I still don't see EV's Replacing ICEs.

In reply to Opti :

I'm not sure much in this thread past page 2 is taken seriously. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

frenchyd said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

The government often does things I don't agree with.   Often they do it for reasons I'm completely against. 
   That is the nature of democracy.  
      This I happen to agree with.  Next you'll get something.  And I won't be so happy. 
     

Well your principles are more flexible than mine.  I don't ever think the government should take from others and give it to those that are more than capable of taking care of themselves like the average EV purchaser.  Now if the government wants to actually help people in need, I can support that.  Sadly that is rarely the case anymore.  I've never asked the government for more than a fair days pay for a fair days work.  When I was in the Navy I was actually encouraged to apply for food stamps after my son was born.  I did not and would not.  No, your entire generation seems its okay to buy whatever they want on the government dime and expect future generations to pay for it.  That needs to stop before the destruction of the economy is accomplished in totality.  These subsidies only enrich EV manufacturers and little else. 

I have paid taxes that built the roads you drive on,  the schools you attended,  And all the government services you expect.   
   I also took advantage of the tax code that allows me to write off the interest  payments on my house.  In short I took advantage of everyone of the 77,000 pages of the tax code I'm eligible for.  
  Same as all of the wealthy people.  
      Basically every cent that they ( and I ) have taken advantage of  those who fail to look ahead have to make it up.  
    It's not fair, it's not right and it should be changed. 
    But as long as the tax code benefits the 1%  it's going to stay that way. 
   If you have a problem,  vote the rascals out.  ( and no the rascals are in both parties ).
  

As I feared I am now Tom1200 for a different reason.

This will also go 50 pages.

Median household income in the US has been ~$71k for a couple of years now.

Now for Federal taxes, a single person making that $71k median taxable income might pay around $7800 in income tax, qualifying for the full credit:

But a married couple making that same $71k household income would pay around $4700 in Fed taxes.

For a couple with no kids to take full advantage of the EV tax credit, they'd need a taxable household income near $95k:

If you add 2 kids to the Median Family, they pay just $750 in income tax:

So for a married couple with two kids to take full advantage of the Fed tax credit, they'd need to make about $124k taxable income:

If that married couple with 2 kids is saving for retirement and maxxing out 2 401ks ($45k combined in 2023) and an HSA ($7750), they could make over $175k and still not be able to take the full EV tax credit.

Opti said:

Frenchy, about half of Americans pay no federal income tax (it varies from low 40 percents to almost 60% the last couple years).

So you EV Tax credit you keep talking about is pretty much only a subsidy for wealthier individuals. The people that don't have much money to begin with won't actually get the tax credit because they already aren't paying federal income taxes. So it doesn't make EVs cheaper for the everyman it makes them cheaper for the wealthy.

Well there is a $3450? Credit for used EV's 

  That's better than the credit you get for buying a used ICE.  
         But you do make a valid arguement.  
  I mean home owners get a tax break because they own a home.  Renters get , well not nothing. I mean they do get a deduction.  
  So I guess  just like a renter gets a tax deduction even if it's not itemized, then everybody gets a deduction?  
 You are right!! Some guys really get this tax deduction thing working for them while others don't.  

Tom1200 said:

As I feared I am now Tom1200 for a different reason.

This will also go 50 pages.

I feel like I kind of missed out on this one. I kept seeing the thread pop up but, due to a lack of interest in the subject on my part, I feel like I missed the opportunity to wade into the cesspool, drop trou, squat down, and squeeze out my contribution for this thread. If I do it now, I'd feel like some kind of Jonny-Come-Lately. 

:)


I'd be out of my depth anyway as I know very little about modern electric vehicles and I know very little about modern ICE vehicles too for that matter.

In reply to frenchyd :

While I agree with what you said about 95%, don't deny your generation largely made this tax code.  Trust me I vote rascals out on both sides every chance I get.  The real problem is the average person that somehow doesn't view unlimited debt etc as a problem.  
 

And I don't care how much you paid.  No one has paid enough to keep the roads repaired due to misappropriation.  I remember a MN bridge collapsing into big muddy in my lifetime.  Is that a good example of road maintenance?

In reply to frenchyd :

We'll Boost Crazy. You and I agree  when there is no more  incentives  EV's will be equal  to ICE's. 
  I am personally eager for that to happen.  
meanwhile I'll take full advantage of the incentives.  I hope to convince others to as well. Or at least look very carefully at the option. 
    Regarding other states. I specifically mentioned Texas.   Please go back and reread that.    Last I read something like 20 states are participating to some degree 

  Just last night I read where Colorado is offering $5000 which makes Minnesota's $2500 look paltry. But I'll take it!!  
       Yes I know there are places where  electricity is much more expensive than here. 
    I'd hate to think state politicians are that foolish that they are having  their citizens pay too much for a commodity that should be very affordable. 
     If you live in one of those places, look into it. Somebody's getting rich off you.  
 

Someone else mentioned that the cost of charging was not a significant enough savings over gas in their state. To that you replied "in my state, electricity is 1/3 the cost of gas." You completely ignored what they had told you, and used your irrelevant data to reply to them. 
 

You are missing the big picture when it comes to energy costs. I live in CA, remember? Land of green energy. I'm surrounded by windmills and solar. And our energy costs are among the highest in the nation. It's not because someone is getting rich- the public utilities are heavily regulated and have set profit margins. And it's getting more expensive as we push further into the green. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to frenchyd :

We'll Boost Crazy. You and I agree  when there is no more  incentives  EV's will be equal  to ICE's. 
  I am personally eager for that to happen.  
meanwhile I'll take full advantage of the incentives.  I hope to convince others to as well. Or at least look very carefully at the option. 
    Regarding other states. I specifically mentioned Texas.   Please go back and reread that.    Last I read something like 20 states are participating to some degree 

  Just last night I read where Colorado is offering $5000 which makes Minnesota's $2500 look paltry. But I'll take it!!  
       Yes I know there are places where  electricity is much more expensive than here. 
    I'd hate to think state politicians are that foolish that they are having  their citizens pay too much for a commodity that should be very affordable. 
     If you live in one of those places, look into it. Somebody's getting rich off you.  
 

Someone else mentioned that the cost of charging was not a significant enough savings over gas in their state. To that you replied "in my state, electricity is 1/3 the cost of gas." You completely ignored what they had told you, and used your irrelevant data to reply to them. 
 

You are missing the big picture when it comes to energy costs. I live in CA, remember? Land of green energy. I'm surrounded by windmills and solar. And our energy costs are among the highest in the nation. It's not because someone is getting rich- the public utilities are heavily regulated and have set profit margins. And it's getting more expensive as we push further into the green. 

Texas has the most renewables in the nation ( with a smaller population) and more  much more being planned and added.  
       
 Obviously  Texas has incentives but it also simply makes economic sense. 
  So what is California not doing that Texas  is?  

Regarding CA: You said it yourself "it doesn't make economic sense".  CA is forcing green energy beyond what makes practical sense.  Replacing readily available (and rather clean) cheap natural gas plants with massive solar and wind farms in a heavily regulated state with very high land prices seems predictably impractical..  Throwing massive battery storage and grid changes / reorganizations, will only add to that.

It would be kind of like forcing people to buy electric cars before it makes economic / practical sense... oh wait...

In reply to frenchyd :

You need to explain to yourself and your peers how debt works.  Your generation has been running Congress for the past 3 1/2 decades.  Your generation ran this debt "to the moon" and just passed a budget with no limits on additional debt.  Don't explain anything to me, the millenials or gen Z.  You are just expecting us to pick up the tab on your unlimited party debtapalooza.  The fact that you keep shilling for subsidies and more debt PROVES beyond any doubt that you don't get it and never will.  Your generation will go down in history as economically illiterate and selfish beyond all measure.  I'm going to help the millenials and Gen Z write it.  Stop trying to justify irresponsible spending.  Everyone on the planet knows you can't do it on a personal level.  Your entire economic philosphy is literally economically harming all future generations yet you try to justify it.  I've heard it described as economic slavery and that isn't far from the truth.  Adding to the debt to subsidize EVs is a horrible idea. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Frenchy you just contradicted yourself. You complain about administrations that lower taxes, and then you advocate for a 2% sales tax instead of income tax. last I looked the estimates for a sales tax to replace income tax is between 15 and 20 Percent. So are you advocating for lowering taxes?

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

You're arguing fiscal responsibility to someone that wanted to saddle an 18 year old with a car loan vs a used car for cash, because of reasons that kept changing. He deleted the thread when it didn't go his way, but we remember. 

Thank you for allowing me to clarify.  
   A sales tax to be fair and simple would need to cover everything without exception. 
  If I want a bag of popcorn I would pay 2% tax.  If I wanted  to buy Amazon  or Tesla I'd need to pay a 2% sales tax.   Same with   Tesla buying a Giga press or light bulbs for their cars. 
  Everything without exception.  Exceptions would raise the % needed to meet the required tax goals.  
      
  The side benefit would be the incentive for companies to  produce more  in house.  Air bags for example. You could buy them from Japan or Finland where they are made. But since that has transportation and import duty  added to their costs  local assembly would  save those.  And the sales tax would be lower. ( labor and other social costs are higher in Japan and Finland. Than here in America). 

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

You're arguing fiscal responsibility to someone that wanted to saddle an 18 year old with a car loan vs a used car for cash, because of reasons that kept changing. He deleted the thread when it didn't go his way, but we remember. 

I still say for a long term solution to the transportation need  The correct new car is a better deal than used cars.   It has proven to be true for my whole life.  
     Once she made it clear that wasn't the way she wanted to go I dropped it. 
  Then the same group that wanted a used car gave me grief for giving her a $500 hood used car. 
    

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to frenchyd :

You need to explain to yourself and your peers how debt works.  Your generation has been running Congress for the past 3 1/2 decades.  Your generation ran this debt "to the moon" and just passed a budget with no limits on additional debt.  Don't explain anything to me, the millenials or gen Z.  You are just expecting us to pick up the tab on your unlimited party debtapalooza.  The fact that you keep shilling for subsidies and more debt PROVES beyond any doubt that you don't get it and never will.  Your generation will go down in history as economically illiterate and selfish beyond all measure.  I'm going to help the millenials and Gen Z write it.  Stop trying to justify irresponsible spending.  Everyone on the planet knows you can't do it on a personal level.  Your entire economic philosphy is literally economically harming all future generations yet you try to justify it.  I've heard it described as economic slavery and that isn't far from the truth.  Adding to the debt to subsidize EVs is a horrible idea. 

So it's the baby boomers fault?   
  Remember we inherited the national debt from 2 world wars and a Great Depression.   Oh and a national highway system plus the cost of the space program and fighting the Cold War.  
           There has only been a tiny window in the History of America where debt wasn't carried over.   
       You should know this. If not please look it up.  
  Finally a tiny little incentive to achieve  the additional energy required for the coming demands on the power grid  is a good investment.  
   If you really want to cut the national debt look at the trillions we've spent on wars and the military with absolutely  no additional security or peace.  

aircooled said:

Regarding CA: You said it yourself "it doesn't make economic sense".  CA is forcing green energy beyond what makes practical sense.  Replacing readily available (and rather clean) cheap natural gas plants with massive solar and wind farms in a heavily regulated state with very high land prices seems predictably impractical..  Throwing massive battery storage and grid changes / reorganizations, will only add to that.

It would be kind of like forcing people to buy electric cars before it makes economic / practical sense... oh wait...

To my knowledge they aren't shutting down existing power plants rather adding  renewables.    Electrical power demands are increasing. 
      I do know in my state that is what we are doing. 
  Yes we did shut down the dirty coal plants but that has been going on for decades.   Mainly for economic reasons ( but also some of the coal plants were obsolete and needed extensive work and expense).  

aircooled said:

Regarding CA: You said it yourself "it doesn't make economic sense".  CA is forcing green energy beyond what makes practical sense.  Replacing readily available (and rather clean) cheap natural gas plants with massive solar and wind farms in a heavily regulated state with very high land prices seems predictably impractical..  Throwing massive battery storage and grid changes / reorganizations, will only add to that.

It would be kind of like forcing people to buy electric cars before it makes economic / practical sense... oh wait...

I'm hearing ( on this subject ) that California isn't giving homeowners an incentive to add solar or wind.  
    Either others have lied on here  or someone in California hasn't looked at the big picture. 

In reply to frenchyd :

If you have to post 5 in a row on the same thread, it's time to take a break. 

In reply to frenchyd :

It would do the opposite of incentivizing in house production. It would incentivize offshoring manufacturing. If you are talking about having to pay 2% of raw materials or things for resale, most items have various inputs or steps along the way before the end users and you are talking about multiple compounding taxes of 2%.

You give me that scenario and my first management thought is to produce the final product out of country and only pay the 2% once, instead of multiple times which will easily offset import duty or transportation, if I have multiple inputs or manufacturing steps. Plus even if I dont want to offshore it there are all kinds of legal ways to avoid that tax. "I didnt actually sell it to them" type stuff.

As always your information is incorrect and it doesnt work in the way you think it does.

Pay 2% of raw materials

or 2% of raw materials plus labor plus profit, plus  shipping plus import duty?   And Labor costs in Finland/Japan are higher than America. 
   

In reply to frenchyd :

first why would I offshore it to somewhere that has higher labor costs?

Second raw materials (inputs) to me arent actually raw materials. lets say I need steel. Im paying 2% to the miners, 2+2 percent of 2 percent to the manufactures and 2 percent compounded again to the people that buy the raw steel and make it usable for me. Plus im not actually paying 2 percent at each step, im paying 2 percent marked up and compounded since youve raised their input costs.

Many inputs have a longer supply chain also. Apply that to every input I have and Im taking my manufacturing elsewhere.

Like many of your ideas or most modern political ideas they sound good and make you fell all warm and fuzzy but they dont do what you think they do.