Tesla Will Be First Automaker To Lose the Federal Tax Credit For Electric Cars (theverge.com) 329
Tesla has confirmed to Jalopnik that its 200,000th vehicle has been delivered this month, meaning the full $7,500 federal tax credit for electric cars will slowly be phased out. Tesla is the first automaker to reach this mark. "GM is close, too, while Nissan, Ford, and others still have a ways to go," notes The Verge. From the report: Tesla customers who take delivery of their cars -- regardless of whether it's a Model S, X, or 3 -- between now and December 31st, 2018, will still be eligible for the full $7,500 credit from the IRS. Customers who take delivery of their cars between January 1st and June 30th, 2019, will only be eligible for a $3,750 credit. And customers who take delivery of their cars between July 1st and December 31st, 2019, will be offered just $1,875. After that, the incentive is dead.
Put in place early on in the Obama administration, the tax credit was seen as a tool that could be used to encourage customers to buy plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles. This would simultaneously help advance the president's climate and clean energy goals while offering consumers a bit of a break while the cost of battery technology slowly came down. It was also meant to encourage manufacturers to push for greater advancements in that technology. The dollar amount was technically flexible; it was essentially a $2,500 credit with room to increase up to $7,500 depending on the battery capacity of the car being sold. The better the battery in a company's car, the better the rebate their buyers would get.
Put in place early on in the Obama administration, the tax credit was seen as a tool that could be used to encourage customers to buy plug-in electric or hybrid vehicles. This would simultaneously help advance the president's climate and clean energy goals while offering consumers a bit of a break while the cost of battery technology slowly came down. It was also meant to encourage manufacturers to push for greater advancements in that technology. The dollar amount was technically flexible; it was essentially a $2,500 credit with room to increase up to $7,500 depending on the battery capacity of the car being sold. The better the battery in a company's car, the better the rebate their buyers would get.
Could have been structured differently... (Score:5, Interesting)
The way the thing is set up at the moment, as soon as a automaker hits 200,000 cars the subsidy decay clock begins for that automaker. Other manufacturers can amble up to the line and then take their swill from the trough at their leisure knowing their slice is reserved.
A better way would have been to have a larger shared trough of subsidy $ that is gobbled up and gone when it's gone. That would have accelerated EV manufacture as it would encourage more rapid adoption and penalise the slackards.
Re: (Score:2)
Rapid might not be in the best strategic interests though. The goal was to help get battery prices lower (and presumably increase production volume. It might be a factor for Porsche, but for other manufacturers the car volume is simply too high for it to make a dent.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, Tesla was way ahead. The large automakers who have more power in DC would not like a common pool, even though it would be the best for the consumer & competition in general.
Re: (Score:3)
The situation is going to just be silly soon. Next up, GM is going to hit it. Then Nissan, then Ford. So the US will be subsidizing its foreign competition.
That would make sense in a market economy (Score:3)
Re: Could have been structured differently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe the best way could have been the free market with no subsidies for anyone?
Don't get me wrong, I'm appalled at the conventional auto company bailouts as well, and would just prefer that the federal government basically entirely got out of the business of picking winners and losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if GM had been allowed to go bankrupt, so that Tesla could step in, buy a couple auto plants, and build EVs in volume quicker.
Re: (Score:2)
What???
Let me introduce you to Tesla's Factory in Fremont:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. I can't see Trump being cool with providing a service to a company for free either.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the free market does not at this point in time have a mechanism that makes a person pay for the pollution they produce with their car. So subsidies for technologies that pollute less are basically just a fix because 'breathable air' is not part of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
For those whose Google skills are limited. This is from an IMF study in 2015... probably more now.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Ar... [imf.org]
Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption.
Eliminating global energy subsidies could reduce deaths related to fossil-fuel emissions by over 50 percent and
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that fossil fuels dump all kinds of toxins, CH4, CO2, NOx, etc. into the environment and these make people sick, cause them to die, and damage the environment. They currently get a free ride. They don't pay for the damage they cause. The IMF study puts a number on this damage. It's time fossil fuels started paying for this damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels do not benefit society in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way the thing is set up at the moment, as soon as a automaker hits 200,000 cars the subsidy decay clock begins for that automaker. Other manufacturers can amble up to the line and then take their swill from the trough at their leisure knowing their slice is reserved.
