backtop


Print 34 comment(s) - last by room200.. on May 7 at 5:35 PM

He wants to make EVs more attractive to middle class Americans

For the most part, mainstream consumers aren’t exactly flocking to electric vehicles since they aren't always practical for everyday use. Two of the biggest downsides to EVs include a higher MSRP compared to a comparable gasoline-engine vehicles and a limited driving range before it must be recharged.
 
The U.S. government already offers a tax credit of $7,500 on eligible EVs to help soften the blow when it comes to pricing, and one congressman wants to further increase that federal tax credit.
 
Vermont Rep. Peter Welch (D) announced this week that he wants to make it easier for consumers to purchase EVs by increasing the tax credit to $10,000 via the Electric CARS Act.
 
In addition to boosting the credit by $2,500, it would allow the tax credit to be applied at the point-of-sale instead of when the individual’s taxes are filed. The bill would also be tailored to better accommodate “many middle-income Vermonters do not have enough tax liability to qualify for the full tax credit.”


Vermont Rep. Peter Welch plugging in a Ford Fusion Energi
 
“One of the biggest contributors to climate change in Vermont and across the country is vehicle emissions. It is essential that we transition to cleaner, more efficient transportation like electric vehicles,” said Rep. Welch said an electric vehicle charging station near the Vermont Statehouse.
 
“The battery life and fuel efficiency of electric vehicles are steadily improving making them more accessible and practical to drive. This legislation will make them more affordable while saving Vermonters money at the gas pump and reducing their environmental footprint.”
 
Welch says that he plans to introduce new legislation to increase the EV tax credit when he returns to Washington.
 
It should be noted that Rep. Welch isn’t the only politician that has called for an increase in the federal tax credit for EVs. President Obama also called for increasing the credit to $10,000 back in 2012.

Sources: Christian Science Monitor, Congressman Peter Welch's Office Website



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

why not
By acejj26 on 5/5/2014 8:55:35 AM , Rating: 5
hell, let's just give one to anyone who wants one. that should make it "easier" for people to "buy" one, no?




RE: why not
By Dr of crap on 5/5/2014 9:05:24 AM , Rating: 4
Hey AND we could give everyone some cash so that they could buy only good for the environment products,
AND give everyone solar panels for their house,
and we could all sing folk songs,
and just feel wanted....

Yea, ALL good ideas!


RE: why not
By Ristogod on 5/5/2014 9:18:05 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Without stopping to consider any consequences or logical thought, it's imperative that I buy cars for other people.


RE: why not
By freeagle on 5/5/2014 11:03:33 AM , Rating: 1
Please, help me understand.

From wiki: "A tax credit is a sum deducted from the total amount a taxpayer owes to the state"

That means you still have to earn the money for the whole car by yourself. No one is giving you 10,000$ to buy one. You're just given 10,000$ worth of freedom in how to spend the money you earned when conidering buying an EV.

Where is the problem?


RE: why not
By Griffinhart on 5/5/2014 11:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That means you still have to earn the money for the whole car by yourself. No one is giving you 10,000$ to buy one. You're just given 10,000$ worth of freedom in how to spend the money you earned when conidering buying an EV.


It is still 10K that you don't actually have. It increases your purchasing limit by diverting funds from roads, social programs, education, defense, etc and giving them to auto companies. Those diverted funds need to be made up from somewhere, either in the form of a larger deficit or increased taxes for everyone else.

In the end it amounts to a benefit to wealthier Americans (those in the top 25% tax bracket)and the corporations selling the cars. Households earning less than $70K a year are not buying $40,000+ cars.


RE: why not
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2014 12:13:25 PM , Rating: 1
My household income is now $120,000/year and I'm not buying $40,000 cars. I pay too much in taxes to afford them. And me and my wife are still paying for our educations so we could earn that much.


RE: why not
By Spuke on 5/5/2014 12:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My household income is now $120,000/year and I'm not buying $40,000 cars.
Household is $160k and we don't have a $40k car either. The wife's car is new (the other two are 7 and 8 years old) but that's because she won't put more than 120k miles on her daily driver (I wish I could get her to put another 30k miles on a car then I'd get her a used one).


RE: why not
By chripuck on 5/5/2014 12:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, it would be much, much better for it to scale based on income with a zero gain after a certain annual amount.

That said, I plan on buying one in the next year based purely on this tax benefit. It will be nearly the same cost as a gasoline model and save me tons on gas. I may not agree with the program, but I'll certainly be taking advantage of it.


RE: why not
By freeagle on 5/5/2014 12:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, that makes sense.


RE: why not
By Mint on 5/6/2014 12:54:42 PM , Rating: 2
New cars in general are bought by people with much higher than average income.

I don't have household income stats, but only 27% of new cars are bought by individuals with <$50k income:
http://www.edmunds.com/industry-center/commentary/...

So I suspect that you're talking about maybe a quarter of the market when you say "households earning less than $70K a year".


RE: why not
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 5/5/2014 11:17:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather we do that than give trillions in banker bailouts.

But then, I'd rather we actually let the goddamn bankers eat each other and rebuild after the inevitable crash, after graft and moral hazard has finally been burned out of the system.


RE: why not
By Boze on 5/5/2014 7:22:04 PM , Rating: 3
I already have my $40,000 set aside for a Tesla Model E, so yes, please.

Gasoline is subsidized for all you people who drive internal combustion engines, time for my electric car to be subsidized too.


RE: why not
By ebakke on 5/5/2014 7:52:32 PM , Rating: 1
Interesting. Do tell more about these gasoline subsidies, please.


RE: why not
By Spuke on 5/5/2014 10:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gasoline is subsidized for all you people who drive internal combustion engines, time for my electric car to be subsidized too.
What subsidies are these? And are you going to tell me that you don't own nor have you ever owned a gasoline powered car?


