[-]

clydesdale6969@reddit

Kill it. If you want an EV you should pay the entire bill. Subsidies are the only thing keeping these unnecessary vehicles afloat. Free market should decide.

[-]

Juicyjackson@reddit

Interesting.

That would be an absolutely massive blow to EV's.

That $7500 credit pushes most cars down an entire price category.

$35k for a Model 3 becoming $42.5k for a Model 3 is quite a drastic change in price.

That bumps monthly payments from ~540/month to $682/month...

[-]

tararira1@reddit

I never understood why EVs need to subsidized. If the government really cared about the environment they should use those tax credits to further improve public transport everywhere

[-]

Well I never thought there would be one smart person in a discussion about EV tax credits! But here you are! Stealing my hard earned tax dollars to give to upper middle class people to buy $55K EVs is not the answer. And remember that the people in this forum supported the old system where you could buy a $100K EV (I.e. rich people) on taxpayer dollars. The time for subsidies to end is long past. The infrastructure is there already. EV charging companies can build their own stations if they need to without my money.

Also these stupid average-mpg limits imposed on the auto manufacturers solely exists to put money directly into Teslas pockets through the sale of regulatory credits. Why should an auto manufacturer be penalized if people simply don’t want to buy EVs?

We all have to face the real truth that 100s of millions of broken lithium batteries filling our landfills ( which is where we are headed in 20 years) in a not a long term solution. It’s actually worse for the planet than gas engines

[-]

tararira1@reddit

Apparently it's an unpopular opinion, along with the lines that the government shouldn't subsidize rich people on their luxury car purchases. Glad that people like you still exist.

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

Subsidizing EVs is many orders of magnitude less expensive and time-consuming than the infrastructure investment required to make the USA significantly less car-dependent. And as much pushback as EVs get, widespread voluntary replacement of cars for public transit requires an even bigger cultural shift.

We should absolutely strive for and support less car dependency and more public transit. But subsidizing EVs is quicker and easier.

[-]

BannytheBoss@reddit

I am honestly not a fan of public transport. Its OK if all you are trying to do is get from point A to point B but overall it sucks.

[-]

cookingboy@reddit

I am honestly not a fan of public transport.

I honestly don't know how anyone who've lived in places with good public transportation (e.g, most big Asian cities) would ever have that view.

It's absolutely amazing, the convenience, the low cost, and the fact that it get rid of so many drivers on the road that don't want to drive/shouldn't be driving in the first place.

Here in the U.S, if you live in a major metropolitan area you have to check Google Maps for traffic if you want to go anywhere, and your time to get to any places is severely dependent on time of the day and day of the week.

Not having to do any of that is such an amazing improvement in quality of life. When I lived in Japan I drove only when I wanted to.

[-]

BannytheBoss@reddit

Speaking of Asia, Japan probably has one of the best mass transit systems in the world but it is still relatively slow traveling about in the city. The benefit of it in places like Tokyo is not having to worry about parking. They have also adapted to getting meals on the go like from Lawsons or vending machines and having more than a couple of kids is not very common.

[-]

cookingboy@reddit

Japan probably has one of the best mass transit systems in the world

Not really, it's pretty old. Systems in SK and China are both better and cheaper.

I don't understand why people say public transportation is low cost. It's absolutely not low cost. There is not a city in the world where mass transportation is not heavily subsidized. If you look at places like London, tickets vary throughout the day. If you are traveling during "rush hour" you will absolutely pay out the nose for a ticket.

What an insane take. Have you looked into car ownership costs in London? If public transportation is slow and like you said, more expensive, why the hell would it

There is not a city in the world where mass transportation is not heavily subsidized.

What part of public transportation do you not understand? That's exactly what public infrastructure is. Air travel is subsidized in the form of government built airports and air traffic control, and private car ownership is subsidized by the government paying for roads. Hell in the U.S even gasoline is subsidized.

Saying everything needs to be "profitable" is just an insane take and why this country is so fucked.

