PETITION: Increase the EV tax credit cap per manufacturer!

  • SUPPORT THE SITE AND ENJOY A PREMIUM EXPERIENCE!
    Welcome to Tesla Owners Online, four years young! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of TOO. We now offer yearly memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://teslaownersonline.com/account/upgrades

    SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL!
    Did you know we have a YouTube channel that's all about Tesla? Lots of Tesla information, fun, vlogs, product reviews, and a weekly Tesla Owners Online Podcast as well!

Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
47
Location
Sydney Australia
#21
I'm not signing. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the cost of luxury cars for people who are generally more well off than the average family. There are so many better things we can spend that money on. That subsidy was to stimulate demand and thus encourage manufacturers to build EV's. With there being 400k preorders for the M3, demand is not an issue.
While I can understand and give very limited support to arguments that speak for tax incentives, I actually agree with HanSolo's argument. I find the level of attention that tax rebates get in discussion on this forum both surprising and somewhat unhealthy.

I much rather see the real cost (i.e. "social cost") of ICE vehicles reflected in their price and in the price of petrol. Remember the 53,000+ deaths per annum that Elon spoke about in the reveal and the little chart he showed on CO2 emissions? The focus ought to be on urgently putting a price on those costs.

If tax incentives are to be given, the order of priority should be for:

1. Walking
2. Cycling
3. Public transport
4. EV

Lobbying for tax incentives might actually be counterproductive in the long term. As for renewable energy, it has the effect of attaching the stigma that "it can only by viable with subsidies". I'd rather see appropriate regulation than tax incentives. I want Tesla to be viable without tax incentives - that will be best for Tesla and the rise of EV.
 

HanSolo

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
45
Location
Cincinnati, OH
#22
Fair point. There are literally tens of thousands of things I don't believe tax payers shouldn't have to subsidize. I choose to get more distraught by the TSA spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on an app that randomly generates numbers. As an example...

But don't forget about the subsidies received by oil companies! From Mother Jones:

  1. "Taxpayers currently subsidize the oil industry by as much as $4.8 billion a year, with about half of that going to the big five oil companies—ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips—which get an average tax break of $3.34 on every barrel of domestic crude they produce.Apr 14, 2014"
So I'm just trying to help counteract that somewhat.
You make a great point. We were discussing this topic on another Tesla forum as well. The way I personally view it is that tax breaks for people to buy a luxury car are bad more so because of how they are viewed by the general public. We are the enthusiast component of the population and often forget, but PR is a big part of our hobby. Those incentives that are given to oil companies however have the tendency to benefit everyone because they impact and incentivize an activity that is very expensive and risky. Shell most recently was in the news because they spent nearly $2B pursuing a possible oil well only to find that it was a bust. These incentives are often reflected in everyday things such as the lower cost of fuel, price of groceries, price of energy, and price of home heating. These all have positive economic impacts in our everyday lives. You destroy an economy, and the environment will be the last thing people will have on their minds. Energy is something that is usually very heavily subsidized in many countries because of this end result.

I am not a fan of subsidizing industries, but I believe money that is spent subsidizing a luxury EV could be better spent on other pursuits that will ultimately help us to find alternative energy sources. The reality is that until we get 2 or 3 more technological breakthoughs, EV's are not appropriate to the lifestyle of most people. I in fact plan on keeping my ICE car because the infrastructure is not there yet. Infrastructure is where I believe money should also be spent on. Tesla has done a great job and I commend their vision in realizing how important infrastructure is, but it is also proprietary to them.
 

thecatdad

Active member
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Messages
30
Location
Mentor, Ohio
#23
You make a great point. We were discussing this topic on another Tesla forum as well. The way I personally view it is that tax breaks for people to buy a luxury car are bad more so because of how they are viewed by the general public. We are the enthusiast component of the population and often forget, but PR is a big part of our hobby. Those incentives that are given to oil companies however have the tendency to benefit everyone because they impact and incentivize an activity that is very expensive and risky. Shell most recently was in the news because they spent nearly $2B pursuing a possible oil well only to find that it was a bust. These incentives are often reflected in everyday things such as the lower cost of fuel, price of groceries, price of energy, and price of home heating. These all have positive economic impacts in our everyday lives. You destroy an economy, and the environment will be the last thing people will have on their minds. Energy is something that is usually very heavily subsidized in many countries because of this end result.

