Republican Tax Plan Kills Electric Vehicle Credit (arstechnica.com) 481
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The nascent market for electric cars will suffer a big setback if the Republican tax plan released on Thursday enters into law. Among the changes to the current tax code would be an end to the Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicle Credit. That's the tax incentive that currently means up to $7,500 back from the IRS when you purchase a new battery or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Since the start of 2010, the EV tax credit has been $2,500 for a plug-in vehicle with at least 5kWh battery capacity. Every extra kWh nets another $417 up to a maximum of $7,500, although you would need at least that amount in income tax liability -- the IRS won't cut you a check to make up the full amount. It was never meant to be permanent; once an automaker sells 200,000 qualifying vehicles (starting from January 1, 2010) its eligibility is phased out over a matter of months. But in the almost seven years since, no one has reached that limit yet. Tesla will almost certainly be first, with General Motors not far behind; between them, they've sold a lot of Model Ses and Chevrolet Volts. If this tax plan is enacted, it will surely mean pain for both companies, as well as anyone else hoping to sell a lot of EVs here in the U.S. The data is pretty clear -- tax incentives sell electric cars, and the market for EVs can dry up very fast when they're abolished, as Georgia's recent experience shows.
Coal Cars (Score:3, Funny)
Lets bring back gasification cars that got us through gas shortages. Go down and buy myself some Grade A West Virginia coal and put all those hard working ditch diggers back to work.
Re: (Score:3)
Kerosene from Coal is about $3 a gallon. Kerosene is $1.50 a gallon.
Far more economical to just power Electric cars from coal.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure in a handful of areas but for 70% of people living in the US an electric car is cleaner than nearly all hybrids. http://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-re... [ucsusa.org]
You have to look at the energy trends over the entire life of the car, those MPG equivalent ratings have gone up year after year as new cleaner power plants come on line. Maybe for the next 3-4 years a hybrid has a narrow edge but for the next 6 years your power source will get cleaner while a hybrid remains in the same spot.
One of the really nice things ab
Re: (Score:3)
What about agriculture subsidies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Among the changes to the current tax code would be an end to the Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicle Credit.
I can't say that I disagree. However, I would really like to see an end to agrictulture subsidies. While electric vehicle tax credits will probably have a net long-term impact on the environment, agriculture subsidies just smack of make-work.
Re: What about agriculture subsidies? (Score:5, Informative)
The theory behind them is that it is to keep America potentially self sufficient when it comes to food. Left to the free market, we would buy much cheaper food from overseas and American farms would shut down, not that there is anything wrong with that from a free market perspective. However if war were to break out and our source of cheap overseas food cut off, it could lead to famine if we don't have a local ability to produce food up and running to jump in and pick up the slack.
How well the subsidies achieve this and whether they are the optimal amount, I dunno.
Re: (Score:3)
The other major effect (and really the primary one) of Ag subsidies is to put more control of farming practices into the hands of the government. You can't collect the subsidy unless you follow the rules, e.g. soil conservation, nutrient governance, etc.
Farmers are notoriously independent minded and generally dislike government interference for good reasons. Historically, government regulation, while good for society as a whole, very often means the individual producers are asked to sacrifice for the commo
Re: What about agriculture subsidies? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't collect the subsidy unless you follow the rules, e.g. soil conservation, nutrient governance, etc.
Sadly, the Freedom to Farm Act from 1996 ended that fair bargain. It dropped the rules immediately, then phased out the subsidy over time. This turned out to be a big scam, because the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 kept subsidies going, but kept the rules out. This mess is hardly ever talked about, because rural America votes anti-government, but is a solid block for keeping its pork.
Re: What about agriculture subsidies? (Score:5, Informative)
Some individuals may want smaller government, but a vote for the Republicans is not a vote for it unless one is deeply ignorant of actual positions, although that seems like a majority. And it's sad that I have to explain this, but no I'm not saying the Dems are small government. Both parties are equally bad on many things.
Re: (Score:2)
Left to the free market, we would buy much cheaper food from overseas
For most bulk crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans, America is the world's low cost producer. Nobody is going to put American farms out of business.
The problem is actually the opposite: 3rd world cities buy cheap American food, depriving rural areas of income, and push them into poverty. The solution? Free trade. Poor countries should buy capital intensive crops like grain and legumes from America, and focus on labor intensive crops like tomatoes, strawberries, coffee, and mangoes. That makes every
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The solution? Free trade. Poor countries should buy capital intensive crops like grain and legumes from America, and focus on labor intensive crops like tomatoes, strawberries, coffee, and mangoes.
Do you mean like my Argentine raspberries and strawberries? And my Mexican avocados and coffee? And my Chilean grapes? And my Guatamalan bananas? IOW I'm pretty sure we're already doing this.
That makes everyone better off.
Does it?
I'm not aware that much of central and south America have geography like the American and Canadian prairies – which we destroyed – that could be converted to growing grains and legumes in the industrial quantities that we do. I'm not totally convinced that America growing grain is what has relegated
Re: (Score:3)
The US has troops in over a 100 different countries around the world. If you think the US can be cutoff from fod imports you are delusional. The Ag subsidies go mostly to huge multi billion dollar Food corporations who own most of the farmland in the US (directly or indirectly under contract farming). Its a case of the poor subsidizing the rich.
Re:What about agriculture subsidies? (Score:5, Interesting)
Among the changes to the current tax code would be an end to the Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicle Credit.
I can't say that I disagree.
Folks who can afford electric vehicles tend to be much more affluent than the normal folks who need to bust the piggy bank for the small change to barely scrape it over the price finish line. So, in this case, the plan would actually stick it to the rich.
However, I would really like to see an end to agrictulture subsidies.
Folks involved in "industrial agriculture production" tend to be even more affluent, and have a bigger budget for hiring lobbyists. They own your Congress Critter. So agriculture subsidies will remain the dug up, stitched up drunk and disorderly Frankenstein Monster that they are.
The lobbyists can cry rivers of guaranteeing food supply stories and price stability stories, but when push comes to shove, the subsidies benefit rich producers. So the rich win this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Folks who can afford electric vehicles tend to be much more affluent than the normal folks who need to bust the piggy bank for the small change to barely scrape it over the price finish line. So, in this case, the plan would actually stick it to the rich.
I don't think that's a reasonable point at all. EVs can be had for pretty incredibly low rates (e.g. eGlofs are advertised at around $49 a month on lease). These are far from rich people's toys.
Further, the goal of this credit is not to bias either way to rich or poor, it's to encourage the manufacturers to build these cars, and in doing so cause us to build a crap ton more batteries. That will push us down the experience curve on battery production and get us to a point where EVs *and* electric grid sto
Re: (Score:3)
Social engineering through the tax code is exactly why we have a tax code!
Sorry, but that's revisionist history. Taxes are intended to pay for the services that are for the common good, not to promote specific industries and get us to "live right".
If you want to eliminate that incentive, the place to start is mortgage interest and property tax deductions.
Mortgage interest deductions are one example of social engineering, but the goal is to make home ownership more affordable. It applies to everyone, not just people who can afford to buy or make use of an EV. And it's nothing like the Chicago "soda tax" (75 cents a bottle, IIRC) that is intended to stop people from drinking even diet so
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confused -
hardly.
since when is social engineering people to buy things that will cause chunks of the US not to be under water, not for the common good?
You missed quite a few words there. "Pay for services" plays a crucial role. No, "take from Peter to give to Paul" isn't a "service", nor is "stop drinking that diet soda". (I was amazed that the Chicago tax, intended to prevent obesity by reducing the intake of sugary pop, applied to EVERYTHING, not just sugary pop. Baby, bathwater, gurgle gurgle...)
