I think you may have meant that last comment to be the other way round - transferring money, through taxes, from poorer people to the better off.

You are quite correct.

Richie Rich admitted last week that he had been transferring monies form the poorer northern areas to the richer south east.

So it seems that despite their supposed desire to "level up" the UK they are doing exactly the opposite in reality.

Were no subsidies available for EVs would any be sold? I suspect none or very few!

If it is accepted EVs represent a desirable non-polluting future (not a universal belief in fairness), then a way to encourage sales is required.

Encouragement could come in a number of ways - eg: pricing ICE beyond the reach of most, limiting the use of ICE (inside towns and cities), or subsidising EVs. May be others.

Any subsidy on a new car is going to benefit the wealthier - it is they who can afford a new car, not the poor and needy. Even were the subsidy means tested (plausible?) it would unlikely attract the poorer bits of society, and may not encourage the wealthy.

The benefit to the poor and needy comes downstream - they will no longer have to live in polluted inner cities (now clean due to zero emissions), and in time will be able to afford second hand EVs (just as they do ICE now).

Turning EV subsidies into some sort of deliberate political intent to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor is (IMHO) fatuous.

ICE car owners aren't cackling as they pollute like some arch villain. On the other hand, many EV owners (like some Prius owners 10-20 years ago) like to eulogise about their green credentials when it aisn't as simple or as vrituous as they claim.

20 years ago the Prius only preteded to have environmental credentials. Its mpg was no better than a mainstream hatch and the early CVT's were truly dreadful.

In comparison our Octavia PHEV is on a different planet. The more you charge the better your economy (providing you get cheap electricity) but even on a 450 mile trip with no electricity (only what it made itself) ours managed 60 mpg (true) at a speed limit cruise.

And it's getting better as the miles go on.

It's how that electricity is produced that makes the difference, plus all the not very environmentally-friendly methods (and dirty energy cosnumption in developing nations) used to mine all that lovely raw materials used in the EV batteries.

I agree that for certain cars and regular journey patterns, PHEVs are, at present, the best compromise vehicle for many, especially as their (much smaller than pure EV's) batteries don't take that long to charge. Unfortunately they don't come cheap.

<< So it's better that people try to make a difference now, otherwise what are you going to do? Carry on as if nothing is happening and bye bye human race. >>

Of course it is, but everything we do is a new (theoretically and politically) 'better' way to carry on doing all the things we like doing. As you say, there are already too many of us, so without actually trying to correct that problem, we might look for ways to travel less. But we all like to do that ....

It's easy virtue-signalling buying an EV if you have the money but there are consequences that others/we all have to bare. They aren't a guilt-free purchase, and likely for the forseeable future not for anyone but the well-heeled.

But exactly the same thing happened with ICE cars, only the rich could afford them until economies of scale made them cheaper.

The difference is that the government didn't subsidise the likes of Lord Grantham to buy his Roller with taxes from Mr Carson who never would be able to afford a car.

We are already bearing the consequences. Crop failure (across the world) due to unpredictable weather patterns will make the odd black out seem trivial in comparison, and we won't be able to worm our way out of that one because there are too many of us.

Far, far more people have been lifted out of poverty (and thus saved from death) by economic growth over the last 20-30 years, not by making every product expensive and out of reach for ordinary folk, let alone the poor from developing nations. The problems in Sri Lanka were caused by following (ironically) the WEF-sponsored sudden shift to organic crops, not 'weather patterns'.

The reason why we're staring (planned) blackouts and water shortages in the face is because we as nations didn't stand up to tyrrany when we should've done and relied to heavily on fossil fuel from despotic regimes when we had the chance to go nuclear and devlop (or not shut down) our own fuel storage facilities, desal plants, etc, etc.

Plus we allowed our populations to grow via immigration (and thus significantly increased demand) for water and power/fuel at the same time and whilst turning a blind eye to the knock-on issues of that and huge societal ones that take resources away from other worthwhile projects.

So it's better that people try to make a difference now, otherwise what are you going to do? Carry on as if nothing is happening and bye bye human race.

Buying a subsidised EV and charger won't save a poor person in Africa. Helping them to find (better paid) work and access to clean water and regular power/fuel and transport will. Bankrupting the world to 'save the planet' (a false premice) will kill far more people. It will, however, make it nice and empty for the rich to enjoy themselves sans queues and those ghastly Plebs, except when they need them to clean their homes, do the gardening or serve them food and drink.

Unfortunately a lot people who currently think they'll be amongst the lucky few if the WEF & Co get their way are deluding themselves, as it will likely only be those at the level of significant millionairres that will have a positive outcome if the globalists get their way.

Yes, we do need to change how we do things, but at a much gentler rate, especially after we've just (unwisely) spent untold $Bns on the pandemic 'response' which has to be paid back and contributed most of the inflationary shock, not the fallout from the Ukraine war.