I am not a fan of subsidizing industries, but I believe money that is spent subsidizing a luxury EV could be better spent on other pursuits that will ultimately help us to find alternative energy sources. The reality is that until we get 2 or 3 more technological breakthoughs, EV's are not appropriate to the lifestyle of most people. I in fact plan on keeping my ICE car because the infrastructure is not there yet. Infrastructure is where I believe money should also be spent on. Tesla has done a great job and I commend their vision in realizing how important infrastructure is, but it is also proprietary to them.
Yep, I see your point. Can't argue.

I'm not even buying a Tesla because of the environment. I like the experience of driving it. I won't get solar panels because it's a renewable energy source. I'm doing it to save me money. I read at the time of that volcano eruption from Iceland that eventually touched the entire northern hemisphere, that more CO2 was released then than all the CO2 that could ever be emitted by humans using fossil fuels. I'm not a scientist so I can't refute or prove that, and obviously people can and will cite whatever backs up their belief or opinion, but it seems conceivable.

But my point is, I'm not necessarily doing this for the environment. So as far as clean energy tax credits go, I guess I could care less. I'd just like an equal playing ground. Sure, Tesla itself has received billions of dollars subsidized by various government entitites, but I respect their company and its leaders' vision, so I'm on board. And as it stands, I won't qualify for it anyways. With a brand new mortgage, I'm planning on getting money back for the next decade or so... I'm sure there are plenty in the 200,000 that COULD get it that are in the same boat as me. On the other hand, maybe they are paying a good tax guy so they aren't.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
47
Location
Sydney Australia
#24
... Those incentives that are given to oil companies however have the tendency to benefit everyone because they impact and incentivize an activity that is very expensive and risky. .... These incentives are often reflected in everyday things such as the lower cost of fuel, price of groceries, price of energy, and price of home heating. These all have positive economic impacts in our everyday lives. You destroy an economy, and the environment will be the last thing people will have on their minds. Energy is something that is usually very heavily subsidized in many countries because of this end result.
IMHO the above is a fairly weak argument and one that will ensure our continued dependence on unsustainable energy sources.

The problem is how we measure economic growth and quality of life. If we were able to assign the real economic cost of 53,000+ deaths per annum in the USA alone (plus the cost to our health system for others who are kept alive with diseases caused by various toxins from the burning of fossil fuels, and all the money that we will now spend on adaptation to climate change rather than the prevention of climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels) I think people would realize the folly of the above argument.

I believe there will be companies and countries who will be winners by recognizing the economic benefit of switching to renewable energy - with or without subsidies. Tesla [Powerwall] is a perfect example.

It just irks me that we have not learned from the tobacco example that we must not let "rent seeker" businesses make profits by foisting costs of their products onto society at large.
 

HanSolo

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
45
Location
Cincinnati, OH
#25
Yep, I see your point. Can't argue.

I'm not even buying a Tesla because of the environment. I like the experience of driving it. I won't get solar panels because it's a renewable energy source. I'm doing it to save me money. I read at the time of that volcano eruption from Iceland that eventually touched the entire northern hemisphere, that more CO2 was released then than all the CO2 that could ever be emitted by humans using fossil fuels. I'm not a scientist so I can't refute or prove that, and obviously people can and will cite whatever backs up their belief or opinion, but it seems conceivable.