And I hate to burst the bubble, but the EV rebate isn't going to stop global crises. There's enough carbon used in building and using these things that
Re:What about agriculture subsidies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much the entire Republican plan consists of ways of giving the middle finger to Californians — removing the EV tax credit, removing the deductibility of income tax, etc. If you look at it from that perspective, it all makes sense. Basically, they're trying to shift California from blue to deep blue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps we shouldn't be subsidizing state initiatives paid by state income taxes by forfeiting federal dollars?
If you live in a state that has a high income tax because the state government thinks things like 'We'll build our own fucking rockets to launch satillites'
Why should your burden of federal support be passed onto everyone else who does not live in that state? It is, after all, only fair since you choose to live in that state.
If that makes states with high tax rates unappealing...well...there ya go
Re:What about agriculture subsidies? (Score:5, Informative)
What burden? California (and other blue states) contribute more to the Federal budget than they receive. It's the red-leaning states that are typically the net recipients of everyone's Federal tax dollars. Perhaps we should first stop the agricultural subsidies, which are counter-productive in every way (except to make big agricultural companies and wealthy farmers more wealthy).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should citizen X in state A pay less in federal taxes than citizen Y in state B if they make the same? If state A wants state initiatives that is their business but having state income tax a deductible is unfair to the rest of the citizens in other states making the same.
It isn't about who receives more federal dollars it's about what is fair in paying those federal dollars, do you want to argue entitlements or taxes? Because many of those in those red states would want to get rid of those entitlements.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Let's turn that around. Even with those deductions, most of the states with the highest state tax rates give more money to the federal government than they get back in grants and services. By contrast, most of the states with the lowest state tax rates take considerably more money from the feds than they give. So even now, the states with the highest state tax rates are taking on the "burden of federal
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the high tax states have high taxes because they provide more social services than the low tax states. These social services incease the human capital and efficiency (e.g. subsidized day care lets mothers work instead of being on welfare). This means fewer folks in high tax states depend on Federal welfare. This is the primary reason high tax states do not take as much money from the feds as low tax states. CA could cut its nose to spite its face by cutting taxes, cutting services, crashing its GDP
Re: (Score:2)
It's an argument about how Republicans disadvantage blue states to win in red states who generally a pretty piss poor economic performers. To put this in perspective, California is the sixth largest economy in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
It's less fair because people in TN chose lower state taxes while CA chose higher taxes? I am not sure I understand, which of the two people in your example pays higher federal taxes out of pocket making $100k?
Property is more expensive in CA, why is that the fault of people in TN? Ignoring charity because that is not mandatory like tax.
I am not sure the point in talking about tax spending when the topic is tax collection. Yes, TN may take in more federal dollars but that is an argument for lower federal sp
Re: (Score:3)
How is it fair when two people in different states who pay the same amount of tax get different amounts of services in return?
Both problems are unfair, but one helps balance out the other, and changing one without the other just causes the other to become even more unfair proportionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell you what. We blue states will give up our federal subsidies if you red states agree to give up yours. In the spirit of fairness, though let's expand this. Since we don't wish for you red states to pay an undue burden supporting us blue states with your hard earned money, let's divide taxation and federal spending equally. What the red states put into the federal budget, the red states get back in federal spending within their borders; what blue states put in blue states receive back.
What do you sa
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much the entire Republican plan consists of ways of giving the middle finger to Californians
Farm subsidies also screw California. Midwestern corn and soybean growers get plenty of subsidies, while California walnut, almond, and fruit growers get nothing. The funny thing is, that most Central Valley farmers vote Republican.
Re: What about agriculture subsidies? (Score:3)
Saying the same thing you said with different words: California and Republicans disagree on policy.
Why attach motive to it? Do you think Republicans donâ(TM)t like all those electoral votes and house seats in California, because reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
BRIC based coalition
It's BRICS as South Africa has joined.
will head over occupy them "for their own good, to protect them."
Insanely doubtful even in the wildest dreams of how an independent California would play out. Russia, China, et al could not care less about California as a state or location. Physically being in California has zero value to them. Now as far as their economy goes that's actually worth something.
Of course, the cretins in Congress are falling right into the hands of the Russians who do want to destroy the US by dividing and conquering.