[-]

BannytheBoss@reddit

What part of public transportation do you not understand? That's exactly what public infrastructure is. Air travel is subsidized in the form of government built airports and air traffic control, and private car ownership is subsidized by the government paying for roads. Hell in the U.S even gasoline is subsidized.

Saying everything needs to be "profitable" is just an insane take and why this country is so fucked.

Those items have taxes and fees to specifically pay for them. Its not like Belgium where 50% of their gas tax is used to subsidize public transportation. In the US, the taxes on gas ARE used to pay for the roads. Airports are not built and then become free use... they charge massive fees. Having a small private jet parked at a major airport is more than what most people make in a year.

[-]

cookingboy@reddit

You know, it’s ok for government to pay for public services like transportation. That’s what taxes are for, whether the tax is explicit or not.

There is absolutely no need for public transportation to be profitable. As a society the net gain is much more than forcing everyone to either walk or own cars.

[-]

MembershipNo2077@reddit

No one's forcing you to ride it. But I'd sure love to have it so OTHER people would use it and get off the fucking road.

[-]

BannytheBoss@reddit

I'd be all for more railways to get the semis off the road.

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

It's not my preferred method of getting around, but it should be accessible to everyone who wants or needs to use it.

[-]

Kavani18@reddit

Agreed. The bus system in my city of 320k is just sad. Hour long waits and most of the stops are in the middle of a bunch of grass by the major roads. No sidewalks at half of them. I found myself without a car for six months and it was miserable taking LexTran. It shouldn’t be a whole expedition to take a city bus

[-]

tararira1@reddit

It’s not. It’s very clear on how little interest there is to upgrade infrastructure to support more fast charging

[-]

WheresTheQueeph@reddit

While I agree and am a big public transit advocate, the majority of Americans aren’t going to use it. We have to meet people where they are and that’s driving.

[-]

PSfreak10001@reddit

EV‘s a a quicker, cheaper and more socially accepted fix compared to Public Transport. Yes it has less impact in an ideal scenario, but great public transport is sadly way more unrealistic

[-]

Snazzy21@reddit

It's not about the environment, it's about industry. If there is no encouragement to invest in EV's, companies wont do it and they'll get rolled by the imports when oil prices inevitably force EVs.

[-]

gothicserp3nt@reddit

Uhh they already do. Look up FTA grants. But beyond that, reality is public transit planning and building is a complete cluster fuck. if it's not bureucratic ineptitude or navigating legal obstacles, or NIMBYs, it's greedy land speculators buying up land along railway routes to make a profit. The result is projects decades behind and billions of dollars over budget.

I say this as someone who almost exclusively used public transit in several major metro cities to get to work and around town for close to 10 years. I say almost because despite being in dense cities, I'd still often enough have last mile issues necessating longish walks or taking an uber. In smaller, sparser cities that are primarily car dependent, good luck. Probably looking at 30+ years to build up meaningful infrastructure. This country will always be a car first nation.

Other issue is safety, which is a local issue and not a federal government problem. In LA they've been opening more stations and building line extensions. I dont even want to look up when these projects initially started. But ridership is abysmally low and I've taken metro to work as my primary mode of transportation and the smell and encounters with crazies makes the experience miserable. My stop to work smells like a literal festival porta potty. I cant in good faith recommend it to anyone unless they are only using specific stops and lines that are mostly filled with normal people

[-]

JasonDaPsycho@reddit

The problem is some states, like California, just weren't built with public transport in mind. Even when there are funds and political will, a public transit project can easily take 10 to 20 years to manifest. Just look at the Los Angeles Metro Rail extension into Westwood, or Bay Area Rapid Transit's extension into Santa Clara County.

[-]

tararira1@reddit

They were built with public transport in mind, but they were destroyed to make path for highways

[-]

JasonDaPsycho@reddit

Don't get me wrong. I support public transit and mixed use developments that make cities more walk-able. You can blame our current conundrum/the status of our infrastructure on the car manufacturer lobby all you want. But the bottom line is changing the status quo is always difficult and time-consuming.

