Tax Credit Changes in new bill [LOCKED DUE TO POLITICS & ARGUING]

[R1Sky Business]

Xpel aftermarket it is.....

Sponsored

 

[McMoo]

But corporations don't pay taxes. All taxes are imbedded into the product consumers buy including payroll taxes. The government needs to reduce spending by a ton and let each state decide.

Yep. And guess what happens with utility companies if they pay more tax, they pass on any expense increases via a rate increase to everyone.

 

[electruck]

You’re missing my point entirely. The premise that lack of govt spending is the problem and therefore more spending is the solution is incredibly naive.

I don't know, I think I see your point pretty clearly. You are against government spending, period. What I missed is where anyone suggested that lack of government spending is "the problem".

The government basically has 2 tools at their disposal to effect change. Legislation and funding/incentives. I don't believe legislation alone is sufficient to drive the changes required over the next 50 years, especially given the economics this early in the change cycle. At this stage, both manufacturers and consumers need to be incentivized to drive enough initial product demand to warrant mining companies investing to deliver more raw materials, power companies to start beefing up grids, and companies such as EA to invest in upgrading and expanding charging networks. Without evidence of adequate sustained demand (translation: future profitability), nobody is going to be willing to invest the trillions it is going to take to build the supply chains and infrastructure required to move us beyond today's petroleum based society. And I most certainly don't want the government to have to pick up the tab for all of that.

Given the choice of maintaining the status quo until Mother Nature puts humanity in its place or until petroleum products are no longer economically viable, I would choose to invest in making change now. Even if that investment isn't made exactly as I would choose to do it myself.

You're entitled to a different opinion.

 

[electruck]

Am I the only one on this forum that think EV purchase subsidy is an unnecessary thing and is a waste of taxpayers money?

Just look at the backlog of EVERY EV on the market. There is no demand problem and more and more, each period of reporting, % of EV sales as a whole is growing rapidly.

I much rather see the money being spent on national charging infrastructure. As for helping lower income to purchase EVs, lets make the income threshold down to $160K for joint and $80K for single. Limit the cost of EVs to less than $60K for trucks and SUVs and $45K for autos.

I am very disappointed that new EV subsidies have come back. The only incentives should be on the infrastructure side and making our grid more robust as EVs will put significant strains on the power demands in the future.

What better way to incentivize development of infrastructure, mining and refining of raw materials for batteries, etc than to drive consumer demand for products? The price tag for the government to fully fund those initiatives while waiting on the customer base to expand to the point that the infrastructure is profitable (or at least break even) would be much higher.

 

[R1Sky Business]

QUOTE="Sgt Beavis, post: 181694, member: 3736"]
Credit applies for vehicles purchased beginning January 1, 2023. (Page 386, line 1).
[/QUOTE]
That's still most of us

 

[R1Sky Business]

Anyone have any idea on the sources of the battery minerals & components? Are R1 vehicles even eligible for $3750 or $7500?

Probably not with those metrics

 

[R1Sky Business]

Not sure if it's the way they will look at it, but the MSRP listed on my truck's title is $67,500. All the extras I ordered with the truck weren't included there.

Winning

 

[mabowden]

I don't know, I think I see your point pretty clearly. You are against government spending, period. What I missed is where anyone suggested that lack of government spending is "the problem".

The government basically has 2 tools at their disposal to effect change. Legislation and funding/incentives. I don't believe legislation alone is sufficient to drive the changes required over the next 50 years, especially given the economics this early in the change cycle. At this stage, both manufacturers and consumers need to be incentivized to drive enough initial product demand to warrant mining companies investing to deliver more raw materials, power companies to start beefing up grids, and companies such as EA to invest in upgrading and expanding charging networks. Without evidence of adequate sustained demand (translation: future profitability), nobody is going to be willing to invest the trillions it is going to take to build the supply chains and infrastructure required to move us beyond today's petroleum based society. And I most certainly don't want the government to have to pick up the tab for all of that.

Given the choice of maintaining the status quo until Mother Nature puts humanity in its place or until petroleum products are no longer economically viable, I would choose to invest in making change now. Even if that investment isn't made exactly as I would choose to do it myself.

You're entitled to a different opinion.

Agreed.

The space program is a prime example of wasteful government spending. However, the process of getting us there drove innovations and thinktanks that had incredibly far reaching implications even through today. The private sector NEVER would have gotten us there because there was no ROI on all of this.

 

[electruck]

A real climate bill would work to reduce human activity. Not spend hundreds of billions to increase human activity. Of course, we don't want to reduce human activity.

Yes, unfortunately the only real solution is to eliminate about 7 billion people from the planet and return to a hunter/gatherer way of life foregoing most all modern technology.

 

[R1Sky Business]

I don't know, I think I see your point pretty clearly. You are against government spending, period. What I missed is where anyone suggested that lack of government spending is "the problem".

The government basically has 2 tools at their disposal to effect change. Legislation and funding/incentives. I don't believe legislation alone is sufficient to drive the changes required over the next 50 years, especially given the economics this early in the change cycle. At this stage, both manufacturers and consumers need to be incentivized to drive enough initial product demand to warrant mining companies investing to deliver more raw materials, power companies to start beefing up grids, and companies such as EA to invest in upgrading and expanding charging networks. Without evidence of adequate sustained demand (translation: future profitability), nobody is going to be willing to invest the trillions it is going to take to build the supply chains and infrastructure required to move us beyond today's petroleum based society. And I most certainly don't want the government to have to pick up the tab for all of that.

Given the choice of maintaining the status quo until Mother Nature puts humanity in its place or until petroleum products are no longer economically viable, I would choose to invest in making change now. Even if that investment isn't made exactly as I would choose to do it myself.

You're entitled to a different opinion.

start removing options....

 

[COdogman]

But corporations don't pay taxes. All taxes are imbedded into the product consumers buy including payroll taxes. The government needs to reduce spending by a ton and let each state decide.

Stock buybacks, CEO pay, and the costs of all kinds of other mismanagement are also “imbedded” in that price consumers pay. Corporations went to the Supreme Court to declare they are *people* when it comes to political donations - they can pay taxes just like people too. And I say that as a business owner who pays taxes as an individual and a corporation.

 

[mkg3]

You don't need chargers everywhere there are gas stations. The vast majority of people will charge at home and only require DCFC when they travel. If anything what we need is L1 charging at ever parking spot at airports and a ton of L2 charging available at all the places we go, stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. L3 charging really ought to be relegated to highway travel and definitely should be at every rest stop, truck stop, and gas station at highway interchanges and along rural highways.

Well, since you brought this point up, I completely disagree with the notion of "vast majority of people will charge at home..."

As price of EVs drop to ultimately replace all new vehicles, do you suppose those that buy EVs - new and used - are all home owners?

There are large percent of the population that live in apartments. And even if apartments install "some" L2 chargers or have someone like "ChargePoint" install L2 chargers, certainly not enough for all the vehicles.

The problem can only be solved when there are more chargers than the way you're thinking about it. So you say what about charging at work? Some provide and most do not today. Again, that only works if you work in an office setting. What if you work outside or are in service industry such as restaurants or hotels? Chargers are for customers, not workers.

 

[Siguy90]

Guys, assuming destination fees are NOT included, or part of the MSRP, correct?

I was thinking about that too. My build comes out to $79250 so destination will push it over. From what I found online destination is not included in MSRP but looking at different window stickers some companies include it in the total MSRP while others don't so I'm not sure.

 

[atebit]

Am I reading this right?

The way I read it, as long you as you purchase before BBB if/were to be enacted, you’re grandfathered to the more useful (IMHO) current programme.

Not a lawyer, and I don’t watch police procedurals, so YMMV.

 

[SASSquatch]

Doesn’t negatively impact the vast majority of people. Add to that the fact that it’ll now be a point of sale rebate and it’s a big win for the vast majority of people. So yea, I’m totally good with it.

If the income limit stays at 300K AGI, that is going to really suck for some of us, but here's my question. If it is point of sale, how does that work? You will OWE that money back in taxes when you file the subsequent tax year?

Sponsored