Petition to extend EV tax Credit

[Jake-R]

Please read and fill out this petition to increase EV tax Credit.
It is government web site.
It can not hurt.

Increase the EV tax credit cap per manufacturer. | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

[larmor]

got it. keep it active, so this stays near the top of new posts...

 

[TheGameMaker]

/Signed

 

[jfawns76]

Signed!

 

[playoutside]

Signed. Camped out so hopefully I get the credit. But every 2017, '18, and maybe even '19 model year owners could potentially get a piece of this.

 

[VedranG21]

Signed.

 

[NC-3]

Great idea!
Signed, and need 97k more...

 

[VedranG21]

Lets spread the word on social media.

 

[jchau]

theres only 2100 signatures for this??

 

[Drivin]

theres only 2100 signatures for this??

Given the issues with income inequality, the average savings in America of $1,000 with 21% people not even having a savings account, nevermind people starving in America, maybe people feel that there is a better use of money than giving 7500 to people who can afford a luxury car.

First world problems.

 

[jchau]

Given the issues with income inequality, the average savings in America of $1,000 with 21% people not even having a savings account, nevermind people starving in America, maybe people feel that there is a better use of money than giving 7500 to people who can afford a luxury car.

First world problems.

you're right. i'm ashamed of my greed.

 

[Frenchfryphil]

Got it. Signed it.

 

[ChadS]

I have mixed feelings about this. (Not the petition; as CmdrThor notes below, it won't do any good. I'm talking about the EV credit). There are a lot of things I don't like about the way the current credit is structured (I listed about 10 problems with it in another thread), I'm not sure it's going to be necessary much longer, and investing in infrastructure might be more cost-effective (maybe). That said, not everybody seems to understand why it was initially put in to place.

In 2008 the Bush administration was thinking of doing an EV subsidy, so they asked the Government Accountability Office to figure out how much gasoline was subsidized. The answer was $2/gallon; or at average mpg and lifetime miles for vehicles at the time, about $12,000 per car. (Source: Jolt!)

Note that that calculation was ONLY for hard petroleum subsidies (though it's the common definition of subsidy, which includes things like tax credits). It did not include wars in oil-producing countries, 20k annual deaths in the US from health effects, pollution mitigation, the $85B a year to patrol the Straight of Hormuz, etc.

That $12k was spread over the life of the car, so they figured an equivalent net-present-value amount would be $7,500. That's why we have that for a tax credit on EVs. (Which not everybody gets; I'm retired and didn't have the tax liability when I bought my Model S).

I don't understand why people complain about millionaires getting the EV credit on a Tesla, but don't complain about millionaires getting the EV credit on a LEAF (average income of LEAF buyers is quite high), or getting the petroleum subsidies on a Panamera, or getting the mortgage deduction on a $2M oceanside bungalow. I don't like all the subsidies either, but complaining about just one of them doesn't make sense.

At least the EV tax credits will expire, unlike all the others. And arguably the EV tax credit is doing more to improve our country than the others.

 

[CmdrThor]

A petition to the executive branch about something the legislative branch controls is going to result in a response that we would love to support your cause but it is out of our control.

Just read the following to see what a typical response will be:

Response to We the People Petition on Tesla Motors | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

[HanSolo]

Given the issues with income inequality, the average savings in America of $1,000 with 21% people not even having a savings account, nevermind people starving in America, maybe people feel that there is a better use of money than giving 7500 to people who can afford a luxury car.

First world problems.

That is exactly why I will not be signing this. Our country is $20T in debt and that isn't some inconvenient number on a balance sheet. That is an utter disaster. We have so much better things we can be spending $7500 on instead of subsidizing the purchase of an entry level luxury car. With the problems this country has, I consider it almost unethical to extend the tax credit. It did its job in terms of getting EV's on the map, but now it is the EV companies' responsibilities to do the rest.

 

[ChadS]

Understood. But, how do you feel about the petroleum subsidies? They cost the government FAR more than the EV subsidies do, even if you don't consider the secondary effects.

I'd really like to see the petroleum subsidies go first. But that's not the way a democracy works; the petroleum subsidies likely won't go away until a majority of people don't use petroleum. Of course, that's the point of the EV subsidy that is meant to even out (some of) the petroleum subsidies...

