|
Yep, that's the criticism I've been making all along. This is a subsidy to help the wealthy purchase a new vehicle. The very definition of regressive.
Every manufacturer could potentially reduce the federal tax revenue by $1.5 billion assuming all 200k vehicles claim the full credit amount, and there's many manufacturers, most of them foreign and benefiting from this US funded subsidy. That doesn't account for the "unlimited" sales window that can last up to 6 months, or the following unlimited sales that are permitted during the phase out period.
The government has no business deciding which technologies and industries to "win" because that also puts other competing technologies at a competitive disadvantage. Who is to say that battery EV (BEV) is clearly the best way to reduce fuel consumption?
Any policy needs to directly address a stated problem, with very clear objectives, and be shown that the net benefit outweighs the net cost. If reducing CO2 emissions is the assumed goal of the tax credit (the goal doesn't seem to be stated anywhere that I can find), it would be way more effective to simply raise taxes on fossil fuels. Government should address problems at the highest level possible to avoid interfering with the free market, which is the most efficient way problems are solved.
|