroelectric sources, all of which President ShortBus is busily trying to destroy.

Cicero43 on April 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Anyone who thinks a coal-fired Volt is environmentally friendly is delusional.

BKennedy on April 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

I’d love to own an electric car that has the same, or even nearly the same, range and power that my groovy modern petrol powered muscle machine has — for the same price or about. The baritone throaty roar of the V-8 that I can also feel would surely be missed though.

But they don’t make them and they won’t be able to before I’m long dead of old age at the pace they’re going.

FlatFoot on April 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

We need to get a thread started with Sarah Palin in a Volt filled with tax-paid condoms and see if we can melt the Hot Air webservers.

Chuck Schick on April 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM

more volt hating.

tlynch001 on April 6, 2012 at 3:22 PM

I can fill that request!…

When buying from GM, some of your money eventually ends up in the coffers of the greedy UAW, which forks over huge sums to democratics, including little Bammie. So when you buy a GM vehicle, you are contributing to little Bammie’s reelection!

When you support the UAW, you are also helping to support the OWS goons that might be occupying your city and crapping on police cars! — UAW Orchestrates, Leads ’99% Spring’ Campaign

slickwillie2001 on April 6, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Seems like Hotair pointed this out two years ago. I know because I did the math on it.

Shameless plug: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/28/great-news-new-electric-car-costs-only-slightly-more-than-average-annual-per-capita-income/

Meric1837 on April 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Well are you actually expecting economic literacy from this regime?

rbj on April 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM

This discussion, of course, is meaningless once Obama decides that there is an individual mandate for every household to have a tricked out golf cart from one of the big three auto producers.

Happy Nomad on April 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Maybe we could mandate that Solendra install solar panels on top of the Volt.

Kill to birds with one stone so to speak

enginemike on April 6, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Well are you actually expecting economic literacy from this regime?

rbj on April 6, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Two words. Christina Romer.

The socialist, bless her heart, really was shocked that the theory she has spent a career teaching in liberal academia did not translate to real life.

Happy Nomad on April 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Somebody should tell our idiot president that electricity isn’t generated by a socket on the wall. It comes from oil, coal, nuclear, or hydroelectric sources, all of which President ShortBus is busily trying to destroy.

Cicero43 on April 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

President Jug Ears isn’t good at listening, just at flapping his gums.

Ironic, isn’t it?

NoDonkey on April 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM

It takes years to recoup the upfront costs.

Not if you don’t buy one in the first place. of course if the left can force American citizens to buy stuff from private companies…..

Dr Evil on April 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

But it’s for the children…

mwdiver on April 6, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Save the Obozo, a definitely endangered species.

tarpon on April 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Two words. Christina Romer.

The socialist, bless her heart, really was shocked that the theory she has spent a career teaching in liberal academia did not translate to real life.

Happy Nomad on April 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I work in academia. Academic folk should not be let anywhere near government. I’d much prefer people who got their hands dirty for a living.

rbj on April 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Is there a pickup version that won’t have my boat and trailer dragging me screaming into the lake as I slide down the launch ramp to a watery grave?

Bishop on April 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Bishop…I think they expect us to buy actual horses for that…so they can come and regulate them…what Moochelle will allow them to eat, and what toxic materials will be allowed to come out of the horses colons.

KOOLAID2 on April 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Volt buyers (are there really people THAT stupid?) might want to consider investing in NASCAR fireproof driving suits and fire extinguisher stocks. And remember to write your will on asbestos.

Gordy on April 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Durbin Says We MUST Buy Hybrid Cars Because Of Tornadoes: “It’s Your Money Or Your Life”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/06/durbin_on_spending_to_fight_global_warming_its_your_money_or_your_life.html

Q1: Dick, why were there tornadoes before there were automobiles?

Q2: Dick, don’t you think an “individual mandate” would solve the problem?

(Yes, yes, yes! I know. You scoffed when we raised such an idea in relation to the IM in Obamacare, but if Americans “must” buy hybrids and you know best…)

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Promoting electric cars and shutting down coal fired electricity generating plants, at the same time, is obviously the result of detailed long range planning by Steven Chu’s group.

a capella on April 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

The day I can recoup the upfront costs of an electric car in fuel savings in six years or so without any kind of a tax break, I’ll consider buying one.