The only problem is that there isn't a get out of the union clause, so no matter how much people like to talk up California or Texas breaking away and becoming their own count
Re: (Score:2)
If this is even remotely true, then it has no chance of passing then.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually raises taxes more on small businesses than on big businesses. If you read it, you'll already know that.
Re: (Score:2)
Go read the stupid thing before you go shooting off at the mouth and making an ass of yourself.
Are you claiming you've read it? Already? And you think you understand it?
Re: (Score:3)
the only real electric vehicle producer is Tesla.
Except for, ya know, the 95% of the world outside America.
China is the world's biggest market for electric cars, and Tesla has few sales there.
Even in America, Tesla has less than half the market [forbes.com]:
Tesla Model S: 29%
Tesla Model X: 16%
Chevy Bolt: 16%
Nissan Leaf: 15%
All others are in single digits.
Gov (Score:2, Funny)
Good! The government should not be picking winners and losers...
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true at all. The market looks only at the short term.
Oil has a (mostly) fixed (if you look at it charitably - actually it's increasing) cost of production, but it's still the cheapest way to fuel a vehicle, mostly because of the huge capitol cost of a battery.
Batteries meanwhile have a decreasing cost that goes in line with our experience producing them, as technology improves.
By introducing this subsidy we force the industry to push us along the battery experience curve faster. That in turn ca
Re: (Score:2)
Which hurts the Koch Brothers, who basically own Congress right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Then we should also stop subsidies of fossil fuels ($5.3 trillion a year according to IMF).
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar... [imf.org]
It's about time they competed on a level playing field.
Solar and wind (without subsidies) are cheaper than coal and natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're just making that up, moron.
What about the $4.7B in fossil fuel subsidies? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's subsidies . . . all the way down.
When the US government threatened to shut down a while back, I was surprised to learn that we even have subsidies for bow and arrow manufacturers.
Gee, I'd like to see a Website that tracks all the stuff that has subsidies. The content would be both amusing and shocking.
Re: (Score:2)
They've improved their lie that much? Last time I looked they counted _taxes_ on oil based fuel as subsidies.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wrong.
Perhaps you read it wrong. Oil benefits from numerous tax subsidies.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar... [imf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So now any level of tax below what some greenie twit says is a subsidy?
These are, cough, interesting definitions...
Re: (Score:2)
Cutting taxes on oil is a subsidy just like the EV tax credit.
Re: (Score:2)
As a conservative, I'm all for getting rid of them.
As a progressive, I'm also for getting rid of them.
But I'm also for continuing to subsidize solar.
Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Tesla (Score:3, Insightful)
What success? They are losing billions of dollars per year and when electric cars become popular, Tesla will probably be eclipsed completely by companies that actually know how to mass produce cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's a Silicon Valley corporate culture for you. The early game is disruption and the end game is domination, and up to that point you're dominating you're not really expected to turn a profit. In fact Amazon investors are known to complain when Amazon occasionally makes money.
Re: Tesla (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's interesting that Tesla cars are currently the most "American-made" of any of the American car manufacturers, and these tax credits helped drive Tesla's success.
Most folks in the US would assume that Chrysler is an American car manufacturer.
It's not. Chrysler is owned by Fiat. Your good 'ole Dodge Ram truck . . . is an Italian product. What does Fiat mean . . . ?
Fehler in alle Teile.
Fix it again, Tony.
Failure in automotive technology.
Fart in a tin.
Fucking Idiot Assembled This.
. . . and my personal favorite . . .
Fucking Italian Automotive Trash!
No, I've never owned one . . . thank God. But a good friend had one, and got to experience everything that ca
Re: (Score:2)
I own a Fiat 850. It's powered by a rat (big block chevy for the eurotrash) and spins 44 inch tires on Dana 60 axles.
