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

Petition to increase the EV tax credit cap

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Signed! Even though I lined up, it may not last till the model 3 come out, according to this CNN article.

Most Tesla Model 3 buyers won't get the $7,500 tax break

this article is pure nonsense.

"But that tax credit won't last forever -- in fact, it's only good on the first 200,000 U.S. cars that any manufacturer sells."

false. depending on when the 200,000th vehicle is delivered, it could last for a full 6 months after that. who knows how many additional vehicles might qualify in those six months?

"The loss of the credit could become a competitive disadvantage for the Model 3. The comparably priced electric Chevrolet Bolt is due to go on sale early next year. It's likely General Motors(GM) will keep its tax credit for months, or perhaps a year or more, after Tesla."

GM is actually closer to the cap right now than tesla is. more misleading nonsense.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Craig9080
The tax breaks are supposed to help the technology become main stream. I think if they can sale a 1/2 million Bolts, teslas and apple Icars, that will be a game changer for the planet and help us become more energy independent forever. Pushing the technology to main stream.
A win for US and us all.
Maybe I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one. (A famous guy :)
 
The tax breaks are supposed to help the technology become main stream. I think if they can sale a 1/2 million Bolts, teslas and apple Icars, that will be a game changer for the planet and help us become more energy independent forever. Pushing the technology to main stream.
A win for US and us all.
Maybe I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one. (A famous guy :)
That was the whole point of the tax credit as it stands now. It was designed to do its job. Now each manufacturer needs to do their job and sell it on their own. There are so many things $7500 can be used for and subsidizing someone's luxury car shouldn't be one of them. I probably will not qualify for the tax credit since I reserved 10 days after launch. I am not upset about that. That tax credit gave Tesla a chance to get established and now Tesla needs to be a big boy and do it on their own. Same goes for others who are close to their cap like GM. There are plenty of people who can't afford a car or cringe when April 15th comes around each year because they know it is going to be tough paying their taxes. Why should these people subsidize us? The fact that we are even considering such a car means that we are likely more financially stable than your average American. I am not, but that is because I decided to change careers and will be financially stable well before my number comes up in the M3's production line.
 
I can kind of agree with that as far as it goes, and in fact I didn't sign the petition. But what isn't addressed is why those same taxpayers should (and do currently) subsidize rich people buying an Escalade. $2/gal per the Government Accountability Office's review that the Bush administration requested in 2008, which after NPV calculations is exactly how we got the $7500 EV credit - it was meant to balance the petroleum subsidies (which was the DOE's suggestion, per somebody I know that was consulting with them on the issue at the time). The taxpayers subsidize those rich car buyers no matter what car they buy.

I don't like the way everything gets subsidized either; I'm happy to complain right along with you about the proliferation of subsidies in general. But I don't see a benefit to complaining selectively about one new subsidy with an expiration date for new, beneficial technology and ignoring a larger one for a very old, mature technology that is causing multiple problems.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: deonb
I agree... but there are 1000's of subsidies for corn, oil, sugar, drugs. I think solar and electric cars are better uses for subsides in the short term. In a few years electric cars will not need them.
 
It's not a single subsidy; it's a collection. I saw a specific list once about 3 years ago, though I can't remember where. It was a bunch of stuff (maybe 20-25 items?) with links to where it was buried in the tax code. It hit all stages of petroleum production - exploration, extraction, shipping, refining, etc. It does include things like tax credits, which an economist may not call a subsidy, but lay people (which I am) do because the effect is exactly the same. I have seen several partial lists since (for example, the Heritage Foundation has mentioned a few petroleum subsidies that they think should be removed even though they are famous for favoring most of them), but I don't recall seeing another one that claimed to be a full list. Media Matters published a list once, but didn't include links back to the tax code to check it.

The GAO number does not include any "soft costs" like health care for the 20k annual premature US deaths from petroleum emissions, the $85B annually to patrol the Strait of Hormuz, mitigation for air, water or CO2 pollution, etc.

I did a search but couldn't find the GAO findings online. But I know the GAO report is mentioned in Jim Billmaier's excellent book Jolt!. The IEA (the West's answer to OPEC) and IMF have both calculated petroleum-specific subsidy levels within the last year as well (and both complained that the extremely high subsidy levels were causing severe market problems - which many would expect from the IMF, but is striking coming from the IEA which has a mission of keeping petroleum cheap and available).

This Congressional Research Service article lists some petroleum-specific subsidies, though it does not try to be comprehensive. HERE.
NY Times article on petroleum subsidies HERE.
 
Last edited:
The tax break was designed to entice manufactures to develop electric cars which is an expensive endeavor to begin and make a profitable car. I have problems extending the 200k limit to companies like Tesla which are 100% on board with making these cars. The U.S. government can't afford this cost when it's 19T and counting in debt. The cars are now established and the original laws are in place- I think it's best to let the market sort things out for now and get the government out of it when the limit is hit.That means eventually Tesla, Toyota, and Nissan might need to compete in the market against other cars that still qualify for the rebate.

I speak from the standpoint of collecting the rebate already on my Nissan Leaf. Believe me- it's not the rebate that makes me want a M3- it's the actual car. The rebate opened the door for me to try an electric car in the first place because it lessened the risk a little. Not getting the rebate this time might cause me to adjust my options but shouldn't change the purchasing. Tesla's execution has a lot to do with me ultimately buying the car or not though- the rebate might help in reducing the risk if things are looking sketchy at rollout.
 
Though the incentive is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the defense budget and it has helped Tesla to become what it is today. I know Elon Musk has said that he would prefer higher taxes on fossil fuels than this sort of incentive, but the $7500 has made the car somewhat more affordable to those of us stretching our budgets to afford it.

I would rather see my tax money go to help a private sector company with a compelling new technology get off the ground rather than go to pad the pockets of defense contractors to make weapons that may very well kill thousands if not millions of people someday. In Tesla's case it's helping one of the most American companies out there get a foothold in what could turn out to be a major new industry of the 21st century.
 
When the EV rebate cost to the Treasury is the same IN IT'S LIFE TIME (per manufacturer) as THREE WEEKS of ANNUAL oil company tax breaks, you don't get to complain about a $7500 tax credit that goes to the CONSUMER. When the tens of BILLIONS that go to a CORPORATION go away, maybe THEN you can complain.
 
Signed. I don't think it should continue indefinitely though, because the purpose as others said was to jump start the electric vehicle shift. I think the credit remaining in place should encourage other makers to put electric cars on the road and their demand combined with what Tesla is creating will help build the infrastructure needed for this to be truly viable.
 
Signed. I don't think it should continue indefinitely though, because the purpose as others said was to jump start the electric vehicle shift. I think the credit remaining in place should encourage other makers to put electric cars on the road and their demand combined with what Tesla is creating will help build the infrastructure needed for this to be truly viable.

Translation is you don't think it should last indefinitely, just long enough to make sure that you get it. The Model 3 should be compelling enough of a car that people would want it with or without this incentive, Musk has already said that at the $35,000 entry price it will be nicer than any other car at that price range. If someone wants it they will find a way to save up and buy it without the Feds kicking in $7500. We already see in threads about how people will pay for it, people who earn less than the cost of the car per year and think it's a smart move to buy one. It's not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Craig9080
Translation is you don't think it should last indefinitely, just long enough to make sure that you get it. The Model 3 should be compelling enough of a car that people would want it with or without this incentive, Musk has already said that at the $35,000 entry price it will be nicer than any other car at that price range. If someone wants it they will find a way to save up and buy it without the Feds kicking in $7500. We already see in threads about how people will pay for it, people who earn less than the cost of the car per year and think it's a smart move to buy one. It's not.
You're correct that I think it should last long enough for me to get it :)

Let me preface my next comment by saying that I've reserved 2 Model 3's on the first day, and am eagerly looking forward to the car. I've reserved a second for a family member.

I don't believe the $35,000 entry level price is going to be compelling enough for most people. 215 miles of range just isn't enough. Here are some reasons why:

1) The average car on the road today is 12 years old. The warranty on the batteries is 10 years and from what I've read, while it depends on a number of factors, Tesla considers them to be defective if they lose more than 20% of their capacity in that time. So, if you intend on using the car over the 10 years, you not only need to consider initial range, but range throughout the life of your ownership of the car. You're now at 80% of stated value, or ~170 miles.

2) If you drive on highways faster than 65 mph, or have a headwind, you lose range. I drive a lot on highways where the speed limit is 70mph, which results in people going 75mph easily. Right away, I won't get the full range due to this. If you have 10mph of wind, now I'm effectively driving at 85mph for drag calculations and I get even less mileage. Let's consider this a 10-20% loss based on the charts here: Model S Efficiency and Range

3) If it's in the winter, I have to use power to heat the cabin and seats. There is another 15% lost based on the same link.

Between those factors, I consider the base model to be not 215 miles, but maybe closer to 110-130 miles of range in a worst case scenario after 10 years of ownership. My current car gives me about 325-350 miles of range on gas, and if conditions (mentioned above) occur, I might only drop to 275-300 in the same worst case scenario, also after 10 years of ownership.

The only way that the Model 3, for someone like me, is compelling enough, is if they offer an upgrade with 50% more range at 300+ miles. I can make it work with that, but the price after the tax credit still needs to be lower. If the AWD + range upgrade gets me 300+ miles (I'm hoping 320 miles with extra regenerative breaking, but more battery weight) and it costs $44k out the door, it's a bit more than I can justify on a car. If I get the $7,500 tax credit, it works out to under $37k and I can justify it.

There are tons of benefits to the car despite my sour opinion of electric vehicle range in bad conditions and assuming I keep the car for 10+ years. I believe that in most normal conditions, I'll have enough range, but for someone like me who does a lot of highway driving, the extra range is going to be crucial, but there is still a substantial premium in the price based on the range of the car over the life of my intended ownership and in the conditions I'll be driving it in. (I put about 20k miles/year on my car for what it's worth) I am a fairly early adopter of technologies too, and so I am excited about the car (especially autopilot for my often mundane highway driving), but my specific situation requires me to consider more variables than I think most will be thinking about when they buy the car.
 
So you're concerned that after 10 years, on a cold winter day, driving on the highway you might only get 100 miles of range out of the car. I think this is unlikely. In any event, the typical person has a 15-20 mile commute. For urban/suburban dwellers 100 miles of range would usually still be plenty, especially as many will have an ICE vehicle for longer travel. You also don't take into account that 10+ years down the road batteries might be considerably less expensive and you might be able to replace/upgrade your battery at a reasonable price.

My final point is you've made zero argument, ZERO on what any of your personal angst about the cost of the Model 3 has to do with the $7500 tax credit needing to stay in effect in order for Tesla to sell these cars.

Basically what you're arguing is that even though an EV costs little to nothing to maintain, you feel the Model 3 is too expensive for what it is, because of scary FUD about what might happen 12+ years down the road... and what it will take for you personally to make the plunge is that this is not a $35,000 car but a $28,000 car.

I hope you cancel, it will move others up in the queue.
 
So you're concerned that after 10 years, on a cold winter day, driving on the highway you might only get 100 miles of range out of the car. I think this is unlikely. In any event, the typical person has a 15-20 mile commute. For urban/suburban dwellers 100 miles of range would usually still be plenty, especially as many will have an ICE vehicle for longer travel. You also don't take into account that 10+ years down the road batteries might be considerably less expensive and you might be able to replace/upgrade your battery at a reasonable price.

Why would I want to use an ICE vehicle for longer travel? The whole point behind autopilot, in my opinion, is for long distance travel. I'm sure there's a benefit on a daily commute too, but I fully intend on using it for more long range travel.

My final point is you've made zero argument, ZERO on what any of your personal angst about the cost of the Model 3 has to do with the $7500 tax credit needing to stay in effect in order for Tesla to sell these cars.

You're right that I didn't make an argument. I made it pretty obvious I want it, because for it to be economically sound for my own purchase, it's needed lol. This is a very selfish perspective and not considering anyone else.

Basically what you're arguing is that even though an EV costs little to nothing to maintain, you feel the Model 3 is too expensive for what it is, because of scary FUD about what might happen 12+ years down the road... and what it will take for you personally to make the plunge is that this is not a $35,000 car but a $28,000 car.

I hope you cancel, it will move others up in the queue.
Wow. Sorry it became personal. I am still anxiously awaiting my Model 3 :)

For me, I'm envisioning it being closer to $44k sticker and $37k with tax rebate for 300+ miles of range. Yes, at those prices, the tax credit makes the difference for me - it's a lot of money. If the $35k car would meet my requirements, then I would say that it's not needed.

My analogy would be to compare this to a solid state drive. When they first came out and 32GB SSD's were available, you still needed a regular HDD to make it work. I think that's where a 200 mile range vehicle is at. A 300+ mile range vehicle gives you a 64gb SSD, which is really good for many more scenarios. Once they get up to 400-500+ miles of range, I think it will be good enough for everyone.

I'm happy to adopt it at 300+ miles of range, because the FUD are small enough for me at that point. I enjoy being an early adopter of technologies, though I still think through them quite a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doublejj