Why buy a car when America is building a high-speed rail system?

Straight to hell.

NoDonkey on April 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Is that why oil companies deserve huge tax breaks? To add incentives to the purchasing of gasoline? Because, I don’t think anyone has reaped the rewards… except maybe the oil industry.

RanchTooth on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Here ya go idjit!!!:

About Those Oil Subsidies

And don’t forget those coal-powered fire hazards are subsidized to the tune of $250,000 apiece! American tax-payers are footing the bill for the green posers! And then there’s the battery production and disposal costs and horrific pollution problems the green tools refuse to look at.

It’s all smoke and mirrors for the watermelon crowd!

Ogabe on April 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Volt purchase. I think we can make the commerce clause cover this, can’t we? Isn’t it a unique market? Just like health insurance?

a capella on April 6, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Is that why oil companies deserve huge tax breaks? To add incentives to the purchasing of gasoline? Because, I don’t think anyone has reaped the rewards… except maybe the oil industry.

RanchTooth on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Care to define those “huge tax breaks” for oil companies?
Try to do so without using the standard business and manufacturing deductions, and offset of overseas income that EVERY corporation gets.

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Like solar and wind the Voltswagen even with huge taxpayer subsidizes will never payback the investment, NEVER.

jukin3 on April 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Sure but when you’re driving your Volt and manage to get into a minor collision, the battery gets cracked, and it spews corrosive acid across your body before bursting into flames, you will have the ultimate satisfaction of knowing that you kept a Polar Bear cub from drowning.

Bishop on April 6, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Considering that Polar Bears are one of the few predators left on the face of the earth that actively and aggressively think humans being are DINNER, I’m having trouble remembering why exactly I should not want baby polar bears to die.

SWalker on April 6, 2012 at 3:52 PM

As usual, the lying “Hypocrite-in-Chief” believes in ‘subsidies’ for some, none for others. If you can afford a $42k Volt, you don’t NEED a subsidy!

GarandFan on April 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Is there a pickup version that won’t have my boat and trailer dragging me screaming into the lake as I slide down the launch ramp to a watery grave?

Bishop on April 6, 2012 at 3:26 PM

About the time you start thinking of how to destroy that lemon for the insurance money…voila!…it’s predestined to burst into flames. Now that’s convenient.

swinia sutki on April 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Is that why oil companies deserve huge tax breaks? To add incentives to the purchasing of gasoline? Because, I don’t think anyone has reaped the rewards… except maybe the oil industry.
 
RanchTooth on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

 
Out of curiosity, what are the federal and state per-gallon taxes where you live?

rogerb on April 6, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Is that why oil companies deserve huge tax breaks? To add incentives to the purchasing of gasoline? Because, I don’t think anyone has reaped the rewards… except maybe the oil industry.

RanchTooth on April 6, 2012 at 3:17 PM

TITLE I SEC. 104. LIMITATION ON PERCENTAGE DEPLETION ALLOWANCE FOR OIL AND GAS WELLS.

(a) In General- Section 613A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(f) Application With Respect to Major Integrated Oil Companies- In the case of any taxable year in which the taxpayer is a MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANY (as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B)), the allowance for percentage depletion SHALL BE ZERO.’.

Also, they do not get tax credits. The oil and gas industry gets the same deductions as do other industries.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54815.html

I’m a supporter of the President’s. I’m concerned that he’s going to lose credibility on this oil and gas issue because HE’S NOT TELLING THE TRUTH entirely. What he is saying is that you need to eliminate four billion dollars worth of tax breaks for major oil companies because major oil companies have obscene profits.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT ONE OF THE BIG TAX BREAKS HE’S CITING – INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS – EXCUSE ME – PERCENTAGE DEPLETION – WAS REPEALED BY CONGRESS, EXCUSE ME, IN 1975, 36 YEARS AGO, AS IT AFFECTS MAJOR OIL COMPANIES.”