Re: (Score:2)
The real irony here is that you can't fuel a ICE car with coal (okay, technically you can by converting coal to get something liquid, but nobody does it). You *can* and *do* (statistically speaking) fuel a tesla with coal -- about 30% of it, based on 2016 numbers (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla's success
For some value of "success"... Telsa's greatest success has been funneling public treasure into the garages of upper income private citizens. If this subsidy is cut we'll finally see whether buying a Tesla product is anything more than tax-advantaged virtue and status signalling.
I personally hope it is, but I'm not willing to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to pretend otherwise.
Re: Tesla (Score:3)
This will likely hurt other EV manufacturers more than Tesla. Tesla knows they will hit the cap in 2018 if Model 3 does anywhere in the same time zone as (revised) production schedules say.
The company just about to launch their EV will get bitchslapped by this, because they wonâ(TM)t have the economy of scale unless they are already a huge auto company and can eat the up-front costs to design and manufacture cars at any kind of scale.
The subsidy is a wealth transfer to the well-off (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class. And especially with the Teslas, these vehicles are not only a form of transportation, but also status symbols.
(Full disclosure: I got about $2000 when I bought a Prius back in 2005 or so. Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, but the subsidy made a bit more sense for Priuses as they helped close the gap in price between them and equivalent cars, like a Civic or Camry or Taurus. But subsidizing $75,000 cars for the upper class makes no sense)
Re:The subsidy is a wealth transfer to the well-of (Score:5, Interesting)
I can agree on that when it comes to Tesla's S/X models... but what about the Leaf, Volt, Bolt, and other "cheap" electric vehicles? Those are far from status symbols, and the people that drive them are definitely not upper-class.
Maybe it would make sense to continue to offer subsidies on cars priced below, say $40K, and then scale it down or outright remove it for higher priced vehicles.
Re:The subsidy is a wealth transfer to the well-of (Score:5, Insightful)
Looking at the IRS tax stats for 2015 [irs.gov], column U (average total income tax paid), the $50k-$75k bracket paid an average of $5341 in income tax, the $75k-$100k bracket paid an average of $8430 in income tax. So you had to have an income of about $75k+ to claim the full $7500 tax credit. Not exactly upper class, but definitely upper middle class. Looking at the number of returns in each income bracket, pretty much only the top 25% of incomes qualified for the full $7500.
People in the bottom 75% usually got less than $7500 even if they bought a qualifying EV. And low-income people who typically pay little to no income tax, even if they somehow managed to buy an EV (a lease would qualify you for the credit) got next to nothing. I'm actually not sure how this $7500 tax credit lasted this long. Conservatives should've hated it because it was a massive government subsidy. Liberals should've hated it because it was horribly regressive.
Re: (Score:3)
Even at $5341 it pushes every electric car other than the Tesla X, Tesla S and BMW i3 below the median new car value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So is the mortgage interest deduction and the whole government backed secondary mortgage market ... depending on your definition of "well-off". Certainly most of the people in the neighborhood I grew up with weren't ever going to benefit from that.
But it was a matter of federal policy that moving people (or at least some people) into homes they owned and having them build equity was good public policy.
The reason electric vehicle subsidies exist isn't to make life nicer for well-heeled consumers; it's to de
Re: (Score:3)
If that's true, then the free market system has failed this particular product category pretty badly, and maybe needs some kind of regulation, or just plain old punishment for price fixing.
But, my guess is that those cars are simply still expensive to make.
Re: (Score:3)
Which was exactly the goal - encourage those manufacturers to make electric cars, because it became more profitable. In doing so, encourage research into battery technology, and push us along the experience curve to make batteries cheaper, and more viable both for cars and grid storage.
Liquid fuel tax (Score:3)
Electric car manufacturers won't drop the price of the cars. The subsidy only applied to the first few months of production to kick start the market. Both Tesla and GM are almost at the limit already so it doesn't really effect them anyway.
What is important is the liquid fuel tax and lowered subsidy for ethanol. Both of those make internal combustion vehicles more expensive to own. Electric cars will become more attractive even without the subsidy. A win-win for government revenue.
Re:The subsidy is a wealth transfer to the well-of (Score:5, Interesting)
the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off.
