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

151–160 of 161 posts

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

#151

Post by r00fus »

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.

You get 100% of this credit passed on to you (cut right out of your negotiated amount) if you lease for 36mo. That's they way to get inexpensive electrics - lease and then keep it if you want it after 3 years.

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

#152

Post by r00fus »

pdeuchler wrote: post #93
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…

That will never happen though, since the biggest O&G subsidy is the fact that the global oil market is denominated in US Dollars which coincidentally also happens to be the source of almost all US soft power.

Unless the US faces an actual challenge globally from China and/or Russia.

One day we will wake up and the US Petrodollar will be the emperor's new clothes.

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

#153

Post by rusher81572 »

I love electric cars but I do not think it is fair for my money to be taken to subsidize a car for someone else. I had no say in the matter. The same goes with solar subsidies. If you want an electric car or solar, you should pay for it, not the taxpayer.

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

#154

Post by olympus »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #148
olympus wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Owning a Prius was about feeling good. Owning a Tesla, from what I can tell, is about operating a truly excellent vehicle that happens to be electric.

The Mercedes-Benz S-class is a better car than the Model S in many ways (not all). A lot of people could afford either but buy the Model S because it is electric, not just that it happens to be electric.

Just a quick thought from someone that actually went shopping and drove both: The MB S-class beats the Model S in terms of luxury feel. Hands down. The Model S is faster. And quieter. But it does not feel as good as a MB at all. Before you ask, no, I ended up buying neither. I bought a Subaru Forester and an airplane for the same money.

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

#155

Post by lostlogin »

SilasX wrote: post #51
lostlogin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a ballsy move to compare the oil and gas industries to health. There is plenty to criticise about the way the US healthcare system is run, but do people really begrudge treating the two industries differently?

Yes, I do begrudge the dickens out of people who insist that being able to deduct oil exploration costs is an unfair "subsidy" to oil and whose removal would instantly turbocharge renewables by itself. Letting companies deduct expenses like everyone else is not a subsidy. It's like it's become part of the common mythos, that US oil companies get massive cash subsidies that are the sole reason they're not beaten by re…

Do not think that some industries should be disincentivised and others incentivised?

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

#156

Post by lancewiggs »

gnicholas wrote: post #108
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,…

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 c…

2017 Camry: 40 MPG> for hybrid or 27mpg (2.5l) 2005 Camry: 25 MPG (2.4l) 1995 Camry: 23 MPG (2.2l)

Meanwhile the definition of "Camry" has changed - they are a lot larger, more powerful and more refined now. Note, for example the engine sizes going up as the MPG gets better.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml

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

#157

Post by dreamcompiler »

Tade0 wrote: post #146
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,…

> 5, 10, 15 years, you save all the carbon of producing the car (which is where the majority of the carbon cost comes from). False [0]. [0] https://group.renault.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/fluence... Page 91, Figure 49: "Comparing carbon footprint of EV and ICE vehicles". Up to 85% of the carbon footprint of a car comes from driving it. Heck, even a typical hybrid during its lifetime saves roughly 150% worth of i…

Yep. Completely false. The in-use phase of ICE cars belches so much carbon that the car's construction phase carbon can safely be ignored in a first approximation of impact. The reason construction phase carbon is important in an EV is that it can be the only carbon that matters. When an EV is recharged exclusively from renewable sources, as many are, the use phase carbon is effectively zero. Which makes the construction phase important to measure, but the total lifecycle carbon impact of an EV can still be orders of magnitude less than that of an ICEV.

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

#158

Post by dreamcompiler »

olympus wrote: post #101
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,…

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.

The carbon footprint of mining and refining oil for gasoline certainly dwarfs that of lithium mining. Partially because there are a lot more ICE cars than EVs now, but also because gasoline is needed repeatedly over the lifetime of the car, while lithium is mined only once per car.

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

#159

Post by Shivetya »

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…

I am going to receive 7500 dollars of your money, my money, and everyone's money, come January for a purchase I need no assistance in making.

how is that fair. I am taking it because it is there and financially it makes no sense not too.

this is pure gift to those well off. it has nothing to do about protecting the environment. it was a gift to GM initially and because a gift to not only the well off but any manufacture who wanted to take it.

it needs to die.

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

#160

Post by SilasX »

lostlogin wrote: post #155
SilasX wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I do begrudge the dickens out of people who insist that being able to deduct oil exploration costs is an unfair "subsidy" to oil and whose removal would instantly turbocharge renewables by itself. Letting companies deduct expenses like everyone else is not a subsidy. It's like it's become part of the common mythos, that US oil companies get massive cash subsidies that are the sole reason they're not beaten by re…

Do not think that some industries should be disincentivised and others incentivised?

I think specific activities, irrespective of industry, should have their external costs priced in.

I don't think that failure to do so the same thing as a cash subsidy.

Post reply on HN