Yeah, we reimburse at the IRS rate for using personal cars.
Yeah, we reimburse at the IRS rate for using personal cars.
Every time an electric car thread comes up here or even worse on LinkedIn all the people that drive 700 miles a day come out and say why electric cars suck and how silly it is. They are a tool. Not every person needs every tool. This tool would work for many people most of the time. Maybe the tool you need isn't this tool but why all the hate? For berkeleys sake stop crapping on things. No one (including the big bad government) is going to take away your ICE vehicles.
Also whoever posted the spread sheet, thank you, I like math, it's real and i appreciate the facts being laid out.
In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
The IRS mileage rate is not payable to W-2 employees. Companies don't have to pay that rate, and no one I know is getting that.
I do better with the base rate plus fuel (although I used to do much better claiming mileage until the IRS changed the rule on that)
In reply to SV reX :
I reimburse my W2 employees at IRS rate for mileage on their personal vehicles after they travel 60 miles from the warehouse IF they're required to use their personal vehicles and are not driving one of the work fleet. (If I've offered them a work vehicle and they decline it, that is their choice and I do not reimburse then.)
In reply to NY Nick :
I'm not saying EVs are silly. I'm in the market for one.
I'm saying EV trucks don't add up for a lot of people. Initial price point is nearly twice some other EVs, and their range drops drastically when loaded.
Lots of truck owners need their trucks to be able to do truck stuff. There's a big difference in the conversation between EVs and EV trucks.
I work at the new Rivian plant. I see EV trucks every single day. But I never see them being driven by people who need their truck for truck stuff.
I also see hundreds of people every day who work out of their trucks. None of them drive EV trucks, and none that I have talked to would consider them. (Yet)
Tesla 3 drivers are a completely different market than EV truck drivers.
The numbers don't lie. Ford is projecting 1600 Lightnings per week for 2024. That's 80,000 for the year (down by 50%). They build 900,000 F150 gas burners per year. 92% of F150s are not EVs.
There were 14 million EVs built in 2023. Less than 100,000 of them were trucks. Less than 1%.
^ I tend to agree with sV reX. Current state: when you strip away the confounding variables of initial purchase cost, lack of availability of lower trims, dealer profiteering, and whatever political brainwashing people subject themselves to, you're still left with the facts that current EV technology isn't that well suited to tasks that people usually buy pickups for. Yes, many F-150 owners use them mainly as a commuter vehicle, but they also buy them so they can do actual truck things with them, even if it's only 5-6 times a year. For that, it's hard to beat a lower trim level gasser with the ability to haul or tow heavy loads without requiring frequent, inconvenient and time-consuming charges. When you add in the confounding variables above and the fact that people often buy vehicles more emotionally than rationally, it will probably be a while before you have broad market adoption. EV trucks are good for what most consumers need to do (commute), but not as good for what they want to do (play with heavy toys).
But when you look at future state, you're seeing all this marketing effort around EV pickups because:
- pickups are a huge and profitable market segment
- manufacturers know that EV's are a big part of their future, even if the use case for pickups isn't ideal right now
- the technology will continue to change and improve
- the current EV truck market segment is wide open, but in 10-15 years it will have consolidated to one market leader, 2 or 3 other significant players, and about 20 other companies picking through the scraps. It's just the way industries work.
- Tesla is trying to define markets around technology (EV); Ford is trying to define them around customer segments (truck buyers). Ford has basically bet all their chips on being a truck company, and it's a lot easier for a company to flex its technology than its brand or its culture. People once thought that market leaders like Kodak, Xerox, Sears-Roebuck and Dell were too big to fail, but they all chose obsolete technologies over loyal customer groups. Ask yourself whether ICE pickups will still be the majority of the market in 30 years. I like Ford's approach better, and history has shown that it's almost always better to segment markets among customers than technologies.
I work for a co that has a few hundred trucks on the road, but we're small enough that we can, and do, make one-off truck decisions for different people/use cases. My specific use case leans towards an EV truck potentially making sense, and they essentially laughed at the idea.