RE: why not
By Solandri on 5/6/2014 6:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gasoline is subsidized for all you people who drive internal combustion engines, time for my electric car to be subsidized too.

Gasoline is subsidized to the tune of about 1.5 cents per gallon. It then gets taxed at close to 40 cents per gallon (federal and state) to maintain the roads and highways.

So yeah, if you want the EV subsidy reduced to 0.4% ($160 for a $40k car), then get charged an additional 11.4% in road taxes ($4560 on the $40k car), be my guest.


RE: why not
By Mint on 5/6/2014 1:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
Even an EV nut like myself knows gasoline has minimal subsidies attached.

The case for EV tax credits isn't about equalizing subsidies, so don't bother going there. It's that cars stay on the road for 15+ years, but people don't consider gas costs for more than a few of those years (plus environmental benefits, but those are hard to quantify). We let someone pay $7500 less tax because his purchase decision will save future, generally lower income owners of that car $10-20k in gas over a decade (electricity costs a fraction of that to generate), and hurts the trade deficit by a similar amount (affecting jobs, national wealth, etc). It's a win for long term economy.

This proposal? Surprisingly, I'm not really for it. I think a longer term $5k subsidy, once the $7500 expires, is better.


National Debt?
By bitmover461 on 5/5/2014 10:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't we $17 TRILLION dollars in debt? And this clown want the federal government to essentially BUY PEOPLE CARS? This is liberal insanity at its zenith.




RE: National Debt?
By room200 on 5/5/2014 2:42:05 PM , Rating: 3
and yet, you never see you complaining about the conservative insanity of farm subsidies or oil subsidies. I have yet to see Mick do an article complaining about republicans who support THAT nonsense.

Your're not upset that about this; you're upset that it's not subsidizing what YOU want even more.


RE: National Debt?
By Griffinhart on 5/5/2014 4:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
There are many people just as angry about farm subsidies. though I can't see why DailyTECH would cover farm subsidies. Daily tech specifically covers Auto's as a part of its coverage.


RE: National Debt?
By catavalon21 on 5/5/2014 10:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
I would be happy to discuss farm subsidies (and why I personally think they're a bad idea), but this isn't the forum. To each our own.


RE: National Debt?
By Spuke on 5/5/2014 11:03:04 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't the the farm subsidy to keep them from over farming the land so we don't get another Dust Bowl?


RE: National Debt?
By Griffinhart on 5/6/2014 1:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isn't the the farm subsidy to keep them from over farming the land so we don't get another Dust Bowl?


No, It's mostly to keep food prices artificially high. The lower the price of food, the more subsidies are triggered. It's to guarantee a price floor.


RE: National Debt?
By Sazabi19 on 5/7/2014 4:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Jason has done several articles on corn farmers getting subsidies. You need to read more.


RE: National Debt?
By room200 on 5/7/2014 5:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
You should do the same. He's not writing the article with a bias as he always does with the EV articles. It's usually "ethanol lobbyists say this" or "corn growers say that". The articles are written totally different.


And while we're at it::
By room200 on 5/5/2014 12:43:28 PM , Rating: 3
Let's give oil companies extra money so they can make bigger profits.......wait, why don't we give farmers extra money to grow stuff to make a profit......wait, wait....why don't we give tax breaks for buying houses.....

All you guys with your phony outrage over this make me laugh. This country subsidizes desired behaviors all of the time. We subsidize married people over single people. We subsidize businesses to make more money. We subsidize people with kids vs. those without. Those who have houses receive a tax break, you live in an apartment you're screwed. Most of you are just as selective about what you're outraged about too. Get over it.




RE: And while we're at it::
By Spuke on 5/5/2014 1:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be all or nothing, that's an extremists attitude. If tax breaks need to exist, then there should be a limit on how much, how many, etc.


RE: And while we're at it::
By Rukkian on 5/5/2014 1:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree with this tax break either, but not for the reason it typically comes down to: people that don't benefit from this don't like it and think it is wrong.

I don't have a problem with this when compared to all of the other credits, just all the credits in general. I don't see why we should be helping people buy a house, buy a car, have kids, etc, etc, etc. Just get rid of all the deductions, switch to a much lower flat tax (either usage or all income from all sources) and can (or at least cut it down to almost nothing) the IRS. A big chunk of the government is gone, filing taxes is easy (or not necessary) and nobody needs to get upset that somebody else is getting a tax break.


RE: And while we're at it::
By Spuke on 5/5/2014 10:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ust get rid of all the deductions, switch to a much lower flat tax (either usage or all income from all sources) and can (or at least cut it down to almost nothing) the IRS.
I would be fine with this.


RE: And while we're at it::
By ebakke on 5/5/2014 1:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of you are just as selective about what you're outraged about too. Get over it.
Does this mean you're joining me in universal outrage, and oppose government interventions of all kinds that attempt to incent different individual behaviors at the expense of others?


RE: And while we're at it::
By Griffinhart on 5/5/2014 4:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
That's where I've been at for years now!


RE: And while we're at it::
By snyper256 on 5/7/2014 10:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds good to me. Their 'central planning' meddling is only holding Humans back.


How about.....
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2014 9:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
No.




OR....
By klstay on 5/5/2014 9:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
...how about I keep the money I earn to do with as I see fit and other people keep the money they earn and do likewise? Of course then what are otherwise unemployable folk such as this busybody supposed to do?




The Middle Class?
By Gunbuster on 5/5/2014 6:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
So every tax payer should help kick in 10K to make an $83,130 Cadillac ELR more affordable to some mythical "middle class American"?




"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki