Electric Cars -- anyone own one?

[rwj]

Gas vehicles are one the of the oldest subsidized things in the US. The first subsidies were handed out to the oil industry which really hit the EV world hard. Back when 40% of the market was one EV company out of France. We still heavily subsidize gas. If we didn't you would be paying $8 - $10 per gallon.

Who is paying/funding the subsidy?

 

[ronsatspokane]

Gas vehicles are one the of the oldest subsidized things in the US. The first subsidies were handed out to the oil industry which really hit the EV world hard. Back when 40% of the market was one EV company out of France. We still heavily subsidize gas. If we didn't you would be paying $8 - $10 per gallon.

This is a commonly repeated fallacy. In fact, there is currently a war on all forms of energy including Gas, Diesel and Natural gas. And they still cannot force the price high enough to make EV a fiscally viable alternative. When I say all, leftists are pushing EV while at the same time destroying or plotting the destruction of electricity generation. Coal used for electricity generation is now going to China so they can generate electricity over there. Here in the Northwest, leftists are fighting to breech the dams which are responsible for reasonable cost electricity up here. It is not an act with these people, they really are that stupid.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

This is a commonly repeated fallacy. In fact, there is currently a war on all forms of energy including Gas, Diesel and Natural gas. And they still cannot force the price high enough to make EV a fiscally viable alternative. When I say all, leftists are pushing EV while at the same time destroying or plotting the destruction of electricity generation. Coal used for electricity generation is now going to China so they can generate electricity over there. Here in the Northwest, leftists are fighting to breech the dams which are responsible for reasonable cost electricity up here. It is not an act with these people, they really are that stupid.

It is certainly not a fallacy. Oil/Gas subsidies date further back than 1916. Costing more than 10 Billion per year to us. Many of which are permanent unlike EV and others which have to be renewed. The EV subsidies took off in 2009 with the ARRA. 93 years after oil and gas. To have an honest discussion you cannot ignore the elephant in the room. This comes from someone benefitting from oil and gas because I have a pig launcher on my property that we get royalties from.

I think neither one should be subsidized. I think we should start just letting people pay their own way, and let it fail if it fails.

 

[dellet]

It is certainly not a fallacy. Oil/Gas subsidies date further back than 1916. Costing more than 10 Billion per year to us. Many of which are permanent unlike EV and others which have to be renewed. The EV subsidies took off in 2009 with the ARRA. 93 years after oil and gas. To have an honest discussion you cannot ignore the elephant in the room. This comes from someone benefitting from oil and gas because I have a pig launcher on my property that we get royalties from.

I think neither one should be subsidized. I think we should start just letting people pay their own way, and let it fail if it fails.

This is a bit of an awkward slant concerning subsidies, many industries in the country/world are tax payer subsidized.

Where this argument starts to fall apart is that the EV market is not only subsidized indirectly like fossil fuel vehicles but also directly. In essence the Electric Vehicle industry double dips.

The EV industry gets all of the same incentives and subsidies as fossil fuel vehicle manufacturing industry. Federal, state local tax breaks, discounted loans, discounted land, plus added incentives and higher discounts as a “green industry”.

Where the argument of less tax payer subsidies for the EV market really falls apart is when people actually are forced to admit that the way they can have cheap and available electricity to charge their cars, is because of the subsidies granted to the fossil fuel and mining industries. People just don’t seem to understand that cheap electricity is directly tied to cheap fuel spinning the generators. The percentage of solar and wind generated power making it all the way to spinning the tires to the grocery store is very small.

The real rub is the tax payer funded thumb put on the scale to fund the EV market in the form of direct incentives to the end user. The only reason consumers are paid to purchase the product, is that manufacturers are forced to sell the product. That is not natural marketing.

If the tax payer funded incentives to buy an EV were handled the same way as the last taxpayer funded incentives to purchase a fossil fuel vehicle, it might make sense, but just handing people money to buy one basically gives you investors with no skin in the game.

