hph6203 said:

---

Would bet a significant proportion of EVs sold don't get a credit, so when you say they're uncompetitive it's you not knowing the market.

What you're missing is that China has invested heavily in accelerating cost reductions associated with EV production and if you want to know where the cost of materials is headed for EVs you should look at what they are producing and selling EVs for and the cost reductions are nowhere near done, nor is the technological progression.

In short, you aren't paying attention. None of you are. You thin ICE vehicles will remain competitive in perpetuity, you are wrong.

You say it's appropriate to incentivize domestic production of oil, the tax credit is incentivizing domestic production of batteries/EVs.

---

What % of EV purchases are accompanied by tax credits? What % of the market is EV vs ICE/hybrid? Take those 2 and multiply them and you will find just how non competitive they are.

Eta - to be clear I'm saying to multiply the non tax credit accompanied EVs by the proportion of EV market share.

And as an anecdote to demonstrate my point, I leased a $50,000 EV for $150/month for 2 years. Desperation for the dealer is a win for me.

Still asking the wrong questions. Misunderstanding how the credit works. Don't know that hybrids can also qualify for the credit. Don't know how few EVs actually qualify for the credit or how few of the buyers of those EVs qualify for the credit.

hph6203 said:

---

Still asking the wrong questions. Misunderstanding how the credit works. Don't know that hybrids can also qualify for the credit. Don't know how few EVs actually qualify for the credit or how few of the buyers of those EVs qualify for the credit.

---

Yeah.. I don't think I'm the one struggling to understand.

You are, you just don't realize it, because you're operating off of talking points from a decade ago. Like most people on this thread.

The EV question isn't what does the next year look like, it's what does the next 20 years look like. As it stands right now it looks like China dominating the global auto market. That may not materialize in the U.S. market, but Europe? South America? Asia? Yeah. Dominate. That's what the tax credits are designed to avoid, if they were designed to push EV adoption they wouldn't be restricted on which vehicles receive it.

After watching a new episode of Truck House Life on YT (good videos), the host was riding one of these around Anchorage: https://quietkat.com/collections/all-terrain-electric-bikes/products/apex-pro-electric-hunting-bike

He was saying it has slightly > a 20 mile range without pedaling, but he only used 6% of a charge pedaling 1/2 the time averaging about 12-13mph (covering 7.5 miles). It was easily chugging along at nearly 18mph electric-only, so he guesstimated he could have done well over 60 miles in total before he was pedaling 100% of the time. It also has 9-speeds, so top-speed is probably ~30-35mph.

Pricey, but pretty damn cool.

Medaggie said:

---

I am done with this thread at so many levels. When people can't see that water is wet, then its not worth discussing any further. When someone says EVs are useless other than short commutes, then they are clueless.

I drive 30K miles/year and have zero trouble with range. I guess 30k/yr is short commutes.

---

Have you ever heard of the term "outlier"?

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

You are missing the point. Most against EVs point to tax credits and uneven playing field. But they don't see that tax credits/subsidies/deductions exist in many aspects of our lives but for some reason when it comes to EVs then its some major talking point.

---

No. I see the point I'm just calling it what it is, weak. The weakest I can recall in this thread, to be specific.

"Other tax credits exist and you don't oppose those" just isn't convincing.

---

So are you ok with tax subsidies on oil and gas production with the intent to lower gasoline and diesel prices?

---

What are these specifice subsidies on O&G that are not offered to every other industry?

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

You are missing the point. Most against EVs point to tax credits and uneven playing field. But they don't see that tax credits/subsidies/deductions exist in many aspects of our lives but for some reason when it comes to EVs then its some major talking point.

---

No. I see the point I'm just calling it what it is, weak. The weakest I can recall in this thread, to be specific.

"Other tax credits exist and you don't oppose those" just isn't convincing.

---

So are you ok with tax subsidies on oil and gas production with the intent to lower gasoline and diesel prices?

---

What are these specifice subsidies on O&G that are not offered to every other industry?

---

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 introduced the concept of "passive" income and "active" income. The Act prohibits the offsetting of losses from passive activities against income from active businesses. The Act provides that a working interest in an Oil and Gas drilling program is not "passive" activity.

The 1990 Tax Act provided tax advantages for the typical investor in Oil and Gas drilling projects. This "Small Producers Exemption" allows 15% of any investor's gross income for an Oil and Gas property to be TAX FREE, subject to certain limitations.

I know of no other passive investments I can make that allow me to use annual losses against ordinary income or to not pay tax on 15% of the income when the business is profitable.

https://www.crownexploration.com/tax-advantages#:~:text=Small%2520Producers%2520Tax%2520Exemption&text=This%2520%E2%80%9CSmall%2520Producers%2520Exemption%E2%80%9D%2520allows,FREE%252C%2520subject%2520to%2520certain%2520limitations.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

You are missing the point. Most against EVs point to tax credits and uneven playing field. But they don't see that tax credits/subsidies/deductions exist in many aspects of our lives but for some reason when it comes to EVs then its some major talking point.

---

No. I see the point I'm just calling it what it is, weak. The weakest I can recall in this thread, to be specific.

"Other tax credits exist and you don't oppose those" just isn't convincing.

---

So are you ok with tax subsidies on oil and gas production with the intent to lower gasoline and diesel prices?

---

What are these specifice subsidies on O&G that are not offered to every other industry?

---

I know of no other passive investments I can make that allow me to use annual losses against ordinary income or to not pay tax on 15% of the income when the business is profitable.

---

There are many other investments that have deletion allowances, including graphite, gravel, cobalt, clay, gold, and surprisingly even clam shells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion_allowance

"The principle is that the asset is a capital investment that is a wasting asset, and therefore depreciation can reasonably be offset (effectively as a capital loss) against income."

rynning said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

You are missing the point. Most against EVs point to tax credits and uneven playing field. But they don't see that tax credits/subsidies/deductions exist in many aspects of our lives but for some reason when it comes to EVs then its some major talking point.

---

No. I see the point I'm just calling it what it is, weak. The weakest I can recall in this thread, to be specific.

"Other tax credits exist and you don't oppose those" just isn't convincing.

---

So are you ok with tax subsidies on oil and gas production with the intent to lower gasoline and diesel prices?

---

What are these specifice subsidies on O&G that are not offered to every other industry?

---

I know of no other passive investments I can make that allow me to use annual losses against ordinary income or to not pay tax on 15% of the income when the business is profitable.

---

There are many other investments that have deletion allowances, including graphite, gravel, cobalt, clay, gold, and surprisingly even clam shells.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion_allowance

"The principle is that the asset is a capital investment that is a wasting asset, and therefore depreciation can reasonably be offset (effectively as a capital loss) against income."

---

Do they allow you to use passive losses against income or exclude 15% if income from taxes?

My reply didn't mention depletion because I know DD&A is widely available and should be just like every business can deduct its expenses and should be able to. Those aren't tax breaks but rather ensure you are taxed on income and not revenue. (There are breaks for industries based on depreciation rates which are political and shouldn't exist IMO)

Not sure. Sorry, I thought the 15% you were referring to was depletion allowance.

LOL: Kia warns Nero drivers not to charge indoors due to fire risk. I left Apple's auto-correct to Nero as some fiddle while these things burn. You don't, again, really want an EV fire anywhere on your block, let alone your driveway.

And, they've been aware of this for the better part of a year:

Quote:

---

Regardless of what's causing the electrical resistance, it can result in a big issue if it occurs while the vehicle is being charged or driven. In particular, that's when the safety plug can melt, cause a loss of power, and / or start a fire.

Kia first became aware of a potential problem in July of 2023, when they received a report of a Niro EV shutting off while driving and a dealer found the safety plug had been melting. The automaker looked into the issue, but it appeared to be an isolated incident.

---

Devastating. Still happy none of my neighbors have an EV. A couple tesla enthusiasts a street over though (who fit some stereotypes).

Investing in the digging of oil and gas wells is a very risky proposition.

Best example of apples and orange argument I've seen in a while.

bobbranco said:

---

Investing in the digging of oil and gas wells is a very risky proposition.

Best example of apples and orange argument I've seen in a while.

---

So you are ok with government subsidies for industries you like and oppose them for industries you don't like. The Dems have the same view.

PS. Oil drilling is way less risky than a number of industries (like Tesla developing an unproven technology) especially since most is infill drilling and horizontal drilling on proven fields. So based on your reasoning, EV subsides should be greater than oil drilling.

Not an issue with the battery pack. An issue with the charge port. They recalled their hybrids for the Niro last year.

Kansas Kid said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Investing in the digging of oil and gas wells is a very risky proposition.

Best example of apples and orange argument I've seen in a while.

---

So you are ok with government subsidies for industries you like and oppose them for industries you don't like. The Dems have the same view.

PS. Oil drilling is way less risky than a number of industries (like Tesla developing an unproven technology) especially since most is infill drilling and horizontal drilling on proven fields. So based on your reasoning, EV subsides should be greater than oil drilling.

---

I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion from what I posted.

Couple that with the next part you mention is completely laughable.

Dragging Tesla's developing technology into the equation is laughable because Tesla has benefited greatly from very large federal, state and local subsidies.

Kansas Kid said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Investing in the digging of oil and gas wells is a very risky proposition.

Best example of apples and orange argument I've seen in a while.

---

So you are ok with government subsidies for industries you like and oppose them for industries you don't like. The Dems have the same view.

PS. Oil drilling is way less risky than a number of industries (like Tesla developing an unproven technology) especially since most is infill drilling and horizontal drilling on proven fields. So based on your reasoning, EV subsides should be greater than oil drilling.

---

I'm still confused. Is the 15% a depletion allowance or a subsidy? Or are you saying there's a 15% depletion allowance AND a 15% subsidy?

Quote:

---

You don't, again, really want an EV fire anywhere on your block

---

You mean the same Kia that told us not park 3.4 million ICE vehicles in your garage? That Kia?

https://fortune.com/2024/04/01/hyundai-kia-recalled-million-vehicles-warning-park-outdoors-risk-catching-fire-most-still-unrepaired/#

Quote:

---

n September, Hyundai and Kia issued a recall of 3.4 million of its vehicles in the United States with an ominous warning: The vehicles should be parked outdoors and away from buildings because they risked catching fire, whether the engines were on or off.

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

You don't, again, really want an EV fire anywhere on your block

---

You mean the same Kia that told us not park 3.4 million ICE vehicles in your garage? That Kia?

https://fortune.com/2024/04/01/hyundai-kia-recalled-million-vehicles-warning-park-outdoors-risk-catching-fire-most-still-unrepaired/#

Quote:

---

n September, Hyundai and Kia issued a recall of 3.4 million of its vehicles in the United States with an ominous warning: The vehicles should be parked outdoors and away from buildings because they risked catching fire, whether the engines were on or off.

---

---

Huh?/?
Who are you replying to?

Sorry. Meant for Nortex and one of his don't park in the garage rants

rynning said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Investing in the digging of oil and gas wells is a very risky proposition.

Best example of apples and orange argument I've seen in a while.

---

So you are ok with government subsidies for industries you like and oppose them for industries you don't like. The Dems have the same view.

PS. Oil drilling is way less risky than a number of industries (like Tesla developing an unproven technology) especially since most is infill drilling and horizontal drilling on proven fields. So based on your reasoning, EV subsides should be greater than oil drilling.

---

I'm still confused. Is the 15% a depletion allowance or a subsidy? Or are you saying there's a 15% depletion allowance AND a 15% subsidy?

---

After my taxable income is calculated (with depletion) I can take the loss against ordinary income, if it a loss despite it being passive activity. If I have taxable income (after accounting for depletion), I don't pay tax on the 15% of the income.

Take it to the tax law forum guys. We're here to drink beer and argue over EVs….and we're all out of beer.

Just a poster that insists on replying to anything I post.

Again, ICE vehicle fires are a class of danger much lower than EV fires. EV battery (glycol) cooling systems have to operate in intricate channels well for up to 8 or 10 years, though apparently the identified risk with the Niro for example involves the step change in voltage/current at the plug/charger interface. ICE vehicle fire risks, while of course real, represent a much more survivable and frankly less probable source for a vehicle parked in a garage of comparable age/level of maintenance vs. a BEV.

High voltage electrical connections and charging systems are not things most are familiar with nor should they be, but I think scale matters. A Lithium iphone battery used for a few years is a whole class of safety risk lower than an EV, and operates at low voltages, for instance.

This is one of the real risks in any putative "EV transition:" that people feel comfortable with a product/system they don't understand and is in fact potentially a known deadly hazard to the manufacturer for 9+ months as in this case. Now picture the level of concern a future CCP company will have for American's safety in an eco-EV they sell/market here.

And again, for the readers/lurkers, it's not the rate of fires per vehicle, but the risk that something like 30,000 gallons+ will be required and there's no way to really/easily extinguish an EV fire until it finally burns out otherwise.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Medaggie said:

---

You are missing the point. Most against EVs point to tax credits and uneven playing field. But they don't see that tax credits/subsidies/deductions exist in many aspects of our lives but for some reason when it comes to EVs then its some major talking point.

---

No. I see the point I'm just calling it what it is, weak. The weakest I can recall in this thread, to be specific.

"Other tax credits exist and you don't oppose those" just isn't convincing.

---

So are you ok with tax subsidies on oil and gas production with the intent to lower gasoline and diesel prices?

---

What are these specifice subsidies on O&G that are not offered to every other industry?

---

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 introduced the concept of "passive" income and "active" income. The Act prohibits the offsetting of losses from passive activities against income from active businesses. The Act provides that a working interest in an Oil and Gas drilling program is not "passive" activity.

The 1990 Tax Act provided tax advantages for the typical investor in Oil and Gas drilling projects. This "Small Producers Exemption" allows 15% of any investor's gross income for an Oil and Gas property to be TAX FREE, subject to certain limitations.

I know of no other passive investments I can make that allow me to use annual losses against ordinary income or to not pay tax on 15% of the income when the business is profitable.

https://www.crownexploration.com/tax-advantages#:~:text=Small%2520Producers%2520Tax%2520Exemption&text=This%2520%E2%80%9CSmall%2520Producers%2520Exemption%E2%80%9D%2520allows,FREE%252C%2520subject%2520to%2520certain%2520limitations.

