To enter a coupon code in your post please enter the following info:
Coupon Code:
Coupon Offer:
Merchant:
Expires (optional):
Restrictions (optional):
saving...
Quick Summary is created and edited by users like you... Add FAQ's, Links and other Relevant Information by clicking the edit button in the lower right hand corner of this message.
Xnarg said:the idea that subsidies can solve everything is stank.In Russia, subsidies solve you!
PS: If they are aiming for equality, they should tax the purchase of electric and hybrid vehicles. Much of the taxes on the sale of gas goes towards road maintenance. Why shouldn't hybrid and electric cars be forced to pay their share?
FYI, the tax break is only good against taxes owed, so no refunds. And you have 5 years to use it all up. So you would need to earn around $170k per year to get the whole $42k.
Message edited by: beltme on 2009-10-22 18:29:17 CDT
Hot deal for Colorado residents, ice cold deal, for the tax payers having to subsidize a company who is too weak to compete on a level playground in the open market.
SleekWallet said:beltme said:FYI, the tax break is only good against taxes owed, so no refunds. And you have 5 years to use it all up. So you would need to earn around $170k per year to get the whole $42k.
$60K / year income is not a lot, is what he is saying.....
assuming 15% taxation that would give you a 5-year total tax liability of $45k.
Do you really save on federal taxes if this offer is in Colorado alone?
beltme said:SleekWallet said:beltme said:FYI, the tax break is only good against taxes owed, so no refunds. And you have 5 years to use it all up. So you would need to earn around $170k per year to get the whole $42k.
around 60K per year is not a lot...
What does that mean?
Message edited by: lray on 2009-10-22 20:28:03 CDT
"The measure gives Colorado residents a credit on their 2009 income tax for up to 85 percent of the difference between the price of certain alternative-fueled vehicles and the price of an equivalent vehicle running on liquid fuel."
Well since there is no liquid fueled Tesla, there shouldn't be a tax credit. So who stuck that in there?
lray said:$60K / year income is not a lot, is what he is saying.....
assuming 15% taxation that would give you a 5-year total tax liability of $45k.
Do you really save on federal taxes if this offer is in Colorado alone?
beltme said:SleekWallet said:beltme said:FYI, the tax break is only good against taxes owed, so no refunds. And you have 5 years to use it all up. So you would need to earn around $170k per year to get the whole $42k.
around 60K per year is not a lot...
What does that mean?
The tax break is on Colorado State taxes which are 4.63%. So you need to make around $170k per year to get the whole $42k back.
Message edited by: beltme on 2009-10-22 23:02:39 CDT
kamalktk said:"The measure gives Colorado residents a credit on their 2009 income tax for up to 85 percent of the difference between the price of certain alternative-fueled vehicles and the price of an equivalent vehicle running on liquid fuel."
Well since there is no liquid fueled Tesla, there shouldn't be a tax credit. So who stuck that in there?
The state decides what is a equivalent vehicle. There is no all gas Prius either.
Message edited by: beltme on 2009-10-22 22:58:32 CDT
AcidSpectrum said:Hot deal for Colorado residents, ice cold deal, for the tax payers having to subsidize a company who is too weak to compete on a level playground in the open market.
The company is not weak, the market is. Compare the number of people driving all electric vehicles to the overall market....less than 1%. Now compare the number of people driving SUVS, remember that some folks got a tax break on those SUV's too.
The Tesla can go 135mi on a single gallon, that deserves subsidizing. I only wish it would be mass produced to drive the cost down.
BTW: If you are interested you can buy stock, it is not on the open market but, available through private channels online.
mewannaxbox said:AcidSpectrum said:Hot deal for Colorado residents, ice cold deal, for the tax payers having to subsidize a company who is too weak to compete on a level playground in the open market.
The company is not weak, the market is. Compare the number of people driving all electric vehicles to the overall market....less than 1%. Now compare the number of people driving SUVS, remember that some folks got a tax break on those SUV's too.
The Tesla can go 135mi on a single gallon, that deserves subsidizing. I only wish it would be mass produced to drive the cost down.
BTW: If you are interested you can buy stock, it is not on the open market but, available through private channels online. Tesla is making a sedan link, $50 grand.
kamalktk said:mewannaxbox said:AcidSpectrum said:Hot deal for Colorado residents, ice cold deal, for the tax payers having to subsidize a company who is too weak to compete on a level playground in the open market.
The company is not weak, the market is. Compare the number of people driving all electric vehicles to the overall market....less than 1%. Now compare the number of people driving SUVS, remember that some folks got a tax break on those SUV's too.
The Tesla can go 135mi on a single gallon, that deserves subsidizing. I only wish it would be mass produced to drive the cost down.
BTW: If you are interested you can buy stock, it is not on the open market but, available through private channels online. Tesla is making a sedan link, $50 grand.
That's sexy...if only the 42k tax credit would still apply.
mewannaxbox said: The Tesla can go 135mi on a single gallon, that deserves subsidizing. I only wish it would be mass produced to drive the cost down.
The Tesla Roadster is a luxury sports car. It was never designed to revolutionize transport for the masses. It is a cutting edge toy for wealthy people.
The base price is $109k. This subsidy is not the difference between middle-class adoption and obscurity. This subsidy is nothing more than a handout to those who don't need it so they can buy some cutting edge and trendy toy.
The pro-subsidy argument is based on a perceived need to speed up production of affordable electric vehicles for the masses, as part of a plan to reduce gasoline consumption. This subsidy does not accomplish that. If the taxpayers of Colorado want to promote development of electric vehicles to solve a (perceived) national problem, then they would be better served by pooling all this money to attract electric vehicle developers to the state, provided said manufacturer is going to produce something that most taxpayers will be able to afford. At least that use of money helps produce something of wide societal benefit, with an added bonus of creating jobs in Colorado.
Instead, the taxpayers are footing the bill for wealthy people to import luxury cars from out of state.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
