Arcimoto, the real thing? ($12k tandem EV trike, 70/130 mi. range)

[Xist]

I will sell it back as soon as I get my tax credit! Then you can get the tax credit!

If you have friends you can sell it to them, too!

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

I say it sounds better than it is because it is still a tax credit. The more you make the more you get until the cutoff.

If someone can front the money for a year, they didn't need the "help" to purchase the EV in the first place. It's the wealthy that take advantage of these schemes.

Subsidizing the purchase of used EVs helps low and moderate income people buy a used EV. That is the point of the credit.

It doesn't, because as I pointed out, if you can front the money, you didn't need the help. That, and see below.

It doesn't drive up the sale price because the salesman doesn't know how much the buyer makes - at least they shouldn't until they are well into the buying process after the sale price has already been negotiated.

The car dealers factor in the credits into the price, either through conscious decision, or just responding to apparent increases in demand. Not only that, but people will typically inquire about the tax credits in talking to the dealers, so the salesman use that as further leverage to keep the prices high.

You can still find cheap used EVs in Oregon despite our $2500 tax rebate for low and moderately income people. (Which has quite a bit higher cut-off than the proposed federal credit)

Most of the used EVs in Oregon are coming from CA, because they can sell for a higher price here, because we offer $2,500 for moderate income families. Rather than a CA vehicle selling locally there, they get trucked up to lots in Oregon to fetch a higher sales price due to our manipulation of pricing. Perhaps the prices aren't a straight $2,500 higher than in CA, but my sense based on shopping is that our EVs are probably priced $1,500 higher than other places. A person that qualifies for the credit will end up owning an EV for slightly less than places without subsidy, after waiting a year to file taxes, but for everyone else, they pay more.

... and none of the changes address the fact that we're paying enormous subsidies to foreign manufacturers for no reason, or that it's a regressive program that tends to benefit only the wealthy, or that it's none of Big Government's business to choose technology winners or losers, or that limiting the credit to a certain number per manufacturer creates perverse incentives to both increase and decrease EV development, and that it results in an unfair playing field when companies like Tesla only sell EVs and run out of credits quickly, meanwhile other foreign companies can continue leaning on their ICE sales after exhausting their credits... and those are just the few catastrophic problems I could think of in 1 minute of lazy thought. There's certainly more, but any single one of those is sufficiently bad enough dismiss the whole thing as a dumb idea.

I'm annoyed that we're moved by feeling and not reason. That said, I'm also excited that I'll likely profit from taxpayers lack of reasoning ability. Mixed emotions, but I'd gladly profit less in exchange for people who reason more. I guess I win either way.

[Hersbird]

Pretty much any tax increases or decreases to encourage or discourage a purchase is a terrible idea in the first place IMO. That said I'm not going to stand by and not take advantage of every possible way to use the terrible ideas to my personal advantage. On the local level, on the state level, and on the federal level.

I also always vote against such things if put to a vote, and also gravitate toward any candidate who runs on a simplified tax code. Flat tax rate with no deductions or credits for anything would be ideal. Everybody pays the same percentage no matter the income source. Also be sure and count benefits as income to keep from making more loopholes on that end. Abolish the IRS almost completely and give very little for lobbyist to lobby for.

Again, I accept what is, is what is, and will work the system that is to my gain.

[redpoint5]

Pretty much how I feel. I'd be happy with some progressive tax plans that would for instance, not tax staple food items (not to include junk food) and allow the first $500 (or some reasonable number) of rent/mortgage payments to be tax free.

I argue that the federal tax credit schemes as implemented may have set back EV progress, not accelerated it. Having a short term incentive and uncertainty in renewal of such schemes makes it difficult for companies to decide what the right EV exposure is.

Big players like Toyota have not been compelled to make a strong EV showing, so that says something about the state of the technology and consumer preference.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Xist

I will sell it back as soon as I get my tax credit! Then you can get the tax credit!

If you have friends you can sell it to them, too!

The bill requires the purchase to be made from a dealer and only the first resale gets a credit.

[redpoint5]

... and you've got to own the car for at least 2 years, though I doubt there is a mechanism in place to enforce that rule.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by JSH

The bill requires the purchase to be made from a dealer and only the first resale gets a credit.

That's also going to be a nightmare. Where do I go to check the IRS database to see if the used car I'm buying has already had it's credit used? Or do I just take the dealer's word?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

That's also going to be a nightmare. Where do I go to check the IRS database to see if the used car I'm buying has already had it's credit used? Or do I just take the dealer's word?

Carfax would have what you need. The bill reads that only the 2nd sale gets a used EV credit. If the car has more than 1 previous owner it doesn't qualify for a credit.

I'm not sure how the IRS will keep track of that or if they will. Much of our tax filing system is based on the honor system combined with the threat of an audit. I don't remember if there was any paperwork to prove I actually bought my super efficient heat pump when I claimed a tax credit for it.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Most of the used EVs in Oregon are coming from CA, because they can sell for a higher price here, because we offer $2,500 for moderate income families. Rather than a CA vehicle selling locally there, they get trucked up to lots in Oregon to fetch a higher sales price due to our manipulation of pricing. Perhaps the prices aren't a straight $2,500 higher than in CA, but my sense based on shopping is that our EVs are probably priced $1,500 higher than other places. A person that qualifies for the credit will end up owning an EV for slightly less than places without subsidy, after waiting a year to file taxes, but for everyone else, they pay more.

I would say if the credit is leading to used EVs being shipped to Oregon the program is working better than expected. Why does Oregon have EV rebates? They want to increase the number of EVs sold in the state, lower CO2 emissions, and lower smog in major cities like the Portland metro.

The entire point of incentives is to increase the number of EVs in the state.

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I also always vote against such things if put to a vote, and also gravitate toward any candidate who runs on a simplified tax code. Flat tax rate with no deductions or credits for anything would be ideal. Everybody pays the same percentage no matter the income source. Also be sure and count benefits as income to keep from making more loopholes on that end. Abolish the IRS almost completely and give very little for lobbyist to lobby for.

Again, I accept what is, is what is, and will work the system that is to my gain.

I prefer a simple progressive income tax without deduction or credits. All income counts the same and yes, benefits are income.

Until then I follow the tax code as written.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

That's also going to be a nightmare. Where do I go to check the IRS database to see if the used car I'm buying has already had it's credit used? Or do I just take the dealer's word?

My hunch is they don't have the mechanism in place to verify if a VIN has received the credit yet, just as they don't have a mechanism in place to enforce the 2 year ownership requirement. What are they going to do, snatch $2,500 from poor people who end up selling the vehicle in less than 2 years due to financial problems? Probably the surest way is to see if the car had been sold in the last 2 years, since the program is only 2 years old.

Politics is the process of Read, Fire, Aim. Or not, aiming is optional since the point is to deliver feelgoods to the constituency while solving a problem is optional.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My hunch is they don't have the mechanism in place to verify if a VIN has received the credit yet, just as they don't have a mechanism in place to enforce the 2 year ownership requirement. What are they going to do, snatch $2,500 from poor people who end up selling the vehicle in less than 2 years due to financial problems? Probably the surest way is to see if the car had been sold in the last 2 years, since the program is only 2 years old.

Politics is the process of Read, Fire, Aim. Or not, aiming is optional since the point is to deliver feelgoods to the constituency while solving a problem is optional.

There isn't a requirement in the federal bill to keep the car for 2 years.

It wouldn't be hard to create a system that checks to see if a car is sold within 2 years - all that date is in the DMV database. The question is if it makes sense to spend the money to administer such a program. I really doubt it would.

As to snatching the money back - that would likely happen in the next year's income tax filing.