House Republicans propose to scrap $7,500 electric vehicle credit • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:14 PM UTC

NoPiece wrote: post #84

Cshelton wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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...

Right, they are talking about the situation where someone only owes $6,000 in taxes. They get a $6,000 tax credit.

So setting aside whether this is fair or unfair, people that owe more taxes clearly get a bigger benefit from the credit.

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

#92

Post by BinaryIdiot » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:15 PM UTC

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,…

To be fair if you keep the EV long enough then it will work out to be better for the environment.

Though I can't find a reliable number for how many years that actually is and I'm not sure if the average person who owns an EV would even keep it that long...

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

#93

Post by pdeuchler » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:15 PM UTC

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.

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

#94

Post by jpalmer » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

belltaco wrote: post #56

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…

>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…

> 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.

Using the carbon offset market, you could offset 760 Tonnes of CO2 with $7500. That's the carbon equivalent of driving an ICE for over 2 Million miles.

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

#95

Post by sumeno » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

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,…

But used cars eventually do have to be replaced, and in the long run it is better to replace them with electric vehicles. It may not be an immediate net benefit but new cars are being built either way and increasing the percentage of new cars that are electric is better in the long run unless Y in your equation is greater than X + the total amount of carbon produced by a internal combustion car across its lifetime.

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

#96

Post by koolba » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:17 PM UTC

evo_9 wrote: post #82

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…

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 enough for X miles so the Bolt wouldn't qualify (for all of it).

> Removing the EV Credit now makes no sense; perhaps a better approach is to limit the EV Credit to cars that cost under 50k; this would ensure the credit isn't used on luxury EV's and allow the market to continue to grow.

You also need a tax bill of at least $7,500 to take advantage of the full credit. If your tax bill is only $5,000 then that would be max you could get back.

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

#97

Post by BinaryIdiot » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:17 PM UTC

awinder wrote: post #12

ghouse wrote: post #2

And if they scrap oil subsidies too, the market can figure it all out. But looks like most direct and indirect O&G subsidies will remain.

~ rolls eyes ~ if you seriously believe the market magically deals with externalized costs

The market doesn't care about external costs, you're right.

One thing to keep in mind though is that we may be nearing the time in which the market could handle this because renewables are getting very cheap. I'm not sure if we're at the point where if you dropped all oil subsidies that renewables would be cheaper (maybe not? I haven't done the math) but we should be getting close if we're not already there. At that point the market could, in theory, move to the one with the higher profit margins while still not caring about external costs.

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

#98

Post by rukittenme » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:18 PM UTC

NoPiece wrote: post #84

Cshelton wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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.

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

#99

Post by rconti » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

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,…

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.

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

#100

Post by pdeuchler » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 6:19 PM UTC

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…

This also doesn't take into account that most of the energy used to power/charge these EV cars is coal based, which is orders of magnitude more dirty than burning gasoline.