---

What about real estate?

You are greatly limited unless you are a real estate professional or put in 500 hours a year into your investment. I end up with carryforward losses almost every year from those investments whereas I don't have any from my oil investment.

https://www.azibo.com/academy/passive-activity-loss-explained#:~:text=The%20full%20%2425%2C000%20passive%20loss,called%20real%20estate%20professional%20status.

Kansas Kid said:

---

You are greatly limited unless you are a real estate professional or put in 500 hours a year into your investment. I end up with carryforward losses almost every year from those investments whereas I don't have any from my oil investment.

https://www.azibo.com/academy/passive-activity-loss-explained#:~:text=The%20full%20%2425%2C000%20passive%20loss,called%20real%20estate%20professional%20status.

---

Even if my LLC owns them?

But...I don't think any business should be treated differently.

In fact, I think ALL business taxes are actually counterproductive. They just pass through the costs to the consumer anyways...but with added expenses due to dealing with the ****ty tax laws.

Ag with kids said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

You are greatly limited unless you are a real estate professional or put in 500 hours a year into your investment. I end up with carryforward losses almost every year from those investments whereas I don't have any from my oil investment.

https://www.azibo.com/academy/passive-activity-loss-explained#:~:text=The%20full%20%2425%2C000%20passive%20loss,called%20real%20estate%20professional%20status.

---

Even if my LLC owns them?

But...I don't think any business should be treated differently.

In fact, I think ALL business taxes are actually counterproductive. They just pass through the costs to the consumer anyways...but with added expenses due to dealing with the ****ty tax laws.

---

First, I totally agree about the stupidity of corporate taxes. Expensive to administer and collect with a lot of wasted resources to minimize them with most of them passed onto consumers. I would just tax dividends and capital gains at that point as ordinary income (as part of a flat tax system).

As for the LLC, it depends on what else is done in it and your involvement. Mine are owned by an LLC but I still can't deduct the losses except against future income which is unlikely for at least 12-15 years based on my model.

Every time one of those gets stuck it gets a million views on social media. Nothing but bad PR for Tesla.

Ford gives up on forcing dealers to spend big bucks to be "EV certified"

Quote:

---

• Ford asked dealers that had signed up to its EV certification program to pause investments.
• New report indicates that the company plans to open EV sales to its entire U.S. retail network.
• The changes stem from feedback during a series of in-person meetings between Ford executives and dealers.

After informing dealers that had signed up to its electric vehicleprogram to pause investments, it appears that Ford is on track to allow any dealer to sell EVs, removing restrictions and investment requirements it had imposed earlier. It could be the latest move from the company that has revised its expectations on
electric vehicles, with slowing sales and an evolving marketplace cited as reasons.

Two years ago, the company required dealerships that wanted to sell EVs to invest as much as $1.2 million in an EV certification program. It was understood that dealerships that chose not to do so would not be allowed to sell Ford EVs, which naturally caused an outcry among those who didn't want to pour a significant amount of money in the added training and infrastructure.

The approach led to pushback from state dealer associations and lawsuits, arguing that Ford could not legally restrict specific dealers from selling some of its products.

Meanwhile, Ford has been putting the brakes on its EV expansion and is concerned about the slowing demand. Last year, they announced that they were downsizing a battery factory already under construction.

Subsequent announcements highlighted the need to reduce EV spending while the company revised its EV production goals for 2024. They also delayed a three-row crossover it had planned to offer to the public in early 2025 and plans for a new electric pickup, shifting focus to providing more affordable all-electric options.

---

Separately, Americans less likely in 2024 vs. 2023 to buy an EV:

Quote:

---

J.D. Power polled more than 8,000 drivers between January and April for its annual Electric Vehicle
Consideration (EVC) report and learned that the number of people who say they are "very likely" to consider purchasing an EV stood at 24 percent, down from 26 percent last year. Those who said they were "overall likely" to buy one also dropped, falling from 61 percent to 58 percent.

---

I'm actually shocked the overall likely is that high. The CCP effort to force Americans at literal gunpoint to buy an EV must be very effective

Wow, big news from Ford. Continued evidence that people are just not enamored with EVs out in the real world and off discussion boards.

Thanks for sharing.

Two posts up is a poll saying that 58% of Americans consider themselves likely to buy an EV.

Or….they just don't like Ford EVs

Except that survey (you can find that one on carscoops) wasn't of Ford's buyers, and Ford is the number two EV manufacturer/seller in the US by market share, so they must not be doing 'everything' wrong yet are also substantially curtailing their efforts on this market space.

EV's are still just a niche 7.3% of the market despite the volume of subsidies/loud noises/government push otherwise.