Opinions on the best value in a used EV

[redpoint5]

Yeah, itemizing barely beat the standard deduction for me too, and I ended up owing like $2,500 when normally I end up owing like $70.

Mortgage interest never should have been tax deductible. Actually, there's very little that should be tax deductible. The tax code is way out of control and all the corruption that's wrapped up in manipulating the flow of money. Deductions should be phased out over the course of say a decade; dropping by 10% of the initial value each year.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Snax

I have a mortgage on a $360k home and still ended up taking the standard deduction this last year. The current tax credit structure is a joke. My bet is that most people buying with that in mind failed to do the math on it.

I agree most people don't do the math on the mortgage deduction since most new homebuyers I talk to think they will get it and only about 10% of households do.

When I say "only take the standard deduction" I'm implying they don't do ANYTHING to reduce their taxes. The don't put money into a 401K, IRA, HSA, FSA, don't pay their own medical insurance, etc.

In 2019 a couple can write off $19,000 each in 401k contribution and $7,000 in a HSA. For couples over 55 those go up to $25,000 each and $9,000 in the HSA. That kind of stuff cuts one's federal taxes FAST!

[Hersbird]

If they just made the $7500 ev credit the same as the child credit it would work for all income brackets. They actually count the child credits first making the ev credit even worse for the lower income. Even with 0 income if it were structured the same as the child credit it would give you a $7500 check when you filed. As it stands it ends up being something for people making over 100k a year assuming they are taking no other efforts to reduce their liability which is unlikely. More likely it takes somebody making 200k/yr to get the full credit.

[redpoint5]

Yep, the definition of a regressive tax policy. Give money to the wealthy so they can drive a new car. The thing is, if someone could afford to float the money for a year anyhow, then they didn't need the credit to make the purchase in the first place.

As I've been saying, subsidizing EVs is among the dumbest/least effective ways to solve a problem, and any politician supporting it is either corrupt or extremely ignorant. It's like identifying cow flatulence as an environmental hazard in need of control, and rather than taxing bovine products, subsidizing kale in hopes that increased kale consumption will reduce cow farts. It's worse though, because it would be the expensive organic kale that only the wealthy would eat that gets subsidized.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

The thing is, if someone could afford to float the money for a year anyhow, then they didn't need the credit to make the purchase in the first place..

Any poor slob can get $100,000+ of loans making your point somewhat obtuse
Years ago I Was a poor slob myself , and could easily afford most anything, it’s just that I lived frugally and saved up so I could make large purchases.

The real issue lies with banking and loans enabling sellers to overcharge and buyers to overpay, where I grew up housing has gained value EXTREMELY slowly and houses sell for the same price today that they did 20 years ago, which is how housing values should work matching income and inflation, 100 miles away where I live now little 100 year old dives with no yard or driveway are selling for $100000+, 3 years ago their sales value was about $20-$40k, 8 years before that they were $80k, 3 years before that they sold for about $25,000
30 minutes away I can buy a mansion of a farmstead with 2 acres, a gazebo and a shop is $165,000 in excellent shape, but the same money here buys me a very small 3 bedroom, 1 car garage and ubout a 1/10th acre .


The only thing that has changed over the years is the transient employment levels. Whereas my home town has steady but not well paying jobs.


The real value of these local homes has always probably been $0-$40,000 and hasn’t changed but because of loans and predatory practices you get a completely unnecessary boom bust cycle aggrevated even more by piss poor community management practices trying to demolish the poor people’s homes (during a lack of housing crisis) creating vacant lots that can’t be rebuilt due to ever changing laws on lot and house sizes.
The town also favors tax sales to the 2 slum lords who own about 1/3 of houses jacking up rent while creating more blight.

One would think keeping the poor people as home owners paying taxes would be better than 2 slum lords that can negotiate property taxes. Further allowing people to legally rebuild vacant city lots without blowing a cool million would help things too.


I view the automotive side of loans the same as homes enabling bad decisions, the tax subsidy could help the poor if structured properly but it would be unpopular, just as unpopular as low home values
(even though high ones help no one for long, save the bank and the local tax collector)

[jcp123]

The cycle of tax seizure, eviction, and blight abatement demolition sounds a lot like Detroit’s current issue. St. Louis currently has a bit of that too, which is more of a shame because the brick architecture here is fabulous. I zillowed St. Louis this morning, in fact, and sub-$60k homes are all over the place.

[hayden55]

The new Plug in Electric vehicles look like the way to go. But it looks impossible to beat the cost of depreciation on these new vehicles until they hit around the 10k mark vs just buying a low mileage Toyota Prius from 04-12 for 7500k or less.
Also, like we saw in the Leaf... cycling small battery packs 100 to 0 will lead to capacity loss much more noticeably and much faster than using a Chevy Bolt the same trip and maybe using 20% of its cycle.
So far at my rates a ($2.30c/gal and 7.8c/kWh) a 2016 Volt would save me about $17.50/mo over my 2010 Prius. 55% city, 45% hwy.
I think the car to watch is the Chevy Bolt. Running the bolt vs the Prius would net ~$55/mo in savings. But not even close to its depreciation lol.

[redpoint5]

Depreciation is nearly always the biggest cost. The newer the vehicle, the bigger a hit you're going to take. "Fuel" cost is usually not as big of a concern as depreciation.

You seem to be implying that PHEVs cycle the battery between 0-100%, but I want to clarify that they don't. They are very conservative. For instance, my Prius operates between about 25-85%. In other words, a full charge is only 85% SoC, and empty (engine kicks on) is about 25%.

The vehicle cost of ownership calculator linked in my signature can compare any 2 vehicles, including PHEVs. You'll have to estimate the percent of EV miles you anticipate for a PHEV (it's one of the data fields), but it's as accurate as the assumptions you input. It will break out the various costs, such as depreciation and fuel cost.

[Snax]

Originally Posted by hayden55

Also, like we saw in the Leaf... cycling small battery packs 100 to 0 will lead to capacity loss much more noticeably and much faster than using a Chevy Bolt the same trip and maybe using 20% of its cycle.

That can be a fallacious way to look at it however. Any use degrades the battery regardless of depth. I.e., that same 20% used in a Bolt will see a degradation approximately matching that of the 100% use case in terms of raw Amp-hour capacity when ignoring the additional stress of full charges and discharges. It might be more fair to make that comparison against 80% use perhaps.

Regardless, it makes more sense to talk about degradation in terms of amp-hours if you want a way to compare real costs. If you only use 1/4 the capacity but the battery costs 4 times as much, there isn't likely a real savings happening, as that used capacity will degrade similarly across the different pack sizes.

I don't say that to discount the stress of running between full and empty, but if the real world case is 30% depth of discharge vs. 60% for example, a direct comparison of cost per amp-hour likely makes sense if that additional capacity is not going to be needed.

Even so, I know from reading BMWs technical info that the software for the i3 reserves 10% on each end of the charge/use capacity, so it is always running in that middle 80%. I would guess most EVs are similarly setup these days.

[hayden55]

True. The G1 Chevrolet Volt was quoted as having a 65% usable capacity. That wasn't my main point though. My main point was that the capacity loss will hit the smaller battery packs harder as you're using a more aggressive dod usage. Life cycle goes up like crazy the smaller portion of the pack you use. So where you may lose 20-40 miles of range on a chevy bolt its less of a matter and will take much longer vs what we saw in the leaf where the capacity drop in a car with an already short distance can become a big deal. Like driving 75 miles a day is totally possible, 230mi+ cycles a day... not so much. ie: Nissan good will battery replacements.

Good example: Tesla model S panasonic 18650s are rated from anywhere from 500 cycles under heavy usage (not possible the car's on board bms, but possible in say an aggressive use vape) up to 40,000 cycles keeping the dod between 30 and 70 percent.
Given the example of a tesla model S 85kW model that would be around 100 miles a day * 40,000 cycles... That could possibly net you a grand total of 4 million miles.