Poll: Should the U.S. Government Provide Tax Credits to Plug-in Car Buyers?
When we first heard GM was planning to increase the price of intial Volts to more than $30,000, government subsidies in the form of tax credits was discussed as an option to lower cost.
Certainly tax credits have been a factor in the adoption of early hybrids such as the Prius.
We even heard directly from Congressman Jay Inslee on the status of tax credits for plug-ins and the fact that it didn’t pass the legislative chambers. GM sources I have spoken with have also indicated support for Volt tax credits.
From these discussions, it was interesting to hear the wide range of opinions of readers here on the pros and cons of this issue.
So it seems a reasonable idea to start a poll on whether you think the government should or should not offer a tax credit (not deduction) for buying a plug-in car like the Volt.
Which version of the Chevy Volt do you prefer the appearance of?
- The Production Version (48%)
- The Concept Version (40%)
- I prefer them both equally (11%)
Total Votes: 2,468
Loading ...Popularity: 3%
(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5) 
Loading ...
74 Responses to “Poll: Should the U.S. Government Provide Tax Credits to Plug-in Car Buyers?”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Project Better Place CEO Calls the Volt a Niche Product
- The Production Chevy Volt Has One Charging Port, and Unnamed Object Identified
- Video: 60 Minutes - Race For the Electric Car
- Chevy Orlando: Will This Become an E-Flex Microvan?
- Along With Wall Street Bailout, Plug-in Car Tax Credit is Passed: Chevy Volt Now $7500 Less
- Chevy Cruze Versus Honda Insight
- The Chevy Volt May Have a “Calculate Most Efficient Route” Navigation Mode
- GMs September Auto Sales Only Down 15.6% Beating Admittedly Low Expectations and all the Other Major Automakers
- Marketing: Will NASCAR Fans Want a Chevy Volt?
- EEStor Rides Again, This Time on a Bike
February 17th, 2008 at 12:39 am
Other levels of government should also participate in promoting electric transportation technology such as the Volt represents.
State should forgo yearly car taxes and cities the initial sales tax on the car. This could be for a set number of years, then revert back to normal collection practices.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:42 am
ABSOLUTELY!!! ….and the amount of the tax credit should be based strictly on the latest EPA estimate of the combined city/highway mileage. For example, if a typical parallel hybrid gets an EPA rating of 50mpg combined & a $3,000 tax credit and the Volt gets an EPA rating of 125mpg combined, the tax credit for the Volt should be 125/50 x $3,000 = $7,500!
February 17th, 2008 at 1:00 am
What about emission rating?
Focus on fuel consumption alone is asking for trouble. After all, some FULL hybrids are much dirtier than others.
And efficiency measure should take into account available battery-pack capacity, since estimates typically don’t reflect real-world results that well… especially if there will be a plug involved.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:01 am
The people that disagree with helping new EV (or green) technology are usually people with agendas to keep the status quo. For oil to remain king. Others feel the government should completely stay our lives (of course the tune changes when they are in trouble and need help). How can a sane person with no hidden agenda possibly think that the feeble EV (or green) industry has any chance in a fight with oil. Our oil infrastructure is completely built out and powerful people intend to make many more billions of dollars sucking the planet dry if necessary.
Sometimes just throwing money at a problem doesn’t help and most of it gets wasted. A good example of this is software design. More hands and minds can actually slow down the progress. However, in this case the more the better. Sure there will be a lot of waste and abuse but I figure that even if less than 50% of the funding is usefully engaged than that would be better than the tiny amount of money we are sprinkling at the problem right now. The way we are going it will take several decades to make a dent. There is even a real chance that the entire EV movement could once again be crushed. So, subsidies, tax credits, carbon taxes, military projects, university grants, venture capitalists, and even little Johnny breaking his piggy bank to help out are good things. Let’s open the spicket on this problem. How about the president gets up on TV and declares war on oil. Remember how fast we rebuilt the pacific fleet?
I’m actually at peace about the problem. I don’t think the world has a choice anymore. Humanity will either have to adopt new technology or start building up its armies in order to defend the remaining oil resources. I can see this happening as clear as if it were day. Kind of like two fat ladies eyeing the last bag of potato chips. You just know something is about to hit the fan.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:46 am
I totally agree with #3 - john1701a’s comment regarding emissions. I gather that rebates/tax incentives in Europe typically increase as C02 emissions decrease. I think that the same approach should apply in North America. The Canadian Vehicle Fuel Fuel Consumption Guide lists estimated C02 emissions (in kg/year) for 2006 (and more recent) model years.
February 17th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Much more should be done by the government in addition to tax credits. For example:
- free parking anywhere
- tax credit for car insurance for EV owners
- free charging ports (or coin-operated charging)
- no tolls
- free registration
- government money for R & D for EVs
- battery recycling programs
- educational ads about EVs
Of course, some of these types of government programs would be temporary, just enough to get a bunch of EVs on the road. The money spent would be well worth it.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:00 am
Tax breaks for EVs are BS.
EVs are just one small piece of the CO2 equation and the foreign oil equation.
If the government had some balls and really wanted to do something about the environment and our dependence on foreign oil, they would cut all our taxes and start a progressively increasing tax on gas and diesel.
Ask yourself this, which would you rather have. #1, a couple hundred thousand well-off people buying fancy new electric cars, or #2, hundreds of MILLIONS of people getting serious about carpooling, living closer to work, reducing unnecessary trips, … and thereby reducing traffic congestion and even further increasing driving efficiency… as soon as we see a real gas tax, we’ll start to see a real change in how people use (waste) gas and the Volt will more than pay for itself.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Perhaps the subsidy issue should be looked at from the perspective of the battery industry. That industry is over-looked for the most part. I think America needs to have a strong manufacturing base in this industry. Perhaps some think that fuelcells will in a few years replace — for the most part– the battery. Others say a car industry based on fuelcells is remote, if not impossible. I’m thinking we should commit to (lithium) batteries, with nanosilicon as strong of a possibility as fuelcells. I’d be curious to see a poll on that issue, too.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Tom #7
Or they could choose not to implement that silly tax, and encourage via a tax credit , purchases and proliferation of vehicles like the Volt. In life like anything else, we want to encourage, not discourage and your logic is nonexistent.
Why punish those barely making a living who have to get to work? Let’s be positive and take action that will foster rather than falter.
Ask yourself this, have the recent increases in the price of gas over the last few years encouraged frugality, carpooling or reduced congestion? The answer is of course “NO”. What makes you think that our “Uncle” of red white and blue fame adding to the cost
will do any better?
Let me guess….your middle, or last name is ….uh …Rodham isn’t it?
February 17th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Jeff, I’m betting people here would poll that around 90% or higher to go with batteries. Most of us think hydrogen will never fly commercially. If the nanowire silicon battery actually works then hydrogen is a non-issue. agree?
February 17th, 2008 at 5:47 am
My yes vote needs to be qualified. Federal tax credits should be based on amount above a mandated mileage standards schedule, somewhat similar to #2 post. The schedule would start at Say 35 MPG today and raise 5 MPG per year commencing 2 years later. The standard would be based on a maximum commute, e.g. 150 miles total with 40 miles city. This would greatly encourage stored energy (non-combustable) up to 150 mile range. The credit should be $200/mile above the current standard, thus today’s Prius would get about $2200 and about $6333 for the Volt. This would reward equally those manufactures that continue to innovate and it would be self-canceling.
Working class vehicles should not be left out. They should have a schedule based on shorter commutes and payload size.
The emission standards already in place for ICE are sufficient when coupled with the encouragement of stored noncombustible energy.
Tax credits are only half of the equation though. Plug-ins do no good for those who do not have access to a plug. With the same legislation, there should be Plug-in Outlet promotion. This is a very important piece of the puzzle that seems to often get overlooked. Not only will publicly available outlets make Plug-ins practical for all people, but they will also double the range for most commuters. All public, quasi-public, and government parking facilities should be mandated NOW to start planning for and adding plug-in outlets commencing in one year. There should be at least 10 for every 100 spaces in the most accesible locations. There should be a significant tax credit per outlet for the private sector to encourage employers, apartment owners, condo associations, restaurants, etc to install outlets.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Grizzly #9:
Okay, let’s talk about poor people. You seem to think a tax credit for EVs just gives Volt buyers free money, but the tax burden on society is still the same. So people in the upper class who can afford fancy new electric vehicles get a tax cut at the expense of whom… that’s right… everybody else. And that means poor people. Whereas what I’m proposing (income tax break + increasing gas tax) may actually reduce taxes for poor people, at least initially.
(And before you try to claim that the Volt isn’t for rich people, realize that the average sale price of a vehicle in the US is around $12k. There are a ton of people out there who can’t afford even the cheapest new cars, so basically this EV thing is a tax break for the rich. As if we need any more of those.)
As for your question about how increasing gas prices have affected Americans, I wonder if you actually know anything about the subject or just think you do. Because I have read several articles in newspapers and magazines about how increasing gas prices have done exactly what you claim they haven’t–at least increased frugality and carpooling. And there was an article in my local newspaper last year about how poor people in my area are getting to be in better shape because they’re driving less–they’re walking more, eating less fast food, cooking more at home, and consequently losing weight and becoming healthier, thanks to their desire to save gas money.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:30 am
My Yes vote needs to be qualified.
Where does all this money come from for tax credits? From all of us! If the survey had given me a choice, I would have voted for a tax cut rather than a tax credit!
February 17th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Tom #12, the same can be said for you. I wonder if you actually know anything about the subject or just think you do. Just because you have read several articles in newspapers and magazines about the effect of increased gas prices does not make you an expert. You can find just as many articles with the opposite viewpoint if you take the time and effort.
