No EV Tax Credit If You Earn More Than $100,000 Says US Senate (arstechnica.com) 202
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On Tuesday night, the US Senate passed an amendment that would limit the plug-in vehicle federal tax credit. Currently, tax payers are eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500 based on the size of the vehicle's battery for the first 200,000 plug-in vehicles from a given automaker. But Republican Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska introduced a non-binding amendment to the $3.5 trillion budget bill that would means-test this tax credit, restricting it to tax payers with incomes below $100,000.
Perhaps more significantly, Sen. Fischer's amendment also restricts the tax credit to EVs that cost less than $40,000. Consequently, the only battery EVs that will still be eligible for the tax credit will be the Hyundai Ioniq Electric ($34,250), Hyundai Kona EV ($38,565), Mini Cooper SE ($30,750), and the Nissan Leaf S Plus ($39,220). Chevrolet's Bolt EV and Bolt EUV are both below the price threshold, but in 2019 the automaker sold its 200,000th plug-in vehicle, at which point the tax credit began to phase out. The amendment passed, 51-48. Senator Fischer took to Twitter to say that "everyday Americans are living paycheck to paycheck because of the sharp rise in costs due to #Bideninflation. We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury vehicles for the rich using money from hard-working taxpayers." (Inflation is mostly being driven by high prices for used cars, which in turn is a result of the chip shortage.)
Perhaps more significantly, Sen. Fischer's amendment also restricts the tax credit to EVs that cost less than $40,000. Consequently, the only battery EVs that will still be eligible for the tax credit will be the Hyundai Ioniq Electric ($34,250), Hyundai Kona EV ($38,565), Mini Cooper SE ($30,750), and the Nissan Leaf S Plus ($39,220). Chevrolet's Bolt EV and Bolt EUV are both below the price threshold, but in 2019 the automaker sold its 200,000th plug-in vehicle, at which point the tax credit began to phase out. The amendment passed, 51-48. Senator Fischer took to Twitter to say that "everyday Americans are living paycheck to paycheck because of the sharp rise in costs due to #Bideninflation. We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury vehicles for the rich using money from hard-working taxpayers." (Inflation is mostly being driven by high prices for used cars, which in turn is a result of the chip shortage.)
For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea behind limiting it to $100,000 is that of companies want to take advantage of the tax credit they're going to have to make cheaper electric cars. This is probably the only way to technology is ever going to trickle down, because as it stands companies are only ever going to make electric cars as high performance sports vehicles for both the buyers and the occasional half-assed vehicle like the bolt that catches fire periodically and only exists so that Chevy can meet fleetwide fuel economy requirements.
So like a lot of things this is counterintuitive, but if you want EVs for the masses this is how you get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:4, Informative)
A bigger problem with the logic is that the tax credit is non-refundable. This means that you would need to have a tax liability of $7,500 to begin with. With my tax advantaged savings and making around $100,000 I'd have to switch to putting it all in Roth accounts in order to pay more taxes to get the credit. good look for a person making $35,000 having $7,500 in liability.
If they made it a refundable credit then it would be worth it to lower and mid income households.
Re: (Score:2)
The middle class in the US is not "a person making $35k". That's the lower class, which is a different challenge altogether.
Most of the US middle class has a retirement account, generally pretax. Converting it to a Roth IRA can trigger a sizeable tax liability. It's a common technique for people who want to harvest the EV credit but don't have enough tax liability.
Re:For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:5, Interesting)
The middle class in the US is not "a person making $35k". That's the lower class, which is a different challenge altogether.
$35k is literally the median personal income. You can't really get more middle class than that unless you define "middle class" by some arbitrary lifestyle criteria.
Re:For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:4, Informative)
Being middle class means you aren't upper class or working class. Upper class traditionally meant you were aristocracy and/or had inherited family wealth and as a rough proxy could be taken to mean you had enough wealth that you could never work. Many historic clothing styles were explicitly intended to show that you were upper class because they were inappropriate for working in. Working class meant you laboured and would have earnt something in rough proximity to the median wage. A butler may well earn 8 times what a miner did but would have been considered working class, a wool trader who made 200x what a miner did would have been middle class.
