Quote:
Originally Posted by MackSea70
Background: I split my drive time between a F97 (x3Mc) and a Tesla model Y. (and have another F90 (M5c) on order.)
Personally I like the NA CEO's message here. We just had a major blow towards our electrification efforts - please do all you can to pre-date your orders into sales in order to look out for the best interests of our customers.
I don't even understand the purpose of this legislation other than to punish high income tax payers.
The administration is hell bent on driving us green - this is fine, while I enjoy my 625 HP ICE engine, I can get behind conservation efforts. Yet nothing in the EV credit section of the bill make sense.
EVs are (due to their tech nature) more expensive than their ICE counter parts - putting EVs out of the reach of the average car shopper. In some cases the tax incentives available DO bring those vehicles in reach of the slightly higher than average income earner - and yet we're taking that tax credit away.
Next, we all know that when we look at the lifecycle of a EV compared to an equivalent ICE counterpart the EV is actually more polluting. So for higher income buyers who want to at least convey the image that we're doing something good for the environment, we have the benefit of the tax credit. Remove the tax credit and you're removing a reason a lot of people (my neighbor for example) are willing to pay more for a car that pollutes less (but more over its lifespan).
None of this seems like a way to get the already skeptical population to buy more EVs and actually achieve reduced carbon emissions. You're taking an already expensive product, making it even more expensive, not making it more broadly available, nor doing anything to improve the substantially lacking electrical infrastructure needed to truly make EVs a reality.
What am I missing here?
|
I think the government is trying to encourage EV adoption in the lower income brackets but as usual it's misguided and wholly missed the mark.