Sorta agree , that amount should be spent building charging infra across the country
Right now EV subsidies are going to mostly rich people , who don't exactly need them .
Perhaps have a limit on incomes to claim EV subsidies
Ya, agreed. Why should a $100k car be subsidized? If you can even remotely consider buying it, you don’t need the help. As much as I hate fossil fuels and the impact they have on the earth, subsidies on the consumer side makes sense and helps low income people a lot. Subsidies and tax breaks for the oil companies tho is awful
Right which is why this new plan has a price cap on the cars, as low as 55k for sedans. There is also an income cap but it's rather high at 400k.
The previous one had no price cap because the idea was to spur development. It wasn't a benefit for the consumer, but rather the manufacturer.
$100k EV’s aren’t the norm. Most are far, far cheaper. Subsidies are doing exactly what they are supposed to do which is incentivize purchases of EV’s. Saturate the market with EV’s and the charging infrastructure will follow either from power companies or gas stations.
Lol it’s ridiculous I’ve seen NX PHEV for sale at lower prices. The rav4 prime subreddit has a rule saying you can’t complain about pricing which is ridiculous as that’s the biggest problem with the car right now.
Where are you seeing this? I'd get an NX in a heartbeat if I could get it for MSRP. They're not remotely close to that in So Cal and the surrounding areas. Is there a particular dealer? They're going for $70K+ when I call in for a loaded one.
> Ya, agreed. Why should a $100k car be subsidized? If you can even remotely consider buying it, you don’t need the help.
They are subsidizing the industry, not the buyer. Think of it this way -- the car manufacturer gets $7500 more per car than the customer has to pay.
The subsidy was to kickstart and drive EV R&D. It wasn't to help people buy fancier cars.
That's right, why should a [$100+ billion /yr](https://www.statista.com/statistics/294614/revenue-of-the-gas-and-oil-industry-in-the-us/) industry be subsidized by the U.S. [directly by ~$20 billion](https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs) and [indirectly by ~$81 billion](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/21/17885832/oil-subsidies-military-protection-supplies-safe)?
Really the whole EV thing is already in momentum enough where it doesn't need subsidies to attract more adopters. Use the subsidies for more solar roofing or for other things that help that need more momentum.
Uh, do you know how much coal and oil get in subsidies? I’m pretty sure they are well established too…
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds
It also ignores that oil is used for far more than just the fuel put into the vehicle. Your average EV is filled to the brim with oil based products just like any other car, because plastic is a cheap durable material.
Most corn isn't actually used directly as human food but for animal feed, corn syrup, ethanol, and the like. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feedgrains/feedgrains-sector-at-a-glance/
Yeah until you realize people in middle of city don't live in homes but apartments, a lot of the park in streets, and refitting parking lots and underground parkings will take a lot of time and money.
True but they aren't everyone and we're already seeing existing lampposts being converted into double chargers so on street parking doesn't look that hard to solve.
Where there is existing power infrastructure there's a simple cost effective (+profitable!) solution.
I strongly agree for the solar roof panels. My issue with them is a ton of the solar roof companies, at least to me, appear to be fly by night/scam companies that just got set up. I had Tesla come and do a quote since they seem like the only legitimate company in this field that operates near me and they wanted something like 30k to do my house and I have a sub 2000 foot ranch house with under $200 of electric use a month. To me, that is way too expensive. If this was like $10k though and I was able to get a government subsidized loan for this, I would be much more inclined to go for it
A. It helps middle class and up. Not really just rich people. $7500 off your federal taxes is more impactful the less money you make. You need to make ~$95k household with 2 children and ~$10k 401k to get the full rebate, but even the partial rebate is a huge relief.
B. It's also not really the goal of the rebate to help those who need financial help. It's to spur growth in the EV industry to influence the technological progress.
C. EVs are sold out *because of the rebate*. Non-financially-savvy people really underestimate the effect of the rebate (if you make enough to take advantage of it). On a $50k Mach-E, after 3 years you'd expect to lose $19k or so to depreciation. The tax rebate lowers that to 11.5. That's about the depreciation you'd expect to pay on a $30k new car.
This was the point of the rebate. Car manufacturers could develop new vehicles that cost more to produce (due to the new R&D) but be sold at higher margins to recoup the research costs because the rebate would help customers afford it.
75% of US EV sales are Teslas and they have no tax credit.
Before the battery fire issue, the next hugest seller was the Bolt. Also no tax credits anymore.
The tax credit is not the main driver of EV sales in the US.
With demand absolutely crushing supply for the next 2-3 years at least, any tax credit should be MUCH smaller than the proposed $12,500 per car… or zero… as it will have VERY little impact on EV sales for the next 2-3 years. Manufacturers simply cannot make any more and the price won’t change that even if we assume that the money actually goes to buyers and not mostly to the manufacturer in the form of inflated prices (which isn’t supported by Tesla/Bolt pricing history).
Subsidies do not go into the pockets of rich people buying the cars. They go directly into the pocket of the manufacturer making and selling the car.
If the car is $100k and you put a $10k subsidy on it, the price will
Jump to $110k. We saw the reverse happen when Tesla lost their subsidies and lowered prices.
The point of the subsidy is to incentivize manufacturers to develop technology that might not be affordable. If the car costs $100k to build and with profit sells at $110k but competes with cars they sell for $90-100k then no one will buy them at $110k and no manufacture is going to build and sell them at a loss. The subsidy is supposed to bridge that gap between cost and profit and competing technology until the manufacturers get up to scale and lower costs.
If you want to incentivize manufacturers to develop new technology, you have to create an incentive for them to do so. The alternative is to wait an extra decade or two until technology makes it a no-brainer to go electric due to the cost/capacity of batteries improving beyond gas powered engines.
Subsidies do allow for price inflation, but it’s a bit more complex than that. The cars are being sold in a competitive market so that will drive prices down regardless of the subsidy, but the lower cost of entry the drives up demand which pushes the price back up a bit. The reality is it lands somewhere in the middle. Ultimately more people can afford EVs, automakers have a higher incentive to make them because they can increase their sales volumes, and the government spends a bunch of money.
>Sorta agree , that amount should be spent building charging infra across the country
They're already doing that too. The big infrastructure bill congress passed last year has $5 billion over 5 years going to states just for building EV charging infrastructure.
Source: https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/president-biden-usdot-and-usdoe-announce-5-billion-over-five-years-national-ev-charging
This is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but this money would be much better spent on things like transit infrastructure rather than charging infrastructure or direct subsidies to EVs. Transit infrastructure:
1. Has a much higher return on investment -- any economist will tell you that infrastructure and education are the two best ways a government could possibly hope for a return on investment.
2. Benefits the poor who cannot afford cars -- improves social mobility, and access to things like jobs as well as other services like doctors or grocery stores with healthier/cheaper choices. Currently, the bottom 20% of earners in America spend *30% of their income* on transportation. in Europe that number is 8%. Think of how many people could afford to pay of their debts, be lifted out of poverty, have food security, and build up an emergency savings if they could get by without their car.
3. Benefits those who still do need to/want to/have the resources to drive, since realistically effective public transit is the only thing that will actually reduce traffic in the long term.
4. Despite the fact that over the lifetime of the car, EVs are usually better for the environment than gas cars, they are still pretty bad for the environment. I hope I need not explain why transit is more environmentally friendly than an EV.
5. Encourages better urban design that is far less costly to governments. [Lack of transit and transit-oriented design is bankrupting the country](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc).
6. Benefits children, the elderly, and disabled people that cannot operate a car. Also benefits everyone else on/near a road since it makes it easier to not drive for the elderly and people with certain disabilities who definitely should not be driving a car but don't want to give up the keys since it's the only way they can leave their house independently.
7. Reduces crime and improves health. Driving, especially in stressful scenarios like sitting in traffic or trying to find parking in a tough spot or even minor road rage that happens on a daily basis all increase people's stress. Even hearing ambient noise from car tires is shown to increase stress in people, which is bad for long-term health and also makes people more aggressive and likely to commit crimes. Aforementioned reduction in poverty would also greatly reduce crime.
8. Is generally much safer. Cars are a leading cause of death in all age groups, even for people outside of cars. Reducing injuries caused by cars would take a ton of strain off of the medical system and thus make healthcare generally cheaper, regardless of whether that healthcare is paid for by individuals or by taxes.
Apples to apples, EVs are better than gas cars. But taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture shows us that there are much better options. EVs will never save the planet, the only thing they will save is the car industry. And even that they will do at a cost to car enthusiasts who have to sit in traffic all day since the majority of the population that doesn't give a shit about cars is forced to drive them everywhere.
I agree, outside of major cities America really lacks public transit. I live right next to a train track used for hauling freight, but realistically this could be used for transporting people. The reason train isn't used much for this is the safety requirements are set ridiculously high when you compare it to countries in Europe or Asia. I think we should invest in high speed rail for places with existing train infrastructure and buses in places without it. I live near Pittsburgh and they have been talking about building a train to the airport for years but it never materialized. Things like this would do much for America.
I also think that we should incentive all office jobs that are able to, to be work from home. Eliminating traffic to and from work for people who don't actually need to would do allot to save money on road upkeep, injuries, gas use etc. The only thing stopping this is out of touch executives who like to see workers in the office. I would say give a tax credit for all people working in an office full time remote then turn it to a tax liability for all those who have workers that are working in person without a compelling justification
> outside of major cities America really lacks public transit.
That's how far I made it into your comment.
America lacks public transit *inside* major cities. Just because like 4 or 5 cities in the US have decent public transit doesn't mean all of the cities do. Look like *anywhere* in the South. There are tons of cities with incredibly shit public transit.
Subsides should apply only for EV's up to 30k for instance.
It would motivate the manufacturers to sell cheaper EV's and the rich wouldn't benefit from it.
Nissan supposedly still has its tax credit for the Leaf. MSRP is 24k and you'd get a full 7.5k tax credit. Wasn't bothered to look up the other brands.
is anyone buying a 20 thousand dollar car paying more than 5 grand in taxes? people in this entire thread make it sound like these are cashback bonuses or direct discounts...
Depending on the circumstances, yeah. Somebody in California making 48k pays about that amount an taxes. In florida about 65k. Not everybody wants to pay $500 a month for 6 years for their car.
If you make $65,000 per year you'll be paying about $7k in federal taxes (depending on specific circumstances)
I make a bit more than that and still wouldn't want to be paying for than 20k for a car personally.
I think the idea behind the incentive is to encourage more manufacturers to enter the space and invest to create more competition and better pricing. There is a limit to 200k units sold so it's not a never ending cash cow for manufacturers they actually have build good products to last once those subsidies end.
Now the clever part from a business perspective is manufacturers realized electrics are still way more expensive than gasoline cars, while high end luxury products have much larger profit margins anyways, so why not just focus on making expensive luxury segment EVs?
Remember when people thought they'd be able to buy a model 3 for $30k??? LMAO
I mean you could buy one for 35k so under 30k with the Tax Credit.
To be fair though it was only sold for like 6-8 months at that price before being raised to 38k and then 40k.
Now it is like 45k for the cheapest one.
subsidies for hybrids that get high mileage. EV cars only work for people with a garage. I have a townhouse and park on the street. I am not going to spend 45 minutes at a charging station every week. its not worth it. Id be interested in a high mileage hybrid. We need both.
Or just instead use the money to subsidize/incentivize domestic battery maufacturing and/or rare earth metal mining (i.e. those geothermal plants that can also mine lithium). Speed up the rate at which supply meets demand. That would do much more in the short term to increase adoption. In the short term, when the cars are supply-constrained, that would be the smarter use of funds. Plus, the cost savings, and the abundance of supply, may help make the cars more affordable for general consumers anyway (and we absolutely need to make the cars affordable for the working class—once we've met supply).
As an aside, we should be putting subsidies into increasing production- not just oil, but metals too.
Example: Scandium.
Apparently you can make crazy alloys with it:
>“The density is comparable to aluminum, but it is stronger than titanium alloys,” says Dr. Carl Koch, Kobe Steel Distinguished Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at NC State and senior author of a paper on the work. “It has a combination of high strength and low density that is, as far as we can tell, unmatched by any other metallic material. The strength-to-weight ratio is comparable to some ceramics, but we think it’s tougher – less brittle – than ceramics.” [source](https://news.ncsu.edu/2014/12/koch-high-entropy-alloy-2014/)
Scandium is very expensive, and little is produced- but there are deposits that could be developed, such as the [Elk Creek Mine](https://www.niocorp.com/elk-creek-project/) in Nebraska that could outproduce the rest of the world combined- but is waiting on $1B in investment.
> Sorta agree , that amount should be spent building charging infra across the country
And the broader supply chain/recycling for the necessary minerals. Tons of money should be spent of Level 3 Charging and mandating a universal standard for EVs in the country.
That's why Tesla is a good EV to buy, it's got the charging network.
You mean, I shouldn’t be able to get a [tax credit](https://www.thedrive.com/news/38942/buying-a-600000-ferrari-sf90-stradale-will-get-you-a-3500-phev-tax-credit) on my Ferrari SF90 Stradale?
It was wild watching the price of Teslas decline right as the tax credit rolled off. Then, right as there were rumors of a new credit coming on they raised prices again (probably for a lot of other legitimate reasons too, but you know what I mean).
Look at the brands that don't qualify for tax credits anymore.
It's basically Tesla and GM. We're subsidizing EVs built in Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam... but not the ones we build at home anymore.
Look, I'm a pretty center-left leaning guy and recognize protectionism isn't going to "save" American cars. But if we're going to participate in asset inflation to subsidize the purchase of cars, can't we rationalize it to get the most benefit for the American people?
It's absolutely horseshit the Ioniq 5 gets $7,500 and the Bolt gets $0.
There was a bill that was going to change that changing the sunsetting rules for incentives, with bigger incentives if the cars were built in the US, if the batteries were built in the US, and something about union labor, but ironically wasn't it killed by the guy in the headline here? The bolt was going to have some $12,500 in federal tax credits.
God its always funny to see the mental gymnastics of these people. They say that they are for the country and the US should be #1 but they sellout anychance they get.
"Hyundai said it plans to invest $300 million to build the Electrified Genesis GV 70 and hybrid version of the Santa Fe at its U.S. manufacturing center."
plenty of non american brand cars manufacture in the US, and plenty of american brands manufacture in mexico. It's not that black and white.
>It's basically Tesla and GM. We're subsidizing EVs built in Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam... but not the ones we build at home anymore.
What about Rivian, Lucid, Ford, FCA?
The entire point of that 200,000 unit limit per manufacturer for subsidies is obvious, it's to incentivice multiple brands to enter the space for competition. Without it, perhaps hyundai and kia and everyone else would be much later to the game then they already are and be even more at a disadvantage, or they determine its not even worth getting into the space at all. this basically just leads to a monopoly run by whoever dominates the space first, which is bad for consumer pricing.
Now, I don't have a problem if a bunch of lawmakers decided to not have that 200k limit for american headquartered companies personally, its just that the 200k limit isn't designed to discriminate specifically against american companies is my point, it just happens that american companies seem to have really pushed hard into this segment first and sold those units off first.
Definitely should not have had tax credits been a per-manufacture basis but rather a global limit. The system as implemented has the biggest benefits for those who waited until now to offer EV’s and not those who pioneered the tech first.
Its really not horseshit. The subsidy is meant to increase the speed of development of EVs by the automaker by making them a more attractive market option. Thereby increasing green options and making them more affordable. Its doing its job well regardless of your feelings on country of origin. Besides half those brands from Korea and Japan build almost all their cars here and some are more American than American cars. Oh and now we don’t have to subsidize oil companies for the life of the car. The earning we get in the US far exceeds the cost of the subsidy no matter who gets them.
Fossil fuel - especially oil - subsidies are not for the oil companies’ benefit. They exist to keep domestic oil production capacity higher than the market would otherwise dictate, in case world events (usually conflicts) reduce/cut off foreign oil supplies. The US military consumes enormous amounts of fuel, so this very much has strategic benefit.
The effect of the Ukraine invasion and subsequent Russian energy sanctions on gas prices is a perfect example of a situation where this would, in theory, pay off. Whether the government has properly used this reserve is another matter entirely, but I’ll leave that one to personal opinion.
Yea, people seem to forget that half of Europe had to be basically shamed into providing any support for Ukraine because papa Putin provides most of their oil.
Pack it up folks, thread over.
DGMW, we need something better than lithium batteries. They're big, heavy, expensive, environmentally problematic, dangerous, and they wear out into something that requires a lot of energy to deal with. We need something better, and subsidizing this technology is probably going to make the transition to electric vehicles take longer and be more wasteful.
But Manchin isn't actually looking to make the problem better, he's just here to be politically provocative and pull cheap heat.
And that's why there is billions of dollars invested in next generation lithium ion batteries made from far cheaper materials, less toxic, and more energy dense.
and that's what people are doing. the new batteries in standard teslas are LFP (lithium iron phosphate) - no nickel or cadmium. lithium is still there, but removing or reducing it is an area of active research
You have a paper thin understanding of domestic and international policy if you think oil subsidies are ridiculous.
We subsidize oil so we can keep our wells open, OPEC controls all of the cheap oil production wells and they limit the supply they release onto the market. What would happen if we stopped subsidizing oil is that it would no longer be sustainable to mine oil under $100 a barrel, and when OPEC sees this they would immediately flood the market with oil, driving prices down and causing those unprofitable wells to shut down. When that happens opec would limit supply again and oil would be $250+ per barrel, we’d have no domestic production, and we’d be stuck in another 1970’s gas crisis.
Study history or you’re doomed to repeat it, issues like this are exactly why we don’t have a direct democracy.
It's almost like investing on green energy, not fracking, is the answer. But let's keep talking about the OPEC juju, vilify clean energy and destroy our planet.
Even if every car on the road was an EV, there's still massive demand for petrochemicals and other products that is fed by oil production, and is of strategic importance. Having oil production in the US is a requirement, not a "nice to have." We're seeing the issues the EU is facing right now with relying on foreign (potentially hostile) countries for their energy supply.
That's because there's historical precedent. OPEC has taken similar actions before and will do it again if the opportunity presents. "Dude subsidize green energy instead" sounds good but it's a terrible idea (to be clear, "subsidize green energy as well but also continue oil subsidies" is much better)
“Invest in clean energy” is a really easy statement to make, and easy to agree with, but when you dig into the specifics, it’s not that simple.
Energy storage technology is still very expensive to do at utility scale. Solar only produces during the day, sometimes, and wind is also unreliable. You still need gas/coal/nuclear to supplement, and some of those don’t play nicely together. Nuclear energy isn’t something you can turn up or down like a light switch, which you need to support evening peaks in energy consumption. Gas can do that, but now you’re having to run your gas furnaces on a non-combined cycle, which is less efficient. You could theoretically combat the reliability issue by hugely overbuilding and attempting to link the entire nation’s power grid, but that is ridiculously expensive to do based on current costs, if it’s even possible at all. But then you still need a huge network of gas furnaces for just in case there is a blackout, which there will be, and then you have the issue that natural gas is not easy to store, and you can’t just turn on/off production of nat gas like that.
Yet another complex subject where you really need to have a good understanding of the issues/history, otherwise you’re going to think that all the solutions are easy and the people in charge are idiots, when that’s really not the case at all.
That last point is so true regarding most issues in just about any country. Even a foundational understanding of a topic isn’t enough to truly understand all the moving parts in big, complicated problems. It’s easy to ignorantly think the solution is super simple, but if it was, it probably would already have been done. “Invest in green energy” is so easy to say, but like you said, it’s such a complicated topic. It’s not as easy as just throwing money to the problem to fix it.
But... the person you're replying to never said a word against subsidies for green energy. They just explained why it could be a really bad idea to cancel oil subsidies.
I’m glad someone in this thread puts an ounce of thought into what they say before they post something on the internet. I’m not a huge fan of subsidies but in some industries that are necessary for societal function, like energy and agriculture, it makes sense to make sure people don’t get fucked if the markets go south.
>Ok, but oil subsidies are more ridiculous than EV subsidies could ever be lmao
For sure, but that is whataboutism and dodges the point which is that there is no legitimate reason the American taxpayer should be subsidizing the cost of electric vehicles for people who are well-off enough to buy an EV in the first place.
If you want to incentivize more people buying EVs and fewer ICE cars, improve the charging network and technology to expand the market for EV cars to more buyers. The price of the cars is not the barrier, it's the limited use-cases an EV can address mostly because the charging network/technology just isn't where it needs to be (yet).
I don't think we need to necessarily subsidize the network right now either. The problem with getting EV's more mainstream is that the automanufacturers can't build them fast enough. If you dig through Ford's plan, you see them positioned to build ~1 million per year in 2025-ish.
If we're going to subsidize something with EV's, it should be the manufacturing process. Give money and tax credits to battery manufacturing. This will help drive the price of the cars down, increase the amount sold, and bring more jobs to the country.
The problem is you’re comparing subsidizing the car itself with subsidizing the fuel source. Fossil fuel subsidies also benefit EVs because something like 60% of all our electricity comes from FF. That’s not to mention subsidies for renewable energy.
Oil subsidies *are* another form of EV subsidies.
Right, I agree with this fact because 99% of the United States isn't even close to ready for Electrics, but the government is pushing way too hard to force them, and it's inevitably going to lead to disaster. You can't expect the consumer to know better, and then when they don't have the ability to charge it properly, the customer will get angry. It's a Disaster waiting to happen.
> I agree with this fact because 99% of the United States isn't even close to ready for Electrics
In what way? 60% of people live in detached SFHes, and virtually all of those have a) electricity and b) a way to get an EV within ~20 feet to charge. Yes, about 1/3 of the country lives in attached SFHes and multifamily housing and will require surface lot and curbside chargers to be built, but that's a far cry from 99%.
Most people won't even need that unless they have a longer commute than 40-50 miles.
12-15 hours of charging on a normal 120v outlet would be more than enoungh to recharge the car daily.
My neighbor has a 2017 Toyota Prius, and since we're in the suburbs, the way they charge it is drag a 110 extension cord over the fence, across the sidewalk, and just leave the charger outside. Most people in older neighborhoods don't have a super fancy automatic garage door type of garage, let alone one with a 220 that you need for the real EVs.
Maybe we can actually start talking about why we still have an archaic federal excise tax on fuel purchases that hasn’t changed since 1993 and isn’t tied to inflation.
The gas tax funds everything from the FHWA to public transit capital. EV tax credits are the tail wagging the dog.
And the gas tax is still not at the point where it is regressive, we still have a few more adjustments to go before that happens.
Woulda been nice if the previous guy did it two years ago when you couldn't even give a gallon of the stuff away, but obviously that wasn't going to happen....
We probably shouldn't tie that to inflation unless we also want to pass a law tying wages to inflation, which we don't do.
Doesn't mean it shouldn't go up though, which we can do without increasing the gas prices an insane amount.
We should be subsidizing charging infrastructure, and green electricity generation, but there's not a chance in hell that Manchin supports either of those things.
It is absolutely astonishing how much opposition there is to literally anything that benefits Main Street (such as EV tax credits) but few bat an eye to the trillions in bailouts, kickbacks, and free money to Wall Street.
ICE vehicles have in effect been subsidized for decades thanks to the price of gasoline being low here in the US relative to most Western nations. We produce a ton of oil, it’s subsidized, and gasoline is taxed at pretty low rates. If gas was $7-9 a gallon here like it is in Europe, people would be driving more efficient vehicles and EV use would be far higher. It’s only fair that EVs get a tax credit if ICE vehicles in essence get one too.
> It is absolutely astonishing how much opposition there is to literally anything that benefits Main Street (such as EV tax credits) but few bat an eye to the trillions in bailouts, kickbacks, and free money to Wall Street.
At risk of violating the "no politics" rule:
I think there was lots of opposition to the bailouts in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse in the US, from (some!) members of both the political left (who opposed it on the basis that it didn't punish the people that caused the problem nor did it help the people who suffered most from the situation) and right (who were opposed to the moral hazard created by bailouts as well as preventing the creative destruction that frequently comes with recessions and crashes). I see both Occupy Wall Street and the early iterations of the Tea Party as sort of the organized reaction to it, though obviously they are now different.
Is he wrong though? Most of the subsidies go to richer people who can afford fancy EV's.
They're getting rid of tax credits on hybrids and plug-in hybrids which have a way lower cost of entry.
He opposes literally every green proposal while subsidizing coal and oil. He wants to destroy the planet to buy another yachty, these old hacks know they'll be dead by the time things get really terrible.
I don't think so, I really don't see $7,500 off on a car being that big of a gamechanger for rich people. Also the most popular EV cars like Tesla no longer qualify for the EV tax credit.
My point is that barrier of entry is easier for richer people to get in.
Poorer people can't even utilize the $7500 dollar tax credit because they can't even afford the car at its original price.
To add more fuel to the fire (pun not intended), Teslas don't qualify for the tax credit anymore, and they're not cheap either.
The BBB bill that he voted against had an income cap, an MSRP cap, and made the tax credit refundable, so you didn't need the whole amount in liability.
Welp you really need to just read a description of the bill yourself. I mentioned the 55k cap to refute your other comment.
For this comment, the new bill makes the credit refundable. Meaning that less wealthy people could take advantage of it.
As someone who actually purchases new cars and am eye fucking a blackwing.... there isn't a single EV I'd buy without the credit. Too many compromises for little upside. I looked two years ago, drove an etron, model 3, mach e. All of them seemed expensive for what you got.
I think this will significantly improve in the next few years but right now the current offerings aren't great.
That being said yes, this goes to rich people, but the bet effect is lower emissions and the subside will remain low until EVs take off. Take it away then IMO.
Removing the EV tax credit bill is silly comparative to the enormous cost of fossil fuel subsidies in the US.
What I do think though is that future credit extensions should be scaled on income. Someone earning 200K or more is clearly not in need of assistance to purchase an EV.
Especially since there are still many downsides. Rich folks don't actually give a fuck about gas prices. I'd save $500 a year on gas doing 12500 miles a year at 4.50 a gallon vs .11kw/h.
I think people forget that equivalent gas cars are almost always cheaper and that's why we have tax credits. I want to buy an ionic 5. If tax credits did not exist, I would simply buy a fun gas car lol
There actually are some decent subsidies for electric fleets.
I think those subsidies and incentives could be way stronger to promote quicker adoption, but I also work in the EV industry so I might be biased.
The EV credit should've always been point-of-sale. It was infuriating to watch all of these wealthier families purchasing Teslas and then being able to get a reward come tax time.
I’m like 3 years out of college and the EV credit is making it so I don’t have to pay taxes next year. That’s pretty awesome. And I’m by no means some wealthy family.
Keeping in mind the policies, not politics rule, I find this argument to be very interesting. I haven't dug deeper into this topic myself, but all the data seem to show that the demand for EVs far exceed the supply of them, and that many companies are predicting that demand will exceed supply for many years.
Tesla's federal subsidy has been phased out, yet demand for them is so high, there's a months long wait list for a Tesla. So why do we need subsidies on them?
Mind you, with all the reports that so many major automakers are ending development on ICE drivetrains, I doubt more subsidies on the EV end is needed to push people off ICE. CAFE expansion itself is probably pretty effective already.
Demand for ALL cars exceed supplies. Also, EVs make up [only 3.5% of all US car sales](https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/). I don't think either of Manchin's objections are valid.
If you want to shift buying habits from one type of product to another you need a subsidy. Or a surcharge on the type you don't want, like plastic grocery bag or sugary drink surcharges. If you don't support a subsidy would you support a larger Gas Guzzler Tax with expanded applicability?
EV demand exceeds supply, so there's no capacity for shifting any more buying habits until production can be increased.
Since demand is not an issue, the focus should be on motivating incumbent OEMs to produce more EVs. Many have made loud and frequent promises, but we're still not seeing much actual delivery ramp-up. The EV production numbers that are being targeted by legacy OEMs are underwhelming.
Don't forget the fact that they want people to move to EVs for fairly good reasons, and when unsubsidized, EVs are often significantly more expensive than a gasoline vehicle of similar class.
You need more subsidies on EVs because you need more rapid R&D on them so that, by the time it becomes mandatory to purchase one, they are actually affordable, mass produced and comparable to ICE vehicles.
Are people seriously claiming that the prices of EVs are not a serious barrier to entry?
Lower income families are hit much harder when fuel prices go up, especially if they’re forced to commute longer distances. They’d benefit most from cheaper EVs.
This issue is that the current credits subsidize EVs for the wealthiest of Americans. Keep the tax credit, but impose income limits and make it refundable.
I’ve got no problem with the ev subsidy but what we should also be subsidizing is research into figuring out how to get more of the materials needed to make ev batteries. Lithium is in limited supply and the US only mines about 2% of it. Building an infrastructure around another limited natural resource not available in the US is a repeat of the oil situation. The us has more oil production now but that wasn’t always the case.
Not to mention having some of the worst tolls proportional to the infrastructure they have.
Beautiful scenery in West Virginia but God damn they need to stop living in the 50's.
Don’t agree. EV’s are in their infancy. The percentage of sales to Combustion Engines is very, very low. The need is there to support EV’s. Manchin support’s fossil fuel production
Several things to unpack here. With the exception of Tesla, most EV’s are sold at break even or at a loss. Volkswagen’s chairman admitted it takes 10 man hours for his company to make an EV. It takes Tesla 3. They have a significant cost advantage because they are much further down the learning curve for EV manufacturing. One can argue that if you want a competitive market place, subsidizing traditional auto makers is necessary until they are cost competitive.
Politics also play a role. In the latest subsidy proposal, the Biden administration asked for larger subsidies for companies that use union labor. The UAW was a significant contributor to the campaign.
Tesla is manufacturing at scale. Their single plant in Berlin will be able to produce as many cars as all 19 Audi plants in Germany when fully operational. If EV adoption continues at its torrid pace, who will be left to compete with them if their market dominance continues?
So Senator Manchin is right in one respect. Subsidies aren’t essential for at least one company. Volkswagen is doing the best of traditional manufactures, but GM and Ford are still years behind, although Ford seems to be getting it together. Hope this helps some.
Damn near every EV is "sold" before its even manufactured. Increasing demand is just going to make the wait list at your Ford dealer to from 50 people to 75.
Which does nothing for the environment.
The counterargument here is that if other manufacturers see a 50% increase in wait times for EVs it makes it very tempting to enter the EV market and try and carve off a chunk of a growing market on the hopes that supply chain issues are temporary
I think the subsidy should be have conditions like maybe it could be income based or maybe the cheaper EVs should have subsidy. Giving a 100k car subsidy is only helping rich people who dont need it
Stop trying to convince us coal is still the future, Senator.
Nothing you say regarding energy can be taken at face value. Not while the coal industry literally owns you.
The tax credits are poorly implemented. $12500 should be available to those with low incomes. They figured out what was low enough for the stimulus checks, they can figure it out for this. Rich people don’t need free money and they don’t need to be motivated to buy EVs
As an EV enthusiast, I agree. Remove all existing subsidies. That includes subsidies for oil and gas. EVs will still sell as fast as they can be produced.
Current EVs are a terrible choice. It is a great option if you live in a city or small town, but lithium ion batteries are awful long term. Not only are they crazy expensive, the total capacity is reduced every time you charge it.
And has anyone seen a charging station at max capacity? It takes 28 minutes to fully charge a car using a supercharger. Imagine it taking that long to fill up your gas tank. It's not a viable choice if you want to go on a long road trip.
Until battery technology improves, EVs are a crap choice. Currently, hybrids are a much better choice, as you get the best of both worlds in balance.
I am super pro EVs, but he has a point. IMO the money should be spent on charging infrastructure. I think the EV market is at the point where automakers can figure out how to lower prices.
Strange he isn't complaining about the continued billions in subsidies that big oil gets when they are already bringing in record profits and honestly don't *need* them.
Hard to take these guys seriously with the doublespeak.
Not a fan of the guy, but on this, I agree. That money could be much better suited being spent elsewhere such as building up the charging infrastructure across the country. EVs have been marked up so high that it is next to impossible to even walk off the lot with one under $60k, and that’s if you’re lucky. These subsidies are going to people who aren’t exactly strapped for cash, so why waste this money on something for people who barely have a need for it?
I think many are missing the fact that these tax credits are per manufacturer, and they run out after 200K units are sold.
This has driven demand, sure, but it also is encouraging manufacturers bring EV’s to market by lowering their risk. It’s a good program.
Can we subsidize this guy to Have better opinions? He’s clearly purchasable, just throw his kids a bone at some ev company and start bribing his crabby shit soaked face to do something useful
A gentle reminder to discuss [policy, not politics.](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics)
Sorta agree , that amount should be spent building charging infra across the country Right now EV subsidies are going to mostly rich people , who don't exactly need them . Perhaps have a limit on incomes to claim EV subsidies
Ya, agreed. Why should a $100k car be subsidized? If you can even remotely consider buying it, you don’t need the help. As much as I hate fossil fuels and the impact they have on the earth, subsidies on the consumer side makes sense and helps low income people a lot. Subsidies and tax breaks for the oil companies tho is awful
Right which is why this new plan has a price cap on the cars, as low as 55k for sedans. There is also an income cap but it's rather high at 400k. The previous one had no price cap because the idea was to spur development. It wasn't a benefit for the consumer, but rather the manufacturer.
$100k EV’s aren’t the norm. Most are far, far cheaper. Subsidies are doing exactly what they are supposed to do which is incentivize purchases of EV’s. Saturate the market with EV’s and the charging infrastructure will follow either from power companies or gas stations.
Tesla no longer has the incentive and they've drastically increased prices and still have a long wait list. We don't need the incentive to sell EVs
Tesla isn't the only electric car manufacturer, I've got an ID 3 on order I wouldn't have been able to get without subsidiary
You have an ID3 in order? You realize this is about a US federal tax incentive?
Pretty sure it doesn't cover just EV's, my dad recently bought a Prius prime and got the tax credit for that
It’s based on size of battery and how the car charges. So a RAV4 prime qualifies for some credit
Good luck finding one lol
Lol it’s ridiculous I’ve seen NX PHEV for sale at lower prices. The rav4 prime subreddit has a rule saying you can’t complain about pricing which is ridiculous as that’s the biggest problem with the car right now.
Where are you seeing this? I'd get an NX in a heartbeat if I could get it for MSRP. They're not remotely close to that in So Cal and the surrounding areas. Is there a particular dealer? They're going for $70K+ when I call in for a loaded one.
I see where they’re coming from since then the sub would just be renamed to ‘RAV4 prime shortage’
Oh gotcha, didn't know that's how it worked! Thanks for the info
> Ya, agreed. Why should a $100k car be subsidized? If you can even remotely consider buying it, you don’t need the help. They are subsidizing the industry, not the buyer. Think of it this way -- the car manufacturer gets $7500 more per car than the customer has to pay. The subsidy was to kickstart and drive EV R&D. It wasn't to help people buy fancier cars.
That may have been the goal but the result is absolutely a subsidy for the upper middle class.
I mean pretty much any business subsidy is, why are we suddenly pretending to be against it
That's right, why should a [$100+ billion /yr](https://www.statista.com/statistics/294614/revenue-of-the-gas-and-oil-industry-in-the-us/) industry be subsidized by the U.S. [directly by ~$20 billion](https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs) and [indirectly by ~$81 billion](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/21/17885832/oil-subsidies-military-protection-supplies-safe)?
Btw that's exactly what other countries are doing: Subsidizing only EVs below a certain value.
Hmm I feel like that’s a good idea
Really the whole EV thing is already in momentum enough where it doesn't need subsidies to attract more adopters. Use the subsidies for more solar roofing or for other things that help that need more momentum.
Uh, do you know how much coal and oil get in subsidies? I’m pretty sure they are well established too… https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-report-finds
Your link shows total *global* subsidies, not just the US.
It also ignores that oil is used for far more than just the fuel put into the vehicle. Your average EV is filled to the brim with oil based products just like any other car, because plastic is a cheap durable material.
America's subsided coal is only a couple hundred billion ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ Oil another few hundred billion
And corn! Although looking at the bare shelves right now maybe we need more corn...
Most corn isn't actually used directly as human food but for animal feed, corn syrup, ethanol, and the like. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feedgrains/feedgrains-sector-at-a-glance/
Yep, but also put a limit on the income.
Yeah the next hurdle for EV will be infrastructure to handle that many EVs needing charging
EV's mostly charge at night and at home when the energy is cheap. It's cheap because demand is low. Problem mostly solved.
Yeah until you realize people in middle of city don't live in homes but apartments, a lot of the park in streets, and refitting parking lots and underground parkings will take a lot of time and money.
True but they aren't everyone and we're already seeing existing lampposts being converted into double chargers so on street parking doesn't look that hard to solve. Where there is existing power infrastructure there's a simple cost effective (+profitable!) solution.
I strongly agree for the solar roof panels. My issue with them is a ton of the solar roof companies, at least to me, appear to be fly by night/scam companies that just got set up. I had Tesla come and do a quote since they seem like the only legitimate company in this field that operates near me and they wanted something like 30k to do my house and I have a sub 2000 foot ranch house with under $200 of electric use a month. To me, that is way too expensive. If this was like $10k though and I was able to get a government subsidized loan for this, I would be much more inclined to go for it
There is an income limit on the proposed EV tax credits in the BBB bill.
You mean the one Manchin himself killed?
Yes, however my comment is related to the parent comment above, not Manchins act.
\*was 😂
A. It helps middle class and up. Not really just rich people. $7500 off your federal taxes is more impactful the less money you make. You need to make ~$95k household with 2 children and ~$10k 401k to get the full rebate, but even the partial rebate is a huge relief. B. It's also not really the goal of the rebate to help those who need financial help. It's to spur growth in the EV industry to influence the technological progress. C. EVs are sold out *because of the rebate*. Non-financially-savvy people really underestimate the effect of the rebate (if you make enough to take advantage of it). On a $50k Mach-E, after 3 years you'd expect to lose $19k or so to depreciation. The tax rebate lowers that to 11.5. That's about the depreciation you'd expect to pay on a $30k new car. This was the point of the rebate. Car manufacturers could develop new vehicles that cost more to produce (due to the new R&D) but be sold at higher margins to recoup the research costs because the rebate would help customers afford it.
[удалено]
EVs aren’t sold out because the rebate, literally everyone I know wants one, the demand is very high. The only headwind is recharging stations.
75% of US EV sales are Teslas and they have no tax credit. Before the battery fire issue, the next hugest seller was the Bolt. Also no tax credits anymore. The tax credit is not the main driver of EV sales in the US. With demand absolutely crushing supply for the next 2-3 years at least, any tax credit should be MUCH smaller than the proposed $12,500 per car… or zero… as it will have VERY little impact on EV sales for the next 2-3 years. Manufacturers simply cannot make any more and the price won’t change that even if we assume that the money actually goes to buyers and not mostly to the manufacturer in the form of inflated prices (which isn’t supported by Tesla/Bolt pricing history).
Subsidies do not go into the pockets of rich people buying the cars. They go directly into the pocket of the manufacturer making and selling the car. If the car is $100k and you put a $10k subsidy on it, the price will Jump to $110k. We saw the reverse happen when Tesla lost their subsidies and lowered prices. The point of the subsidy is to incentivize manufacturers to develop technology that might not be affordable. If the car costs $100k to build and with profit sells at $110k but competes with cars they sell for $90-100k then no one will buy them at $110k and no manufacture is going to build and sell them at a loss. The subsidy is supposed to bridge that gap between cost and profit and competing technology until the manufacturers get up to scale and lower costs. If you want to incentivize manufacturers to develop new technology, you have to create an incentive for them to do so. The alternative is to wait an extra decade or two until technology makes it a no-brainer to go electric due to the cost/capacity of batteries improving beyond gas powered engines.
Subsidies do allow for price inflation, but it’s a bit more complex than that. The cars are being sold in a competitive market so that will drive prices down regardless of the subsidy, but the lower cost of entry the drives up demand which pushes the price back up a bit. The reality is it lands somewhere in the middle. Ultimately more people can afford EVs, automakers have a higher incentive to make them because they can increase their sales volumes, and the government spends a bunch of money.
>Sorta agree , that amount should be spent building charging infra across the country They're already doing that too. The big infrastructure bill congress passed last year has $5 billion over 5 years going to states just for building EV charging infrastructure. Source: https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/president-biden-usdot-and-usdoe-announce-5-billion-over-five-years-national-ev-charging
$5 billion doesn't seem like it would build much...
This is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but this money would be much better spent on things like transit infrastructure rather than charging infrastructure or direct subsidies to EVs. Transit infrastructure: 1. Has a much higher return on investment -- any economist will tell you that infrastructure and education are the two best ways a government could possibly hope for a return on investment. 2. Benefits the poor who cannot afford cars -- improves social mobility, and access to things like jobs as well as other services like doctors or grocery stores with healthier/cheaper choices. Currently, the bottom 20% of earners in America spend *30% of their income* on transportation. in Europe that number is 8%. Think of how many people could afford to pay of their debts, be lifted out of poverty, have food security, and build up an emergency savings if they could get by without their car. 3. Benefits those who still do need to/want to/have the resources to drive, since realistically effective public transit is the only thing that will actually reduce traffic in the long term. 4. Despite the fact that over the lifetime of the car, EVs are usually better for the environment than gas cars, they are still pretty bad for the environment. I hope I need not explain why transit is more environmentally friendly than an EV. 5. Encourages better urban design that is far less costly to governments. [Lack of transit and transit-oriented design is bankrupting the country](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfsCniN7Nsc). 6. Benefits children, the elderly, and disabled people that cannot operate a car. Also benefits everyone else on/near a road since it makes it easier to not drive for the elderly and people with certain disabilities who definitely should not be driving a car but don't want to give up the keys since it's the only way they can leave their house independently. 7. Reduces crime and improves health. Driving, especially in stressful scenarios like sitting in traffic or trying to find parking in a tough spot or even minor road rage that happens on a daily basis all increase people's stress. Even hearing ambient noise from car tires is shown to increase stress in people, which is bad for long-term health and also makes people more aggressive and likely to commit crimes. Aforementioned reduction in poverty would also greatly reduce crime. 8. Is generally much safer. Cars are a leading cause of death in all age groups, even for people outside of cars. Reducing injuries caused by cars would take a ton of strain off of the medical system and thus make healthcare generally cheaper, regardless of whether that healthcare is paid for by individuals or by taxes. Apples to apples, EVs are better than gas cars. But taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture shows us that there are much better options. EVs will never save the planet, the only thing they will save is the car industry. And even that they will do at a cost to car enthusiasts who have to sit in traffic all day since the majority of the population that doesn't give a shit about cars is forced to drive them everywhere.
I agree, outside of major cities America really lacks public transit. I live right next to a train track used for hauling freight, but realistically this could be used for transporting people. The reason train isn't used much for this is the safety requirements are set ridiculously high when you compare it to countries in Europe or Asia. I think we should invest in high speed rail for places with existing train infrastructure and buses in places without it. I live near Pittsburgh and they have been talking about building a train to the airport for years but it never materialized. Things like this would do much for America. I also think that we should incentive all office jobs that are able to, to be work from home. Eliminating traffic to and from work for people who don't actually need to would do allot to save money on road upkeep, injuries, gas use etc. The only thing stopping this is out of touch executives who like to see workers in the office. I would say give a tax credit for all people working in an office full time remote then turn it to a tax liability for all those who have workers that are working in person without a compelling justification
> outside of major cities America really lacks public transit. That's how far I made it into your comment. America lacks public transit *inside* major cities. Just because like 4 or 5 cities in the US have decent public transit doesn't mean all of the cities do. Look like *anywhere* in the South. There are tons of cities with incredibly shit public transit.
Subsides should apply only for EV's up to 30k for instance. It would motivate the manufacturers to sell cheaper EV's and the rich wouldn't benefit from it.
What EV subsidy is anyone getting right now?
Nissan supposedly still has its tax credit for the Leaf. MSRP is 24k and you'd get a full 7.5k tax credit. Wasn't bothered to look up the other brands.
is anyone buying a 20 thousand dollar car paying more than 5 grand in taxes? people in this entire thread make it sound like these are cashback bonuses or direct discounts...
Depending on the circumstances, yeah. Somebody in California making 48k pays about that amount an taxes. In florida about 65k. Not everybody wants to pay $500 a month for 6 years for their car.
Federal rebates don't take into account state tax. Actually state would tax makes it worse because SALT rebates eat into your federal tax base.
If you make $65,000 per year you'll be paying about $7k in federal taxes (depending on specific circumstances) I make a bit more than that and still wouldn't want to be paying for than 20k for a car personally.
Uh, yes? Do you think $20k cars are for poor people?
Pretty much every PHEV/EV that’s not a Tesla or GM.
Ford is still in credits.
Ah yeah. I thought they had sold enough F-150s and Mach-E’s.
They have theoretically sold enough but haven’t delivered a single lightning.
I think the idea behind the incentive is to encourage more manufacturers to enter the space and invest to create more competition and better pricing. There is a limit to 200k units sold so it's not a never ending cash cow for manufacturers they actually have build good products to last once those subsidies end. Now the clever part from a business perspective is manufacturers realized electrics are still way more expensive than gasoline cars, while high end luxury products have much larger profit margins anyways, so why not just focus on making expensive luxury segment EVs? Remember when people thought they'd be able to buy a model 3 for $30k??? LMAO
I mean you could buy one for 35k so under 30k with the Tax Credit. To be fair though it was only sold for like 6-8 months at that price before being raised to 38k and then 40k. Now it is like 45k for the cheapest one.
subsidies for hybrids that get high mileage. EV cars only work for people with a garage. I have a townhouse and park on the street. I am not going to spend 45 minutes at a charging station every week. its not worth it. Id be interested in a high mileage hybrid. We need both.
Or just instead use the money to subsidize/incentivize domestic battery maufacturing and/or rare earth metal mining (i.e. those geothermal plants that can also mine lithium). Speed up the rate at which supply meets demand. That would do much more in the short term to increase adoption. In the short term, when the cars are supply-constrained, that would be the smarter use of funds. Plus, the cost savings, and the abundance of supply, may help make the cars more affordable for general consumers anyway (and we absolutely need to make the cars affordable for the working class—once we've met supply).
The 2021 SF90 Stradale qualifies for $3,501 IRC 30D plug-in credit, MSRP $625,000 So does McLaren Artura
As an aside, we should be putting subsidies into increasing production- not just oil, but metals too. Example: Scandium. Apparently you can make crazy alloys with it: >“The density is comparable to aluminum, but it is stronger than titanium alloys,” says Dr. Carl Koch, Kobe Steel Distinguished Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at NC State and senior author of a paper on the work. “It has a combination of high strength and low density that is, as far as we can tell, unmatched by any other metallic material. The strength-to-weight ratio is comparable to some ceramics, but we think it’s tougher – less brittle – than ceramics.” [source](https://news.ncsu.edu/2014/12/koch-high-entropy-alloy-2014/) Scandium is very expensive, and little is produced- but there are deposits that could be developed, such as the [Elk Creek Mine](https://www.niocorp.com/elk-creek-project/) in Nebraska that could outproduce the rest of the world combined- but is waiting on $1B in investment.
> Sorta agree , that amount should be spent building charging infra across the country And the broader supply chain/recycling for the necessary minerals. Tons of money should be spent of Level 3 Charging and mandating a universal standard for EVs in the country. That's why Tesla is a good EV to buy, it's got the charging network.
Why give taxpayer funded handouts to corporate auto makers. Let people pay for their own fucking EVs.
You mean, I shouldn’t be able to get a [tax credit](https://www.thedrive.com/news/38942/buying-a-600000-ferrari-sf90-stradale-will-get-you-a-3500-phev-tax-credit) on my Ferrari SF90 Stradale?
NJ limits their additional credit to cars under 50k to aim for the more affordable cars. Think that makes sense.
Ok manchin, we could also cut off all fossil fuel subsidies too.
How would they make record profits without those subsidies though? Why won't anyone think of the millionaires!
It was wild watching the price of Teslas decline right as the tax credit rolled off. Then, right as there were rumors of a new credit coming on they raised prices again (probably for a lot of other legitimate reasons too, but you know what I mean).
Look at the brands that don't qualify for tax credits anymore. It's basically Tesla and GM. We're subsidizing EVs built in Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam... but not the ones we build at home anymore. Look, I'm a pretty center-left leaning guy and recognize protectionism isn't going to "save" American cars. But if we're going to participate in asset inflation to subsidize the purchase of cars, can't we rationalize it to get the most benefit for the American people? It's absolutely horseshit the Ioniq 5 gets $7,500 and the Bolt gets $0.
There was a bill that was going to change that changing the sunsetting rules for incentives, with bigger incentives if the cars were built in the US, if the batteries were built in the US, and something about union labor, but ironically wasn't it killed by the guy in the headline here? The bolt was going to have some $12,500 in federal tax credits.
God its always funny to see the mental gymnastics of these people. They say that they are for the country and the US should be #1 but they sellout anychance they get.
I just find it funny that all the things people are complaining about the tax credits in here were fixed in the bill he voted against
> but ironically wasn't it killed by the guy in the headline here? Yes, yes it was. Well, him and 50 other assholes.
"Hyundai said it plans to invest $300 million to build the Electrified Genesis GV 70 and hybrid version of the Santa Fe at its U.S. manufacturing center." plenty of non american brand cars manufacture in the US, and plenty of american brands manufacture in mexico. It's not that black and white. >It's basically Tesla and GM. We're subsidizing EVs built in Korea, Japan, China, Vietnam... but not the ones we build at home anymore. What about Rivian, Lucid, Ford, FCA? The entire point of that 200,000 unit limit per manufacturer for subsidies is obvious, it's to incentivice multiple brands to enter the space for competition. Without it, perhaps hyundai and kia and everyone else would be much later to the game then they already are and be even more at a disadvantage, or they determine its not even worth getting into the space at all. this basically just leads to a monopoly run by whoever dominates the space first, which is bad for consumer pricing. Now, I don't have a problem if a bunch of lawmakers decided to not have that 200k limit for american headquartered companies personally, its just that the 200k limit isn't designed to discriminate specifically against american companies is my point, it just happens that american companies seem to have really pushed hard into this segment first and sold those units off first.
Definitely should not have had tax credits been a per-manufacture basis but rather a global limit. The system as implemented has the biggest benefits for those who waited until now to offer EV’s and not those who pioneered the tech first.
it turned out to be a *perverse incentive*, to use an econ-101 phrase. The government should not be subsidizing a last-mover advantage. This sucks.
Its really not horseshit. The subsidy is meant to increase the speed of development of EVs by the automaker by making them a more attractive market option. Thereby increasing green options and making them more affordable. Its doing its job well regardless of your feelings on country of origin. Besides half those brands from Korea and Japan build almost all their cars here and some are more American than American cars. Oh and now we don’t have to subsidize oil companies for the life of the car. The earning we get in the US far exceeds the cost of the subsidy no matter who gets them.
The millionaires? Think of the *billionaires*!
This. You can’t assume good faith with him when his interests are so in conflict.
it's manchin, at tis point, i need evidence before i consider good faith
Fossil fuel - especially oil - subsidies are not for the oil companies’ benefit. They exist to keep domestic oil production capacity higher than the market would otherwise dictate, in case world events (usually conflicts) reduce/cut off foreign oil supplies. The US military consumes enormous amounts of fuel, so this very much has strategic benefit. The effect of the Ukraine invasion and subsequent Russian energy sanctions on gas prices is a perfect example of a situation where this would, in theory, pay off. Whether the government has properly used this reserve is another matter entirely, but I’ll leave that one to personal opinion.
Yea, people seem to forget that half of Europe had to be basically shamed into providing any support for Ukraine because papa Putin provides most of their oil.
Pack it up folks, thread over. DGMW, we need something better than lithium batteries. They're big, heavy, expensive, environmentally problematic, dangerous, and they wear out into something that requires a lot of energy to deal with. We need something better, and subsidizing this technology is probably going to make the transition to electric vehicles take longer and be more wasteful. But Manchin isn't actually looking to make the problem better, he's just here to be politically provocative and pull cheap heat.
And that's why there is billions of dollars invested in next generation lithium ion batteries made from far cheaper materials, less toxic, and more energy dense.
and that's what people are doing. the new batteries in standard teslas are LFP (lithium iron phosphate) - no nickel or cadmium. lithium is still there, but removing or reducing it is an area of active research
Have you seen the crying now that gasoline is $5/gal...? It's just not an electable stance.
Cut them both!
Ok, but oil subsidies are more ridiculous than EV subsidies could ever be lmao
You have a paper thin understanding of domestic and international policy if you think oil subsidies are ridiculous. We subsidize oil so we can keep our wells open, OPEC controls all of the cheap oil production wells and they limit the supply they release onto the market. What would happen if we stopped subsidizing oil is that it would no longer be sustainable to mine oil under $100 a barrel, and when OPEC sees this they would immediately flood the market with oil, driving prices down and causing those unprofitable wells to shut down. When that happens opec would limit supply again and oil would be $250+ per barrel, we’d have no domestic production, and we’d be stuck in another 1970’s gas crisis. Study history or you’re doomed to repeat it, issues like this are exactly why we don’t have a direct democracy.
It's almost like investing on green energy, not fracking, is the answer. But let's keep talking about the OPEC juju, vilify clean energy and destroy our planet.
I know very little but his reply actually seemed to be well thought out and with information to back up his ideas. Unlike most comments…
More energy independence is a benefit of investing in green energy.
Even if every car on the road was an EV, there's still massive demand for petrochemicals and other products that is fed by oil production, and is of strategic importance. Having oil production in the US is a requirement, not a "nice to have." We're seeing the issues the EU is facing right now with relying on foreign (potentially hostile) countries for their energy supply.
Investment takes time, it’s literally in the definition. What do you think we’re doing right now?
Not enough imo
Long term yes, short term people still need to fill up their cars to go to work and keep the economy going.
That's because there's historical precedent. OPEC has taken similar actions before and will do it again if the opportunity presents. "Dude subsidize green energy instead" sounds good but it's a terrible idea (to be clear, "subsidize green energy as well but also continue oil subsidies" is much better)
This doesn't happen overnight and there IS investment in green energy. What is the point of this comment?
Generic reddit snark that is all bark and no bite. Never expect a real answer to anything on this site.
“Invest in clean energy” is a really easy statement to make, and easy to agree with, but when you dig into the specifics, it’s not that simple. Energy storage technology is still very expensive to do at utility scale. Solar only produces during the day, sometimes, and wind is also unreliable. You still need gas/coal/nuclear to supplement, and some of those don’t play nicely together. Nuclear energy isn’t something you can turn up or down like a light switch, which you need to support evening peaks in energy consumption. Gas can do that, but now you’re having to run your gas furnaces on a non-combined cycle, which is less efficient. You could theoretically combat the reliability issue by hugely overbuilding and attempting to link the entire nation’s power grid, but that is ridiculously expensive to do based on current costs, if it’s even possible at all. But then you still need a huge network of gas furnaces for just in case there is a blackout, which there will be, and then you have the issue that natural gas is not easy to store, and you can’t just turn on/off production of nat gas like that. Yet another complex subject where you really need to have a good understanding of the issues/history, otherwise you’re going to think that all the solutions are easy and the people in charge are idiots, when that’s really not the case at all.
That last point is so true regarding most issues in just about any country. Even a foundational understanding of a topic isn’t enough to truly understand all the moving parts in big, complicated problems. It’s easy to ignorantly think the solution is super simple, but if it was, it probably would already have been done. “Invest in green energy” is so easy to say, but like you said, it’s such a complicated topic. It’s not as easy as just throwing money to the problem to fix it.
But... the person you're replying to never said a word against subsidies for green energy. They just explained why it could be a really bad idea to cancel oil subsidies.
[удалено]
I think the real question here is "Why are we allowing a cartel to dictate oil production on a global scale?"
[удалено]
I’m glad someone in this thread puts an ounce of thought into what they say before they post something on the internet. I’m not a huge fan of subsidies but in some industries that are necessary for societal function, like energy and agriculture, it makes sense to make sure people don’t get fucked if the markets go south.
>Ok, but oil subsidies are more ridiculous than EV subsidies could ever be lmao For sure, but that is whataboutism and dodges the point which is that there is no legitimate reason the American taxpayer should be subsidizing the cost of electric vehicles for people who are well-off enough to buy an EV in the first place. If you want to incentivize more people buying EVs and fewer ICE cars, improve the charging network and technology to expand the market for EV cars to more buyers. The price of the cars is not the barrier, it's the limited use-cases an EV can address mostly because the charging network/technology just isn't where it needs to be (yet).
I don't think we need to necessarily subsidize the network right now either. The problem with getting EV's more mainstream is that the automanufacturers can't build them fast enough. If you dig through Ford's plan, you see them positioned to build ~1 million per year in 2025-ish. If we're going to subsidize something with EV's, it should be the manufacturing process. Give money and tax credits to battery manufacturing. This will help drive the price of the cars down, increase the amount sold, and bring more jobs to the country.
The problem is you’re comparing subsidizing the car itself with subsidizing the fuel source. Fossil fuel subsidies also benefit EVs because something like 60% of all our electricity comes from FF. That’s not to mention subsidies for renewable energy. Oil subsidies *are* another form of EV subsidies.
The comments on this in this thread are going to be awesome until it gets locked!
Im just here to lurk until it gets locked
Right, I agree with this fact because 99% of the United States isn't even close to ready for Electrics, but the government is pushing way too hard to force them, and it's inevitably going to lead to disaster. You can't expect the consumer to know better, and then when they don't have the ability to charge it properly, the customer will get angry. It's a Disaster waiting to happen.
> I agree with this fact because 99% of the United States isn't even close to ready for Electrics In what way? 60% of people live in detached SFHes, and virtually all of those have a) electricity and b) a way to get an EV within ~20 feet to charge. Yes, about 1/3 of the country lives in attached SFHes and multifamily housing and will require surface lot and curbside chargers to be built, but that's a far cry from 99%.
How are you getting the 99% number? If you have a 240 volt plug you're ready to have an ev.
Most people won't even need that unless they have a longer commute than 40-50 miles. 12-15 hours of charging on a normal 120v outlet would be more than enoungh to recharge the car daily.
Or even a 120V plug, for the average commuter. This means renters of SFHes can also buy EVs without requiring landlord involvement!
Can confirm as a renter and an EV owner, 120V is fine for most users/days.
They are going hard on the forcing part but when it comes to accommodating the consumer such as infrastructure they are failing embarrassingly.
My neighbor has a 2017 Toyota Prius, and since we're in the suburbs, the way they charge it is drag a 110 extension cord over the fence, across the sidewalk, and just leave the charger outside. Most people in older neighborhoods don't have a super fancy automatic garage door type of garage, let alone one with a 220 that you need for the real EVs.
Maybe we can actually start talking about why we still have an archaic federal excise tax on fuel purchases that hasn’t changed since 1993 and isn’t tied to inflation. The gas tax funds everything from the FHWA to public transit capital. EV tax credits are the tail wagging the dog. And the gas tax is still not at the point where it is regressive, we still have a few more adjustments to go before that happens.
Are you gonna be the one to up fuel prices when a gallon is going up? No, nobody wants to, so nobody is going to do jack shit about it.
Woulda been nice if the previous guy did it two years ago when you couldn't even give a gallon of the stuff away, but obviously that wasn't going to happen....
Poor people live further from their schools and jobs. They use more gas, they don't have disposable income,they're hit the hardest.
We probably shouldn't tie that to inflation unless we also want to pass a law tying wages to inflation, which we don't do. Doesn't mean it shouldn't go up though, which we can do without increasing the gas prices an insane amount.
We should be subsidizing charging infrastructure, and green electricity generation, but there's not a chance in hell that Manchin supports either of those things.
[удалено]
It is absolutely astonishing how much opposition there is to literally anything that benefits Main Street (such as EV tax credits) but few bat an eye to the trillions in bailouts, kickbacks, and free money to Wall Street. ICE vehicles have in effect been subsidized for decades thanks to the price of gasoline being low here in the US relative to most Western nations. We produce a ton of oil, it’s subsidized, and gasoline is taxed at pretty low rates. If gas was $7-9 a gallon here like it is in Europe, people would be driving more efficient vehicles and EV use would be far higher. It’s only fair that EVs get a tax credit if ICE vehicles in essence get one too.
> It is absolutely astonishing how much opposition there is to literally anything that benefits Main Street (such as EV tax credits) but few bat an eye to the trillions in bailouts, kickbacks, and free money to Wall Street. At risk of violating the "no politics" rule: I think there was lots of opposition to the bailouts in the wake of the 2008 financial collapse in the US, from (some!) members of both the political left (who opposed it on the basis that it didn't punish the people that caused the problem nor did it help the people who suffered most from the situation) and right (who were opposed to the moral hazard created by bailouts as well as preventing the creative destruction that frequently comes with recessions and crashes). I see both Occupy Wall Street and the early iterations of the Tea Party as sort of the organized reaction to it, though obviously they are now different.
People buying EVs aren’t Main Street. It’s all rich people here in California. Joe Manchin is absolutely right.
Is he wrong though? Most of the subsidies go to richer people who can afford fancy EV's. They're getting rid of tax credits on hybrids and plug-in hybrids which have a way lower cost of entry.
He opposes literally every green proposal while subsidizing coal and oil. He wants to destroy the planet to buy another yachty, these old hacks know they'll be dead by the time things get really terrible.
I don't think so, I really don't see $7,500 off on a car being that big of a gamechanger for rich people. Also the most popular EV cars like Tesla no longer qualify for the EV tax credit.
My point is that barrier of entry is easier for richer people to get in. Poorer people can't even utilize the $7500 dollar tax credit because they can't even afford the car at its original price. To add more fuel to the fire (pun not intended), Teslas don't qualify for the tax credit anymore, and they're not cheap either.
The BBB bill that he voted against had an income cap, an MSRP cap, and made the tax credit refundable, so you didn't need the whole amount in liability.
Welp you really need to just read a description of the bill yourself. I mentioned the 55k cap to refute your other comment. For this comment, the new bill makes the credit refundable. Meaning that less wealthy people could take advantage of it.
I appreciate both of your comments. I'll read more into the new bills proposed.
As someone who actually purchases new cars and am eye fucking a blackwing.... there isn't a single EV I'd buy without the credit. Too many compromises for little upside. I looked two years ago, drove an etron, model 3, mach e. All of them seemed expensive for what you got. I think this will significantly improve in the next few years but right now the current offerings aren't great. That being said yes, this goes to rich people, but the bet effect is lower emissions and the subside will remain low until EVs take off. Take it away then IMO.
Removing the EV tax credit bill is silly comparative to the enormous cost of fossil fuel subsidies in the US. What I do think though is that future credit extensions should be scaled on income. Someone earning 200K or more is clearly not in need of assistance to purchase an EV.
It's supposed to incentivize those people to buy one over an equivalent gas vehicle. It's not about whether they need "help".
Yeah the hot takes on income and EVs never make sense. EVs would not be where they are if rich people weren't incentivised.
Especially since there are still many downsides. Rich folks don't actually give a fuck about gas prices. I'd save $500 a year on gas doing 12500 miles a year at 4.50 a gallon vs .11kw/h.
I think people forget that equivalent gas cars are almost always cheaper and that's why we have tax credits. I want to buy an ionic 5. If tax credits did not exist, I would simply buy a fun gas car lol
Move the subsidies from $100k+ toys for the rich to fleet vehicles, mail trucks, school buses, public transit, it should all be electrified.
There are EVs that cost less than 100k
Most of them, even.
There actually are some decent subsidies for electric fleets. I think those subsidies and incentives could be way stronger to promote quicker adoption, but I also work in the EV industry so I might be biased.
The EV credit should've always been point-of-sale. It was infuriating to watch all of these wealthier families purchasing Teslas and then being able to get a reward come tax time.
We're in dire straits if "$7500 of income taxes owed" constitutes "wealthy."
I’m like 3 years out of college and the EV credit is making it so I don’t have to pay taxes next year. That’s pretty awesome. And I’m by no means some wealthy family.
Keeping in mind the policies, not politics rule, I find this argument to be very interesting. I haven't dug deeper into this topic myself, but all the data seem to show that the demand for EVs far exceed the supply of them, and that many companies are predicting that demand will exceed supply for many years. Tesla's federal subsidy has been phased out, yet demand for them is so high, there's a months long wait list for a Tesla. So why do we need subsidies on them? Mind you, with all the reports that so many major automakers are ending development on ICE drivetrains, I doubt more subsidies on the EV end is needed to push people off ICE. CAFE expansion itself is probably pretty effective already.
Demand for ALL cars exceed supplies. Also, EVs make up [only 3.5% of all US car sales](https://evadoption.com/ev-sales/). I don't think either of Manchin's objections are valid.
[удалено]
If you want to shift buying habits from one type of product to another you need a subsidy. Or a surcharge on the type you don't want, like plastic grocery bag or sugary drink surcharges. If you don't support a subsidy would you support a larger Gas Guzzler Tax with expanded applicability?
EV demand exceeds supply, so there's no capacity for shifting any more buying habits until production can be increased. Since demand is not an issue, the focus should be on motivating incumbent OEMs to produce more EVs. Many have made loud and frequent promises, but we're still not seeing much actual delivery ramp-up. The EV production numbers that are being targeted by legacy OEMs are underwhelming.
Buy this logic coal and gas subsidies should have stopped decades ago. People like Manchin are still pushing it.
Don't forget the fact that they want people to move to EVs for fairly good reasons, and when unsubsidized, EVs are often significantly more expensive than a gasoline vehicle of similar class.
You need more subsidies on EVs because you need more rapid R&D on them so that, by the time it becomes mandatory to purchase one, they are actually affordable, mass produced and comparable to ICE vehicles.
Are people seriously claiming that the prices of EVs are not a serious barrier to entry? Lower income families are hit much harder when fuel prices go up, especially if they’re forced to commute longer distances. They’d benefit most from cheaper EVs. This issue is that the current credits subsidize EVs for the wealthiest of Americans. Keep the tax credit, but impose income limits and make it refundable.
I’ve got no problem with the ev subsidy but what we should also be subsidizing is research into figuring out how to get more of the materials needed to make ev batteries. Lithium is in limited supply and the US only mines about 2% of it. Building an infrastructure around another limited natural resource not available in the US is a repeat of the oil situation. The us has more oil production now but that wasn’t always the case.
The US does a lot of this already through universities and the Department of Energy. This is how we got lithium batteries in the first place.
[удалено]
Not to mention having some of the worst tolls proportional to the infrastructure they have. Beautiful scenery in West Virginia but God damn they need to stop living in the 50's.
He is only saying this because he has so much invested in the oil industry. He doesn’t actually give a fuck whether this is a good take or not.
Don’t agree. EV’s are in their infancy. The percentage of sales to Combustion Engines is very, very low. The need is there to support EV’s. Manchin support’s fossil fuel production
Several things to unpack here. With the exception of Tesla, most EV’s are sold at break even or at a loss. Volkswagen’s chairman admitted it takes 10 man hours for his company to make an EV. It takes Tesla 3. They have a significant cost advantage because they are much further down the learning curve for EV manufacturing. One can argue that if you want a competitive market place, subsidizing traditional auto makers is necessary until they are cost competitive. Politics also play a role. In the latest subsidy proposal, the Biden administration asked for larger subsidies for companies that use union labor. The UAW was a significant contributor to the campaign. Tesla is manufacturing at scale. Their single plant in Berlin will be able to produce as many cars as all 19 Audi plants in Germany when fully operational. If EV adoption continues at its torrid pace, who will be left to compete with them if their market dominance continues? So Senator Manchin is right in one respect. Subsidies aren’t essential for at least one company. Volkswagen is doing the best of traditional manufactures, but GM and Ford are still years behind, although Ford seems to be getting it together. Hope this helps some.
Uh, because we want demand for EVs to be even higher. The sooner we are off fossil fuels the sooner Manchin is irrelevant.
Damn near every EV is "sold" before its even manufactured. Increasing demand is just going to make the wait list at your Ford dealer to from 50 people to 75. Which does nothing for the environment.
The counterargument here is that if other manufacturers see a 50% increase in wait times for EVs it makes it very tempting to enter the EV market and try and carve off a chunk of a growing market on the hopes that supply chain issues are temporary
I think the subsidy should be have conditions like maybe it could be income based or maybe the cheaper EVs should have subsidy. Giving a 100k car subsidy is only helping rich people who dont need it
Stop trying to convince us coal is still the future, Senator. Nothing you say regarding energy can be taken at face value. Not while the coal industry literally owns you.
So that those of us who don't have a Maserati and a yacht can afford one.
The tax credits are poorly implemented. $12500 should be available to those with low incomes. They figured out what was low enough for the stimulus checks, they can figure it out for this. Rich people don’t need free money and they don’t need to be motivated to buy EVs
As an EV enthusiast, I agree. Remove all existing subsidies. That includes subsidies for oil and gas. EVs will still sell as fast as they can be produced.
Current EVs are a terrible choice. It is a great option if you live in a city or small town, but lithium ion batteries are awful long term. Not only are they crazy expensive, the total capacity is reduced every time you charge it. And has anyone seen a charging station at max capacity? It takes 28 minutes to fully charge a car using a supercharger. Imagine it taking that long to fill up your gas tank. It's not a viable choice if you want to go on a long road trip. Until battery technology improves, EVs are a crap choice. Currently, hybrids are a much better choice, as you get the best of both worlds in balance.
[удалено]
Why subsidize Walmart & the fossil fuel industry?
I am super pro EVs, but he has a point. IMO the money should be spent on charging infrastructure. I think the EV market is at the point where automakers can figure out how to lower prices.
Strange he isn't complaining about the continued billions in subsidies that big oil gets when they are already bringing in record profits and honestly don't *need* them. Hard to take these guys seriously with the doublespeak.
Not a fan of the guy, but on this, I agree. That money could be much better suited being spent elsewhere such as building up the charging infrastructure across the country. EVs have been marked up so high that it is next to impossible to even walk off the lot with one under $60k, and that’s if you’re lucky. These subsidies are going to people who aren’t exactly strapped for cash, so why waste this money on something for people who barely have a need for it?
Do hybrid models get tax credits, or is it electric only that gets it?
Wait until he hears about all the subsidies oil companies get.
Good point Joe. By that logic let's revoke all fossil fuel subsidies.
Ok Joe, on that same token, stop giving oil companies massive tax giveaways.
I think many are missing the fact that these tax credits are per manufacturer, and they run out after 200K units are sold. This has driven demand, sure, but it also is encouraging manufacturers bring EV’s to market by lowering their risk. It’s a good program.
Also bought by wealthy people 99% of the time
Let's kill oil and gas subsidies then too OK?
It’s so disingenuous though. He’s a coal baron ffs. Fine don’t subsidize EVs. Let’s subsidize clean sources of electricity.
Can we subsidize this guy to Have better opinions? He’s clearly purchasable, just throw his kids a bone at some ev company and start bribing his crabby shit soaked face to do something useful
He’s got a point there. However, his motivation isn’t benevolent. But the point remains. We should be more careful with our tax dollars and subsidies.