$12,500 tax credit possible?

[shutterbug]

Sorry, you are correct.. I meant Georgia. Both are Democrat.

And Georgia senators are fully on board with this already. Frankly there is only one senator who matters in this.

Sponsored

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Sorry, you are correct.. I meant Georgia. Both are Democrat.

For about two seconds. Next year will change everything...

 

[Nick Gerteis]

Both Democrat and both highly supportive of unions.

Looks like the increased tax credit might have a better shot in the upcoming budget reconciliation bill with democrat only support. Manchin might still try to tank it, wouldn’t be a surprise now that we found out just how deep he’s in fossil fuel ‘s pocket.

 

[Nick Gerteis]

And Georgia senators are fully on board with this already. Frankly there is only one senator who matters in this.

The guy that took millions from Exxon?

 

[Blainestang]

Also...if you think Americans are going to "do the right thing" without incentive, I got beach front property in Nebraska to sell you.

One incentive is that EVs are just plain better than gas vehicles in a lot of ways and price parity is close, in many cases, too.

I'm not saying necessarily that the tax credit is bad... but I think it might be overkill. For instance, I don't think it would take $12,500 to get people to buy all the EVs manufacturers can build over the next couple years, at least the good ones. I bet Ford could sell all ~80k Lightnings that they are estimated to build with very little incentive, for instance. Tesla has been selling all the EVs they can build without the federal incentive for years. Ford can't build the Mach E fast enough at $7,500 credit.

I stand to benefit from the credit and have already benefitted to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, but I think we'd be better off with more, smaller credits, personally. I think 2.5 million $5,000 credits would give better ROI than 1 million $12,500 credits, for instance.

Short version: I don't think people need $12,500 of incentive to sell EVs, anymore. Even at $0-$7500, right now, the GOOD EVs are selling out because they're simply better than their gas competition. I think we can spend our tax dollars more efficiently than a huge $12,500 credit.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

One incentive is that EVs are just plain better than gas vehicles in a lot of ways and price parity is close, in many cases, too.

I'm not saying necessarily that the tax credit is bad... but I think it might be overkill. For instance, I don't think it would take $12,500 to get people to buy all the EVs manufacturers can build over the next couple years, at least the good ones. I bet Ford could sell all ~80k Lightnings that they are estimated to build with very little incentive, for instance. Tesla has been selling all the EVs they can build without the federal incentive for years. Ford can't build the Mach E fast enough at $7,500 credit.

I stand to benefit from the credit and have already benefitted to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, but I think we'd be better off with more, smaller credits, personally. I think 2.5 million $5,000 credits would give better ROI than 1 million $12,500 credits, for instance.

Short version: I don't think people need $12,500 of incentive to sell EVs, anymore. Even at $0-$7500, right now, the GOOD EVs are selling out because they're simply better than their gas competition. I think we can spend our tax dollars more efficiently than a huge $12,500 credit.

Completely correct. People forget that we are running massive deficits, mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future. The debt we are accumulating now has serious maro ramifications. EVs now stand on their own. I don't think the initial incentives were necessary - I certainly would have purchased my first three Teslas (and the two Priuses) without receiving the tax credits that we got. Same for our solar panels and geothermal systems. However, the credits may have impacted the calculus for some buyers. Those days are over, so what we now have is folks with their hands out - essentially middle class-to-wealthy folks who WANT a credit for something they'd buy anyway. And asking the Federal government to take on more debt to help them buy a new car. Nope.

 

[Maxx]

The higher the sticker price the less impact tax incentives have on influencing decisions. If they cap it at $35,000 many consumers at lower price range that are on the fence may take the plunge. That will give manufacturers incentive to produce affordable EVs as well.

As is with supply side limitations we have, manufacturers are incentivized to increase the price and pocket the tax money that was meant for the customer because they know they can sell the car at adjusted price.

 

[Brian Head Yankee]

So what? What is your point? Let the poor ride the bus. No one is born poor. I'm over this socialist thinking. I work my butt off to have nice things.

 

[MickeyAO]

So what? What is your point? Let the poor ride the bus. No one is born poor. I'm over this socialist thinking. I work my butt off to have nice things.

Are we really bringing politics and ideology back into this thread?

 

[greenne]

So what? What is your point? Let the poor ride the bus. No one is born poor. I'm over this socialist thinking. I work my butt off to have nice things.

Oh great..this BS again. Let's end corporate welfare and oil subsidies and then we can talk.

 

[greenne]

Completely correct. People forget that we are running massive deficits, mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's future. The debt we are accumulating now has serious maro ramifications. EVs now stand on their own. I don't think the initial incentives were necessary - I certainly would have purchased my first three Teslas (and the two Priuses) without receiving the tax credits that we got. Same for our solar panels and geothermal systems. However, the credits may have impacted the calculus for some buyers. Those days are over, so what we now have is folks with their hands out - essentially middle class-to-wealthy folks who WANT a credit for something they'd buy anyway. And asking the Federal government to take on more debt to help them buy a new car. Nope.

I notice no one gives a shit about spending when we give massive tax breaks to the richest 1%, corporate welfare and endless war in the Middle East. Somehow when we need to actually give the middle class something, everyone wants to talk about how we can't afford it...

Unlike those item mentioned above....promoting green cars will get some payback in the form of less fossil fueled vehicles, cleaner air, less pollution and thus less health costs and environmental cleanup costs

 

[corradoborg]

The idea that the EV tax credit "mortgages our children's future"* is laughable when fossil fuel industry subsidies remain many times more costly and benefit only the wealthy at the cost of us all. The attached graph isn't even comprehensive on the fossil fuel side. In realty that bar is even bigger. Numbers are from the US Treasury.

If we eliminated the wasteful, inequitable fossil fuel subsidies, we could more than double the EV programs (and make them more equitable in the process) and yet still save money.


*An intentionally misleading, emotionally wrought statement that means nothing, as there will always be future costs for present investments. The trick is deciding which ones are worth the cost and will have lasting benefits for all.

 

[Blainestang]

Unlike those item mentioned above....promoting green cars will get some payback in the form of less fossil fueled vehicles, cleaner air, less pollution and thus less health costs and environmental cleanup costs

To be clear in prefacing this comment, I'm not promoting oil subsidies or war simply by questioning the size of the EV credit. It's not inherently one or the other thing. Like my previous comment, I'm only asking about the size of the EV credit itself and if it's the right size, or if we should make it smaller and spend the rest of what we would have spent on, say, EV charging infrastructure.

It seems to me that Tesla sells basically every car they can build without any remaining subsidies in the US. Mach E they can't build fast enough at $7500. Lightning would easily sell out for a year or two with $7500, maybe less. Bolt is selling better than ever and it's got no tax credit anymore. Between Tesla and Bolt, that's like 80%+ of the US EV market right now. Therefore, production is basically maxed out with an average tax credit of only $1500 per car.

So, what do we really GAIN by making the credit back to $7500 for everyone? Or $12,500 for some? People would get more money back, yes, but we'd sell basically the exact same number of EVs because they literally can't make any more.

Again, I'm not saying the EV credit is bad, necessarily. I'm saying, would setting it to $5000, for instance, still result in basically the same amount of sales, but more money to use elsewhere with better ROI.

Basically, if we can max out production with $5,000 per car, why would we give out $12,500 per car? Use the other $7500 per car that we would have spent (12,500-5000=7500) on charging infrastructure, for instance.

Put another way, if these are our options:

1. Sell 1,000,000 EVs (can't make any more anyway) with $5,000,000,000 in tax credits and $7,500,000,000 in charging infrastructure

2. Sell 1,000,000 EVs (can't make any more anyway) with $12,500,000,000 in tax credits and $0 in charging infrastructure.

Option 1 seems clearly better, IMO, and I think we can max out Tesla/Ford/VW EV production for the next couple years with a much smaller than $12,500 credit.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

The idea that the EV tax credit "mortgages our children's future"* is laughable when fossil fuel industry subsidies remain many times more costly and benefit only the wealthy at the cost of us all. The attached graph isn't even comprehensive on the fossil fuel side. In realty that bar is even bigger. Numbers are from the US Treasury.

If we eliminated the wasteful, inequitable fossil fuel subsidies, we could more than double the EV programs (and make them more equitable in the process) and yet still save money.


*An intentionally misleading, emotionally wrought statement that means nothing, as there will always be future costs for present investments. The trick is deciding which ones are worth the cost and will have lasting benefits for all.

Complete crap. Those are not subsidies. They are deductions for actual expenses. Duh. The left calls anything that is deducted as a business expenses a subsidy. Look, when I pay an employee to do a job, it is a cost of business. When Exxon explores a new oil field, the money they spend is actual cash. The "subsidy" you reference is simply the methodology by which they are allowed to recover (deduct) their actual costs. This is CASH they have spent. Not ONE DOLLAR of tax credit exists for fossil fuel - the term "Credits" in the left column is an out-and-out lie. The descriptions in the bar chart even define it as such - deductions are NOT credits. All four of those items are deductions for actual cash expenses, real outlays that the companies incur. There are NO actual subsidies for fossil fuels. None, except in the distorted nomenclature and fantasies of the green left. Spoken as a major contributor to environment causes and as an EV driver and owner of significant renewable energy production.

 

[corradoborg]

Put another way, if these are our options:

1. Sell 1,000,000 EVs (can't make any more anyway) with $5,000,000,000 in tax credits and $7,500,000,000 in charging infrastructure

2. Sell 1,000,000 EVs (can't make any more anyway) with $12,500,000,000 in tax credits and $0 in charging infrastructure.

Option 1 seems clearly better, IMO, and I think we can max out Tesla/Ford/VW EV production for the next couple years with a much smaller than $12,500 credit.

But those aren't the options. At least not unless the proposed legislation - which currently includes both the $12,500 tax credits and big money for charging infrastructure - is changed.

Also, $12,500 tax credits aren't a guaranteed loss of $12,500 in tax revenue for every EV purchased. Many people will have a lower tax liability than that, and therefore won't get the whole $12,500.

That being said, I do see the point that tax credits lopsidedly help higher earners. I would be happier if they were direct EV price rebates. That would make EVs available to people with lower incomes. Instead of attaching potential savings to tax liability, give the program an income/net worth ceiling instead.

Decreasing or sunsetting the incentive to buy an EV just because many of the currently available models are selling out is shortsighted. Demand for EVs is high right now specifically because of the manufacturing bottleneck. But as more EV production capacity is gained and more EV models are introduced, there will soon come a time when they are no longer routinely back-ordered at the factories. Instead, they'll be sitting on the lots next to ICE vehicles and competing with them for sales. The economies of scale won't quite have made EVs on par or cheaper than ICE vehicles yet. At the same time, the most eager group of EV buyers will have already made their purchases and (most of them) won't be looking for a new replacement for a few years. What's left in the market for new vehicles at that time will be the ICE-faithful and the ambivalent. They will need financial convincing to go electric.

Sponsored