There are some who start with a viewpoint and look for those who support their position. Others start with an open mind and search for facts. You might try thinking for yourself instead of letting others do all the thinking for you.
Of course, the Volt will be over priced for some at the beginning. And, this might even include me if it is priced at $35k - $40k. But, the price of the Volt and other E-Rev vehicles will come down over time to where they will be affordable to the masses. When that happens, people will flock to the E-Rev vehicles and we DO NOT need a tax increase to make it happen.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Tom #12, could you please tell the rest of us where it is possible to buy a NEW vehicle in the US for $12k?
February 17th, 2008 at 8:28 am
If the car is American by all means do so. If the car is foreign, let that foreign country provide the tax credits. Our government is so stupid, there is no telling what they’ll do. If know last year they wrote an email to all their employees urging them to buy Japanese cars. We need to clean house in DC before they destroy this country!!
February 17th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Texas #11:
I agree. I can’t imagine the “Gov” letting the general public fool around with hydrogen. I agree with many of your other points too. GM has pretty-much stated that if the Government wants them to move faster, than tax relief is required. They aren’t going out on a limb without guarantees of support. It amazes me how practical GM is about all this. In my mind they total changed their image, as they say they want to do. I like the way GM handles labor relations also. Wagoner & Lutz undoubtedly see the light, and not a minute to soon. I wonder why GM doesn’t want into the battery business. I’m guessing they percieve it as just a “parts” business, in the long run. It makes you think that they are looking beyond batteries to other tech.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Estero,
No, I’m not an expert, but it seems like common sense that if gas prices change, driving behavior is going to change. And what I’ve read confirms that common sense. And if you disagree, the burden is on YOU to try to prove that driving behavior HASN’T changed. For your consideration, an extensive analysis from the Congressional Budget Office detailing the many, many ways that driving behavior has changed due to increased gas prices recently:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2008/02/effects-of-gaso.html
As for your question in comment #15, you’re making my point for me. Reread my statement and think about it for a few minutes.
February 17th, 2008 at 8:42 am
I think this subject hit a nerve. People are coming out of the woodwork! lol. I guess this is what it’s like at a political dinner party where both Democrats and Republicans are invited. No thanks!
February 17th, 2008 at 9:04 am
A tax credit allows people to keep their own money and use it towards something beneficial to society, whether familial, community, state or country.
Yes, the government should allow individuals or corporations other tax credits towards renewable energy development. I am against tax penalties of individuals / corporations that operate under previous / current laws - they should be grandfathered in, and encouraged by tax credits to do something else.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:09 am
With all our manufacturing leaving the US, I believe the tax credit should be adjusted by percentage of US built content. For instance Toyota builds many vehicles in the US but not the Prius. This would also discourage US manufacturers from producing these new vehicles in foreign countries. Ford and the Mexican Fusion for example. That might help get the necessary votes in congress for these credits
February 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am
#21, Kermit:
The US gives the Japanese sweetheart trading deals so they’ll allow our military presence in their country and buy billions of dollars worth of our weapons systems.
This won’t change anytime soon now that Ron Paul is more or less out of the presidential race. Our next best hope is that Obama can do something to cut down on our military-industrial complex and foreign occupations.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:18 am
#22, Tom,
Clearly, the military-industrial complex has served us all too well for knuckleheads like you to call for their dismantlement. What gains are you expecting for yourself, that you are willing to give up the security and happiness of future generations?
February 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am
According to edmunds.com, the average price of a used car is $13,900 And for 2006, they state that 44 million used cars were sold, compared to 17 million new cars.
The average price of a new car is now between $28,000 and $30,000, depending on which source you quote.
Those are just statements of fact, that are easy to pass along. As far as the rest of this thread:
It is my personal opinion that once you really believe that the government knows how to spend your money better and more efficiently than you do, the game is truly over.
Has everyone forgotten that the national debt is now approaching TEN TRILLION DOLLARS???? Yet everyone has their hand out asking for more. And the politicians, who want nothing more than to be re-elected, just keep spending and giving it away! It is just insane!
I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that the current system is not working.
Lets look at it this way:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Do you think we are living up to those promises? Are we securing the blessings of liberty to our posterity?
We have some hard decisions to make, and until we stop asking for someone else to take care of us, and unless “We The People” demand that these problems get fixed, things are only going to get worse.
Sorry to be the voice of doom and gloom, but us asking for money to buy a new car is no different than Exxon. And I don’t agree with that either…..
February 17th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Yes, but not at the expense of the deficit. Let me clarify: The Government should increase the fuel tax by a small amount in order to find the funds to offer incentatives for plugs and EV’s. Likewise, this increased fuel tax should also be aplied to very fuel effiecient vehicles, 60% or more made in the US, that meet the future CAFE standards. $0.05 per gallon would easily raise the money needed.
Furthermore — states should consider raising sales taxs on non-fuel efficient vehicles and lowering the sales tax on very fuel efficient vehicles. This would have an even more profound effect because it is felt at the register at the time of purchase. States should consider making tags free for very fuel efficient vehicles.
