独家
向富人征税，购买更多电动汽车?加州民主党分裂
选民面前的提案将对200万美元以上(或低于4.3万人)的个人收入增加1.75%的税收。州分析人士估计，该计划每年将筹集至多50亿美元的资金，主要用于帮助人们购买电动汽车和建造充电站，也有一部分用于提供抗击野火的资源。
加州的一项投票措施将向富人征税，以帮助投入更多资金电动汽车在这个以领导气候变化而闻名的州，30号提案似乎是为赢得民主党人的支持而量身定做的，但30号提案有一个显著的对手:州长加文·纽瑟姆。这使得这位民主党州长站在了自己党派的对立面，并与他传统的环保盟友对立。
选民面前的提案将对200万美元以上(或低于4.3万人)的个人收入增加1.75%的税收。州分析人士估计，该计划每年将筹集高达50亿美元的资金，主要用于帮助人们买房电动汽车并建立充电站，其中一些还专门用于抗击野火的资源。
“没有这样的东西，我们就无法实现我们的气候目标，”加州环境选民组织的首席执行官玛丽·克里斯曼(Mary Creasman)说。“要么是我们所有人支付，要么是有能力支付的最富有的人支付。”
纽瑟姆称30号提案是拼车巨头Lyft的抢钱行为，后者已经为该提案投入了至少4500万美元。州监管机构已经规定，到2030年，所有拼车出行必须实现零排放。优步尚未对该措施表态。
纽瑟姆在一则电视广告中说:“不要被愚弄了，30号提案被宣传为一项气候倡议，但实际上，它是由一家公司设计的，目的是将州所得税转嫁给他们的公司。”
支持者反对这种描述，称Lyft是在环保组织已经在讨论投票措施之后才参与进来的。克雷斯曼说，重要的是要“指责我们自己的团队和州长在这项措施的起源上撒谎”。
30号提案为电动汽车筹集的资金中有一半将进入一个权益账户，旨在扩大交通选择，限制低收入或弱势社区的空气污染。它可以用来帮助人们购买电动汽车，或者让更清洁的送货卡车、公共汽车甚至电动自行车上路。
随着气候变化使加州变得更热、更干燥，野火也成为一个日益紧迫的问题。该州大多数最致命和最具破坏性的野火都发生在过去几年，该州估计野火在2021年释放了超过8500万吨的碳排放，超过了电力每年的排放量。
Lyft表示，它支持这项措施，因为减少排放是一项良好的气候政策。
“30号提案通过对年收入超过200万美元的个人征税来提供资金。我很幸运能受到这项税收的影响，我很乐意缴纳它，以帮助扭转这种存在的威胁，”该公司首席执行官洛根·格林(Logan Green)在一篇博客文章中写道。
与纽森一起反对该措施的还有加州教师协会、加州商会和一些帮助资助“反对”运动的风险投资家。
州预算规定规定，一定比例的收入必须用于K-12教育，而通过税收筹集的资金不会计入该规定，教师们不喜欢这一规定。与此同时，无党派机构立法分析师办公室(Legislative Analyst’s Office)说，根据某些预算规则，该提议可能会迫使其他领域削减支出，这一点是该措施的支持者所不认同的。
商业团体指出，加州的个人所得税已经是全美最高的，而投票措施将使最高收入者的个人所得税超过15%。加州商会(California Chamber of Commerce)基金会主席洛伦·凯耶(Loren Kaye)也警告称，电动汽车的快速扩张可能会给能源电网带来压力，纽瑟姆政府否认了这一观点。
30号提案的支持者包括加州民主党清洁空气联盟,自然资源保护委员会美国肺脏协会(American Lung Association)和美国肺脏协会(American Lung Association)都否认该措施是专门为Lyft设计的，并指出其中没有明确为拼车司机留出资金的条款。
支持者认为，虽然纽森对电动汽车基础设施的现有承诺意义重大，但该州需要一个更稳定的长期收入来源。如果法案通过，增税将持续20年。
“我们需要一个持续的、可靠的资金来源，让我们度过预算好的年份和预算不好的年份，”该机构的政策主管比尔•马格文(Bill Magavern)表示清洁空气联盟．在提到Lyft时，他补充说，“如果目标是限制污染，谁驾驶电动汽车又有什么关系呢?”
