Posted on 04/27/2019 9:27:18 AM PDT by jazusamo
Full title: Steve Forbes: Rich people don't need your money to buy electric cars -- Let's get real about EV tax credits
Americans who want to drive electric vehicles should absolutely be free to do so. But the rest of us should not be forced to subsidize their expensive, environmentally questionable choice of cars.
Liberal environmentalists have long touted electric vehicles (EVs) as an affordable, low-emission option for middle-class American families, even though the electricity used to power them is most often generated by fossil fuels and the buyers are rarely middle class. The soon-to-expire tax breaks that EV owners receive go disproportionately to upper-income Americans.
Nevertheless, EV advocates want taxpayers to continue to pay billions so that affluent drivers in coastal areas like California can receive significant tax breaks they don’t need or deserve. Currently, purchasers of EVs are offered a $7,500 tax credit until the EV manufacturer sells 200,000 cars in a year, after which the credit starts to wind down. Legislation has been introduced in Congress that would extend the EV tax credit and lift the manufacturer cap. Some want it lifted indefinitely.
Aside from the economic failures that routinely result when bureaucrats pick winners and losers in industries, the problem with EV tax credits specifically is that taxpayers are being forced to subsidize vehicles for someone else’s use. That often means middle-class taxpayers in the Midwest are paying for tax credits that disproportionately go to higher-income individuals in states like California or New York.
In fact, more than 50 percent of EVs sold in 2017 were sold in California. And the University of California Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas found that Americans in the top 20 percent of income earners received on average 90 percent of the federal tax credits for EVs.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yep, that’s a problem the enviros don’t want to talk about.
A while back, I got into a rather heated debate with someone about this. I have no problem admitting that I’m not 100% on the differences between tax deductions, tax credits, etc, and so on. Personally, I really don’t care. What I do care about is the government picking winners and losers in an attempt to lure the taxpayer into buying something and at some point that money is going to be paid by someone, other than the guy that purchased the car.
John Stossel did a story on his show about Corporatism & Crony Capitalism and highlighted a company that made energy efficient windows, that spelled this out.
In Georgia, I think you’d get a $5000 tax credit or something like that if you got an EV. At first there was only Tesla, at about $100k a piece. The folks that got them were rich folks that could afford a $100k, Sunday Driver. An old car salesman told me once that simplest way to figure out a car payment would be to take what you’re financing and every $1000 of financing would be $20 of your car payment and that would get you in the ballpark of what you were going to be paying. Finance $20k, you have a $400/month car payment.
So, some guy wants a Tesla, drops $50K on down payment, still owes $50k, roughly $1000/month note. If he can afford that, he doesn’t need the taxpayers $5000.
And it looks like the data is showing that without tax breaks/incentives, sales are slowing down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/28/business/tesla-car-sales-taxes.html
Its also about more control over your travel.
Liberals only want successful people so that they can then tax their earnings away from them, and to use them as wedge examples to whatever “unfairness” they currently are whining about at the moment to stay “relevant” and keep getting media attention.
Yes,I've done a bit of research on hydrogen vehicles and they do look interesting...far more so than electric vehicles.
If hydrogen vehicles can have a 300 mile range (a figure I've seen mentioned) and can be refueled in 4 minutes (or even 10) at as many (or nearly as many) spots that my diesel can be refueled I'd probably give them serious consideration.
But a 200 mile range...with "refueling" taking several hours,done at any one of hundreds of spots...as is currently the case with EVs? No way,Jose! Not for me!
I live in central Illinois at the cross roads of I74 and I57. I've never seen more than 3 cars at the 8 port Tesla charging station at any one time. There really is NO demand for charging stations in my area. I went by there today at 10:30 and there were no cars charging. Illinois is flyover country, not drive through country..
#7 I can see the the commercial now.
“Buy the Ford Hindenburg....”
