EV Tax Credits 2024

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Sounds like CO is very bad at writing law that actually accomplishes the purposes they seek. That said, arbitrage works on the price edges; there's hardly a scenario where there's thousands to be had with little effort.

Oregon stupidly offers $2,500 for used EV purchases to "modest" income people, and it requires the vehicle to be purchased from a dealership in Oregon. It's funded by charging a 1% fee on all vehicles purchased from a dealership. If funding is insufficient, people simply don't get the $2,500 they thought they would.

Why do you say they aren't accomplishing what they seek with their laws? If their purpose is to bring in more EV's into the state then they already have with my Nissan Leaf purchase. And if I go through with a Bolt purchase they will have again. How are they losing?

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm telling you that you will never purchase a new $12,500 Bolt EV, so there's no point entertaining the idea. If that was possible, I'd be funding every CO Bolt EV purchase in the state and taking a cut of the profit.

Perhaps.

All I know is that here they are advertising a new Bolt with an MSRP of $27,790 in Kentucky. The same Bolt is advertised on the main Cheverolet.com website for $21,000 after the federal tax credit. That doesn't include any state incentive, and Colorado offers a $7,500 incentive for new EV's.

$21,000 - $7,500 = $13,500.

$27,790 - $7,500 - $7,500 = $12,790.

Not that they wouldn't try to upsell me if I went to try to purchase it. Maybe they'd be like, "Oh! You're from Colorado! This Bolt will cost you $7,500 more because you're from a state that adds another $7,500 incentive on top of the federal $7,500 tax credit. So $35,290 for you!"

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Why do you say they aren't accomplishing what they seek with their laws? If their purpose is to bring in more EV's into the state then they already have with my Nissan Leaf purchase. And if I go through with a Bolt purchase they will have again. How are they losing?

Ostensibly the purpose is to reduce global CO2 emissions. How is enriching used car dealerships accomplishing a global CO2 reduction? 95% of all good intentions are a product of profound ignorance, or profound corruption.

Oregon has an idiotic $2,500 subsidy for used EVs. It doesn't send any signal to manufacturers to produce more EVs, because manufacturers aren't in the business of selling used vehicles.

The used car salesmen raise the price about $2,500 compared to CA, where all the cars come from. More CO2 is produced, because instead of selling the used EV in the town it was traded in, they truck them up to Oregon.

As my friend Nick jokes, perfect reason cannot compete with "yeah, but still". If people's feelings don't align with reason, they abandon reason.

All I know is
$21,000 - $7,500 = $13,500.

$27,790 - $7,500 - $7,500 = $12,790.

Demonstrate that, and I'll partner with you at an agreed upon percentage of profit to purchase every new Bolt in the US, with a different "purchaser" for each one.

I used to arbitrage back when the internet was relatively new, and a fantastic margin would be 25% ROI. At 100% margin, I'd arbitrage like crazy.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Ostensibly the purpose is to reduce global CO2 emissions. How is enriching used car dealerships accomplishing a global CO2 reduction? 95% of all good intentions are a product of profound ignorance, or profound corruption.

CO2 reduction is a debateble topic, one that requires more evidence than armchair science.

Also, if the only thing this does is enrich dealerships then that would mean it hasn't affected the sale of EV's. Are you sure that without the federal tax credit and all the different state incentives that the same number of EV's would have sold in the USA to date?

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Demonstrate that, and I'll partner with you at an agreed upon percentage of profit to purchase every new Bolt in the US, with a different "purchaser" for each one.

I used to arbitrage back when the internet was relatively new, and a fantastic margin would be 25% ROI. At 100% margin, I'd arbitrage like crazy.

Bolts are out of production. This is perhaps the last sub $30,000 Bolt out there.

Why don't you demonstrate your point instead? And would you plan that we transport those few Bolts from the East Coast to Colorado and still make a profit?

The Avalon I bought out of state because I could get it for $10,000 cheaper in Florida or Texas. There wasn't a single one for under $25,000 in Colorado at the time, just like there aren't any Bolt's for under $35,000 here in Colorado either.

I'd say it's cars in general are cheaper outside of Colorado. We could just import any car into Colorado and make money if you could legally do that without a dealership license.