But my point is, I'm not necessarily doing this for the environment. So as far as clean energy tax credits go, I guess I could care less. I'd just like an equal playing ground. Sure, Tesla itself has received billions of dollars subsidized by various government entitites, but I respect their company and its leaders' vision, so I'm on board. And as it stands, I won't qualify for it anyways. With a brand new mortgage, I'm planning on getting money back for the next decade or so... I'm sure there are plenty in the 200,000 that COULD get it that are in the same boat as me. On the other hand, maybe they are paying a good tax guy so they aren't.
Your sentiments are exactly what I feel. My belief is that when it comes to the environment, too many people approach it from a one track mind. The reality is that there are some things we have no control over, and some things that are high impact that can have significant benefits with less of an economic cost. I happen to really be interested in EV's now because they finally are starting to become practical. The Teslas are also stunning to look at.

IMHO the above is a fairly weak argument and one that will ensure our continued dependence on unsustainable energy sources.

The problem is how we measure economic growth and quality of life. If we were able to assign the real economic cost of 53,000+ deaths per annum in the USA alone (plus the cost to our health system for others who are kept alive with diseases caused by various toxins from the burning of fossil fuels, and all the money that we will now spend on adaptation to climate change rather than the prevention of climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels) I think people would realize the folly of the above argument.

I believe there will be companies and countries who will be winners by recognizing the economic benefit of switching to renewable energy - with or without subsidies. Tesla [Powerwall] is a perfect example.

It just irks me that we have not learned from the tobacco example that we must not let "rent seeker" businesses make profits by foisting costs of their products onto society at large.
Great points as you address some of the hidden costs that we normally cannot factor into most of our analysis. What should be our priority is trying to find ways to make alternatives a practical reality for the average person. Things work best when it is easy for people to make the more environmental choice. Whichever route we take, the economic impact is something we cannot take lightly. If we approach it from a non-practical draconian perspective, the net benefit is often erased as the activity will just continue to take place in some developing country. If you destroy the economy and people are miserable, arguments in favor of environmental preservation will no longer win the PR battle as higher priorities exist. There is NOT a thing we can do about climate change unfortunately. Climate change was taking place well before humans ever existed and is a natural process that human activity may have altered and accelerated. What we can do is narrow things down to what is workable. Sadly, humans tend to be reactive rather than pro-active. We continue to believe that fossil fuels will always be available as a cheap source of energy being naïve to the fact that even if you set the environmental arguments aside, we are running out of it. This is where I believe the subsidies must go towards. Batteries will probably play a big part in our future and that means finding ways to increase efficiency. This also means changing the way we build, live, and zone neighborhoods. It appalls me as to how urban planning is a disaster in most cities. However I do not fault people who moved out of the city because at least in Cincinnati, they did so to escape the high crime and piss poor school system that is one of the worst in the country.
 

hevkev

New Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
4
Location
Beaverton, Oregon
#26
You make a great point. We were discussing this topic on another Tesla forum as well. The way I personally view it is that tax breaks for people to buy a luxury car are bad more so because of how they are viewed by the general public. We are the enthusiast component of the population and often forget, but PR is a big part of our hobby. Those incentives that are given to oil companies however have the tendency to benefit everyone because they impact and incentivize an activity that is very expensive and risky. Shell most recently was in the news because they spent nearly $2B pursuing a possible oil well only to find that it was a bust. These incentives are often reflected in everyday things such as the lower cost of fuel, price of groceries, price of energy, and price of home heating. These all have positive economic impacts in our everyday lives. You destroy an economy, and the environment will be the last thing people will have on their minds. Energy is something that is usually very heavily subsidized in many countries because of this end result.

