Tax Bill and EV Tax Credit Discussion

[run-the-joules]

I hate to be a broken record here, but if you are reading this you must care something about the credit. CALL AND WRITE YOUR CONGRESS! You want as many members of Congress knowing this is a hot button as they enter committee. If they have many constituents communicating with them on this subject, then they are more likely to OPPOSE the removal in committee when it comes up.

…but what if I want the credit to be killed so I can get the car sooner? Still want me writing and calling?

 

[206er]

…but what if I want the credit to be killed so I can get the car sooner? Still want me writing and calling?

Why don't you just go buy an S about it now?

 

[run-the-joules]

Why don't you just go buy an S about it now?

I think the 3 is the better car, at least for me. The S brings nothing to the table that is worth the enormous jump in price to me ($33k more money and all I get for that is a heated steering wheel and AWD) and in fact introduces things that are negative (too big, lower range [unless I want to waste even more money], air suspensions are unreliable garbage and I don't want one. I also don't want a slower MCU, nor do I want fewer useful interior amenities [coat hooks, adequate storage, etc])

 

[Big Earl]

I hate to be a broken record here, but if you are reading this you must care something about the credit. CALL AND WRITE YOUR CONGRESS! You want as many members of Congress knowing this is a hot button as they enter committee. If they have many constituents communicating with them on this subject, then they are more likely to OPPOSE the removal in committee when it comes up.

I called and emailed late last week about the EV tax credit and net neutrality. I received a response from one senator about net neutrality, but nothing yet about the EV tax credit.

 

[pdxrob]

Is there any reason to call your representatives if you live in a very liberal state? I doubt there's anything that Democrats can do since the tax bill is simply an exercise in getting all the Republicans on board. If this were the Clinton era there would be a reason, but I think cross party politics is dead.

 

[Dr. J]

Even then, most of the members of Congress who vote for it won't have a clue what's actually in it. Nor will the president.

So it goes...

Word, brother.
Senate Republicans Accidentally Killed Some of Their Donors’ Favorite Tax Breaks

 

[Big Earl]

Is there any reason to call your representatives if you live in a very liberal state? I doubt there's anything that Democrats can do since the tax bill is simply an exercise in getting all the Republicans on board. If this were the Clinton era there would be a reason, but I think cross party politics is dead.

Yes. You can remind them of the importance of the tax credit to you. If you don't, they could be more likely to exchange it for some other bit of legislation that they feel is more important.

 

[voip-ninja]

Yeah, I'm concerned about losing the $7500 or $3750 (depending on when my Tesla is built) tax credit.

I'm more concerned with losing my $4500 property tax deduction while business owners (like the one a few pages ago who was happy about this tax bill) still get to deduct THEIR property taxes. The same goes for all the other major taxes paid - *I* lose the deduction but a corporation keeps it. For the record, I live in LOW TAX New Hampshire.

But, hey, if you're ok with the idea of people paying taxes on their taxes while you don't, at least we know where you stand.

I'm not quite sure where you are getting the idea that somehow small business owners (S Corp owners) are magically able to deduct their state paid income taxes while you cannot. That is simply not the case but it's not surprising, as I've spoken with very few people who understand much at all about what is being proposed in this tax bill.

The media have labeled this bill as a "giveaway for the rich".... as if the idea that people should be able to keep more of their own money is somehow toxic. BTW, my family is not rich, and we pay an enormous amount of taxes... as in, well over six figures worth, not to mention gainfully employing other people and paying over 1/2 of their health insurance costs. I guess when you approach society from the point of view that you need to squeeze the well off, or hell, even the "better off" for every nickel and that they should be thankful for it I guess it makes sense.

. I’m a 47-year-old middle-class male with a job. Every hippy-dippy thing that’s thought up — from heroin addiction to special vegan lunch lines in the local high school cafeteria — I get to pay for. Of course I’m Republican

Here's a pro tip for you and others that are seething in righteous anger. The upper middle and wealthy in the USA already pay the bulk of taxes... by far and get the least benefit of those taxes.

When people who pay no federal taxes get their "refund" check (people who pay zero or nearly zero federal income tax), it should have a note on the top that says "paid for by your evil wealthy neighbors".

And here's an interesting article about the roots of the "progressive" tax system that punishes, err... taxes, those who earn more at much higher rates.

https://fee.org/articles/the-progres...in-us-history/

The Progressive Income Tax in U.S. History

by Burton W. Folsom
May 01, 2003

America’s founders rejected the income tax entirely, but when they spoke of taxes they recognized the need for uniformity and equal protection to all citizens. “[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” reads the U.S. Constitution. And 80 years later, in the same spirit, the Fourteenth Amendment promised “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens.

In other words, the principle behind the progressive income tax—the more you earn, the larger the percentage of tax you must pay—would have been appalling to the founders. They recognized that, in James Madison’s words, “the spirit of party and faction” would prevail if Congress could tax one group of citizens and confer the benefits on another group.

In Federalist No. 10, Madison asked, “[W]hat are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?” He went on to say, “The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.”

During the 1800s economic thinking in the United States usually conformed to the founders’ guiding principles of uniformity and equal protection. One exception was during the Civil War, when a progressive income tax was first enacted. Interestingly, the tax had a maximum rate of 10 percent, and it was repealed in 1872. As Representative Justin Morrill of Vermont observed, “in this country we neither create nor tolerate any distinction of rank, race, or color, and should not tolerate anything else than entire equality in our taxes.”

When Congress passed another income tax in 1894—one that only hit the top 2 percent of wealth holders—the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. Stephen Field, a veteran of 30 years on the Court, was outraged that Congress would pass a bill to tax a small voting bloc and exempt the larger group of voters. At age 77, Field not only repudiated Congress’s actions, he also penned a prophecy. A small progressive tax, he predicted, “will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.”

In 1913, almost 20 years later, the ideas of uniform taxation and equal protection of the law for all citizens were overturned when a constitutional amendment permitting a progressive income tax was ratified. Congress first set the top rate at a mere 7 percent—and married couples were only taxed on income over $4,000 (equivalent to $80,000 today). During the tax debate, William Shelton, a Georgian, supported the income tax “because none of us here have $4,000 incomes, and somebody else will have to pay the tax.” As Madison and Field had feared, the seeds of class warfare were sown in the strategy of different rates for different incomes.

It took the politicians less than one generation to hike the tax rates and fulfill Field’s prophecy. Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, using the excuses of depression and war, permanently enlarged the income tax. Under Hoover, the top rate was hiked from 24 to 63 percent. Under Roosevelt, the top rate was again raised—first to 79 percent and later to 90 percent. In 1941, in fact, Roosevelt proposed a 99.5 percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. “Why not?” he said when an adviser questioned him.

After that proposal failed, Roosevelt issued an executive order to tax all income over $25,000 at the astonishing rate of 100 percent. Congress later repealed the order, but still allowed top incomes to be taxed at a marginal rate of 90 percent.

Subsidies for Friends, Audits for Enemies

Roosevelt thus became the first president to practice on a large scale what Madison had called “the spirit of party and faction” and what Field had called the “war of the poor against the rich.” With a steeply progressive income tax in place, Roosevelt used the federal treasury to reward, among others, farmers (who were paid not to plant crops), silver miners (who had the price of their product artificially inflated), and southerners in the vote-rich Tennessee Valley (with dams and cheap electricity).

In the 1936 presidential election, Senator Hiram Johnson of California, a Roosevelt supporter, watched in amazement as the President mobilized “the different agencies of government” to dole out subsidies for votes. “He starts with probably 8 million votes bought,” Johnson calculated. “The other side has to buy them one by one, and they cannot hope to match his money.” In that campaign, Roosevelt defeated the Republican Alf Landon by an electoral vote of 523–8.

The flip side of rewards for supporters was investigations of opponents. Senator James Couzens of Michigan, who supported Roosevelt even more vigorously than Johnson did, had said before Roosevelt took office, “Give me control of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and I will run the politics of the country.”

Couzens lived to see the bureau begin to investigate Roosevelt’s opponents. It started with an investigation of Senator Huey Long of Louisiana, who had threatened to run for president against Roosevelt. Next came an audit of William Randolph Hearst, whose newspaper empire strongly opposed Roosevelt for president in 1936. Moses Annenberg, publisher of the Philadelphia Inquirer, vehemently opposed Roosevelt’s re-election campaign in 1936; the next year he had a full-scale audit, which was followed by a prison term.

Elliott Roosevelt, the president’s son, conceded in 1975 that “my father may have been the originator of the concept of employing the IRS as a weapon of political retribution.” But he was quick to add that “each of his successors followed his lead.” That is a key point: once the machinery of retribution is in place, it is hard for politicians to resist using it. When Richard Nixon, a Republican, became president, he sounded like his Democrat counterparts when he described whom he wanted as commissioner of internal revenue. Nixon said, “I want to be sure that he is . . . ruthless . . . that he will do what he is told, that every income-tax return I want to see, I see. That he will go after our enemies and not go after our friends. It is as simple as that.”

If we want to lessen “the spirit of party and faction,” as Madison recommended, and if we want to avoid a “war of the poor against the rich,” as Field anticipated, we would do well to scrap the progressive income tax.

 

[Rogue one]

Might be tomorrow. Might be December 2018 but retroactive to 1/1/18. Nobody knows for sure.

Wouldn’t that suck, order your model 3 fully planning on the tax credit as a factor in the price... them have it retroactively ripped away last second...

 

[smak]

The media have labeled this bill as a "giveaway for the rich".... as if the idea that people should be able to keep more of their own money is somehow toxic. BTW, my family is not rich, and we pay an enormous amount of taxes... as in, well over six figures worth, not to mention gainfully employing other people and paying over 1/2 of their health insurance costs. I guess when you approach society from the point of view that you need to squeeze the well off, or hell, even the "better off" for every nickel and that they should be thankful for it I guess it makes sense.

It's a giveaway to the rich because of where the money comes from.

We don't have a trillion dollar surplus where we can just give people who have paid more taxes some of their taxes back.

The money has to come from somewhere, right? Whether in the form of stripping deductions from certain groups of people that the majority doesn't like, or in the form of adding a trillion of debt.

 

[run-the-joules]

Wouldn’t that suck, order your model 3 fully planning on the tax credit as a factor in the price... them have it retroactively ripped away last second...

This is why I’ve cautioned people not to count on it at all, any year, until your return is filed and accepted.

 

[voip-ninja]

It's a giveaway to the rich because of where the money comes from.

We don't have a trillion dollar surplus where we can just give people who have paid more taxes some of their taxes back.

The money has to come from somewhere, right? Whether in the form of stripping deductions from certain groups of people that the majority doesn't like, or in the form of adding a trillion of debt.

I actually agree with this for the most part. The solution is a combination of taking away popular tax deductions but doesn’t have to then include punishing taxes. We could always hope for reduced federal spending.

Also this outrage rings phony to me considering that Obama doubled the national debt in under 8 years and we didn’t hear a peep out of a media that is now telling us this new bill is going to end civilization.

 

[Rogue one]

This is why I’ve cautioned people not to count on it at all, any year, until your return is filed and accepted.

True enough, people on this board might understand that... but the model 3 is mass market and I have a feeling many model 3 buyers have no clue the credit is in jeopardy. Since Tesla promotes Tesla after savings cost including the rebate it could get ugly come tax season if it’s repealed last minute.

But to elaborate on my position, the tax credit would enable me to splurge on the long range versus the standard range so yeah... I’m not sure what I’ll do when my time comes to order.

 

[N5329K]

I actually agree with this for the most part. The solution is a combination of taking away popular tax deductions but doesn’t have to then include punishing taxes. We could always hope for reduced federal spending.

Also this outrage rings phony to me considering that Obama doubled the national debt in under 8 years and we didn’t hear a peep out of a media that is now telling us this new bill is going to end civilization.

There were a lot of peeps...mostly relief at how Obama spent us out of the deep, black hole his predecessor dug for us. But that's ancient history for most people these days, and I expect it's been forgotten, even at GM.
Robin

 

[Runt8]

There were a lot of peeps...mostly relief at how Obama spent us out of the deep, black hole his predecessor dug for us. But that's ancient history for most people these days, and I expect it's been forgotten, even at GM.
Robin

I also seem to recall something about two wars that were magically off the books until Obama took over...

 

[Tonymil]

This article describes numerous provisions in the House/Senate Bills that affect energy/renewables policies.
Tax Bill Impact: What Happens to Renewable Energy?

 

[sooner]

Cannot fathom how GM, Ford, Nissan, and other companies that manufacture electric cars are not hounding the representatives from states with their manufacturing presence. This loss hurts them far more than Tesla.

A bolt with guaranteed 7500 tax credit is in play against a base model 3 without.
A bolt without has no shot, or a greatly reduced chance.
Same goes for Leaf and other similar cars.

 

[run-the-joules]

True enough, people on this board might understand that... but the model 3 is mass market and I have a feeling many model 3 buyers have no clue the credit is in jeopardy. Since Tesla promotes Tesla after savings cost including the rebate it could get ugly come tax season if it’s repealed last minute.

But to elaborate on my position, the tax credit would enable me to splurge on the long range versus the standard range so yeah... I’m not sure what I’ll do when my time comes to order.

Given how inept most people are on the subject (the threads upon threads upon threads upon threads of people not understanding how a basic damned tax credit works, for example), I have no doubt that people are going to go completely berserk and it'll be everyone's fault but their own.

 

[TEG]

Will *anyone* get the $25K model 3 ?
Tesla Model 3 can now officially cost only ~$25,000 in California after incentives

Tax credit goes away just as Tesla makes the $35K (not $49K) Model 3 available?

 

[D3xDt3Reaction]

Cannot fathom how GM, Ford, Nissan, and other companies that manufacture electric cars are not hounding the representatives from states with their manufacturing presence.

From what I can tell, GM and Nissan actually have been pushing to retain the tax credit: GM, Nissan push to retain EV credit; tax bill also targets renewables, helps nuclear energy