It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
www.theregister.co.uk...
Tesla's share price took a dive Thursday morning as Republicans in Congress revealed they were planning to kill off a US federal tax credit for electric vehicles.
The proposed House tax bill calls for an immediate repeal of the $7,500-per-vehicle credit: something that would have an immediate knock-on impact for Tesla given that it only produces electric cars.
It's not just Tesla that will be hard hit by the removal of the federal tax credit: General Motors has been pushing its Chevy Bolt electric car, and under California state law, it is required to sell a certain percentage of electric cars each year or effectively pay for not doing so by purchasing green credits.
GM said in a statement following the news: "Tax credits are an important customer benefit that can help accelerate the acceptance of electric vehicles. Because General Motors believes in an all-electric future, we will work with Congress to explore ways to maintain this incentive."
Tesla has yet to respond – even though the markets have already spoken. ®
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Middleoftheroad
Gas isn't going to be under 3 dollars a gallon for long.
Why not start making a shift and get energy independence?
Or are you a fan of Saudi Arabia's tyrannical and oppressive government existing because of us?
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Middleoftheroad
I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just making a point.
Oil has been subsidized and in many ways still is. The ramifications of that are far more negative than if we relied on domestic electricity.
originally posted by: feldercarb
I like that this tax credit is ending. I also wish that the subsidy for corn was gone too. Both of these are counterproductive. Realize that until solar energy becomes common place and sufficient for energy demands; using electric still requires the burning of fossil fuel. The energy in our houses and workplaces comes mainly from burning oil and there is still some coal burning electric plants. Thus, buying electric cars does not help our dependence on oil nor help the environment. It would be better to pursue the development of hybrid cars at this time. Using surplus energy generated by small efficient fossil fuel burning engines would be more efficient and economical.
Likewise, I would like to stop the corn subsidies and the addition of ethanol to gasoline. There is no need for such maneuvers and actually uses more fossil fuel. To produce the ethanol used as a gasoline additive you must look at the energy required. Fertilizers and tractors use fossil fuel to produce the corn crop. These cost are not being properly represented when look at the benefits of adding ethanol to gasoline. Also, ethanol degrades rubber, thus being harder on rings and other rubber based components.
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Bluntone22
I can’t say what a ‘fair share’ (e.g. how do we account for $.51/gallon federal subsidy for corn ethanol; requirement for low-sulphur diesel [the whole VW/Audi debacle with diesel emissions]; etc.) is when paying taxes for usage of government maintained roads, but Oregon has completed (or close to) a pilot program using miles driven to determine a more efficient taxing mechanism.
From an efficiency point-of-view, taxing consumers based on miles driven produces a better outcome than the standard gas tax. The gas tax worked pretty well when fuel-economy standards were a ‘new thing’ and fuel consumption was a much larger share of individuals’ disposable income, but those days were long ago and many states’ Dept of Transportation’s coffers are being strained.
If I have some time to really dig in, I’ll see (and add relevant links) what Oregon’s pilot program was able produce, as it relates to usage vs consumption mechanisms.