ScienceChic wrote:
Did you also disapprove of the
tax credit
that small business owners received to purchase large, gas-guzzling SUVs back in 2003?
I can honestly say I wasn't aware of that tax break and would not agree with it unless it was for needed commercial vehicles that would help a small business compete with larger ones. An SUV imo should not have qualified unless that SUV was required to transport people, where a smaller vehicle would not have adequate capacity. But once again, you have to look at how bad congress works and how their historically inept legislation process always ends up getting it wrong.
Hmm, I remember quite the extensive discussion about it on PC (LJ had a field day with the stories about Bush promoting people buying Hummers thanks to the law), but maybe you weren't there for that. You'll forgive me if I don't go searching there for it.
Please also correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a tax credit mean that all us taxpayers simply lose the revenue that would have been collected rather than "paying" for the incentives? I disagree that Tesla wouldn't have been successful if they hadn't existed, because Tesla paid back all of their government start-up loans early and in-full thanks to higher-than-expected sales of their early car, the Roadster, which wasn't priced for the middle class. They've built amazing cars entirely here in the U.S., employing U.S. workers, and yet they still get shit on all the time by conservatives. It boggles my mind. I don't like Musk at all, but I don't underestimate his accomplishments one bit, and if you don't think he couldn't make his company successful regardless of government incentives to buyers, I think you are doing just that.
I believe there is a big difference between providing incentives to encourage the adoption of new technology and providing incentives to save a dying industry. Without our government becoming investors, on the public's behalf, we wouldn't have had the innovation in science and technology that made us the number 1 superpower in the world today, the number 1 patent holder (with subsequent earnings of GDP based on those), and the reputation of being the leader in science and industry. Climate change is one of our biggest challenges to solve and weaning us off of our reliance on fossil fuels is crucial to that - funding the quicker adoption of sustainable transportation, energy use, and energy production is critical to the survival of our economy and species.
Bush's tax incentives encouraging businesses to buy big SUVs they didn't need that had pitiful mpg's was simply a greed-borne gift to his fellow oil industry friends, an industry that is nearing the end of its golden age as a cheap source of fuel, and a huge disservice to the American People that need forward-thinking, proactive leaders.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
ScienceChic wrote:
Please also correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a tax credit mean that all us taxpayers simply lose the revenue that would have been collected rather than "paying" for the incentives? I disagree that Tesla wouldn't have been successful if they hadn't existed, because Tesla paid back all of their government start-up loans early and in-full thanks to higher-than-expected sales of their early car, the Roadster, which wasn't priced for the middle class. They've built amazing cars entirely here in the U.S., employing U.S. workers, and yet they still get shit on all the time by conservatives.
I understand that Tesla paid back the government loan, but I don't think the tax credits are part of that loan (maybe I'm wrong so if so please correct me). The thing about the tax credit is that it is a cost that benefits the EV manufacturer and reduces revenue that the government would have collected. If an EV has a sale price of 50k, a buyer reduces his taxable income by up to $7500. I haven't been able to find the data, but my guess is that the vast majority of people who buy EVs are in the upper middle class and above. I don't know how much lost revenue that is, but it has to be pretty substantial.
As for EV's in general, I think they are the future and we should be investing in them if we do it the right way and if we have the infrastructure to support them. I read in an article the other day that said EV's don't add to global warming and are good for the environment. I fully disagree with that and we could debate that as well. I believe that we will have better energy storage solutions (some day) that not only makes EV's more environmentally friendly but also make a non-fossil fuel power grid more viable. Right now we have a storage problem for cars and for the grid, so I think it's foolish for our leaders to kill cheap energy (fossil fuels) before we solve the storage problem.
Anyway, I appreciate your having a discussion with me that is written in complete sentences and has a friendlier tone, like the ones we would have if talking face to face.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
The tax advantage is even greater when you factor in Colorado's contribution. In the year 2016, I purchased a hybrid. In addition to the $7500 Federal tax credit, the state of Colorado kicked in with a $5000 credit ( it has since been reduced to $2500 through 2023).
As the dealer pointed out, the cost of the comparable vehicle(non-hybrid) was $2000 less than the Hybrid-S. In addition there are many free charging stations throughout the country and parking spots reserved for hybrid cars, a lagniappe from the government.
Add in the savings on gas tax to sweeten the deal.
Tax credits will always be controversial. Right now many nations are considering or have already implemented tax incentives to encourage citizens to have more children. But some environmentalists and those who choose not to have kids will not like those policies.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Tax credits are controversial, depending on whether you are the recipient or the one paying for it.
For example, from SC posting:
Bush's tax incentives encouraging businesses to buy big SUVs they didn't need that had pitiful mpg's was simply a greed-borne gift to his fellow oil industry friends, an industry that is nearing the end of its golden age as a cheap source of fuel, and a huge disservice to the American People that need forward-thinking, proactive leaders.
Evidently she is not the recipient. She, thus, decides that you didn't need that big SUV. (Try hauling a 6 man construction crew or 6 pre teen girls to soccer practice in a Nissan Leaf).
Have you wondered why the concept of a "flat Tax" has not been considered in any meaningful way by Congress?