A better way would have been to have a larger shared trough of subsidy $ that is gobbled up and gone when it's gone. That would have accelerated EV manufacture as it would encourage more rapid adoption and penalise the slackards.
Unless a company then just decides to make it's business model the exploitation of these tax breaks.
A bigger problem with the tax break was it was a tax rebate. So, if you didn't pay more than $7500 in federal tax (excluding SS and MC), you won't get the full amount. So, essentially you could fully utilize the tax break if your income was about $100,000 or more (assuming you maximized all your other tax breaks).
Re: (Score:2)
Another way to utilize the tax rebate is to lease a vehicle. The lessor gets the tax rebate and uses it to reduce the price of the lease.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that Tesla lives and dies by being able to sell profitable EVs (and normally earns 25% margins on its cars, and is looking to be net profitable starting this quarter), while most manufacturers just sell EVs as loss-leader "compliance cars" for ZEV states, right?
Re: (Score:2)
and by that measure they're dying, since they're not making a profit
Re: (Score:2)
If so, wouldn't you think that the information originated from someone on the Tesla payroll?
Re: (Score:2)
Capital investment counts for something too.
If you want to speak of history, read up about Amazon’s. Then you might understand Tesla.
It looked like an awesome deal (Score:2)
... 35k magical car with a 7500 rebate.
Too good to be true I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, in what way? A $35000 235 mile range car with a $7500 rebate already exists - the Chevy Bolt.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the point of the range when it's so poor at recharging by comparison?
Well, to it's credit, it's better than the new Leaf....
Re: (Score:2)
Bought a Ford C-Max Energi last year, $30K purchase price before taxes, but received a $4,500 federal tax rebate. The electric range isn't awesome but its enough for daily commute, and the combined electric + gas range is over 500 miles. Drives nicely too.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard to say. SR is expected around the end of the year. Not clear whether it'll be before or after the New Year. Regardless, people will get the half credit.
Also, point of interest: this whole discussion only applies to the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Already got my money back. Elon is getting a little nutty, and I figured I better get it while it was still there.
Now you will all see that subsidies do not matter (Score:2)
Subsidies exist to convince people to buy something they need convincing to own.
That was every electric car before the Tesla. If you couldn't get a $7k rebate, there was no reason to put up with the nonsense like super limited range or performance.
Tesla, to my mind, built the first electric car that is simply desirable to own outright - as such the rebate was merely a nice bonus, but no rebate will hardly slow sales. That's because the styling is good (well the Model 3 is anyway, I don't like the styling
Ontario too, with the Progressive Conservatives (Score:3)
Here in Ontario , the newly elected Progressive Conservative government cancelled any tax incentives for electric cars [www.cbc.ca], starting September. But that is only when you buy the car through a dealer. If you buy the car directly (like all Teslas are), the incentives are cancelled immediately, leaving those who ordered Teslas on the hook for C$14,000 more.
The PC government also cancelled a large wind project, with hefty penalties expected, and cancelled the carbon trading system, which provided C$100 million for schools. No tax credits for retrofitting homes for more power efficiency (insulation, windows, furnaces, ...etc.)
Oh no, magic free money is gone!! (Score:2)
The PC government also cancelled a large wind project, with hefty penalties expected, and cancelled the carbon trading system, which provided C$100 million for schools
Wow, 100 million for absolutely nothing,, not ripped from the pocketbooks of anyone, no sir, it was totally free!
No tax credits for retrofitting homes for more power efficiency (insulation, windows, furnaces, ...etc.)
I'm doing that with no credits because it saves me money. More power efficient windows and furnaces have an inherent value beca
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? So where will schools get the 100 million from now?
Answer: no where. Ford did not even have the decency to come up with a costed budget at election time, and he is just axing stuff based on ideology, not on any logic.
Here
There is no reason to subsidize a $75,000+ car (Score:2)
The people that want them can afford them and would buy them without the government subsidy.
Re:Thanks Obama! (Score:5, Informative)
Or not. [dailykos.com].
Re: (Score:2)
News Flash: Uncivility on Twitter! Person insults someone on twitter, target insults back! Quick, reserve the front page of the New York Times for the next week!
And for the record: Musk was asked by one of the dive co-leads to make the sub, and it was made to his specifications. This whole situation is ridiculous.
Re: Thanks Obama! (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps you fail to understand that calling someone a paedophile can get people killed [theguardian.com]. Indeed there are so many morons around that even a paediatrician can be driven out of her house [telegraph.co.uk].
