evnow
Well-known member
Very much so. I think the passage of the bill in the house probably hinges on this question.Carlos said:
Obama for changing the $7,500 tax credit to a tax rebate ?
- Thread starter evnow
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
LEAFer
Well-known member
I think you meant to say ... "I have no issue with the tax credit carrying forward so those with lower tax obligations can get the credit over time."EVDRIVER said:
And that would also be an agreeable alternative IMHO. I just dislike the way it's currently structured.
evnow
Well-known member
I don't see any particular ethical or moral issue here (seems just ideological) - but if needed - it could always be offset against manufacturer's tax obligations.EVDRIVER said:
Azrich
Well-known member
Here is the subcommittee this bill will go to for discussion. Letter writing asking for support of Senate Bill S.298 might be appropriate.
Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure
Chairman
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Democrats
Kent Conrad, ND
John F. Kerry, MA
Blanche L. Lincoln, AR
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Maria Cantwell, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Thomas R. Carper, DE
Ranking Member
Jim Bunning, KY
Republicans
Mike Crapo, ID
John Cornyn, TX
Orrin G. Hatch, UT
Michael B. Enzi, WY
Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure
Chairman
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Democrats
Kent Conrad, ND
John F. Kerry, MA
Blanche L. Lincoln, AR
Debbie Stabenow, MI
Maria Cantwell, WA
Bill Nelson, FL
Thomas R. Carper, DE
Ranking Member
Jim Bunning, KY
Republicans
Mike Crapo, ID
John Cornyn, TX
Orrin G. Hatch, UT
Michael B. Enzi, WY
evnow
Well-known member
Thanks.Azrich said:
I suggest people from TX - do write to your senator. Bipartisan support helps push such bills.
evnow
Well-known member
http://www.jsonline.com/business/115612729.html
AndyH
Well-known member
Add one 'Cornyn-gram' to the MNL chalk board.evnow said:
Desertstraw
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 250
EVDRIVER said:
This is a narrow self-centered viewpoint. Consider seniors like me who have saved carefully over our lives and keep our savings in safe places like bank CDs. Thanks to government policies, supposedly to "save our financial system, we get virtually no interest and pay taxes on what little we get which does not even keep up with inflation. If you have a million dollars in a safe investment you are lucky to get $4000 in interest. As a result we are forced to live on our capital and hope that we die before it runs out.
With the tax credit people who have created part of our financial mess like Wall Street manipulators get the full $7,500 while we get virtually nothing. Thanks to government financial policy, there is a massive transfer of money going on from the prudent to the imprudent. Now you say that it is also proper for us to be deprived of government help in buying an electric car. Where did you learn your ethics?
Gonewild
Well-known member
This change is for 2012 budget which will not help ME or other who have gotten there car this year. RIGHT?
evnow
Well-known member
Desertstraw said:
Very well said. I think the rebate makes this a democratic process - as opposed to only for moderately high income earners.
As to ethics, I can tell you, there is none left in the "free market" system where the profit is privatized and losses are socialized.
edatoakrun
Well-known member
Desertstraw said:
Great summary of who is really paying for the multi-trillion dollar bank bailout.
I'd add the likely additional environmental benefits of giving the full $7500 incentive to the widest possible class of buyers.
Limiting the full benefit to only higher earning INCOME taxpayers, who are more likely to own multiple vehicles, be less concerned with fuel costs, and are therefore less likely to drive as many of their miles in their EV's, would result in a lower reduction/replacement in total ICE miles driven, and gasoline consumption and air pollution reduction, from the same number of EV vehicle sales.
jcesare
Well-known member
Azrich said:
FYI Your list is out of date. Jim Bunning is no longer a senator. He did not run for re-election and Rand Paul won his seat.
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=About.Members
Committee Members
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democrats
Chairman Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Ron Wyden (OR)
Tim Johnson (SD)
Mary L. Landrieu (LA)
Maria Cantwell (WA)
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Mark Udall (CO)
Jeanne Shaheen (NH)
Al Franken (MN)
Joe Manchin (WV)
Christopher A. Coons (DE)
Republicans
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Richard Burr (NC)
John Barrasso (WY)
James E. Risch (ID)
Mike Lee (UT)
Rand Paul (KY)
Daniel Coats (IN)
Rob Portman (OH)
John Hoeven (ND)
Bob Corker (TN)
EVDRIVER
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2010
- Messages
- 6,753
Desertstraw said:
Not exactly, I would do better with the rebate then a credit. My income is often loaded to one year where I may pay the rebate tax in one year and almost nothing the next and my high taxes pay for rebates that I would not get. Using the tax rebate this year will get me the full $7500 and a fraction as a tax credit. My view is that those that can afford a $35K car before rebates should have the income or cash to to so or can lease as an option. I just think it should be funded even if it's over 5 years of carry over. Many people were hit by the recession, many foolish people bought homes they knew they could not afford and then the banks reduced their equity and loans with tax dollars. So I have no debt of any kind and own everything I buy and when others are foolish my tax dollars pay for their bail outs. Perhaps I should get a free car for being responsible and for paying for corporate and personal mistakes made by many? I have friends that basically had their loans partially paid by the govt and they do not need to pay it back ever, is that ethical? There are many exceptions but I don't believe in giving money out that is not funded, even when be better for me which it would. I believe in the need to stimulate EVs but it should be funded back, it is on a sliding scale, the more taxes you pay the more you get back on the car. There are many ways to look at this, it can even be seen as unfair competition since some similar cars do not qualify, the govt is deciding which products get the money. It's not an easy call.