Of all the things wrong with a subsidy, this is the least problematic for the electric vehicle subsidy. By your logic, the people receiving the subsidy are those who actually pay federal income taxes. Remember, the bottom 50% of wage earners have effectively no federal income tax burden. So, this isn't a wealth transfer to the wealthy. At worst, it is a discount on the taxes that they are actually paying.
The real problem I see with subsidies like this is that they tend to artificially raise the price of the product being subsidized. This happens with college tuition, agricultural produce, and even happened with low end fuel-efficient cars during the cash for clunkers program.
The real problem for subsidies is that they create a market distortion. There are certain limited occassions where that sort of thing makes sense and electric cars, even those which only the "well off" can afford might be one of the few good occassions, owing to the potential long term environmental benefit. I would rather the market function well without government interference, but there is still a way to go until electric vehicles become truly cost competitive.
Smaller cars (Score:2)
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off.
Which can all be traced back to the way cities are organized in your country, with even simple tasks ("going to buy some groceries") involving driving several kilometers. This makes the general population used to drive longer distance, and therefor anxious about the range of any vehicle, which in turn pressures manufacturer to build EV with huge batteries.
And as batteries are the most expensive part in an EV, the end result is that in north america, EV are extremely expensive and for the ultra rich only.
Con
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that these are for the well off? You can lease an eGolf for $49 a month - that's hardly well off rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class.
You only need $56,200 of taxable income (MFJ) to have $7500 in tax liability.
That's middle income by most definitions. (slightly above $46k median of all US households, slightly below $67k median of dual-earner households)
A Pacifica Hybrid costs $44k (plus tax, registration, etc).
Take out $7k of that, and you're at $37k for a nice minivan.
$37k is a reasonable price for a minivan.
I have seen 'middle income' defined as being the middle three quintiles of income.
I've also seen it as currently people in US are
Re: (Score:2)
You only need $56,200 of taxable income (MFJ) to have $7500 in tax liability.
That doesn't seem right. I think you've left out the standard deduction, which would kick it up another $12,600, and the personal exemptions, which would be another $8k. So you'd need more like $76,000, assuming no other credits, deductions, or children. It wouldn't be hard for a family to make $100k and still not actually pay $7,500 in tax.
$37k is a reasonable price for a minivan.
If we're still in the context of a $56k as a comparison income, I'd say a $37k car of any kind is outrageously expensive. I don't see how anyone can afford a vehicle tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class. And especially with the Teslas, these vehicles are not only a form of transportation, but also status symbols.
(Full disclosure: I got about $2000 when I bought a Prius back in 2005 or so. Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, but the subsidy made a bit more sense for Priuses as they helped close the gap in price between them and equivalent cars, like a Civic or Camry or Taurus. But subsidizing $75,000 cars for the upper class makes no sense)
Though in this case the well-off are also subsidizing the development of the technology, and helping the rest of us by driving vehicles with lower emissions.
And you'd need a competent economist to do the math, but even ignoring AGW gasoline cars carries significant costs. There's a crapload of subsidies, direct and indirect, that go towards oil, and the actual exhaust causes a lot of damage. Your EV is in many ways cheaper for the government than a gasoline vehicle, tax policy pushing you to an EV is just g
I expect in the comments here (Score:2, Insightful)
many will decry the evils of government intervention into the market for cars, and celebrate the end of this program.
The same people will have zero problems with the direct subsidies that distort the petroleum and agricultural markets, each of which massively dwarf this program.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think that a leaf, or eGolf (both of which can be had for about $40-$50 a month on lease) are luxury cars?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agricultural subsidies were implemented after the Dust
Top 10% (Score:3)
Good riddance, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As others have said, the credit disproportionately benefits people who (1) are in higher tax brackets (wealthy people), and (2) those who can afford electric vehicles (also wealthy people).
What we should be doing instead is to charge the full societal cost of gasoline consumption (up to $1,000 per person per year [fullerton.edu]) and adding that to the price of gasoline. Then people will naturally switch to electric vehicles, no subsidies or government social engineering necessary.
