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

131–140 of 161 posts

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

#131

Post by kadenshep »

microcolonel wrote: post #69
kadenshep wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A considerable proportion of the revenue is quite literally diverted into forces intended to cause states to fail or stagnate. Yeah you're gonna need a credible source on that claim.

It's my understanding that, at their height, IS derived much of their revenue from captured oil assets. Note that I'm specifically not making the claim that all middle eastern oil revenue is tied to some terror group, but I'm pretty sure some of it is. Please do correct me if I am wrong.

That seems like a very specific and comparatively small time period that doesn't really stack up to the attempted scale of claiming that a considerable portion of revenue is used to destabilize middle east states.

It gave them plenty of funds for sure (and only for a limited time) but saying it's a significant enough portion to the point of lending credence to the claim being discussed? I have trouble buying that without a source.

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

#132

Post by bsder »

rukittenme wrote: post #37

I have a lot to say on this... > Critics say electric vehicle buyers tend to be wealthier than average Americans and do nod need subsidies. I love how this gets buried at the bottom after an avalanche of criticism. A free $7500 for the rich and an additional $7500 in revenue for manufacturers. Say what you want about the American political system, it is a master class in manipulation. "But the environment!" Assuming…

> It's all bullshit and I can't stand it anymore...

For those of us in Southern California, even if electric cars aren't "carbon neutral", they are still a win for two reasons.

1) Electric cars that are stopped don't burn energy. Now, with the new engines that can turn themselves off and on quickly, that's becoming less of an issue, but there is still some amount of idling in any combustion engine.

2) The pollution involved with electric cars is concentrated, industrial point-source. This is FAR easier to mitigate than the diffuse, individual pollution sources represented by combustion cars.

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

#133

Post by throwaway2016a »

Cshelton wrote: post #58
rukittenme wrote: post #37

I have a lot to say on this... > Critics say electric vehicle buyers tend to be wealthier than average Americans and do nod need subsidies. I love how this gets buried at the bottom after an avalanche of criticism. A free $7500 for the rich and an additional $7500 in revenue for manufacturers. Say what you want about the American political system, it is a master class in manipulation. "But the environment!" Assuming…

Also it is a tax credit.. meaning you only get the $7,500 if you actually owe at least $7,5000.. AFTER the standard deduction. Basically, anyone with under ~$100k annual income would not even receive the whole credit, if any at all.

It's actually close to $50k before you owe that much after standard deduction... $100k would be closer to $18k taxes.

Also, you don't need to take it all one year. Tax credits carry forward up to 10 years.[1]

[1] Disclaimer, I am not an accountant

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

#134

Post by rukittenme »

cptskippy wrote: post #115
rukittenme wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of the EV market is high-end, luxury vehicles. There is a 200k cap on the credit. Meaning mass market EVs do not receive the credit. It exclusively benefits low volume, high margin EVs. Which are exclusively marketed to the rich.

It is? As of the end of 2016 Tesla's cumulative sales were ~160k units. Nissan alone has produced over 300k of the Leaf. The Bolt exceeded the Model S in sales last month selling just under 3000 units.

Please re-read what I said:

> There is a 200k cap on the credit.

Meaning if you sell more than 200,000 cars you no longer get the credit. GM sold 10 million ICE cars in 2016. If they were all EV 9,800,000 would not have received the credit.

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

#135

Post by jameskilton »

koolba wrote: post #96
evo_9 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically this might have been true in the past when your only EV option was a Tesla; however the Chevy Bolt is selling like mad, the Chevy Volt continues to sell well and you have quite a few choices either out or coming to market in early 2018, including the VW E-Golf, Hyundai Ioniq, Kia Soul EV to name just a few that are under 30k. Removing the EV Credit now makes no sense; perhaps a better approach is to limit…

> Ironically this might have been true in the past when your only EV option was a Tesla; however the Chevy Bolt is selling like mad, the Chevy Volt continues to sell well and you have quite a few choices either out or coming to market in early 2018, including the VW E-Golf, Hyundai Ioniq, Kia Soul EV to name just a few that are under 30k. IIRC to get the full $7,500 it needs to be a full electric with a battery large…

Your first statement is not true. The tax credit is based on the size of the battery. The Volt qualifies for the full $7500 (which is one big reason I chose it over other hybrid options) as does the Bolt.

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-ins-and-outs-of-ele...

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

#136

Post by d1zzy »

I can provide one data point: I drive a 20 year old Honda Civic but I'm looking at getting another car (with automated shifting for spouse). With the $7500 federal tax credit + $2500 CA credit I was considering a Chevy Bolt. Now I'm about 99% certain I won't, I'll probably buy a Honda Civic, now that they went back to making hatchbacks.

I don't know about environmental impact (I bike to work 4 out of 5 weekdays) but that's one lost electrical vehicle purchase. I could have charged it at home for "free" (I have solar panels) but it's way too expensive without the credits.

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

#137

Post by matt4077 »

mythrwy wrote: post #117
Kyragem wrote: post #75

"Electric car buyers tend to be wealthier and don't need subsidies" If that is so why are republicans proposing to cut the estate taxes? hypocrites.

To be fair ceasing to take people's money and ceasing to give people free money isn't ideologically the same thing (even though both result in people having more money).

Since it's a tax credit, it was also never actually "given" to people.

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

#138

Post by smileysteve »

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.

> If they can, they’re probably not buying a new car.

While it's a subsidy; the benefits don't stop at the first purchase. As long as the subsidy continues, prices for used EVs will stay below prices of new EVs.

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

#139

Post by cptskippy »

dangoor wrote: post #125
cptskippy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How'd you come up with that number? The US accounts for 15% of emissions and personal transportation accounts for 1/5th of US emissions. That accounts for 3% annually.

Perhaps that accounts for our electricity generation being coal-based?

As of 2016 35% of our production came from Natural Gas vs 30% from Coal. So if anything we're natural gas based now.

That being said, I think you're on the right path as only 35% came from renewables (15%) or nuclear (20%).

So the 1% is accurate if the power generation remains static but renewables and nuclear are growth sectors. A bunch of reactors are allegedly coming online in the next decade. Wind and Solar are also growing quickly.

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

#140

Post by smileysteve »

antisthenes wrote: post #112
chk_ur_autism wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's not just about cost, but about driving a vehicle that doesn't directly contribute to diffused emissions? And use motor oil, hydraulic fluid, coolant, belts, etc?

If you're going to compare long term maintenance costs, you absolutely have to include the battery pack replacement cost. Otherwise you're being disingenuous or even deceptive. Many '11-'12 Leaf owners are already complaining about significantly reduced ranges on their vehicles. What happens after 60,000 miles if your battery starts rapidly going under 9 bars? Keep driving with terrible range anxiety? Plan your route…

> If you're going to compare long term maintenance costs, you absolutely have to include the battery pack replacement cost.

> Keep driving with terrible range anxiety?

If we're bringing all of this up; we must consider the reliability increase as well.

Post reply on HN