[-]

tararira1@reddit

But it has to start somewhere. Right now lower income people are subsidizing Tesla.

[-]

natesully33@reddit

People still drive no matter how good public transport is, so you gotta clean up cars too. Even in transit heavy places in the world, there are still a LOT of cars especially outside dense cities.

Or are you asking why we subsidize EVs at all? Because the free market incentives doing whatever is cheapest/easiest at the moment, typically the thing we already do - build ICE cars and burn stuff for power to go places. Overcoming that takes actual policy action.

[-]

lowstrife@reddit

Leave it to America to privatize a public problem. "if we all do our little part".

Meanwhile, if like 10 big companies really got their shit together they'd do more than all of these EV's combined.

[-]

Dr_WLIN@reddit

the original intent was to incentivize a domestically built/assembled EV purchase vs foreign car. (like Civic, Corolla, Camry, etc)

[-]

Futt_Buckman@reddit

I thought it was to incentivize buying into the new technology so the manufacturing pipeline could get built up similar to ice cars

[-]

Dr_WLIN@reddit

The Dept of Energy loans were to build up the factories.

[-]

trail-g62Bim@reddit

Or improve infrastructure for EVs if that is really your goal.

[-]

moonRekt@reddit

End. Them. All.

You can now get a lightly used Model 3 for the price of a moderately used Honda Civic. For the crowd who is in the search of a $20k car, not to be judgemental but I’m going to assume most of those buyers don’t own a large home/garage and access to chargers is a bigger factor than price.

The tax credits were necessary to get cars on the road but all they really did was subsidize the depreciation hit as these tax advantaged cars now flood the market above demand. It was necessary then, not now.

[-]

mcorliss3456@reddit

Why are there EV tax credits in the first place?

[-]

SeriousMongoose2290@reddit

None of this impacts me, but I like most of the tax credits as is but I think some tweaks are needed: * Used EV credit should definitely stay in some capacity. * Lease loophole for high earners on new EVs should go away. * $250 flat federal fee for EVs is silly and should absolutely be mileage based.

[-]

CorrectCombination11@reddit

Lease loophole for high earners on new EVs should go away

It's not something specifically aimed at allowing high earners to earn the credit. The lease credit is applicable to a business buying an EV. The lease company is a business buying an EV to lease to a customer. The lease company decided that they want to pass on the credit to the customer. They could also keep the credit for themselves.

[-]

Snoo93079@reddit

That's why its called a loophole and not, you know, normal policy.

[-]

CorrectCombination11@reddit

Any one that can get approved for a lease can take advantage of the pass through credit. Not blatantly, specifically targeted

[-]

SeriousMongoose2290@reddit

Thanks for explaining the loophole.

[-]

hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)

Yeah this is about as balanced of a take as it gets. Would also add Lease loophole should close altogether as it applies to cars that don't follow the final assembly requirements for the credit + the cap at $80k is meaningless

And while we're at it kinda stupid SUVs & Trucks are capped at $80k but Sedans & Hatchbacks at $55k.

[-]

ZeroWashu@reddit

Cap both at $50k and watch the automaker adapt. There is a great selection in this price range already. I do not see any reason the tax payer should be subsidizing luxury and large vehicles. Heck I would be more than happy to see all that money go towards electrification of the nations school bus fleets but that is a pipe dream in this administration.

[-]

ZipC0de@reddit

Mhmm that school.bus fleet would be lovely. I could see all those young kids right now.Getting interested in being a bus driver, helping design the buses because they'll literally see a technological leap happen in real time

[-]

Significant_Play_713@reddit

Unless you live In a rural area. It took me an hour as a kid to get to school, in hilly terrain a 35,000 pound bus as an EV would be trash. Also busses can exceed 600,000 miles before being put out of service. The analog diesels from the 90s that are still being used are reliable, easy to service and can go the distance required. EV buses might work in cities but to work outside of cities it'd need a enormous battery and likely wouldn't survive the abuse they put these through.

[-]

Snoo93079@reddit

Most americans don't live in rural areas so even if those were exempted it still leaves a large majority of the fleet to be electrified.

[-]

ZipC0de@reddit

Excellent point. You are totally right that places with adverse weather and terrain would be the worst place for EVs. I definitely advocate for.keeping gas powered buses where it makes sense. Just like what you said. And promoting an EV transition where it makes most sense. So center cities, college towns. West coast east coast.

Im.not saying ALL EV TOMORROW i know that is unrealistic. But transitioning a large portion is very realistic IMO

[-]

hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)

if it’s anything like the ev delivery man designed by the military contractors i don’t want it.

like man i get form over function but the rivian delivery van is fantastic what the fuck is that i actively dislike seeing them

[-]

Gatortribe@reddit

The lease loophole is the only reason I went for an EV so I'm definitely conflicted here! I'll defend it by saying it drives EV adoption beyond the base Model 3s and the Mach Es, and it greatly contributes to a large and cheap used EV market.

That said, it definitely defeated the purpose of driving American EV sales- not that I would consider one that isn't a Lucid (which is too expensive to count).

[-]

SeriousMongoose2290@reddit

USA and incentivizing larger cars name a more iconic duo

[-]

FlamingoImpressive92@reddit

USA voting for freedom to get into medical debt

[-]

popups4life@reddit

I'd be fine if the federal fee was calculated using averages it would be around $100. Previous year average MPG x average miles driven would be reasonable.

1,400 gallons of gas worth of tax is not reasonable.

[-]

Time-Maintenance2165@reddit

and should absolutely be mileage based.

This part I disagree with. Especially since most states don't have annual inspections or are doing away with them. The difference in mileage between most people is maybe $50, but if you want to track mileage, you're going to add an administrative cost of $10-20.

So everyone on average pays more. And it doesn't result in more money going to fix the road.

If it were a $2k annual fee, then per mile pricing makes more sense as the administrative cost becomes negligible, but not at $250 per year.

[-]

natesully33@reddit

I can get behind all that, though tracking mileage could be tricky in states with no annual inspection. Either way I want the US to incentivize/subsidize EV adoption, especially on the lower priced end of the market, and I'm totally willing to pay for my use of public roads.

I don't think we will have good-faith policy on electrification for a while though.

[-]

SeriousMongoose2290@reddit

Yeah mileage based for sure has its limitations. And totally agree on it being a while until we get good EV policies.

[-]

t-poke@reddit

I said in another post we should just make EV drivers self report their mileage and charge based off that.

Some people will lie. Most people will be honest. Our entire tax code runs on the honor system.

[-]

thefudd@reddit

BMW already tracks my miles driven, just use that data.

[-]

Significant_Play_713@reddit

Good. EVs are lame and gay anyway. The government shouldn't be subsidizing dogshit vehicles.

[-]

verdegrrl@reddit

No slurs.

[-]

six_six@reddit

The car companies need an incentive to lower prices on EVs and removing the tax credits will do that.

[-]

avoidhugeships@reddit

EVs should not be getting a 7500 tax credit that goes to well off homeowners. We don't need a regressive benefit like that.

[-]

Dr_WLIN@reddit

a well off homeowner wasn't getting the credit to begin with, istg y'all never pay attention to any of the details. There is an income cap for qualifying for the credit.

[-]

komrobert@reddit

I mean, what do you define as well off homeowner? The income cap for married filing jointly is $300K which is almost 4X the median national household income(80Kish).

I’d say that’s more than well off.

[-]

Dr_WLIN@reddit

I guess I shouldn't have been an idiot and commented before I checked the #s again. I didn't realize the difference for New vs Used was that drastic.

My Bolt was used so when I did the paperwork, AGI cap was $112,500.

[-]

komrobert@reddit

Ahh yeah the used credit is capped much lower!

On the new side on top of the higher cap you can get around it by leasing a vehicle and there’s no cap at all because the manufacturer gets the $7500 instead of you, and then you can usually buy it out at the end of the lease. That one definitely seems like a loophole they should get rid of

[-]

t-poke@reddit

The lease loophole lets you get around these limitations.