Of course, we also need to charge drivers the full cost of the roads, up from less than half [uspirg.org] (who says Republicans oppose welfare?); and abolish laws that show favoritism toward Big Oil such as those that force developers to build more parking than the market wants, but that's a different topic of discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
If drivers were charged the real cost of the roads, trucks would face a very large increase in costs. Cars do almost zero damage to roads, while almost all the wear and tear is due to trucks.
"The federal government has estimated that a 40-ton, 18-wheel truck causes the same damage as 9,600 midsize cars."
http://beta.latimes.com/opinio... [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
False [thinkprogress.org].
Meh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good news! Its something you claim on your taxes to reduce them.
If the IRS notices and sends you a refund, you can include it back to them on next year's taxes on the "pay more to reduce the national debt" line.
Have fun!
Re: (Score:2)
Que the Kochsuckers! (Score:2)
Itâ(TM)s time (Score:3)
just tax pollution already (Score:3)
We don't need a tax credit for electric cars. We need a tax penalty for polluting. Maybe in this case the result is similar but with fewer arbitrary stipulations which benefit specific megacorps who can afford to buy legislation.
Cars kill as many people by air pollution as by collisions--the difference is that air pollution is always a hit and run.
As an owner of an EV, I say great (Score:2)
This approach is much better than subsidizing EVs, esp. when the only one dropping in prices is Tesla.
it didn't work anyway (Score:2)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Tax credit is not what you "get back". Tax credit is just a deduction from your income to get into a lower tax bracket.
No, that's wrong too.
A deduction reduces your taxable income before you calculate taxed owed on that income.
A tax credit is a credit against taxes owed, after you have calculated taxes on your taxable income. The cretit may be refundable (you get all of it) or non-refundable (you get no more than the amount to zero-out your tax liability.)
Re: (Score:3)
A tax credit is a credit against taxes owed, after you have calculated taxes on your taxable income. The cretit may be refundable (you get all of it) or non-refundable (you get no more than the amount to zero-out your tax liability.)
If it's non-refundable, it is not really a credit. It's a discount. This language was designed to confuse you, and it is working. Credit is something you get. A discount is something you don't have to pay. It's obvious that a non-refundable "credit" is actually a discount.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry sir, you are incorrect. A 'deduction' reduces your taxable income. A credit is a direct reduction of taxes ('get back' more on your refund).
Re: Wrong (Score:3)
No, people are stupid and too lazy to use Google. Deductions and credits are one of the simpler things to understand in the tax system. Once you think in terms of "taxable income" both make total sense.
The complexity isn't the terms themselves but the shear number of them and the rules for qualification. The concepts themselves aren't bad. They encourage market & resource direction. But I think they have long ago become nothing more than chips in the political lobby poker table.
Re: (Score:2)
Tax credit is not what you "get back". Tax credit is just a deduction from your income to get into a lower tax bracket.
Well, you titled your post "Wrong" and indeed you were.
Well done.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that your coal burning Tesla still emits less CO2 than your ICE car. (Internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient.)
Re: (Score:3)
But due to the early years of payments when we had a real pyramid. Many paying, few collecting ( I think it was 16 to 1). But now the end of the surplus is in sight. The last numbers I saw we had 2 paying for each individual collecting.
I think the problem date for SS/Medicare (which are what FICA is) is 2034. The other Entitlements (SS Disability
Re: (Score:3)
Coal power is used to charge the EVs and coal ash has the same problems when the coal ash lakes spill into rivers.
Even if you use coal to charge the EVs, the overall emissions are still less than if you put petrol into an ICE-based vehicle, especially if you run your scrubbers correctly. Also, since we have laws requiring running the scrubbers correctly (although nobody follows them because the penalties are so meaningless, and we can find out-of-compliance plants literally as fast as we can pay people to check on them, which was true before Trump and is probably much worse now) it's not reasonable to blame the vehicle