$12,500 tax credit possible?

[EaglesPDX]

Even the left is embarrassed by the abuses seen where rich folks buying Teslas and other high end EVs are being subsidized by mortgaging the futures of our grandchildren

"In March 2018, a group of America's largest electric utilities sided with U.S. automakers and asked Congress to preserve the tax credit in order to support the continued growth of sales of electric vehicles."

Not exactly lefties.

Don't know of any abuses of the EV tax credit. It's straightforward. How would someone abuse it?

US car makers are under pressure to go all EV since the two largest car markets, China and EU are requiring EV's by 2035. At the same time since US is a bit backward on the issue, US car mfgs have to cater to an heavily ICE market in US, their base.

That the EV subsidy is now mostly applied to car mfgs from EU and Asia, it creates a double whammy for US car mfgs as they transition to EVs to be competitive in world markets.

Sponsored

 

[cstring]

I do wish there will be a new EV credit so when I make my F150 purchase I can still get some form of credit. From the maths that I have seen the current credit will probably be exhausted by the time F150 lighting rolls out the factory. BTW how do they keep track of the eligibility for the current EV credit anyway, I mean I took advantage of it when I purchase my Prius Prime but I don't remember having to obtain any form of approval to claim the credit. It would be interesting to figure out eligibility as Ford approaches the 200k threshold.

 

[EaglesPDX]

From the maths that I have seen the current credit will probably be exhausted by the time F150 lighting rolls out the factory.

Ford has not hit the 200,000 EV's to start losing the credit. F150 would still get 100%/$7,500 for six months after that and then it starts going down in 25% increments every three (?) months. If I get mine this time next year, it should still qualify for the $7,500.

https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/federal-ev-tax-credit-phase-out-tracker-by-automaker/

 

[drcarric2650]

I have been thinking of ordering a EV, with a large capacity battery. Then find somewhere I could charge it for free while at work or shopping. Then I could go home and use it to live off the grid.

I think you will need two EV’s , so you have one powering your house while the other is charging.

 

[shutterbug]

I think you will need two EV’s , so you have one powering your house while the other is charging.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just install battery backup for your house?

 

[drcarric2650]

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just install battery backup for your house?

Yes, and much more practical. It would be an advantage if the truck could feed the batteries as well.

 

[EaglesPDX]

It would be an advantage if the truck could feed the batteries as well.

More having solar powered house with battery backup that could charge the truck after a storm knocks out power. There was a $10k Federal credit for putting in solar when I put an 8 kWh system on the house (no batteries).

 

[Sgt Beavis]

"In March 2018, a group of America's largest electric utilities sided with U.S. automakers and asked Congress to preserve the tax credit in order to support the continued growth of sales of electric vehicles."

Not exactly lefties.

Don't know of any abuses of the EV tax credit. It's straightforward. How would someone abuse it?

US car makers are under pressure to go all EV since the two largest car markets, China and EU are requiring EV's by 2035. At the same time since US is a bit backward on the issue, US car mfgs have to cater to an heavily ICE market in US, their base.

That the EV subsidy is now mostly applied to car mfgs from EU and Asia, it creates a double whammy for US car mfgs as they transition to EVs to be competitive in world markets.

I don’t think that’s what he’s alluding to.

The way the current EV Tax credit works, you have to actually pay $7500 in taxes to get $7500 back in tax credits. That only benefits people with higher incomes. Most American’s don’t pay that much in federal taxes since they don’t earn enough to qualify for the credit. That is what progressives are complaining about.

It’s not really an abuse, but the law is written in a way that doesn’t benefit everyone. It should also be mentions that folks in lower income brackets usually buy used cars. They can’t get any tax credit when doing that.

My understanding is that. the proposed $12500 EV tax credit is being treated like an earned income tax credit so a lot more people will be able to use it.

One other change I’d like to see on the tax credit is to make it apply only to pure EVs and not PHEVs (aka: hybrids). That will push OEMs to move to pure EVs faster.

 

[vandy1981]

My understanding is that. the proposed $12500 EV tax credit is being treated like an earned income tax credit so a lot more people will be able to use it.

I think the best solution would be a point-of-sale rebate to the dealer because this would open up the credit to people who don't have a $7500 tax liability. This may complicate price negotiations with the dealer since they would act like the discount is coming out of their pockets.

