Bolt EV Canadian Pricing - $42,795 CAD - options and rebate info too

[unplugged]

Price for the Base LT Trim package is listed as $42,795 in Canada.
There is also a $1600 destination charge.

The LT trim in Canada comes standard with DC fast charging (in the US the DC Fast charging is $750 USD extra)
Other standard options are Regen on Demand steering wheel paddles, rear view camera, 10.2" color touch screen and self-sealing tires.

A huge rebate is available in Ontario, and only 2 additional provinces offer rebates:

Ontario – $12,839 rebate for the base pricing (up to $14,000 available on higher trims/options)
Quebec – $8,000
British Columbia - $5,000

GM says to expect the 2017 Bolt Electric Vehicle in Canada in early 2017.

 

[columbo]

That's good news for Canada - if it was a straight conversion from US MSRP to CDN then it would be too expensive and wouldn't sell well.

However, I think this also points to the fact that the Bolt pricing in the USA is so high because GM can cash in on rebates. Once the incentives run out I think we will see a decent price cut on the Bolt.

 

[idknow]

Wow - $14000 rebate in Ontario?

 

[DucRider]

That's good news for Canada - if it was a straight conversion from US MSRP to CDN then it would be too expensive and wouldn't sell well.

However, I think this also points to the fact that the Bolt pricing in the USA is so high because GM can cash in on rebates. Once the incentives run out I think we will see a decent price cut on the Bolt.

Huh?
Canada has up to $14k on rebates.

The only state in the US that offers a rebate is California. There is a Federal Income Tax Credit for those that qualify, but it is not a rebate.

And, GM does not get any of these incentives, the purchaser does. While it is true they may be able to charge more for the car while these incentives are available, saying that they receive them is misleading.

 

[roundpeg]

Huh?
Canada has up to $14k on rebates.

The only state in the US that offers a rebate is California. There is a Federal Income Tax Credit for those that qualify, but it is not a rebate.

And, GM does not get any of these incentives, the purchaser does. While it is true they may be able to charge more for the car while these incentives are available, saying that they receive them is misleading.

We've discussed this before, but I don't see the suggestion that the tax credits ultimately pass through to the manufacturer as being the least bit misleading. Chevy is clearly advertising the price of the car net the tax credits, so essentially they are built into the pricing.

Though as you say the "rebate" in the U.S. takes the form of a tax credit, which I understand cannot be carried forward, so many less-affluent buyers won't get the full value of it.

 

[SparkE]

As if the 'less affluent' would plunk down 30K on a brand new vehicle ...

 

[roundpeg]

As if the 'less affluent' would plunk down 30K on a brand new vehicle ...

They seem to do it all the time, from what I can see, though they are probably more often plunking down for payments or a lease. And when I say "less affluent" I mean less affluent than a customer for a $100k car.

 

[SparkE]

Though as you say the "rebate" in the U.S. takes the form of a tax credit, which I understand cannot be carried forward, so many less-affluent buyers won't get the full value of it.

In order to have a total federal income tax bill of at least $7500, a single person in the U.S. (no kids, no mortgage) would be earning around $60k. You'd have to be pretty stupid to purchase a car worth $37k if you earned $60k a year (before taxes).

"Less affluent than somebody willing to pay $100k for a car" means earning at least $150k/yr (and that's considering the person is a financial idiot - $200k in earnings is probably a better starting figure, covering over 95% of the purchases ).

In any of the cited cases (even including the morons), the person could pocket the entire tax credit, so the 'less affluent' comment doesn't hold water. (Well, unless the person was a complete and total financial moron - and those do exist. Although that type of person probably wouldn't be swayed by a 'gee, I'm only going to be able to get half of that rebate' in any case, being a total moron and all.)

 

[DucRider]

Though as you say the "rebate" in the U.S. takes the form of a tax credit, which I understand cannot be carried forward, so many less-affluent buyers won't get the full value of it.

In order to have a total federal income tax bill of at least $7500, a single person in the U.S. (no kids, no mortgage) would be earning around $60k. You'd have to be pretty stupid to purchase a car worth $37k if you earned $60k a year (before taxes).

"Less affluent than somebody willing to pay $100k for a car" means earning at least $150k/yr (and that's considering the person is a financial idiot - $200k in earnings is probably a better starting figure, covering over 95% of the purchases ).

In any of the cited cases (even including the morons), the person could pocket the entire tax credit, so the 'less affluent' comment doesn't hold water. (Well, unless the person was a complete and total financial moron - and those do exist. Although that type of person probably wouldn't be swayed by a 'gee, I'm only going to be able to get half of that rebate' in any case, being a total moron and all.)

This whole Canadian pricing thread has gotten a bit sidetracked - but I'll throw one more thing out there.
When you lease a car, the leasing/finance company is the actual purchaser and is entitled to the $7500 tax credit. It is almost always passed on the the consumer in the form of a cap cost reduction. This is very useful for retired people and others who might not otherwise be eligible for the credit. Plus, you don't have to wait until you file to get it back (or temporarily adjust/suspend your withholding).

 

[roundpeg]

In order to have a total federal income tax bill of at least $7500, a single person in the U.S. (no kids, no mortgage) would be earning around $60k. You'd have to be pretty stupid to purchase a car worth $37k if you earned $60k a year (before taxes).

"Less affluent than somebody willing to pay $100k for a car" means earning at least $150k/yr (and that's considering the person is a financial idiot - $200k in earnings is probably a better starting figure, covering over 95% of the purchases ).

In any of the cited cases (even including the morons), the person could pocket the entire tax credit, so the 'less affluent' comment doesn't hold water. (Well, unless the person was a complete and total financial moron - and those do exist. Although that type of person probably wouldn't be swayed by a 'gee, I'm only going to be able to get half of that rebate' in any case, being a total moron and all.)

While it's true that someone with a taxable income of $60k would see a tax bill large enough to enjoy the full benefit of this credit, you do seem to be confusing earnings with taxable income. Even someone with no deductions would be eligible for the standard deduction of $6,300, and most people claim a whole lot more (mortgage interest, IRA contributions, etc). So what we are really talking about is an individual with an annual income over $70k, probably well over. Now we can argue about whether someone with an income well over the national median should be called less affluent than the person who earns 3-4 times the national median.

 

[SparkE]

Huh?
Though as you say the "rebate" in the U.S. takes the form of a tax credit, which I understand cannot be carried forward, so many less-affluent buyers won't get the full value of it.

In order to have a total federal income tax bill of at least $7500, a single person in the U.S. (no kids, no mortgage) would be earning around $60k.

Well, lets calculate. use google, hmmmm ...

https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#HQoNyRMTNl estimates that a single person earning $60K would pay a tad over 8000 in federal taxes.

https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/federal-income-tax-calculator gives the same amount

https://www.hrblock.com gives about the same estimate

I really don't see anybody who is not a moron, who is earning (say, to be generous) $65K/yr, will be buying a new car worth $37K. So 'not being able to use the full the tax credit" really isn't much of a factor when looking at who will or won't be buying a Bolt.

 

[roundpeg]

When you pretty much ignore everything I write it's difficult to have a useful discussion.

 

[GetOffYourGas]

When you pretty much ignore everything I write it's difficult to have a useful discussion.

I was going to chip in and offer a point to help SparkE understand your argument, but you make a solid point. I will do so anyway, for the sake of other readers.

As a data point, I am married, own a home, and have two kids. The Bolt is actually a great fit for my family. We have a household income of over $115k. Since my wife and I both work, that's an average income of under $60k each. Would I be a moron to consider buying a $37k car? Yeah, hardly. Yet I don't pay $7500 in federal income tax in a year. I haven't paid that much since I got married. Since then, my income has gone up, but so have the deductions (mortgage interest, dependent deductions, etc).

When I bought the Leaf, I actually leased first. Nissan passed the entire tax credit to me as a capital cost reduction. Then I bought out the lease at the end. Net cost was about $23k for me. If I bought it outright, I would have only gotten about half of that tax credit.

GM wouldn't let me play the lease game with the Volt. They took that $7500 and tacked it right onto the residual. If I had leased to own, I would have ended up handing the credit to GM in its entirety. That's one of the main reasons I walked away from the Volt. Or at least the final nail in the coffin for me.

I hope GM doesn't do this with the Bolt.

All of the above is in the US. I have no idea how the Canadian incentives work.

 

[jimmyjon]

All types of incomes buy expensive vehicles however According to other posts on here there is some simple tech that seems to be lacking and as principal the car is priced high for the average income because of those tech items missing

 

[sam]

Holy Ontario is giving some big time rebates!

 

[mbepic]

All of the above is in the US. I have no idea how the Canadian incentives work.

Since this discussion originated with Canadian pricing, I will clarify the Ontario incentive; the Ontario incentive is a direct 'rebate' upon application to the gov't after purchase and delivery has been completed. The incentive amount is based on size of battery, number of seats (Bolt EV will be five seater) and the MSRP base price of model. The battery size of Bolt EV & 5-seater makes the Bolt EV eligible for the full rebate amount of $14,000. but only if you order the pricier Premier model. The max. rebate amount cannot be more than 30% of that MSRP.
I believe the rebate for the LT model is about $13,500 but as I said, the Premier should bring the 'cash-back' up to max. $14,000.

You pay the full provincial tax on the full purchase price of vehicle, not net of tax. The provincial Liberal gov't has suggested that there might be further incentives in future, such as removing the 8% PST portion of sales tax which would be a super-incentive of $3,500-4,000. Of course that was before they announced that removal of the 8% tax from our electricity bill would be a likely fix to high electricity rates..........lol.

When I purchased my 2012 Volt, I received approx. $8,200. in my bank account about 1 week after I faxed the Ontario gov't the application documents they required. You are suppose to own or lease the EV for minimum 3yrs to get the full rebate.

Also, some luxury cars will only get about $3,000. in rebate because I guess those owners don't really need any incentive to make the purchase of an EV.

Sorry, I can't comment on other provincial incentives and currently there is no 'federal' incentive program in place, although a Liberal gov't.

 

[oilerlord]

You'd have to be pretty stupid to purchase a car worth $37k if you earned $60k a year (before taxes).

"Less affluent than somebody willing to pay $100k for a car" means earning at least $150k/yr (and that's considering the person is a financial idiot - $200k in earnings is probably a better starting figure, covering over 95% of the purchases ).

I laugh at this argument - that it's somehow "smarter" to buy a new car simply because you can afford to do so. It isn't.

My neighbor has more money than god. He drives a 2001 Camry with over 300K km's on it. I'm not suggesting we all drive junkers, only that regardless of how much money you earn, buying a new car (especially a highly-depreciating EV) doesn't make much financial sense. Cars are consumables, not investments. Why lose your shirt? In a few years, there will be a lot of lease returns available prior to the launch of the Model 3. That's when you'll be able to pick up a very low mileage Bolt at 50% off.

 

[roundpeg]

I laugh at this argument - that it's somehow "smarter" to buy a new car simply because you can afford to do so. It isn't.

My neighbor has more money than god. He drives a 2001 Camry with over 300K km's on it. I'm not suggesting we all drive junkers, only that regardless of how much money you earn, buying a new car (especially a highly-depreciating EV) doesn't make much financial sense. Cars are consumables, not investments. Why lose your shirt? In a few years, there will be a lot of lease returns available prior to the launch of the Model 3. That's when you'll be able to pick up a very low mileage Bolt at 50% off.

I think what you're saying here is it's never a good idea to buy a new car, since two-year-old models will always be significantly depreciated. That's true of course, but if we are to be honest, we know that any car we buy, new or used, depreciates every year we own it. So if we must own a car, the best financial proposition is to keep whatever you buy as long as you are able. Still we are going to be faced every ten, fifteen or however many years later, with the replacement scenario.

 

[oilerlord]

I think what you're saying here is it's never a good idea to buy a new car, since two-year-old models will always be significantly depreciated. That's true of course, but if we are to be honest, we know that any car we buy, new or used, depreciates every year we own it. So if we must own a car, the best financial proposition is to keep whatever you buy as long as you are able.

Yes,

Tesla notwithstanding, no other car depreciates more than an EV does. I wanted to drive electric, but a new EV at MSRP meant that a financial case couldn't be made for it - even with near zero maintenance and overall low cost of fuel. Being able to acquire my 2-year old B250e at 65% off was a game changer.

I figure my Audi over the course of 10 years & 100K miles costed ~$25K in fuel, and ICE related maintenance. I estimate the total cost of kWh's to drive my B250e will be ~$900. As long as the car remains reliable, this will be the first car I've owned that will have nearly paid for itself over it's lifetime.

 

[ssspinball]

Whenever people talk about keeping cars for many years they tend to ignore things like safety advancements. Sorry to be morbid, but what good is money in the bank when you're dead from a car accident? Given this fact, I would not universally agree that keeping a car 10+ years is a "smart move". It might be the worst decision of your life, if you happen to have bad luck.

Now I've also been one to keep a car for 10 years, so the big savings that come from keeping a car so long is not lost on me.