Compare the EV consumer purchase incentives with the last government sponsored program to increase sales of fossil fuel vehicles.

EV program= here’s some free government money to go buy an electric vehicle. This has been going on for years and continues in different forms like tax deductible dealer to consumer price reductions. No price cap in sight or indication the cash flow will stop completely.

Cash for clunkers from 2009= The government buys your car at an inflated price, as long as you buy a new one that gets better mileage. Program lasted less than two months and was capped at 3 billon dollars.

In short, the electric vehicle industry benefits from everything the fossil fuel industry benefits from, plus custom tailored consumer incentives and a federal thumb on the scale to increase sales. Then there is the State thumb in a few states.

 

[ronsatspokane]

It is certainly not a fallacy. Oil/Gas subsidies date further back than 1916. Costing more than 10 Billion per year to us. Many of which are permanent unlike EV and others which have to be renewed. The EV subsidies took off in 2009 with the ARRA. 93 years after oil and gas. To have an honest discussion you cannot ignore the elephant in the room. This comes from someone benefitting from oil and gas because I have a pig launcher on my property that we get royalties from.

I think neither one should be subsidized. I think we should start just letting people pay their own way, and let it fail if it fails.

Please enumerate these "subsidies". What leftists have traditionally considered subsidies is the cost of leasing the claims. They think those costs are too low so they price them at what they consider a fair price and call the difference a subsidy. Keep in mind that these people have never seen a balance sheet, been involved in oil and gas exploration, worked in or run a refinery or have any skills that would lend credibility to their estimates. They don't even know what the inputs to those estimates would be. These people are emotional infants who lament the fact that man exists in this planet.

They take it much further in the last couple of decades though. The IMF for example tries to calculate the damage to the environment which they perceive to include wildfires, floods, droughts, storms, increasing/decreasing temperatures (now called climate change since their predictions have failed), air quality, water quality, reef health, fish health, desert health... Literately everything they can come up with in an attempt to prove that life on this planet has consequences. They then pull numbers out of their "collective" arses and call it a subsidy. IMF claims 5.4 trillion world wide with ~650 billion in the US. They then go on to say that the world gets nothing for all this damage. They are beyond stupid. They get nothing short of civilization in return. The global flow of goods and services. And the funny thing is that the proponents of this form of religion are often the biggest offenders of their own doctrine. Take Al Gore for example.

 

[Geronimo Jim]

Post number 2265 deserves a bunch of likes! Awesome.

 

[Brians356]

The IMF for example tries to calculate the damage to the environment which they perceive to include wildfires, floods, droughts, storms, increasing/decreasing temperatures (now called climate change since their predictions have failed), air quality, water quality, reef health, fish health, desert health... Literately everything they can come up with in an attempt to prove that life on this planet has consequences.

The New Yawk Times reported last week on The "Vanishing Islands That Failed To Vanish". Scientists have tried to explain why islands are growing taller faster than oceans are rising from "climate warming change":

[R]esearchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. They looked at a couple dozen islands first, then several hundred, and by now close to 1,000. They found that over the past few decades, the islands’ edges had wobbled this way and that, eroding here, building there. By and large, though, their area hadn’t shrunk. In some cases, it was the opposite: They grew. The seas rose, and the islands expanded with them.

The scientists are standing on their heads trying to explain how the islands can grow while sea levels rise. But consider Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. Our own NOAA has a sea level monitor there. And NOAA reports the sea is rising there at a rate since 1947 of [drum roll] less than 5 inches per century. Oh, be still my heart!


We're told that sea level rise is accelerating. It's been rising slowly for tens of thousands of years since the last glacial period, but now (we're told) it rising like a homesick angel! Do you see any non-linear increase in sea level in the chart above? Neither do I.
-

 

[Larry Koch]

Reminds me of Gilligans Island. Gilligan kept moving the stick deeper into the bay for his fishing nets. And the professor thought the island was sinking. So I think we are feed a bunch of bull, if you choose to eat it.
The earth as been warming long before man invented fire. How come no one worries about the sun running out of light, just saying.

