[rukittenme]

I have a lot to say on this...

> Critics say electric vehicle buyers tend to be wealthier than average Americans and do nod need subsidies.

I love how this gets buried at the bottom after an avalanche of criticism. A free $7500 for the rich and an additional $7500 in revenue for manufacturers. Say what you want about the American political system, it is a master class in manipulation.

"But the environment!"

Assuming someone who buys a $100,000 car is unwilling to spending $107,500 for the same vehicle. Yes the environment would suffer, that is also assuming electric cars (in their current state) are less impactful than fossil fuel vehicles (which isn't the case). In fact, used internal combustion cars should be given a subsidy if you care about the environment.

"But the poor can't afford these cars without it!"

The poor can't afford it with it. How many bolts do you see driving around? I've lived in Asheville NC, Nashville TN, and Portland OR. I've seen 3 bolts total and hundreds of $100k Teslas driving around.

If you're poor, you probably live in an apartment without an electric car charging station. You probably can't afford a new car so you buy used which is exclusively internal combustion. So how does this tax credit affect you at all?

---

I'm intensely fascinated by conversations and how they are framed to manipulate opinion. Depending on your political slant, you could have easily framed this as "tax breaks for the wealthy" or "an attack on green energy" or "supporting domestic manufacturers" or "hurting domestic manufacturers".

It's all bullshit and I can't stand it anymore...

[belltaco]

>that is also assuming electric cars (in their current state) are less impactful than fossil fuel vehicles (which isn't the case)

Is that true? Got a reference?

The problem is that external costs like pollution are not being priced into the cost of ICE vehicles by, say, a pollution tax. This limited subsidy is a backhanded way of doing that.

I don't see the issue with rich people benefiting from it, because it's exactly those rich people buying 100K Teslas that are paying for the cost of driving research into better battery technology and cheaper cars so everyone benefits from cleaner air and reduced global warming.

[rukittenme]

Yes its true. I do not have a source handy so I'll have to rely on some other HN commenter to help me out.

Basically the math works like this:

An internal combustion cars cost X tons of carbon to produce. An an EV costs Y tons of carbon to produce. If you need a new car, it will probably require the same amount of carbon to produce an EV as a combustion car. But if you can drive a used car and extend its life 5, 10, 15 years, you save all the carbon of producing the car (which is where the majority of the carbon cost comes from).

> I don't see the issue with rich people benefiting from it, because it's exactly those rich people buying 100K Teslas that are paying for the cost of driving research into better battery technology and cheaper cars so everyone benefits from cleaner air and reduced global warming.

I love investing in technology. However, there's probably more efficient ways of doing it. Every dollar spent to help the rich could have been spent helping the poor, or the environment, or funding research.

[Tade0]

> 5, 10, 15 years, you save all the carbon of producing the car (which is where the majority of the carbon cost comes from).

False [0].

[0] https://group.renault.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/fluence...

Page 91, Figure 49: "Comparing carbon footprint of EV and ICE vehicles".

Up to 85% of the carbon footprint of a car comes from driving it. Heck, even a typical hybrid during its lifetime saves roughly 150% worth of its weight in CO2 emissions. Taxis easily double that figure.

[dreamcompiler]

Yep. Completely false. The in-use phase of ICE cars belches so much carbon that the car's construction phase carbon can safely be ignored in a first approximation of impact. The reason construction phase carbon is important in an EV is that it can be the only carbon that matters. When an EV is recharged exclusively from renewable sources, as many are, the use phase carbon is effectively zero. Which makes the construction phase important to measure, but the total lifecycle carbon impact of an EV can still be orders of magnitude less than that of an ICEV.

[sumeno]

But used cars eventually do have to be replaced, and in the long run it is better to replace them with electric vehicles. It may not be an immediate net benefit but new cars are being built either way and increasing the percentage of new cars that are electric is better in the long run unless Y in your equation is greater than X + the total amount of carbon produced by a internal combustion car across its lifetime.

[BinaryIdiot]

To be fair if you keep the EV long enough then it will work out to be better for the environment.

Though I can't find a reliable number for how many years that actually is and I'm not sure if the average person who owns an EV would even keep it that long...

[olympus]

Maybe not better in the long run. You need to overhaul the batteries (replacing dead cells can be done individually) every decade with current technology. You also need to overhaul a combustion engine (cylinder bore/hone, worn parts replaced, warped parts milled flat) every decade-ish, so their sustaining carbon costs are about the same. It's at least a lot closer than most people realize.