[-]

DeLoreanAirlines@reddit

100%

[-]

BiglyBirdWuzHere@reddit

I already got mine so I don't care 😂

[-]

Aforementionedlurker@reddit

america

[-]

hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)

One thing I didn't see people discussing as much with the current administration's upcoming spending bill - the bill sets to revert the EV tax credit to its previous state (cap at 200k sold) and remove the credit for used vehicles, as well as a 250$/yr fee for EVs

I think the tax credit needs some work (e.g. the leasing "loophole", the income cap functionally might as well not exist), but the bill is clearly made with ulterior motives. CR calculated that the ev fee is over twice what a 18mpg v8 truck would pay a year: https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/research/punitive-clean-vehicle-tax-would-harm-consumers-and-especially-seniors-but-wont-solve-road-funding-shortfalls/

[-]

ymjcmfvaeykwxscaai@reddit

I’m actually fine with the flat fees for gas tax as I think it’s the best of the choices we have. What I don’t like is how expensive it is and how it doesn’t take into consideration we’re already paying yearly flat fees in most states. For my state this would put me at 350 yearly over gas car and is projected to increase. Seems silly when you’re trying to increase their adoption and usage.

[-]

TGUKF@reddit

Seems silly when you’re trying to increase their adoption and usage.

Removing incentives, and increasing fees obviously indicates that the GOP is not trying to increase adoption lol.

And that's pretty consistent with their stances on fossil fuels and climate change in general.

[-]

hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)

the flat fee regardless of the price doesn't make sense to me when none of us drive the same distances

[-]

t-poke@reddit

I know that trying to figure out everyone's tax is difficult since we drive different amounts, and a flat fee might make the most sense, but I'd be okay if they at least followed averages, and not charge us what an 18 MPG truck pays.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but when I first got an EV in Missouri in 2019, the registration fee was the equivalent to something like a 30 MPG car driving 12,000 miles a year. My numbers might be off, but the point is, it was perfectly average, and reasonable and I had no problems with it.

Since then, the EV fee has gone up and will increase to $200 over the next couple years, while the gas tax remains unchanged. Governments are using EV drivers as ATMs because they know we're not a large enough voting bloc to matter and touching the gas tax would be political suicide.

This needs to be tied to averages and inflation. We know the average amount a driver drives per year. We know the average MPG of all cars on the market is. Tie the EV tax to those values. And if that's going to increase for inflation, then do the same for gas tax. That's the closest to fair you can get.

Or, let people self report mileage. Some people will lie, but most won't. Our entire tax system is based off the honor system. The IRS has never asked me for proof of deductions. They've never asked me to prove my HSA withdrawals were for medical expenses. I have proof, should they ever audit me. But they won't and I know they won't. Yet the one in a billion chance they will is what keeps me honest.

[-]

t-poke@reddit

Seems silly when you’re trying to increase their adoption and usage.

Spoiler alert: they’re not

[-]

t-poke@reddit

I work from home and don't drive a whole lot. I bought (well, leased) my EV knowing that if I did the math, I'm probably paying a bit more to own a car compared to cheaper, comparable ICE vehicle. But I was okay with that. I like EVs and they're good for the environment, yada yada yada.

If the tax credit is gone and there's a $250/year fee (on top of the $200/year fee my state has) by the time my lease is up, I'm going to have to seriously think about going back to gas because the costs of EV ownership will just be too high for someone like me who doesn't drive a lot.

One of the worst things about the bullshit fee is $250 is the floor - IIRC it will be adjusted for inflation each year. Meanwhile, the last time the gas tax was raised, Jurassic Park was in theaters and Kurt Cobain was still alive.

[-]

OwnSomewhere4533@reddit

Does this mean the EV i bought last year will go up in value in the used market?

[-]

hi_im_bored13@reddit (OP)

If it's valued above $25k then it will theoretically depreciate less. If it is valued under $25k then no, it's the opposite.

[-]

HighClassProletariat@reddit

Flat fees like this are designed to be regressive!