No tax credit in 2017

[WetEV]

Or maybe the tax credit is not on anybody's radar, and would be too politically damaging to "fix", even if they wouldn't have voted for it in the first place.

Tax law changes are on the radar, and the tax credit might be part of that. I don't expect a retroactive repeal, both for practical politics reasons as well as Constitutional reasons. So I would think you are fairly safe to buy. If you disagree, lease and let GM's lawyers deal with the problem.

 

[pdxbolt]

Or maybe the tax credit is not on anybody's radar, and would be too politically damaging to "fix", even if they wouldn't have voted for it in the first place. It would require a pretty targeted effort to get rid of, and it only costs around $1B/yr.

The law was originally passed by ~2/3rds majority in both the senate and house and was signed by president Bush(and not along party lines). It was part of the highly contentious economic bailout of 2008, so it was bundled with TARP, some AMT relief and tax cuts, and a few other sundry things.

I don't think it matters how it came to be. We are seeing an "unpresidented" backlash against anything that even smells like green energy.

 

[pdxbolt]

Yes, the incoming administration may not view this tax credit favorably, but you still haven't introduced any evidence or "authority" that action is being taken to eliminate it, So far all I see is speculation.

I don't have to introduce any evidence. I'm stating my opinion and am citing the opinion of a tax attorney who voiced it on public airwaves. You are free to do as you please, purchase the car or not. I have the same freedom.
I have no "proof" of anything. I think that anyone who is NOT getting their car this year (as was promised to many people) needs to be aware that there is a risk with taking delivery next year.

 

[Silence]

Yes, the incoming administration may not view this tax credit favorably, but you still haven't introduced any evidence or "authority" that action is being taken to eliminate it, So far all I see is speculation.

I don't have to introduce any evidence. I'm stating my opinion and am citing the opinion of a tax attorney who voiced it on public airwaves. You are free to do as you please, purchase the car or not. I have the same freedom.
I have no "proof" of anything. I think that anyone who is NOT getting their car this year (as was promised to many people) needs to be aware that there is a risk with taking delivery next year.

I agree with you that there is cause for concern. However your initial post isn't exactly worded as someone offering their opinion, but rather as something that is actually happening or at least that is the way it reads to me.

 

[pdxbolt]

Yes, the incoming administration may not view this tax credit favorably, but you still haven't introduced any evidence or "authority" that action is being taken to eliminate it, So far all I see is speculation.

I don't have to introduce any evidence. I'm stating my opinion and am citing the opinion of a tax attorney who voiced it on public airwaves. You are free to do as you please, purchase the car or not. I have the same freedom.
I have no "proof" of anything. I think that anyone who is NOT getting their car this year (as was promised to many people) needs to be aware that there is a risk with taking delivery next year.

I agree with you that there is cause for concern. However your initial post isn't exactly worded as someone offering their opinion, but rather as something that is actually happening or at least that is the way it reads to me.

This is only your second post in this forum.
I don't know how much else you have read.
My dealership tried to offer me tax advice stating that the credit would apply to 2016 even if I don't take delivery until next year. That's when I started to research. I found out that the statement was patently false.
Being generally fairly well informed on politics, I have no doubt that the tax attorney in Los Angeles was correct. Also note that at least one "conservative" think tank is pushing for the repeal of the credit.
So I don't know who you are or where are you coming from, but given that my own
dealership tried to snooker me, does not provide updates and is basically providing crappy service, I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to argue any positives or provide skepticism. Also, is there a deeper meaning to your handle? Silence?
Would you like to silence anyone?
What is your interest in this?

 

[Silence]

I don't have to introduce any evidence. I'm stating my opinion and am citing the opinion of a tax attorney who voiced it on public airwaves. You are free to do as you please, purchase the car or not. I have the same freedom.
I have no "proof" of anything. I think that anyone who is NOT getting their car this year (as was promised to many people) needs to be aware that there is a risk with taking delivery next year.

I agree with you that there is cause for concern. However your initial post isn't exactly worded as someone offering their opinion, but rather as something that is actually happening or at least that is the way it reads to me.