And a lot of it came down to preconceived and/or politically driven reasons why EV's are the devil. Right or wrong, those opinions exist, and if I were a betting man, I'd say they exist more prevalently in the C-suite of companies like mine than in the general public. So I don't know how soon you'll see widespread adoption of "work truck" EV's even if they're legitimately better than ICE counterpart.
Just my purely anecdotal opinion on another headwind.
In reply to Spearfishin :
I'm curious -- do you think your company would have rejected the idea of a hybrid, like the Maverick? Are they opposed to anything that's not a traditional work truck? Or is it EVs specifically that they dismiss?
In reply to ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) :
I honestly think ICE s will be around for a really long time. Until battery prices drop a massive amount, hybrids still make more economic sense for low cost, EVs. I know that right now, when batteries have come down a lot in price, replacing one of the three battery modules in a Mustang with an entire ICE powertrain is less expensive. And for every battery gain for BEVs, they also help hybrids.
I hope the changes I think needs to happen come soon, but it's been the better part of a decade, and progress is still pretty slow.
I've always felt the Tesla and EV fans attitude to bemoan hybrids as a concept to be extremely stupid. For the same number of batteries in my 3, you could make around 10 packs for my mom's hybird lexus, and it's not as if gas is kind of hitting it's peak anyway. I'm honestly kind of surprised we haven't seen more of the Volt-inspired "range extender" style where the gas engine is just a generator, but that likely is because such a vehicle is going to be expensive thanks to all that needing multipule cooling systems and parts and things.
brandonsmash said:
Your "refuge in audacity" comment is particularly interesting. I hadn't considered that, but I suspect you're right.
Thanks man! It makes sense to me for Tesla to do that, if simply because a Truck to much of America is such a personal symbol as well as a beloved tool. Someone here once put it as a thing that a man "throws his dog and his girl and all his dreams into" and I think that speaks volumes to one and it's place in our culture. Like I have a 3 and part of me still thinks about how things would be different had I instead bought this $3K 91 F150 with 4x4, the 300 I6 and a 5 speed instead of having my current car payment (not that I need to) and the ability to tow ratty projects home.
Because of that, I feel as if the primary way an EV truck will be successful is only through 3 major areas- it either is genuinely a flat upgrade to a gas variant somehow, is something that is sold to those that demand novelty (the AMC Pacer crowd) OR is a truck for those who have always thought about buying one but never pulled the trigger for personal reasons. There's plenty of people who get turned off by the clannish attitudes that truck fans have for them, or the myriad of problems most trucks and big vehicles have, so Tesla is trying to make this an item sold to people who've wanted a truck capacity a few times each year but also need it to be a daily driver and an SUV all the time. As for #1 and 2, I can see some of this with the Cybertruck now having options for Vehicle 2 Grid/Vehicle 2 home which Tesla in the past panned for some decent reasons- they must have done some population studies and found it to be a major deciding factor to some people.
In reply to tester (Forum Supporter) :
I love it when people try to tell me how my finances work with my car.
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
I made a statement about the overall new vehicle market. $1450 a month for 60 months on a depreciating asset is financial suicide in my book. It was not meant as a personal attack on anyone.
SV reX said:I drive for work.
My company has a simple solution. They pay me a fixed amount monthly for the use of my truck, and give me a gas card to pay for all of my fuel. They are generous- they let me charge all of my personal use fuel too.
If I bought an electric truck, my company most certainly would not pay my home electric bill. Prorating it would mean I'd have to figure out a way to calculate my business usage and get reimbursed, and the company would have to explain to the rest of the employees why they were paying part of my home light bill. We'd have similar issues with reimbursements for recharging on the road. Really messy. The company would make it simple and avoid paying for my electric entirely.
So for me it's simple. My fuel is 100% free right now, or I could spend a lot more money to buy an electric truck and also have to pay for 100% of my fuel. It's a no brainer.
A lot of people are in similar positions as me.
