Are you glad you have a PRIUS=The way Gasoline prices are going UP & UP

Well, it's not other people’s money under the current IRS code 30D for the non-refundable tax credit up to $7500. It is the buyer's income tax, or of the leasing company in the case of a leased vehicle, that gets credited.

 

Who pays for the "Tax Credit". It is the US taxpayer when the bill comes due.

JeffD

 

For non-refundable tax credit like current EV credit 30D, it is not other taxpayers' money that comes back to the person who purchased an EV. It is his/her own hard-earned income that does not get taken away as income tax. If he/she has no tax liability, then there is no EV tax credit. The refundable tax credits such as child tax credit or educational credit are different, but I don't hear people complaining about subsidizing those tax credits.

 

more like debt and printing presses than taxpayers

 

The vehicle tax credit is just an industry subsidy by another name for a product that cannot justify its own price. Moreover a tax credit is a multiple of what would be obtained for a deduction for the vehicle price paid depending upon one’s tax bracket. If the product is economically sound, let it stand on its own.
And
If you don’t hear complaints about those other so-called tax credits, which a are really welfare mislabeled, you must be deaf. Oh I forgot … California, never mind.

 

Sorry to hear of her experience!
There is a learning curve to new tech and it isn't suited to everyone. Our Leaf never left us stranded but I had already 'cut my teeth' on EVs when we got the Leaf. I also had read up on the 'Guess-O-Meter' as it had been termed by early Leaf owners.

I am actually considering a Mini Cooper for my next EV, although that is likely a ways off.

 

if one is unhappy with ev tax deductions and credits, one would be very unhappy with the us tax code

 

The super good lease deals on the Leaf and Fiat 500e were the result of a clause in CA state law that required companies to sell a certain number of emission free cars as a condition on being allowed to sell their ICE cars. At least that is my recollection of the circumstances. So Nissan to some extent, and Fiat to a huge extent, were basically dumping electric vehicles in order to be able to sell the cars they really wanted to sell. The "other people's money" in this case would have been a slight price increase on those manufacturer's ICE vehicles. Note that it didn't have to be like this. If a company made an electric vehicle which people really wanted to buy then the company would not have needed to subsidize them.

 

While I am greatly in favor of e-cars, in all fairness I have to disagree with that analysis - the credit is paid with other people's money. If some government policy gives me a large tax credit for doing X, and does not give that credit to people who do not do X, and the government more or less balances its books so that the tax rate is set to match expenses, then the people who "do not do X" are clearly subsidizing the people who "do X", to some extent. I don't have actual numbers to work with, but the people who receive such benefits often receive a fairly large payout (like $7500), whereas those being penalized by making up the difference I suspect are paying <$100, and perhaps <$10 each. It depends upon how many people there are in each class. At the moment I believe the number receiving the credits is a very small fraction of tax payers, certainly less than 1%, so if it was broken up equally among the other 99 that would be $75.76 more in tax for them. Since there is literally nothing equitable about the US tax code, my analysis stops here.

 

Incentives and disincentives.

If the government wants people to start doing one thing and stop another they tax the thing they want stopped and tax credit the thing they want people to do.

But then there's the question of if one qualifies or not. I don't have $7,500 in owed taxes in a year, so I would not benefit that much from such a tax credit. I guess I'm incentivised to live cheaply.

 

A. The federal government does not do this, hasn't for decades.
B. This then falls under every tax break, why single out those for zero emission vehicles.
C. The $99 lease for Nissan EVs was available in MN. MN, at that time, was not a CARB state.

 

balanced books

cook the books is more like it

 

Well, there is a big flaw in your thinking. Can you tell me when was the last time US.gov balanced its revenue and spending? I am pretty sure, we have not had balanced budgets for the duration of the time we have had EV tax credits. I really don't think .gov enacts federal budget laws and tax codes with an aim to balance the revenue and spending like a small business would.

EDIT: I just saw that @Zythryn has pointed out this already in his comment above.

 

Yeah, I am in the same boat as you are. But I am planning to purchase a BEV this year (or next) using creative financing to get a full tax credit for it. ROTH is my friend. Yes, most BEVs are still too expensive for most people without .gov subsidies. But if the policy favors this type of vehicle over the conventional, then I don't mind benefitting from the favoritism in this case. Being frugal is a good thing. For most things, I don't spend beyond my means. I certainly believe in the proverb "He who knows he has enough is rich."

 

1957 is the last year the U.S. national debt didn't increase. It decreased a bit over $2 Billion that year as WWII debts were paid down.

Some folks point to FY2000 as the last so-called 'balanced budget' year. However, using the Treasury's annual accounting of total debt as a lie detector reveals that the debt still rose $18 Billion that year, meaning that 'off budget' spending still broke the balance.

 

I hope you limit "forever" to just a few decades.

The safest fuel efficient cars of my youth, even if still operating perfectly as new, now fall into the category of gas-guzzling, pollution-belching death traps. The bars for efficiency, emissions, and safety have moved very far in that time, and continue moving fast even now. In another decade or two, your old Prius should be retired for the benefit of yourself and the larger community.

 

No one remembers the “cash for clunkers” program?

Despite it being quite a success, it was not the most fair program (but what is) - but this one was punishing one group to benefit another. It basically rewarded those who chose gas guzzlers despite the many reasons why it’s a huge waste of energy to commute everyday in a Chevy Suburban, by yourself, without any cargo.

The program also removed many older more affordable used vehicles from the general population, like the young people & people experiencing tough times when looking for transportation and desperate. They’re almost all gone.

Next time you drive around - besides here and there, you almost never see a vehicle older than about the year 2000. They’re out there, but rare (and I don’t mean Corvettes driven by Dentists) I mean an actual vehicle used for transportation - like a 1996 Ford Explorer or something.

 

Before getting a Toyota hybrid four years ago I had a 1985 VW non-turbo diesel Golf. (With the exception of one year with a Nissan Leaf that didn't pan out, so five years ago.) That thing wasn't as safe as modern cars and belched big black billowing clouds of smoke, although it got fuel mileage compareable to my current cars.

I do kind of miss it though even though it was an old stinky rust bucket. It was easy to work on, fairly reliable and I knew the car inside and out. It was also much more fun to drive being a stick shift. I know the guy who has it now and he no longer wants it. I'm tempted to go pick it back up and sell the Toyotas with the way things are going.

 

Old VWs never die, they just rust away.