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

[ElecFan]

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.

Ha ha, we're talking the Trump administration...

 

[bkp_duke]

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

You mis-read something somewhere. The rates are here:

Rate Single MFJ
12% $0-$44,999 $ 0 - $89,999
25% $45,000 - $199,999 $90,000 - $259,999
35% $200,000 - $499,999 $260,000 - $999,999

How Trump's Tax Reform Plan Would Affect You



EDIT - now I see what you are seeing. Don't know how I missed that. Good catch. That's a @#$% of a marriage tax.

 

[bkp_duke]

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.

No, they should not. The companies with the most success do NOT need "assistance". If they are successful, they have outgrown the original purpose of the EV tax incentive: to spur development and drive the technology out of the "design" phase. Like it or not, Tesla is well beyond that phase and is the dominant player in EV right now.

Rationale like this is why there is a large (and possibly growing) number of ICE drivers that view Tesla's as subsidized by their tax dollars and do not like the brand. If the brand stands on it's own feet without subsidies, arguments like this go away.

 

[bkp_duke]

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.

Thank you, that's appreciated. I'm not so "set in my ways" that I cannot be convinced otherwise on view points. But the argument better be well thought out.

 

[bkp_duke]

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.

See my reply above, this is mis-information. Not sure who started this, but it's flat out 100% wrong.

 

[bkp_duke]

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?

If you are proposing a "flat tax" of say 15%, absolutely. That would be GREAT. But it will never happen here, it would be political suicide.

And if by "even distribution of wealth" you are referring to communism or socialism, the answer to that is a resounding and LOUD "NO".

 

[bkp_duke]

. . . Snip . . .

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?

In a word, yes. I have no issues with this an live a very comfortable lifestyle. I also believe the way I treat my employees, like family, is why my company has exceptionally low turnover (last firing was 4 years ago).

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.

I won't be trying to influence the personal purchasing decisions of my employees in this way. I love my cars, and everyone at work knows I will happily talk to them about them and why I think they are great, but I won't direct how "bonuses" need to be spent.

Furthermore, there are mixed views at work about Tesla. My business partner bought a P100D and hated it. After 4 months of fighting with Tesla, they bought it back under lemon law. So the employees know there are two sides to this story. I happily talk to them about the economic and environmental impact of "going green", but I won't use my influence as their employer to influence their purchasing decisions (this is a bit fraught with legal implications from multiple sides as well).

 

[X Fan]

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?

+1.

Add in reduction of real estate deductions, plus oCare tax plus state personal tax and your approaching confiscatory levels over 60%.

I support helping the less needy but we shouldn't penalize producers. It's a fine line that the current plan seems to be missing. Btw: Don't understand why carried interest which protects PE earnings aren't targeted. Oh well.

Re: tesla.
3 is going to be a huge success that propels Tesla to significant profitability and will eliminate much of the noise that emanates from some ICE owners.

 

[bkp_duke]

Re: tesla.
3 is going to be a huge success that propels Tesla to significant profitability and will eliminate much of the noise that emanates from some ICE owners.

Exactly. This car needs to be good enough, and priced appropriately, so that it stands on its own. It needs to be "bullet proof" to the anti-EV arguments, and this includes the incentive argument.

 

[ohmman]

Mod note: moved thread to off topic, amended title. Again. Because you all hate me.

 

[daniel]

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.

I like the idea of taxing stinkers. But we wouldn't really need to do that if we eliminated the existing subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. That includes requiring carbon polluters to pay the environmental cost of climate change. Heck, if we just imposed a carbon tax sufficient to pay for the environmental damage done by carbon, the burning of fossil fuels would end in no time!

 

[Dr. J]

Even Democrats acknowledge that tax cuts create jobs. This is a universally accepted truth by Economists. They may argue over the DEGREE of job creation, but they don't argue that lower tax rates incentivize job growth.

Au contraire, mon frere! Google: Jared Berstein tax cuts.

 

[Dr. J]

Mod note: moved thread to off topic, amended title. Again. Because you all hate me.

Excellent revised thread title!

 

[tmwilkin]

The flat $7500 didn’t make sense in the first place, it should have been a percentage with a cap. I did take advantage of it a couple times just because it was offered and I could. After the last 8 years of reckless spending I hope now they rethink everything but passing common sense reforms are difficult with the opposition to ending any handout.

I'm more concerned about the concerted focus on increasing fossil fuels and reducing solar/wind. In the same conversation about ending EV credits...while I think they should be expanding them they talk of ending solar/wind credits at the same time. All while not touching the dozen + tax credits in place for oil. Sad, short sited and not all that hard to shift the country...but that's probably the point.


I'll do what I can. Moving our household to EV and installing Solar (hopefully before they cancel the 30% tax deduction and add the additional 35% proposed tariff on solar).

In my case it was the $7500 tax credit that sparked my interest and really got me doing the research. Now it won't change my path but it was required to get me on that path to begin with.

 

[deonb]

See my reply above, this is mis-information. Not sure who started this, but it's flat out 100% wrong.

Well, your reply above had a correction posted later. So... welcome!

 

[Tonymil]

Au contraire, mon frere! Google: Jared Berstein tax cuts.

Seriously, I don't know what bkp_duke is smoking, but he needs the antidote, quick!

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/HallE/2016/HallE20160929_low.jpg

 

[grashelm]

If the tax credit goes away, so will I. I can afford to pay cash for the car, but the value I am willing to assign to the vehicle was based upon applying the tax credit (with the options I wanted). If the tax credit is not available, then in my opinion, the car is overpriced. In no way is this a dig against the car/company. Merely my own opinion of value. I sincerely hope the efforts to remove the tax credit fail.

 

[Bebop]

Would this affect only new orders? or people who have yet to claim it too?

So I already took delivery of my car this year and expect to use the credit this coming Spring when doing taxes. If the bill was passed tomorrow let's say, does that mean I lose what was already obligated to me?

I'm assuming it affects only new orders because that would be beyond stupid otherwise.

 

[dhanson865]

Curious. I'm guessing used Ev values go up ( or depreciation curve holds for a year) if tax deduct goes away?

If it has a coolant loop for the battery pack it will.

Leafs will degrade faster no matter the tax situation.

 

[dhanson865]

Haven't seen this one, can you provide a link to read more? If true, this would be something I would write my congressman about.

It was true but SpaceX already won that battle. It's just history now.