When I used to drive a lot for work, my fuel costs alone were between $300-700 per month. I don't know what they are paying you for the use of your vehicle, it it's likely they could just pay your entire electric bill and save themselves thousands per year. My electric bill, even with 2 EVs is 50% or less than my most expensive monthly fuel bills. The monthly stipend they pay for your vehicle is also meant to cover vehicle maintenance and depreciation. Humans are not always the best at considering the total costs and will minimize costs they are used to absorbing. Fewer parts, on average, will require less maintenance.
SV reX said:In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
The IRS mileage rate is not payable to W-2 employees. Companies don't have to pay that rate, and no one I know is getting that.
I do better with the base rate plus fuel (although I used to do much better claiming mileage until the IRS changed the rule on that)
I'm W-2 and I get the federal rate reimbursed for mileage. Everyone I know who has to drive for work is W-2 and gets the federal rate. In fact, if your company doesn't pay the rate, you can claim the difference on your taxes. It is the established rate for a reason.
93gsxturbo said:And in case there are some doubters, here is some napkin math laying out some scenarios and the reasoning behind why gas engines still make the most sense (and cents) in the bulk of scenarios.
Feel free to poke holes in this, I feel its pretty reasonable. Numbers are nationwide averages, your particular scenario might be a little different. Some states like Wisconsin charge more per year to register an EV because they dont pay road tax via fuel. $100 is a little heavy for an oil change but that should cover other consumables as well.
Best case scenario. You own the charger and its already installed. You pay nationwide average electrical and regular fuel rates. Lets assume for the sake of discussion that a used lightning and a used F150 will resell for the same delta as new. You are only trying to recoup your initial investment difference.
47,000 miles to break even at current rates.
Now lets say this is your first EV and you need someone to install a charger for you. You already have a 200A home service entrance. Now payback is 85,000 miles.
Need a new service entrance? That's not super cheap but maybe you know a guy and he can do it reasonable. 152,000 miles.
Now lets say our friendly little tax incentive goes away. Maybe you make too many pesos, or not enough, or you just don't like filing your taxes. Woof... 200k miles to break even.
It's actually worse than what you show. The tax credit isn't like your receiving $7500 of cash in your face. That's just $7500 removed off of your income that's being taxed ~30%, so like $2500 savings....
Red91sc said:It's actually worse than what you show. The tax credit isn't like your receiving $7500 of cash in your face. That's just $7500 removed off of your income that's being taxed ~30%, so like $2500 savings....
What you are describing is a tax deduction. A tax credit is exactly that -- a credit towards taxes paid. You would get all $7500 back, assuming you qualify for the credit and owe at least $7500 in taxes for the year (there are some credits that are "refundable", but I believe the EV one is not so it maxes out at whatever you owe if that's less than $7500).
In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Ahh I see, why do we always make the tax crap so confusing
mattm said:SV reX said:In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
The IRS mileage rate is not payable to W-2 employees. Companies don't have to pay that rate, and no one I know is getting that.
I do better with the base rate plus fuel (although I used to do much better claiming mileage until the IRS changed the rule on that)
I'm W-2 and I get the federal rate reimbursed for mileage. Everyone I know who has to drive for work is W-2 and gets the federal rate. In fact, if your company doesn't pay the rate, you can claim the difference on your taxes. It is the established rate for a reason.
I don't believe that is correct. The rules were changed in 2019.
I've done the math. I make much more the way they pay me than I would getting the IRS mileage rate. No need for me to want to change it.
mattm said:SV reX said:I drive for work.
My company has a simple solution. They pay me a fixed amount monthly for the use of my truck, and give me a gas card to pay for all of my fuel. They are generous- they let me charge all of my personal use fuel too.
If I bought an electric truck, my company most certainly would not pay my home electric bill. Prorating it would mean I'd have to figure out a way to calculate my business usage and get reimbursed, and the company would have to explain to the rest of the employees why they were paying part of my home light bill. We'd have similar issues with reimbursements for recharging on the road. Really messy. The company would make it simple and avoid paying for my electric entirely.
So for me it's simple. My fuel is 100% free right now, or I could spend a lot more money to buy an electric truck and also have to pay for 100% of my fuel. It's a no brainer.