阅读更多:
上半年FY23汽车销售分析:现代、Hero受冲击最严重;塔塔、HMSI成为赢家
本财年的上半年是光伏行业有史以来表现最好的时期，但人们对入门级光伏和两轮车的担忧依然存在。至于整车厂，塔塔和马欣德拉获得了部分市场份额，而现代则损失了约3个百分点。同样，Hero MotoCorp的股价也下跌了3个百分点，而HMSI等其他公司的股价则在前六个月出现上涨。
11月1日起，孟买汽车司机和同乘者必须系好安全带
孟买交警给没有安装安全带的车主时间，要求他们在10月31日前安装安全带。
![\"](\"https:\/\/st.etb2bimg.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/etauto-default.jpg\")
A California ballot measure that would tax the rich to help put more electric cars<\/a> on the road may seem tailor-made to win support from Democrats in a state known for climate leadership, but Proposition 30 has one notable opponent: Gov. Gavin Newsom. That's put the Democratic governor on the opposite side of his own party and against his traditional environmental allies.
The proposition before voters would add a 1.75 per cent tax on personal income of more than $2 million, or fewer than 43,000 people. State analysts estimate it would raise up to $5 billion a year, mostly to help people buy electric vehicles<\/a> and to build charging stations, with some also dedicated to resources for fighting wildfires.
<\/div><\/div>Environmental and health group backers say California needs dedicated funding to speed the transition away from gas-powered cars<\/a> and help lower planet-warming emissions. Transportation accounts<\/a> for 40 per cent of California's greenhouse gas emissions, and increasingly deadly wildfires are another major source of carbon.
\"We can't meet our climate goals without something like this,\" said Mary Creasman, chief executive officer for California Environmental Voters. \"It's either going to be all of us who pays, or it's going to be the wealthiest who can afford to pay.\"
Newsom has branded Proposition 30 as a money grab by ridesharing giant Lyft, which has spent at least $45 million backing it. State regulators have mandated that all rideshare trips be zero-emission by 2030. Uber has not taken a position on the measure.
\"Don't be fooled, Prop. 30\u2032s being advertised as a climate initiative, but in reality it was devised by a single corporation to funnel state income taxes to benefit their company,\" Newsom says in one TV ad.
Supporters reject that characterization, saying that Lyft got involved after environmental groups were already discussing a ballot measure. Creasman said it was important to \"call our own team and governor out for lying\" about the origins of the measure.
\"We can't meet our climate goals without something like this,\" said Mary Creasman, chief executive officer for California Environmental Voters. \"It's either going to be all of us who pays, or it's going to be the wealthiest who can afford to pay.\"
Newsom has branded Proposition 30 as a money grab by ridesharing giant Lyft, which has spent at least $45 million backing it. State regulators have mandated that all rideshare trips be zero-emission by 2030. Uber has not taken a position on the measure.
\"Don't be fooled, Prop. 30\u2032s being advertised as a climate initiative, but in reality it was devised by a single corporation to funnel state income taxes to benefit their company,\" Newsom says in one TV ad.
Supporters reject that characterization, saying that Lyft got involved after environmental groups were already discussing a ballot measure. Creasman said it was important to \"call our own team and governor out for lying\" about the origins of the measure.
<\/div><\/div>In an election year where Newsom is expected to cruise to reelection for a second term, the fight over Proposition 30 has become perhaps the most contentious of the season for Democrats. It comes months after state air regulators approved a Newsom-backed plan to ban the sale of most new gas-powered cars in the state by 2035. Newsom notes that he has already dedicated $10 billion to various programs aimed at boosting EV adoption<\/a> over the next six years.
Half the money raised in Proposition 30 for electric vehicles would go into an equity account designed to expand transportation options and limit air pollution in low-income or disadvantaged neighborhoods. It could be used to help people buy electric cars or to put cleaner delivery trucks, buses and even e-bikes on the roads.