But this all has to be paid for — a few pennies on a gallon would do the trick.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Wow, I repeated #1 almost vebatum — should have read the comments first.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:57 am
#12 - Tom,
The average price of a new vehicle in the United States toped $30,000 about 5-7 years ago. I don’t know what it is today, but we’re talking about new vehicles, not all vehicles.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:06 am
#16 - correct — the car has to be made in the US (I suggest 60% content.) You could even qualify the rebate based on US content, and EPA mileage. For instance, $100 per 1 mpg above 35 times % of US content.
Volt at 125mpg and 90% US content would get ((125-35)*$100)*.9 =$8,100.
Prius plug at 75mpg and 20% US content would get ((75-35)*$100)*.2 =$800.
Civic Hybrid at 50mpg and 90% US content would get ((50-35)*100)*.9=$1,200.
This would really increase the incentative for Toyota and others to improve US content on these cars. The prius could dramatically improve it’s percent domestic by simply waiting until it got to the US and putting US batteries into the car. The battery equates to 10% content.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:10 am
#24, Jim I,
The question wasn’t about asking the government to give us someone else’s money to buy a car, but to allow us to keep OUR own money to use towards a societal good, not just ANY new car.
I am against any government giving away money to subsidize vehicles, but support governments who let you keep your money, as long as you are using it towards a societal good (charity or otherwise).
February 17th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Sometimes these posts sicken me.
America has no money. It’s in a recession. There are jobs, 10 percent will lose/have lost their house by the end of ‘08. America has already borrowed so much money it’s dollar is worth half what it used to be. Lets spend billions more! Huzzah!
How about we do it like your mother used to do when you did something bad…you got a spanking! She didn’t bribe you with cash to do the right thing.
SIN TAX! Go ahead tell me it doesn’t work.
Put a 25 cent additional tax on gas every year until 80 percent of vehicles sold are electric/zero emissions. Bang…problem fixed, and it gives everyone time to adjust.
Of course most won’t like that, because they like instant gratification. Free electric car please!
How about trying to make your congressman/public official responsible for once? What happened to doing something for your country?
February 17th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Dang I wish I could edit here. “There are jobs?” hehe… I meant “There are jobs, but they are low wage now”
February 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Well said, Jim I #24!
February 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I still believe any tax credits for efficient vehicles should be apportioned according to their percentage of US built content. That would keep the money circulating in the US as well as helping to support our industry. If we keep the technology and factories in the US we can sell the products abroad and help do something about our soaring trade deficit. What good does it do to trade a dependency on foreign oil for one on foreign produced energy efficient cars? We Might be dependent on friendlier countries but we would still be dependent. That said I do drive a Toyota, a Matrix made in the US which replaced the undependable Mercury made in Mexico.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I can hardly believe some of the comments I’m reading in this forum. Jason M. Hendler #28 is but a single example. He said:
“The question wasn’t about asking the government to give us someone else’s money to buy a car, but to allow us to keep OUR own money to use towards a societal good, not just ANY new car.
I am against any government giving away money to subsidize vehicles, but support governments who let you keep your money, as long as you are using it towards a societal good (charity or otherwise).”
What is this crap “to allow us to keep OUR own money to use towards a societal good, not just ANY new car.” ?
Just who is it in your mind that determines “societal good”. Is that you? Is it some bureaucrat in Washington? Who? Whatever happened to the concept of personal freedoms?
February 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
OT:
Goverment should stay out of personal lives:
1)You can smoke if you want too.
But you can’t smoke in public.
2)You can have any kind of sex.
But you can’t have an abortion.
3)You can own a polluting car.
But you can’t pollute public air.
I don’t think there should be any National Debt, let alone 10 trillion. But that has nothing to do with regulating society to common values. The biggest problem is corporate America and lobbiest. Average tax payers are ignored by the Federal Gov. AARP has a voice, but retirees, you guessed it. Just look at the “sub prime loan scandal”, that pretty-much sums it up. eom
February 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
#24 - I’m as free market as they get, but I know a disaster brewing when I see one. In this type of situation, I expect the government to put on it’s big boy pants and do the hard, but right thing — manage our progression to energy independance and environmental improvement. That means, “spank” like #30 said, and give an ice cream cone when the right thing is done. That’s all they have.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I think the taxes we collect from the pump should be applied to the national debt. If they would raise the gas tax, say a 5 cents, that would be a BIG help, though it would take time.
My dad has a used car dealership, we’re in a community of 50,000. He’s been in business for 35 years. Now the scary part is, he’s been selling more cars under $3000 than ALL the new car dealerships here in town been selling new or used cars combined!!! In fact, we have been all over looking for inventory, we can’t keep good chap cars around!
What is all my rambling really about? 95% of the clients can’t afford to purchase a $15k piece of junk Hyundai, or Kia….. Even IF they made a new $10K car, there are people so broke who simple can’t afford them! I see this on a daily basis, it’s really sad, but what are we to do? A good portion is either on Disability, or SSI..
