The idiots in Washington like to spend other people’s money. Even worse they are putting it on the next generation’s credit card.
The other issue is this is going to kill Tesla sales. Wouldn’t you rather hold out for the new tax credit rather than buy now???
So I was going to respond about global warming and how this spending is just a fraction of the unprecedented deficit bomb that was the Trump tax cut.
But yeah, this is just too much money for too little return. If congress wanted to promote electric cars they could spend a fraction of this and subsidize gas stations or other retail establishments installing level 2 or 3 chargers.
Let’s continue to kick this can down the road. Then, when the manufacturers sell 400k, the same issue will occur…phaseouts again, hurting those that hit the threshold. Round and round we go with no end in sight.
Meanwhile, the roads will continue to crumble with less and less gas tax money to fund repairs as EVs gain in popularity. That’s ok though…the little guy will pay for it with increased gas taxes because he doesn’t see anything he likes that’s currently being sold that is electric, or anything he’s willing to pay a premium for to drive.
Agree and one has to start somewhere. If we keep adding straws, the camel back will break for sure …
we cannot be like Norway and put $20k of Govt trunk money in every Tesla…
According to the chatter on Tesla forums if this bill passes (and they will put this in the same package as some no-brainer bipartisan bills), it will be applied to all 2019 purchases regardless of the day you bought in 2019 so no incentive for a potential buyer waiting to buy.
Love it - retroactive windfall welfare for poor tesla owners …
Still better use of federal tax money than building a wall
Oh no, you didn’t…
What if the wall … is a Tesla battery wall!
People will support that in no time.
I’ll preface my comments by saying I am biased as I’m in the industry…
The rebate does have (and always has had) real logic if you believe in benefits of moving the public towards EV vs. ICE (global warming, oil reliance, etc.). OEM’s are still at least 10 years (1 or 2 vehicle platform generations) away from reaching cost parity on EV vs. ICE. The industry will never get past the “R&D Hump” to where the public will buy EV’s for a price that OEM’s can maintain a profitable business without governmental assistance.
I do agree on infrastructure. A lot of work needs to be done here. On the flip side, why spend so much money on infrastructure that will be obsolete in 3 years? We should be waiting while charger technology also gets past the “R&D Hump” to where it makes more sense. It’d be like the people that bought new Iphones every year x 1,000,000.
This would still be far less money annually than tax subsidies for oil and gas in the United States - let alone pricing for the actual, measurable damage caused to the environment as a result of oil and gas.
My preference is that we go 0 subsidies for all - oil, gas, and EV. If that’s not going to happen, EV’s should be subsidized to level the playing field.
No it’s not. Last year the ev credit amounted to only 2.7B…the revenue for '19 is 3.7T.
CA will have an extra fee for evs at registration starting next year, other states already have one and many will follow. EVs are currently under 2% so not that much money lost there. Nice try creating imaginary problems.
Personally i have mixed feelings about this plan. A better approach would have been a general cap on all manufacturers and when that number is hit collectively then stop it. That way you keep Tesla and GM in the loop for their early efforts to promote evs and not give all your credits to the ones late at the party.
My solution would be a gas car tax that funds the ev credit. A zero sum game. The main goal here is to limit pollution and if you are from one of the big metro areas you know how bad it can get. This way if you are unable or unwilling to switch then you just pay to pollute.
That’s such a wilfully myopic way of looking at taxes and rebates.
Firstly, taxes are rarely generated from and spent just in the sector they’re related to, in this case transportation. Taxes basically go into a big pot and that money gets spent. America’s infrastructure funding was a mess long before PHEV rebates so conflating the issue is misleading.
Secondly, gas prices in most of the US are very low and are not normally used as a major taxation source, in the U.K. we pay 3-4 times more for gas due to direct taxation. The road and highway network, especially when you factor in policing, does not pay for itself directly so whether it’s a PHEV, an 18-wheeler or a jalopy none of them are paying for the whole amount the road network cost via their vehicle or fuel.
I drive an X5M too so if anything I should be on the other side of this debate. I’m happy whenever I see a PHEV as it makes me feel a little less guilty in my vehicle.
Since you brought up the PHEVs i just remembered a dumb problem Ca created…next year the plug in hybrids will be taxed x2. Once through the new ev registration fee and a second time through gas tax.
This is an extra 2.8 billion per car manufacturer. In long run will cost a lot more than 2.7 billion spent last year. Second, this isn’t the best way to spend the money. Electric infrastructure is more important. Electric cars are coming. At this point development will continue due to overseas demand whether the US government includes a huge subsidy or not. Increasing the electric infrastructure in America would be more useful at a fraction of the cost (think grants to utility companies to establish off peak charging programs, level two charging installation credits, tax credits to businesses for installation of chargers). Make no mistake, this is a giveaway to Tesla and GM. I’m all for electric cars but we need to spend the money in the most effective manner.
It’s not an imaginary problem unless EVs everywhere are taxed at least as a similarly 12k/yr average driver would with gas, while the gas driver also helps subsidize an EV with the federal tax rebates.
That said, at least some (yet not all) states are catching up and making it a more fair playing field.
I’d also agree with others that state infrastructure is a better solution than to continue giving handouts to early adopters to purchase an EV. Better infrastructure could potentially fuel more sales in states outside of CA where it is no where near as robust.
Nah…I don’t agree with this one at all, and I’m from a big metro area, but we’re all entitled to our opinions. This is government forcing you to buy a particular something. I don’t feel I should have to pay a tax to drive a gas engine when my city infrastructure is terrible along with the public transportation. Build more charging stations with that federal handout and entice me to switch, not penalize me for not doing so when the tech is still in its infancy and force me into a car more expensive and with much fewer model choices (none of which appeal to me at the moment for one reason or another) than a ICE.