A lot of people are in similar positions as me.
When I used to drive a lot for work, my fuel costs alone were between $300-700 per month. I don't know what they are paying you for the use of your vehicle, it it's likely they could just pay your entire electric bill and save themselves thousands per year. My electric bill, even with 2 EVs is 50% or less than my most expensive monthly fuel bills. The monthly stipend they pay for your vehicle is also meant to cover vehicle maintenance and depreciation. Humans are not always the best at considering the total costs and will minimize costs they are used to absorbing. Fewer parts, on average, will require less maintenance.
It makes no difference if they would save money paying my entire electric bill. They wouldn't do it, because it would set a precedent that would be hard to explain to any employees who were not driving EVs.
My monthly stipend is plenty for the maintenance. I maintain a separate account for my vehicle. The only money that goes into it is my monthly stipend. I pay all my vehicle costs out of that account. I still had enough money accumulated to pay for my last 2 trucks with cash from that account.
I'm not hurting.
SV reX said:mattm said:SV reX said:In reply to Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) :
The IRS mileage rate is not payable to W-2 employees. Companies don't have to pay that rate, and no one I know is getting that.
I do better with the base rate plus fuel (although I used to do much better claiming mileage until the IRS changed the rule on that)
I'm W-2 and I get the federal rate reimbursed for mileage. Everyone I know who has to drive for work is W-2 and gets the federal rate. In fact, if your company doesn't pay the rate, you can claim the difference on your taxes. It is the established rate for a reason.
I don't believe that is correct. The rules were changed in 2019.
I've done the math. I make much more the way they pay me than I would getting the IRS mileage rate. No need for me to want to change it.
You are thinking the employee deduction rules vs the employer reimbursing the employee rate. A W2 employee can no longer deduct miles from their own taxes. The employer can pay them an agreed per mile rate (it can be more or less than the IRS rate) but if that employer pays them more than the IRS rate, they can only deduct the rate. If they pay less than the IRS rate, they can only deduct actual amount, so there is 0 benefit for them to pay less.
If they pay a flat rate, they can deduct that rate, so many are just paying a monthly allowance vs actual. That allowance is counted as taxable income for you as its compensation vs reimbursement.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
No. I understand the employer can pay whatever they choose. But employees can't deduct mileage (or a portion of the mileage rate if their employer pays less).
W2 employees can't deduct unreimbursed employee expenses anymore.
In reply to SV reX :
Correct, employees can not deduct it anymore, I missed where Tom said that before I replied. I was replying to this
The IRS mileage rate is not payable to W-2 employees.
In reply to Steve_Jones :
I hate to use an HR Block link, but it is easy to find on the internets.
https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/filing/adjustments-and-deductions/irs-standard-mileage-rates/#:~:text=You%20can%20deduct%20the%20difference,adjusted%20gross%20income%20(AGI).
you must itemize, and you need substantial expenses, but it can be done.
In reply to mattm :
I wouldn't use that link either, as it is wrong. I'd use IRS.gov, since that's who will be asking. There is a suspension on that deduction until 2026.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-03.pdf
From the direct website. ://www.irs.gov
It is important to note that under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers cannot claim a miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses.
Steve_Jones said:In reply to mattm :
I wouldn't use that link either, as it is wrong. I'd use IRS.gov, since that's who will be asking. There is a suspension on that deduction until 2026.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-03.pdf
From the direct website. ://www.irs.gov
It is important to note that under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers cannot claim a miscellaneous itemized deduction for unreimbursed employee travel expenses.
Good point. I was incorrect and speaking not from direct recent experience, but from my prior understanding. Thanks
In reply to mattm :
All good, I only know it changed because I have employees and got what seemed like 10,000 notices telling me to let them know. I switched to monthly allowance and gave them gas cards at that point to make it easier on everyone.
I also had to justify my 2018 deduction to the IRS earlier this year, they claimed it was a random audit, and that was the only information they requested.
You'll need to log in to post.
