| ▲ | mtillman a day ago |
| Fine print: The truck in the link is only $20K after government subsidies/rebates. So if the government gives my tax dollars to buyers of this truck, then it will cost $20K. |
|
| ▲ | Brybry a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Electric vehicle tax credits are non-refundable tax credits meaning you can't get a credit for more than you owe. [1][2] Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy vehicles (though there may be some infrastructure or manufacturing grants for companies). [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12600 [2] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-wha... |
| |
| ▲ | crazygringo 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's not really true. If the taxes someone would otherwise pay are going to their electric vehicle instead, somebody else has to make up the difference. So yes, other people are getting my tax dollars to buy electric vehicles. It just takes two steps rather than one, if you want to look at it that way. | | |
| ▲ | Brybry 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is the standard deduction giving people your tax dollars? Anyone who itemizes? What if someone declines a promotion and thus doesn't increase their income and pay more taxes? Is that also taking your tax dollars? Sure, yes, if the government doesn't follow PAYGO[1] (which they almost never do) and offset tax expenditures (tax incentives) with reduced direct spending and government debt increases then maybe, some day, some portion of your tax dollars may get indirectly spent on this. But how do we really know? Do we know what other secondary effects will come from these tax incentives? If electric cars catch on maybe the government will get more revenue somewhere else (there are North American manufacturing requirements to qualify after all) or have to spend less revenue on something else (surely burning oil must have some effect). Or maybe the person getting the electric vehicle then uses it to make more money and pay more taxes than they would have before (unlikely but possible). But, directly, they're getting back their own money. The real issue with the credit is that it disproportionately favors people who already make a lot of money (but taxes also disproportionately tax people who make more money so maybe that's fair). [1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL31943 | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But, directly, they're getting back their own money. It doesn't matter. Everyone else is now paying for all the federal government services they consume. Other people are paying for that. It's literally that simple. |
| |
| ▲ | nonameiguess 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Congress doesn't retroactively raise tax rates to make up the difference. If the government budget ends up in a deficit, which obviously it does, not just because of this but for many reasons, that is financed via debt. This isn't passed to the population as higher taxes, but as inflation, which affects everyone equally, including whoever got the tax credits in the first place. | | |
| ▲ | crazygringo 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | First of all, you're wrong about how debt is financed. It's not via inflation, it's by taxes. Interest payments accounted for 13% of the federal budget last year. That's enormous. (Yes inflation reduces the value of debt over time, but debt carries interest which generally outweighs expected inflation.) Second, Congress absolutely adjusts tax rates as well. Not precisely one-to-one to match spending each year, but over the long term it's all got to add up. Every dollar the government spends today is paid with people's taxes either today or their taxes tomorrow. Third, the person who received the tax credits isn't being affected "equally". If 1% of people get the credit, but 100% of people pay for it, then the people who receive the credit end up hugely ahead in the end, while the other 99% lose out. So yes, for the 1% of people getting an electric vehicle tax credit, it is almost entirely paid for by the other 99% of people. | |
| ▲ | PopAlongKid 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Goverment debt is reduced by increased taxes and/or reduction in services just as much as it is by "inflation". Further, inflation doesn't affect the person who got a $7,500 individual tax reduction as much as someone who didn't. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tzs 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | However instead of taking the credit yourself you can transfer it to the dealer at time of purchase to use toward the purchase. You can transfer the full $7500 credit regardless of how much tax you eventually end up owing for the year. | |
| ▲ | anannymoose 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So, should I wish to purchase a vehicle this tax year, I tell my HR to adjust my income withholding such that I owe 7,500$ come tax time and then reap the rewards? Or is there more to the incentive structure? | | |
| ▲ | palmtree3000 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Withholding isn't relevant here. Non refundable means it can't cause the government to net pay you money: that is to say, it can't make your refund larger than your withholding. | | |
| ▲ | anannymoose 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Adjust my withholding to generate a debt to Th enticement that I claim the rebate on? I think you’re thinking the other direction. |
| |
| ▲ | floxy 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What you have withheld is not part of the equation. It is your tax liability that matters. | | |
| ▲ | anannymoose 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m confused here, wouldn’t me underpaying on my income generate a liability that I can then claim this rebate on? | | |
| ▲ | floxy 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Let's make up an example. Let's say you earn $75,000/year and the tax rate is 10%. So you owe $7,500 in taxes. That is your tax liability. It doesn't matter if you have your employer deducting $144 from your weekly paycheck or $0 from your weekly paycheck. https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/student/hows.jsp | |
| ▲ | nullc 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You can still get a refund with this tax credit, but it has to be a refund of taxes you paid through things like your payroll tax. Non-refundable means that if the rebate drives your owed taxes below zero you don't get the negative tax debt back. If you don't earn much money most of your paid taxes go to SS and medicare rather than income tax, so the rebate may not do anything for you. But if you make at least median income you should be able to fully use this rebate. If you're retired and buy one of these trucks you'd be wise to realize $100k in investment gains in that year in order to fully exploit the tax credit. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Brybry 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The government still gives you back your money in a refund if you overpay them. Though, of course, you don't earn interest on it while the government is holding it. |
| |
| ▲ | PopAlongKid 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy vehicles Then who is making up the difference between the tax that would have been paid, and the credit reduction? |
|
|
| ▲ | floxy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Even finer print: the $7,500 federal incentive is a tax rebate. If you don't have a $7,500 tax liability, you won't get the full amount. (this also applies if you transfer the credit to the dealer at point of sale). I mean, money is fungible and all, but your particular tax dollars aren't going to people who buy EVs, they are just paying less in taxes. |
| |
|
| ▲ | standardUser a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As opposed to other prices that are not the product of a political economy? |
|
| ▲ | nullc 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's ~28k without them, particularly when considering recent inflation it's an attractive price... inflation corrected it's in the vague ballpark of other small IC trucks when they were still available. E.g. a early 2000's Nissan frontier base model was $23k in today's money. It was a somewhat better speced (e.g. more hauling capacity) and much better range, but this new car likely has significantly lower operating costs that would easily justify a 5k uplift. So I think it ought to be perfectly viable without the subsidy, especially so long as the absurd CAFE standards continue to exist giving EV's a monopoly on this truck size. |
|
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | aaroninsf a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, and you will benefit, because the role of the state is to advance the collective and common good. That's why we have TeH gOvErNmEnT. |
|
| ▲ | throwaway29812 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