This is only your second post in this forum.
I don't know how much else you have read.
My dealership tried to offer me tax advice stating that the credit would apply to 2016 even if I don't take delivery until next year. That's when I started to research. I found out that the statement was patently false.
Being generally fairly well informed on politics, I have no doubt that the tax attorney in Los Angeles was correct. Also note that at least one "conservative" think tank is pushing for the repeal of the credit.
So I don't know who you are or where are you coming from, but given that my own
dealership tried to snooker me, does not provide updates and is basically providing crappy service, I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to argue any positives or provide skepticism. Also, is there a deeper meaning to your handle? Silence?
Would you like to silence anyone?
What is your interest in this?

I'm sorry to read that you were given incorrect advice from a dealership. I'm glad you got correct information before you made a purchase.

I'm just another guy thinking about buying a Bolt. I have a refundable deposit on one due to arrive in February. Perhaps like many other potential buyers, the tax credit is a key factor for me. I would not buy the car without it. The Bolt does appear to be a significant accomplishment, but it I'm not willing to pay 43K for a loaded Premier. So, of course a thread titled "No tax credit in 2017" caught my eye. I thought this thread was going to present concrete information that credit had been revoked or that credible steps were being taken to revoke it. It does not. It is good to know that the incoming administration doesn't view this credit favorably. Someone reading this thread may not have know this and they should, but I don't think we are at the point where we can say that there will be no tax credit in 2017.

I've read quite a bit about the Bolt, but less so on this forum. I read chevybolt.org more, but I don't post much there either.

 

[pdxbolt]

I agree with you that there is cause for concern. However your initial post isn't exactly worded as someone offering their opinion, but rather as something that is actually happening or at least that is the way it reads to me.

This is only your second post in this forum.
I don't know how much else you have read.
My dealership tried to offer me tax advice stating that the credit would apply to 2016 even if I don't take delivery until next year. That's when I started to research. I found out that the statement was patently false.
Being generally fairly well informed on politics, I have no doubt that the tax attorney in Los Angeles was correct. Also note that at least one "conservative" think tank is pushing for the repeal of the credit.
So I don't know who you are or where are you coming from, but given that my own
dealership tried to snooker me, does not provide updates and is basically providing crappy service, I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to argue any positives or provide skepticism. Also, is there a deeper meaning to your handle? Silence?
Would you like to silence anyone?
What is your interest in this?

I'm sorry to read that you were given incorrect advice from a dealership. I'm glad you got correct information before you made a purchase.

I'm just another guy thinking about buying a Bolt. I have a refundable deposit on one due to arrive in February. Perhaps like many other potential buyers, the tax credit is a key factor for me. I would not buy the car without it. The Bolt does appear to be a significant accomplishment, but it I'm not willing to pay 43K for a loaded Premier. So, of course a thread titled "No tax credit in 2017" caught my eye. I thought this thread was going to present concrete information that credit had been revoked or that credible steps were being taken to revoke it. It does not. It is good to know that the incoming administration doesn't view this credit favorably. Someone reading this thread may not have know this and they should, but I don't think we are at the point where we can say that there will be no tax credit in 2017.

I've read quite a bit about the Bolt, but less so on this forum. I read chevybolt.org more, but I don't post much there either.

I'll give you a piece of advice. See, I pre-ordered mine and I believe for above reasons that it makes a huge difference when I take delivery. For you, I'd keep a close watch on Congress. Their tax plan is one of the first to go through (they are already writing it). That and repealing ACA are the first actions. If the credit is repealed in that tax bill you want to decide if you still want the car.
Personally, I'm a believer in electric cars. I have owned and driven one for 3 years. We have a second one in the household for more than 2 years. The increased range was a draw. But electric cars are very, very trouble free, very low maintenance and they last a long time. The impetus to replace one is more so with the credit.
Now that my dealer has screwed up I'm not going to get a car this year, I'll follow my advice above with an eagle eye.

 

[devbolt]

Yes, the incoming administration may not view this tax credit favorably, but you still haven't introduced any evidence or "authority" that action is being taken to eliminate it, So far all I see is speculation.

I don't have to introduce any evidence. I'm stating my opinion and am citing the opinion of a tax attorney who voiced it on public airwaves. You are free to do as you please, purchase the car or not. I have the same freedom.
I have no "proof" of anything. I think that anyone who is NOT getting their car this year (as was promised to many people) needs to be aware that there is a risk with taking delivery next year.