That said, I don't have any hopes that the tax credit terms will change with this congress. We may be nearing an inflection point in many ways (price parity, charging technology, consumer demand) for EVs, so the government is likely going to get less bang for their buck for credits for consumer EVs.

Perhaps the money is better spent on incentives for charging networks and commercial vehicles (e.g. semi trucks)?

 

[EaglesPDX]

It’s not really an abuse, but the law is written in a way that doesn’t benefit everyone.

Yeah I thought I was missing some kind of problem with the EV tax credit that I hadn't heard about.

Lot of tax laws (arguably 90% of Federal Tax laws) favor higher income earners but Idea is to sell EV's and due to prices of EV's being a lot higher than similar ICE car, that's going to be higher income earners. There are some strategies for increasing your tax liability to use the EV credit.

EV tax credit has proved effective in selling EV's.

On the question of upgrading it, I'm all for making it a straight credit that you could apply to the purchase as some states do with the state EV tax credits but problematic it gets addressed due to political opposition in US Congress.

I’d like to see on the tax credit is to make it apply only to pure EVs and not PHEVs (aka: hybrids).

I like current formula based on battery size. Idea is to cut emissions as fast as possible and PHEV's will cut most people's emissions by 50-90%

 

[PungoteagueDave]

"In March 2018, a group of America's largest electric utilities sided with U.S. automakers and asked Congress to preserve the tax credit in order to support the continued growth of sales of electric vehicles."

Not exactly lefties.

Don't know of any abuses of the EV tax credit. It's straightforward. How would someone abuse it?

US car makers are under pressure to go all EV since the two largest car markets, China and EU are requiring EV's by 2035. At the same time since US is a bit backward on the issue, US car mfgs have to cater to an heavily ICE market in US, their base.

That the EV subsidy is now mostly applied to car mfgs from EU and Asia, it creates a double whammy for US car mfgs as they transition to EVs to be competitive in world markets.

The abuse is the existence of the credit subsidizing wealthy people's lifestyles. I've received numerous renewable energy credits, including three $7,500 EV credits, over $55k for solar panels, and over $145k for my personal residence related to geothermal and related systems (flooring, computer controls, everything associated with a 7,600 sq ft geo HVAC system that cost over $450k). It isn't legally abusive - it is morally abusive. But if you want to pay rich people to do a thing, that thing will be done. It is absurd that I will never again have an electrical bill at my farm courtesy of the future generations of U.S taxpayers who will be paying the Federal debt incurred to help me purchase that, and luxury cars that I would have purchased anyway. What the HELL are we doing giving tax credits to people buying $250K Porsche Taycans? There is ZERO moral justification for that - and IMHO, for subsidizing anyone buying a $40k or $90k Lightning truck. I'm nearly first in line, but it is absurd to ask for this handout. And pointing at the electric utility support for this is silly.

 

[Blainestang]

The abuse is the existence of the credit subsidizing wealthy people's lifestyles. I've received numerous renewable energy credits, including three $7,500 EV credits, over $55k for solar panels, and over $145k for my personal residence related to geothermal and related systems (flooring, computer controls, everything associated with a 7,600 sq ft geo HVAC system that cost over $450k). It isn't legally abusive - it is morally abusive. But if you want to pay rich people to do a thing, that thing will be done. It is absurd that I will never again have an electrical bill at my farm courtesy of the future generations of U.S taxpayers who will be paying the Federal debt incurred to help me purchase that, and luxury cars that I would have purchased anyway. What the HELL are we doing giving tax credits to people buying $250K Porsche Taycans? There is ZERO moral justification for that - and IMHO, for subsidizing anyone buying a $40k or $90k Lightning truck. I'm nearly first in line, but it is absurd to ask for this handout. And pointing at the electric utility support for this is silly.

I agree with you that there's really no reason to give tax credits on the ultra-expensive versions. At Taycan levels, for instance, they're probably either going to buy the Taycan or not. $7500 isn't the deciding factor when you're spending that kind of money. Lower levels, where $7500 is a much larger percentage of the cost, perhaps.

To be fair, though, the people REALLY getting the EV tax credits are mostly the manufacturers, so far.

