[AustinTXUSA-IPACE]

A bill to remove the 200,000-vehicle cap for electric car manufacturers and extend the $7,500 tax credit for new EVs until 2028 gained more supporters recently, with Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL) and Rep. James P. McGovern (D-MA) signing as cosponsors of H.R.6274, also known as the Electric CARS Act of 2018.

Read about the bill: ‪https://www.teslarati.com/electric-car-bill-gains-new-supporters/‬

Congress EV bill updates: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6274/text

Track all EV related legislation: http://pluginsites.org/electric-vehicle-legislation-tracker-2018/

 

[SabrToothSqrl]

Once more and more companies hit the 200k limit, they will advocate to extend it.
I didn't realize the Volt and all those qualified, I assumed GM would have more time, but I guess they will hit 200k soon.
I'm surprised Nissan didn't hit the limit yet, but then again once you look at a leaf, you know why

 

[McRat]

Well hopefully it's good news. As a nation, most our legislation and bureaucracy efforts have been chasing our tails for 20 months while neighboring countries laugh at us. The time to pass this bill would have been 2017 before rabies became full blown. Now we are in full-scale war politically in Washington. Literally. We have Congress members telling the public the stalk and harrass those they politically oppose and their families and friends, using violence if necessary. The victims do not need to have done wrong, they are picked entirely on guilt by association. It's a first since the 1950's.

I find it interesting that California and Michigan are not the authors of the bill. They are the ones with US jobs on the line. For California, we really have no support for California Issues in DC. I doubt most our Congress members know where California is or what we do here.

Our green programs have been halted by both parties recently, especially in California. We are building a train from one ghetto to another, at a cost of $10,000 per taxpayer with our Environmental monies, and it won't be finished in our lifetimes. The hiring was based on nepotism, and contracts handed to campaign donors, with the land owned by politicians. And we are expanding the swamp in the official "The EV City of the Future" (Sacramento), with lots of graft/pork diverting the dollars into politicians pockets.

Neither side of aisle considers EVs a legitimate subject anymore. It's a pawn for trading, or a weapon for labeling others as puppy/kitten killers. It's no longer a US defense issue. It's tragic to watch it.

 

[TeslaOwner]

... with lots of graft/pork diverting the dollars into politicians pockets.

So ... I'm not sure ... is this something you feel strongly about? :grin2: :grin2: :grin2:

 

[McRat]

So ... I'm not sure ... is this something you feel strongly about? :grin2: :grin2: :grin2:

Yeah, California is supposed to be the "Green State" but in the last few years, we are retreating from that. It's disgraceful.
Tesla is based in California, but notice this bill was not sponsored by our representatives. Tesla won't wet their beaks, so they are ignored.

I did predict they would try to extend the fed credit. I cannot predict if it will pass though. It could have passed in early 2017, but now the climate has changed, and I don't mean GHG levels.

 

[jsimon7777]

It's just another tax transfer from the poor to the wealthy. The bottom 25% off the population aren't buying EVs, used or new. On top of that, a lot of used EVs are being exported to other countries. No, this is bad policy. Tesla had their 1.5 billion plus subsidy. So will GM. I'd like to see it go away, actually, now that the tech is good enough to go mainstream.

 

[McRat]

It's just another tax transfer from the poor to the wealthy. The bottom 25% off the population aren't buying EVs, used or new. On top of that, a lot of used EVs are being exported to other countries. No, this is bad policy. Tesla had their 1.5 billion plus subsidy. So will GM. I'd like to see it go away, actually, now that the tech is good enough to go mainstream.

It's Marketing 101. Put something on "sale" and volume increases. Humans fall for it every time. Every time subsidies were removed or reduced on EVs/PHEVs, sales fell.

There is not an 'affordable' EV produced at a profit for the middle class in the US/Euro markets that is in competition with ICE choices.

(before somebody gets all edgy, Tesla lost $11,000 per car last quarter with their highest sales numbers ever, even with government assist in both Nevada and California, and their cheapest car is $50,000 USD)

 

[McRat]

Trivia - When EVs are sold at an 'affordable' price, they sell poorly.
Fiat and others had leases at ~ $100 a month and moved very few cars.
It seems expensive EVs sell better than cheap ones.

So how do you get people to buy cheap EVs? The greatest puzzle of all.

 

[phil]

So how do you get people to buy cheap EVs?

Make them better?>

 

[TeslaOwner]

It's just another tax transfer from the poor to the wealthy. The bottom 25% off the population aren't buying EVs, used or new. On top of that, a lot of used EVs are being exported to other countries. No, this is bad policy. Tesla had their 1.5 billion plus subsidy. So will GM. I'd like to see it go away, actually, now that the tech is good enough to go mainstream.

I pay at least 10x (a guess, it may well be far more than that) the tax of Mr Average, that's probably true of most people who choose to buy a 100K car, but I shouldn't be entitled to a handout?

A handout which would help accelerate adoption of EVs (currently relatively expensive for the Average Punter), and thereby increase mass production thereby bringing costs down, and at the same time help reduce balance or payments deficit (for UK at least) with oil states with the consequential problem of some of the money sloshing around in those states going into the hands of people that it turns out we don't like, and that's assuming we don't have to go to war to protect supply.

Let alone the acceleration of the demise of ICE and thereby reducing, ultimately, the cost of climate cleanup.

After all, that's what the transition from ICE to EV is about.

I don't want a level playing field between EV and ICE at all; the faster the world stops polluting and CO2'ing with ICE the better ... time is running out on that one.

If your solution is to give money to the car companies, rather than subsidise the purchase, that's OK with me too (although we can obviously debate which one lines the pockets of Fat Cats more ...). The faster it happens the better for all of us, rich and poor alike.

 

[phil]

...but I shouldn't be entitled to a handout?

I don't think anyone said that. But I will: nobody is ENTITLED to a handout. Charity should be given freely and generously, from the benefactor's own wealth - not from money forcibly taken from other taxpayers.

When government confiscates money from some people, in order to bestow it on politically favored individuals or causes, yes, that is bad policy. Few causes are important enough, and righteous enough, to justify such tyranny. The promotion of electric cars is certainly not one of them!

Still, when I buy my EV, I will accept the $7500 tax credit from my own foolish, tyrannical government. I pay plenty of taxes too!
0

 

[TeslaOwner]

But I will: nobody is ENTITLED to a handout.

My point was more that insofar as Government Sponsoring is required then I didn't think it wrong to give a handout to the rich (as being the only people who can currently afford an EV, let's say) in order to promote EV adoption - on the assumption that "EV Adoption is a good thing", and further that if "EV adoption is not only a good thing, but critical" then government sponsoring that is both a Good Thing and important (by whatever means, I have no strong views, except that Government is usually useless and I'd prefer "effective" means pls ...) then I think that's fine - doesn't have to be a gift-to-the-rich, could be a gift to the manufacturer (no use if the only makers [have been] foreign), or something else.

Of course I'm here in part because I personally think that EV adoption is critical (and have chosen to buy a 100K car instead of my usual 25K to be more Eco etc. and because I had previously given VW my business buying their "Blue Motion" Eco cars ... and look where that got me ..)

Here the Gift is capped at £7,500 (from memory) so decreasingly less beneficial the more expensive the car you buy. Its still generous ... plus currently in UK there is no Road Tax for EVs, and Electricity does not include the (very high) Fuel Duty Taxes that are on Petrol etc., so basically not contributing to Road Maintenance fund either, and I also avoid Congestion Charges, am often allowed to park for free (at a Charger in an otherwise paid-for car park), use of Bus Lanes in some circumstances and so on ...

All means of promoting EV adoption, which in the main is currently something only richer people can buy - certainly anyone who has only ever had a second-hand car is not really at the table yet.

Personally I would increase the subsidy by government, and even if EV could complete on level playing field with ICE, in order to hurry-up adoption - which in turn will increase production, and reap the rewards from economies-of-scale.

 

[phil]

My point was more that insofar as Government Sponsoring is required then I didn't think it wrong to give a handout to the rich (as being the only people who can currently afford an EV, let's say) in order to promote EV adoption - on the assumption that "EV Adoption is a good thing", and further that if "EV adoption is not only a good thing, but critical" then government sponsoring that is both a Good Thing and important (by whatever means, I have no strong views, except that Government is usually useless and I'd prefer "effective" means pls ...) then I think that's fine - doesn't have to be a gift-to-the-rich, could be a gift to the manufacturer (no use if the only makers [have been] foreign), or something else.

Yes, I kind of thought that's what you meant, and I generally agree with you. Except I don't believe EV adoption is on the list of the top 1,000 issues the world should be worrying about right now - unfortunately we have far bigger problems.

 

[jsimon7777]

I pay at least 10x (a guess, it may well be far more than that) the tax of Mr Average, that's probably true of most people who choose to buy a 100K car, but I shouldn't be entitled to a handout?

A handout which would help accelerate adoption of EVs (currently relatively expensive for the Average Punter), and thereby increase mass production thereby bringing costs down, and at the same time help reduce balance or payments deficit (for UK at least) with oil states with the consequential problem of some of the money sloshing around in those states going into the hands of people that it turns out we don't like, and that's assuming we don't have to go to war to protect supply.

Let alone the acceleration of the demise of ICE and thereby reducing, ultimately, the cost of climate cleanup.

After all, that's what the transition from ICE to EV is about.

I don't want a level playing field between EV and ICE at all; the faster the world stops polluting and CO2'ing with ICE the better ... time is running out on that one.

If your solution is to give money to the car companies, rather than subsidise the purchase, that's OK with me too (although we can obviously debate which one lines the pockets of Fat Cats more ...). The faster it happens the better for all of us, rich and poor alike.

Wealthy people get welfare at a far higher amount than poor people. In the US, I get a 7500 rebate off my EVs, an interest write-off on my home mortgage, massive delayed and therefore lower taxes on my retirement funds, 30% back on my solar and Power Walls, tons of writeoffs for my business and rental, and more I'm not thinking of plus all the state level welfare, like Prop 13, that caps my property taxes, EV rebates, and so on.

And I don't need any of it, nor does anybody else making what I'm making. Meanwhile, thousands are living on the streets. I imagine it's much the same in the UK.

As for the whole EVs save the world thing, maybe eventually. These subsidies are an inefficient and unfair way of cutting greenhouse gasses. Better to mandate ever-rising efficiency and stricter emissions until EVs are the only way to go. Little EVs like the Fiat 500e are definitely efficient and good for the environment, assuming a clean source of power. Teslas, however, are not going to be better than your garden variety Prius unless looking at a very long term and using solar power. Believe me, all those underpaid Tesla employees aren't driving Model Ss to the overcrowded factory lot.

I don't think anyone said that. But I will: nobody is ENTITLED to a handout. Charity should be given freely and generously, from the benefactor's own wealth - not from money forcibly taken from other taxpayers.

When government confiscates money from some people, in order to bestow it on politically favored individuals or causes, yes, that is bad policy. Few causes are important enough, and righteous enough, to justify such tyranny. The promotion of electric cars is certainly not one of them!

Still, when I buy my EV, I will accept the $7500 tax credit from my own foolish, tyrannical government. I pay plenty of taxes too!
0

If taxation is theft, then so is having to pay for something at a store. So is having to pay a hospital bill. The 7500 EV credit is just bad policy. That doesn't mean taxation is evil.

My point was more that insofar as Government Sponsoring is required then I didn't think it wrong to give a handout to the rich (as being the only people who can currently afford an EV, let's say) in order to promote EV adoption - on the assumption that "EV Adoption is a good thing", and further that if "EV adoption is not only a good thing, but critical" then government sponsoring that is both a Good Thing and important (by whatever means, I have no strong views, except that Government is usually useless and I'd prefer "effective" means pls ...) then I think that's fine - doesn't have to be a gift-to-the-rich, could be a gift to the manufacturer (no use if the only makers [have been] foreign), or something else.

Of course I'm here in part because I personally think that EV adoption is critical (and have chosen to buy a 100K car instead of my usual 25K to be more Eco etc. and because I had previously given VW my business buying their "Blue Motion" Eco cars ... and look where that got me ..)

Here the Gift is capped at £7,500 (from memory) so decreasingly less beneficial the more expensive the car you buy. Its still generous ... plus currently in UK there is no Road Tax for EVs, and Electricity does not include the (very high) Fuel Duty Taxes that are on Petrol etc., so basically not contributing to Road Maintenance fund either, and I also avoid Congestion Charges, am often allowed to park for free (at a Charger in an otherwise paid-for car park), use of Bus Lanes in some circumstances and so on ...

All means of promoting EV adoption, which in the main is currently something only richer people can buy - certainly anyone who has only ever had a second-hand car is not really at the table yet.

Personally I would increase the subsidy by government, and even if EV could complete on level playing field with ICE, in order to hurry-up adoption - which in turn will increase production, and reap the rewards from economies-of-scale.

You're not doing anything good for the environment by buying a Tesla. You're just falling for the marketing. We leased small EVs for their price, convenience, and performance. We're getting the ipace for the convenience and performance. Any environmental benefits of a 4000 lb vehicle are questionable at best.

Yes, I kind of thought that's what you meant, and I generally agree with you. Except I don't believe EV adoption is on the list of the top 1,000 issues the world should be worrying about right now - unfortunately we have far bigger problems.

Agreed.

 

[McRat]

Kind of comical since the bottom 40% of Americans pay no Federal Income tax, and many of those get a tax refund (EIC) to bring their taxes to less than $0. You will hear complaints from some that they can't get the $7500 credit on an EV since they pay little or no tax.

I have no idea how you rob the poor by cutting them a check each year because they paid no tax.

It's pretty easy NOT to use to use a 401k, install solar, pay a mortgage, or buy an EV if you really want to poor to thrive. If it's wrong, then do what is right.

By saving money in banks, installing solar, and buying EVs, while still paying large amounts of Federal Income Tax (I have no mortgages, just property taxes), it does assist the national economy and help the environmental goals the government is targeting.

 

[phil]

If taxation is theft, then so is having to pay for something at a store. So is having to pay a hospital bill.

Sure. Except you DON'T have to pay for something at a store or a hospital. They don't throw you in prison if you decline to pay. The government does lock you up, if you politely decline to pay taxes. That's the difference between theft and an offering of goods or services.

I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. :wink2:

 

[McRat]

If the taxation is illegal per written law, yes it's theft. However, the IRS is exempt from prosecution for malicious acts. We saw this recently with 501? Non-Profits taxation used for political purposes. I don't think anyone was convicted, even though there was no doubt a crime occurred, including conspiracy.

 

[phil]

Yes, though I meant morally, rather than legally. Taxation is generally two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner - legal, but not right.