-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Umm, no.
I'm Canadian and I understand US tax credits better. From what I've seen, its full credits (to the extent of individual tax circumstances) on the first 200,000 cars SOLD in the USA (not worldwide production/sales) After that, it ramps downwards much like the situation in Denmark in 2016 with a 20% reduction compared to Denmark's full credits in 2015 and before, then another 20% further downwards in 2017 etc until the exemption is gone.
The US credit is by qualifying vehicle, even if that said vehicle only qualifies for a partial credit as in a PHEV like a Volt or a Prius Plug-in, and since it is by car and NOT divisible, GM and Toyota and Ford have been blowing their entitlements to owners getting tax credits on cars like PHEVs that only qualify for smaller tax credits.
So, last year Tesla sold 50,xxx cars worldwide, but only 26,xxx ? cars in the USA, so there is a long way to go before the tax credits run out. Years. Total tax credits for Tesla including Roadster, S and X are likely about 50K total sold in the USA, so still 150,000 or so sales **in the USA** to go, before they start tapering. Remember, for every Tesla sold in the USA, at least another will be sold elsewhere, so if 100,000 Tesla are sold in 2016, that means about 50,000 in the USA, so still 100,000 US sales with full tax credit to come. That should take Tesla well into 2018-2019 and the launch of Model 3, and Model 3 variations.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
No not really, since the $7500 credit was helping to buy a $75,000 car, if someone gets a $3,500 credit to help buy a $35,000 car its OK.
On top of that a Model S that cost $75,000 in 2012 will be worth less than that Model 3 in 2018 that cost $35,000. That rich person paid one hell of a depreciation price because he was an early adopter and the tech just keeps getting cheaper.
Battery capacity will go up by 5% to 10% per year, cost will continue to hold vs inflation. Cost sensitive buyer will see the same range going from
$75,000 Model S60 pre AP (2012 to early 2014)
$75,000 Model S70 (early 2015)
$75,000 Model S75 (2016?)
$75,000 Model S80 (2017?)
$35,000 Model 3 - 65 (range similar to a S80) - 2018? version
look at that again from the biggest change
$75,000 Model S60 pre AP (2012 to early 2014)
$35,000 Model 3 - 65 (smaller car means 65kWh pack gives range similar to a S80) - 2018 version
half the cost, more range, autopilot, easier to park (smaller) heck I've never been in the income bracket to pay $7,500 a year in income taxes and I have no objections to the car getting cheaper for me to buy no matter if it is a tax break or a pricing change.
Do you? Ramp is done in approximately a year. And if 35k was tough for you to afford, you're going to be pretty pissed at getting 50% or 25% of that already, not to mention this depending on Tesla's ability to deliver the car that you order on time, or kiss multiple thousands of dollars buh-bye.
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
It phasing to 50% doesn't affect the majority of Americans. There will be some who get the 25% that will be concerned and more that see the 0% after that. But some won't see even the 25% as a reduction.
Is your location NE for Nebraska or New England? Because if it is Nebraska I didn't realize that was a flyover state that had 6 figure incomes.
If your "Taxable Income" is $46,550 you might have that liability.Originally Posted by shokunin
Most people will have tax liability greater than zero, and even if they have less than $7500 in federal tax liability, they will still get to claim a portion of it. Obviously there are some retirees and other situations where people may have very little federal tax liabilities.
If you make $46,550 using 2014 tax tables and have no other deductions of any kind then your tax liability is exactly $7500 and you will get to claim the full $7500 tax credit.
Working down a form 1040 (long form) the labels are
7 - Wages, salaries, tips, etc (think gross income)
a bunch of other possible sources of income
22 - Total income
37 - Adjusted Gross Income
40 - Itemized or Standard Deduction
42 - Exemptions
43 - Taxable income
For anyone with simple taxes 7, 22, 37 will be the same but 40 will be $12,400 for a married couple with no kids and no itemized deductions and line 42 will be $7,900.
meaning for that simple married family of two they'd need line 37 to be $66,850 to get to line 43 being your $46,550 number from the tax table.
for a single person with no dependents or spouse it'd be a lower number but I'm guessing a couple with no kids is likely the closest to simple taxes around the range we want for an example.
(numbers from 2014 tax form, not meant to be tax advice):smile:
Last edited:
I think you've just offended the good people of Nebraska, and probably Warren Buffet as well
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
No offense intended. I live in the lower cost flyover state of Tennessee.
and I can't imagine what a mulibillionare would care about a $7500 tax credit. Of course he still eats at McDonalds so he can pinch pennys all he wants.
Last edited:
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Bangor Bob
Member
A lot of overthinking...
Does Elon get a bonus/options/etc. for delivering the Model 3 to customers by a particular date?
He did for the Model X, and Founders' Xes were delivered on-time to earn it...
Does Elon get a bonus/options/etc. for delivering the Model 3 to customers by a particular date?
He did for the Model X, and Founders' Xes were delivered on-time to earn it...
Interesting discussion. The solar tax credit was recently renewed. The EV tax credit is every bit as important, so why can't it be extended beyond 200,000 vehicles? Why should the hourly wage earner (like the Tesla employees building the cars) be excluded from owning an electric car with sufficient range for road trips as well as daily commuting? The cost curve will go down, but not fast enough to reach all of the labor market. We need state and federal incentives in order to reach everyone.
dgpcolorado
high altitude member
Because it is politically impossible? Anyway, the main idea behind the incentive, as I understand it, was to help out auto manufacturers with the high cost of developing EV technology. Once production gets to a certain level, the economies of scale should kick in and the production of EVs ought to be competitive with conventional ICE car manufacturing. This seems to be happening, IMO.
The other incentive for EV production is the tightening of gas mileage standards. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see those regulations relaxed or eliminated if the 2016 elections go a certain way...
While I would have preferred to see a rebate or refundable tax credit, as opposed to the current non-refundable tax credit, the current one is an easier sell politically. It can be explained as giving taxpayers an opportunity to keep some of the taxes they would otherwise owe, as opposed to a viewing it as a subsidy extracted from other taxpayers. Which is a lot of nonsense of course, but appearances matter with tax policy.
A better structure, in my view, would be to limit the number of tax credits to a fixed number not linked to a particular auto manufacturer. For example: the first one million EVs purchased, regardless of who makes them, would qualify for the credit. Then the companies that took the risk with EV investments early on, such as Nissan and Tesla, would reap the bulk of the subsidized sales and the laggards would not.
But it is what it is.
Last edited:
Similar threads