Musk may be a far-sighted genius but he also looks like a deeply unpleasant character with plenty of flaws of his own.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk, with his attacks on journalists as well, comes across as a pretty thin skinned individual. As long as you praise him you are fine but if you criticise him then he goes all seppo.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk, with his attacks on journalists as well, comes across as a pretty thin skinned individual. As long as you praise him you are fine but if you criticise him then he goes all seppo.
Sounds like a certain president.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama had quite thick skin actually. He put up with 8 straight years of shit pretty gracefully.
Now Trump gets the same treatment. It has only just begun.
As a non-American I can objectively say he is by far the whiniest president ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he has flaws - he's a human being. People call each other bad things on Twitter all the time. People call him bad things on Twitter all the time.
Was it a mistake, to respond to a stranger telling you to shove your donation of time and money up your ass, with name calling? Of course it was. What do you want him to do, delete the tweets? He already did that. What else? Climb the Statue of Liberty and flagellate himself? What will be a good enough pennance in your mind, for the crime of not being
Re: (Score:2)
What do I want him to do?
He could try to exercise some self-control, like an adult.
Yes, he could. And so could 63-yr old cave diver Vern Unsworth instead of telling Musk - unprovoked - to stick his submarine up his ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they bought when Seeking Alpha was telling them not to "go wobbly" on shorting the stock, you bet they are.
credits pre-date obama (Score:4, Informative)
the electric vehicle tax credits began prior to obama's administration. it was tacked onto the bank bailout bill that was passed a month before the 2008 election.
I know I shouldn't feed trolls (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This was a "cool new thing" subsidy... but with sale 200,000 in the books, it's no longer a new thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does Ford or GM needs more gov't help?
Re: (Score:2)
Each car maker gets the same number of subsidies, Ford and GM have sold fewer cars that qualify for the subsidy.
Tesla ran out of subsidies (200,000) because 100% of the cars they sell qualify for the subsidy, not so with Ford or GM.
Re: (Score:2)
"Each car maker gets the same number of subsidies, Ford and GM have sold fewer cars that qualify for the subsidy"
GM got more than enough gov't help and have considerable experience with EVs. They shouldn't need more help at all.
Ford took $6 billion low-or-no-interest Fed loans to retool and develop more efficient vehicles, a loan which they have yet to repay.
Re: (Score:3)
So what "assigns" a car maker the subsidy, and what mechanism "uses one up" ?
Could Eon create a second, third, and fourth Electric car company, lease some Tesla production facilities and license some Tesla IP to the additional companies, and get the subsidy for 200,000 more vehicles manufactured by each additional company?
By how much would a new car manufacturer's product, supply lines, and distribution be required to differ in order to say they are Different car companies for purpose of counting
Re: (Score:3)
The incentives running out is exactly how the law was implemented under the Obama administration.
Re:Savings? Really no. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's just no such thing as a cheaper way to power cars... just a different way of doing things.
Actually, it's much cheaper to power an electric car.
if there was a better way to move fuel, everybody would be going for it.
And everybody would move to electric cars if the cars themselves cost the same amount of money.
Eventually, EVs will be similarly priced to ICE cars and ICE will quickly evaporate. The problem we currently face is mass manufacturing batteries in a way that will lower their cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually, EVs will be similarly priced to ICE cars and ICE will quickly evaporate. The problem we currently face is mass manufacturing batteries in a way that will lower their cost.
My used 2015 Nissan leaf was significantly cheaper to buy than an equivalent ICE car and is significantly cheaper to run.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Curious how you paid "your fair share" for infrastructure like roads and bridges - all those more expensive to run ICE vehicles paid for them with gasoline taxes.
EVs will remain cheaper than ICE vehicles as long as they get to use the roads, bridges and tunnels for free.
Re:Savings? Really no. (Score:5, Informative)
EVs will remain cheaper than ICE vehicles as long as they get to use the roads, bridges and tunnels for free.
Even if there was a 100% tax on the electricity used to power EVs, it would still be cheaper!
If you are serious about infrastructure taxes then you should tax based on damage done by weight. Big rigs with heavy loads do 10000x the damage as a your run of the mill two ton car. Trucking companies are effectively being subsidized by everyone else.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if there was a 100% tax on the electricity used to power EVs, it would still be cheaper!