I also didn't mind driving an Avalon from Texas near where my brother lives during my vacation time. I don't think it would be worth it for making a few extra bucks.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

CO2 reduction is a debateble topic, one that requires more evidence than armchair science.

That's precisely what I'm saying. Know-nothing irrational idiots need to put the numbers up, not pass legislation with no plan, no method of measurement, and no way to evaluate results.

Are you sure that without the federal tax credit and all the different state incentives that the same number of EV's would have sold in the USA to date?

Of course I'm not sure. To be sure, we'd need to have an alternate universe where we played out the scenario where no idiotic and regressive subsidies were offered.

Are you sure that introducing the uncertainty of subsidies that rely on the whims of politics strengthened the confidence of automakers to produce more EVs, in a global marketplace where most countries don't have such a subsidy? Is it wise for the US to foist the tax burden on its citizens despite most manufacturers being foreign owned, and therefore a wealth transfer to other countries?

With my understanding of human behavior and related economics, I think EVs would be doing imperceptivity better without market manipulation (subsidies). The only achilles heel of EVs is the crummy battery, and there's already enormous incentive to make better batteries for a ton of product categories.

Bolts are out of production. This is perhaps the last sub $30,000 Bolt out there.

I don't think I'm the only one saying the Bolt among the most suitable vehicles for you.

Why don't you demonstrate your point instead?

My point that arbitrage tends to average the price of things?

If there's money to be made on price differentials, people will do it. Back when my friend was in college, he had a fraternity brother who was buying welding masks from Harbor Freight and reselling them online for a profit. Then he found the wholesaler for Harbor Freight and put in a big order and sold them for even more profit. Then he found the manufacturer and put in a gigantic order and filled several rooms of the fraternity with welding masks and made a huge profit.

My point is, even if you're GM and make the product at cost, that cost is above $12,500. You cannot buy an expensive retail product at way below cost.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That's precisely what I'm saying. Know-nothing irrational idiots need to put the numbers up, not pass legislation with no plan, no method of measurement, and no way to evaluate results.



Of course I'm not sure. To be sure, we'd need to have an alternate universe where we played out the scenario where no idiotic and regressive subsidies were offered.

Are you sure that introducing the uncertainty of subsidies that rely on the whims of politics strengthened the confidence of automakers to produce more EVs, in a global marketplace where most countries don't have such a subsidy? Is it wise for the US to foist the tax burden on its citizens despite most manufacturers being foreign owned, and therefore a wealth transfer to other countries?

With my understanding of human behavior and related economics, I think EVs would be doing imperceptivity better without market manipulation (subsidies). The only achilles heel of EVs is the crummy battery, and there's already enormous incentive to make better batteries for a ton of product categories.



I don't think I'm the only one saying the Bolt among the most suitable vehicles for you.



My point that arbitrage tends to average the price of things?

If there's money to be made on price differentials, people will do it. Back when my friend was in college, he had a fraternity brother who was buying welding masks from Harbor Freight and reselling them online for a profit. Then he found the wholesaler for Harbor Freight and put in a big order and sold them for even more profit. Then he found the manufacturer and put in a gigantic order and filled several rooms of the fraternity with welding masks and made a huge profit.

My point is, even if you're GM and make the product at cost, that cost is above $12,500. You cannot buy an expensive retail product at way below cost.

It seems like you're just trying to make a political statement rather than direct the ecominded towards the ecofriendly.

There's a $7,500 federal tax credit on some new EV's and a $4,000 one on used ones, some of which are not all that expensive when compared to ICEV's.

I don't care if Satan mandated the tax credit or if it was Winnie the Pooh, or if the final price of the EV would have been exactly the same without it, or if dealerships are going to be filthy rich because of my tax dollars.

The thing is the tax credit is there, and if someone wants to potentially save a few bucks with an EV in the USA right now then he or she should probably be paying attention to the ins and outs of the federal tax credit and any other incentives to go along with it instead of complaining how rich dealerships are going to be off of it or how cars in all of the USA should be the same price regardless of where they're being sold.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

The thing is the tax credit is there, and if someone wants to potentially save a few bucks with an EV in the USA right now then he or she should probably be paying attention to the ins and outs of the federal tax credit and any other incentives to go along with it

That's what I'm saying. There's some chance you're the only person to have figured out this once in a lifetime arbitrage opportunity, or there's some flaw in your plan.

I do hope you've uniquely discovered this, which is why I offer to partner with you.

... I bought 2 EVSEs that should have been free after utility incentives which met every one of their stated criteria, but they didn't give me any money because they decided there's extra criteria. I could probably sue them and win, but it's not worth my time.

If you got a $12,500 Bolt EV, everyone would do it after proving it's possible. I'd do it x1000.

[Isaac Zachary]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

That's what I'm saying. There's some chance you're the only person to have figured out this once in a lifetime arbitrage opportunity, or there's some flaw in your plan.

I do hope you've uniquely discovered this, which is why I offer to partner with you.

... I bought 2 EVSEs that should have been free after utility incentives which met every one of their stated criteria, but they didn't give me any money because they decided there's extra criteria. I could probably sue them and win, but it's not worth my time.

If you got a $12,500 Bolt EV, everyone would do it after proving it's possible. I'd do it x1000.

I'm not really interested in going accross country to buy a $12,500 EV in the middle of winter. I've told quite a few people around here, many of whom say they'd be interested in an EV, and at best I was told that if the brand new EV were under $5,000 total, they might consider it.

Everything is expensive here. Our health insurance just went up $400 per month. Maybe if I moved to another state as many have said then I'd have the time and money to get a $12,500 brand new EV. But if I did that I wouldn't have the Colorado incentive.

I'll wait until I need a car before trying to go buy one again.

[JSH]

The underline text is not true. Income requirements still apply to the federal EV tax credit when you buy through a dealer. That is written into the text of the law.

Clarification and rules from the Treasury specifically say people that make too much have to pay back the extra tax credit they received when they file 2024 taxes. It says NOTHING about people that make too little to get the credit. The author ASSUMES they will not have to pay back the tax credit but there is nothing in writing that says that AND it would be contrary to the text of the law.

You also have to fill out a form stating that your income qualifies to get the full $7,500. I would avoid lying on IRS forms.

What we do know for a fact is that every EV with a GVW under14,000 that is LEASED gets the full $7500 federal EV tax credit. That is given to the leasing company, who should roll that into the lease contract. If they don't - walk away and find a dealer that will deal fair.


EDIT: I stand corrected- guidelines sent to dealers say this:

Q4: What if a buyer has insufficient tax liability to fully use a transferred credit? (added Oct. 6, 2023)
A4. The amount of the credit that the electing taxpayer elects to transfer to the eligible entity may exceed the electing taxpayer's regular tax liability for the taxable year in which the sale occurs, and the excess, if any, is not subject to recapture from the dealer or the buyer.

Whether or not that is legal and will hold up in court is another matter. It is contrary to the text of the law.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/topic-h...ehicles-credit

[Isaac Zachary]

So as it stands now, if I understand this correctly:

1. You go to a dealer and they have you fill out a form to get the tax credit as a point-of-sale.
2. But you must say that you will make enough to owe the $7,500 while not making too much (which is like $150,000 for an individual, or $300,000 for a couple). Which basically means you'd probably should have qualified on your last year's taxes if you want proof.
3. If you end up not working that much the year you get the EV there's a chance the IRS may pardon your error granted you had truely thought you were going to make enough. Again, you probably should have some sort of proof of that, like having made that much the year before, or there's still a chance the IRS won't care and they'll demand you give them back the tax credit.

Oh boy! This is why I need to stop looking at car purchasing news until I truely need a car.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

So as it stands now, if I understand this correctly:

1. You go to a dealer and they have you fill out a form to get the tax credit as a point-of-sale.
2. But you must say that you will make enough to owe the $7,500 while not making too much (which is like $150,000 for an individual, or $300,000 for a couple). Which basically means you'd probably should have qualified on your last year's taxes if you want proof.
3. If you end up not working that much the year you get the EV there's a chance the IRS may pardon your error granted you had truely thought you were going to make enough. Again, you probably should have some sort of proof of that, like having made that much the year before, or there's still a chance the IRS won't care and they'll demand you give them back the tax credit.

Pretty much.

Originally Posted by Isaac Zachary

Everything is expensive here. Our health insurance just went up $400 per month. Maybe if I moved to another state.....

Health insurance is priced by zip code and can vary wildly in cost even within a state. I've been paying close attention to that as we decide what address we will officially call home when we retire and start a nomadic lifestyle.