Slashdot Mirror
Republican Tax Plan Kills Electric Vehicle Credit (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The nascent market for electric cars will suffer a big setback if the Republican tax plan released on Thursday enters into law. Among the changes to the current tax code would be an end to the Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicle Credit. That's the tax incentive that currently means up to $7,500 back from the IRS when you purchase a new battery or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Since the start of 2010, the EV tax credit has been $2,500 for a plug-in vehicle with at least 5kWh battery capacity. Every extra kWh nets another $417 up to a maximum of $7,500, although you would need at least that amount in income tax liability -- the IRS won't cut you a check to make up the full amount. It was never meant to be permanent; once an automaker sells 200,000 qualifying vehicles (starting from January 1, 2010) its eligibility is phased out over a matter of months. But in the almost seven years since, no one has reached that limit yet. Tesla will almost certainly be first, with General Motors not far behind; between them, they've sold a lot of Model Ses and Chevrolet Volts. If this tax plan is enacted, it will surely mean pain for both companies, as well as anyone else hoping to sell a lot of EVs here in the U.S. The data is pretty clear -- tax incentives sell electric cars, and the market for EVs can dry up very fast when they're abolished, as Georgia's recent experience shows.
Lets bring back gasification cars that got us through gas shortages. Go down and buy myself some Grade A West Virginia coal and put all those hard working ditch diggers back to work.
Among the changes to the current tax code would be an end to the Plug-In Electric Drive Vehicle Credit.
I can't say that I disagree. However, I would really like to see an end to agrictulture subsidies. While electric vehicle tax credits will probably have a net long-term impact on the environment, agriculture subsidies just smack of make-work.
Good! The government should not be picking winners and losers...
https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA%20FFSR%20progress%20report%20to%20G20%202014%20Final.pdf
It's interesting that Tesla cars are currently the most "American-made" of any of the American car manufacturers, and these tax credits helped drive Tesla's success. Guess Trump's "Buy American" mantra only applies to subsidies to coal miners.
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class. And especially with the Teslas, these vehicles are not only a form of transportation, but also status symbols.
(Full disclosure: I got about $2000 when I bought a Prius back in 2005 or so. Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, but the subsidy made a bit more sense for Priuses as they helped close the gap in price between them and equivalent cars, like a Civic or Camry or Taurus. But subsidizing $75,000 cars for the upper class makes no sense)
In this case it is a credit against your tax burden, not a deduction against income.
many will decry the evils of government intervention into the market for cars, and celebrate the end of this program.
The same people will have zero problems with the direct subsidies that distort the petroleum and agricultural markets, each of which massively dwarf this program.
This pack of losers is driven solely by ideology and they have zero practical consideration for the real world. The economics of an EV aren't quite there yet. But as the most recent owner of a Volt, it feels pretty good paying 3 cents per mile instead of the 11 cents per mile of my old car. Retreat to your ideology, you cowards. Pretty soon the market will move on without you. Just as it did for coal power plants. Oh and don't try to tell me eliminating the estate tax is good for the middle class. I'm not a moron. I will never see 2 million bucks in my life.
Tax credit is not what you "get back". Tax credit is just a deduction from your income to get into a lower tax bracket.
No, that's wrong too.
A deduction reduces your taxable income before you calculate taxed owed on that income.
A tax credit is a credit against taxes owed, after you have calculated taxes on your taxable income. The cretit may be refundable (you get all of it) or non-refundable (you get no more than the amount to zero-out your tax liability.)
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
If the technology cannot compete on the basis of merits, it is not viable.
No subsidies for EV or solar cells and wind power.
If it can compete, it is viable in the market.
If not, it goes away.
I can agree on that when it comes to Tesla's S/X models... but what about the Leaf, Volt, Bolt, and other "cheap" electric vehicles? Those are far from status symbols, and the people that drive them are definitely not upper-class.
Maybe it would make sense to continue to offer subsidies on cars priced below, say $40K, and then scale it down or outright remove it for higher priced vehicles.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off.
Of all the things wrong with a subsidy, this is the least problematic for the electric vehicle subsidy. By your logic, the people receiving the subsidy are those who actually pay federal income taxes. Remember, the bottom 50% of wage earners have effectively no federal income tax burden. So, this isn't a wealth transfer to the wealthy. At worst, it is a discount on the taxes that they are actually paying.
The real problem I see with subsidies like this is that they tend to artificially raise the price of the product being subsidized. This happens with college tuition, agricultural produce, and even happened with low end fuel-efficient cars during the cash for clunkers program.
The real problem for subsidies is that they create a market distortion. There are certain limited occassions where that sort of thing makes sense and electric cars, even those which only the "well off" can afford might be one of the few good occassions, owing to the potential long term environmental benefit. I would rather the market function well without government interference, but there is still a way to go until electric vehicles become truly cost competitive.
Yay! Buggy whips and stove pipe hats for everyone!
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off.
Which makes it very confusing why the Republicans are ending it.
There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class.
That's right, we should have only tax credits for middle and low-income families, the ones who suffer the most!
Wait, wait, no, according to Mitt Romney, they don't pay any taxes, so they don't need any tax cuts!
And especially with the Teslas, these vehicles are not only a form of transportation, but also status symbols.
(Full disclosure: I got about $2000 when I bought a Prius back in 2005 or so. Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, but the subsidy made a bit more sense for Priuses as they helped close the gap in price between them and equivalent cars, like a Civic or Camry or Taurus. But subsidizing $75,000 cars for the upper class makes no sense)
Horrors! You don't realize that the rich and upper-class are the ones who need tax advantages the most? Have you learned nothing from years of Republican messaging?
If electric cars are really worth it, you shouldn't need a tax credit to buy one.
Most of the GOP tax plan is a give away to the rich and the very rich. Complaining about the loss of a credit for a car that costs 2x the median income might not be the best way to say on message.
Yes, but Tesla is using the income from selling its luxury cars to fund research to make affordable cars. I don't believe in "trickle down" as a general principle but Tesla has actually made it work, maybe because Elon Musk actually cares about solving humanities problems and not just about money.
GM, NIssan, and Toyota can afford to just drop the price by the amount of the tax credit and still make money on the cars.
The tax credit amounted to nothing more than free money for the manufacturers of the subsidized cars.
The only people who own electric cars are in the Top 10% (usually Top 5%) of US earners. It is ridiculous to have such a credit.
This can be said about any credit besides the EIC. You actually have to have the liability to use it. There are all sorts of things we subsidize if you earn enough money. I think all credits need to be eliminated or made refundable like the EIC so they are useful to other income levels.
... that's going away, too, right?
Bet electrics would make much more sense, even without subsidies, if that happened.
If that's true, then the free market system has failed this particular product category pretty badly, and maybe needs some kind of regulation, or just plain old punishment for price fixing.
But, my guess is that those cars are simply still expensive to make.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Even if they wanted to, Tesla doesn't have the money to fund any research. They are haemorrhaging money as it is and they don't seem to be able to build their new model in meaningful numbers.
Sorry sir, you are incorrect. A 'deduction' reduces your taxable income. A credit is a direct reduction of taxes ('get back' more on your refund).
As others have said, the credit disproportionately benefits people who (1) are in higher tax brackets (wealthy people), and (2) those who can afford electric vehicles (also wealthy people).
What we should be doing instead is to charge the full societal cost of gasoline consumption (up to $1,000 per person per year) and adding that to the price of gasoline. Then people will naturally switch to electric vehicles, no subsidies or government social engineering necessary.
Of course, we also need to charge drivers the full cost of the roads, up from less than half (who says Republicans oppose welfare?); and abolish laws that show favoritism toward Big Oil such as those that force developers to build more parking than the market wants, but that's a different topic of discussion.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Leaving pollution as an externality, and subsidizing roadways out of the general tax base as opposed to fuel taxes are also distortions.
Now OIL pay. And buy. Congress critters. All part of plan. To feed rich with more and more money. Because good it is. To be rich. You smelly poor, the everyone who rich is not, can suck a rotten egg.
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off.
Which can all be traced back to the way cities are organized in your country, with even simple tasks ("going to buy some groceries") involving driving several kilometers. This makes the general population used to drive longer distance, and therefor anxious about the range of any vehicle, which in turn pressures manufacturer to build EV with huge batteries.
And as batteries are the most expensive part in an EV, the end result is that in north america, EV are extremely expensive and for the ultra rich only.
Contrast this with Europe, which is more densely populated. Everday normal car usage very rarely exceeds a couple of dozens of kms.
As such even tiny batteries (e.g.: 22kWh, giving somewhere around ~125km range depending on who's driving) were already very useful. As such european manufacturer have more likely used a bottum up approach, starting with small car and short range, and progressively extending them as technology improves (as opposed to the US marker, were Tesla took the opposite approach : build a car with a good range that cost a lot and the produce progressively cheaper car models as production costs go down).
Such small cars european cars (e.g.: Renault Zoe, formely with 22kWh battery, now 45kWh) are popular here around (not only to upper class but even to mid-class) and available in car sharing companies (meaning that even student can drive them).
Far different situation than Teslas in the US.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
What makes you think that these are for the well off? You can lease an eGolf for $49 a month - that's hardly well off rates.
Median individual income in the USA is $50,000. 62% of those that file income tax returns earn $50,000 or less, and pay 7% of all federal income taxes on 11% of the total income. The average tax rate for this band is 12%, for the next band up to $100,000 the average rate is 14%, and to $200,000 it's 17%. Those earning $200,000 and under collectively pay roughly 50% of federal income tax. This doesn't include things like FICA, local taxes, sales taxes, etc.
Which was exactly the goal - encourage those manufacturers to make electric cars, because it became more profitable. In doing so, encourage research into battery technology, and push us along the experience curve to make batteries cheaper, and more viable both for cars and grid storage.
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class.
You only need $56,200 of taxable income (MFJ) to have $7500 in tax liability.
That's middle income by most definitions. (slightly above $46k median of all US households, slightly below $67k median of dual-earner households)
A Pacifica Hybrid costs $44k (plus tax, registration, etc).
Take out $7k of that, and you're at $37k for a nice minivan.
$37k is a reasonable price for a minivan.
I have seen 'middle income' defined as being the middle three quintiles of income.
I've also seen it as currently people in US are 29% lower, 51% middle, 20% upper. (not sure how they determined that)
By either definition I am definitely middle income - and I have been planning to buy a Pacifica Hybrid and use the $7.5k tax credit.
And I know I'm not the only family that's right in that middle-income category and looking at buying one.
Electric car manufacturers won't drop the price of the cars. The subsidy only applied to the first few months of production to kick start the market. Both Tesla and GM are almost at the limit already so it doesn't really effect them anyway.
What is important is the liquid fuel tax and lowered subsidy for ethanol. Both of those make internal combustion vehicles more expensive to own. Electric cars will become more attractive even without the subsidy. A win-win for government revenue.
Contrary to what the summary implies, it's not a $7500 check from the IRS. It's a tax credit. You have to owe at least $7500 in taxes in order to take full advantage of the $7500 tax credit. If you owe less, you don't get the full credit.
Looking at the IRS tax stats for 2015, column U (average total income tax paid), the $50k-$75k bracket paid an average of $5341 in income tax, the $75k-$100k bracket paid an average of $8430 in income tax. So you had to have an income of about $75k+ to claim the full $7500 tax credit. Not exactly upper class, but definitely upper middle class. Looking at the number of returns in each income bracket, pretty much only the top 25% of incomes qualified for the full $7500.
People in the bottom 75% usually got less than $7500 even if they bought a qualifying EV. And low-income people who typically pay little to no income tax, even if they somehow managed to buy an EV (a lease would qualify you for the credit) got next to nothing. I'm actually not sure how this $7500 tax credit lasted this long. Conservatives should've hated it because it was a massive government subsidy. Liberals should've hated it because it was horribly regressive.
This is a GOOD thing. There is absolutely no good reason why the American taxpayers should be subsidizing these cars. If customers want to buy them, great. If not, too bad. There is no actual environmental benefit to these vehicles. Yes, you read that correctly. The facts are there for anyone to find. The batteries alone preclude them from being 'green'. You have to look at the entire life-cycle of the product, not just daily use. That's includes mining, production, and disposal. Add in the fact that the energy to charge them also requires significant resources, and it's exposed for the vanity product it really is. I'm sure I'll get lot's of ignorant people crying about this comment, but oh well. Sometimes the truth hurts. Get over it. I'm not saying you can't buy them. I'm just saying I shouldn't have to subsidize them with my hard-earned tax dollars.
My one lingering hope with this all-Republican government is that they would barrel through a balanced budget. Which basically means drastically reducing the spending on defense and entitlements. All this other nickel and dime stuff is baloney... EV credits really? Is that even a decimal place I can get to on my calculator as a percentage of the total govt spending? I don't care if you take away PBS, or planned parenthood, or the Dept of Education. But do all nonsense after you take an axe to Defense spending and entitlements. Where the heck are the tea party'ers that have been ballyhooing this for years? Such lying do-nothings.
I'm not comfortable buying something that involves a handout from people that probably need the money better than I do anyway.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
People who think the party of rising debt (TRIPLED under Reagan, seriously) will cut debt are insane, and I use the term precisely
The electric car subsidies were set to expire when a certain number were sold, anyway.
Anyway, why spend money to subsidize electric cars, and those who buy them and those who make them, when the poor multinational corporations would like huge tax breaks? (Only to help the middle class, mind you, not to benefit the greedy, of course.)
I am very much looking forward to the day that I can economically and conveniently own an electric vehicle. That being said, I think itâ(TM)s time to eliminate the credit. Car manufacturers are certainly including that credit in their manufacturing and cost and profits. Eliminate it and watch EV manufacturers bring the costs down in kind.
Meet the new pack of ideological losers. Same as the old pack of ideological losers.
False equivalence and deflection. There is nothing remotely similar to the current theocratic, billionaire kleptocrats that have seized the White House, and today's Democrats (or, for that matter, Republicans from 10 or 15 years ago).
Saying this bunch is the same as the old bunch is simply moronic, the untruth of which is obvious to the most casual observer.
EVs are not yet convenient enough to be a working man's vehicle. Many of these people live in apartments or dense housing where charging is difficult or impossible.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You're missing the point entirely.
These tax credits aren't intended as help to the individual, so the individual's wealth status is irrelevant.
These tax credits are the reverse of taxation. Taxation tends to suppress behavior, where tax credits tend to encourage behavior.
The poor have the most to lose from climate change, and therefore the most to gain - long term - from anything that helps mitigate it, which expediting the growth of the electric vehicle industry does.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
More government welfare for the inefficient buggy whip manufacturers and kerosene users.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class. And especially with the Teslas, these vehicles are not only a form of transportation, but also status symbols.
(Full disclosure: I got about $2000 when I bought a Prius back in 2005 or so. Perhaps I'm a hypocrite, but the subsidy made a bit more sense for Priuses as they helped close the gap in price between them and equivalent cars, like a Civic or Camry or Taurus. But subsidizing $75,000 cars for the upper class makes no sense)
Though in this case the well-off are also subsidizing the development of the technology, and helping the rest of us by driving vehicles with lower emissions.
And you'd need a competent economist to do the math, but even ignoring AGW gasoline cars carries significant costs. There's a crapload of subsidies, direct and indirect, that go towards oil, and the actual exhaust causes a lot of damage. Your EV is in many ways cheaper for the government than a gasoline vehicle, tax policy pushing you to an EV is just good economics.
I stole this Sig
So is the mortgage interest deduction and the whole government backed secondary mortgage market ... depending on your definition of "well-off". Certainly most of the people in the neighborhood I grew up with weren't ever going to benefit from that.
But it was a matter of federal policy that moving people (or at least some people) into homes they owned and having them build equity was good public policy.
The reason electric vehicle subsidies exist isn't to make life nicer for well-heeled consumers; it's to decrease US dependency on foreign oil in the long term. Electricity in the US is produced mainly from domestic sources: natural gas (34% and rising), coal (30% and dropping), nuclear (20%) and renewables (15%).
A policy in the long term of switching to electricity benefits the poor people, not only because the cars will become cheaper and enter the second-hand market, but because it's poor people who largely defend US petroleum sources overseas.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You only need $56,200 of taxable income (MFJ) to have $7500 in tax liability.
That doesn't seem right. I think you've left out the standard deduction, which would kick it up another $12,600, and the personal exemptions, which would be another $8k. So you'd need more like $76,000, assuming no other credits, deductions, or children. It wouldn't be hard for a family to make $100k and still not actually pay $7,500 in tax.
$37k is a reasonable price for a minivan.
If we're still in the context of a $56k as a comparison income, I'd say a $37k car of any kind is outrageously expensive. I don't see how anyone can afford a vehicle that costs a full year's post-tax earnings.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Um the tax break goes to the buyer NOT GM, nissan or toyota. It still costs them x amount to build the car so selling it for less then something they can make a profit on would put company in to trouble
That is how your government decides to get paid to extract the resources that belong to the government, state or at the last stretch, the landowner. Tax the extraction so that the more that is extracted and the higher the margin, the more the owner of the land gets paid for what has been taken off it.
But you'll pretend you have and wait for us not to find it then discard that as us being ignorant. Got it.
We don't need a tax credit for electric cars. We need a tax penalty for polluting. Maybe in this case the result is similar but with fewer arbitrary stipulations which benefit specific megacorps who can afford to buy legislation.
Cars kill as many people by air pollution as by collisions--the difference is that air pollution is always a hit and run.
if these things are the greatest things since sliced bread then it will stand on it's own instead of using my nickle.
Tax credit is not what you "get back". Tax credit is just a deduction from your income to get into a lower tax bracket.
Well, you titled your post "Wrong" and indeed you were.
Well done.
BUT, America needs to work on infrastructure.As such, we need to raise gas/diesel taxes by .01/gal/month for the next 48 or 96 months and use that money for infrastructure only.
This approach is much better than subsidizing EVs, esp. when the only one dropping in prices is Tesla.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I don't see this as a problem because what happened with the electric car tax credit is that Big Auto went "oh you want to give tax credits, okay, we'll jack our profit margin up by exactly the amount of the tax credit and add that to the price."
In most civilized countries you simply received a letter at the end of the year informing you of what you owe on your taxes and you pay it online. The IRS intentionally makes filing your taxes hard and complicated so they can come to your house and take everything you own at a whim.
Calling it a subsidy is wrong, it should really be called a "tax deduction".
A man shows up to your door in the middle of the night pointing a gun at you and your family. He tells you: hand over your money, or else forfeit your life. You think he is a criminal, then you notice his badge. Why, he is a government agent come to collect your taxes!
Taxation is armed robbery. If you choose not to pay, you are imprisoned. If you twist imprisonment, you are murdered.
On what grounds can anyone support such a system which is intrinsically evil, merely because the people doing it have a title and badge?
The outright buying price of the Tesla 3 especially, seems pretty reasonable considering the performance and tech you get.
Given the huge backlog in ordering the model 3, I don't see how the loss of this subsidy really affects Tesla. Were we supposed to keep the credit forever? Electric cars have become compelling enough on their own it is OK to end it, I would say.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Typical American. I've got mine so fuck the rest of you.
But then you notice the other side of the typical American. I still want to tax you so I can charge my subsidized EV easier/cheaper.
Just like you said, making it a status symbol makes it cool to own an electric vehicle. I think that makes it worth it. No, people like me can't afford the current Teslas, but now many yokels would consider it where they wouldn't in the past.
I'm not too keen on funding EV owners polluting the land and groundwater with the chemicals from their nasty batteries. If you want to destroy ecosystems, at least do it on your own dime.
The IRS is prohibited by law from sending you a bill for your taxes due to the tax prep industry lobby who fear it would eat into the revenue for their constituents. https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/straight-dope/article/20850276/why-doesnt-the-irs-just-send-us-a-tax-bill
Why should we pay to help you drive? Isn't there already enough public transportation?
If you require a subsidy or tax break to make a thing affordable, then it is ( in reality ) anything but.
If car manufacturers would drop their prices, they could wean off the government tit and continue selling cars.
Look at what happened in Hong Kong when the removed the subsidy. All of a sudden folks quit buying the damn things because they're just out of reach for most.
My used Leaf set me back a whole $15.000. Now it is worth less than $10,000. I was also considering a used Camry at the time.
It is amusing to read the rantings of misinformed masses as they skewer every aspect of electric car ownership while completely ignoring the massive oil subsidies.
There is a reason that gasoline costs twice as much outside of the United States.
Except it isn't a deduction. It's a credit.
A Deduction reduces the amount of your income that you are responsible for taxes for.
A Credit reduces the tax amount directly
If I make $10,000 at a 10% tax rate, my tax due is $1,000
If I get a $1,000 tax deduction I have to pay taxes on $9,000, on which my tax due is reduced to $900
If I get a $1,000 tax credit my tax due is $0
Electric vehicle, solar installs, farm, oil (if there are any), etc....they're not called for in the Constitution anyway, and are just a form of virtue signalling.
I'd love an electric car myself once they double the range and shave a zero off those price tags, but I don't expect other people to help pay for it.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd rather have a $4000 decrease in my taxes every year than a $7500 credit I might be able to get maybe once in my lifetime.
You can't just look at individual incomes for this, you need to look at households. Median income for a dual-income household is $67,000.
I find it odd that the IRS doesn't pay out additional money if you don't qualify for more than your tax burden though. Why should it matter what you owe? This seems strangely structured. Maybe it's something about preventing abuse?
You fundamentally misunderstand the difference between a tax cut and a subsidy.
Tax cut/deduction: The government chooses to take less of your money from you.
subsidy: The government points a gun at somebody else, takes HIS money, and gives that money to you.
You apparently also play, or are sympathetic with, the "progressive" dishonest game of claiming that tax cuts COST the government. Nope. Sorry, that's a completely dishonest idea that even many establishment republicans buy into (being in politics too long or having a law degree seem to rot the brain no matter what party one is in). Government handouts and government purchases cost the government money... NOT taking somebody's money does NOT cost the government ANYTHING. Big government politicians in BOTH parties love to assume government will be huge and spending money on nearly everything - and then they start to see failure to steal enough money to pay for all of that spending as "costing" the government. That does not make it so. The SPENDING is what COSTS the government.
There are no federal government "subsidies" to the fossil fuel industry. There most certainly ARE tax deductions and writeoffs available to that industry and most other industries that make it so they are not being taxed on various non-profitable but necessary business activities. The solar power people and the electric car people are eligible for many similar business writeoffs and deductions.
The purpose of the EV credit was to jump-start the market and lure manufacturers into the electric car business. It worked! Now that business is established, the vehicles are on the market, the automotive industry is committed to making more of them. And the EV credit should ride off into the sunset. Job well done.
I'm genuinely curious, and most here are probably unaware of the distinction. I've simply never wasted the time worrying about the e-car tax break; too many more important things to do.
Congress makes SOME tax deductions (like the child deduction) "refundable" meaning that the person will actually get a check from the government for the difference if the amount exceeds that amount of tax he/she would have paid.
If the electric car deduction is "refundable" then a middle class family WOULD get the full benefit because if they had a $5000 tax bill, that amount would be wiped out AND they would get a $2500 check as well.
If it's not a "refundable" tax credit, then it truly IS aimed at subsidising luxury cars for the wealthier and is thus all the more repugnant.
No, you're thinking of deductions. Credits are exactly what the article says. Credits are rare. Refundable credits (credits that pay even if greater than your tax burden) are even more rare. Deductions are common.
Article is about a regular, non-refundable tax credit. Not a deduction.
In some states, coal is one of the leading energy sources for electrical power. Depending on where you live, your "clean" electric car may be powered by COAL.
The federal and state governments together make more money off each gallon of gasoline sold than the actual oil companies make.
Remember: The company (like exxon for example) spends a huge amount of cash exploring for and extracting the raw oil, then shipping it to a refinery and processing it, then shipping it into the distribution channels where it is then transported to gas stations (who must mar it up to generate their own profits). The government no only taxes the corporation (exxon in our example) and the gas station (often a local independent business) but then also nails-on the at-the-pump taxes - even though the government exerted absolutely NO effort in obtaining, processing, transporting, or selling it. Sure, these companies are rich and they do not need our sympathy, but that's not from a high per-gallon profit - it's the result of a few cents profit per gallon multiplied by the amazing number of gallons sold per day.