Which means the tax would be more than that. The tax must be equal to the current tax or the roads won't be funded. This "bubble" will burst as the percentage of EVs on the road cross some threshold and those vehicles must pay an equivalent amount of tax as a ICE vehicle.
Trucking companies are effectively being subsidized by everyone else.
And so the cost of goods will go up (because obviously the trucking companies will pass transportation costs directly on to those who need things shipped), which will result in trucking companies being subsidized by everyone else.
Using dif
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there was a 100% tax on the electricity used to power EVs, it would still be cheaper!
Which means the tax would be more than that.
If there was no tax on either electricity or gas for cars, electricity would be cheaper. This means that, with any fair tax scheme where both EV and gas cars pay for their share of road maintenance, electricity will still be cheaper.
And so the cost of goods will go up (because obviously the trucking companies will pass transportation costs directly on to those who need things shipped), which will result in trucking companies being subsidized by everyone else.
This is not what the word "subsidize" means; it's something that only goverments can do, not customers.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes, this old argument. Easily refuted. [calpirgedfund.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the stage coaches / wagon drivers / horse riders said the same thing about those newfangled smelly noisy cars. They spooked the horses too.
Re: (Score:2)
Curious how you paid "your fair share" for infrastructure like roads and bridges - all those more expensive to run ICE vehicles paid for them with gasoline taxes.
EVs will remain cheaper than ICE vehicles as long as they get to use the roads, bridges and tunnels for free.
I pay my car taxes to the state. I pay my income taxes to the state. My car is light, so it does very little damage to roads compared to heavy vehicles. So I do pay my fair share.
Re: (Score:3)
Also consider that the cost of damages done by air pollution in the US was 131 billion in 2011 and that transportation is the major source of air pollution in the US. Fortunately, as the degree of air pollution has decreased, so have the associated costs. It was 175 billion in 2002.
W
Re: (Score:2)
> You bought a car used that's only 3 years old. Why would someone keep a car for only 3 years and then sell it?
Because leasing is a thing. Especially with EVs, since it currently makes more sense to lease than to buy: Not everyone's finances lets them take full advantage of the tax credit, so they lease and the dealer (who technically owns the car and thus claims the credit) applies the credit to the base value of the car, which in turn lowers the cost of the lease.
You lease a car for 2-3 years - genera
Re: (Score:2)
>Do you think it possible that this could be because of the car being subsidized on its first sale,
The price of used Nissan leafs went through the floor when the very different 2018 model came out. Also it's a fairly ugly car, but very nice to drive and loaded up with nice tech, so it's function over form. I think used Leafs are a bit of a bargain. It was subsidized for me because it's used. The government subsidizes the sale of new electric vehicles.
The car was an ex lease vehicle. That's why it was ava
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Much cheaper perhaps, until they figure out how to move the gas taxes per gallon to electric car taxes per kilowatt (or just plain tax you by the mile when you renew auto registration).
By the time that's required, ICE will be an expensive sinking ship.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, EVs will be similarly priced to ICE cars and ICE will quickly evaporate. The problem we currently face is mass manufacturing batteries in a way that will lower their cost.
I agree with you on the general trendline. But would not expect ICE to die without a fight.
Battery prices are dropping. Tesla has 30% advantage over other battery makers due to scale. They are at 130 $/kWh. When the price breaks 100 $/kWh a Battery EV will cost the same as what ICEV costs today. But as the day approaches, ICEV prices will drop, squeeze the margins of ICEV makers. Even small reduction in demand will create a glut in oil market and reduce gasoline prices, changing the break even calculatio
Re: (Score:2)
99% of my country....
Really looking forward to camping in my Model 3. Don't need to "take extra gas" because your efficiency doesn't plummet off the scale on slow backcountry roads. No risk of burning out a clutch either. Climate control without needing to idle an engine all night. Can't wait :) Come on, Eurospec!
Re: (Score:2)
Because gasoline cars have to stop there in their everyday lives. EVs simply don't need that many charging stations, because most charging is done at home.
About the same amount of time as meal and stretch / bathroom breaks. But road trips are the exception, not the rule, of course. In your normal everyday driving, an EV's driver is consistent: "nearly full". ICE drivers wake up to a random amount of r
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's the fact that it takes like half a thought to come up with the idea to put a charger section next to the air station and a "Charge your EV here" sign next to it.