Look at the Bolt for example:

With the $7500 tax credit : ~$37,500 - $5000 dealer/manufacturer discount - $7500 credit = ~$25,000

Without the $7500 tax credit : $37,500 - $12,500 dealer/manufacturer discounts = ~$25,000

The actual consumer has paid the same for years, credit or not, because $25k is all anyone is going to pay for a slow-charging Chevy Hatchback.

But GM priced in the credit and only gives discounts when they have to. So, the credit made no difference to the customer, only GM.

The same happened with Tesla. The prices dropped as the credit went away, so the consumer paid a similar amount but Tesla received less money.

 

[EaglesPDX]

The abuse is the existence of the credit subsidizing wealthy people's lifestyles

Yeah...that's not "abuse", it's how the tax credit was written. Leafs and Volts are hardly "wealthy people's lifestyle". Nor Prius Primes or all the other cars that qualify by varying degrees.

The idea is to reduce emissions by promoting EV adoption and since EV's are more expensive it takes people with more income to purchase them (though overspending on cars is an American tradition). Doesn't matter who or what the car is just that a zero emissions car replaces an emissions car especially in the early developmental stage which we are still in with just 3% of US cars being EV's.

"Today’s electric vehicle market: Slow growth in U.S., faster in China, Europe

Fact is wealthy people pollute more, bigger homes, more homes, bigger cars, more cars, boats, planes, etc. Your personal example demonstrates that. Before the heavily subsidized conversions your emissions for home and car were likely that of 50 median income families. So if getting the top polluters off the board with subsidies works, it works.

If you could have afforded it otherwise and feel the subsidies you took were "morally abusive", you could have not applied for them.

 

[Nick Gerteis]

The abuse is the existence of the credit subsidizing wealthy people's lifestyles. I've received numerous renewable energy credits, including three $7,500 EV credits, over $55k for solar panels, and over $145k for my personal residence related to geothermal and related systems (flooring, computer controls, everything associated with a 7,600 sq ft geo HVAC system that cost over $450k). It isn't legally abusive - it is morally abusive. But if you want to pay rich people to do a thing, that thing will be done. It is absurd that I will never again have an electrical bill at my farm courtesy of the future generations of U.S taxpayers who will be paying the Federal debt incurred to help me purchase that, and luxury cars that I would have purchased anyway. What the HELL are we doing giving tax credits to people buying $250K Porsche Taycans? There is ZERO moral justification for that - and IMHO, for subsidizing anyone buying a $40k or $90k Lightning truck. I'm nearly first in line, but it is absurd to ask for this handout. And pointing at the electric utility support for this is silly.

“Future generations of taxpayers” will actually be quite thankful to be alive and spending quality time at a beach located just a few miles and not a hundred miles from current shorelines. Literally everything we do today to shift to EVs is a necessary and worthy investment, squabbling over a few $Ks will look ridiculously like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to future generations.

 

[PungoteagueDave]

Yeah...that's not "abuse", it's how the tax credit was written. Leafs and Volts are hardly "wealthy people's lifestyle". Nor Prius Primes or all the other cars that qualify by varying degrees.

The idea is to reduce emissions by promoting EV adoption and since EV's are more expensive it takes people with more income to purchase them (though overspending on cars is an American tradition). Doesn't matter who or what the car is just that a zero emissions car replaces an emissions car especially in the early developmental stage which we are still in with just 3% of US cars being EV's.

"Today’s electric vehicle market: Slow growth in U.S., faster in China, Europe

Fact is wealthy people pollute more, bigger homes, more homes, bigger cars, more cars, boats, planes, etc. Your personal example demonstrates that. Before the heavily subsidized conversions your emissions for home and car were likely that of 50 median income families. So if getting the top polluters off the board with subsidies works, it works.

If you could have afforded it otherwise and feel the subsidies you took were "morally abusive", you could have not applied for them.

standard liberal response... "then don't take it". Yes, the entire law is abuse of the American system and is outright theft from future generations. I am an econ professor, get the moral suasion arguments - but they are complete BS. Using tax incentives to generate behavior is always fraught and counterproductive, creates uneven outcomes and unintended consequences. If a thing is worth doing it is worth doing on its merits without government incentive. Paying wealthy people to do a thing that middle and lower class cannot afford, using their tax dollars to do so, is abusive and cannot be defended, full stop.

Sponsored