webb14leafs
Posts: 142
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 9:43 am
Delivery Date: 27 Mar 2017

Re: The Early Demise of the $7500 Credit is BAD News

Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:55 am

I suspect that Big Auto has invested far too much money in EV technology to allow the EV Tax Credit to expire. I'm sure they are lobbying hard to protect it and it is more likely to ultimately be extended than erased.

User avatar
abasile
Forum Supporter
Posts: 1890
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 10:49 am
Delivery Date: 20 Apr 2011
Location: Arrowbear Lake, CA

Re: The Early Demise of the $7500 Credit is BAD News

Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:04 am

webb14leafs wrote:I suspect that Big Auto has invested far too much money in EV technology to allow the EV Tax Credit to expire. I'm sure they are lobbying hard to protect it and it is more likely to ultimately be extended than erased.

You may be right. Thanks to CARB policies domestically and mandates in significant European and Asian markets, Big Auto knows that they need to sell EVs, and that they'll need to continue to develop EV technology to stay relevant. Given this, they'd rather not be forced to subsidize every EV that they sell. I wouldn't be surprised if GM and Nissan in particular lobby to extend the credit by increasing the per-manufacturer cap.
2011 LEAF at 71K miles, pre-owned 2012 Tesla S 85 at 98K miles
LEAF battery: 9/12 bars and < 49 Ah (-28% vs. new)
Tesla battery: 250+ miles of range (-5% vs. new)

rmay635703
Posts: 417
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:43 pm

Re: The Early Demise of the $7500 Credit is BAD News

Tue Nov 07, 2017 10:38 am

LTLFTcomposite wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
LTLFTcomposite wrote:What giveaway?

1.3 Trillion over 10 years. Did that paltry sum escape your attention ?

third highest corporate tax rate in the world.


We also make it the easiest to avoid and further constitutionally
ONLY CORPORATIONS ARE TO PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX.

Let’s get back to the constitution and eliminate private income tax and move it to only corporate sales and profits.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Gold Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: The Early Demise of the $7500 Credit is BAD News

Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:14 pm

LTLFTcomposite wrote:Healthcare costs and student loans are two areas that need to be reined in. The best way to do that is cut back on the availability of money to fund both of them. In healthcare the outcomes aren't any better for all that is being spent. Colleges these days are just places kids goof off protesting stuff they don't even understand rack up debt having their heads filled with liberal nonsense instead of learning anything that prepares them with skills the market demands. 150k in student debt for an art history degree, then complain the interest isn't deductible.


I don't know how serious you are about this, but the students who have the biggest loans are doctors, lawyers, and engineers. You know, the educated ones that you claim this country needs more of?

Removing these programs to lower corporate tax rates (Warren Buffet has pointed out that he pays a lower tax effective tax rate than his secretary) is the surest way to doom this nation.

Anecdotal, but almost all the engineers and doctors i know are liberals, while the business owners are conservatives.
[2013 leaf traded for 2016 leaf S30:
build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
1 May 2017 - 7300 miles & 363 GIDs
6 Sep 2017 - 13k miles & 359 GIDs
26 Oct 2017 - 15.5k miles & 344 GIDs]

User avatar
LTLFTcomposite
Posts: 4334
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:06 pm
Delivery Date: 10 Dec 2011
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Boca Raton FL

Re: The Early Demise of the $7500 Credit is BAD News

Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:19 pm

Warren Buffett may pay a lower percentage (because of capital gains) but I'll bet he still pays a whole lot more, and doesn't derive significantly more benefits than the secretary. By allowing WB to keep more of his money he invests it in things that give people jobs (like the secretary). I suppose we could confiscate all his wealth and distribute it "fairly" among the population, if you really think the government allocates resources with greater lasting benefit than WB. I for one do not.
LTL
White 2012 SV delivered 10 Dec 2011 returned 25 Nov 2014 replaced with stopgap ICE Sentra
[35 months] [35K miles] [9 Bars]
2013 Volt replaced after 36 months/30k miles with ICE Rogue

LeftieBiker
Posts: 7138
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 3:17 am
Delivery Date: 31 May 2013
Location: Upstate New York, US

Re: The Early Demise of the $7500 Credit is BAD News

Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:34 pm

I tried using Nissan's live chat to ask about the possibility of leasing a 2018 Leaf in 2017, with delivery in 2018. I was transferred twice, and the eventual answer was, first, "Ask your dealer" and then, when pressed, 'When you lease you take delivery of the car, so no.'
2013 "Brilliant Silver" SV with Premium Package and no QC, and 2009 Vectrix VX-1 with 18 Leaf cells.

The most offensive, tasteless phrase in use here is "Pulled the trigger." I no longer respond to posts that use it.

Oils4AsphaultOnly
Gold Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2015 4:09 pm
Delivery Date: 20 Nov 2016
Leaf Number: 313890
Location: Arcadia, CA

Re: The Early Demise of the $7500 Credit is BAD News

Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:43 pm

LTLFTcomposite wrote:Warren Buffett may pay a lower percentage (because of capital gains) but I'll bet he still pays a whole lot more, and doesn't derive significantly more benefits than the secretary. By allowing WB to keep more of his money he invests it in things that give people jobs (like the secretary). I suppose we could confiscate all his wealth and distribute it "fairly" among the population, if you really think the government allocates resources with greater lasting benefit than WB. I for one do not.


I don't harbor any delusions about government's effectiveness at redistributing wealth. But I do think that cutting the taxes for the rich (and corporations) by 28% (a 10% drop in the tax rate is a 28% reduction in their taxes) would translate to an even WORSE effectiveness at redistributing wealth, because there would be no increased spending (the rich can only eat and play so much) and at best the money will be redistributed as dividends. And who do you think own most of the stocks that would benefit from these dividend disbursements? Certainly not the college student who's trying to pay off his student loan debt. Even with government inefficiencies taking 50% out of every dollar distributed, you're still looking at 50 cents of every dollar going back into the economy, versus 90 cents of every dollar going into some corporations off-shore tax haven (or rich person's swiss bank account).

Per dollar of income, the unwashed masses are the ones who make the greatest contribution towards driving the economy. They "consume" necessities AND products. A rich person got rich from "working hard and saving". I don't begrudge the rich individual for benefitting from their hard work, but they know how to minimize their tax burden, and are generally not above paying their fair share in taxes.

But corporations are NOT people and should not get to purchase a government that's supposed to be "by the people and for the people". They should not get a tax reduction at the cost of healthcare for people (corporations don't need healthcare after all)!
[2013 leaf traded for 2016 leaf S30:
build date: Sep '16 :: purchased: Nov '16
1 May 2017 - 7300 miles & 363 GIDs
6 Sep 2017 - 13k miles & 359 GIDs
26 Oct 2017 - 15.5k miles & 344 GIDs]

SageBrush
Posts: 1412
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: The Early Demise of the $7500 Credit is BAD News

Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:44 pm

Oils4AsphaultOnly wrote:
LTLFTcomposite wrote:Warren Buffett may pay a lower percentage (because of capital gains) but I'll bet he still pays a whole lot more, and doesn't derive significantly more benefits than the secretary. By allowing WB to keep more of his money he invests it in things that give people jobs (like the secretary). I suppose we could confiscate all his wealth and distribute it "fairly" among the population, if you really think the government allocates resources with greater lasting benefit than WB. I for one do not.


I don't harbor any delusions about government's effectiveness at redistributing wealth. But I do think that cutting the taxes for the rich (and corporations) by 28% (a 10% drop in the tax rate is a 28% reduction in their taxes) would translate to an even WORSE effectiveness at redistributing wealth, because there would be no increased spending (the rich can only eat and play so much) and at best the money will be redistributed as dividends. And who do you think own most of the stocks that would benefit from these dividend disbursements? Certainly not the college student who's trying to pay off his student loan debt. Even with government inefficiencies taking 50% out of every dollar distributed, you're still looking at 50 cents of every dollar going back into the economy, versus 90 cents of every dollar going into some corporations off-shore tax haven (or rich person's swiss bank account).

Per dollar of income, the unwashed masses are the ones who make the greatest contribution towards driving the economy. They "consume" necessities AND products. A rich person got rich from "working hard and saving". I don't begrudge the rich individual for benefitting from their hard work, but they know how to minimize their tax burden, and are generally not above paying their fair share in taxes.

But corporations are NOT people and should not get to purchase a government that's supposed to be "by the people and for the people". They should not get a tax reduction at the cost of healthcare for people (corporations don't need healthcare after all)!


Well said, although my take is somewhat different.

I'm not much of a proponent of re-distribution of wealth as an ideology, but I do recognize that NO ONE -- not me, not my neighbor, or the corporation licensed in Jersey but operating in California, operates in a vacuum. We all benefit and are dependent on our communities, states, and federal government for our successes. Corporations get rich by employing an educated, healthy labor pool. The educated took advantage of public libraries, an open internet, colleges and universities subsidized by the taxpayer. So it makes absolutely no sense to tax corporations at rates lower than individuals. As for why rates might be higher, that actually has to do with a corporations' legal right to defer taxation on retained earnings to later years. As an individual, I would happily accept a higher statutory rate for the same privilege.
2013 Model 'S' with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California with 63.9 Ahr after 22k miles
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado

Return to “General / Main Owners Forum”