New tax credit to be voted on soon!

[ShirBlackspots]

There are not enough EV's even now. No point to do so any more.

Here's a little bit of research I've done on that.

Sponsored

 

[Maquis]

Between election and new congress taking over, there is a chance for all kinds of shenanigans. That's how EVSE tax credit got extended at the end of 2020.

Not really. The EVSE credit extension got tacked on to such a huge spending bill that it wasn’t even a rounding error of the total spend. People who would have voted against it had it been standalone wouldn’t vote against that legislation for such a small portion of it.

 

[sotek2345]

Here's a little bit of research I've done on that.

I thought the Aptera was intended as a full highway worthy BEV, not restricted to being an NEV?

 

[ShirBlackspots]

I thought the Aptera was intended as a full highway worthy BEV, not restricted to being an NEV?

I should edit that box to say NEVs and 3 wheelers, but yeah, it can drive on the highway.

 

[beatle]

Saying that we don't need an incentive to help folks move to EVs is like saying that no manufacturers need to provide incentive to buy their ICE vehicles, which they ALL DO. Look at any dealer's website - it's full of 'incentives' to get folks to buy the product - Veteran's discounts, 'New to the Brand' discounts, 'Brand Loyalty' discounts, REBATES, etc.

But the manufacturer's "incentives" are just price manipulations that the company does with its own revenue, not a subsidy. How they color the money they reduce a price by is just a means of drawing people in for being special or it being a special time of year.

EV credits are just to incentivize manufacturers to build EVs. The manufacturer can fluff up the price by the amount of the credit (MSRP = price people will pay + EV credit). Tesla dropped their prices right after their credit expired. Plus, If the push was truly just to get people into EVs, the government wouldn't tie these incentives to the number of EVs a manufacturer built; they'd open them to all companies until the desired adoption rate was achieved. As it stands with the way the credits work now, the government doesn't care about getting you into a Tesla even though it's an EV.

Don't get me wrong, I obviously like EVs and I think people will/should buy them, but the credit money is better spent elsewhere like charging infrastructure.

 

[F150ROD]

Exactly, incentives by Manufacturers are usually given to move product off the lot. There’s a reason none of the military, First Responder, Graduate etc etc do not qualify for WANTED vehicles.

EV incentives are no longer needed. BATTERY TECH, CHARGING SPEEDS is what is needed to convince people to move. EV’s are backed up and more people seem to be ordering Teslas which are getting close to $50k without incentives. About the only thing Teslas qualify for right now is $750.

Now if we want to talk about incentives for Solar and Storage that’s a different story.

 

[Blue Lightning]

Agree.

Plus, EV's sold out for months or even years, no reason to give away money to let people buy it.

When the cost of battery goes down, then people can afford it.

Some people waiting for their EV reservation are not rich. They may be stretching to go for the BEV. It isn't just about helping manufacturers move their product.

 

[Roy2001]

Some people waiting for their EV reservation are not rich. They may be stretching to go for the BEV. It isn't just about helping manufacturers move their product.

When battery cost is still high and volume is so low, people cannot afford EV should choose ICE. This has nothing to do with discrimination, just how it should work.

When car makers ramped up volume and need government to help them to drive up sales and drive cost down, tax credit can chime in.

It makes zero sense to give generous $12.5k incentive, for example, to Lightning owners now, when we cannot even pre-order it. Early adopters can afford it, otherwise, they can just buy ICE F150.

Don't shoot at me, I ordered a Lariat ER and I would be extremely happy to pocket extra $5k. But the inflation is already and will be high, the outlook of economic is already miserable. When you can only make x number of EVs and people are in line waiting for it, why pour extra credit money. Government can only print money, they don't create.

 

[Blue Lightning]

When battery cost is still high and volume is so low, people cannot afford EV should choose ICE. This has nothing to do with discrimination, just how it should work.

When car makers ramped up volume and need government to help them to drive up sales and drive cost down, tax credit can chime in.

It makes zero sense to give generous $12.5k incentive, for example, to Lightning owners now, when we cannot even pre-order it. Early adopters can afford it, otherwise, they just turn to ICE F150.

