Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

EV Subsidies

mspohr

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
12,064
16,132
California
What Will It Take for Electric Vehicles to Create Jobs, Not Cut Them? What Will It Take for Electric Vehicles to Create Jobs, Not Cut Them?


Looming over the transition to electric vehicles is the fact that they have substantially fewer moving parts than gasoline-powered ones and require less labor to manufacture — about 30 percent less, according to figures from Ford Motor. The vehicle-manufacturing industry employs a little under one million people domestically, including suppliers.

There are essentially two ways to offset the projected job losses: to increase the proportion of each vehicle’s parts that are made domestically — specifically in the powertrain, the key parts and systems that power a car — and to sell more vehicles assembled in the United States.
By contrast, the report said, if government subsidies were targeted to increase the portion of electric vehicle components that are manufactured domestically, and to increase the market share of U.S.-made vehicles, the industry could add about 150,000 jobs by the end of the decade.
 
GM went from +50% market share down to ~17% GM builds factories in China & sold off the EU ones.
Ford similar down to ~14% Ford builds factories in Mexico
What did we do for those workers -- see Flint, MI
I'm sure the government can help -- NOT
fairness, honesty, even in the justice system, EPA, OSHA, NISTA etc. would certainly help
 
EV subsidies are wrong. Government cheese for favored industries hurt us all. What we need is for governments to price in the negative externalities of green house gas emissions, from all sources. The money should be used for climate mitigation. If the Gilbert Islands are going under the sea, we should be moving people somewhere else. Giving subsidies for favored companies selling new EVs isn't going to do this.

This would drive down the cost of operating EVs further, while properly pricing the true cost of driving an ICE car. It would drive reduction of GHGs faster than the Biden administration giving extra money to the UAW. Providing preference for Ford or Stalantis, over GM and Tesla is nuts.

The huge impact of doing it this way would be to get aging ICE cars off the road sooner. Subsidies for new car, or even used car, EV sales isn't going to do it.
 

alexgr

Active Member
Aug 13, 2019
1,612
1,703
42
EV subsidies are wrong. Government cheese for favored industries hurt us all. What we need is for governments to price in the negative externalities of green house gas emissions, from all sources. The money should be used for climate mitigation. If the Gilbert Islands are going under the sea, we should be moving people somewhere else. Giving subsidies for favored companies selling new EVs isn't going to do this.

This would drive down the cost of operating EVs further, while properly pricing the true cost of driving an ICE car. It would drive reduction of GHGs faster than the Biden administration giving extra money to the UAW. Providing preference for Ford or Stalantis, over GM and Tesla is nuts.

The huge impact of doing it this way would be to get aging ICE cars off the road sooner. Subsidies for new car, or even used car, EV sales isn't going to do it.
I cost of EV operation is already very small and affordable. The upfront cost of EVs is not (for most people, and most people don't buy new cars). By increasing the cost of ICE vehicles significantly, we will immediately punish people who couldn't afford ANY new car in the first place. I disagree with your approach of getting rid of old ICE vehicles while not providing subsidies for replacing them with EVs. Perhaps some parts of the Norway's approach can be borrowed. Unfortunately the US has no federal taxes on vehicles.
1632855349676.png
 

mspohr

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
12,064
16,132
California
EV subsidies are wrong. Government cheese for favored industries hurt us all. What we need is for governments to price in the negative externalities of green house gas emissions, from all sources. The money should be used for climate mitigation. If the Gilbert Islands are going under the sea, we should be moving people somewhere else. Giving subsidies for favored companies selling new EVs isn't going to do this.

This would drive down the cost of operating EVs further, while properly pricing the true cost of driving an ICE car. It would drive reduction of GHGs faster than the Biden administration giving extra money to the UAW. Providing preference for Ford or Stalantis, over GM and Tesla is nuts.

The huge impact of doing it this way would be to get aging ICE cars off the road sooner. Subsidies for new car, or even used car, EV sales isn't going to do it.
No difference between purchase subsidy and pollution subsidy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brando
No difference between purchase subsidy and pollution subsidy
This just isn't true. A purchase subsidy does nothing to get rid of old ICE cars and also lends itself to interference from lobbyists. If we care about climate change, the government can't care which company sells us our cars.

If we tax green house gases, we will get better, faster new power sources and retire bad old sources faster.

For the argument about lower income people not being able to replace their ICE cars, a GHG tax would probably drive faster adoption of less expensive electric cars. Right now, no one is importing cheap EVs to the US or making cheap EVs here. With pollution pricing, This will happen.

The government should be the umpire. It should adopt a reasonable way to measure the environmental impact of things and tax accordingly. Then the free market and rational consumers can decide the best solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cusetownusa

mspohr

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
12,064
16,132
California
A purchase subsidy does nothing to get rid of old ICE cars and also lends itself to interference from lobbyists. If we care about climate change, the government can't care which company sells us our cars.
If we tax green house gases, we will get better, faster new power sources and retire bad old sources faster.
A purchase subsidy leads to retiring bad old sources faster.
 
The average age for cars on the road is11.8 years old. There are millions of cars for sale that lower income people can afford. I can afford to buy a Tesla out of warranty. I cannot afford a battery replacement for it. My son has an 80 mile round trip commute. He spends 150 in gas a month. He paid 3500 dollars for his Jeep. How long will it be until one can by an electric car for 8,000 or less with at least a 150 mile range? I say 150 range because I'm adding a buffer for winter/semi rural and rural travel. Basically traveling anywhere outside of city travel
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: Brando

CyberGus

Not Just a Member
May 5, 2020
1,578
3,607
Austin, TX
EV subsidies are wrong. Government cheese for favored industries hurt us all.

Building a new car model costs hundreds of millions, a new factory billions. Traditional automakers face enormous costs in creating a new class of vehicle, and the subsidies give them the confidence to take the risk.

No one is suggesting that EV subsidies should endure. In fact, the harsh reality is that EVs will eventually need to be taxed to offset the loss of fuel tax revenue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brando
This just isn't true. A purchase subsidy does nothing to get rid of old ICE cars and also lends itself to interference from lobbyists. If we care about climate change, the government can't care which company sells us our cars.

If we tax green house gases, we will get better, faster new power sources and retire bad old sources faster.

For the argument about lower income people not being able to replace their ICE cars, a GHG tax would probably drive faster adoption of less expensive electric cars. Right now, no one is importing cheap EVs to the US or making cheap EVs here. With pollution pricing, This will happen.

The government should be the umpire. It should adopt a reasonable way to measure the environmental impact of things and tax accordingly. Then the free market and rational consumers can decide the best solution.
China cars Q4 start? 2022 for sure
 
Building a new car model costs hundreds of millions, a new factory billions. Traditional automakers face enormous costs in creating a new class of vehicle, and the subsidies give them the confidence to take the risk.

No one is suggesting that EV subsidies should endure. In fact, the harsh reality is that EVs will eventually need to be taxed to offset the loss of fuel tax revenue.
If gas costs $7 a gallon, in Oklahoma, the legacy automakers will switch. We saw that in the 70's when they changed from monster V8s to light weight 4 bangers.

We are already taxed, in my state, to pay for road costs.
 
The average age for cars on the road is11.8 years old. There are millions of cars for sale that lower income people can afford. I can afford to buy a Tesla out of warranty. I cannot afford a battery replacement for it. My son has an 80 mile round trip commute. He spends 150 in gas a month. He paid 3500 dollars for his Jeep. How long will it be until one can by an electric car for 8,000 or less with at least a 150 mile range? I say 150 range because I'm adding a buffer for winter/semi rural and rural travel. Basically traveling anywhere outside of city travel
It's going to be a while. None of the current proposals will help your son. Certainly giving extra money to Ford and Stellantis buyers isn't going to help with climate change. Proper taxation will reduce the people using a V8 truck as a daily driver when they don't need the hauling. The current subsidies and the plans on the table get rid of a 6 year old Prius the same as they get rid of a 72 roadrunner.
 
Current and proposed new EV subsidies are not going to be drive down old car inventory. Current cars are lasting more than 20 years. I suspect that, barring accidents, cars are staying on the road 30 years before scrapping. We need to motivate people not to use fossil fuels by properly pricing the negative externalities of climate change and air pollution.

 

mspohr

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2014
12,064
16,132
California
Current and proposed new EV subsidies are not going to be drive down old car inventory. Current cars are lasting more than 20 years. I suspect that, barring accidents, cars are staying on the road 30 years before scrapping. We need to motivate people not to use fossil fuels by properly pricing the negative externalities of climate change and air pollution.

It will always cost more to drive an ICE car and maintenance and repair costs skyrocket on old cars.
People won't be able to afford to drive an old ICE car.
 

SFNM Jack

Fueled by the Sun…
Aug 31, 2021
209
207
Santa Fe, NM
Just uploaded the bill that passed the house today…. The EV credit portions starts on page 1868. I read this and my brain melted but in short I didn’t see anything that precludes a person from claiming a credit for a car purchase in 2021. I would appreciate it of others could read this section and see what they think. There appear to be some areas that require action by manufactures after 12-31-21 but I didn’t ready them as applicable to the consumer.

Of course this has to go to the senate.

Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

  • BILLS-117hr5376rh.pdf
    4 MB · Views: 13

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top