$42K Tax Break - Car Purchase - CO Only

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?

nvm

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 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?

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.

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:
Tesla is making a sedan link, $50 grand.

that costs $50 (49,900) grand AFTER a $7500 tax credit. and it is for the 160 mile range model. The 300 mile range model costs more

cantstop said: This would be sweet if you could work it into the $54k Tesla sedan.

You can't buy a $54k Tesla sedan, because it doesn't exist

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.

Tax breaks in the name of The Rich People, and The Son of Rich People, and The Holy Environment.

I am at a loss why Colorado does that for the benefit of California. Do they have electrical car companies or factories?

All subsidies of these kind should be scrapped, replaced with a simple tax on gasoline or oil imports.

Credit isn't refundable, and has to be used up in 5 years. Yet another tax break for the rich, while the poor go without HBO.

nycll said: Xnarg said: nycll said: ...All subsidies of these kind should be scrapped, replaced with a simple tax on gasoline or oil imports.So you support expanded oil production from the US such as in places like ANWR, the continental shelf, deep water Gulf of Mexico, etc.?People who think more production will solve the oil problem probably doesn't know how big of an oil producer the US already is and how insignificant the oil in ANWR is compared to the need to import 60% of oil we consume. We are one of the largest producer in the world, producing 8.5 million barrels of oil a day, only surpassed by Saudi (10+mil b a day) and Russia (9+ million b a day). Also look at where we stand on the known reserves ranking--nowhere need the top 10.

To answer your question directly, domestic drilling is not banned except for a few places including ANWR. But ANWR's 2-5% potential contribution to our total need is insignificant. Drill it or not, US oil consumption has to be reduced.More production will not "solve" the oil problem, but it sure as heck won't hurt.

I would rather see that $1T of revenue and $200B of tax receipts from ANWR stay inside the USA instead of going somewhere else, wouldn't you?

The energy situation is too complex to claim that merely cutting back or restricting supply is going to fix it. We need to approach it from many angles, including producing as much as we can.

The only real solution is to find and develop an alternative.

Xnarg said: The only real solution is to find and develop an alternative. There is currently no alternative with similar EROI and I'm not sure why everyone assumes there will be. Oil's EROI will continue to drop and our SoL (in energy terms at least) will fall with it (those in China and India should continue to rise despite the fact). ANWR could probably be tapped now for $20/bbl and sold for $80 or tapped in ten years for $100/bbl and sold for $700/bbl. Eventually the majority of producing wells will reach fractional EROI (net energy loss) at which point oil will only be used for its unique properties (industrial lubricants, plastics etc), not as a source of energy. Just like mined products (besides uranium, which also has a diminishing EROI).

More importantly, the first world is built on an unsustainable foundation of cheap oil and debt. We need to slowly transition away from both. All oil needs to be taxed at a progressively increasing rate. Ideally we get the rest of the world in on it; but even if we don't it would be in our best interest long term. Other alternatives take a long time to develop, even for the niches where they work best. But even announcing this long term policy would create inflows of capital to these alternatives, bring forward the break even date, and even add price stability to oil products and energy in general.

Xnarg said: More production will not "solve" the oil problem, but it sure as heck won't hurt. Sure, it won't hurt alright. But it is too small to render my gasoline tax unnecessary. Besides, the overall production in the US will decline, the amount of oil brought online by ANWR could largely absorbed by declining productions elsewhere in the US, as well as oil hoarding by OPEC, which truly rules the future of the oil market because they have most of the reserves.

I would rather see that $1T of revenue and $200B of tax receipts from ANWR stay inside the USA instead of going somewhere else, wouldn't you?If we don't pump it, will the oil disappear? Besides, the long term trend of the black gold is up. So your 1 trillion today will likely be $5 trillion in 10 years.

The energy situation is too complex to claim that merely cutting back or restricting supply is going to fix it. We need to approach it from many angles, including producing as much as we can.I am wondering if the situation seems complex to you is because you mixed up the definition of supply and demand. Since we can't solve the supply side issues with oil in ANWR, we have to look at reducing demand, by at least one order of magnitude higher than the amount of ANWR oil. Gasoline tax is a measure to reduce demand of oil.

The only real solution is to find and develop an alternative.Yes. We also want the alternative(s) to be developed sooner rather than later. Gasoline (oil) tax is a reverse subsidy on oil, which works as a blanket subsidy on all other energy sources.

nycll said: Xnarg said: More production will not "solve" the oil problem, but it sure as heck won't hurt. Sure, it won't hurt alright. But it is too small to render my gasoline tax unnecessary.You personally aren't being asked to drill in ANWR so what do you care if someone else who wants to drill in 2,000 out of 17 million acres? How does that hurt you?nycll said: If we don't pump it, will the oil disappear? Besides, the long term trend of the black gold is up. So your 1 trillion today will likely be $5 trillion in 10 years.Hey, great idea, let's stop all domestic oil production because oil may be worth more in 10 years.nycll said: The energy situation is too complex to claim that merely cutting back or restricting supply is going to fix it. We need to approach it from many angles, including producing as much as we can.I am wondering if the situation seems complex to you is because you mixed up the definition of supply and demand. Since we can't solve the supply side issues with oil in ANWR, we have to look at reducing demand, by at least one order of magnitude higher than the amount of ANWR oil. Gasoline tax is a measure to reduce demand of oil.One key problem with increasing the already high gasoline tax is that the proceeds would go towards social programs and entitlements which have nothing to do with solving our fundamental issues.

Also, if we raise our gas tax, that further shifts production and economic growth towards countries like China and India which do not have such taxes.

They'll increase their consumption of oil to make up for our reduction, so your plan will have achieved nothing other than a further weakening of the US economy.

Thanks nycll for making all the major points for me.
nycll said: Over reliance on oil is detrimental to any oil importing economy. There isn't a notable country that relies on oil as much as the US does. Reducing reliance on oil will make the US economy more robust against oil shocks, which will be undoubtedly more frequent and more violent. It's detrimental to oil exporters and surrounding countries as well.

And places like ANWR are much better strategic petroleum reserves than our actual SPR, which alone holds more than order of magnitude more oil (the SPR only has 30 days worth of national consumption). It would be smart to stop drilling in expensive places like CA, but I do think poor areas should be able to capitalize on their resources (should they have the lack of foresight to do so now). Xnarg is right that it would weaken the US economy (in GDP terms) and SoL in the short term, like any tax that has to be paid now, but it will pay off big in the future, in many ways (unlike income, corporate, or property taxes).

I would not depend on the portion of the tax credits that is carried forward to 2010 and beyond. The state legislature could easily enact rules to reduce or eliminate the value of those carryforwards. California's legislature has taken similar actions many times when the state budget was tight.