GOP tax reform bill would end the $7500 EV tax credit (and other tax related grousing and grumbling)

[bkp_duke]

@bkp_duke

We get it, you're for less taxes and for more tax cuts. What's strange to me is that you are against government handouts such as the EV tax incentive but you are for TAX cuts that favors the rich (you can't have it bought ways). Also, that 25% pass-through tax is nothing but another handout for the rich to lower their tax rates by incorporating themselves. Btw, that source that you proudly cite is also funded by the KOCH brothers who are funding your so called TAXfoundation sources. You can bet any organization that has "think-tank" generally has some bias in their data to support their analysis.

No matter how you slice it, the EV will affect Tesla and other car manufactures who based their business model of selling a cars with EV tax incentives.

The rich already pay the VAST VAST majority of the taxes in this country, and their rate was not reduced from 39.6% by this proposed tax plan. How much more do you want to tax them?



To be direct: NO COMPANY should base their business model on subsidies. Period. Subsidies are to spur the industry, and I think the only VALID point of contention here is to argue if that has occurred or not. Tesla is certainly the dominant player in the industry, so I would argue if you continue subsidies, they should be excluded specifically and the other smaller players (not GM, not Nissan) that want to get into the industry should be eligible.

Does that work for you? Or possibly is there inherent bias in all your arguments that are pro-Tesla only and this proposal doesn't sit well?

 

[deonb]

Everyone keeps proposing the "tax the rich" more paradigm, but they are so short sighted that the 1% have the ability to easily pack up and leave the country if taxes get too high. The French tried this in the last decade and saw their wealthy leave, and they are now back-peddling and reducing taxes. In lock-step, their economy has grown at a higher rate since they have reduced taxes.
10,000 millionaires left France last year

What the U.S. is doing is not anywhere close to what France was doing. The France supertax 75% was on people making > 1m.

With the new GOP tax plan if you earn $1m as part of a passthrough self-employment tax with fairly modest deductions, you'd be paying an effective 24% tax rate (down from 30% today).

Nobody is leaving the country because they have to pay 24% in taxes, or even 30%.

 

[bkp_duke]

What the U.S. is doing is not anywhere close to what we're doing. The France supertax 75% supertax on people making > 1m.

With the new GOP tax plan if you earn $1m as part of a passthrough self-employment tax with fairly modest deductions, you'd be paying an effective 24% tax rate (down from 30% today).

Nobody is leaving the country because they have to pay 24% in taxes, or even 30%.

Where are you getting 75%?

The top French income tax rate is 45%, for income for households above €152,260.

 

[kengchang]

The rich already pay the VAST VAST majority of the taxes in this country, and their rate was not reduced from 39.6% by this proposed tax plan. How much more do you want to tax them?

Did you miss that they bumped the 39.6% from 418K to 500K for single and 1 million to MFJ? It's a buzz headliner at the most

 

[bkp_duke]

Did you miss that they bumped the 39.6% from 418K to 500K for single and 1 million to MFJ? It's a buzz headliner at the most

Nope, didn't miss that, or that the AMT got repealed (although one can argue that helps the people in the bracket below the top bracket the most).

 

[bkp_duke]

Off to stimulate the economy (which is 70% driven by consumer spending).

Enjoy your day gentlemen, will see who has burned me in effigy later in the day.

 

[S3XY]

Off to stimulate the economy (which is 70% driven by consumer spending).

Enjoy your day gentlemen, will see who has burned me in effigy later in the day.

No effigy burning from me. Just debating viewpoints. This topic (tax rate effects) is so big and elusive that no one can truly claim to be right. BTW, you're comment about stimulating the economy is an argument for bigger tax cuts for the lower income brackets since these taxpayers are much more likely to spend whatever additional disposable income they have than those in the top brackets.

Now back on topic, I'm still buying a Model 3 but losing the tax credit will probably make me forego some options.

 

[kengchang]

Nope, didn't miss that, or that the AMT got repealed (although one can argue that helps the people in the bracket below the top bracket the most).

35% is 200K for single 260K for MFJ, why isn't it double for the 35% like the 39.6%? This whole tax cut is gimmick for the rich lol

 

[idleuser]

The rich already pay the VAST VAST majority of the taxes in this country, and their rate was not reduced from 39.6% by this proposed tax plan. How much more do you want to tax them?



To be direct: NO COMPANY should base their business model on subsidies. Period. Subsidies are to spur the industry, and I think the only VALID point of contention here is to argue if that has occurred or not. Tesla is certainly the dominant player in the industry, so I would argue if you continue subsidies, they should be excluded specifically and the other smaller players (not GM, not Nissan) that want to get into the industry should be eligible.

Does that work for you? Or possibly is there inherent bias in all your arguments that are pro-Tesla only and this proposal doesn't sit well?

Do you honestly believe top earners of the 39.6% tax bracket pays 39.6% of their gross income on taxes? If they're paying 39.6% of then they are doing something wrong. You should never pay that much in taxes if you can take advantage of the all the deductions that is available to high income earners. The tax cut proposal and the axe to EV incentive is not the way forward for mass EV adoption.

 

[McRat]

...they should be excluded specifically and the other smaller players (not GM, not Nissan) that want to get into the industry should be eligible.

...

So reward a lack of effort with money, and punish success?

The companies who make the most progress should be getting the lion's share of assistance.

 

[deonb]

Where are you getting 75%?

The top French income tax rate is 45%, for income for households above €152,260.

It is now. At the time of the famous Gérard Depardieu emigration to Russia, he left because of a 75% SuperTax that Hollande instituted in 2012. This was subsequently thrown out as unconstitutional after Depardieu left.

On the other hand, maybe the French just didn't actually like Depardieu...

The current exit of millionaire's from France has more to do with religious tension and personal safety - not taxes. (Seeing that the country that seem to be attracting most of them is Australia, which has a 45% tax over $180k - very similar to France).

 

[deonb]

35% is 200K for single 260K for MFJ, why isn't it double for the 35% like the 39.6%? This whole tax cut is gimmick for the rich lol

Yip, that one is annoying. Every other bracket gets rid of the Marriage penalty, except this one specific one. It should have been 25% up to 400k. It's the "how can we screw over Silicon Valley" tax.

 

[Jeff N]

No EV rebates here, except for people who either lie about their taxes, or really cannot afford a new EV.

The income cap for state EV rebates in California is $300,000 in gross income for married couples filing jointly. I’m pretty sure lots of couples in that situation can afford a new EV. For folks filing single the cap is $150,000. Again, lots of people making gross income of less than that can afford to buy a new car....

Details here:
Income Eligibility

Promised and funded EV infrastructure halted.

Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ultra high L2 charging tariffs for businesses were just approved.

I’ll have to read up about that since I’m not aware of the recent changes.

Extra registration fees voted in for EVs.

They seem fairly modest and fees went up for gas/diesel cars as well. It pays for roadway infrastructure. I’ve heard that existing gas taxes had not been keeping up infrastructure costs and thus we had been funding things partially out of the general budget for years but I don’t know that for a fact.

Millions spent on refueling H2 cars that don't exist and nobody wants, even with $5000 rebates.

I’ll give you this one.

Note also that the income caps on the state rebates don’t apply to fuel cell cars either.

The CARB desperation around propping up hydrogen fuel cell passenger cars in the name of “technology neutrality” is a farce at this point. Even Toyota is beginning to acknowledge it. It’s long overdue for CARB to move on by redirecting their H2 funding toward heavy duty vehicles and fleets with fixed route dedicated refueling locations. Building H2 fueling stations randomly around the state for general passenger cars is a huge waste of resources that really need to be redirected towards supporting the huge numbers of EVs coming online in the next several years.

The largest Green House Gas disaster in the US happened here recently.

Yes, although I’m not sure it’s Jerry Brown’s fault. I’ve avoided reading up on the details of how that event unfolded up until now. The article you linked to seems to imply that there was no isolation shutoff valve between a leaking wellhead and that huge NG storage tank. If true, that seems like a crazy design that is the fault of SoCal Edison and maybe calls for stricter standards and regulation.

(we have random smog checks set up on roadways and the toughest punishments for offenders in the US)

I maybe vaguely remember a random roadway smog check from what, 30 years ago? I drive a lot and regularly travel to SoCal. I haven’t seen a roadway smog check in decades.

bans on free speech

Not true. UC wasted a lot of money making security plans for Milo and his band of merry political sensitivity offenders only to have the organizers flake out.

$750,000/yr public employees

There may be a few football coaches and UC SF surgeons but that’s largely a symptom of excessive top 1% salary excesses throughout the US since Reagan.

 

[Barklikeadog]

Uh, wasn't PA the place where the capital city filed for bankruptcy a few years back? Just sayin', we all got our problems.

Could you link me to any post where I ever claimed PA didn't have such issues? I only live here, I'm not from here.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

The rich already pay the VAST VAST majority of the taxes in this country, and their rate was not reduced from 39.6% by this proposed tax plan. How much more do you want to tax them?