Our Government 'elites' set up programs that benefit themselves? I'm shocked I tell you, shocked./s
FWIW
Tesla has a specialized connector which will not work at any station without one. Most cars will use some version of a standardized connector, leaving Tesla out in the cold when it comes to the charging economics with masses of electric cars on the road - might be like finding a station selling leaded gas (there are a few).
While I think it’s nice that you can do that, there aren’t many cars today that can. It’s a high level of demand of a new vehicle to reach the optimal level of any car, just to be considered.
Cars that are now in the 250 to 300 mile range are coming close to acceptable levels. Those cars are also on the verge of being able to be charged to 80% in 15 to 30 minutes depending on the level of charger you use.
It’s not such a bad deal to stop every 200 miles for a few minutes. You can go to the restroom, get some snacks or a meal. You can benefit from the experience, to be a bit more alert on the road too.
I don’t think everyone should be driving electric, but the idea that coal fired plants charge them, isn’t a big deal to me. That electricity is used for many other things too.
New technology fascinates me. Electric vehicles do. Today the government is subsidizing electric vehicles. Most folks see that as abhorrently wrong. Constitutionally, I think they are right. That isn’t the full story.
We are on the cusp of having smart vehicles attached to a smart network where people will be able to charge cars during the night cheaply, and the power companies will be in a position to buy part of it back during the day at higher rates.
If you’re using your 300 mile ranged vehicle to go to and from work 20 miles each way, you’ll have 260 miles worth of energy to sell. You will be able to tell the power company how much power they are authorized to use from your vehicle. They will part or all of that allotment while you work.
Lets say you tell them 200 miles worth, just to play it safe. Doing this five days per week over a year could give you a pretty decent dividend per year. If you have two or more vehicle per household, so much the better.
When you’ve got tens of thousands of these cars on the grid, you’ve just created a massive energy resource. It’s an energy resource that will feed power into the grid on demand as needed.
One of the problems with energy is that you have to generate the full capacity needed during peak periods of the day. This system would relieve that pressure. It would allow a more flat level source of power for the grid.
Look folks, this is a new technology. Right now the government is making an investment. In time it may actually save us all money, as new conventional power plants don’t need to be built.
Maybe people in big cities or California do benefit more than they should right now.
There are going to be things that continue to bother me about all this, but there are also going to be things about it that cause me to think aspects of it are pretty cool too.
This isn’t just about electric vehicles. It’s about that and a new way of storing power for peak periods in a way many of us will benefit from in a number of ways.
I do believe that cleaner air will result. I also realize that used car batteries are now being used to build battery packs for homes, so they essentially become more than self-sufficient.
I have a family member that sells power back to the power company each month. They have a negative monthly power bill, and it has also affected their natural gas bill.
There is a massive industry coming on line right now. In the end I think it’s going to affect our lives numerous ways for the positive.
My family member’s home is actually an example of the concept of selling power back into the grid. Vehicles will do that in the not too distant future.
This really is cool.
Thanks....
Great cartoon! Easy to understand and right to the point. Will be using it when I make up material.
Used batteries are now being used to build household battery packs. You charge them with solar or wind energy, and use the batteries for your household electric needs.
The excess you sell back to the power company. You actually make money off the power from the used vehicle batteries.
Cities can buy them for small little power stations, used to feed the grid at peak periods.
Pretty cool.
One glaring error in my comments was this.
You don’t charge up your household batteries cheaply at night.
You charge up from solar cells during the day.
Oops...
‘Nevertheless, EV advocates want taxpayers to continue to pay billions so that affluent drivers in coastal areas like California can receive significant tax breaks they don’t need or deserve.’
The extra $1.50 for gas that people in California pay due to Cap-and-Trade should be more than enough for the state to pay any subsidies to people who really need 6,000 pound ‘sustainable’ vehicles to drive to work and back.
My take is Tesla has the de facto charging standard connection. The question is can they maintain it?
I have long thought that electric cars were mostly toys for rich people that I help pay for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
