Petition to remove the 200,000 US sales cap for the $7,500 EV Tax Credit

[Tesloid]

I say level the playing field by stopping oil subsidies, if EV incentives are taken away. Or, keep oil subsidies while also retaining EV subsidies. The oil industry can't have their cake and eat it too.

 

[woof]

Robin Hood economics says increase taxes what you don't want (ICE sales) and reduce taxes on what you do want (EV sales). But the Feds don't tax sales. So the next best thing is to reduce any tax credits given to Fossil Fuel exploration/drilling/production, etc. to fund the expansion of the EV fleet.

 

[Big-T]

Done, but with only 332 signatures I'm starting to wonder if some of the hype around lines forming on release day and pre-order estimates of 40k the first week or even month are a bit overblown....

 

[Max*]

Robin Hood economics says increase taxes what you don't want (ICE sales) and reduce taxes on what you do want (EV sales). But the Feds don't tax sales. So the next best thing is to reduce any tax credits given to Fossil Fuel exploration/drilling/production, etc. to fund the expansion of the EV fleet.

I'm all for that, where do I sign?

 

[Brad_SC]

Done, but with only 332 signatures I'm starting to wonder if some of the hype around lines forming on release day and pre-order estimates of 40k the first week or even month are a bit overblown....

I think that the big message behind what you've just said is...

We need to spread the word on the petition. It just isn't getting enough views. Please share it on your social networks and amongst your friends and family.

I signed it, so did my wife, my brother and his gf, my mother, and a few friends. Between all of us, I only expect 2 EV purchases/reservations in the near future, but they still see the importance and offered to help.

 

[Mr. Watts]

#334 here. Hope this gets passed

 

[brianman]

Have any of the whitehouse.gov petitions been followed up with any real substance? Or is this just werelistening.whitehouse.gov/placebo.asp?

 

[Big-T]

I think that the big message behind what you've just said is...

We need to spread the word on the petition. It just isn't getting enough views. Please share it on your social networks and amongst your friends and family.

I signed it, so did my wife, my brother and his gf, my mother, and a few friends. Between all of us, I only expect 2 EV purchases/reservations in the near future, but they still see the importance and offered to help.

If I were Tesla, I'd have a PC setup on the petition page at every store, so when you put down your $1,000 deposit you can sign the petition right there. I'd imagine most would sign

 

[PTADO]

I'm in, although the 99K+ still-required signatures is slightly discouraging. Haha

 

[cwerdna]

Have any of the whitehouse.gov petitions been followed up with any real substance? Or is this just werelistening.whitehouse.gov/placebo.asp?

Don't know but the funny response at This Isnre Looking For | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government got a lot of media attention.

 

[Kurt Foster]

Those of you who have signed - or will be signing - this what is your rationale for doing so?

I feel like it's along the lines of more government tax dollars actually going toward something useful that would in turn, benefit American citizens. Instead of, lets say... going to the military or something. In my opinion, whats the problem otherwise? At least it's going toward the benefit of electric vehicles.

That being said, there is a definite price gap that the tax-credit creates; the sub-$30K category. There's a good chunk of people who will never spend more than $30,000 on a car. So adding that ability to the people seems more realistic instead of all those tax-credits just going toward people who already own a Tesla and are buying this one, or just going all out on this one and don't have a real money issue with paying for it. I have nothing against Tesla, I just think the tax-credit should have a limit based on your salary or something... Let me know what you think!

 

[SureValla]

Hey guys,

I saw this on the Official Tesla Motors Forums

It is a petition to have the US Government remove the 200,000 US Sales Cap for the $7,500 EV Tax Credit.
t

Thank you for posting. I signed.

Those of you who have signed - or will be signing - this what is your rationale for doing so?

I'll be brutally honest. I signed it because I want to ensure I get my $7,500 tax credit.

I don't agree with increasing the 200,000 limit. The 200,000 worth of $7,500 rebates was to encourage the public to buy EV from a specific manufacturer allowing the manufacture to get into the EV business. Once they get to 200,000 the manufacture should be able to make it on their own and not need incentives for people to buy their cars. Tesla is going to be selling cars at $35,000. This should be incentive enough to buy their cars.

Who do you think pays for the $7,500? You and I directly through our taxes. If the limit was taken off Toyota, Honda, Tesla and others would be subsidized producing millions of cars. This would require an increase in our taxes. I want to pay less in taxes not more.

I quoted Darryl here because he always gives a very thoughtful response but my question is really for anyone in this thread who is against this petition. Please don't be offended by this I'm honestly curious at the answer I'm not trying to make a point by asking it or score any debate points. Have you personally taken the tax credit for buying your Tesla's? My point in asking this is if the answer is yes then hopefully you can understand why we Model 3 buyers would want it too.

Lastly, This isn't the first time on this forum I've seen this discusison but the last time I did @ohmman gave a very thoughtful response and posted an equally useful NSF Study. This study will take less time to read than this thread and I would say is required reading for anyone interested in this topic or replying further to a discussion on whether we should have a tax credit or not.

 

[ABCCBA]

I am opposed to these types of credits. Why, they have no benefit to the general public. The manufacturers have inflated raised their prices to ensure they are the beneficiary of the free government handout.

So, while some of you think 'great I'm getting free money', actually you over paid for the product and are at best going to break even if you get the full credit. But, the manufacturers are running to the bank laughing with the full amount they added in to begin with.

 

[McRat]

I am opposed to these types of credits. Why, they have no benefit to the general public. The manufacturers have inflated raised their prices to ensure they are the beneficiary of the free government handout.

Technically, most mfr's are still "dumping". To get the carbon credits, they are selling the EV/PHEV models for under production costs. EV technology as of 2016 is still far more expensive than ICE technology, that's why it appears the MSRPs are high.

Nothing wrong with being opposed to government subsidies, but you should be aware that the mfrs are subsidizing purchases as well today.

 

[Electroman]

I am telling you guys - asking to remove th cap for each manufacturer will be seen very very negatively in the current climate and will not go over well. This will be seen as another instance of Tesla and the rich guys ask for govt money.

Instead the petition should be to put all the earmarked money into a single pool and remove the cap on a manufacturer.

And whoever innovates early and and does all the grunt work and manufactures more and helps shape the EV market gets more benefit. Whoever is waiting for the EV market to mature will be the losers.

That's the way this petition should be structured.

 

[ohmman]

@SureValla, thanks for the mention. I agree with a lot of the sentiments in this thread, but @mkjayakumar has an important point. This is why I'd rather see the tax credit limit based on the number of credits claimed instead of the number of vehicles produced. Too late for that, unfortunately, but with that kind of structure there's much more flexibility to do things like limit the number of credits per household, put income phase-outs in place, etc. I think instead of petitioning to extend the tax credit, we should be building the follow-up incentive which is hopefully better structured.

As I mentioned in the post you linked, the downside to all of this is that there's not a lot of evidence supporting whether these credits work or don't work. That's mainly because of the difficulty in collecting that data and controlling for all the confounding factors. If anyone has more evidence on the efficacy of these, I'd really appreciate reading the studies.

I am opposed to these types of credits. Why, they have no benefit to the general public. The manufacturers have inflated raised their prices to ensure they are the beneficiary of the free government handout.

Speaking of evidence. Do you have a source for this, @MikeJr74? I'd be very interested in reading it if so.

 

[ChadS]

I've got a short contract gig looking at PEV incentive effectiveness. So far I'm still scouring the web for studies that might have data. I've peered at about 250 documents so far (I think I'm about 40% through what I'm going to look at); I've found perhaps ten that may have numbers I can use. I have not evaluated them thoroughly to see how much I trust the numbers.

Yesterday I saw THIS that tried to refute MikeJr74's supposition. I only skimmed it (not on topic for my work) but I think they actually examined hybrid incentives more than EV incentives. But they did note prices didn't change when the incentives disappeared; as as ohmman notes, at the time nobody thought profits were being made (though of course the companies didn't say). There are a LOT* of problems with the way the incentive is structured, but I do think it is helping fund innovation rather than just going to corporate profits.

As for effectiveness of the federal tax credit, firm numbers are hard to come by (actually I'd say impossible) because we can't do an A-B test. Surveys are common; though even if designed correctly people don't always note their motivations correctly. I've seen numbers from 30-70 for effectiveness. Of course it can't be 100% because as structured the credit doesn't work for many. Fortunately it doesn't have to be 100% to be cost effective.

HERE is a survey-based study that says the federal tax credit was "necessary" for 49% to 71% of buyers depending on model (lowest Tesla, highest LEAF).

HERE is an article about research still underway (so not published yet, can't read whole study to see their methodology) that claims 48.5% effectiveness. They claim infrastructure is more cost-effective. I can't read the whole thing but it doesn't look like they controlled for cause and effect on the infrastructure.

While I don't see a specific effectiveness number, THIS global study concludes that there is a very strong link between PEV sales rates and the amount of financial incentives.

While not specifically about the federal tax credit, THIS paper is about EV price elasticity, and it specifically mentions that increasing the $7500 credit to $10k (which was a proposal a while back, though I don't think a serious one) would have a "significant" impact.

HERE is the paper I trust the most. It basically says we don't have enough information to be sure what the effectiveness rate is.

* A few of the problems with the current federal tax credit (there will be some problems with any scheme, but I think this one has more than its fair share):
- many people do not have sufficient tax liability to take it (and most that do are rich which makes for bad optics; of course the national security, environmental and resulting economic benefits go to all of us regardless of who takes it, and I think having the rich help subsidize expensive early tech adoption is a good thing, but the rich appear slightly less likely to need the credit to make the purchase)
- it can be difficult to determine in advance if you will be able to take it
- many people don't know it exists
- it doesn't reduce the price of the car, so you have to have the money to float. Even for people that can do it, the NPV is significantly lower
- it's only 200k per manufacturer, which is typically not enough to get to profitability on any new vehicle, much less one with new, expensive tech
- it's per manufacturer, which rewards the laggards as they can wait for others to pioneer, and then come in later when prices are lower and their cars will have the credit but others won't.
- It is hard for consumers to know if the manufacturer will get the credit, as they not only have to know how many cars have been sold for each manufacturer, but follow the complex multi-quarter phaseout for each
- it doesn't apply to fleets, who otherwise would be prime first takers
- it applies to leases as much as sales, which encourages leases which lowers resale value (in addition to what the credit does to resale)
- it gives the credit to qualified buyers, but makes no attempt to limit them to buyers that would buy without it. Not that there's an easy way to do that without causing other problems, but you could, say, limit credits per household
- it is very visible and publicized as subsidizing new tech which inspires complaints (why don't they just compete in a free market?!), but in fact was put in place to counter the GAO's 2008 estimate of $12k per gas car in hidden petroleum subsidies (GAO only counted hard subsidies; they did not include oil security, wars, health effects, etc). It was reduced to $7500 because it's relatively up-front rather than over the life of the car so the NPV is greater. Getting rid of the petroleum subsidies would be far better, but of course that's not the way government works

 

[McRat]

Just anecdotal, but when I bought the kids PHEV's, the incentives were a major factor. Buy ICE or PHEV? $17,000 more each for PHEV was too much. Due to incentives, it was cut down to $5000 penalty for PHEV, which was affordable.

So my taxes paid for some, the MFR paid for some, and I paid for some to put "cleaner" cars on the road and assist the mfr in developing EV/PHEVs and getting their carbon credits.

 

[Chaz]

I've got a short contract gig looking at PEV incentive effectiveness. So far I'm still scouring the web for studies that might have data. I've peered at about 250 documents so far (I think I'm about 40% through what I'm going to look at); I've found perhaps ten that may have numbers I can use. I have not evaluated them thoroughly to see how much I trust the numbers.

Yesterday I saw THIS that tried to refute MikeJr74's supposition. I only skimmed it (not on topic for my work) but I think they actually examined hybrid incentives more than EV incentives. But they did note prices didn't change when the incentives disappeared; as as ohmman notes, at the time nobody thought profits were being made (though of course the companies didn't say). There are a LOT* of problems with the way the incentive is structured, but I do think it is helping fund innovation rather than just going to corporate profits.

As for effectiveness of the federal tax credit, firm numbers are hard to come by (actually I'd say impossible) because we can't do an A-B test. Surveys are common; though even if designed correctly people don't always note their motivations correctly. I've seen numbers from 30-70 for effectiveness. Of course it can't be 100% because as structured the credit doesn't work for many. Fortunately it doesn't have to be 100% to be cost effective.

HERE is a survey-based study that says the federal tax credit was "necessary" for 49% to 71% of buyers depending on model (lowest Tesla, highest LEAF).

HERE is an article about research still underway (so not published yet, can't read whole study to see their methodology) that claims 48.5% effectiveness. They claim infrastructure is more cost-effective. I can't read the whole thing but it doesn't look like they controlled for cause and effect on the infrastructure.

While I don't see a specific effectiveness number, THIS global study concludes that there is a very strong link between PEV sales rates and the amount of financial incentives.

While not specifically about the federal tax credit, THIS paper is about EV price elasticity, and it specifically mentions that increasing the $7500 credit to $10k (which was a proposal a while back, though I don't think a serious one) would have a "significant" impact.

HERE is the paper I trust the most. It basically says we don't have enough information to be sure what the effectiveness rate is.

* A few of the problems with the current federal tax credit (there will be some problems with any scheme, but I think this one has more than its fair share):
- many people do not have sufficient tax liability to take it (and most that do are rich which makes for bad optics; of course the national security, environmental and resulting economic benefits go to all of us regardless of who takes it, and I think having the rich help subsidize expensive early tech adoption is a good thing, but the rich appear slightly less likely to need the credit to make the purchase)
- it can be difficult to determine in advance if you will be able to take it
- many people don't know it exists
- it doesn't reduce the price of the car, so you have to have the money to float. Even for people that can do it, the NPV is significantly lower
- it's only 200k per manufacturer, which is typically not enough to get to profitability on any new vehicle, much less one with new, expensive tech
- it's per manufacturer, which rewards the laggards as they can wait for others to pioneer, and then come in later when prices are lower and their cars will have the credit but others won't.
- It is hard for consumers to know if the manufacturer will get the credit, as they not only have to know how many cars have been sold for each manufacturer, but follow the complex multi-quarter phaseout for each
- it doesn't apply to fleets, who otherwise would be prime first takers
- it applies to leases as much as sales, which encourages leases which lowers resale value (in addition to what the credit does to resale)
- it gives the credit to qualified buyers, but makes no attempt to limit them to buyers that would buy without it. Not that there's an easy way to do that without causing other problems, but you could, say, limit credits per household
- it is very visible and publicized as subsidizing new tech which inspires complaints (why don't they just compete in a free market?!), but in fact was put in place to counter the GAO's 2008 estimate of $12k per gas car in hidden petroleum subsidies (GAO only counted hard subsidies; they did not include oil security, wars, health effects, etc). It was reduced to $7500 because it's relatively up-front rather than over the life of the car so the NPV is greater. Getting rid of the petroleum subsidies would be far better, but of course that's not the way government works

Holy cow! Thanks ChadS for the info! I'm still chewing through some of the articles, but I appreciate the summaries. Definitely helps me understand this often emotionally-charged topic.

 

[ohmman]

@ChadS - fabulous post, and I'm really happy you're working on quantifying (to the extent possible) incentive value.

Regarding the linked sources:

The EPRI publication didn't include the methodology (specifically the phrasing) of the questions in the survey. They reference another document but it's for pay. I'd be curious to know how they asked the question about necessity. Also, as you mention, it's hard to trust people's perception of necessity.

I agree with you that the HAAS paper is probably the most sound out of the ones you've referenced. Sadly there aren't great conclusions to be drawn from it. However, I think this is an important statement in their conclusion paragraph:

We are also struck by the horizontal inequity of these programs. These are non-refundable tax credits, so millions of mostly lower-income taxpayers are ineligible because they have non-positive tax liability. We have not been able to come up with any coherent economic argument for making these credits non-refundable. From an efficiency perspective, there is nothing fundamentally different between filers with positive and negative tax liability, and from a distributional perspective, restricting the credits to exclude taxpayers without tax liability decreases both horizontal and vertical equity.

Thanks again. I've subscribed to your other thread, looking forward to your updates.