Fans of electric cars, like people who hate the cigarette companies, are seemingly incapable of realizing that governments will NEVER stop those two businesses because governments are making far too much money taxing those products at premium rates. California is a perfect example - they publicly proclaim cigarettes as lethal and addictive etc and run endless TV ads against the product that they insist causes cancer and kills.... but they never actually ban the product (they have banned plenty of other dangerous stuff). The current CA politicians are claiming they want to eliminate gas-powered cars... but they just jacked-up the gas taxes to fund a bunch of additional spending. If the number of gallons of gas pumped and burned in California was reduced, the state budget would crash.
now we can return to the pure meritocracy that prevailed prior to these incentives being offered.
Just like almost all of the "subsidies" that oil companies get - which are just tax deductions?
Except in this case it is a tax credit - not a deduction. Look up the difference.
we do this to EVERYBODY.
If we are going to shift every cost that COULD be ascribed to motor vehicles onto the people driving cars, then we should also do the following:
[1] Make the solar panel and windmill and electric car people pay ALL the associated costs of THOSE industries (including all the strip mining costs for the rare earth minerals required, and the processing and disposal of all the toxic materials used directly and in the fabrication of those solar panels)
[2] Make the users of mass transit pay all the associated costs of those systems - which are generally so high that most of those systems are money-losers already being fully subsidized (actual cash infusions, rather than just tax cuts)
[3] Make the smart-asses on the internet who are alwatys ranting about environmental and "social justice" costs of fossil fuels pay the full costs for all the stuff THEY use (including the full costs of all the internet infrastructure, like the server farms) that they use while pretending they are only sipping energy in a battery -powered cell phone or tablet (which would have only limited functionality without remote servers gulping energy from the grid).
The truth is that most of the garbage arguments about fossil fuels being "subsidized" is from aluminum-foil-hat wearing conspiracy nutfarm land. If we are to assign to "big oil" the claim that normal business tax deductions are some form of disreputable government subsidy and favoritism, with the implication of some evil scheme involving political corruption and a Dr Evil desire to destroy the planet, then we are not even in a place to have a rational discussion. As for the "societal cost" you cite....wow. Just wow. That's straight off the end of the pier into insane la-la land. If you're not gonna do that to EVERY industry including your faves (like, perhaps Apple and Google???) then you're just way out there in the realm of extremely dishonmest political rhetoric where nothing can be gained by even attempting dialog.
Try finding a study that actually uses a representative sample of America.
California is not a representative sample of America, despite what progressives think.
Dude, it had to take you 10 times longer to type all that than it would have just to look. The previews of the first five hits answer the question without even clicking on the links.
Spolier alert: It's non-refundable.
Only until supply catches up with demand. If ever-increasing tuition rates had anything to do with 'easy student loan' money, then more colleges would be created to compete for those dollars, forcing prices back down. Prices have never gone down.
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas), the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off. There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class.
As someone else mentioned, there is the Bolt, Volt, Leaf, and soon the Model 3.
I look at this more as a "lets stick it to them libs".
Considering the high cost of these vehicles (especially Teslas)
You meen specifically Teslas? The majority of EVs on the market that are below the average median new car cost.
the effect of the current subsidy system is to transfer tax dollars to the already well-off.
The effect of the subsidy is to get the middle class to buy into EVs. This in turn benefits the lower class in the end who buy the second hand vehicles from the middle class. It would be nice if the old retiree down the street could afford a second hand car that doesn't belch black smoke every time he needs to go down to the shop.
There are no middle or low-income families that drive these vehicles, only upper-class
Horseshit. The sentence may have made more sense if you didn't move "Especially with the Teslas" to a different sentence. But you did, so horseshit.
But subsidizing $75,000 cars
What about $23000 Prius?
What about the $30000 Leaf?
What about the $37000 Bolt?
What about the $42000 BMW i3?
What about the $32000 500e?
Or the $30000 Focus electric?
The Kia Soul, The Mercedes B250e.
Or on a budget the i-MiEV for a cool $22000?
You know what most of them share in common? Most of them are cheaper than the mean and median new car price. You know what all of them share in common? They would ALL be cheaper than the mean and median new car price if you include the subsidy.
Actually there's only 2 EVs on the market in the USA that wouldn't be cheaper:
Tesla S
Tesla X
Even at $5341 it pushes every electric car other than the Tesla X, Tesla S and BMW i3 below the median new car value.
From the perspective of an economist, they are really the same thing. Giving someone $X, or not taking $X that would otherwise have been taken, they both have the same result.
Except in this case it is a tax credit - not a deduction. Look up the difference.
Except you can't get it unless you are paying more than that in taxes, which makes it a deduction. If they gave it to you no matter how much you paid in taxes (including $0) then it would be a credit. It isn't, no matter what you try to call it. It really is a deduction.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Remember, the bottom 50% of wage earners have effectively no federal income tax burden. So, this isn't a wealth transfer to the wealthy. At worst, it is a discount on the taxes that they are actually paying.
It's actually a wealth transfer from the upper lower class and lower middle class to people who buy Teslas who are upper lower class or above. A discount on taxes for people with more money is effectively the same as transferring money to them, because everyone's taxes go up to pay for that discount. And it is a discount, not a credit, because you don't get it if you aren't paying any taxes. That's just basic.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A tax credit is a credit against taxes owed, after you have calculated taxes on your taxable income. The cretit may be refundable (you get all of it) or non-refundable (you get no more than the amount to zero-out your tax liability.)
If it's non-refundable, it is not really a credit. It's a discount. This language was designed to confuse you, and it is working. Credit is something you get. A discount is something you don't have to pay. It's obvious that a non-refundable "credit" is actually a discount.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sorry sir, you are incorrect. A 'deduction' reduces your taxable income. A credit is a direct reduction of taxes ('get back' more on your refund).
The fact that there is so much dispute as to what a tax deduction is seems to be a testament to why 1) the IRS tax code has becoming a behemoth of complexity and 2) Why we have so many folks employed at the IRS
Let me simplify this, effectively a tax deduction is a special form of tax savings that gives special treatment to certain types of citizens to somehow attempt to promote equity in the tax system even though equity is not evident
We'll make great pets
In most civilized countries, taxes are widthheld from the paycheck, so in most cases you get a small automatic refund sometime later (unless you grossly understated your estimated income and end up owing taxes despite then being widthheld). Receiving a full taxes due bill in one go sounds like a recipe for total disaster.
Hey look - a prime example of what is wrong with both our education system and our tax code at the same time.
You are thinking of a deduction, which subtracts from taxable income. This is a credit which subtracts from tax liability. Neither value can go below zero.
The tax code is too fucking complex and the complexity only serves to confuse the general public, and assure that the government has the ability to hassle it's citizens at will, because anybody can be audited at any time. And an audit is a legal and financial hassle that unduly burdens the citizen who has to prove innocence, which is kind of the opposite of what the bill of rights has to say...
The rich do not drive dinky EVs, they have private jets and stretch limos and souped up gas guzzling SUVs. After all, something has to make up for eliminating the estate tax, which is the most American of all taxes.
First they bow out of the renewable energy industry to give the rest of the world a head start, and next the electric car industry, how kind of them! #MAGA - Making America Generous Again!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm working on my own electric car conversion, but I will never get a dime for my electric car, because unlike some state level subsidies, these only target major manufacturers. I'm not sad to see it go.
Just like ragan removing solar panels carter put on the white house.
Just think where we would be now.
Wait till the credit agency's start doing their job and lower or rating to where it belongs when the deficit doubles again.
This equals borrowing your way to prosperity foolish as we cant get it under control at 22 trillion or what ever it is now.
Were so boned and so blind.
No, people are stupid and too lazy to use Google. Deductions and credits are one of the simpler things to understand in the tax system. Once you think in terms of "taxable income" both make total sense.
The complexity isn't the terms themselves but the shear number of them and the rules for qualification. The concepts themselves aren't bad. They encourage market & resource direction. But I think they have long ago become nothing more than chips in the political lobby poker table.
Anyone who allows the government take more money than it claims over the year and waits for a refund is a fool. Why let the government hold your money, interest free? It is smarter to save your own money throughout the year, collect some interest on this money and then at tax time handover the unpaid remainder so the government can buy more of those precious roads, drones, cruise missiles, whatever.
you do know you can copy and paste from google to get the correct definitions today...you will end up at wiki...but...you already know this...its amazing how many people are Still...into drama.
They encourage market & resource direction
They sure do but there's a difference between blazing a trail and blazing a trail off a cliff.
We'll make great pets
It's not our education system.
I find plenty of examples of where the rest of you morons seem ignorant of things covered in my crappy inner city schools. It's not that this stuff isn't taught. It's that most of you morons simply don't pay attention.
Then you double down on the stupid by whining that stuff isn't taught.
Sometimes your opinion of something is like a reflection. It says more about your own personal failings then then thing you are complaining about.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This! "If we're still in the context of a $56k as a comparison income, I'd say a $37k car of any kind is outrageously expensive. I don't see how anyone can afford a vehicle that costs a full year's post-tax earnings."
New cars have gotten crazy expensive when compared to annual income. I don't care if you want to buy it outright with savings or finance it, as a portion of annual income, cars are completely out of balance. Really glad there is a used market for cars.
The $4 most people would make in interest is not remotely worth the enormous pain in the ass of having to make sure they save enough to pay their taxes.
I'm fairly well off. I could make $300 on it. But I'm fairly well off, so $300 is also not worth the pain in the ass.
There is also a difference between clothespins and avocado. What's your point?
