Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 161 posts

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#101

Post by olympus »

rukittenme wrote: post #72
belltaco wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that is also assuming electric cars (in their current state) are less impactful than fossil fuel vehicles (which isn't the case) Is that true? Got a reference? The problem is that external costs like pollution are not being priced into the cost of ICE vehicles by, say, a pollution tax. This limited subsidy is a backhanded way of doing that. I don't see the issue with rich people benefiting from it, because it's exac…

Yes its true. I do not have a source handy so I'll have to rely on some other HN commenter to help me out. Basically the math works like this: An internal combustion cars cost X tons of carbon to produce. An an EV costs Y tons of carbon to produce. If you need a new car, it will probably require the same amount of carbon to produce an EV as a combustion car. But if you can drive a used car and extend its life 5, 10,…

Plus there's the environmental impact of strip-mining lithium for the batteries. This impacts hybrids as well as EVs.

Owning a Tesla (the current fad) or Prius (the previous fad) has long been about looking like you are environmentally conscious rather than actually being environmentally conscious. True lovers of mother nature ride the bus, train, or ride a bike.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#102

Post by fhood »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #77
Pfhreak wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah! Pollution is a local problem! Definitely address it at the city level. Can we go further? Why not just have specific individuals who care about this funding the subsidies? /s

Have you visited LA recently? Pollution is very much a local problem. Why do you think it's cities leading the way on gasoline engine bans? I have no problem with these bans, but cities that take them up should be providing the incentive for switching, not offloading their problems on the rest of the country.

Yes, some pollution is to a degree localized, but not all of it. Don't forget that LA residents aren't somehow polluting more than their counterparts. In fact I suspect they are polluting less. It's just that they are concentrated in one place. And once again reducing C02 emissions (probably the most pressing pollution issue of our time) is not localized.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#103

Post by dsfyu404ed »

vkou wrote: post #79
drofmij wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My fuel is already taxed - I pay about $0.59 tax per gallon in Virginia.

In Germany, you'd be paying $6.14 tax per gallon.

Ok, you get taxed more on fuel. Good for you.

There's starving kids in Africa. They have it worse than kids in the US but they aren't more than tangentially relevant to a discussion on hunger in the US.

Your European fuel taxes are of similar relevance to this discussion about fuel and transportation taxes/subsidies in the US.

6.14/gal a wonderful example of an amount of taxation I never want to see on a gallon of anything short of liquid cancer in the US. I'm convinced that we can reach a far more efficient way to implement carrots and sticks.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#104

Post by rconti »

Cshelton wrote: post #10

If we just eliminated subsidies in the oil & gas world, I can promise you the economy will move towards renewable extremely fast. Make it a phase out of two - four years..., it would boost sales of EV's and our entire transportation network much more quick than EV tax credits would, AND, it would be a fair market for once! It would spur innovation, create many jobs, we would lead the world once again in regards towar…

Of course, electric cars are typically charged via some kind of fossil fuel so to a certain extent they also benefit from these subsidies -- just not as much.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#105

Post by akhilcacharya »

dogruck wrote: post #29
smileysteve wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You eliminate deductions that only wealthier people benefit The Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt aren't particularly upper class cars. Neither is the Model 3.

Yes, those are cars for the wealthy. Most people cannot even afford a car. If they can, they’re probably not buying a new car. And, if they do buy a new car, they’re probably looking to spend close to $20,000.

My parents just spent a little over $20k on a Leaf. Not exactly a Bentley.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#106

Post by maxerickson »

rukittenme wrote: post #98
NoPiece wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Tax credits are subtracted not from taxable income, but directly from a person’s tax liability; they therefore reduce taxes dollar for dollar. As a result, credits have the same value for everyone who can claim their full value." http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/whats-differenc...

The poor don't have taxable income. You can only claim the credit if you itemize which is restricted to even higher tax brackets.

No need to itemize, it is reported on line 54 and offsets line 44:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

But lots of people don't end up paying $7500 in income taxes.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#107

Post by rconti »

mattbeckman wrote: post #20
meritt wrote: post #3

Curious if this would impact the yet-to-be-produced Tesla Model 3s or if it would only discourage future automakers from manufacturing EVs?

As a Model 3 reservation holder, I was under the assumption that getting the EV credit was not a guarantee.

It's not, but it won't be phased out until later in 2018 based on anticipated production volumes, and if no government action happens.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#108

Post by gnicholas »

rukittenme wrote: post #72
belltaco wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that is also assuming electric cars (in their current state) are less impactful than fossil fuel vehicles (which isn't the case) Is that true? Got a reference? The problem is that external costs like pollution are not being priced into the cost of ICE vehicles by, say, a pollution tax. This limited subsidy is a backhanded way of doing that. I don't see the issue with rich people benefiting from it, because it's exac…

Yes its true. I do not have a source handy so I'll have to rely on some other HN commenter to help me out. Basically the math works like this: An internal combustion cars cost X tons of carbon to produce. An an EV costs Y tons of carbon to produce. If you need a new car, it will probably require the same amount of carbon to produce an EV as a combustion car. But if you can drive a used car and extend its life 5, 10,…

One question is: what happens to the IC vehicles that don't get re-sold in their home country? Do they get shipped to other countries, or just junked? I live in the US and saw many older cars when I went to South America. Many were 25 or 35 years old.

So the question is what is the dynamic interplay between different markets for used IC vehicles? Should we be shipping 1995 Camrys to less-developed countries so they can junk their 1985 Camrys?

And then of course note that the 1995 Camrys probably get worse gas mileage than the 1985 Camrys because they have are heavier due to safety features....

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#109

Post by thomaskcr »

Cshelton wrote: post #76
ellyagg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the biggest specific subsidy of oil or gas right now that you know about?

When taking in account of direct and indirect subsidies, see this IMF report: http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew07... There are many other reports by many other groups... Also consider the costs of using tax payer money to pay for/subsidies infastructure/reasearch in the fossil fuel industry.

From that report:

> The bulk of energy subsidies in most countries are due to undercharging for domestic environmental damage

I understand it's an accepted part of the word subsidy but it always feels dishonest when people treat "lost revenue" and actual money given to industries the same and then combine them into a huge number that is 95% theoretical losses that are difficult to quantify.

Re: House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit

#110

Post by rukittenme »

rconti wrote: post #99
rukittenme wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes its true. I do not have a source handy so I'll have to rely on some other HN commenter to help me out. Basically the math works like this: An internal combustion cars cost X tons of carbon to produce. An an EV costs Y tons of carbon to produce. If you need a new car, it will probably require the same amount of carbon to produce an EV as a combustion car. But if you can drive a used car and extend its life 5, 10,…

So basically, your argument only works if you assume that the people buying EVs would have either kept on driving their old cars OR sold their old cars and replaced them with a used car? So now EVs are some kind of evil temptress? I think I can do without reading that source now.

> I think I can do without reading that source now.

This is crazy, man. I'm just saying it costs less carbon to keep a used car. I'm not accusing EVs of "being an evil temptress".

Post reply on HN