Tax Credit Killed in 2020

Discussion in 'Clarity' started by RickSE, Jan 8, 2020.

To remove this ad click here.

  1. Geor99

    Geor99 Active Member

    I apologize. I wasn't trying to get political. I thought that it would be universally agreed upon that buying 1/2 million dollar homes for 60 families, while there are an estimated 60,000 homeless people in Los Angeles (costing a total of $31 million,) was a bonehead move.

    Perhaps I am wrong, and some see that as a wise move.

    I apologize for getting off of the topic of speculating on whether the ev credit will continue.
     
    Domenick and Kerbe like this.
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. Bender

    Bender Active Member

    I have to disagree with you both and point out a different way to at least look at it.

    Adoption of EVs could not have been the intent of the tax credit. Research and Development of EVs by necessity has to come before widespread adoption.

    R&D is very high for the initial units, and once you're up and running the incremental costs are much lower. That directly fits with the # of vehicles limited per manufacturer. It means every manufacturer is given a fairly equal amount of assistance in R&D costs, rather than it all going to whichever single manufacturer got up and running first (and/or advertised best first) and then could have established itself as a monopoly with no competition. IMO, it's much more effective to subsidize the small numbers of initially produced vehicles than to have added a really small increase in price to the vast numbers of existing vehicles if the goal is to get EVs fielded and ready to compete in the market.

    For a similar reason -- (just like is brought up with the Clarity) -- as these are the initial runs of vehicles, I don't think the low income people would be the best to subsidize these purchases. Aside from being viewed as a complete handout rather than a reduction in collected taxes... Do you really think low income are the best group to take on the additional risks? Higher repair costs, possibly higher insurance costs, etc, etc. Potentially longer repair times (as evidenced in these forums), more complicated and unusual features, the list goes on... IMO, incentivizing low income purchasers to take on these high risks is a terrible idea.

    As there were no competitive EV options, increasing taxes or damage recovery fees on gasoline would NOT have really done anything to encourage EV development. It would have just made people spend more on vehicles and/or gravitate to more fuel efficient ICE vehicles.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2020
  4. Kerbe

    Kerbe Well-Known Member

    Nobody said they were TRENDY! Shipping container homes are worth premium prices!
     
  5. Agzand

    Agzand Active Member

    It is a bonehead move. If you are wondering why these things happen, follow the money. Some contractor pocketed the money to build the houses, or some non-profit paid 6 figure salaries to a bunch of people.
     
  6. Wouldn’t it be more logical to subsidize the companies equally and directly to help offset their R&D costs? They could then, offer these cutting edge, technological marvels at competitive prices.

    When credits and incentives are offered to the consumer, widespread adoption of the product is being pushed at the retail level.

    One example, in Oregon, is that a $2500 rebate is available to buyers of EV’s in order to get more EV’s registered in the state.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2020
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. You could be on to something here.

    In the RV world, a phrase that is often heard is, “We spend a lot of money to live like a homeless person.”
     
    Domenick likes this.
  9. Geor99

    Geor99 Active Member

    What I find confusing about this ev credit is: why dont more people take advantage of it?

    It boggles my mind why there are not sub $21k Clarities (net after Fed and many State incentives) all over the place.
    You make some good points. Like I said before, the ev credit isn't the worst giveaway on the long list of Federal giveaways.
     
  10. su_A_ve

    su_A_ve Active Member

    Cause Honda dealers have no clue on how to sell them. Trying to educate the customers takes too long. They come in and ask for an Accord, so they just give them the keys to go test drive.
     
    Geor99 likes this.
  11. Ev050

    Ev050 New Member

    Honda EV’s? What? You mean PHEV’s


    Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs
     
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. insightman

    insightman Well-Known Member Subscriber

    I assume you drive a Honda that has a BEV sibling.

    When I get my electric MINI Cooper SE soon, I'm going to drive it to Honda's Ann Arbor R&D office before the employees come to work, find a parking place near the entrance to their employee lot, and stand next to my MINI with a sign, "Will Trade MINI Electric for Honda e."
     
    Domenick likes this.
  14. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    More proof that California's unapologetically liberal legislative agenda is working.
    ;)

    Fortunately, some of us -- and not just Californians -- still think that "liberal" isn't a dirty word.

     
  15. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    1. Honda has the Clarity Electric, which is a BEV.

    2. The "EV" in "PHEV" means exactly the same thing as the "EV" in "BEV".

    Great Flying Spaghetti Monster save us from "EV purists" who think only BEVs qualify as EVs!

     
    Pooky likes this.
  16. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Common sense says yes, but experience shows otherwise. In Europe, where some countries have given direct subsidies to auto makers for their PEVs (Plug-in EVs), this has resulted in those auto makers simply raising the price of those cars to offset the subsidy.

    It seems like a rather inefficient and roundabout approach to give the subsidy to the buyer of a plug-in EV rather than the manufacturer, but that was actually the best approach. The boneheaded one was to allot a specific amount to each individual auto maker, rather than putting it all into a pool and letting them take it out until it was gone.

    Most of the pool of money should have gone to reward the first movers, who have shouldered most of the R&D resource expenditures of bringing down the costs of making PEVs. As it is, the late comers will be rewarded even more than the first movers were.
    :eek: :rolleyes: :(
     
  17. Bender

    Bender Active Member

    Problem there is what is the completion milestone, and who will make the qualitative judgement that the milestones were reached? In retrospect, actually sold vehicles seems like a fairly elegant solution to this accountability.

    Agree with it or not, generally the idea is it's not in the public's interest to have a sole source available (monopoly). Similar logic is applied with government contracts for critical projects, where they may fund 2 or more competitors (at different costs) so that long term there will hopefully be competition keeping things in check.
     
  18. It would probably be the same government entity that devised the subsidy in the first place. That being the case, I would tend to agree that we would have a serious problem. The USG doesn’t have a very good record of making wise decisions, particularly where finances are involved. That’s not the only area and this isn’t a recent development.

    That said, a $7500 tax credit at the retail level, essentially allows a manufacturer to sell a vehicle for $7500 more than they might otherwise. Even at that inflated price point, it has been widely reported that manufacturers are losing money on these vehicles. So the R&D money is down the drain and they’re not even turning a profit on the vehicles with the new technology.

    All going according to plan.
     
  19. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    I agree, but I don't agree that having a pool of money (which would be a fixed amount) for incentives for making and selling EVs would be promoting a monopoly. Seems to me it would encourage competition among auto makers, to grab as much of that money as possible before (to mix metaphors) the well runs dry!

    And while that's only my opinion, I've seen the same opinion expressed rather frequently on EV forums by a large number of people.

     
  20. Geor99

    Geor99 Active Member

    I think that I get your point. It is like saying that Neil Degrass Tyson is an intelligent man, yet his admitted sexual harrassment (and alleged but unproven rape) of women was foolish.
    Sorry, thats my attempt at humor;)

    Let's let this end. I was just suggesting a softer tone in your opinions; but you are free to write whatever you want as far as Im concerned.
     
    4sallypat likes this.
  21. NocEdit

    NocEdit Member

    Anyone know when Turbo Tax will have the Energy efficient tax forms for the $7500 rebate? I was excited about doing my taxes since I got my W2 in this week... it alas... I can’t file. Because turbo tax says the rebate forms haven’t been finalized yet from the IRS.


    Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs
     
  22. Pushmi-Pullyu

    Pushmi-Pullyu Well-Known Member

    Yes, please. I was already planning on answering any further posts on this subject in this thread with an "I think I'll stand on what I've already said" comment. So on that, at least, we're in agreement. I think I've stated my position rather thoroughly, and it's all off-topic for an EV forum anyway.

     
  23. DucRider

    DucRider Well-Known Member

    The 2018 form was released by the IRS on 1/28/2019. Obviously no guarantee for the 2019 form, but a point of reference. I think TT was a week or two behind the IRS release to get it into the program.
    And it is not a "rebate". It is a non-refundable tax credit which means it doesn't roll over and if your tax liability is <$7500 you won't be able to fully utilize it - it does not mean you will not get a refund check.
     

Share This Page