Don't shoot at me, I ordered a Lariat ER and I would be happy to pocket extra $5k. But the inflation is already and will be still high, the outlook of economic is already miserable. When you can only make x number of EVs and people are in line to wait for it, why pour extra credit money. Government can only print money, they don't create.

Sure I've had this debate with my right wing friends before. Let the tech stand on it's own. I would say the same should apply to oil, let's not subsidize oil either. Which my friends agree with, haha.

I personally think the incentives should exist until the point of mass adoption. We're not quite there yet. Some automakers (looking at you, Toyota) still believe nobody wants EVs. And the fact is a typical EV costs about 25% more than a comparable ICE. I like the idea of helping to bridge that gap for the common person until the costs become more equal.

I guess where I push back is when people say that the backlog of EV orders proves there's no need for an incentive. My daughter is far from rich, but the incentives make it so she can afford a Polestar 2, which she ordered in March and is supposed to arrive in September. If the incentives went away she would need to forget about the Polestar and stay ICE for at least a few more years. I think there are a lot of people like her.

 

[Roy2001]

Sure I've had this debate with my right wing friends before. Let the tech stand on it's own. I would say the same should apply to oil, let's not subsidize oil either. Which my friends agree with, haha.

I personally think the incentives should exist until the point of mass adoption. We're not quite there yet. Some automakers (looking at you, Toyota) still believe nobody wants EVs. And the fact is a typical EV costs about 25% more than a comparable ICE. I like the idea of helping to bridge that gap for the common person until the costs become more equal.

I guess where I push back is when people say that the backlog of EV orders proves there's no need for an incentive. My daughter is far from rich, but the incentives make it so she can afford a Polestar 2, which she ordered in March and is supposed to arrive in September. If the incentives went away she would need to forget about the Polestar and stay ICE for at least a few more years. I think there are a lot of people like her.

To clarify, I am completely neutral, at least I tried and am trying to be.

Tax credit is to help people to adopt the technology. The ultimate goal to reduce the CO2 emission. If people think the goal is to pour tax money to allocate expensive EV's from rich people's hand to those who cannot afford, I won't argue even if I don't agree.

 

[greenne]

When battery cost is still high and volume is so low, people cannot afford EV should choose ICE. This has nothing to do with discrimination, just how it should work.

When car makers ramped up volume and need government to help them to drive up sales and drive cost down, tax credit can chime in.

It makes zero sense to give generous $12.5k incentive, for example, to Lightning owners now, when we cannot even pre-order it. Early adopters can afford it, otherwise, they can just buy ICE F150.

Don't shoot at me, I ordered a Lariat ER and I would be extremely happy to pocket extra $5k. But the inflation is already and will be high, the outlook of economic is already miserable. When you can only make x number of EVs and people are in line waiting for it, why pour extra credit money. Government can only print money, they don't create.

This is all fine and good if our goal was to spur business or to revive the economy.. its not.

The goal of an EV credit is to get people into an EV that would normally be driving an ICE vehicle.

We can debate whether the government should be trying to get people to make the switch, but if we accept that EV adoption is the goal..the EV credit seems like a no brainer to me.

I'll also point out that everyone gripes about the cost of subsidizing an electric vehicle, I would argue that cost($7500) would be less than the cost down the road in environmental damage, cleanup, health costs due to smog, etc. The difference is you either pay now or you pay a lot later as another ICE vehicle spews exhaust and pollutants.


As far as people not being able to buy cars goes...that is temporary. Either in a year, or 2 yrs ..maybe 5yrs...people will be able to buy an EV with no wait. The question is--if given an ICE vehicle OR an EV that costs more $$$ (without a credit/rebate) which would they choose? If history is any guide, given equal supply...the public will say F it and choose the ICE which is what we DON"T want them to do

 

[FordLightningMan]

Sure I've had this debate with my right wing friends before. Let the tech stand on it's own. I would say the same should apply to oil, let's not subsidize oil either. Which my friends agree with, haha.

I personally think the incentives should exist until the point of mass adoption. We're not quite there yet. Some automakers (looking at you, Toyota) still believe nobody wants EVs. And the fact is a typical EV costs about 25% more than a comparable ICE. I like the idea of helping to bridge that gap for the common person until the costs become more equal.

