The new House GOP tax bill kills the electric vehicle tax credit - Polidicks

[quote]The Republican tax plan passed in the House of Representatives would end the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit, a program that has spurred a boom in EV sales. Analysts believe eliminating the tax credit for electric cars could set the EV business back in a big way. [b]When the state of Georgia removed its $5,000 state tax credit for electric vehicles, a credit that supplemented the federal tax credit, sales of EVs dropped an estimated 90 percent,[/b] says Joshua Goldman, a senior policy and legal analyst for the Clean Vehicles Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The tax credit is arguably the single most important federal policy we have on the books that is supporting the electric vehicle market,” Goldman notes. “[It] has really spurred a lot of innovation, and it has allowed the US to become a leader in electric vehicle deployment and sales. That leadership is really in jeopardy now that the tax credit is on the chopping block in the House tax plan.” Since the credit was enacted in 2008, the electric vehicle market has grown from just two models to more than 30, Goldman points out, and a number of automakers are now beginning to offer electric vehicles at various price points to appeal to different consumers. A few automakers, including GM and Volvo, have announced plans to move toward an entirely electric or electric-hybrid fleet of vehicles. The House tax writers tout the elimination of the tax credit as a cost-saving measure which, Goldman says, “doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at how much the credit has actually cost the American public and the benefits that electric vehicles provide for American consumers.”[/quote] [url=https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-24/new-house-gop-tax-bill-kills-electric-vehicle-tax-credit]Source: Public Radio International[/url] Fuck you, Republicans.

The senate version looks like it keeps it though, so we will have to see what happens down the road.

Care about the planet, you grimy avocado fucks

[quote]“In fiscal year 2015, the EV tax credit cost America $580 million dollars,” he explains. “By comparison, the tax credits that we give to the fossil fuel industry cost taxpayers $4.7 billion dollars every year. So, if you look at how much we're spending on electric vehicles versus how much we're subsidizing the oil and gas industry, it's not even close.”[/quote] :thinkingface: Fiscal Conservatives :thinkingface:

There's no way this isn't the ICE automotive industry trying to delay the inevitable by getting their buddies/puppets in Congress to write this out in the name of "cutting the deficit". America is bought and paid for, citizens are a byproduct, not the customer. [QUOTE=Potus;52924567]:thinkingface: Fiscal Conservatives :thinkingface:[/QUOTE] :thinking:

If Electric vehicles need government subsudies in order to be profitable, then I can't see how they're suppose to be the future anytime soon. and that even with Tesla Exclusive parking/charge stations recently installed where I work. Have they even addressed the issue of not being able to recharge a dead battery yet? Or for that matter can you even charge a car to full in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank to full from near empty yet? of course that still doesn't even touch on the biggest problem for EVs. Has anyone even seen an Ad for one of these things? How do you expect to sell them if people (General public) arn't even aware of their existence or where they can go to buy one?

Must....ruin....everything...for money...

[QUOTE=c:;52924533]Care about the planet, you grimy avocado fucks[/QUOTE] "why should tax payers be on the hook for electric cars?" "Why should we subsidize [insert: triggerword] renewable energy?" "We should be worrying about the most reliable energy like coal" "Musk is wasting tax payer dollars." "Electric cars are just not ready for mass market." "Liberals tears" :suicide:

[QUOTE=Glaber;52924697]If Electric vehicles need government subsudies in order to be profitable, then I can't see how they're suppose to be the future anytime soon. and that even with Tesla Exclusive parking/charge stations recently installed where I work. Have they even addressed the issue of not being able to recharge a dead battery yet? Or for that matter can you even charge a car to full in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank to full from near empty yet? of course that still doesn't even touch on the biggest problem for EVs. Has anyone even seen an Ad for one of these things? How do you expect to sell them if people (General public) arn't even aware of their existence or where they can go to buy one?[/QUOTE] Oil and gas gets 4.7 billion is subsidies. How's it supposed to be profitable if.....:thinking:

[QUOTE=Glaber;52924697]If Electric vehicles need government subsudies in order to be profitable, then I can't see how they're suppose to be the future anytime soon. and that even with Tesla Exclusive parking/charge stations recently installed where I work. Have they even addressed the issue of not being able to recharge a dead battery yet? Or for that matter can you even charge a car to full in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank to full from near empty yet? of course that still doesn't even touch on the biggest problem for EVs. Has anyone even seen an Ad for one of these things? How do you expect to sell them if people (General public) arn't even aware of their existence or where they can go to buy one?[/QUOTE] Would rather have a healthy EV economy up and running when the oil wells eventually run dry rather than panic when everyone has empty gas tanks. And beyond that, it's better for the environment in the long run which heavily outweighs the monetary worth of EVs, even if big oil companies don't like that fact.