- Former Congressman Martin Frost, (D-TX), 1979-2005

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Dick Durbin has applied his scary scientific talents to his own cost/benefit analysis:

Mr. Durbin said scientific evidence of a tie between carbon-sparked global warming and severe weather “is indisputable.”

Such a link “has been proven. It’s been proven time and time again, and the science is clear,” he said. “Tell me (recent weather outbreaks) are a coincidence. I don’t believe it.”

While converting to hybrid cars and other steps may be costly, “it’s your money or your life,” Mr. Durbin said. “The warming climate is changing our weather patterns. We’re experiencing more severe events.”

RadClown on April 6, 2012 at 4:03 PM

“I’m a supporter of the President’s. I’m concerned that he’s going to lose credibility on this oil and gas issue because HE’S NOT TELLING THE TRUTH entirely. What he is saying is that you need to eliminate four billion dollars worth of tax breaks for major oil companies because major oil companies have obscene profits.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT ONE OF THE BIG TAX BREAKS HE’S CITING – INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS – EXCUSE ME – PERCENTAGE DEPLETION – WAS REPEALED BY CONGRESS, EXCUSE ME, IN 1975, 36 YEARS AGO, AS IT AFFECTS MAJOR OIL COMPANIES.”

- Former Congressman Martin Frost, (D-TX), 1979-2005

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Probably the fault of a low level staffer. Or, the guy who loads the teleprompter. Or, dubya. Or, Paul Ryan. Or, the SC justices.

a capella on April 6, 2012 at 4:10 PM

The Volt only has a range of 50 miles on the battery, so if you drive further than that you need the gas powered generator.
If electricity prices go up because of the EPa shutting down coal power plants, and gas prices go as high as indicated, and you have to use the gas generator all the time because the pure electric range is too low – What does that do to the payback equation?

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 4:16 PM

A break-even at $12.50 a gallon?

I suspect even that is way too optimistic. Remember, you have to plug your Volt into those “magic holes” in the wall, and in most cases, those holes are connected to a coal-fired power plant which the administration is falling all over themselves to shutdown.

Mr Galt on April 6, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Not after this lection and Obama trounces the GOP rich unprincipled RINO -we’ll all be required to buy one by the Supreme Court.
The old folks on Obbamacare will have theirs shaped like a hearse to greet the death panels.

Don L on April 6, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Why does someone’s desire to feel good about himself and the image his electric car projects justify a tax break

Because the cars are made by Union workers who pour their dues into Democrat coffers and do campaign work for Democrat politicians so those politicians can vote more tax breaks to buy union-made cars nobody wants.

Socratease on April 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Ha! Suckers.

I drive 60 miles one way to work, 3 days a week. I was driving an F150, getting 16 mpg. Bought a used Ford Taurus, 194,000 miles, for $1000 that got 25.5 mpg on my first tank. It will pay for itself in about 10 months at $3.60 / gallon (which I locked in until October).

/bragging

cptacek on April 6, 2012 at 4:27 PM

/bragging

cptacek on April 6, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I live two miles from where I work inside the DC beltway. I opted for location over space and can’t tell you how brilliant that decision was. I fill up every four weeks or so.

/bragging too. ;)

Happy Nomad on April 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Hot chicks always ask about my Volt. I show them the pictures of baby polar bears I support with the money I save on gasoline. I have sex 3 times a day.

tlynch001 on April 6, 2012 at 5:12 PM

lol. My husband farms and you can’t pick up a farm and move it :)

cptacek on April 6, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Yeah, that savings work until you consider the fact that Jugears was telling us how, under his plans, “electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket”. So that 6 and 27 years to pay off? Not going to happen. Ever.

AZfederalist on April 6, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Hot chicks always ask about my Volt. I show them the pictures of baby polar bears I support with the money I save on gasoline. I have sex 3 times a day.

tlynch001 on April 6, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Ya – but do you get your birth control for free??

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Ya – but do you get your birth control for free??

dentarthurdent on April 6, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Blow-up dolls can’t get pregnant.