Can you explain your reasoning in more detail? What would it be bad to have a relatively even distribution of wealth and more people paying the same amount in taxes?

 

[bhzmark]

I'm a facts and data kinda guy. While I'm as irritated as anyone about the proposed removal of the EV tax credit, has anyone actually compared their taxes both BEFORE and AFTER the proposed bill? I did and it was significant. As a matter of fact, it would be financially smarter for me to choose the proposed bill without EV credits vs leaving things the way they are currently (not necessarily due to 1 tax year of savings, but certainly over multiple). Additionally, the new tax bill would promote me to no longer itemize my return, so my taxes would also be much much simpler. So, I'd invite folks to plug their numbers in to the calculator and see the difference between current tax code and proposed and see what (if any) savings they might get. Maybe it takes a few tax years, but if you got the equivalent of the EV credit, you may have options. Since I'm only a single data point, please share any results/findings you discover.
Here's the calculator

PS- I still want the EV tax credit to be left intact! Maybe we could do the tax bill as is AND put the EV credit back in?

I'm a facts and data guy also. And I also consider facts and data that affect people other than just me! I consider the facts and data of how government policy affects the world overall, or at least this country, and especially those who are worse off and most in need of assistance. I Those are the facts and data that I care about and should guide government policy and decision making and voting.

Basing your opinion of a proposed tax policy based solely on the short term tax calculation for you, with no sense of what it means for other people now, or other generations in the future is a narrow view of facts and data.

Here are some facts and data beyond your own short-term self-interest: Tax Cuts Don't Lead to Economic Growth, a New 65-Year Study Finds

Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies

 

[Barklikeadog]

Can you explain your reasoning in more detail? What would it be bad to have a relatively even distribution of wealth and more people paying the same amount in taxes?

Ah it sounds like you've been to Venezuela.

 

[T34ME]

One additional data point:
My neighbor is a physician and makes pretty good. Because his family lives in California, his tax rate is about 50% total between state and federal. We were talking yesterday and he says he takes most of the last two months of the year off because he doesn't feel comfortable paying 50c of every dollar he makes back in taxes. He could pick up more shifts at the hospital, but does not explicitly for this reason.

Just tell him to give me the money and I will happily pay the 50% tax rate. Would he rather have 50% of a pie or no pie like many underprivileged? If he takes two months off a year, what does he do, just sit at home in the front of the TV or play golf? Obviously, he is spending money during those two months off that he wouldn't normally have time to do. He could take those two months off and volunteer in a ghetto neighborhood to inspire young minds to become a physician like he is, so they can pay 50% in taxes which is better than what they have now.

I run a tech company, and I still cannot automate that any further.

Okay, the administration talking point is that if you create tax cuts, that will result in either more jobs or increases in wages to workers. You have stated that you make in the high six figures. That kind of income should provide you with a very comfortable, and deserved, lifestyle. I hold no malice and congratulate you. But, if you get this proposed tax cut, will you give the total amount of those cuts to your employees in the form of higher wages?

Or to get back on topic, will you use your tax cuts to fund the acceptance and affordability of the EV concept for your employees in California by subsidizing the cost of an EV.? How about if you tell them, "I'll give each one of you $7,500 to purchase a model 3 since I am getting a big tax cut." This will create jobs in California, clean up the air, provide for a larger tax base, and additional write-offs for you. You could limit the total amount per year based on your tax savings per annum and prioritize by either FIFO, longevity at company, or loyalty. Now is the time for you step up and be a leader. My tax savings will not be $7,500 per year, but I am willing to voluntarily contribute any tax saving I get to a volunteer fund for California Tesla tax credits. Really, there are opportunities for win/win for all of us here. Let's be creative.

 

[T34ME]

Ah it sounds like you've been to Venezuela.

No, but I have been to Denmark where the subject model gives the country a higher standard of living and higher happiness index than the US.

 

[d21mike]

With the Tesla Tax Credit ending next year anyway. Seems to me if you really want to promote a cleaner environment it would be better to tax those that are doing the most to damage the environment. Would it not be better to charge an extra $7,500 per ICE car which could then be used to clean up the environment? That would also bring a lot more attention to the problem and maybe get more and more people to switch to an EV? And that $7,500 could also be used to build out more solar farms and reduce the need for other means of generating electricity since we would for sure need more electricity to support the switch to all EV. Also, how about the entire government fleet of cars to be force to switch to EV.