[QUOTE=Glaber;52924697]If Electric vehicles need government subsudies in order to be profitable, then I can't see how they're suppose to be the future anytime soon. and that even with Tesla Exclusive parking/charge stations recently installed where I work. Have they even addressed the issue of not being able to recharge a dead battery yet? Or for that matter can you even charge a car to full in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank to full from near empty yet? of course that still doesn't even touch on the biggest problem for EVs. Has anyone even seen an Ad for one of these things? How do you expect to sell them if people (General public) arn't even aware of their existence or where they can go to buy one?[/QUOTE] there are very few technologies today that haven't been government subsidized at any point in their development

I mean guys, clean coal cars are just as good if not better

[QUOTE=Str4fe;52926055]I mean guys, clean coal cars are just as good if not better[/QUOTE] Technically, electric cars [I]would[/I] be "clean coal" cars, if that's how their charging outlets are powered...

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52926324]Technically, electric cars [I]would[/I] be "clean coal" cars, if that's how their charging outlets are powered...[/QUOTE] That's dependent on those that purchase it. I think people that purchase EVs are probably also very likely to invest into solar panels and such for their homes.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52926650]That's dependent on those that purchase it. I think people that purchase EVs are probably also very likely to invest into solar panels and such for their homes.[/QUOTE] Definitely depends on the buyer, yeah. Home-owners associations can be assholes about what you can/can't have on your roof.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52926324]Technically, electric cars [I]would[/I] be "clean coal" cars, if that's how their charging outlets are powered...[/QUOTE] If i owned a tesla and there were the supercharger stations in my country, i think i'd just mainly use those. Theyre powered by solar, iirc.

Remember guys, Trump said "the war on coal is over" and spoke about this magical new "clean coal" that [i]totally[/i] exists. I couldn't even type that sentence out without cracking up in a fit of laughter at how utterly fuckin' ridiculous those statements are. But hey, fuck electric vehicles, right? Gotta provide jobs for those backwoods hillbillies in the South that still (stupidly) believe coal is the cleanest energy source on the planet, and continue to bend the environment over and fuck it up the arse, right? What a fuckin' idiot...

[QUOTE=Str4fe;52927511]If i owned a tesla and there were the supercharger stations in my country, i think i'd just mainly use those. Theyre powered by solar, iirc.[/QUOTE] IIRC if you use the same one frequently you'll get a letter telling you to stop. They're for trips, not daily.

What is wrong with this? It made sense when EV's were very expensive. Now they're on the same price range as a Camry or mid-tier Chevrolet. I shouldn't have to subsidize some rich nerd's Tesla. [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt of permabanned user" - Shendow))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;52924895]Oil and gas gets 4.7 billion is subsidies. How's it supposed to be profitable if.....:thinking:[/QUOTE] I'm fine with criticizing the gas and oil subsidies, but at least be straight about it. They get a lot, but the industry is absolutely massive in comparison. When you price it out relative to product provided, it's way less than these electric cars receive (same goes for solar and wind). Taking away the gas and oil subsidies would have a far smaller effect on the industry than taking away the EV, solar, or wind subsidies.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52935804]I'm fine with criticizing the gas and oil subsidies, but at least be straight about it. They get a lot, but the industry is absolutely massive in comparison. When you price it out relative to product provided, it's way less than these electric cars receive (same goes for solar and wind). Taking away the gas and oil subsidies would have a far smaller effect on the industry than taking away the EV, solar, or wind subsidies.[/QUOTE] so then it should be done before the subsidies on new greener, emerging technologies are removed as doing it in the reverse is clearly not a helpful solution.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52935844]so then it should be done before the subsidies on new greener, emerging technologies are removed as doing it in the reverse is clearly not a helpful solution.[/QUOTE] You won't find me arguing in support of gas and oil subsidies. As a side point, how long do things get to be an "emerging technology?" These techs have been around for over 50 years and have been receiving special subsidies for decades.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52935974]You won't find me arguing in support of gas and oil subsidies. As a side point, how long do things get to be an "emerging technology?" These techs have been around for over 50 years and have been receiving special subsidies for decades.[/QUOTE] when they reach similar points of proliferation as the otherwise government subsidized oil and gas do leaving this purely into the hands of the market is a mistake IMO. The only companies that can get into energy, are already into energy, and they stand to lose massive amounts of money when things finally shift away from oil and gas and just acting like renewables shouldn't have government support because it costs money is silly. There's plenty of justified reasons as to why focusing on renewables is a good idea and why incentivizing these companies to do the right thing for us helps them out in the long run.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52936156]when they reach similar points of proliferation as the otherwise government subsidized oil and gas do leaving this purely into the hands of the market is a mistake IMO. The only companies that can get into energy, are already into energy, and they stand to lose massive amounts of money when things finally shift away from oil and gas and just acting like renewables shouldn't have government support because it costs money is silly. There's plenty of justified reasons as to why focusing on renewables is a good idea and why incentivizing these companies to do the right thing for us helps them out in the long run.[/QUOTE] Here's my issue with that view: it's basically unfalsifiable. What if, 20 years down the line, we figure out a new way to do nuclear that is so efficient and amazing that solar and wind is needless (or any other alternative). By picking and choosing who to subsidize you aren't letting the market figure out the best possible solution. Instead, you're forcing them into the box of whatever lets them get government money at the moment. The problem is that we'll never find that tech by pumping tons of money into solar and wind. If we're going to incentivize clean energy through subsidy, then it ought to actually incentivize efficient energy production. We should give a flat subsidy for every kWh produced. This will force companies towards the most efficient clean energy sources instead of whatever happens to be getting the big dollars at the moment.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52936201]Here's my issue with that view: it's basically unfalsifiable. What if, 20 years down the line, we figure out a new way to do nuclear that is so efficient and amazing that solar and wind is needless (or any other alternative). By picking and choosing who to subsidize you aren't letting the market figure out the best possible solution. Instead, you're forcing them into the box of whatever lets them get government money at the moment. The problem is that we'll never find that tech by pumping tons of money into solar and wind. If we're going to incentivize clean energy through subsidy, then it ought to actually incentivize efficient energy production. We should give a flat subsidy for every kWh produced. This will force companies towards the most efficient clean energy sources instead of whatever happens to be getting the big dollars at the moment.[/QUOTE] But we're not after a market solution that's profitable here. We're after energy that doesn't pollute the planet as badly as oil and coal do. Lets say we removed all the subsidies either industry has. Which one is going to grow faster? The established industry with infrastructure all over the place, CEO's anchored in Delaware causing them to be legally obliged to chase short term profits above all else and with a literal history of suppressing scientific information that stands to cause them to lose business or an industry in the first 30 years of it's expansionary period subject to a number of attacks from ignorance, lobbyism, and fear of new technology let alone a political stage in the country that actively seeks to get in the way of solar, wind, and other technologies? I know for a fact that the oil and gas industry would do better in that situation and then our environment is shit. I know that's not a concern for you really, but it is for me and most of the world so simply saying we need a profitable solution isn't important here. It's about getting an efficient and clean option which if we just let these companies do what they want we wouldn't have. Do you forget, like every time this is brought up, that Exxon Mobile knew about global warming in the 70's, hid that knowledge from the public for it's own profits sakes? Why do you think Oil and Gas companies are going to make the move towards cleaner? They're only interested in money.