Wildfires, too, have become an increasingly urgent problem as climate change makes the state hotter and drier. Most of the state's deadliest and most destructive wildfires have occurred in the last few years, and the state estimates wildfires released more than 85 million metric tons of carbon emissions in 2021 - more than the annual emissions from electricity.
Lyft says it supports the measure because reducing emissions is good climate policy.
\"Proposition 30 funds this through a tax on individuals who earn more than $2 million a year. I'm fortunate enough to be impacted by this tax and happy to pay it to help turn back the clock on this existential threat,\" Logan Green, the company's chief executive officer, wrote in a blog post.
Joining Newsom in opposing the measure are the California Teachers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and some venture capitalists who are helping fund the \"No\" campaign.
The money raised by the tax wouldn't count toward a state budget rule that says a certain percentage of revenue must go to K-12 education, a provision the teachers don't like. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said the proposal could force lower spending in other areas based on certain budget rules, something supporters of the measure dispute.
Business groups note that California's personal income tax is already the highest in the nation, and the ballot measure would put it over 15 per cent for the highest earners. Loren Kaye, foundation president for the California Chamber of Commerce, also warned that a rapid expansion of electric vehicles could strain the energy grid, an argument the Newsom administration has rejected.
Backers of Proposition 30 include the California Democratic Party, the Clean Air Coalition<\/a>, the Natural Resources Defense Council<\/a> and the American Lung Association, which have rejected characterizations that the measure is designed to benefit Lyft specifically, noting there's no provision that would expressly set aside money for rideshare drivers.
While Newsom's existing commitment to electric vehicle infrastructure is significant, the state needs a more stable long-term revenue source, supporters argue. The tax increase would last for 20 years if the measure passes.
\"We need a consistent, reliable source of funding that keeps us going through good budget years and bad budget years,\" said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air<\/a>. Referring to Lyft, he added, \"If the goal is to limit pollution, does it matter who is driving the EV?\"
Read More:
Half the money raised in Proposition 30 for electric vehicles would go into an equity account designed to expand transportation options and limit air pollution in low-income or disadvantaged neighborhoods. It could be used to help people buy electric cars or to put cleaner delivery trucks, buses and even e-bikes on the roads.
Wildfires, too, have become an increasingly urgent problem as climate change makes the state hotter and drier. Most of the state's deadliest and most destructive wildfires have occurred in the last few years, and the state estimates wildfires released more than 85 million metric tons of carbon emissions in 2021 - more than the annual emissions from electricity.
Lyft says it supports the measure because reducing emissions is good climate policy.
\"Proposition 30 funds this through a tax on individuals who earn more than $2 million a year. I'm fortunate enough to be impacted by this tax and happy to pay it to help turn back the clock on this existential threat,\" Logan Green, the company's chief executive officer, wrote in a blog post.
Joining Newsom in opposing the measure are the California Teachers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce and some venture capitalists who are helping fund the \"No\" campaign.
The money raised by the tax wouldn't count toward a state budget rule that says a certain percentage of revenue must go to K-12 education, a provision the teachers don't like. Meanwhile, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said the proposal could force lower spending in other areas based on certain budget rules, something supporters of the measure dispute.
Business groups note that California's personal income tax is already the highest in the nation, and the ballot measure would put it over 15 per cent for the highest earners. Loren Kaye, foundation president for the California Chamber of Commerce, also warned that a rapid expansion of electric vehicles could strain the energy grid, an argument the Newsom administration has rejected.
Backers of Proposition 30 include the California Democratic Party, the Clean Air Coalition<\/a>, the Natural Resources Defense Council<\/a> and the American Lung Association, which have rejected characterizations that the measure is designed to benefit Lyft specifically, noting there's no provision that would expressly set aside money for rideshare drivers.
While Newsom's existing commitment to electric vehicle infrastructure is significant, the state needs a more stable long-term revenue source, supporters argue. The tax increase would last for 20 years if the measure passes.
\"We need a consistent, reliable source of funding that keeps us going through good budget years and bad budget years,\" said Bill Magavern, policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air<\/a>. Referring to Lyft, he added, \"If the goal is to limit pollution, does it matter who is driving the EV?\"
Read More: