Tax Credit Killed in 2020

  • Thread starter Thread starter RickSE
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 46
  • Views Views 8K
I think this is just an extension for Tesla and GM so far. Honda and others can still get the full $7500 up to 200,000 vehicles sold. I don't think there is a time window on that, just the quantity limitation. So the $7500 can go forward past 2020 or even 2021 or 2022 if the quantity limits aren't hit, I think.
 
Last edited:
RickSE said:
Looks like there won’t be an extension of the tax credits for electric vehicles going forward.
Click to expand...

Tesla and GM, the major US producers of electric cars, were hoping for a $7,000 tax credit extension for manufacturers who have produced more than 200,000 electric vehicles. Now, only vehicles from foreign companies qualify--until those long-promised US electric truck companies prove they're real. Actually, I believe there is still a reduced tax credit available for the Bolt until March.
 
insightman said:
Now, only vehicles from foreign companies qualify--until those long-promised US electric truck companies prove they're real. Actually, I believe there is still a reduced tax credit available for the Bolt until March.
Click to expand...
Don't forget Ford and FCA (Chrysler)! This chart is from July 2018. Also, you are correct about the March GM deadline.
July 2018.webp
 
RickSE said:
Looks like there won’t be an extension of the tax credits for electric vehicles going forward. Nice work from our President.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ecowatch.com/electric-car-tax-credit-trump-2641647250.amp.html
Click to expand...


Did you not read it? Why is it Trump's fault that the 250k limit isn't extended. It was designed by the previous administration. 250k Cars is a lot to get the jump start. It's that saying "you snooze you loose". I got the $7,500 credit to buy the Clarity but i personally don't think the tax credit is not a good way to "spend tax payers money".

1. the people that need the credit most (lower income family) would not quality to get the full $7,500 amount due to their income.
2. Luxury Car owners should not be able to get any credit. If you can afford a Tesla, you don't need the credit.

Just my thought. I'm thankful for the credit I got but I would still get the car regardless because i got it a 2018 Touring in 2019 for $28k. That's cheaper than an Accord.
 
RickSE said:
Looks like there won’t be an extension of the tax credits for electric vehicles going forward. Nice work from our President.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ecowatch.com/electric-car-tax-credit-trump-2641647250.amp.html
Click to expand...
According to news reports Tesla is now the largest (in assets) car company in the world... they should not be getting tax credits now. The cars that are coming out now and need to show what they can do need this tax credit and they are the ones getting it. https://www.barrons.com/articles/tesla-stock-gm-1950s-was-richer-51578510312
 
Let's not blame Trump for not extending the EV production credit for Tesla and GM.

If we look at the other manufacturers, Honda still has a long way to go before depleting the credits - for many years to come.

Honda has a good future, if they would continue production of new EV models...
 
Despite how things turned out and people’s opinions in it now let’s look at the original thinking of the credit. The intent of the credit was to help adoption of EVs & thus PHEVs cars because they were more expensive to buyers and not profitable to sellers therefore there was no incentive to make, sell, or purchase EV/PHEVs other than the compliance laws for that came later. The thought was to reevaluate after each manufacturer sold 200K cars under the credit. Obviously not all car makers created and sold cars at the same rate and adoption by buyers has been slow and inconsistent. I believe the hope was for greater advancement and adoption by now.
 
The Gadgeteer said:
Despite how things turned out and people’s opinions in it now let’s look at the original thinking of the credit. The intent of the credit was to help adoption of EVs & thus PHEVs cars because they were more expensive to buyers and not profitable to sellers therefore there was no incentive to make, sell, or purchase EV/PHEVs other than the compliance laws for that came later. The thought was to reevaluate after each manufacturer sold 200K cars under the credit. Obviously not all car makers created and sold cars at the same rate and adoption by buyers has been slow and inconsistent. I believe the hope was for greater advancement and adoption by now.
Click to expand...
Gasoline is dirt cheap, adjusted for inflation. There's little or no financial incentive for people to worry about this (and modern cars are more fuel efficient than before).
The summer of 1979 when I graduated from college, gasoline was a little over $1.00 per gallon (and I was being paid $8.24/hr as an entry-level engineer). When we bought our Prius in spring of 2012, the national average gas price was $3.85/gallon. Right now it's $2.61 in current dollars.
 
css28 said:
Gasoline is dirt cheap, adjusted for inflation. There's little or no financial incentive for people to worry about this (and modern cars are more fuel efficient than before).
The summer of 1979 when I graduated from college, gasoline was a little over $1.00 per gallon (and I was being paid $8.24/hr as an entry-level engineer). When we bought our Prius in spring of 2012, the national average gas price was $3.85/gallon. Right now it's $2.61 in current dollars.
Click to expand...
Unless you live in California where the only thing more expensive than gasoline is electricity.
 
Aaron said:
Unless you live in California where the only thing more expensive than gasoline is electricity.
Click to expand...

Maybe that is a good thing. The last thing you want is for shiftless to hop on their cars cruising and clogging the roads further.
 
I took advantage of the $7,500; but I dont think that it is right for the public to subsidize my purchase of a new vehicle.

If you believe that there are external costs paid for by society by burning gas (pollution, La's disappearing coastline, global warming, etc,) then tax gasoline more to pay those costs.

This could have the same effect of encouraging ev use by making the people who burn gas pay closer to the true cost of burning the gas. (This assumes that these external costs(if any) can be somewhat accurately calculated. )

I dont agree with the logic to subsidize evs. Giving people, who are wealthy enough to purchase new automobiles, a taxpayer subsidy doesn't seem like a wise use of tax dollars.

That being said it is extremely low on the list of poorly spent tax dollars. I just heard today on the radio that the city of Los Angeles spent $31 million to build housing for 60 houseless families.

Yep, 515k per family. That is an example of a much poorer spending decision by our Government.
 
Well said, Geor99.

We’ll be taking advantage of the federal credit as well as a $2500 state rebate. Like you, I’d rather not see a market, any market, based on incentives, but that is unlikely to happen and I don’t make the rules.

I will, however, play by the rules, especially when it works to my advantage. Any opportunity to recover money that has been taken from my earnings and spent foolishly elsewhere, will be seized. We did the same with a solar installation in 2012.
 
Geor99 said:
......
That being said it is extremely low on the list of poorly spent tax dollars. I just heard today on the radio that the city of Los Angeles spent $31 million to build housing for 60 houseless families.

Yep, 515k per family. That is an example of a much poorer spending decision by our Government.
Click to expand...

That was money voted by the city of LA residents who are paying for it thru bond monies.
But then the City of LA is a full on liberal, illegal immigrant laden, sanctuary city - one of many reasons I left years ago....
 
4sallypat said:
But then the City of LA is a full on liberal, illegal immigrant laden, sanctuary city - one of many reasons I left years ago...
Click to expand...

You’re in Orange County, correct? The entire state south of Sacramento meets your description and you are surrounded by sanctuary counties. Even Costa Mesa has gone to the dark side.

A few options, not too far away, would be:
Arizona, not recommended. Although Scottsdale feels like OC.
Utah, not a bad choice.
Montana, gets chilly in winter.
Texas, no income tax, humidity, yes.
 
Geor99 said:
That being said it is extremely low on the list of poorly spent tax dollars. I just heard today on the radio that the city of Los Angeles spent $31 million to build housing for 60 houseless families.

Yep, 515k per family. That is an example of a much poorer spending decision by our Government.
Click to expand...

The average cost of a single-family home in greater Los Angeles is $579,500. - so these 60 houses were a bargain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top