So what your suggesting is those that can't afford a 40K car, should be given the discount ... sound like another give away for lifeline phone users ... no thanksI would much rather see it replaced with a progressive (rather than regressive) credit that benefits lower income buyers. The fact that you have to make a minimum of $50,000 a year just to take advantage of the credit is ridiculous.
Anyone can reduce their taxes owed by up to the full $7,500 amount provided they owe that amount in tax liability. To refund in excess of this would be welfare (like the earned income credit). I personally disagree with both; those who really need it should apply through the welfare system.I would much rather see it replaced with a progressive (rather than regressive) credit that benefits lower income buyers. The fact that you have to make a minimum of $50,000 a year just to take advantage of the credit is ridiculous.
So what your suggesting is those that can't afford a 40K car, should be given the discount ... sound like another give away for lifeline phone users ... no thanks
I wish people felt the same way about subsidizing the fossil-fuel industry.Anyone can reduce their taxes owed by up to the full $7,500 amount provided they owe that amount in tax liability. To refund in excess of this would be welfare (like the earned income credit). I personally disagree with both; those who really need it should apply through the welfare system.
As do I. The fossil fuel industry is mature to put it mildly, and requires no taxpayer subsidy. I would much rather see these funds used to reduce the national debt or incentives for renewables.I wish people felt the same way about subsidizing the fossil-fuel industry.
I actually feel in needs to go further because of the accumulated damage and costs that the fossil-fuel industry has inflicted on society. When I say a progressive rebate that even lower income buyers can access, I am wanting it to be paid for with a carbon tax.As do I. The fossil fuel industry is mature to put it mildly, and requires no taxpayer subsidy. I would much rather see these funds used to reduce the national debt or incentives for renewables.
People think about this all wrong. After 200K in sales bump it to 10K per car, and cap the number of manufacturers who can take advantage of it (4 or 5 tops?). Chevy would work harder to sell EVS/Volts/whatever.The existing system is bad for EV adoption, as it creates a disincentive for manufactures to be early adopters. There should be a single hard limit where the tax credit is phased out when the total EV sales in the US hit the number, not by manufacturer. This is the way the credit was originally designed before the last administration changed it.
I'm liking this idea, give an incentive to hit 200k fast. MIster Dave for President!!!People think about this all wrong. After 200K in sales bump it to 10K per car, and cap the number of manufacturers who can take advantage of it (4 or 5 tops?). Chevy would work harder to sell EVS/Volts/whatever.
Except the number of EVs sold is tiny compared to the number of ICE vehicles. It doesn't necessarily mean new jobs, just the same worker shifts from prevoisly working on an ICE line to an ev line.Most EVs sold in the US are manufactured here, correct? The $7500 tax credit helps sales and leads to more good-paying US jobs. It is a small cost for a big return. This is a good thing.
Which of course means that the Trump administration will do everything they can to kill it off, unless Elon Musk really has his ear.
Yeah, sort of. I can admit that the Tax Credit played a pivotal part in my decision purchase of a chock full o' risk, unproven, bleeding edge vehicle. But then I made $4K back in avoided fuel cost in only 2 years! Gas was over $3/gal the whole time then and I find saving money sexy.The existing system is bad for EV adoption, as it creates a disincentive for manufactures to be early adopters.
