Electric vehicle subsidies under threat. MAGA

[Darkwind]

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

Wait... So a subsidy is taking money from the tax income of the people to give to a company.

But when you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes, instead relying on the people to pay your share to provide for the government that's not a subsidy.


That's like saying "I didn't buy those drugs from that drug dealer, he owed me 50 bucks so I cancelled that instead of giving him 50 bucks then him giving it back for what he already owed me" Yeah you are still going to jail for buying drugs.


Luckily for us we have a definition of subsidy in the business world. . Economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.



So yes that is a subsidy. If you are saying that you want a new definition of subsidy... Sure. Lets say a subsidy is a small brown animal that hibernates in tree logs through summer. Got a new definition now. And no, I haven't seen one company get a subsidy based on my new homemade english definition of the word.

Perhaps you should learn what taxes are before you go with that?

Every company pays taxes, and to say their share is a subjective opinion without a valid means of testing. If the company is not there, then no taxes are paid at all. Taxes for the purpose of spending alleges that the expenditures are reasonable and valid to begin with, but that is another topic.

So, let's start with that statement, "When you tell the company they don't have to pay taxes". Who is telling them they don't have to pay taxes? Last time I checked, the government forces entities and people to pay taxes, they don't leave it up to them.

So, who told them they didn't have to pay taxes, when clearly they ARE paying taxes.

So your belief is that the Fossil energy research & development program that provides 3.5 billion dollars of taxpayer money to fossil fuel companies for their programs.


Yes if a company exists it has to pay taxes. And if your company is in fossil fuels you get subsidies to not pay billions in taxes you would owe if you were not in that industry.

Take for example the tax on shipping companies to use US waterways for transport and fund keeping those waterways open and usable. Companies pay by ton shipped. Except the Gov't spends 229 million a year on the Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy to make up for the income not paid for shipping petroleum that way.

Or the 107 million America spends on the costs of allowing drilling on BLM lands. Paid for by you and I with the Inadequate Administrative Fees for Onshore Drilling Management

Or the Last-In, First Our Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies that allows oil companies to undervalue their equipment that takes 1.5 billion of taxes away. THEY AREN"T PAYING THOSE TAXES.

You are right. Their share is subjective. Because they get subsidized for 20 billion dollars a year of taxes they don't have to pay simply because they are in the fossil fuel industry.

So, everything you've listed so far makes it a subsidy because you think that is not paying as much as you want them too. That is not a subsidy.

The government is trying to have it both ways. Sea lanes they keep open to their own benefit are sea lanes they would have had to keep open for security.

Undervalue their equipment? You mean a depreciation of assets as they lose value through use? That is something that EVERY company gets to do. It is a legitimate tax deduction, not a subsidy. How many times do you think that the government should be allowe to tax the same asset?

Seems you just have a problem with companies that make a great deal of money.

Yes tax breaks that say "the law requires these taxes, but this subsidy will allow you specifically to not pay them" are a subsidy.

What "I want them to pay" in taxes is irrelevant. That's the gov't tax plan. Then they can come along and if they decide to hand out subsidies to certain groups which increase the tax burden on others, they make that choice. Fossil Fuels gets 20 billion or so of those a year.




You wanting to change that definition is your choice. But in the English language a tax break is a business subsidy.

I get you want to redefine the definition in business of what a subsidy is. That's fine. But until you rewrite the english language, tax breaks are a subsidy.

And yes, most companies pay per ton to keep those sea lanes open that they use. And the fossil fuels industry is subsidized so they don't have to pay that amount to use them. That's a subsidy.

You are literally trying to say the "Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy" ins't a subsidy.


No depreciation is valuing equipment. There are laws on the books on what you can and can't depreciate. Breaking those laws has punishments of jail time and fines. Unless you are protected by that fossil fuels subsidy that gives them special permission to write off 1.5 billion by UNDER-valuing their equipment. You or I try that in a different industry we go to prison for tax evasion.

I'm not the one changing a definition.

If the law said it requires this tax, then that tax is paid.

We are going to differ on this, regardless of what definition you wish to use.

The truth remains, Trump isn't doing away with a subsidy, and in fact, he is doing the right thing.

If you won't purchase a product without getting a tax credit, then you should not be purchasin the product period.

 

[Darkwind]

i'd actually be impressed if he *did* think.

Gosh, look at that. More value adding content I see. You keep doing what you accused "seabitch" of doing, post for effect, not conversation.

Trump wants to end a TAX CREDIT for electric vehicles but keep in place tax credits for fossil fuels. That seem right or even responsible?

That isn't what is stated in the artcle.

Kudlow confirmed it: Trump will end subsidies for electric cars.

Since we have rightly concluded that he NOT ending a subsidy for electric cars, then he is doing the right thing. Even is it WAS a subsidy, he would be doing the right thing.

The electic car and stand or fall on its own merit.

They called the tax credit a subsidy. It's a TAX credit just like the "subsidies" we give fossil fuel companies. Your hypocrisy is noted.

There is no subsidy, we've already established that.

If the electric vehicle is as good as you and others say, then people will line up to buy them without the tax credit.