I am not a fan of subsidizing industries, but I believe money that is spent subsidizing a luxury EV could be better spent on other pursuits that will ultimately help us to find alternative energy sources. The reality is that until we get 2 or 3 more technological breakthoughs, EV's are not appropriate to the lifestyle of most people. I in fact plan on keeping my ICE car because the infrastructure is not there yet. Infrastructure is where I believe money should also be spent on. Tesla has done a great job and I commend their vision in realizing how important infrastructure is, but it is also proprietary to them.
Well, only 97,000+ signatures to go in the next 4 days, he he... Looking good, huh?
 

xxZULAxx

Active member
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
72
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Country
Country
#27

Steve

Active member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
69
Location
Modesto, CA
Country
Country
Tesla Owner
Model 3
#28
You make a great point. We were discussing this topic on another Tesla forum as well. The way I personally view it is that tax breaks for people to buy a luxury car are bad more so because of how they are viewed by the general public. We are the enthusiast component of the population and often forget, but PR is a big part of our hobby. Those incentives that are given to oil companies however have the tendency to benefit everyone because they impact and incentivize an activity that is very expensive and risky. Shell most recently was in the news because they spent nearly $2B pursuing a possible oil well only to find that it was a bust. These incentives are often reflected in everyday things such as the lower cost of fuel, price of groceries, price of energy, and price of home heating. These all have positive economic impacts in our everyday lives. You destroy an economy, and the environment will be the last thing people will have on their minds. Energy is something that is usually very heavily subsidized in many countries because of this end result.

I am not a fan of subsidizing industries, but I believe money that is spent subsidizing a luxury EV could be better spent on other pursuits that will ultimately help us to find alternative energy sources. The reality is that until we get 2 or 3 more technological breakthoughs, EV's are not appropriate to the lifestyle of most people. I in fact plan on keeping my ICE car because the infrastructure is not there yet. Infrastructure is where I believe money should also be spent on. Tesla has done a great job and I commend their vision in realizing how important infrastructure is, but it is also proprietary to them.
With the average price of a new vehicle, which was $32,086 in 2013, according to Kelley Blue Book, the Model 3 can be viewed as a car for the average citizen. I am buying this car because: I can afford it, it is a technological marvel, it will be fun to drive, I will not have to wait to fill up my car with gas ( I do have two other ICE cars but this will be our main driver), it will fit in my garage, and.... I may get a subsidy.
 

HanSolo

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
45
Location
Cincinnati, OH
#29
With the average price of a new vehicle, which was $32,086 in 2013, according to Kelley Blue Book, the Model 3 can be viewed as a car for the average citizen. I am buying this car because: I can afford it, it is a technological marvel, it will be fun to drive, I will not have to wait to fill up my car with gas ( I do have two other ICE cars but this will be our main driver), it will fit in my garage, and.... I may get a subsidy.
We should probably see where the mean and median price lies for cars to compare. Just a few high dollar $77-80k Ford F250's easily skews that number. Even the F150's can hit $70k. Then there are all those luxury vehicles that are purchased via the Hummer loophole by people who might claim to use them greater than 50% for their work or business. Most people except those buying the Workman's special do not buy strippers.

I agree with your assessment on why you are buying it. I also add that this is a stunner to look at. I am also short and am tired of how most new cars are impossible to see out of. For too long have electrified vehicles been butt ugly. Actually more baboon's butt ugly. Ford just confirmed a 200+ mile range EV to Automobilemag, so Tesla is changing the game as EV's might start becoming cool,to average people.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
47
Location
Sydney Australia
#30
... My belief is that when it comes to the environment, too many people approach it from a one track mind. The reality is that there are some things we have no control over, and some things that are high impact that can have significant benefits with less of an economic cost. I happen to really be interested in EV's now because they finally are starting to become practical. The Teslas are also stunning to look at.