A PZEV (very low emission ICE vehicle) is the sweet spot right now in terms of overall environmental impact. It will be a few years before EVs are the clear winner.

[gnicholas]

One question is: what happens to the IC vehicles that don't get re-sold in their home country? Do they get shipped to other countries, or just junked? I live in the US and saw many older cars when I went to South America. Many were 25 or 35 years old.

So the question is what is the dynamic interplay between different markets for used IC vehicles? Should we be shipping 1995 Camrys to less-developed countries so they can junk their 1985 Camrys?

And then of course note that the 1995 Camrys probably get worse gas mileage than the 1985 Camrys because they have are heavier due to safety features....

[lancewiggs]

2017 Camry: 40 MPG> for hybrid or 27mpg (2.5l) 2005 Camry: 25 MPG (2.4l) 1995 Camry: 23 MPG (2.2l)

Meanwhile the definition of "Camry" has changed - they are a lot larger, more powerful and more refined now. Note, for example the engine sizes going up as the MPG gets better.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.shtml

[olympus]

Plus there's the environmental impact of strip-mining lithium for the batteries. This impacts hybrids as well as EVs.

Owning a Tesla (the current fad) or Prius (the previous fad) has long been about looking like you are environmentally conscious rather than actually being environmentally conscious. True lovers of mother nature ride the bus, train, or ride a bike.

[slowmovintarget]

Owning a Prius was about feeling good.

Owning a Tesla, from what I can tell, is about operating a truly excellent vehicle that happens to be electric.

[olympus]

The Mercedes-Benz S-class is a better car than the Model S in many ways (not all). A lot of people could afford either but buy the Model S because it is electric, not just that it happens to be electric.

Just a quick thought from someone that actually went shopping and drove both: The MB S-class beats the Model S in terms of luxury feel. Hands down. The Model S is faster. And quieter. But it does not feel as good as a MB at all. Before you ask, no, I ended up buying neither. I bought a Subaru Forester and an airplane for the same money.

[dreamcompiler]

The carbon footprint of mining and refining oil for gasoline certainly dwarfs that of lithium mining. Partially because there are a lot more ICE cars than EVs now, but also because gasoline is needed repeatedly over the lifetime of the car, while lithium is mined only once per car.

[rconti]

So basically, your argument only works if you assume that the people buying EVs would have either kept on driving their old cars OR sold their old cars and replaced them with a used car?

So now EVs are some kind of evil temptress?

I think I can do without reading that source now.

[rukittenme]

> I think I can do without reading that source now.

This is crazy, man. I'm just saying it costs less carbon to keep a used car. I'm not accusing EVs of "being an evil temptress".

[XR0CSWV3h3kZWg]

A strong argument is that using an already existing car (buying used) is way better for the environment that creating a new car, regardless of the MPG.

Obviously if you play with the numbers (CO2 per mile driven, # of miles in life of car, CO2 per new car, expectation for expected reductions in total CO2 reduction by waiting if you want to get fancy) you can get it to tilt in either direction.

[jpalmer]

> The problem is that external costs like pollution are not being priced into the cost of ICE vehicles by, say, a pollution tax. This limited subsidy is a backhanded way of doing that.

Using the carbon offset market, you could offset 760 Tonnes of CO2 with $7500. That's the carbon equivalent of driving an ICE for over 2 Million miles.

[evo_9]

Ironically this might have been true in the past when your only EV option was a Tesla; however the Chevy Bolt is selling like mad, the Chevy Volt continues to sell well and you have quite a few choices either out or coming to market in early 2018, including the VW E-Golf, Hyundai Ioniq, Kia Soul EV to name just a few that are under 30k.

Removing the EV Credit now makes no sense; perhaps a better approach is to limit the EV Credit to cars that cost under 50k; this would ensure the credit isn't used on luxury EV's and allow the market to continue to grow.

[koolba]

> Ironically this might have been true in the past when your only EV option was a Tesla; however the Chevy Bolt is selling like mad, the Chevy Volt continues to sell well and you have quite a few choices either out or coming to market in early 2018, including the VW E-Golf, Hyundai Ioniq, Kia Soul EV to name just a few that are under 30k.

IIRC to get the full $7,500 it needs to be a full electric with a battery large enough for X miles so the Bolt wouldn't qualify (for all of it).

> Removing the EV Credit now makes no sense; perhaps a better approach is to limit the EV Credit to cars that cost under 50k; this would ensure the credit isn't used on luxury EV's and allow the market to continue to grow.

You also need a tax bill of at least $7,500 to take advantage of the full credit. If your tax bill is only $5,000 then that would be max you could get back.

[jameskilton]

Your first statement is not true. The tax credit is based on the size of the battery. The Volt qualifies for the full $7500 (which is one big reason I chose it over other hybrid options) as does the Bolt.

https://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/the-ins-and-outs-of-ele...

[fhood]

If your tax bill is only 5,000 then you probably shouldn't buy a new car.

[tessierashpool]

Right. Obviously, if you put a tax credit in place to incentivize manufacturers, you have to wait for their ramp-up time.

[JosephLark]

Of course things get framed to manipulate opinion.

Now, I actually don't mean this with any snark, but how is what you're doing any different? This tax credit applies to plenty of vehicles sold for much less than $100,000.

[rukittenme]

The majority of the EV market is high-end, luxury vehicles.

There is a 200k cap on the credit. Meaning mass market EVs do not receive the credit. It exclusively benefits low volume, high margin EVs. Which are exclusively marketed to the rich.

[r00fus]

I just bought an EV that was $31K list for $16K (lease) because I got $7500 off my lease price for the federal tax credit.

Do you consider $31K to be luxury? Or are you saying that because you aren't really familiar with the market?

[cptskippy]

It is?

As of the end of 2016 Tesla's cumulative sales were ~160k units. Nissan alone has produced over 300k of the Leaf.

The Bolt exceeded the Model S in sales last month selling just under 3000 units.

[rukittenme]

Please re-read what I said:

> There is a 200k cap on the credit.

Meaning if you sell more than 200,000 cars you no longer get the credit. GM sold 10 million ICE cars in 2016. If they were all EV 9,800,000 would not have received the credit.

[cptskippy]

> The majority of the EV market is high-end, luxury vehicles.

That's false.

> It exclusively benefits low volume, high margin EVs.

That's also false. It benefits high margin vehicles regardless of volume and high margin does not necessarily mean luxury.

> Meaning if you sell more than 200,000 cars you no longer get the credit.

That's also false. Crossing the 200k mark starts a phase out process that takes a year.

So if GM managed to produce and sell 10 million ICE cars in the United States in 1 calendar year, the buyers would all receive a tax credit.

As yet, no manufacturer has reached 200k sales in the United States. Again Nissan leads the pack but has yet to reach the 200k mark.

[closeparen]

Come on. $100k vs $107k cars are a disingenuous comparison. They turn $30k cars (entry level luxury) into $23k cars (middle class, right in there with the Civic, Camry, Corolla, Accord, etc). If this is your objection, let’s phase it out for cars over a price threshold.

[beal]

Yep. I am pretty left leaning on environmental and economic issues. But the tax credit from the start was a redistribution of wealth upwards. A side effect being that more hybrid cars were bought.

[notheguyouthink]

Yea, I'd be far happier scrapping this and putting an even bigger credit given some requirements. As a fake example: %10 discount on electric cars @45k. %15 discount for electric cars at 25-45k. 25% discount for cars below 25k.

Way too much I'm sure, but that's besides the point. The lowest tier there is one of the most important imo. Because you're absolutely right, buying used combustion cars is what credits like this should be targeting, imo. Conceptually at least, I clearly know nothing of what I talk about.

[Cshelton]

Also it is a tax credit.. meaning you only get the $7,500 if you actually owe at least $7,5000.. AFTER the standard deduction. Basically, anyone with under ~$100k annual income would not even receive the whole credit, if any at all.

[NoPiece]

"Tax credits are subtracted not from taxable income, but directly from a person’s tax liability; they therefore reduce taxes dollar for dollar. As a result, credits have the same value for everyone who can claim their full value."

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/whats-differenc...

[maxerickson]

Right, they are talking about the situation where someone only owes $6,000 in taxes. They get a $6,000 tax credit.

So setting aside whether this is fair or unfair, people that owe more taxes clearly get a bigger benefit from the credit.

[rukittenme]

The poor don't have taxable income. You can only claim the credit if you itemize which is restricted to even higher tax brackets.

[maxerickson]

No need to itemize, it is reported on line 54 and offsets line 44:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

But lots of people don't end up paying $7500 in income taxes.

[throwaway2016a]

It's actually close to $50k before you owe that much after standard deduction... $100k would be closer to $18k taxes.

Also, you don't need to take it all one year. Tax credits carry forward up to 10 years.[1]

[1] Disclaimer, I am not an accountant

[r00fus]

You get 100% of this credit passed on to you (cut right out of your negotiated amount) if you lease for 36mo. That's they way to get inexpensive electrics - lease and then keep it if you want it after 3 years.

[RayVR]

Based on EPA estimates of global greenhouse gas emissions, converting every US passenger vehicle to electric, assuming those vehicles are then driven for at least seven years, the net reduction to global emissions is roughly 1%.

[cptskippy]

How'd you come up with that number? The US accounts for 15% of emissions and personal transportation accounts for 1/5th of US emissions.

That accounts for 3% annually.

[dangoor]

Perhaps that accounts for our electricity generation being coal-based?

[cptskippy]

As of 2016 35% of our production came from Natural Gas vs 30% from Coal. So if anything we're natural gas based now.

That being said, I think you're on the right path as only 35% came from renewables (15%) or nuclear (20%).

So the 1% is accurate if the power generation remains static but renewables and nuclear are growth sectors. A bunch of reactors are allegedly coming online in the next decade. Wind and Solar are also growing quickly.

[bsder]

> It's all bullshit and I can't stand it anymore...

For those of us in Southern California, even if electric cars aren't "carbon neutral", they are still a win for two reasons.

1) Electric cars that are stopped don't burn energy. Now, with the new engines that can turn themselves off and on quickly, that's becoming less of an issue, but there is still some amount of idling in any combustion engine.

2) The pollution involved with electric cars is concentrated, industrial point-source. This is FAR easier to mitigate than the diffuse, individual pollution sources represented by combustion cars.

[heypete]

Plus the fact that as the source of electricity to the grid changes, so too does the cleanliness of all the vehicles.

Sure, things today may be a wash in terms of overall emissions in many areas, but as time goes on and dirty power plants are shut down and cleaner sources brought online, the emissions due to EVs increases.

I'm seriously evaluating buying an electric car like the Bolt (though the cheap interior is a bit of a turn-off for a longer commute) or the Ioniq EV (much nicer, though with less range) since many employers are offering EV charging at work. That'd make my out-of-pocket operating costs basically negligible (other than occasional air filter and tire rotations), which is nice.

I'd love to see the tax credit turned into a point-of-sale reduction in price so more people can benefit, rather than just those with a >$7500 tax bill.

[colemannugent]

Continuing the theme of governments raising taxes that disproportionately affect the poor in the name of the environment: California's new gas tax is stupid.

In what is already one of the most expensive states to live in the per gallon gas tax increased by 40% on Wednesday. That means that the total state and federal taxes come out to about 77 cents [1] per gallon. While 77 cents doesn't seem like much, consider that the average cost per gallon of gas in California is around $3.10 [2], which puts the effective tax rate at around 25%.

A 25% tax rate is absolutely insane in a country where you need a car to get around. Take into account the 53 cents per mile the IRS uses as its estimator of the cost of driving a vehicle [3], the average one-way commute distance is about 8 miles [4], and the average fuel economy for California drivers is around 24 miles per gallon [5], this works out to about $10 per day in just regular vehicle expenses, or around $300 per month.

For the poor in California this is just another example of how expensive it can be to be poor.

[1]: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd...

[2]: http://www.californiagasprices.com/Prices_Nationally.aspx

[3]: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/2017-standard-mileage-rates-for...

[4]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-typical-commu...

[5]: http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-cars-fuel-eco...

[maxerickson]

Is my math right that the $0.77 per gallon in taxes comes out to about $10.50?

Seems the bigger driver of the $300 is the need to rely on a car.

[Shivetya]

I am going to receive 7500 dollars of your money, my money, and everyone's money, come January for a purchase I need no assistance in making.

how is that fair. I am taking it because it is there and financially it makes no sense not too.

this is pure gift to those well off. it has nothing to do about protecting the environment. it was a gift to GM initially and because a gift to not only the well off but any manufacture who wanted to take it.

it needs to die.

[vkou]

>that is also assuming electric cars (in their current state) are less impactful than fossil fuel vehicles (which isn't the case)

Unless your electricity is generated by burning peat, in terms of CO2 emissions, this is false.

Of course, the correct solution to the emissions problem is to reduce the number of miles Americans drive. But you'll never hear a House Republican say that.

[pdeuchler]

This also doesn't take into account that most of the energy used to power/charge these EV cars is coal based, which is orders of magnitude more dirty than burning gasoline.

[BadassFractal]

I'm with you. That seems to be the the reality of politics, it's persuasion wars where it's really hard to get ahold of the facts, and even with the facts it's hard to tell what the better option is.