February 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
#32 Kermit and others are starting to talk about one of the real problems in this country — manufacturing jobs!
Many jobs have left this country for a variety of reasons, but the biggest single factor is “cost”. When you have a situation where U.S. salaries are +/- $30/hour and they are +/- $1.00 per day in other countries, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize why jobs are going elsewhere.
The government needs to somehow create an equal playing field the best it can, reduce taxes, etc. and then get the heck out of the way so the entrepreneurs of this country can bring those jobs home.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Grizzly, Wasn’t it you that told me not to feed the trolls? And besides that, Obama is even FARTHER left than Billery.
I DO like Brian’s list of “perks”. They are the kinds of public displays that “motivate” Joe Sixpack, or at least get his attention.
If we let capitolism take it’s course, Big Oil will WILLINGLY get into the battery investment end of things (for profit, not conspiritorial euthanasia, Tom). Oops
God Bless even the Athieists
February 17th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Adam #35 said: “I think the taxes we collect from the pump should be applied to the national debt. If they would raise the gas tax, say a 5 cents, that would be a BIG help, though it would take time.”
While the concept may have merit on the surface, it does not stand up under close scrutiny! When is the last time the government imposed a tax and then used it for the intended purpose? They failed on that score with the highway trust fund, the toll roads, Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc., etc.; the list is endless.
I agree we have to somehow pay off that #10 Trillion debt, but a gas tax is not the answer. I heard a report just the other day that indicated 32% of the budget goes to pay for entitlement programs. I can’t say if that report is accurate or not, but if it is then something needs to be done to reduce those entitlements. A reduction of just 5%, when combined with a tax decrease, would go a lot further towards paying off the national debt than any gas tax!
February 17th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Well said #39 Tagamet!
February 17th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
For those that are against tax credits for Plug-ins because they solely “handouts” from government, I believe you are missing important parts of the picture. The most important being that the government currently spends a tremendous amount on development of specific alternative energy technologies (e.g. Hydrogen, ethonol, etc), strategic oil reserve, oil exploration incentives, etc. This is even without the cost of maintaining stability in oil rich regions. Incentives for plugin-ins as proposed by many here and by myself in #11 would much less costly than our current solutions to energy problems. I especially think an incentive for plug-ins based on their ability to reduce combustion is particularly important. This is a technology nuetral incentive that should replace some technology specific government programs. Also, I fiercely believe oil reducing or elliminating oil incentives should also help fund plug-in incentives. Strategically it makes a lot more sense to hold onto as much of our own oil reserves for a raining day rather than chugging it down with incentivized low gas prices today. Oh, and by the way we just happen to get some nice environmental benefits along with the plug-ins. I know global warming is a contentious issue for many, but is there anyone that denies the local environmental impact of conventional ICE cars (i.e. smog and break dust).
I am certainly skeptical of consider plug-in incentives as means for individuals to keep their own money for society good. The rationalization should start and stop with the reduction of onboard combustion as a means to power personal transportation and all of the associated benefits.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
#37 Adam
“95% of the clients can’t afford to purchase a $15k piece of junk Hyundai, or Kia….. Even IF they made a new $10K car, there are people so broke who simple can’t afford them! I see this on a daily basis, it’s really sad, but what are we to do?”
I imagine the first generation Priuses are working their way down to those markets now. The sooner Volts and other plug-ins get on the road, the sooner they will make it to the retail market. In the mean time, expensive gasoline would be the best motivator for people in this market to drive less and/or choose more efficient vehicles. Personally, I agree with stepping up gas taxes on a carefully scheduled basis (albeit offset by a mandated corresponding decrease in taxes in another related area), but this is a separate topic from plug-in tax credits.
February 17th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
GM is a loser and should get such tinhg
February 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
“the sooner they will make it to the retail market”
My bad, this was supposed to read: the sooner they will make it to the RESALE market
February 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
http://www.rotor.com/Default.aspx?tabid=510&newsid905=57820
“The House bill also has a $1.3 billion provision that creates a credit of at least $4,000 for taxpayers that purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles” but “To raise $13.6 billion over 10 years, the measure would take away the largest oil and gas companies’ ability to claim a deduction originally designed for domestic manufacturers” which makes it unlikely to pass, especially as a contentious Texas primary approaches.
Anyway. I’d propose a sliding scale tax/tax credit system. Least fuel effiicent/total GHG emission vehicles in their class pay extra tax up to a punishing guzzler tax, middle third the usual, most fuel efficient get the biggest tax credit up to an impressive reward - whether its by being EV, EREV, PHEV, HEV, diesel, or whathaveyou. Size of tax/credit correlated with some hybrid measure of amount of petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions avoided by the average fleet user. Not an increased gas tax which hits the least able to afford it the worst. This proposal would be designed to be budget neutral and ongoing.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Until we realize that the government isn’t the right vehicle for social change and reduce it to it’s proper size, we should support any tax credit that we can get.