Great points as you address some of the hidden costs that we normally cannot factor into most of our analysis. What should be our priority is trying to find ways to make alternatives a practical reality for the average person. Things work best when it is easy for people to make the more environmental choice. Whichever route we take, the economic impact is something we cannot take lightly. If we approach it from a non-practical draconian perspective, the net benefit is often erased as the activity will just continue to take place in some developing country. If you destroy the economy and people are miserable, arguments in favor of environmental preservation will no longer win the PR battle as higher priorities exist. There is NOT a thing we can do about climate change unfortunately. Climate change was taking place well before humans ever existed and is a natural process that human activity may have altered and accelerated. What we can do is narrow things down to what is workable. Sadly, humans tend to be reactive rather than pro-active. We continue to believe that fossil fuels will always be available as a cheap source of energy being naïve to the fact that even if you set the environmental arguments aside, we are running out of it. This is where I believe the subsidies must go towards. Batteries will probably play a big part in our future and that means finding ways to increase efficiency. This also means changing the way we build, live, and zone neighborhoods. It appalls me as to how urban planning is a disaster in most cities. However I do not fault people who moved out of the city because at least in Cincinnati, they did so to escape the high crime and piss poor school system that is one of the worst in the country.
Looks like Elon thinks not all that different to my earlier argument against subsidies for electric vehicles and the need for a price on carbon.

Given the perilous state of our global environment (latest "victims" being the citizens of Fort McMurray), I am willing and able to rEVolt:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...eed-a-revolt-against-the-fossil-fuel-industry

 

Dafusco

New Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
2
Location
Fort Lauderdale
#31
I stopped into a Tesla showroom last week and I spoke with the manager about the tax credit situation. She indicated that there was an internal email stating that most likely the remainder of the 200k rebates will be consumed by Model S and X orders moving forward. It is likely that no model 3 owners will receive rebates.

As I understand the rebate provision, the rebate will end the quarter AFTER the manufacturer reached 200,000 sales. I speculate that more than 200,000 people may receive that rebate due to how it closes on a specific date at the close of the quarter.

I asked if there was any rumor or internal speculation of Tesla perhaps officiating sales of the Model 3 during the final quarter well before delivery dates in order to include as many people as possible in that rebate. She response indicated she had no such knowledge.
 

MelindaV

☰ > 3
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
10,391
Location
Vancouver, WA
Country
Country
Tesla Owner
Model 3
#32
I stopped into a Tesla showroom last week and I spoke with the manager about the tax credit situation. She indicated that there was an internal email stating that most likely the remainder of the 200k rebates will be consumed by Model S and X orders moving forward. It is likely that no model 3 owners will receive rebates.

As I understand the rebate provision, the rebate will end the quarter AFTER the manufacturer reached 200,000 sales. I speculate that more than 200,000 people may receive that rebate due to how it closes on a specific date at the close of the quarter.

I asked if there was any rumor or internal speculation of Tesla perhaps officiating sales of the Model 3 during the final quarter well before delivery dates in order to include as many people as possible in that rebate. She response indicated she had no such knowledge.
since this is exactly contrary to comments directly from Elon, and how the credit is phased, she probably should have just left it at saying she has no knowledge.
 

HanSolo

Active member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
45
Location
Cincinnati, OH
#33
since this is exactly contrary to comments directly from Elon, and how the credit is phased, she probably should have just left it at saying she has no knowledge.
Or perhaps the dear leader realized reality. Elon is an idealist and sometimes I think that is reflected in his enthusiastic thought processes. When you look at how many cars they are selling each quarter, it is becoming a real possibility that there will be no Model 3 owners receiving the full $7500 tax credit which I cannot stand how so many people refer to it as a rebate.
 

MelindaV

☰ > 3
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2016
Messages
10,391
Location
Vancouver, WA
Country
Country
Tesla Owner
Model 3
#37
Keep starting them till enough signatures are obtained for it to pass.
Unless someone has a plan on how to collect the needed signatures, just adding more and asking the same group, didn't have enough signatures the first time, isn't going to be any different. And even with a completed petition, it is nothing more than bringing it to the WHs attention. It is far from guaranteed any action would be taken.
People would have a better chance at working locally for state credit or rebate programs. The federal program has done what it intended to do, and with Tessa's aggressive plan, most reservations will qualify for the credit.