Re: (Score:3)
So a random quote google picked is now the definition?
For instance, Princeton economist Alan Krueger (former economic advisor to President Obama) defines the middle class as those with a household income from half to 150 percent of the national median income; another highly-acclaimed economist, Lester C. Thurow of MIT, imposes a much narrower range of 75 to 125 percent of the median income; the Pew Research Center, however, sets the range a bit higher than Kruegerâ(TM)s, from two-thirds to double the national median income. ..
"The Pew, Kreuger and Thurow definitions might seem fairly similar, but they capture quite different slices of population. The middle class may include households making as little as $35,000 or as much as $139,000 in household-of-three equivalents and include between 23 and 48 percent of households," Brookings scholars warned.
Another common approach is measuring the distribution of income, rather than specific numbers. For example, some economists consider the middle 60 percent of all households (which will cover the income range from $30,000 to $130,000) as the middle class.
https://observer.com/2018/05/e... [observer.com]
There are, of course, other ways to slice it, including workers/capital, and buttlers and fur traders etc. But generally as the article shows, everyone tends to think they're middle class. Because being poor sucks and is embarassing and being openly rich is invites envy and means you're part of the privileged group and no one wants to admit that. And especially here claiming that you're middle-class is a good way to show
Re: (Score:3)
That's median household income. The comment you replied to was quoting the median personal income. Feel free to provide an argument that household income is a more relevant metric than personal income, but nothing you have said so far suggests that the original poster was "clearly wrong" or "ignorant".
The $35k figure is based on statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, which also happen to be cited on Wikipedia based on a chart of U.S. Census Bureau data [stlouisfed.org] provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The
Re: (Score:2)
No, EV currently can only be made as something that costs much more than ICE. Within five years that should change.
I think that's kind of the point (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
but then they should let everyone get tax credit for EV, not at income level that is solidly middle class. If the EV revolution happens, the middle class will power it.
They can't do that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$100K isn't affluent at all. I swear, do some of you squish burgers?
Re: (Score:2)
$100K isn't affluent at all. I swear, do some of you squish burgers?
World average income would disagree with that statement, but what ever. The last incentive for me to ever purchase an EV just went away.
Re: (Score:2)
It's three times the median income. It's certainly not "fuck-you" rich but it's a very decent amount of money that doesn't need handouts to buy new cars.
Re: They can't do that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, median household income in USA is nearly $70,000.
$100K isn't any kind of rich at all, solidly working middle class and also part of the range that will drive EV adoption.. except now they want to screw the pooch and those people will buy the cheaper ICE instead.
Again, do some of you squish burgers? Hope you don't work in IT, you're being screwed over if your not making $70K and up.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the reasons we're not seeing affordable housing is because those loan programs are long gone, so the builders are only incentivized to make luxury homes.
“No one” wants affordable housing because it devalues everyone else’s property in the eyes of capitalists and so the not in my back yard crowd keeps it from happening at the federal, state and local levels. Honestly I think this problem is viewed the wrong way, the only thing wrong with gentrification is the renter class gets screwed. Passing down modest generational wealth, like a house, is as old as civilization itself and seen world wide across cultures and should be embraced not shu
I don't think it's a matter of devaluing right now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you would have the government step in and create structures and incentives that bring builders in to build homes for middle class and lower income people.
Except this directly devalues surrounding properties and so it’s rarely done except in areas already pretty financially damaged. Further populations are increasing, without increasing the density by building vertically this leads to more people competing for the same property and price increases are a natural result. Cities can only spread so far before workers won’t tolerate multiple hour long commutes every day. It does not need to be low income, simply more dense housing can lead to slo
Re: (Score:3)
The idea is to accelerate that process by putting money on the table for the car companies.
If it does that. The thing that makes EVs expensive is the batteries, and the best way to decrease their cost is economies of scale. This move may well decrease EV purchases, reducing economies of scale and causing EV prices to stagnate. Or it may motivate carmakers to make cars with very small batteries, demonstrating to everyone that EVs suck because of range anxiety.
Maybe it will go the way you hope, but it could well backfire.
It won't decrease purchases (Score:3)
As it stands I just putz around town a little and go grocery shopping making me an ideal candidate for an EV but I would never in a
Re: (Score:3)
Get a Toyota Prius Prime plug-in hybrid then. It's neither a luxury car nor cheaply made junk where every corner was cut to save costs; it's a safe, reliable, affordable vehicle that's effectively an EV for the best EV use cases, and a gasoline car for the best gasoline use cases.
In ten years pure EV will be the way to go, but for conditions today the prime is as close to an optimal solution as you'll find, at least if practicality and economy are your only concerns. It has the lowest cost of ownership o
Re: (Score:2)
BEVs beat performance ICEV cars hollow. 80K to 120K BEVs beat the crap out of performance cars. Luxury segment is more subjective and less based on objective metrics. In the 40K to 60K near luxury segment BEVs are fighting and have price parity, sort of.
As you say, in five years, we might be looking at price parity in 25 K segment. The bread and butter loaded corolla or basic accord. Thats when all hell breaks loose!
Re:For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:5, Interesting)
It's because the structure of current incentives encourages companies to only manufacture EVs as high in luxury goods and sports cars like the Tesla.
That's true, people keep telling me that Tesla isn't a luxury brand because of the Model 3. The cheapest Model 3 comes in at $34000, the variant I want weighs in at $44000. I can get a similar Honda for $24000 and a smaller Honda HR-V for $21500 and I can think of plenty of things to do with the $20000 I'll still have in my pocket after buying the Honda. Until Tesla makes something with the $44000 Model 3 variant's long range that is in the class of the HR-V and sells at the price of the HR-V I'm quite frankly not interested in Teslas. So far there is no sign of Tesla wanting to actually make cars normal people can buy without feeling they just spent a bunch of money on a pile of luxury crap features they don't need since Tesla seem to be spending all their effort on pissing about with that butt ugly pickup of theirs.
Re: (Score:3)
They have a full waiting list of people who want them at the current price. It's really a case of supply and demand and the lack of enough production at a scale where they can actually offer a 20k car. 7500 does provide enough incentive for some people to trade in a BMW for a Tesla but now it might not.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, Tesla's margins are soaring and are at record levels. Margins are a good indicator of the balance between supply and demand. High margins = tons of demand, not enough supply.
Giga Austin and Giga Berlin will be starting out soon enough, though, and will ramp their respective Phase 1 lines over the course of next year. Both are designed for very high peak sizes, but Giga Austin in particular is planned to be a monster with the inclusion of its later phases (heck, even just its Phase 1....).
Re:For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:4, Interesting)
They have a full waiting list of people who want them at the current price. It's really a case of supply and demand and the lack of enough production at a scale where they can actually offer a 20k car. 7500 does provide enough incentive for some people to trade in a BMW for a Tesla but now it might not.
Yeah, Tesla's margins are soaring and are at record levels. Margins are a good indicator of the balance between supply and demand. High margins = tons of demand, not enough supply.
Giga Austin and Giga Berlin will be starting out soon enough, though, and will ramp their respective Phase 1 lines over the course of next year. Both are designed for very high peak sizes, but Giga Austin in particular is planned to be a monster with the inclusion of its later phases (heck, even just its Phase 1....).
By that logic Apple isn't an over priced luxury brand either, it's just a case of High margins = tons of demand, not enough supply. That also makes Tesla the Apple of the car industry. There is no way the overwhelming majority of the population is going to shell out $44000 for a $24000 car just because it is electric and comes with a shit-ton of useless luxury features and a 'brand halo' because it was kissed by a robot with a rubber replica of Saint Elon's lips when it rolled of the line. Nobody except a bunch of high earners is going to line up to pay $44000 for a $24000 car and that's what Tesla's long queues of customers are made of, high earners queuing up for a luxury car. Not that it matters, eventually the whole car industry is going to get hammered by cheap batteries and cars from China, just like Apple got hammered by cheap Android devices and then Tesla really will be an indisputable luxury brand ... just like Apple is.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you actually buy a $34k Tesla though? They briefly made one that was $35k, but you couldn't order it online and they didn't advertise that it existed. You had to call them and get the upsell spiel, and then they would reluctantly sell you a $40k Tesla with some stuff disabled in software, probably at a small loss.
The cheaper interior and cut down hardware never materialized.
There are quite a lot of affordable EVs in Europe. VW ID.3 is being pushed heavily and a decent spec model can be had for $35k. We
Re: (Score:2)
And yet they sell them as fast as they make them without any real advertising. If you don't want to spend that kind of money for an EV, then don't. However, there doesn't appear to be any shortage (yet) of purchasers that are willing to pay 2-3X the cost of an economy Honda/Toyota/Hyundai/etc for a Tesla 3. I suspect Tesla will be hanging out in the luxe segment as long as they can because that's where the highest margins are.
Re: For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think a Jeep is a luxury car? A F150? Both of those with modest trim can easily cost $45k; today they can cost $45k if they are three years old with 25,000 miles on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think a Jeep is a luxury car? A F150? Both of those with modest trim can easily cost $45k; today they can cost $45k if they are three years old with 25,000 miles on them.
Both are also significantly huger than a Tesla Model 3. When you are paying $44000 for a Tesla Model 3 to get what a gas guzzling Honda does for $24000 that's buying a luxury item, just like paying $1,299.00 for a MacBook to get what a Lenovo Windows Laptop will do for $900 is buying a luxury item. There is nothing wrong with preferring Luxury cars, just don't try to tell us that Elon Musk is some kind of latter day Henry Ford on a holy crusade to make affordable electric cars for the masses. Tesla started
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose there's a scale of things. Tesla 3s are nicer than Hondas, but I wouldn't call them "luxury" either.
If Tesla was Apple, a much maligned luxury brand around here, the Tesla Model 3 would be the iPhone SE of the Tesla's Luxury product line. That would make the Tesla Model 3 a phone for aspiring luxury phone owners who can barely afford the entry level luxury model.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) a car manufacturer could purchase several of their own vehicles from themself
2) receive the cash subsidy for each one
3) then return the vehicles
4) keep the subsidy money.
The tax credit is limited by tax liability, the subsidy wouldn't be. Unless the IRS puts in a cap on the number of subsidies paid out , in which case it's now unlikely better than a tax credit...
Re: (Score:2)
First, the price parity between ICEV and BEV have been achieved only in those segments. Price parity is the key for mass market. It simply is not there below 35K.
Second, the EV makers, especially Tesla, is limited by production capacity and battery production capacity. Whatever battery they make, they will put it on the most profitable cars they make. Till the semi luxury market demand is exhausted they won't make lowe
Steam locomotives (Score:3)
In the U.S., steam locomotives were history in 1957.
Maybe you mean 1947? Actually by 1947, steam locomotive orders were "drying up" even though they made up most of the locomotive fleet.
How about 1937? But starting after, say, 1941, railroads were restricted by government edict from buying diesel-electric locomotives that they preferred. Had something to do with diesels requiring scarce, war-strategic resources.
Electric cars last a long time? I am currently driving a 24-year-old gasoline car. Wi
Re:For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:4)
What isn't clear is whether or not the $100k cap is per person for those who file jointly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a refundable credit though, so if your tax burden is under $7,500 you won't get the whole thing.
With the lower base rates and high standard deduction it takes significant income to get the whole thing (as in top third or so).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In order to qualify for the current tax incentives you need a very high income because you not only need to be able to write $7,500 off your taxes (meaning you have to itemize after the standard deduction was raised by the Trump administration) but you also need to be in a position where you haven't already written off all or most of your tax burden.
It's a credit. You don't have to 'write off' anything against taxable income. The EIC is payable even if your tax liability is $0. [irs.gov] In which case, the gov't actually sends you a check. The EV credit could easily be structured like that.
Re: For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:2)
This is going to be a very narrow window. You have to make enough income to owe enough in taxes to claim the credit, but not enough to disqualify you from the credit. My real income is a bit north of $100,000 but I barely had enough taxes to absorb the $4500 credit for a Niro PHEV.
Re: (Score:2)
As mentioned above, the standard technique is to do a Roth IRA conversion of one's retirement account. This triggers a one-time tax liability.
Re: (Score:2)
But unlike the EIC it is a non-refundable tax credit. You can certainly take this credit first before refundable credits, but you still have to have at least $7500 in liability to make full use of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a dumb take, the pollution is a problem across the board, we need subsidy for electric cars of all types and no means testing BS. This is a program with a huge return for every dollar spent combating CO2 emissions and particulate count in cities
They should really spend this on deveoping public transport and not subsidizing rich people's new cars. EVs are better than ICEs, but the whole sprawling suburban nightmare is still a huge environmental disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because the structure of current incentives encourages companies to only manufacture EVs as high in luxury goods and sports cars like the Tesla. In order to qualify for the current tax incentives you need a very high income because you not only need to be able to write $7,500 off your taxes (meaning you have to itemize after the standard deduction was raised by the Trump administration) but you also need to be in a position where you haven't already written off all or most of your tax burden.
Which basically means that now that they've limited it to $100k is that only about a third of the country is able to fully take advantage of it, rather than two-thirds. The minimum income to claim the full credit is $47k, and a third of the country is below that level. And the other third is above $100k.
In other words, if this amendment passes, the environmental benefit of this credit drops at least in half, and that's IF people earning only $48k can afford a $40,000 car, which is kind of laughable. In p
Re: (Score:3)
I can guarantee you that's not the reason the amendment was introduced. It's all about R political campaigns being funded by the fossil fuel industry. Anything that causes fewer EVs to be sold is good for them.
In case you haven't noticed, much of the planet is on fire due to global warming. Look at California, Greece, Australia in their summers. We can't afford to continue in the wrong-headed path we are on.
And yes, I put my money where my mouth is. My first car was a 2001 Prius hybrid. My first plug-in a 2
Supply (Score:2)
So like a lot of things this is counterintuitive, but if you want EVs for the masses this is how you get it.
A Tesla Model 3 battery pack costs around $13,000. If you want to build a car for $20,000 with some semblance of quality and *any* sort of profit margin, you need to make cheaper batteries first.
The manufacturing part is coming along. Now the problem is lithium supply. Demand has shot up, as has price, and China is buying up every mine they can in Africa. There are a bunch of mines in the US, but even trying to start up one will result in years of lawsuits.
So that's where we are now.
Re:Supply (Score:5, Interesting)
It does not.
Getting exact figures out of the industry is painfully hard, but the general consensus is that they're well under $100/kWh at the pack level now. They're targeting $50/kWh with the Roadrunner project unveiled at Battery Day, although it'll be a long hard slog to bring it to scale.
It is not. First off, lithium is only a small fraction of the cost of a pack, and rarely a limiting factor (only tiny amounts are used). Secondly, lithium resources are ridiculously abundant. The main limiting factors in lithium production, as a general rule, are refining.
If you want a limiting mineral, you need to look to nickel. Tesla is being increasingly forced into LFP for shorter-range vehicles and stationary products, and expects this trend to continue over time. Not because they want to, but because they can get iron in basically unlimited quantities but not battery-grade nickel. Unlike lithium, nickel actually does make up a sizeable chunk of the mass of a NMC or NCA battery.
And actually, the US is pretty easy on the regulatory front compared to Europe. My god, what Tesla had to go through in building their factory in Germany is insane. They had to track down and relocate ants. Non-endangered ants. And non-endangered lizards, and build lizard-fences to keep them out. And had a tiny narrow window to take down trees between when non-migratory birds might be wintering and when birds may be nesting. And on and on. And any group anywhere in Germany can bog down the process in the numerous public review phases, which start over every time you make even a minor change. And of course they had some people climbing and chaining themselves to trees, in the monoculture scots pine plantation that had always been scheduled to be harvested and for which Tesla was paying for 3:1 reforestation efforts in Germany in exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. $142 per kWh for Tesla [google.com] according to CNBC.
Re: (Score:3)
Cairn is off the wall on this. There were document leaks back in 2018 that they were paying less than that for modules (not just cells) - and that was while they were having production problems, with a high rejection rate, and a more primitive design. If I remember right, about $135 in early 2018.
Like I mentioned, though, it's difficult to get exact numbers out of the industry. So you can get wild speculation like Cairn's.
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but only if you are talking about the cost to the manufacturer. Cost installed for an out-of-warranty battery appears to be nearly $14000 [msn.com] as of January.
Worse, you rebutted a "total cost" argument with a "cost per kWh" reply. This makes it much harder to believe your answer is authentic.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla actually has - contrary to the Slashdot summary - a car under $40k too (the Model 3 SR+). But unfortunately, Tesla hit the 200k EVs limit long ago.
The per-manufacturer limit makes it really not even be an EV credit at all. You can go all-in on EVs and mass produce them, or you can make them a tiny portion of your portfolio and make them only slowly... and your customers (and thus indirectly, you) get the exact same amount of money. There's no incentive to make any sort of major commitment with the
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the credit works in reverse: it incentivizes manufacturers to wait until the technology has advanced and costs have reduced before building EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a few years behind the times on car prices. The average purchase price of a car in the US, as of this year, is $40,857:
https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]
That's more than enough to put you in a basic Model 3 at $34,190. Not so much a high-end luxury sports car if it's a good $6K below the average, eh? Granted, that's the base model. But that's fully-loaded with everything short of "Full Self-Driving Capability" which, at this point in time, you'd be pretty daft to shell out for in any case. And..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The income threshold might be reasonable in Nebraska, but is pretty low for a family on the coasts. $200k might have been a more reasonable number.
I’m all for promoting lower cost EVs, but as of today, it is likely going to be 2024 before there are viable EVs at under $40k. Aptera might have a shot with their low-range versions, but that is a bridge too far for a lot of folks.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, today, you can benefit from the rebate by leasing a car, in which case, the lessor claims the credit and reduces the price of the lease accordingly.
How is the credit going to work in the case of a lease? Or isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a really good point...
I would *think* - have not even tried to read the language of the proposal - that it applies to individuals and not businesses. But you make an excellent point worth considering because it might result in anyone leasing an EV not getting any cost credit at all.
Then again, that might be the whole point...
=Smidge
Re: (Score:2)
That kinda makes sense. But generally, isn't the intention here to replace as many ICE cars with EVs? Does it matter who gets it?
if someone buys a $40k EV instead of a $30k ICE, that's good. If someone buys a $50k EV instead of a $40k ICE, that is also just as good.
If someone buys a $80k EV instead of a $70k ICE, that is also just as good, and even though the person who was buying a $70k ICE may have been able to afford an $80k EV without the incentive - would they have bought it?
There is the argument of
Re: For anyone wondering why they're doing this (Score:2)
HA. The Rich... (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, good for you if your house costs $80k because you live 5,000 northeast of nowhere, and $75k a year is reserved for the 4 richest kings in all your lands, but $100k a year is barely middle class for us coastal elite scum. Guess I'll just keep buying used gas guzzlers then.
Re: (Score:3)
Or, I mean, and this is a crazy thought, you could just actually pay for the car you want.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that you didn't want an electric car if you're making only $100K a year, anyway. Most of the good electric cars still cost more than $40,000, which is still quite a lot for someone making $100K a year if they have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: The average price paid for a new car in the US is about $40,000.
=Smidge=
Re: HA. The Rich... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Fun fact: that has jack shit to do with anything.
Except it does, because it give you a rough thermometer to gauge what the market is actually like.
Yes, there are "plenty of worthwhile cars going for $25k new" - THAT means jack shit, because if the average price paid is $40K, there's a lot of people who are clearly willing to pay considerably more.
(MSRP ranges based on the lowest of the family vs highest of the family, since the Edmunds list is not specific. For example Toyota offers more expensive Hyb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$100k isn't rich, and that's the point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it makes you feel better, the tailpipe and smokestack CO2 emissions for a Smartcar or Prius are about the same as a Tesla Model 3 powered by coal generated electricity.