 

[ronsatspokane]

The New Yawk Times reported last week on The "Vanishing Islands That Failed To Vanish". Scientists have tried to explain why islands are growing taller faster than oceans are rising from "climate warming change":

[R]esearchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. They looked at a couple dozen islands first, then several hundred, and by now close to 1,000. They found that over the past few decades, the islands’ edges had wobbled this way and that, eroding here, building there. By and large, though, their area hadn’t shrunk. In some cases, it was the opposite: They grew. The seas rose, and the islands expanded with them.
View attachment 1570068
The scientists are standing on their heads trying to explain how the islands can grow while sea levels rise. But consider Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. Our own NOAA has a sea level monitor there. And NOAA reports the sea is rising there at a rate since 1947 of [drum roll] less than 5 inches per century. Oh, be still my heart!

View attachment 1570069
We're told that sea level rise is accelerating. It's been rising slowly for tens of thousands of years since the last glacial period, but now (we're told) it rising like a homesick angel! Do you see any non-linear increase in sea level in the chart above? Neither do I.
-

It is not about truth, it is about indoctrination. There are a lot of youth who have been fed this nonsense beginning in their formative years and as they approach the point at which their brains are fully formed (around 25 years of age) these lies are an integral part of the structure of their brains. It'll take them the rest of their lives to rewire their brains if they recognize that they have been lied to and make an effort to do so. In other words, they will be living a lie their entire lives.

 

[rwj]

The earth as been warming long before man invented fire. How come no one worries about the sun running out of light, just saying.

Yes, and the earth will be destroyed by the sun when it runs out of fuel. Ironically, by turning the earth into a scorching fireball!

 

[jackieschmidt]

Yes, and the earth will be destroyed by the sun when it runs out of fuel. Ironically, by turning the earth into a scorching fireball!

In the end, nothing gets out of life alive.

 

[Knotwild]

Graphs of the Earth's temperature show that the earth has been through periods of warming and cooling during it's life. The most recent time was evidenced by the potato famine of the 1850s.

There is a very authoritative book which outlines how the world will end and statistical analysis shows it to be accurate beyond question.

It's name is the Bible. And is a fountain of enrichment and instruction.

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

Please enumerate these "subsidies". What leftists have traditionally considered subsidies is the cost of leasing the claims. They think those costs are too low so they price them at what they consider a fair price and call the difference a subsidy. Keep in mind that these people have never seen a balance sheet, been involved in oil and gas exploration, worked in or run a refinery or have any skills that would lend credibility to their estimates. They don't even know what the inputs to those estimates would be. These people are emotional infants who lament the fact that man exists in this planet.

They take it much further in the last couple of decades though. The IMF for example tries to calculate the damage to the environment which they perceive to include wildfires, floods, droughts, storms, increasing/decreasing temperatures (now called climate change since their predictions have failed), air quality, water quality, reef health, fish health, desert health... Literately everything they can come up with in an attempt to prove that life on this planet has consequences. They then pull numbers out of their "collective" arses and call it a subsidy. IMF claims 5.4 trillion world wide with ~650 billion in the US. They then go on to say that the world gets nothing for all this damage. They are beyond stupid. They get nothing short of civilization in return. The global flow of goods and services. And the funny thing is that the proponents of this form of religion are often the biggest offenders of their own doctrine. Take Al Gore for example.

1) Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 US Code 263) Allows a company to deduct the majority of the cost to drill new wells.

2) Percentage Depletion (26 US Code 613) Allows the deduction of taxable income in relation to the declining production as a wells output decreases.

3) Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (IRS Code 45) created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980.

