EV tax credits in Build Back Better Act - income limit?

[devmach-e]

The government is favoring certain manufacturers with the proposed legislation, by factoring in union status and manufacturing location. Do you think that the rules favoring GM are accidental?

GM isn’t the only auto manufacturer producing EVs built in Union shops. Last I looked the F-150 Lightning was going to be produced in a Union shop in the US. Nissan and VW could have their factories go Union and their cars could then qualify for the extra bump in the credit.

When the tax credit first came out some 10+ years ago, only a handful of manufacturers qualified, most notably GM, Tesla, and Toyota. Does that mean the legislation was written only for them?

Sponsored

 

[Mirak]

The amount of extra pollution incurred in producing the EV is essentially “erased” within the first year of the EV’s operation. Over the course of the EV’s operational lifetime it will have way less emissions than a comparable ICE powered vehicle, even in an area where the electricity is primarily sourced from coal burning plants. As the grid gets cleaner, the EVs emissions are reduced. An ICE powered vehicle only gets dirtier over time.

Define “pollution.” Are you referring to CO2? That’s what most of the “break even” studies I’ve seen refer to.

You’d be surprised how many people just kinda lump CO2 together with particulate air pollution. (Well, the EPA has been trying to do this for decades with the Clean Air Act). I think there is a robust scientific inquiry and debate to be had about the extent to which manmade CO2 emissions contribute to “climate change,” but people really shouldn’t lump CO2 in with particulate pollution. We exhale CO2 with every breath.

You want to talk air and water pollution, take a look at the places where they mine the REMs to make our EVs - those places are friggin’ filthy (not to mention the aforementioned slave labor and money to countries that are not our friends). And then the tar those cargo ships belch into the air and sea bringing all those components across the ocean.

Anybody who thinks they are helping the environment buying a shiny new EV…. The best thing to reduce pollution from an automotive standpoint would be to drive our existing (even ICE) cars as long as possible.

To bring things back to taxes, tax incentives for EVs are dumb because EVs aren’t significantly improving the environment, and even if they were, the tax incentives aren’t properly designed to maximize EV adoption. Which is why I don’t have a lot of sympathy for folks complaining about not getting a tax credit, especially when they try to wrap it up in an environmental justification.

Putting the environmental issue aside also allows us to agree on other reasons we all love EVs - they’re fun and fast and quiet and loaded with tech. But those aren’t reasons for special tax treatment. The Mach E is a luxury. It isn’t saving the planet.

 

[Fat Mach]

So when I can't hire painters without booking it out 6 months in advance because nobody wants to do the work, I guess the market is flooded?

A good painter is skilled labor. Simply pay more if you want it done sooner. Or are you just trying to exploit people?

$1.5M might be the median price for a house in San Francisco, but there are plenty of places in the Bay Area where a home can be be had for well under $1M. And you no longer need to have a 20% down payment these days.

As to who gets to decide who needs to get a tax credit for buying an EV, that clearly seems to be Congress. I’m not entirely sure what “A crooked socialism” means, though.

It grinds my gears when I constantly see the media crying about people not able to afford the median home price somewhere. My first house was waaaay below the median and was a good house. My current house is still below the median and is a great house on a couple acres. But, it's not so dramatic when you tell people there are entry level homes available.

 

[RedStallion]

The amount of extra pollution incurred in producing the EV is essentially “erased” within the first year of the EV’s operation. Over the course of the EV’s operational lifetime it will have way less emissions than a comparable ICE powered vehicle, even in an area where the electricity is primarily sourced from coal burning plants. As the grid gets cleaner, the EVs emissions are reduced. An ICE powered vehicle only gets dirtier over time.

The fallacy of this position comes from the assumption that CO2 is the pollutant. It's not, it's an essential ingredient of the ecosystem, and we currently live in the time of CO2 starvation (William Happer explains it well). So taking CO2 out of equation, the EV production creates a lot more pollution than any ICE vehicle.
Another fallacy is the assumption that electricity production will be somehow cleaner and better for environment with so called renewables. There is only one relatively clean reasonable source that is able to replace hydrocarbons for the next few decades, it's nuclear, but I don't see the renewable crowd embracing it. So, no, it's not going anywhere.

 

[RedStallion]

$1.5M might be the median price for a house in San Francisco, but there are plenty of places in the Bay Area where a home can be be had for well under $1M. And you no longer need to have a 20% down payment these days.

Really? You don't seem to know the market well to make such statements. Of course, you can find some small dog house for little money.
If you are not putting 20% down you will likely end up with the second mortgage, much more expensive and your income requirements will also increase as a result.

As to who gets to decide who needs to get a tax credit for buying an EV, that clearly seems to be Congress. I’m not entirely sure what “A crooked socialism” means, though.

What is your faith in Congress based on? It seem its approval ratings are even lower than the Resident. Where in the Constitution do you find the government tasked with subsidies and interference in the market operation? There are only two known systems where government goes close to 100% that way: communism and fascism, both grow from socialism.

 

[Timelessblur]

I know there are a lot of unknowns at this moment, but I find the income limit very confusing.
Putting a income limit will force those people affected by this to consider ICE because effectively they are penalized by up to $12,500 for switching to EV, I thought the intention is to have more people switching?

umm yeah the income limits are pretty high. If you are making that much the tax credit is not going to affect you that much.
I honestly would rather the tax credit go away as all they are doing is inflating their car prices by roughly the tax credit. I would rather that money be spent on building more charging stations.

 

[Timelessblur]

I believe that only considers propulsion energy.

Equivalent EVs generate generate more carbon in production and transportation to the end user than ICE counterparts, at least currently. The study I read cited the break-even point at about 18,000 miles of operation, after which the EV pulls ahead. I’ll see if I can find a link to it.

I think it does depend on the power source. I believe even on the worse power source (coal) the break even is at like 70k miles. It does depend on the power mix. I believe for most people 2-3 years it was passing the break even point.

You’d be surprised how many people just kinda lump CO2 together with particulate air pollution. (Well, the EPA has been trying to do this for decades with the Clean Air Act). I think there is a robust scientific inquiry and debate to be had about the extent to which manmade CO2 emissions contribute to “climate change,” but people really shouldn’t lump CO2 in with particulate pollution. We exhale CO2 with every breath.

That is not what they are referring to. It is more "new carbon" with only comes from burning fossil fuels. It was carbon that was previously trapped in the ground. the amount we breath out is not called new carbon.
There is no debate that we are doing manmade climate change. The question is how much. We do need to get off fossil fuels to renewables. It will take us a long time to get there but reducing our use of them would be very helpful. The hybrid cars out there we can buy are only 40% efficient at pulling the energy from the gas. Most cars we are talking about are closer to 20% efficient. At least poor running power plant that would put at at near 60% efficiency there by the time it gets to our homes. Energy losses after that still are going to put an EV well about the most efficient Hybrid we can buy.

 

[Draconfier]

Really? You don't seem to know the market well to make such statements. Of course, you can find some small dog house for little money.
If you are not putting 20% down you will likely end up with the second mortgage, much more expensive and your income requirements will also increase as a result.

What is your faith in Congress based on? It seem its approval ratings are even lower than the Resident. Where in the Constitution do you find the government tasked with subsidies and interference in the market operation? There are only two known systems where government goes close to 100% that way: communism and fascism, both grow from socialism.

This thread is about taxes and EV credits, not politics. If you are trying to derail a thread keep spouting your psuedo-science, not to mention your thinly veiled political dogma. Yes ev batteries are not great for the environment, but they can be re-purposed for clean sourced renewable energy storage. Fossil fueled vehicles don't just spew Co2 they have carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, particulates, etc. Then there's the Methane vented from drilling for oil. Let's talk about oil..just as bad for the environment when they have their spills from drilling, transportation via ship or pipeline, etc. Here's another read for you besides just the standard Co2 response.
https://www.transportenvironment.or...ars-when-it-comes-to-air-pollution-heres-why/

 

[Turbanator]

I still can't get over the post arguing luxury vehicles deserve tax credits by saying he's in the market for Audis and Volvos, not Hondas. Sounds like you need to live within your means.

The purpose of the tax credit is to subsidize EV purchases for those that otherwise can't afford to do so. If you're cross-shopping $60-70k cars, I think you don't need to worry about a tax cut. Of course, there are better ways to determine what's reasonable for a financial lifestyle than just income and vehicle price, especially given cost of living, but it's hard to think of one that's realistic to implement given the ability to enforce tax code.

 

[devmach-e]

Really? You don't seem to know the market well to make such statements. Of course, you can find some small dog house for little money.
If you are not putting 20% down you will likely end up with the second mortgage, much more expensive and your income requirements will also increase as a result.

I live in the Bay Area, and have owned a home for 22 years, so I am a wee bit familiar with the market and what it takes to buy a house. or refinance one to get rid of a second mortgage or PMI.

What is your faith in Congress based on? It seem its approval ratings are even lower than the Resident. Where in the Constitution do you find the government tasked with subsidies and interference in the market operation? There are only two known systems where government goes close to 100% that way: communism and fascism, both grow from socialism.

The US has been mostly socialist for nearly a century. Public schools, social security, Medicare, police and fire departments, things called roads, etc.

The interstate commerce clause gives the Federal government the authority to help regulate markets.

 

[Maquis]

I think it does depend on the power source. I believe even on the worse power source (coal) the break even is at like 70k miles. It does depend on the power mix. I believe for most people 2-3 years it was passing the break even point.

I don’t buy into the whole “power source” variations (unless one has their own solar setup).
We are all connected to the same grid (Texas could be a whole different discussion) which is (last time I checked) 19% coal generation.
If it makes somebody feel better to pay their utility a premium for greener power, have at it, but the electrons can’t tell where they came from.

 

[yngwenli]

I really hope Congress either approves or just has this BBB thing fail sooner rather than later. The last two pages of messages here debating one thing or the other just seems divisive and pointless, esp all the income stuff, people should just not care for credit/$$ since they are 'rich', etc.


Bottom line is people like $$ and like to save $$. Again, I noticed on the Porsche forums and people willing to order 135k+ - 200k cars from some random out of state dealer wanting to save a few thousand there too. Here, some aren't willing to pay a $2k markup on a GT PE...

Nothing wrong with people wanting to get a legal tax credit they qualify for no matter how many thousands/millions $$ they make/own. Foolish to not want a credit and sorta why rich people are that way honestly.


The US government/laws, I think we all agree is a total mess. There are subsidies for no shortage of anything and there is no quick 'fixing' any of it.

For me, this BBB does nothing for my order. I'd qualify on the old plan anyways and the new plan as well. I've stated before as well that I sorta actually don't want to see Tesla/GM get the credit again since it puts all the newer EV developers at a disadvantage (mostly vs. Tesla) so I rather throw those guys a bone and keep things as is, but that's just me.

As others have mentioned, once Ford loses the credit, they may lower the price anyways so it benefits everyone (GM did with the Bolt).

 

[Ride_the_lightning]

I still can't get over the post arguing luxury vehicles deserve tax credits by saying he's in the market for Audis and Volvos, not Hondas. Sounds like you need to live within your means.

The purpose of the tax credit is to subsidize EV purchases for those that otherwise can't afford to do so. If you're cross-shopping $60-70k cars, I think you don't need to worry about a tax cut. Of course, there are better ways to determine what's reasonable for a financial lifestyle than just income and vehicle price, especially given cost of living, but it's hard to think of one that's realistic to implement given the ability to enforce tax code.

I can afford the car without the tax credit. I can also afford to send you 15 grand as a gift, I’m just not going to. I assure you I live within my means just fine. I just have no interest in paying 15k more just to virtue signal that I drive an EV, and im tired of paying higher taxes AND being told to pay higher prices for things “because I can afford it.” The point is not to subsidize poor people to buy cars. The point was to being EVs closer to price parity with ICE cars. Why would I buy an ID4 that costs as much as an Audi? Why would I pay 12k more to save $600 a year in fuel? Wealthy people didn’t get rich by needlessly spending thousands more on things that don’t provide value. And let’s face it, me driving an EV won’t solve the climate crisis on its own, it only allows me to brag to my friends at parties that I’m doing more than them for the climate. If that’s worth $7500 to you then go for it. I’ll take a premium sound system or a contribution to my kids college fund.

If you want to give poor people money, just give them money. I support that. But I don’t want to be told every time I buy something that they have to look at my income tax return first to determine what the price will be.

 

[Scooby24]

What is your faith in Congress based on? It seem its approval ratings are even lower than the Resident. Where in the Constitution do you find the government tasked with subsidies and interference in the market operation? There are only two known systems where government goes close to 100% that way: communism and fascism, both grow from socialism.

Taxing Clause and Commerce Clause. They are defined powers of our congress.

"Whatever their motive and purpose, regulations of commerce which do not infringe some constitutional prohibition are within the plenary power conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause." US vs. Darby 1941 (referencing supreme court case over congressional powers with the New Deal)

Don't try to throw a boogeyman at this...this is the United States Constitution. A patriot would not try to undermine our history like this.

 

[Timelessblur]

I don’t buy into the whole “power source” variations (unless one has their own solar setup).
We are all connected to the same grid (Texas could be a whole different discussion) which is (last time I checked) 19% coal generation.
If it makes somebody feel better to pay their utility a premium for greener power, have at it, but the electrons can’t tell where they came from.

the entire power source various was based on different type of power for the grid. Coal only clearly being th worse. They broke it down by each type of power and if it was only that type what it would be. To figure it out for say Texas it is just do the math for the grid mixture in Texas. I believe the example I saw used Texas power mixture and works out to be around 3-4 years.

Sponsored