February 17th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
BigRed, do you really view a reduction in the dependence on foreign oil and the transition to an electric/non-combustive drivetrain as a social change issue?
Some see it as a national security, economical energy, environmental, and more desirable transportation issue.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
The Republican controlled Congress was able to provide me with a $3150 tax credit for my ’05 Prius. I traded in a Civic and went from about 30 mpg to about 48 mpg.
I would think the Democrat controlled Congress could get me at least a $5000 credit for trading my other car, 26 mpg, on a 200 or better mpg Volt.
February 17th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
#23, Jason Hendler:
Ha, exactly how has the military-industrial complex helped us? It didn’t win WWII. Or any other war. Our fancy stealth jets and spy satellites didn’t do s*** to prevent 9/11. And how is the Pentagon making the world any safer by selling billions of dollars of weapons to any country that will by them, including China and most recently Saudi Arabia (where the 9/11 hijackers were from)? I guess it makes you really secure and happy that we’re arming the s*** out of human rights violators and terrorists. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
#27, Wise Golden:
No, go read my original post. I said average vehicle sale price. I was never talking about new vehicles. And if you bothered to read all of my post instead of a statistic you assumed was wrong, you’d realize that this is my point. Most people will not be able to afford a new Volt, which means any tax break on the Volt is basically a tax break for the rich. I wonder how the survey would look if Lyle asked, “Are you in favor of yet another tax break for the rich?”
February 17th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
If the Volt can’t get off the ground, or is not competitive with foreign equivalents, then an inducement to buy American until our engineers can finish their research and development for such a car would not only a good idea, it would be imperative from the point of view of promoting energy independence, it would be in the national interest. But long term the US manufacturers must step up and make a whole family of first class plug ins and alternatives.
February 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I am retired and pay less than $3000 in federal taxes per year. The tax break will not help any one who is retired. I would have to pay full price for the Volt. Give the $3000 or $4000 tax break directly GM and reduce the price of the Volt by that amount.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
#50, tax break for the rich…that says it all. Now I know who you are — you’re a “rich hater.”
You don’t understand how tax credits work — anybody can get them, even the poor. If your point is that the poor wont buy the car and therefore only the rich will get the break, I’d ask what you consider rich. And furthermore, seeing that only the rich pay taxes (the poor do not pay taxes,) why should the rich be excluded from tax breaks.
Rich means different things to different people. To the Democrats, it means $75,000 per year (I don’t call that rich.) To the Republicans it means $3-400,000 per year (that’s doing pretty well.) Be careful what you wish upon the rich because depending on who is in office, you might find yourself being one of them.
February 17th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
#52 - by this point in your life, you should understand how taxes work. A credit applys beyond the burden of your taxes owed. If you pay $3000 per year and you get a $8,000 credit, the goverment is going to send you $5000 (the remaining net.) That’s why poor people don’t pay taxes, but most of them don’t even realize it (they think that they do pay taxes.) Credits pile up and wipe out the tax burden.
That said, you’re right. They should just allow the credit to be used at the register.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
We’re dependent on foreign oil that comes from the countries sponsoring terrorism against us. Sooner or later we have to switch off oil. The Volt allows us to begin to do that with an American made GM product. Not some imported oil guzzler that takes money out of America first to the car company that makes the car and then to the oil sheiks that fuel it. They’re the ones laughing all the way to the bank while America goes broke. The Volt will be the patriotic car to buy. With luck the feds will give us a tax credit (on our own taxes, not taking money from somebody else’s pocket), the states and localities will give us a break on sales taxes, and people who see us driving them will say “I gotta get one of those. I’m sick of giving my money to OPEC nations so I can drive.”
The fact is that any new technology needs a starting point. Volt is it. The early adopters deserve support, because without them the Volt will never catch on and America will be broke and out of gas. With them America can start a turnaround that will eventually support cheap EVs. You gotta start somewhere.
February 17th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Tom # 53, “The fact is that any new technology needs a starting point. Volt is it. The early adopters deserve support, because without them the Volt will never catch on and America will be broke and out of gas. With them America can start a turnaround that will eventually support cheap EVs. You gotta start somewhere.”
Agreed. Hopefully the government will help, but also GM. Our country really needs this, along with the rest of the free world. But we need this in mass. The car needs to be affordable, reliable, and priced so the masses can buy it. That is why I am disappointed in the $35K price. Not everyone can afford a car at that price. The government can piss away money like no one else can. The tax credit will actually go towards a good thing, not a wasteful thing.
But you said something above that I don’t understand. You said our military-industrial complex did not win WWII. If not, what/who did?