It would be useful to have the name of this attorney and a link to a transcript of the attorney's remarks, or an article covering them. This would help us evaluate his remarks in context so that we can draw our own conclusions as to veracity of his statements. All we have right now is some anonymous person on the Internet predicting gloom and doom with regards to the EV tax credit with little to backup their prediction.

As others have said, the likelihood of Congress to eliminate the EV tax credit for 2017 or 2016, and make it retroactive, is pretty slim for various political and constitutional reasons.

 

[roundpeg]

It's important to keep in mind that the tax credits are designed to sunset by manufacturer depending on the number of EVs they sell. The manufacturers should be planning their production with this in consideration to the point where they've reached the economies of scale required to sell EVs at a profit without the credit supports. I don't recall the exact numbers but I believe Tesla is coming close to their ceiling and could run out in a year or so. GM I believe has further to go before they reach theirs. What this inevitably sets up is Tesla lobbying for the credits to end sooner rather than later, given that at some point they will be helping their competitors more than they help them. They would not have had an avenue to make that push before this coming January. Now they do.

The other factor to consider is the CAFE standards. Manufacturers get credits towards their overall fleet milage by selling high-mileage cars and EVs. Pushing up the CAFE standards, as happened in the Obama administration, provides a large push for them to sell EVs. If they are relaxed, the opposite happens.

This could easily be an inflection point for the entire EV industry in the U.S. Is it ready to toddle on its own? Hard to say. All we can know for sure is other nations are not going to be quitting on this. No matter what happens with our politics, they will still believe that renewables are the future.

 

[michael]

My opinion there are bigger issues on Trump's menu than the EV credit, which as pointed out above will expire soon enough anyway.

If one is concerned, there is the option to lease which puts the risk onto the leasing company. I'm planning that approach anyway so I don't expect to be impacted by whatever action is taken.

 

[dan2112]

Like anything in life - nothing is guaranteed. I for one am planning on leasing a Bolt and my car will arrive in the first week of Jan. After that I will buy (purchase) a Model 3 (Dual motor with as big a battery as possible). I fully expect to pay full price for the Tesla without any tax incentives.

If my Chevy dealer does not include the rebate into the lease (I know it's not a dollar for dollar credit) then the lease price will be to high and I will not take it. I already hear you saying "see - you won't take it w/o the tax credit. You just proved my point.". Well no I have set a price point for a lease and I am not willing to go above that price and I am not willing to buy a first generation car. But if this were a second or third generation car I might have bought it. When I put solar on my house - the tax credit was nice, but it wouldn't have been a deal breaker if I didn't get it. It was the right thing to do and the technology was mature enough at the time to make it worth while - again for me - not everybody - for me.

If you are not willing to risk a 7.5k tax credit (assuming you owe more than 7.5k to the Fed) then don't buy it - plain and simple. You have to pay up front in 2017 anyway to get the money back next year in 2018. If I were buying and Trump repealed it - would it change my decision - maybe, but that means the Tesla Model 3, the LEAF, the Spark, etc will be that much more expensive also. So if you are dependent on getting that 7.5k tax credit - well not much I can say but buy a cheaper car or a used car.

While I really hope this post was meant to inform - it smacks of fear mongering and sophomoric "ha ha - you're going to loose your tax credit" when in fact there are no concrete facts yet - just speculation. I don't live my life based on speculation and while I'm an informed buyer I don't let political fear mongering rule my life. So you are right - make your decision based on what amount of risk is acceptable knowing full well the next administration will try to dismantle anything not connected to big oil.

Ok so what happens without the Fed Tax credit? I know a lot of right wing nut jobs (like my dad) would love for the whole electric car movement to just "go-away" - but it is not going away. It will continue to mature, range will increase, prices will continue to come down. The industry will adjust - possibly slow down but it will not go away.

I agree with you in that it's a risk - plan accordingly.

Dan
(Oh and my name - I like Rush and 2112 was a great album.)

 

[mbepic]

I honestly believe that if Trump removes the tax credit of up to $7,500., the EV manufacturers will be forced to lower the MSRP of their vehicles or add a lot more incentives in order to sell these vehicles; I can see the whole EV evolution slowing down as a result but the companies, like Tesla, GM, Nissan have invested too much money in development to turn back the clock; same with the other related companies like LG, etc. that are heavily invested in battery tech. Of course, the U.S. is not the only market but certainly large enough to impact the companies over-all bottom line.