(Please double-check my math on that. All numbers poorly sourced from "the internet". Coal is 2 pounds per KWh, Gas is 20 pounds CO2 per gallon, Tesla model 3 is about 25 KWh/100Mi and the two cars mentioned are about 40 MPG.)
Californians are going to roll coal instead (Score:4, Funny)
$100k/yr. in California is poverty level.
Re:Californians are going to roll coal instead (Score:5, Informative)
It depends a lot on what part of California you're talking about. State's household median is about $75k/yr, and individual adult income is $32k/yr. But if you only look at Santa Clara County that's $124k/yr and $48k/yr respectively.
If a Louisiana resident can pull a typical Bay Area household salary, that puts them in the top 20% of wage earners. (source: dqydj.com/income-percentile-by-state-calculator/)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vancouver is third.
Behind Hong Kong and Sydney.
Re: (Score:2)
The worst weather on the west coast is still better than the rest of Canada.
Carrot and Stick (Score:4, Insightful)
So they've railed against the carrot.
The stick approach would include a carbon tax on a (petroleum) vehicle's emissions in the sale price. Anyone earning *less than* $100,000 could claim a rebate.
Funny (Score:2)
I'd only be able to afford to buy a new car if I made well over $100K. Thanks student loans.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks student loans.
You mean the loans you chose to take out? They weren't forced on you...
Re: (Score:3)
No I mean the loans you're going to pay for when they're forgiven.
Sounds right (Score:2)
I don't see the point of other people subsidizing rich's people's toys - which is basically what these tax breaks are.
Now do the financial, oil/gas and pharma industries too.
Re: Sounds right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the point of other people subsidizing rich's people's toys - which is basically what these tax breaks are.
You probably didn’t see much benefit from the trillion-dollar tax cut a couple years ago, either.
Go look up the annual incomes of most Senators, then let us know if you still don’t see the point.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is paying $100k/year in federal income taxes then is there harm in allowing a “small” part of that as a tax credit to incenitvize good behavior? Essentially that is what almost all of our tax code does— encourage things like saving for retirement, giving to charity, buying a house, even having kids.
I’m all for tax code simplification (revenue-neutral), but what makes one “good” tax deductible expense better than another?
It's about time (Score:2)
There was never a good reason to subsidize expensive toys for people that can afford them and would buy them with or without the subsidy
a non-binding amendment (Score:2)
So, this is not legally enforceable then? Just a water test and for making lib gaf hot takes for future twitter posts?
Cool.
Perma-idiots (Score:2)
When EVs started, I pointed out how, once they became ubiquitous, government would switch from subsidy to taxing them, pointing out how the Dutch government did this 30 years ago with LPG optional cars.
I was downmodded.
#Bideninflation (Score:2)
If you're gonna make a stupid # like that, at least make it roll off the tongue properly. It should be #Bidenflation.
Bezos will be happy (Score:2)
Narrow minded (Score:2)
They seem to limit the choices to only small sized sedans, and that might not be the best way to improve EV adoption. Especially when lots of used Nissan Leafs and other cheap cars can be found for under $10K in the market.
However the new "wave" of EVs were crossovers (Kia), SUVs (Audi), Minivans (2021 Chrysler Pacifica Plug In Hybrid), pickup trucks (Ford F150). Those are the actual "gas guzzlers", and those are the next avenues of reducing our carbon footprint. (For those who doubt EVs are cleaner: you on
Pols don't understand the vehicle ecosystem (Score:3)
Most plebs don't buy new cars in the first place, they buy USED cars the prosperous discard.
The used market makes the new market viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this literally all you do with your day? Copy & Paste this same little schpeal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both parties did this. (Re:FUCK REPUBLICANS) (Score:2)
Democrats have held the option to filibuster the US Senate for 100 years, give or take, if not a majority or even filibuster proof super-majority. Today the Democrats hold a majority in both houses of Congress, with the majority in the Senate being because a Democrat VPOTUS can break any ties which comes with POTUS being a Democrat also.
Here's a nice graphic from Wikipedia showing this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w... [wikimedia.org]
Nothing happened in the US federal government without Democrat approval for 100 years.