I'm not sure how that relates to my suggestion. If we offered a flat kWh subsidy to clean energy production, it would still only benefit clean energy. If we're going to do it, then I want to do it in a way that actually incentivizing efficient energy production, whether that be solar, wind, nuclear, or some tech that we're yet to find. Forcing people into one box or the other is going to prevent the kind of innovation that we need to make clean energy viable on the whole.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52936293]I'm not sure how that relates to my suggestion. If we offered a flat kWh subsidy to clean energy production, [B]it would still only benefit clean energy. [/B] If we're going to do it, then I want to do it in a way that actually incentivizing efficient energy production, whether that be solar, wind, nuclear, or some tech that we're yet to find. Forcing people into one box or the other is going to prevent the kind of innovation that we need to make clean energy viable on the whole.[/QUOTE] Why the hell would you want innovation on non-clean energy sources? Non-clean sources have stupendous unchecked externalities. Why would you ever want them to innovate and become even cheaper?

[QUOTE=phygon;52936421]Why the hell would you want innovation on non-clean energy sources? Non-clean sources have stupendous unchecked externalities. Why would you ever want them to innovate and become even cheaper?[/QUOTE] Are you even reading my posts? Here, let me quote the whole sentence that you bolded a part of: "If we offered a flat kWh subsidy [B]to clean energy production[/B], it would still only benefit clean energy." Nothing I've said here has anything to do with innovation for non-clean sources.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52937177]Are you even reading my posts? Here, let me quote the whole sentence that you bolded a part of: "If we offered a flat kWh subsidy [B]to clean energy production[/B], it would still only benefit clean energy." Nothing I've said here has anything to do with innovation for non-clean sources.[/QUOTE] Ah, I will admit that I misread your post. I was reading it as "It would only benefit clean energy" as "It will not benefit non-clean energy and that's not a fair market solution". State-official level 0 grammar language when?

[QUOTE=Glaber;52924697]If Electric vehicles need government subsudies in order to be profitable, then I can't see how they're suppose to be the future anytime soon. and that even with Tesla Exclusive parking/charge stations recently installed where I work. Have they even addressed the issue of not being able to recharge a dead battery yet? Or for that matter can you even charge a car to full in the same time it takes to fill a gas tank to full from near empty yet? of course that still doesn't even touch on the biggest problem for EVs. Has anyone even seen an Ad for one of these things? How do you expect to sell them if people (General public) arn't even aware of their existence or where they can go to buy one?[/QUOTE] If you've got a problem with subsidies (I do,) there is the alternative of taxing gasoline cars more. Which is easily justifiable due to their greater harm to the environment and it still achieves the goal of incentivizing cleaner vehicles, as well as raising money that can be spent on infrastructure.