Does this news mean the $2500 rebate is back?

[Wshowell]

Yes that is exactly what they are doing. You don't even have to have paid any taxes to get the $2,500, it's not a tax deduction or credit.
Come on you can be smarter than that. You know there's people out there that work just as hard or way harder than you and make way less than you, get over it. YOU, lucked out and EVERYONE, to some degree makes that possible. Not just you out in the wild in some perfect little bubble. Is it okay for folks to just run around saying you didn't earn any of that money you just found a technically legal way to take more from others? More than $2,500 a week in taxes? Is that the 30 to 40% that the little people pay or is that the sweetheart 10 to 13% that the people in this country that do real work get?

You are correct, this is NOT a tax credit or deduction, it is a REBATE. It's not too different than the rebate you might get by gathering up all your plastic water bottles and taking them in to get back $.05/each. Again, doesn't matter if you live in a cardboard box or a mansion, the $.05 you or someone else paid when they bought that Snapple went into a fund. There are no "income requirements" for that type to receive that type of rebate. It was designed to encourage people to recycle or use less of this type of packaging.

I'm looking forward to eye.surgeon's response to your comments. A very Stalinistic attitude towards income inequality. I'm guessing by his screen name he probably went to med school so the fact that you qualify his ability to earn as "lucked out" novel to say the least.

 

[Tanquen]

You didn't answer the questions...WHERE should the money go? WHO should QUALIFY for your programs?

I just think it makes sense to try to put the money where it'll do the most good. Giving it to someone to buy $100,000 car not so much. Worrying about who has how much money when you're incentivizing the sale of hundreds and thousands of $9 light bulbs, you gotta pick your battles.

 

[Wshowell]

I just think it makes sense to try to put the money where it'll do the most good. Giving it to someone to buy $100,000 car not so much. Worrying about who has how much money when you're incentivizing the sale of hundreds and thousands of $9 light bulbs, you gotta pick your battles.

I fully agree. Fwiw, I've spent over $2000 on LED bulbs and placed them in all my rental properties. I did it because #1 it was the right thing to do for the environment (selfless) #2 it meant I'll never replace or have to pay someone else to replace a lightbulb (selfish) #3 it removed the liability of one of my tenants falling off a ladder or chair to replace a lightbulb and suing me (selfish) #4 it saves my tenants money (selfless) #5 It felt right (selfish/selfless). To be perfectly honest, it won't save me a dime probably besides points #2 and #3 but I would not have done it for $15/bulb but I did it when there was a rebate that lowered the cost to $6/bulb. I can assure you, not one of my tenants was going to replace an incandescent 75 watt bulb or a buzzing CFL bulb. Does my income matter or is the point no longer relevant even though we are talking about me receiving an instant rebate of @$3600 on that purchase?

 

[Tanquen]

You are correct, this is NOT a tax credit or deduction, it is a REBATE. It's not too different than the rebate you might get by gathering up all your plastic water bottles and taking them in to get back $.05/each. Again, doesn't matter if you live in a cardboard box or a mansion, the $.05 you or someone else paid when they bought that Snapple went into a fund. There are no "income requirements" for that type to receive that type of rebate. It was designed to encourage people to recycle or use less of this type of packaging.

I'm looking forward to eye.surgeon's response to your comments. A very Stalinistic attitude towards income inequality. I'm guessing by his screen name he probably went to med school so the fact that you qualify his ability to earn as "lucked out" novel to say the least.

Yes, and for $0.05 a bottle and the mass number of bottles involved that makes sense. It's not going to do any good to try to ask people how much money they make and if they do not deserve to get the $0.05. Like you said it's to encourage those bottles to come back. Are we to give the eye surgeon $10 a bottle $100 a bottle because he's far less likely to bring that bottle back for just $0.05? I just put mine in the recycling bin if my mom don't see them first.

I do think he and I and many others on here lucked out. I've been working since I was in high school with work experience and saved money to go to school after High School. I did luck out and got a good job with a good group of guys and we make ok money together. There are a lot of other people including guys that I went to school with that didn't get that opportunity. People that "have less ability to earn" are not just dumb and lazy.

 

[Tanquen]

I fully agree. Fwiw, I've spent over $2000 on LED bulbs and placed them in all my rental properties. I did it because #1 it was the right thing to do for the environment (selfless) #2 it meant I'll never replace or have to pay someone else to replace a lightbulb (selfish) #3 it removed the liability of one of my tenants falling off a ladder or chair to replace a lightbulb and suing me (selfish) #4 it saves my tenants money (selfless) #5 It felt right (selfish/selfless). To be perfectly honest, it won't save me a dime probably besides points #2 and #3 but I would not have done it for $15/bulb but I did it when there was a rebate that lowered the cost to $6/bulb. I can assure you, not one of my tenants was going to replace an incandescent 75 watt bulb or a buzzing CFL bulb. Does my income matter or is the point no longer relevant even though we are talking about me receiving an instant rebate of @$3600 on that purchase?

That seems like a pretty good outcome. I guess your not going to save any money on electricity because the tenants pay that? Maybe your tenants were not going to replace lights that we're currently working but overall I think the incentive did help folks without a lot of disposable income replace lights that used more electricity. They seemed to fly off the shelves at the local hardware stores with the PG&E rebait and I don't think everybody buying one was a millionaire. But again it's not a $100,000 car and they're not handing out checks for $2,500. That scenario deserves a little bit more thought.

 

[MikeC]

It's back, but with a new revised lowered income cap/means test. Now its something like $300,000 for a couple/$150,000 single filer. Will probably eliminate a lot of Tesla buyers.

Is there a source for this lower income cap?

 

[FlatSix911]

You think the government is "giving" me $2500? I pay more than that per week in taxes, as do many here.
The Government produces nothing and can therefore give nothing. All they do is take from one to give to another.

The Truth...

Yes that is exactly what they are doing. You don't even have to have paid any taxes to get the $2,500, it's not a tax deduction or credit. Come on you can be smarter than that. You know there's people out there that work just as hard or way harder than you and make way less than you, get over it. YOU, lucked out and EVERYONE, to some degree makes that possible.
Not just you out in the wild in some perfect little bubble. Is it okay for folks to just run around saying you didn't earn any of that money you just found a technically legal way to take more from others? More than $2,500 a week in taxes? Is that the 30 to 40% that the little people pay or is that the sweetheart 10 to 13% that the people in this country that do real work get?

Nonsense ... the government just redistributes wealth to those you do not contribute.

 

[NikeWings]

Is there a source for this lower income cap?

Effective March 29th, CA enacted new rules which placed a Buyer income cap on rebate qualification, while simulataneously increasing the rebate amount by an incremental $1500 to qualifying low income families. Since June 10th, the rebate fund was exhausted and a waiting list formed.

Eligibility guidelines

 

[whttiger25]

Effective March 29th, CA enacted new rules which placed a Buyer income cap on rebate qualification, while simulataneously increasing the rebate amount by an incremental $1500 to qualifying low income families. Since June 10th, the rebate fund was exhausted and a waiting list formed.

Eligibility guidelines

I think the poster was asking about the new caps in the August 31 legislation, not the ones from March.

Anyway, the 150k/300k limits are there in the legislation, and effective as of November 1 according to an article I just read. So sounds like new legislation shouldn't affect those approved on the waitlist with incomes that were allowed but won't be on nov 1, and everyone else in that income range has about 2 months to buy a tesla (or any other EV).

 

[NikeWings]

I think the poster was asking about the new caps in the August 31 legislation, not the ones from March.

Anyway, the 150k/300k limits are there in the legislation, and effective as of November 1 according to an article I just read. So sounds like new legislation shouldn't affect those approved on the waitlist with incomes that were allowed but won't be on nov 1, and everyone else in that income range has about 2 months to buy a tesla (or any other EV).

I've been unable to find anything since the recent passage and the official site remained in status quo, so I just provided the link for monitoring. But if you've found something detailing the bills impact, I'd love to read it. Unfortunately, they've been quite slow to update the site that matters most. Thank you.

 

[whttiger25]

I've been unable to find anything since the recent passage and the official site remained in status quo, so I just provided the link for monitoring. But if you've found something detailing the bills impact, I'd love to read it. Unfortunately, they've been quite slow to update the site that matters most. Thank you.

I've found references in several news sources, here is sf gate's report:

California approves new round of clean-energy car rebates

"While the rebate money will become available as soon as the bill is signed, the new cap of $300,000 on joint filers and $150,000 on single filers will become effective Nov.1, the state Department of Finance said. The previous limits were $500,000 for joint filers and $250,000 for single filers."

 

[FlatSix911]

I've found references in several news sources, here is sf gate's report:
California approves new round of clean-energy car rebates

"While the rebate money will become available as soon as the bill is signed, the new cap of $300,000 on joint filers and $150,000 on single filers will become effective Nov.1, the state Department of Finance said. The previous limits were $500,000 for joint filers and $250,000 for single filers."

SACRAMENTO — The state will invest millions of dollars into a popular program that gives drivers rebates for buying clean energy cars in California under a $900 million deal approved by Gov. Jerry Brown and the state Legislature on Wednesday. The last minute deal to spend previously unallocated cap-and-trade revenue was announced on the final day of the legislative session by Brown, Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Paramount (Los Angeles County), and Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. Just hours after the deal was made public, the Legislature passed AB1613, which included the provisions of the deal. The Senate passed the bill 23-12 and the Assembly passed it 43-15.

“California’s combatting climate change on all fronts and this plan gets us the most bang for the buck,” Brown said in a statement. “It directs hundreds of millions where it’s needed most - to help disadvantaged communities, curb dangerous super pollutants and cut petroleum use - while saving some for the future.”

Social engineering at its finest

 

[virtualsmack]

"While the rebate money will become available as soon as the bill is signed, the new cap of $300,000 on joint filers and $150,000 on single filers will become effective Nov.1, the state Department of Finance said. The previous limits were $500,000 for joint filers and $250,000 for single filers."

do you need both people on the registration to be considered joint filers? or is there another way to prove it (via household bills, etc)?

thanks in advance...

 

[Wshowell]

do you need both people on the registration to be considered joint filers? or is there another way to prove it (via household bills, etc)?

thanks in advance...

I don't think it has anything to do with registration and everything to do with how you file your taxes. If you file jointly, Head of household or single then that's the numbers you're working against here for the rebate. The state website even identifies which line on which form is to be used. It's GROSS income, not AGI nor Taxable Income so it's erring to the most restrictive values. The website has some good info on it. It'd be a good use of 15 minutes to dig through it IMO.

 

[whttiger25]

I don't think it has anything to do with registration and everything to do with how you file your taxes. If you file jointly, Head of household or single then that's the numbers you're working against here for the rebate. The state website even identifies which line on which form is to be used. It's GROSS income, not AGI nor Taxable Income so it's erring to the most restrictive values. The website has some good info on it. It'd be a good use of 15 minutes to dig through it IMO.

Yeah....$150k gross for a single filer should probably exclude most tesla buyers except maybe marginal 60/60D buyers. 300k joint though opens it up significantly. I guess if you really want that $2500 and you qualify under the old limits, now is the time to get the car....

 

[whttiger25]

“California’s combatting climate change on all fronts and this plan gets us the most bang for the buck,” Brown said in a statement. “It directs hundreds of millions where it’s needed most - to help disadvantaged communities, curb dangerous super pollutants and cut petroleum use - while saving some for the future.”

Social engineering at its finest

I understand how this could be considered social engineering, however to be devil's advocate here, couldn't you argue that there is an income where the $2500 rebate will not influence your decision to buy a Tesla? Giving rebate to people above that income will not result in any additional EVs on the road. If the point of the rebate is to get the highest possible number of EVs out there, it makes sense that it is best used to influence the marginal buyers, not the ones who will buy the EV regardless of the rebate.

This is, of course, coming from someone on the rebate waitlist between the 150k and 250k limits who will be lucky enough to get their rebate after the tumultuous last couple months in sacramento...

 

[RubberToe]

Looks like income caps not going into effect until 11-1-16...

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

I just think it makes sense to try to put the money where it'll do the most good. Giving it to someone to buy $100,000 car not so much. Worrying about who has how much money when you're incentivizing the sale of hundreds and thousands of $9 light bulbs, you gotta pick your battles.

I think you've mis-associated the buyers income bracket with conspicuous spending. People who spend recklessly can do so with a Leaf or Bolt and get the exact same rebate amount as with a Tesla.

In terms of doing the most good, incentivizing the purchase of a Tesla is certainly doing more good for the state of CA than buying a Chevy bolt with the exact same cost to the taxpayer. There are many Tesla buyers who fall under the new income limits and thus would still qualify for the rebate. They justified their purchase as supporting a cause. I've seriously considered it myself. Although the bolt is cheaper, I don't think spending my hard-earned dollars on a car that's half-made in Korea would be the best way to spend my $2500 rebate. Considering how suppliers are moving to CA to supply the fremont factory, CA is getting better results with their rebate being spent on Tesla than any other vehicle. And aside from the volt, focus, and leaf, the US benefits the most from the federal rebate being spent on Tesla's as well.

Either provide the rebate for all to incentivize the purchase of EV's or don't. It's social elitism to try to pick and choose based on some arbitrary criteria like personal income.

 

[Camera-Cruiser]

I pay more than that per week in taxes, as do many here. The Government produces nothing and can therefore give nothing. All they do is take from one to give to another.

I feel your pain, not to the same degree, but being a business owner in the great state of California (and it truly is great, and I love living here) is all about taxes. I love the call from EDS (Employment & Development Department). "So, we see you cut payroll?". Me "Is that a question?" and on and on back and forth with them looking to see if I am trying to hide payroll taxes. Which I am not I explain, just trying to stay in business.

Sorry I don't think that's what this thread is about.

Sigh

 

[Vitold]

I think you've mis-associated the buyers income bracket with conspicuous spending. People who spend recklessly can do so with a Leaf or Bolt and get the exact same rebate amount as with a Tesla.

In terms of doing the most good, incentivizing the purchase of a Tesla is certainly doing more good for the state of CA than buying a Chevy bolt with the exact same cost to the taxpayer. There are many Tesla buyers who fall under the new income limits and thus would still qualify for the rebate. They justified their purchase as supporting a cause. I've seriously considered it myself. Although the bolt is cheaper, I don't think spending my hard-earned dollars on a car that's half-made in Korea would be the best way to spend my $2500 rebate. Considering how suppliers are moving to CA to supply the fremont factory, CA is getting better results with their rebate being spent on Tesla than any other vehicle. And aside from the volt, focus, and leaf, the US benefits the most from the federal rebate being spent on Tesla's as well.

Either provide the rebate for all to incentivize the purchase of EV's or don't. It's social elitism to try to pick and choose based on some arbitrary criteria like personal income.

The point is that if you make certain amount of money the rebate is no longer an incentive and therefore it's wasted. Given limited supply of rebates income limit is a way to optimize the return on investment.