The fact that Trump has hired an oil man for his energy secretary doesn't help the transition off of fossil fuels.

I'm going to take a step further and say that in order to sell any cars or trucks in California or Oregon (CARB), the auto manufacturers will also have to produce a percentage of 'emission free' vehicles by a specific year; in order to make those high profit margin sales, they will continue to sell EVs, even at a loss, if necessary, and I don't believe these will just be 'compliance' cars. The Chevy Volt was initially sold at a big loss and I'm not sure that GM made any substantial money on the GEN1 Volt but as time passes, that situation will improve as they build more EVs, and criss-cross manufacturing lines to do that.

 

[devbolt]

GM and Tesla are pretty much neck and neck in terms of hitting the 200K sales limit. GM is slightly ahead but Tesla tends to have higher overall sales. They probably will both hit the limit in the first quarter of 2018, which means that by 2019, the credit will be gone.

 

[SparkE]

Moving this political rant thread to the "off topic" area, and out of the "general chevy bolt" forum.

 

[Tessy]

Hmmmm...New President...maybe

 

[MetaBolt]

Moving this political rant thread to the "off topic" area, and out of the "general chevy bolt" forum.

You're going to be busy the next four years.

 

[WetEV]

I honestly believe that if Trump removes the tax credit of up to $7,500., the EV manufacturers will be forced to lower the MSRP of their vehicles or add a lot more incentives in order to sell these vehicles;

Probably more complex than that. Removing or relaxing National CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rules make smaller cars of any type less attractive to sell, as they are currently sold at little profit or even a loss to allow major automakers to sell more larger and more expensive cars. So you might see a lot fewer small cars of any type for sale, and at much higher prices.

CARB isn't safe. CARB is allowed to exist due to a law (Clean Air act, signed by Nixon) that could be repealed or amended. CARB needs Federal approval, as CARB is regulating interstate commerce, over which Congress has the final authority (Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) . CARB was created by Ronald Reagan, who was then Governor of California. Yes, that Ronald Reagan.

Getting rid of the EPA, CARB, state rules limiting coal usage and more seems at least possible. Hard to say, will need to wait till after January 20th to see. It will be interesting.

 

[SparkE]

CARB needs Federal approval, as CARB is regulating interstate commerce


CARB is NOT regulating interstate commerce. Anybody can sell in CA if the product meets the rules for sale. Would raising the drinking age in CA to 25 be regulating interstate commerce because Jack Daniels couldnt sell to 23 year-olds? How about not allowing products with volatile PCBs to be sold in the state - is that regulating interstate commerce? Of course not!

 

[WetEV]

CARB needs Federal approval, as CARB is regulating interstate commerce


CARB is NOT regulating interstate commerce.

I am not a lawyer. This is my opinion, if you paid anything for it you overpaid.

In at least two ways, CARB is regulating interstate commerce. Pollution and goods commonly sold across state lines.

In regard to the constitutional question, the court observed that, since it is well settled that air pollution is a form of interstate commerce and also affects interstate commerce, Congress necessarily has the authority to regulate it.

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/transportation-law-journal/past-issues/v08/clean-air-act.pdf

I wouldn't want the state next door dumping PCBs into the river as well.

Also, manufacturers of any good sold to a national market needs consistent rules. Sure, there are state rules, especially for goods and services not commonly sold across state lines. A community can ban automobiles , there are several that do, all are islands as far are I know. A state could put age and other limits on driving. But a community can't make their own air pollution standards for auto makers, as automobiles are commonly sold over state lines. An interesting point is that a community or state might be able to ban internal combustion vehicles if the ban could be worded in a way that posed no issue for interstate commerce. Easier for Alaska than Ohio, of course.

 

[SeanNelson]

...I am not willing to go above that price and I am not willing to buy a first generation car. But if this were a second or third generation car I might have bought it.

I think that given GM's experience building the Spark and the Volt one could consider the Bolt EV as a second generation car in some respects. It's certainly not the first electric car they've ever made, as Nissan's Leaf was.