Would you buy one without the tax credit?

Would you buy fossil fuels without the tax credits they get?

What do I care what tax credits THEY get? I asked about YOU. I get no tax credit for purchasing fossil fuels. In fact, I have to pay a use tax for it.

I would not buy an electric vehicle even if they offered a tax credit. They need much more product maturity and reliability for Me to consider it.

I have only to look at what My son's Tesla has cost him so far to understand that.

 

[SandSquid]

To Dimms, anything less than 100% tax rate is a government subsidy.

Fucking Brilliant.

I say anything over 0% is the tax payer subsiding the government.

No, To Dims a government subsidy is, was, and always has been economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.


And I'd agree with you. That 3.5 billion dollar government grant to fossil fuels that we force taxpayers to pay for is a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. The Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy, where instead of fossil fuel companies paying for the costs of keeping those waterways passable, we push that on to the taxpayers instead is a subsidy.

To others, it seems we need to reword subsidy into something else now. So if I buy a $35,000 tesla and get a $35,000 tax break on my purchase from the government on my returns, so at the end of the year my net cost of purchasing that vehicle is $0, that isn't a government subsidy. lol

 

[ColonelAngus]

To Dimms, anything less than 100% tax rate is a government subsidy.

Fucking Brilliant.

I say anything over 0% is the tax payer subsiding the government.

No, To Dims a government subsidy is, was, and always has been economic benefit (such as a tax allowance or duty rebate) or financial aid (such as a cash grant or soft loan) provided by a government to (1) support a desirable activity (such as exports), (2) keep prices of staples low, (3) maintain the income of the producers of critical or strategic products, (4) maintain employment levels, or (5) induce investment to reduce unemployment. The basic characteristic of all subsidies is to reduce the market price of an item below its cost of production. Also called subvention.


And I'd agree with you. That 3.5 billion dollar government grant to fossil fuels that we force taxpayers to pay for is a subsidy to the fossil fuel industry. The Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy, where instead of fossil fuel companies paying for the costs of keeping those waterways passable, we push that on to the taxpayers instead is a subsidy.

To others, it seems we need to reword subsidy into something else now. So if I buy a $35,000 tesla and get a $35,000 tax break on my purchase from the government on my returns, so at the end of the year my net cost of purchasing that vehicle is $0, that isn't a government subsidy. lol

Subsidies by the government are used to price fix, that’s about it.

Like paying farmers not to farm.

paying a consumer a $5000tax break on a car only raises the prices on the cars being sold.

 

[SandSquid]

What do I care what tax credits THEY get? I asked about YOU. I get no tax credit for purchasing fossil fuels. In fact, I have to pay a use tax for it.

I would not buy an electric vehicle even if they offered a tax credit. They need much more product maturity and reliability for Me to consider it.

I have only to look at what My son's Tesla has cost him so far to understand that.

I care about them because that multibillion dollar grant for fossil fuel research comes from MY taxes to subsidize their projects.

You are right, you pay taxes on things the fossil fuel industry gets subsidized for.

I would like to see the US reduce it's dependence on foreign oil and stop sending those sheiks and princes BILLIONS of dollars a year to promote their middle eastern agenda throughout the world. I would like it if we didn't have to worry what happened there because it wouldn't throw the worlds energy situation into crisis. I would like to see less of the damage caused by fossil fuels. I would like to see fewer subsidies for fossil fuels that give them an unfair advantage over other companies.

 

[SandSquid]

Subsidies by the government are used to price fix, that’s about it.

Like paying farmers not to farm.

paying a consumer a $5000tax break on a car only raises the prices on the cars being sold.

Ummm, so what you are saying is:

Since coal is more expensive than wind power, subsidies are needed to help fix their prices and make them more competitive and stay in business.

And:

Since right now electric cars are more expensive than ICE cars, subsidies are dumb to help fix their prices and make them more competitive and stay in business...


That we need to subsidize farming so that we can get the prices down lower where people want to pay for them, but we don't want to subsidize electric cars for the same reason?

So you are saying we need to remove free market and put in place a system where the government steps in and makes the decisions to protect jobs and keep prices established where the government wants them to be.. Bernie? Mr Sanders? Is that you?

 

[SandSquid]

Or are you saying that paying a farmer so he can lower the costs of your grocery bills by $100 a year night and day from you paying the actual price and getting a $100 check for the groceries you bought?

I'm not the one changing a definition.

If the law said it requires this tax, then that tax is paid.

We are going to differ on this, regardless of what definition you wish to use.

The truth remains, Trump isn't doing away with a subsidy, and in fact, he is doing the right thing.

If you won't purchase a product without getting a tax credit, then you should not be purchasin the product period.[/QUOTE]

Wait, so if the law says there's a tax its a tax and you or your company pays it.

Now if the law gives you a tax break for what you buy or make that's a subsidy. So if you won't purchase a ford without their tax breaks, that's a subsidy. We agree.

Yes we are going to differ on the definition. I am using the business definition of a government subsidy. You are trying to create a new definition outside of the english language for that.