Even with $0 income you can get the full $7,500, by leasing.
If you lease, the $7,500 is claimed by the leasing company as they are the owner (and have plenty of tax liability), not the the customer who is leasing. Most of the leasing companies just pass the benefit directly to the customer by reducing the price of the car, and therefore the capital cost, and therefore their monthly payment. That is how people were able to lease brand new Nissan Leafs for $0 down and less than $200 per month, which by the way should be affordable to more than 25% of US society (remember that you further save on gas too, so for some it may be a free car, though to save $200 per month you'd have to drive about 2000 miles per month, which is above average).
We'll become the #7 economy on earth, and America will drop to #6. We are #36 in getting per-capita federal dollar subsidies, now Trump wants to make us #50. Well he can take his ignoramus tax plan and shove it up his big fat ...
and by extension most ridesharing. The economics simply do not work except for in a short period of a bust following a boom where a lot of people with nice jobs and nice cars now no longer have the nice jobs but still have the nice cars and lot of free time. Once an economy comes back driving for ridesharing companies is worse than driving for taxi companies and we know how bad that job is from the fact that the only people who will do that are immigrants with no better choices. If you actually buy a car to drive for Uber you LOSE money after paying for interest, depreciation, maintenance. Uber is a tax on people with bad math skills or if you want to look at it more positively society's way of teaching math to adults. As more and more adults figure out Math (which they should have learnt in grade school but thats another story) they stop driving for Uber and the supply of people with bad Math skills is drying up.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Subsidies for electric cars are not the tax plans big problem. Those subsidies are not an example of the big problem or a representative of the big problem.
The Big Problem for the tax plan is that it is sponsored by the Republicans. Hear me out!
The Repubs are nearly a year into their mandate. They have failed to build a Wall, let alone make Mexico pay for it. They have failed to either repeal or replace the Affordable Care Act. Immigration restrictions have had a few issues, to put it mildly. The Repubs have a leader with the attention span of a meerkat on 3 shots of espresso. And the Repubs are engaged in a civil war for the very soul of their party.
The Right controls the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and 44 of 50 Governorships. Yet they are unable to coordinate their actions and loyalties enough to even order lunch.
And you think that Tax Reform's big problem is the electric car subsidy?? Tax Reform is going nowhere, just like the Republican's entire legislative agenda.
...and because TurboTax and friends lobbied to keep it so.
> Um the tax break goes to the buyer NOT GM, nissan or toyota.
Corporate shell game. The manufacturer can still charge up to $7,500 more per EV car than a competing manufacturer of ICE cars.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Anywhere that there's lots of cold weather, like New England and the north central states, the second-highest expense (after rent) is heat. If the climate warms, the poor benefit disproportionately.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
They are not loosing billions. They are investing in factory and expansion.
Why parent post got 5 stars?
Yes, they are losing billions. And Tesla is NOT doing well at all - see current financial statements where they themselves say so.
You need to learn how to read financial statements and so do the mods who mod'ed you to five.
And learn the difference between capital investing and losses from operations - which is exactly what's happening at Tesla. They are losing billions making selling cars.
People are using the tax credit to get a free golf cart. You add turn signals and headlights to make it street legal and it has a high enough battery capacity to meet the tax credit requirements. The credit should be tossed out.
Yeah, the GOP will wave around a tax form postcard, but good luck seeing that as part of the sausage that emerges.
Cheap storage VM.
What is "interest"? I don't think there has been a legitimate way to collect interest exceeding 1.5% in my lifetime, certainly not my working lifetime. There are programs that are really funneling some credit card fees your way, and then there are long term interest bearing vehicles, which still barely keep up with inflation.
Cheap storage VM.
This is just one more way the Trump Administration (and GOP generally) is making the US irrelevant. The rest of the world is moving to electric cars. G W Bush started the process that sees other countries route around American backwardness when he lied about WMD and invaded Iraq........and Trump is causing that process to be resumed and accelerating that process (after a brief recess while Obama was president). The rest of the developed world looks at the US with its denial of human-triggered climate change, its massacre-a-day gun dumbness, its lack of universal public health care (a no-brainer elsewhere) and now the utter moron and the gang of stooges in the White House.....and is resolved to just get on with what needs doing. Having China on board is putting the US in the back seat (moving toward the trunk).....more and more. Leadership has already moved elsewhere. The US is increasingly a backwater. Absolutely those US states who are taking measures on their own are supported everywhere outside the US. It's interesting to note airlines heavily discounting airfares to the US. Fewer and fewer people want to go anywhere near the place. It's being wrecked by (literally) terminal stupidity on a mass scale.
Only boring people are ever bored.
The Chevrolet Bolt is not a cheap vehicle, this sub-compact costs almost twice as much as a 7 passenger SUV (43,195$ versus 22,295$ for a Dodge Journey).
It's more than 3 times the cost of a Civic sedan (16,690 $).
(All prices in canadian dollars before taxes and dealer prep.)
Try it! Library of Babel