Spin it more, is it ethical if I buy the car in March and don't get the full tax credit but someone buys it in April and gets the rebate? Seems in the same calendar year one should have the option of both. I think the word is fair not ethical. The fair thing is to give everyone the rebate in the calendar year for a variety of reasons.
AndyH
Well-known member
Credit/deduction... This is both 'gray' and 'black and white' depending on perspective.
Let's expand our focus a bit from the very narrow belief in limited money where for me to get my dollar someone else has to give one up.
What happens when one of us buys an electric car that does not happen when one buys an ICE car? For one, we add a new consumer of electricity. The increased electricity sales creates cash flow out of thin air - and that cash flow increases wages for employees which directly leads to more income taxes to the Federal government.
The additional electricity sale adds to the electric company's cash flow - which adds to corporate profit (or reduces losses) and corporate tax payments. The increased value supports investors and traders - and that generates sales commissions and long-term/short-term capital gains tax payments.
Maybe that one EV sale results in a dealership's income tipping point and they can hire a new employee - and that new job and salary increases consumer behavior and tax payments...
We can keep expanding this but I think you'll get the point.
The government provides incentives to encourage behavior they want to encourage - knowing that it will pay more back than they're paying out. Business and government are much better investors than most of us 'civilians' - and they don't look at the problem from the same perspective we do.
The good news is that the rules are in place for all - and we can chose to change our perspective. It's much easier than bending the government to our will...
Let's expand our focus a bit from the very narrow belief in limited money where for me to get my dollar someone else has to give one up.
What happens when one of us buys an electric car that does not happen when one buys an ICE car? For one, we add a new consumer of electricity. The increased electricity sales creates cash flow out of thin air - and that cash flow increases wages for employees which directly leads to more income taxes to the Federal government.
The additional electricity sale adds to the electric company's cash flow - which adds to corporate profit (or reduces losses) and corporate tax payments. The increased value supports investors and traders - and that generates sales commissions and long-term/short-term capital gains tax payments.
Maybe that one EV sale results in a dealership's income tipping point and they can hire a new employee - and that new job and salary increases consumer behavior and tax payments...
We can keep expanding this but I think you'll get the point.
The government provides incentives to encourage behavior they want to encourage - knowing that it will pay more back than they're paying out. Business and government are much better investors than most of us 'civilians' - and they don't look at the problem from the same perspective we do.
The good news is that the rules are in place for all - and we can chose to change our perspective. It's much easier than bending the government to our will...
planet4ever
Well-known member
Pretty much right. It would probably apply to the 2012 fiscal year which, for the US federal government, starts October 1, 2011.Gonewild said:
Coffee_Slurry
Well-known member
I can't see how they would retroactively apply a point of sale rebate to cars already in possession. What a mess that would be.
There will have to be some cut-off date where tax credit doesn't apply, and rebate does instead.
There will have to be some cut-off date where tax credit doesn't apply, and rebate does instead.
planet4ever
Well-known member
It obviously depends on how they write the law. They might give you a choice of rebate or credit if you take possession during the 4th quarter this year, or they might delay the effective date of the law until Jan 1. Of course, given, recent history, they may well not even pass the budget law until after Jan 1. They still don't have a budget for the year that started last October. My guess is the rebate, if it makes it into law at all, won't take effect until 2012/01/01.
Ray
Ray
jkyu99
Well-known member
Politics :twisted:
Here is a perspective.
Tax credit, means I get to keep more of my money.
Tax rebate means I get to keep more of someone else's money.
:lol:
Here is a perspective.
Tax credit, means I get to keep more of my money.
Tax rebate means I get to keep more of someone else's money.
:lol:
AndyH
Well-known member
But the rebate is still getting some of your money - because you own the government and it's ALL your money!jkyu99 said:
It's like owning stock that pays dividends. You can sell a couple of shares that you own and get some of 'your' money back. But you can also cash the dividend check - which comes from the company's cash flow - and it's still getting 'your' money back -- because as a stock holder you're a partial owner of the company.