Subsidy

Good one to know!

 

[SandSquid]

Yet another example of Trump's contempt for sound responsible governance and public policy.

if you can't make a profitable product w/o government intervention, not my fault. stop using my tax dollars to pay for it. when it can take root and grow and become a true benefit, then it will take off and be all that it will likely one day be.

Oil companies can't seem to do that.

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually

Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

oh. seabitch. he says things for effect, not conversation.

Yeah, I get that. I just don't want the lurker to think that fossil energy is getting direct payments from the government for their business like the electric vehicle market is.

So what would you call that 3.5 billion dollar payout for fossil fuel research and development handed out to the fossil fuel industry?

You either are uninformed on the subsidies the fossil fuel industry gets.

Or intentionally trying to lie and say they don't get them.

Which is it?

 

[ColonelAngus]

It’s stupid for the government to subsidize electric cars for the purchasers.

That’s what I am saying.

 

[SandSquid]

It’s stupid for the government to subsidize electric cars for the purchasers.

That’s what I am saying.

So what they should do is instead of giving $5k a car to the people, they should give $5k a car to the company, who then lowers the price $5k.

Either way you gave away $5k. The total amount is capped either way.

But we have the same exact in the fossil fuel industry. Sometimes people get paid discounts by the govt for buying their fuel. Sometimes it's the company who gets it. Sometimes the fossil fuel companies get discounts for paying their cleanup crews.

 

[SandSquid]

Wow, those are not subsidies. Subsidies are a direct monetary payment from the government. <<--This is the ONLY subsidy that is being discussed.


Not putting more money in a housing program, or other government programs, or keeping more of their own money is NOT a subsidy.

So we've established that yes in the real world a subsidy is tax breaks or payments. But let's go by your personal definition.

If I have a business and I make enough where I owe $100,000 in taxes at the end of the year, if I convince the government to knock $20,000 off my tax bill and only pay them 80,000. It is not a subsidy and ok.

But if I only convince them to give me a $10,000 check and use that for my $100,000 in taxes, that is a subsidy and therefore a bad thing?

 

[Sunni Man]

Why should I as a taxpayer feel good about subsidising an $80,000 Tesla with my money so that some fat cat can ride around in style? ....

 

[SandSquid]

Why should I as a taxpayer feel good about subsidising an $80+ grand Tesla with my money so that some fat cat can ride around in style? ....

Well you can be happy that he has taken a hell of a lot less from you than the big three and the fossil fuel industry.

If you want to get upset about that. Fine. But that's like having $1,000 stolen and deciding you're going to be upset about the $10 of it one person took and ok with the $990 the other one took.

 

[Sunni Man]

If you want to get upset about that. Fine. But that's like having $1,000 stolen and deciding you're going to be upset about the $10 of it one person took and ok with the $990 the other one took.

I don't care if it's 1 dollar.

The government shouldn't be subsidising car purchases with taxpayer money. Period

If people want an electric car, then let them buy one out of their own pocket. ..

 

[SandSquid]

If you want to get upset about that. Fine. But that's like having $1,000 stolen and deciding you're going to be upset about the $10 of it one person took and ok with the $990 the other one took.

I don't care if it's 1 dollar.

The government shouldn't be subsidising car purchases with taxpayer money. Period

If people want an electric car, then let them buy one out of their own pocket. ..

And do you own a car from one of those other big three? I can't find any of your posts complaining about them seems like you're just complaining about the drop in the bucket rather than the flood.

I think 30 years ago that would have been a fine choice. Even if those three were all folded by now and we were all driving Toyotas and Hondas

 

[Sunni Man]

And do you own a car from one of those other big three?

Nope ...

 

[hjmick]

"President Donald Trump has threatened to kill one of the signature efforts of the Obama administration, but today White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow confirmed it: Trump will end subsidies for electric cars.

The move, which Kudlow said would happen in 2020 or 2021, covers other items including renewable energy sources. He revealed he plans in response to a question about what the administration plans to do in response to General Motors’ recently revealed plant closings and employee layoffs."

Trump to End Electric Vehicle Subsidies by 2021 | TheDetroitBureau.com

Wow... it only took you three months to get worked up over this... nice..

Personally, I have no problem with this. I see no reason why our tax dollars should go to subsidize private industry, nor should it go to help private citizens to buy a car.

 

[Lesh]

Why should I as a taxpayer feel good about subsidising an $80,000 Tesla with my money so that some fat cat can ride around in style? ....

Do you feel good about subsidizing the coal and oil industries?

You already do that to the tune of 20 billion a year

 

[Sunni Man]

Do you feel good about subsidizing the coal and oil industries?
You already do that to the tune of 20 billion a year

I don't have anything to do with the coal and oil industries.

But I do own a car and my monthly payments aren't subsidized. ...

 

[Dick Foster]

Yet another example of Trump's contempt for sound responsible governance and public policy.

How is burning coal and other fossil fuels in the most in efficient way imaginable to run cars sound or responsible public policy? Here's a clue, this subsidy and all others need to go the way of the dodo ASAP and the sooner they do, the better off we'll all be.