4) Foreign Tax Credit (26 USC 901) Which allows operating costs over seas and royalties paid to other countries to be treated as fully deductible foreign income tax (despite them being royalties and not taxes).

Their are just a couple for you that don't involve "environmental damage"

Speaking for myself. The royalties I get are income tax free. On top of that the land that is used by them, including the path they have to maintain is property tax exempt. I make them share the easement with an internet company and some others who rent space on the tower I own next to the pig launcher. Which is loaded with subsidies as well. In return for providing this we also get free internet, even more royalties, and tax breaks for "providing a service to the community". Thanks to this and other interests as well as benefits the property I own is 100% property tax free. We pay 0 taxes on the royalties, services, and land all for letting these companies use a portion of our ranch. That is definitely a subsidy in and of itself. We pay 0 taxes on the entire ranch, thanks to a portion being used that takes up less than 1/20th of an acre.

Like I said before, I am in this game, but I won't try to down play how much the tax payers hold this for profit system up.

 

[ronsatspokane]

1) Intangible Drilling Costs Deduction (26 US Code 263) Allows a company to deduct the majority of the cost to drill new wells.

2) Percentage Depletion (26 US Code 613) Allows the deduction of taxable income in relation to the declining production as a wells output decreases.

3) Nonconventional Fuels Tax Credit (IRS Code 45) created by the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980.

4) Foreign Tax Credit (26 USC 901) Which allows operating costs over seas and royalties paid to other countries to be treated as fully deductible foreign income tax (despite them being royalties and not taxes).

Their are just a couple for you that don't involve "environmental damage"

Speaking for myself. The royalties I get are income tax free. On top of that the land that is used by them, including the path they have to maintain is property tax exempt. I make them share the easement with an internet company and some others who rent space on the tower I own next to the pig launcher. Which is loaded with subsidies as well. In return for providing this we also get free internet, even more royalties, and tax breaks for "providing a service to the community". Thanks to this and other interests as well as benefits the property I own is 100% property tax free. We pay 0 taxes on the royalties, services, and land all for letting these companies use a portion of our ranch. That is definitely a subsidy in and of itself. We pay 0 taxes on the entire ranch, thanks to a portion being used that takes up less than 1/20th of an acre.

Like I said before, I am in this game, but I won't try to down play how much the tax payers hold this for profit system up.

In other words:

No business development.
No reduction in income tax as income declines.
Everything is a windfall.
No credit for taxes paid to entities other than the US government.

You forgot to add no depreciation of capital assets. That's a big one as well for the left.

You are correct, those are not environmental in nature. They are essentially the same types of credits all business and individuals enjoy. You are able to write off the interest on your house. How can you support that and at the same time not support tax incentives for capital investments? That the left wants these eliminated is further evidence that they desire the destruction of the global economy.

 

[Brians356]

"... water quality, reef health, fish health, ... ": Australian Institute Of Marine Science data. QED


-

 

[DocUSMCRetired]

In other words:

No business development.
No reduction in income tax as income declines.
Everything is a windfall.
No credit for taxes paid to entities other than the US government.

You forgot to add no depreciation of capital assets. That's a big one as well for the left.

You are correct, those are not environmental in nature. They are essentially the same types of credits all business and individuals enjoy. You are able to write off the interest on your house. How can you support that and at the same time not support tax incentives for capital investments? That the left wants these eliminated is further evidence that they desire the destruction of the global economy.

They are definitely not the same as for a normal business. It would be interesting to be able to just toss a new building up, and have it completely covered by grants and not cost you a penny. I can imagine most people would enjoy that kind of luxury to the point we would all own a business.

Also it is not a reduction in income tax as income declines. It means they get to claim the reduction in well production as a loss, this isn't depreciation. This would be the same as if you owned an orthopedic doctors office in a ski town. During the summer months when traffic slowed down for you, that you could claim the decrease in traffic and get a payout for it, despite this being something expected. Or owning a business in a college town like a pizzeria and being able to claim the summer months change in traffic as a windfall and bank money on it.

Also, they get credit for royalties (and taxes) paid over seas as tax credits. This shouldn't happen, you shouldn't get a tax break for paying some saudi prince so you can dig a well at no cost to you, and if it doesn't work out the tax payers will cover the cost and you assume zero risk.

 

[xr650rRider]

They are definitely not the same as for a normal business. It would be interesting to be able to just toss a new building up, and have it completely covered by grants and not cost you a penny. I can imagine most people would enjoy that kind of luxury to the point we would all own a business.

Also it is not a reduction in income tax as income declines. It means they get to claim the reduction in well production as a loss, this isn't depreciation. This would be the same as if you owned an orthopedic doctors office in a ski town. During the summer months when traffic slowed down for you, that you could claim the decrease in traffic and get a payout for it, despite this being something expected. Or owning a business in a college town like a pizzeria and being able to claim the summer months change in traffic as a windfall and bank money on it.

Also, they get credit for royalties (and taxes) paid over seas as tax credits. This shouldn't happen, you shouldn't get a tax break for paying some saudi prince so you can dig a well at no cost to you, and if it doesn't work out the tax payers will cover the cost and you assume zero risk.

 

[Brians356]

They are definitely not the same as for a normal business. It would be interesting to be able to just toss a new building up, and have it completely covered by grants and not cost you a penny. I can imagine most people would enjoy that kind of luxury to the point we would all own a business.

If there's one business toward which it's been 100% worthwhile throwing taxpayer money, it's the business that provides nearly all our abundant, reliable, cheap energy, and enabled the vast spread of civilization and prosperity we enjoy today - while it lasts anyway: the fossil energy business. Those who seek the imminent demise of that business are the same people who believe the best way to "save the planet" is to reduce its human population by 2/3, and leave the remaining third living in caves.
-

 

[Larry Koch]

The electric vehicle is ready! The batteries are not! Wait for the flux capacitor.

 

[ronsatspokane]

They are definitely not the same as for a normal business. It would be interesting to be able to just toss a new building up, and have it completely covered by grants and not cost you a penny. I can imagine most people would enjoy that kind of luxury to the point we would all own a business.

Also it is not a reduction in income tax as income declines. It means they get to claim the reduction in well production as a loss, this isn't depreciation. This would be the same as if you owned an orthopedic doctors office in a ski town. During the summer months when traffic slowed down for you, that you could claim the decrease in traffic and get a payout for it, despite this being something expected. Or owning a business in a college town like a pizzeria and being able to claim the summer months change in traffic as a windfall and bank money on it.

Also, they get credit for royalties (and taxes) paid over seas as tax credits. This shouldn't happen, you shouldn't get a tax break for paying some saudi prince so you can dig a well at no cost to you, and if it doesn't work out the tax payers will cover the cost and you assume zero risk.

They are the same as all other tax incentives for both business and individuals. The first being about stimulating investment in a very risky venture. The second about continuing extraction on wells that are depleted rather than abandoning them. Those are targeted at domestic energy production whereas the Biden administration wants to kill domestic production in favor of importing Venezuelan oil. Some of the dirtiest oil on the planet.

As far as royalties versus taxes, you can call any demand for payment by a foreign power anything you want. You can call your own individual income tax a royalty on your labor if you choose and that would be accurate. The bottom line is that you have paid a percentage of your income to that foreign power and as a result your local tax burden on those foreign profits are reduced.

I'm guessing that you spent a large percentage of your working life in the public sector so perhaps these concepts are foreign to you. But out in the real world, every individual and every business entity does what they can to keep as much of the fruits of their own labor as is possible. Meanwhile government does all it can to take whatever they can and redistribute it as the government functionaries deem appropriate. Except in the case where taking too much would kill necessary business, hence the need for incentives. As near as I can tell, based on what you said, you are the only one getting a free ride.