The reason they thought it was necessary to even out petroleum subsidies is that it is very expensive for automakers to switch to a new propulsion technology. Early cars will always be far more expensive. The automakers (aside from Tesla, and even they are an arguable case) are not making money yet. So I don't know if it's fair to ask them to do more to make EVs competitive with old-tech, still-subsidized petroleum cars.

 

[HanSolo]

Understood. But, how do you feel about the petroleum subsidies? They cost the government FAR more than the EV subsidies do, even if you don't consider the secondary effects.

I'd really like to see the petroleum subsidies go first. But that's not the way a democracy works; the petroleum subsidies likely won't go away until a majority of people don't use petroleum. Of course, that's the point of the EV subsidy that is meant to even out (some of) the petroleum subsidies...

Agreed. I am mixed myself on petroleum subsidies, but one thing to consider is the economic impact that has. Oil and its products are so useful in so much stuff as most people think we simply burn it. Lots of useful products need oil. Lots of industries need it including food production. With EV's, I feel like infrastructure development and technology research is where we need the money right now. We are enthusiasts, but reality is that battery technology really needs 2-3 more technological breakthroughs before it can really replace ICE setups.

I am not really defending it but petroleum subsidies have tangible benefits to society that can be easily visualized. That means lobbying for the dollars is easier because it can be easier to rationalize.

 

[King H]

so signed!!

 

[ChadS]

I agree that petroleum is quite useful; though as you imply a lot of that usefulness comes from it being cheap. But it's only so cheap because it's subsidized. So we're spending enormous amounts of taxpayer money to encourage taxpayers to burn more of something that is endangering national security, ruining the economy and trade deficit, defiling air and water quality, killing enormous numbers of the young and elderly...and making it that much harder for alternatives to establish a foothold against the old technology. That's a vicious cycle of our own making. We're ALREADY paying the full price, just in a roundabout way that removes much of the natural incentive to use less. Think how much better the economy could be if the petroleum subsidy money wasn't being hoovered up in taxes and then primarily sent out of the country.

I'd prefer to see the petroleum subsidies lifted so the distortion effects would stop and the free market could come up with solutions. There is no question that is a far better way in the long run, though I admit like any big transition, there would be some rough spots on the way. But not as bad as some imagine, especially if there is a phaseout period...the market doesn't have to just come up with a 1-1 replacement for petroleum in all cases. Some goods would be made closer, rather than being shipped. Some shipping would move from trucks to, say, trains. Telecommuting would be seen as more of an employee perk. Congestion would go down. And hey, demand for EVs would go up - no EV incentive needed. EV supply too, as the automakers would suddenly have an obvious business case. Stop paying people to burn petroleum, and they will find many creative ways to burn less of it.

 

[HanSolo]

I agree that petroleum is quite useful; though as you imply a lot of that usefulness comes from it being cheap. But it's only so cheap because it's subsidized. So we're spending enormous amounts of taxpayer money to encourage taxpayers to burn more of something that is endangering national security, ruining the economy and trade deficit, defiling air and water quality, killing the young and elderly...and making it harder for alternatives to establish a foothold against the old technology. That's a vicious cycle of our own making. We're ALREADY paying the full price, just in a roundabout way that removes much of the natural incentive to use less. Think how much better the economy could be if the petroleum subsidy money wasn't being hoovered up in taxes and then primarily sent out of the country.

I'd prefer to see the petroleum subsidies lifted so the distortion effects would stop and the free market could come up with solutions. There is no question that is a far better way in the long run, though I admit like any big transition, there would be some rough spots on the way. But not as bad as some imagine, especially if there is a phaseout period...the market doesn't have to just come up with a 1-1 replacement for petroleum in all cases. Some goods would be made closer, rather than being shipped. Some shipping would move from trucks to, say, trains. Telecommuting would be seen as more of an employee perk. Congestion would go down. And hey, demand for EVs would go up - no EV incentive needed. Stop paying people to burn petroleum, and they will find many creative ways to burn less of it.

You make excellent points. One thing we will need to understand is that we have to do something about the way things are being done right now. That is why I am torn on this issue. However I am vehemently against doing things like tax credits for the purpose of buying cars because that does not look well in the eyes of public opinion when we have so many problems as is. The better way to spend those $7500 credits would be to instead invest in research so we can get those needed technological breakthroughs that make for better alternatives to ICE engines. Those tax credits did the job in putting EV's on the market.