I guess where I push back is when people say that the backlog of EV orders proves there's no need for an incentive. My daughter is far from rich, but the incentives make it so she can afford a Polestar 2, which she ordered in March and is supposed to arrive in September. If the incentives went away she would need to forget about the Polestar and stay ICE for at least a few more years. I think there are a lot of people like her.

Devil's advocate, if she can afford a Polestar 2 with incentives, then she could afford a Leaf without incentives. Her situation is much more about want than need. If there were more incentives, I would've bought a Model S instead of a M3P. I'll share my PayPal credentials to any taxpayer that wants to send me money to help me move from my upscale car to a luxury car, let's cut out the middleman. As much as I want that money, it's a bit absurd to think I deserve it.

We should cap rebates at around $40k MSRPs, then make those rebates stick around for more years. Let's incentivize manufacturers to make affordable EVs for all. Let's incentivize consumers to purchase these affordable EVs and not try to keep up with the influencers in their IG stories. Let's not put $7,500 of my taxpayer dollars into someone's pocket who can afford a Model S Plaid. Bolt, Leaf, F-150 Pro, PEAR, Silverado EV WT; there are affordable options out there or coming out.

At this point the initial wave of incentives will put over a million EVs on the road. Many of them will be outdated technology and the used market should be affordable in just a few years, look at early Leaf resale values. The $7,500 did the trick, everyone is moving to EV, now market forces will bring them to the masses.

 

[Blue Lightning]

Devil's advocate, if she can afford a Polestar 2 with incentives, then she could afford a Leaf without incentives. Her situation is much more about want than need. If there were more incentives, I would've bought a Model S instead of a M3P. I'll share my PayPal credentials to any taxpayer that wants to send me money to help me move from my upscale car to a luxury car, let's cut out the middleman. As much as I want that money, it's a bit absurd to think I deserve it.

The Leaf (and the Bolt) are nice cars, but she commutes from Portland to Tacoma and back about once a week. The limited "fast" charging on those two cars make them difficult for long distances. The only somewhat inexpensive option that was realistic was the VW iD4, which starts out a few thousand dollars less. Due to the chip shortage the VW dealers in our area said they won't have any until sometime next year. Polestar was the next cheapest.

We should cap rebates at around $40k MSRPs, then make those rebates stick around for more years. Let's incentivize manufacturers to make affordable EVs for all. Let's incentivize consumers to purchase these affordable EVs and not try to keep up with the influencers in their IG stories. Let's not put $7,500 of my taxpayer dollars into someone's pocket who can afford a Model S Plaid. Bolt, Leaf, F-150 Pro, PEAR, Silverado EV WT; there are affordable options out there or coming out.

At this point the initial wave of incentives will put over a million EVs on the road. Many of them will be outdated technology and the used market should be affordable in just a few years, look at early Leaf resale values. The $7,500 did the trick, everyone is moving to EV, now market forces will bring them to the masses.

I agree on rebate caps, but I think they should be based on household income. My state offers EV incentives but caps them on MSRP ($50k) AND household income. And Oregon requires you to keep the vehicle for 2 years, to prevent rebate flippers. I think it works good most of the time.

 

[personalt]

The Leaf (and the Bolt) are nice cars, but she commutes from Portland to Tacoma and back about once a week. The limited "fast" charging on those two cars make them difficult for long distances. The only somewhat inexpensive option that was realistic was the VW iD4, which starts out a few thousand dollars less. Due to the chip shortage the VW dealers in our area said they won't have any until sometime next year. Polestar was the next cheapest.


I agree on rebate caps, but I think they should be based on household income. My state offers EV incentives but caps them on MSRP ($50k) AND household income. And Oregon requires you to keep the vehicle for 2 years, to prevent rebate flippers. I think it works good most of the time.

As someone who didnt get any of the covid stimulus money based on the fact that I live in a high-income/high-cost state I am not looking for another rebate we get cheated out of. That being said, I think the market can stand on its own - ie they are getting sold as fast as they are being made

 

[shutterbug]

Not really. The EVSE credit extension got tacked on to such a huge spending bill that it wasn’t even a rounding error of the total spend. People who would have voted against it had it been standalone wouldn’t vote against that legislation for such a small portion of it.

Yes, it got tacked on to one of those porkathons that occur during lame duck congresses. During those periods lots of money gets thrown around.

Sponsored