(1) Incorrect. Taxes aren't a requirement just like government spending isn't a requirement.
(2) Also incorrect. See 1.
(3) No, it's not.
(4) True.
(5) False.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
(2) Also incorrect. See 1.
(3) No, it's not.
(4) True.
(5) False.
I tend to agree, esp. given what Tesla is selling now.
I suspect that w/more attention there will be more people up in arms about $7500 tax credits for people who are presumably relatively wealthy (buying $70K+ cars and some beyond $100K).
I tend to agree, as well.
Once the a cheap Model 3 is available, there will still be some of the expensive Teslas sold, and if eligible for $7500, there can be the same issue that I pointed out.
doubleatheman
Member
flankspeed8
Member
A long way to go. I did sign because I believe this is something that in fairness has to be addressed. Why should the manufactures that sat on the sidelines have the privilege of banking these credits once the true innovators have had theirs exhausted therefore creating an pricing advantage?
Yeah it's call reduce government spending. Isn't that what what most people are crying for these days with our debt? I guess this policy only helps move us towards that goal.
Nope. I just don't pay that amount to the government. The hand outs are the one who don't work and get a positive tax returns at the end of the year because they have dependents or what not. That is my definition of a government hand-out.
First off, we are advocating for only tesla here. If tesla can sells millions of cars in the near future, man I would be stoke! And no it does not come from taxes, it comes from reduce government spending.
I don't like this idea, at all.
The purpose of the $7500 incentives were to help a new technology get a foothold.
These incentives are doing exactly that, they will carry us into the next generation of much more affordable EVs.
The effort would be better aimed at reducing fossil fuel subsidies, or internalizing some/all of the externalized costs of gasoline/coal.
As the next gen EVs start hitting the roads, the biggest thing slowing them down will not be the cost, it will be the conservatives hammering on EVs getting the $7500 incentive. Take that talking point away from them.
The purpose of the $7500 incentives were to help a new technology get a foothold.
These incentives are doing exactly that, they will carry us into the next generation of much more affordable EVs.
The effort would be better aimed at reducing fossil fuel subsidies, or internalizing some/all of the externalized costs of gasoline/coal.
As the next gen EVs start hitting the roads, the biggest thing slowing them down will not be the cost, it will be the conservatives hammering on EVs getting the $7500 incentive. Take that talking point away from them.
Here is my rationale.
If we remove the cap, then presumably we will sells more cars. We punish those dinosaur cars because those cars contribute to many negative effects on our society, earth, and way of life.
Reduce dinosaur cars will
A) Reduce our reliance on exported oils to reduce mid-east conflicts. Once those guys cease to be relevant, we wont be going to war over there, saving money and saving our troops' lives. We wont be funding Terrorist groups and totalitarian regimes with our oil money.
B) Reduce damaging ways to extract oil from everything like fracking, tar sands, etc. methods to get oil.
C) Reduce air pollutions and other pollutions to the environment.
D) Spur innovations in cleaner energy. As a forward thinking society, we would definitely not go back to coal power plants. This will only spur or research and development in Clean energy.
I am equally OK with the government doing either 2 things:
1) Offer tax credit, like this petition is saying.
2) Increase tax burden for the dinosaur cars.
Either will achieve the same goal through economic means. But we all know tax burden are never popular so lets keep those physiologist happy by making it a tax credit.
Don't get me wrong, all good programs must end, but since we are no where near the numbers of cars needed to get the EV revolution going, I feel the industry still has a long way to go. Maybe have a cumulative total EV. So no per manufacture limit. It will be a free for all. Any car company who want to take advantage will have to innovate fast to sell more to get a larger chunk of the credits to their customers.
Last edited:
The Fed tax credit is to bolster development (hence sales) of EVs. It was put in place because EVs are not being adopted by the public. Fewer than 1% of drivers in the US have ever driven an EV. Fewer still own one.
The government decided they want EVs on the road, and wishful thinking alone did not work.
Now, if you consider it a "hand-out", I have no freakin' idea what taxes you pay. In California, the middle class pays about 50% of their gross income in total taxation. If I buy an EV every 3 years, that's $2500 a year. Just the tax on not exporting weapons is higher than that per year, aka ITAR / DDTC. Yes, you are taxed for exporting weapons even if you don't export anything, or make weapons. Honest.
The fact that Federal Income Tax is only a fraction of your total tax liability is lost on everyone. No matter what name you give it, a fee, a registration, a penalty, a surtax, an excise tax, or an income tax, they are on the rise.
If the government decides to rollback their EV targets, then go ahead and remove the credit. But as of 2016, the Fed still cannot force you legally to buy an EV. All they can do is offer a carrot or a stick.
The government decided they want EVs on the road, and wishful thinking alone did not work.
Now, if you consider it a "hand-out", I have no freakin' idea what taxes you pay. In California, the middle class pays about 50% of their gross income in total taxation. If I buy an EV every 3 years, that's $2500 a year. Just the tax on not exporting weapons is higher than that per year, aka ITAR / DDTC. Yes, you are taxed for exporting weapons even if you don't export anything, or make weapons. Honest.
The fact that Federal Income Tax is only a fraction of your total tax liability is lost on everyone. No matter what name you give it, a fee, a registration, a penalty, a surtax, an excise tax, or an income tax, they are on the rise.
If the government decides to rollback their EV targets, then go ahead and remove the credit. But as of 2016, the Fed still cannot force you legally to buy an EV. All they can do is offer a carrot or a stick.
And when a bunch of manufacturers cars are $7500 cheaper than Tesla because they are still getting the credit? How well will Tesla be doing then. Raising the limit is stupid, that just pushes out the problem. The limit needs to cut off for everybody at the same time, rewarding manufacturers that are pushing EVs earlier, rather than rewarding manufacturers that are late to the game (Tesla does all the work, develops the market and then Toyota comes in and drives them out of business in 5 years because they have a $7500 advantage).
While I agree with both of these points (or the point that I think Brian is trying to make), I also agree with Darryl that in the way things are CURRENTLY if they continue the rebate, the money has to come from somewhere, and currently it will be coming from higher taxes for everyone else.
Are there better options? Sure. Will they happen anytime soon? Doubt it.
- - - Updated - - -
Umn... what? Middle class is defined as $25k/year to $75k/year. Let's assume $75k/year is middle class in CA.
Federal effective tax rate is 20.6% (marginal bracket of 25%)
Medicare tax is 1.45%
SS is 6.2% for the "middle class" (caps out at $118k IIRC, so someones effective rate may be lower)
CA effective tax rate is about 6.05% (marginal bracket at 9.30%)
Total taxes: <35%
That is why I think there should be a single pool of say a million EVs that everyone is allowed to dip into with no Cap for an individual manufacturer. So the early bird and the one that makes a compelling EV gets more of the pie. The ones that sit on the sidelines and make lousy econo boxes are left behind.
The goal of migrating to alternate green transportation is best served by having a pool that everyone can dip into. Also this does not give the impression of a preference to Tesla, as this current petition seemingly does.
I haven't seen a single counter argument to this idea.
Sales taxes.
Property taxes.
- - - Updated - - -
Manufacturers are not even half way to the end of the subsidies, and there's a new generation of PEVs coming which will be much better value than the first generation. If there were an issue _after_ the second generation it would be a different matter.
To be fair, that original calculation is off. Federal income taxes on $75,000 for a married couple is <10% thanks to deductions and personal exemptions (standard deduction, no kids, no other adjustments or credits). So even with property taxes and sales taxes, people are still spending <35% in total taxes.
I'll give you low 40% then, I still don't buy the 50% number.
Assume a person making $75k buys a house that costs $300k, property tax is about 1.16% in CA, so roughly $3,500. That's 4.7%
Sales tax in CA is 7.5%, assuming the only thing he's not paying taxes on are his mortgage, he'll pay $2k in sales tax a year. That's another 2.8%
- - - Updated - - -
My original calculation was based on a single person, not a married family. I didn't include any potential deductions, as I wanted to see worst case take-home pay numbers.
Just wanted to show that it's not 50%, no matter what you do with the numbers.
Here you go...
The purpose is to advance the technology and help EVs gain a foothold in the marketplace.
The consumer, and health of the EV market share is advanced more by having as many manufacturers making EVs than by a small number.
By having a set pool, latecomers have less and less incentive to even try as the pool will "drain" before they are able to get up to speed.
I agree the current structure has its drawbacks as well.
What I think is needed is a cap, either a date, or total funds.
This would reward the manufacturers that were early, yet still encorage late comers, up to a point.
This results in a larger variety of options for consumers, which makes for a healthier EV market.
Middle class for a family of 4 is not $500 a week gross. $12.50/hr with one wage earner is $25k a year. I would argue it starts at $50k or $25/hr for a single wage earner.
Anyhow, add state income tax, utility taxes, airline taxes, hotel taxes, auto tax, gas tax, Tire Disposal, Electronic Disposal, all the sin taxes (very high), etc, etc, etc, etc. You can't even tally up all the different taxes anymore.
Last edited:
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Being in MA, I too scratched my head at this definition of middle class..... $25K/yr might be pretty "lifestyle-limiting" in the eastern half of my state. And if that's for a FAMILY...? I hope there's some assistance involved.
Similar threads
