All-new Bill CLASHES With The White House, Offers To EXTEND EV Tax Credits In A BIG Way — Should They? Shouldn't They?

All-new Bill CLASHES With The White House, Offers To EXTEND EV Tax Credits In A BIG Way — Should They? Shouldn't They?
It wasn't too long ago we posted about the White House's proposed plan to entirely scrap the electric vehicle tax credits thereby saving $2.5B over the next decade. Clearly, the current administration is looking to cut the fat in certain areas.

Well, it turns out that not everyone is in agreement with that plan. In fact, an all-new bill with backing on both sides of the aisle is making some noise.

That's because it proposes even more EV tax credits to further incentivize buyers of electric vehicles.

So, what are we talking about here? This expansion would create a $7,000 tax credit for an additional 400,000 vehicles per automaker — this is ON TOP of the existing 200,000 allocation per automaker. In addition, the phase out will only take nine months as opposed to the current 15 month schedule.

This is estimated to cost $11.4B.

Given the so-called DEMAND for EVs, why is there a need to prop up the market in such a big way? In other countries that are selling EVs, once government-led incentives were backed out, the market fell apart. Is THIS just another example of government officials simply propping up the EV market? Should they or shouldn't they EXTEND the EV tax credits?

Unsurprisingly, this bill has a ton of support from the manufacturers.



A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation on Wednesday to expand the electric vehicle tax credit by 400,000 vehicles per manufacturer, a provision that would give a boost to Tesla Inc and General Motors Co before the existing credit comes to an end for them...

...The existing $7,500 EV tax credit, which allows taxpayers to deduct part of the cost of buying an electric car, phases out over 15 months once an automaker hits 200,000 cumulative EV sales. GM saw its tax credit cut to $3,750 on April 1. Tesla’s tax credit fell to $3,750 on Jan. 1 and will end entirely at year’s end.

The bill dubbed the “Driving America Forward Act” would grant each automaker a $7,000 tax credit for an additional 400,000 vehicles on top of the existing 200,000 vehicles eligible for $7,500 tax credits. It would shorten the phase-out schedule to nine months...

Read Article

PUGPROUDPUGPROUD - 4/13/2019 7:52:01 AM
+3 Boost
Don't we have enough more serious issues to throw money at especially considering the national debt then subsidizing EV's.


vdivvdiv - 4/13/2019 12:48:56 PM
+3 Boost
The US military itself considers climate change to be a national threat, that seems rather serious considering the number of strategic bases affected by it, and is investing renewable energy generation and use.


MDarringerMDarringer - 4/13/2019 12:57:46 PM
-1 Boost
#illogical reasoning. The use of renewable energy has nothing to do with climate change and everything to do with being grid independent.


vdivvdiv - 4/13/2019 1:17:32 PM
+3 Boost
Not sure you have enough hashtags there to make your point.


CANADIANCOMMENTSCANADIANCOMMENTS - 4/13/2019 8:56:58 AM
+4 Boost
Much better to use $11.4B to fund infrastructure spending. It won't go far, but at least some areas will get new bridges, roads and cleaner water.


vdivvdiv - 4/13/2019 12:26:29 PM
+3 Boost
Safety on the roads starts with safe roads.


MDarringerMDarringer - 4/13/2019 12:51:39 PM
0 Boost
And that is such an example of circular reasoning. #illogical


vdivvdiv - 4/13/2019 12:57:10 PM
+3 Boost
People swerving around potholes, or falling into eroded shoulders, or crashing into unsafe barriers, poles and trees, or plunging to death on a collapsing bridge, or burning alive in a tunnel that lacks emergency egress and fire suppression, all does seem rather illogical.


xjug1987axjug1987a - 4/15/2019 7:42:00 AM
+1 Boost
Perhaps "public servants" should quit filling up their pensions with tax dollars and serve the public. Most in Govt see the govt exists to employ them, not serve the public. We could do just fine with perhaps 1/5 state, local and Fed govts and they should all be paying SS and get zero pensions. If I'm "forced" to, why do govt employee, people WE pay to serve us, get pensions?


vdivvdiv - 4/13/2019 12:27:44 PM
+4 Boost
Sure, cut the tax write-off for business use.


MDarringerMDarringer - 4/13/2019 12:47:29 PM
-2 Boost
I'd be OK with that.


MDarringerMDarringer - 4/13/2019 9:19:45 AM
+1 Boost
There should be NO payout to consumers to influence their buying habits nor any punitive taxes to zap them for buying a gas guzzler. The $11.4B is a gift of public funds and makes as much sense as giving $7500 to parents who produce blue-eyed babies.


vdivvdiv - 4/13/2019 12:31:45 PM
+3 Boost
The "payout" is from the taxpayer's earned income used to by the car to the lazy automakers who could not be bothered scaling manufacturing and lowering the price. Corporate welfare.


TruthyTruthy - 4/13/2019 12:21:23 PM
+2 Boost
Agree with your comment save for the blue-eyed baby part. All 4 of mine have blue eyes. I'll take the incentive and go buy a car with a V-8.


MDarringerMDarringer - 4/13/2019 12:54:56 PM
-1 Boost
The point was to signal the discriminatory nature of it. My (biological) boys have black hair and blue eyes. Odd combo, right? Worthy of govt. money right?


wilfredwilfred - 4/13/2019 12:28:17 PM
+3 Boost
As many of us disagree with this bill, I don’t think anyone wants an American company to fail. Without this life support, Tesla will.


vdivvdiv - 4/13/2019 12:33:35 PM
+2 Boost
They do want Tesla to fail, and they are ok with GM failing because their outlook on the world and business is threatened by Tesla and EVs.


MDarringerMDarringer - 4/13/2019 2:33:12 PM
-2 Boost
Tesla needs to fail. It is anti-consumerist.


greGARYous1greGARYous1 - 4/13/2019 12:36:58 PM
+2 Boost
Govt math is wrong as usual:
1. $7500 x 200k = $1.5B already per automaker (15+) globally
2. $700 x 400k = $2.8B per automaker = $42B cost... Not $11.4B
3. Why give GM more money when they are closing plants and laying off 10,000s!?


MDarringerMDarringer - 4/13/2019 12:59:20 PM
0 Boost
Maxine Waters probably did the calculation...


TomMTomM - 4/13/2019 5:45:37 PM
+2 Boost
Nah - Trump came up with the figures himself - out of the air. Probably while counting the hoarde coming to the southern border.

I do not agree with this - there should be NO subsidies in cars that can go that fast. They might head to the Southern border from the North and invade Panama.


mini22mini22 - 4/15/2019 6:10:57 PM
+1 Boost
I think a better solution to incentivize people to go electric is to invest $7,500 in infrastructure for every EV that sells. It is the lack of infrastructure that holds a lot of people back from EV's anyway. Once you remove the anxiety of where you can charge your vehicle you will remove the mental block people have to go EV.


SanJoseDriverSanJoseDriver - 4/16/2019 1:31:39 AM
+1 Boost
Download chargepoint and see how many chargers are in your area right now. Also filter to see free ones. I bet it is more than you think.


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC