Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
When GM tax credits ended, they massively dropped the price; like $10k on the Bolt. It's cheaper to buy a new Bolt now than stacking all the tax credits before.
Manufacturers should be motivating people to purchase their vehicles by making them awesome and affordable, not the government subsidizing wealthy people to purchase vehicles they otherwise wouldn't get at the expense of the public. Why should we give $7,500 to someone to purchase a Tesla instead of a Toyota Corolla?
Anyhow, at least if the credit was "refundable", it wouldn't be a subsidy only for the wealthy. Refundable credits like the first time homebuyer credit pay out the difference if one doesn't have enough tax liability. The IRS cut me an $8,000 check to purchase a house.
I don't begrudge anyone for legally taking advantage of something, even if it's a dumb idea.
|
I'll presume that psychology is part of the tax subsidy calculus.
Poor people want what 'wealthy' people have. A carrot incentivizes wealthy to be early adopters. When their lease expires, or when trading in for a new car, the used cars become a highly-discounted pre-owned vehicle, now within reach of those lower in the pecking order. Every few years the process repeats itself, and finally, those of the lower echelons have access to a 'wealthy' persons car.
The whole chain of events involves cars with zero-carbon potential, something the Corolla can't offer.