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 6:59 PM

I suspect the NYT numbers assume the BATTERY IS NOT REPLACED. It is likely that the battery will be replaced in many of the all electrics. The battery is the most expensive part of the cars. Manufacture of the batteries involves chemicals which are an environmental hazard.

burt on April 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM

I love my volt!

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-supreme-court-will-strike-down-all.html

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 7:23 PM

THought this thread was about the volt?

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Damian,

It is. Excuse me. I forgot to put the “o/t” at the top. You might wish to read it anyway. Kennedy’s words alone are worth the effort. They are damning.

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Gas prices would need to reach about $12.50 a gallon for Chevy Volt purchasers to actually recoup the cost of the car in fuel savings in the time they’re likely to own the car, according to The New York Times

It is worst than that.

Obama also plans for electricity rates to skyrocket. Thus even at $12.50 a gallon which Obama might make happen the Volt will not come close to paying for it’s self.

But here we are making sure Obama wins by nominating Mitt.

Steveangell on April 6, 2012 at 7:31 PM

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM

I already read it, long before you posted it on the forbes site.

I do not agree with the article, however I do agree that it will be struck down, and rightly so.

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 7:32 PM

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Good. Someone just sent it to me. Ferrara is correct. I have been making the same arguments and citing the same cases for nearly 3 years now. I think that the Left has been it an echo chamber since the beginning. Not only have they failed to listen to the arguments we have made, they have failed to read the caselaw. I think that is why Obama and the rest of them have lashed out the way that they have. They were truly shocked.

On Sunday, Jeffrey Toobin predicted a 7-2 decision.
On Monday, Toobin was visibly shaken.
On Tuesday, Toobin said that the arguments had been a train wreck for the administration.
On Wednesday, Toobin’s train wreck became a plane wreck.

After that, the cries for impeachment started and then Obama came out with his abject idiocy about Lochner and the nonsense that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn a Federal law.

I think Ferrara does an excellent job and want as many people as possible to read it.

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 7:41 PM

I do not agree with the article, it is a hack attack on the president, the supreme court and the lower court are equally at fault with Obama on the handling of this case.

I do agree that it should be thrown out (Obamacare) but not for the political reasons.

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

I know that you do not agree with it. You say that it is a “hack attack on the president, the supreme court and the lower court are equally at fault with Obama on the handling of this case;” yet, you assign no blame to the Democrats in Congress. Strange.

Ferrara is correct on the law, as even Howard Dean acknowledged only a few months ago and President Obama worried before ultimately deciding to go with it.

Diffr’nt strokes.

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Resist We Much on April 6, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Did you not read my post? I said equally at fault with Obama. Thats putting blame on THE Democrat I think.

I still do not agree with Ferrara, he does a good job bringing up a few case laws, yes, however the bottom line is that just about every american uses the health care system in their life, and that is where the commerce clause comes in.

Im not saying I like it, I think Obamacare is not good law, however instead of throwing it out the window, come up with a solution. I dont see any solutions, I see get rid of it and keep going with a broken system that breaks familys and people over and over again because they can not afford the outrageous costs of health care.

I also do not take people saying or claiming they know how the court will rule on face value. Ill wait for the decision to come down.

damian1967 on April 6, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Did you not read my post? I said equally at fault with Obama. Thats putting blame on THE Democrat I think.

Yes, I read your post. You left out the Democratic Congress that passed the monstrosity.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2012 at 1:33 PM

And of course there is the other problem. The “Time Value of Money”.

If I said “Hey, give me $12,000 and I’ll give you $100/month for 10 years. You’d say “I’m not giving you an interest free loan for a decade you stupid moocher” (I know, I’ve asked; but I was wearing a disguise).

But for some reason people think “If I spend $12,000 I can save $100/month for 10 years… that’s a good deal for me.

It’s because some people are stupid… so I haven’t asked for a loan from the right people yet. Of course I haven’t met a Chevy Volt owner yet either.

When I do, I’m asking for 1.2 million and offering to pay back $10,000/month for 10 years. I’m sure they’ll think it’s a great idea…

gekkobear on April 8, 2012 at 1:12 AM