February 17th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“Anyway. I’d propose a sliding scale tax/tax credit system. Least fuel effiicent/total GHG emission vehicles in their class pay extra tax up to a punishing guzzler tax, middle third the usual, most fuel efficient get the biggest tax credit up to an impressive reward - whether its by being EV, EREV, PHEV, HEV, diesel, or whathaveyou. Size of tax/credit correlated with some hybrid measure of amount of petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions avoided by the average fleet user. Not an increased gas tax which hits the least able to afford it the worst. This proposal would be designed to be budget neutral and ongoing.”
That’s exactly how they do it here in Canada (and Ontario)
If you have a gas guzzling car, you pay up to $3000 i believe.
If you buy the efficient car, you get a rebate amount up to $2000 i believe + another rebate up to $2000.
My numbers are probably wrong, but we have both a federal and a provincial rebate.
When you are all saying tax credit, you mean just that, right? a credit for your taxes?
We actually get cash back (the amounts mentioned above)
Federal EcoAuto program gives you up to $2000 (thats the current value for a prius. If revised to include vehicles like the volt, it may rise even more.)
and the province of Ontario has:
“A rebate of the 8% RST paid on vehicles powered by alternative fuels, including RST paid on any conversion costs, is limited to:
* $750 for propane vehicles
* $1,000 for vehicles powered by any other alternative fuel
* $1,000 for HEVs delivered to purchasers after May 9, 2001 and before March 24, 2006
* $2,000 for HEVs delivered to purchasers after March 23, 2006 and before April 1, 2012.”
So even if the numbers don’t change by 2011, Anyone in ontario would get $4000 back within a short time.
here’s the list of vehicles under the ‘tax for fuel conservation’
http://www.rev.gov.on.ca/english/guides/tffc/2008.html
February 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
“I’m actually at peace about the problem. I don’t think the world has a choice anymore. Humanity will either have to adopt new technology or start building up its armies in order to defend the remaining oil resources…”
I have to agree with Texas #4 and add the following:
- War (from disputes over the world’s remaining oil reserves)
- Global Warming-related disasters (from oil-related co2)
- Economic Collapse ($350billion+ each year being sucked out of the U.S. economy to buy foreign oil)
- The ending of America as a world Superpower (wars over oil and the maintenance of our global empire is becoming too expensive to maintain)
I don’t mean to sound alarmist, but a reliance on oil as one of our main energy sources will enevitably lead to all of these things.
$1billion spent per year on tax credits for plug-ins will be a drop in the bucket to what is to come if we do not act now. Either way, it is ultimately up to us. We will either sink or swim.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Rashid,
Interestingly, the term, “military industrial complex” was coined by Eisenhower in his farewell address and was a warning to future generations about unchecked military growth. It has come to represent an entrenched, bureaucratic, inefficient, expensive and some would say, corrupt military system. It came about after WWII and is largely due to the Cold War. I would contend that it was probably inevitable result of an unseen war that we had to “fight.”
But it is naive to think that there wasn’t something akin to a “MIC” during World War II. What took place was enormous and very bureaucratic, but it worked.
February 17th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Matt from Mich, #57
“But it is naive to think that there wasn’t something akin to a “MIC” during World War II. What took place was enormous and very bureaucratic, but it worked.”
Ya, that was the point of my question. Our military, our industry, our men and women who served, along with our government who funded it, contributed to us winning WWII. If this is our “military industrial complex”, then so be it.
February 17th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Tag #39
Yes I believe it was. Unfortunately I’m just as guilty. The problem is sometimes the doorbell rings and you’ve got someone holding open a bag saying “trick or treat” and you just can’t lift up that mask to be absolutely sure. I’ve got to be more careful or I’m likely to drop a mini snickers bar into Hill-Billy’s nationalized health care bag.
BTW, it’s been a couple weeks and I’m starting to wonder about iron phosphate. Anyone else curious how the A123 torture test is going?
February 17th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
From a company perspective, I would like to see the battery declared a “consumable item” for tax purposes.
This means the cost can be written off in the year of purchase, and we only have to buy/lease the remainder of the vehicle.
After 3-5 years the whole car will become available to the resale market. At which point the tax position will balance out, IE revenue neutral.
Doing this alone would make a HUGE difference to corporate uptake.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Rashid #56
Agreed. What it boils down to is that our market economy is far from perfect. While we’d like as little Gov’t intervention as possible, the fact is, that in it’s absence, our economy couldn’t function. The reason is that we’d have corruption and monopolization to where it would no longer work.
The nice thing about a tax credit is that it’s really not “regulation”, it’s encouragement. The Ca. EV mandate of 96 was regulation and it didn’t work. It mandated that EVs be build or else….no car sales in the 5th largest GNP on earth. It isn’t difficult to understand how all the auto manufacturers “played” the game to get by. GM unfairly bore the brunt of scorn probably due to the film, but it did nothing the others didn’t, including the crushing.
If our Gov’t is serious about energy independence it needs to encourage the manufacture and purchase of cars like the Volt that are produced by private companies. Again, one of the imperfections of our market economy is that often products that should be produced aren’t for any number of reasons. It is well within good Government to do what it can to encourage that they are.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
#60, Rashiid:
The problem is that there are two Toms posting now. I’m the one who claimed the military industrial complex didn’t win WWII. Matt was correct with his explanation.