Over time you remodel the gas station, eliminate the pumps, expand it into a fast food/coffee/cake shop...
Only issue might be all that potential contamination of the area with various petrochemicals.
People start getting weird after a while when they realize how toxic that thing they were putting in their tank really is.
Then again as [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then you factor in the fact that the fuel storage weighs just as much when full than when it's empty. Also these so-called Zero Emission Vehicles are only zero at the consumption end. This falls apart when you factor in the emissions generated to create the energy. Tanstaafl!
Re: (Score:2)
Weight is less of a problem when you have regenerative braking. Also, electric motors weigh a lot less than the ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, electric motors weigh a lot less than the ICE.
That's true but the batteries in an electric car more than make up for the weight of fuel and engine in a gasoline car. Most batteries today have 1/100th the energy by weight of gasoline, and even the best batteries that might be found in a top end electric car is still less than 1/10th the energy by weight.
Weight is less of a problem when you have regenerative braking.
Regen braking is shit for stopping a vehicle. It can slow a car down gently but it can't be used for emergency braking or to come to a complete stop. It's also shit for extending the range on a car.
Re: (Score:3)
> Regen braking is shit for stopping a vehicle. It can slow a car down gently but it can't be used for emergency braking or to come to a complete stop.
Emergency braking is only done in emergencies. If you find yourself emergency braking on a regular basis, you need to reconsider how you drive.
Suppose you're going 45 mph, and you want to come to a complete stop in a normal manner. Suppose to do regen braking from 45 to 15 and then switch to 100% normal braking. You'll still recover almost 90% of the energ
Re: (Score:3)
Model 3 weights are about the same as their performance equivalents in the same size class from BMW (3 Series). It takes about ten minutes each time time to dig up all the references, so I'm not going to be bothered to do it again for the tenth time, but if you want to do it yourself: Model 3 SR roughly matches up with a BMW 330i, Model 3 LR roughly matches up with a 340i. Don't forget to add in roughly half a tank of gas to the BMWs. Beyond these, Dual Motor adds a lot of performance for just a small extr
Re: (Score:2)
The BMW 340i has an EPA rated city range of 336 miles [thecarconnection.com] (16 gallons, 21 MPG), the Tesla Model 3 LR has a range of 310 (according to Tesla [tesla.com].
The BMW 340i can be refueled in under 10 minutes, the Tesla Model 3 takes a bit longer.
Re: (Score:2)
I own an X3 and a model 3. So talking with experience. You are talking theoretically without actual ownership experience. Charging overnight every day saves you more time than what you lose in supercharging on long distance driving.
Wife fills the X3 up every week, spending 15 minutes for the gas station trip among other chores. That is 13 hours per year. Supercharging takes
Re: (Score:2)
310 miles is a "downrated EPA combined range". The Model 3 LR RWD tested in at 318mi hwy, 334mi combined and 347mi city. As you may note, 347 is greater than 336. Even ignoring that the BMW on any average day will only have some random percentage of its tank filled.
(The reason for the downrating is, beyond the fact that EPA ratings are t
Re: (Score:2)
> The Model 3 can be refilled in 15 seconds of your time. Plug in when you get home, disconnect when you leave. Who cares how long it takes while you're asleep? That's not your time. The time it charges in your garage does not in any way waste minutes of your life. Unlike stopping at a gas station at regular intervals throughout your regular life.
PHEVs do this too.
> On long trips - aka, the exception, not the rule - you charge in the time a typical person spends on meal and bathroom/stretch breaks. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla did no such thing, and your article says no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
BZZT, try again.
1) "Lap records" does not equal "Performance": There's lots of fast cars that don't show up frequently on that list.
2) Previous Tesla models were not designed for sustained track duty (Model 3 is).
In terms of performance, Tesla outclasses BMW. Straight out, dollar for dollar, unsubsidized and not counting energy savings. And roughly matches it on weight (sometimes even besting it).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can "go out and buy one", assuming that you live in the US or Canada and don't want air suspension, SR battery, non-PUP, cream interior on a non-Performance vehicle, or a trailer hitch (all of these are upcoming). US and Canadian waiting times on these Model 3 variants are not exceptional:
* Performance: 1-3 months
* Dual Motor LR: 2-4 months
* RWD LR: 1-3 months
And yes, it most definitely is.
Re: (Score:3)
85% of the power delivered to my house is zero-carbon-emission, with 58% of it being categorized as "renewable" (wind, solar, and small hydro). 27% is from large hydro. 15% is "unspecified", likely purchased on the open market to cover spikes in demand.
The local power company will be offering 100% carbon-free power later this year for an extra cent-per-kilowatt hour. I intend to switch to that, as well as adding a grid-tied solar system to the roof of my house (at the very least, it'd lower my bill and make
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? You think that a network of pumps, rigs, refining factories, trucks, boats, pipelines, etc is "in no way cheaper" than some static power lines? Have you recently been hit in the head with a heavy object?
Re: (Score:2)
instead of insults try math and physics
most the electricity in usa comes from fossil or nuclear plants, so better include all the costs for moving those fuels and wastes around too
electric comes out somewhat better for vehicles but not as much as your emotions might imply
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confused about something. Here's a helpful picture for you
http://www.pipeline101.org/whe... [pipeline101.org]
Re: (Score:2)
However, that's not the point. The reason that electric cars result in savings has little to do with the costs of moving the fuel around. Instead it has to do w
Re: (Score:2)
Moving energy by powerline is no way cheaper than moving petro to your gas station....
Tesla's charging stations are all getting solar, with the goal of removing them from the grid entirely. You could do the same thing.
Grid losses are dependent upon the state where you live; they run from 2.2% to around 13%, with the nationwide average being around 10% losses. However, once the energy is in your electric car, you lose a further 40% of it before it drives the wheels; for gasoline engines the further losses are 80% (source: Trump Administration [fueleconomy.gov]).
So even if you live in the worst case state fo
Re: (Score:3)
Programme was established under Bush. Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008.
Re: (Score:2)
The average sale price of a car in the US is $36k. A person buying a post-tax-credit Model 3 (or Leaf, or Bolt, or pretty much any), and saving ~$1k a year in energy costs, is not "rich" for being able to do so.
And the point of tax credits is not to directly pay for the reduced environmental impact of said specific vehicle. Its to accelerate the trend toward production and adoption of them, particularly in terms of allowing for mass production and thus lower unit costs. Which means a subsidy when total sa
Re: (Score:2)
How many $35K Teslas are on the road right now? The vast, vast majority of the 200,000 Teslas sold to date were much closer to $100K, rather than $35K.
Re: (Score:2)
In Ontario, lots. They had a $14k EV credit. Remember, when you're talking about how much money a person needs to be buying one, you're talking post-credit. Also, post-energy savings. So for example, the average US consumer saves about $1k per year driving a Model 3. So tack years of that on to the $7500 US federal credit, plus any state credits, and again, you can readily get up to the $14k needed for a Model 3 LR PUP RWD to be $35k.
On average, yes, they're spending more than the average car when buyi
Re: (Score:2)
Um... it is pretty much the other way around. The rich pay more taxes in dollar terms while not using proportionately more government resources.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if I'm one of the little people or not, but the tax break on EVs also suppresses the resale value. Let's say the MSRP is $40,000. Few people are going to pay even $30,000 for a 1 year old car when they can get the same car brand new effectively for $32,500.
That means that not only do the original buyers pay less, so do the buye
Re:REAL businesses dont use subsidies (Score:5, Informative)
Amazing how quickly people forget history. This tax credit was established under Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really? I mean, yes, there was a similar tax credit as part of TARP, with sharper limitations that was basically not ever claimed, and it was replaced by the Obama administration, fulfilling a campaign promise...
Re: (Score:3)
The current US credit was codified into law in the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. It was never "replaced"; it was insignificantly modified by ARRA and ACES, but generally kept in its original form.
Re: (Score:2)
30D was completely replaced in ARRA.
> (a) In General.--Section 30D is amended to read as follows: [entire text of current language]
[entire text replaced, with some similarities with prior language... but e.g. changing limit to 250k per mfr instead of 250k total, threshold, interactions with depreciation, etc]
Re: (Score:2)
Some similarities? Oh come on. The original description of the credit:
Re: (Score:3)
Your own quoted text shows the language is completely replaced. Yes, the size of the credit was multiplied by the number of manufacturers, else it would have run out a fair bit ago. What other credits you can take it with and its interaction with depreciation was changed. The eligibility threshold was pushed up one 1KW-hr of capacity. The credit was limited to existing tax obligation (not refundable). It was allowed for lease and its interaction with business taxes was substantially changed. Etc, etc