4 ms·
No EV tax credit if you earn more than $100k, says US Senate
- josephcsible 5y ago> The amendment would also limit the tax credit to EVs that cost less than $40,000. Also worth clarifying that this would apply to the existing tax credit that Tesla and GM don't get anyway, rather than the new ones that have been proposed.
- jdhn 5y agoSlightly hot take: We don't need EV tax credits (beyond the $7500 one that phases out) because EVs are now associated as "cool vehicles" in the mind of the public.
- swiley 5y agoWere they ever not? Even the sinclare thing from the 80s has a cult following.
- toomuchtodo 5y agoPoor take. EVs should receive the tax credit regardless of consumer income and manufacturer total sales volume, and combustion vehicles taxed at the same rate (if you're not going to pull combustion vehicle bans forwards from 2030-2035), considering the global CO2 budget being mostly exhausted. The Earth is literally heating up earlier than expected. To offset the carbon emissions of a combustion vehicle over it's lifetime, the cost is roughly $6k-$10k/depending on lifetime mileage, MPG, and assuming ~$100/ton for CO2 emitted. Better to cut the check right to the seller at the point of sale when someone buys a new EV. If you want to buy a new combustion vehicle, you can, but you're going to pay the fully loaded emissions costs upfront (instead of dumping the externalities on everyone else).
- genocidicbunny 5y agoI think that calculus should then include the up-front costs of EV's in CO2 emissions from the mining for the metals necessary the make the EV. ICE vehicles should have this included too of course.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoIt would be far easier and practical to just increase taxes on all fossil fuels.
- erhk 5y agoMy gas generator EV charging station startup will be ruined!
- NotSammyHagar 5y agoNon-evs also have classic co2 emissions in mining for their components, then much greater 'energy' related co2 costs. We should strive to reduce co2 and evs do that. evs are made of metal and other minerals of course, just like gas cars.
- erhk 5y agoLithium
- qeternity 5y ago> and assuming ~$100/ton for CO2 emitted Uhhh why?? Costs for true negative offsets are much lower.
- toomuchtodo 5y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28095600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28095600
- schemescape 5y agoThe article itself admits that this is unlikely to become law: > Sen. Fischer's amendment is non-binding and is unlikely to be greeted warmly by the House of Representatives
- maerF0x0 5y agoThe fact these numbers are not adjusted for income is asinine . $100k per year is basically poverty in the bay area, if you have even a single dependent...
- faeriechangling 5y agoSo the idea is to reduce inequality in the most environmentally destructive way possible or what?
- 8bitsrule 5y agoGiven the State of the Globe, to hell with tax credits. A serious policy would pay for half the price of a EV costing under $40,000. $20k x 1 million is $20B. Accompanied by a massive charging-station buildout. Preference to people currently driving gas-guzzlers worth under $10000. Paid after proof of crushing. In 10 years that gets 10M offending vehicles off the road. Do it now or do it when it's too late.
- yumraj 5y agoSounds like an amendment that Tesla would have lobbied for.