I’m all for having a kickass military and winning wars like WWII. But our military, our Pentagon, our arms industry, and our “intelligence” agencies are seriously out of control. We spend almost 10 times as much on our military as the next biggest spender. We sell $8B of weapons per year to anybody who will buy them–much more than any other country. We currently have military bases and troops in 63 (!!?) foreign countries. etc.
We are told by our government and our media that we are a peace-loving nation and that it’s necessary for us to “police the world” and that other countries appreciate us for it.
If you’re a “red stater” you probably think I’m a liberal lunatic for saying anything negative about the Pentagon but I’ve traveled around the world and I’ve seen the bases and I’ve talked with the people, and other countries are _scared_ of us. They think the US is a bigger threat to their safety than Iran or North Korea, if you can imagine. They SEE that we keep expanding our military operations and fueling arms races with these countries.
I would not have believed it if I hadn’t seen it with my own two eyes. If you are in a position to travel around, please do so and find out how the rest of the world thinks of us in 2008. If not, I highly suggest reading a book called “Blowback” by Chalmers Johnson. In fact, you can start reading it online right now via Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?q=blowback&btnG=Search+Books
February 18th, 2008 at 12:01 am
From the GCC article on ‘To PHEV or not to PHEV’
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/to-phev-or-not.html#more
It would seem, at least in California, that subsidy’s are underway. Note the ten mile minimum.
“In the more immediate term, the $1.6M Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program (AFVIP) provides grants of up to $5,000 to qualified individuals, businesses, public agencies and entities, and non-profit organizations that purchase or lease an eligible AFV. PHEV drivers will receive the full $5,000, although the PHEV must be ARB-certified and have at least a 10-mile equivalent all-electric range. PHEVs are the only flexible-fuel vehicle that qualify; conventional hybrids do not.
California’s AB 118, signed into law in October 2007, is a seven-year program funded by vehicle license fees that will provide around $205 million each year to be applied in clean air, fuel and vehicle technology.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am
The government gave Toyota and Honda big incentives with $3,000-$4,000 tax credits on hybrids. (Which really only get a few extra mpg over similar vehicles.)
They better give at least that much for a vehicle that is far better at changing the ‘dependence game’ and produced by a U.S. company.
It be totally bogus if they didn’t…
February 18th, 2008 at 11:41 am
nasaman, #2:
Amen
Tom, #22:
Amen. Stick with it brother, you are dead right.
Tom, #64:
Chalmers Johnson says it all. Also highly recommended are his two follow up books, “The Sorrows of Empire” and “Nemesis”. These have become known as “The Blowback Trilogy”. Take heed bloggers - this may not be the end of the world, but you can see it from here.
NZDavid, #56:
Thanks for the highly informative link. I live in California, so I am somewhat encouraged.
Jason The Saj, #66:
Amen.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
But isn’t California already in the red by $14+ Billion?????
Where does everyone think this money comes from?????
Sooner or later, it comes out of your wallet!
I just don’t get the thought process with this……….
February 18th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Jim I, #68:
The LA Times had a really good Opinion piece yesterday on the “$14+ Billion in the red”. It seems that, once the spin slows down, and the blue smoke dissipates, over $12 billion of that stems from the Governator’s rollback of the DMV fees ( a piece of political prostitution unsurpassed in the history of the state, IMHO), and another $3 billion from debt service on the corporate welfare bond issues he has championed. Anyway, if government has any useful function at all, it must be to encourage behavior which at least delays the extinction of mankind, and discourage the opposite.
Again, some insightful blogger here pointed out the other day that the cost of the war in Iraq is $177 million/day. If we can save some of that back in the long run, the federal taxes to pay for it come out of the same pocket as any state taxes which may help to encourage saving oil.
Plus, California has the worst air pollution in the country, which is why the Air Resources Board is doing this. The health care cost of this air pollution is orders of magnitude bigger than anything this tax credit mays cost, and SOMEBODY pays for that in the end.
February 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I voted for tax breaks only because the government needs to get our money back some how. It would be better to get rid of the unconstitutional income tax, rather that figure out how to give our money back. Until that happens however, I will take what I can get.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
canehdian#57
Thank you for that information. How well does it work?
February 21st, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I think instead of a tax credit that would only benifit the rich, they should have it be a federal rebate. This should be funded by a national gas tax of $.50 a gallon. The rebates should only be eligible for 100+ MPG plug-ins. Even todays hibrids are a joke, the 1984 honda crx got 50+ MPG and tecnology has gone backwards. If people want to still drive their hummers and suburbans let them pay for those of us who do care about global politcs and the air.
February 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am
to 35.
Maybe you live in the wrong country. Maybe you should move to the right one.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:02 am
[...] final result of that poll was for 483 respondents 94% voted in favor of tax credits and 6% [...]