Which means no one is getting your tax dollars to buy vehicles (though there may be some infrastructure or manufacturing grants for companies).
[1] https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12600
[2] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/tax-credits-for-individuals-wha...
If the taxes someone would otherwise pay are going to their electric vehicle instead, somebody else has to make up the difference.
So yes, other people are getting my tax dollars to buy electric vehicles. It just takes two steps rather than one, if you want to look at it that way.
What if someone declines a promotion and thus doesn't increase their income and pay more taxes? Is that also taking your tax dollars?
Sure, yes, if the government doesn't follow PAYGO[1] (which they almost never do) and offset tax expenditures (tax incentives) with reduced direct spending and government debt increases then maybe, some day, some portion of your tax dollars may get indirectly spent on this.
But how do we really know? Do we know what other secondary effects will come from these tax incentives?
If electric cars catch on maybe the government will get more revenue somewhere else (there are North American manufacturing requirements to qualify after all) or have to spend less revenue on something else (surely burning oil must have some effect).
Or maybe the person getting the electric vehicle then uses it to make more money and pay more taxes than they would have before (unlikely but possible).
But, directly, they're getting back their own money. The real issue with the credit is that it disproportionately favors people who already make a lot of money (but taxes also disproportionately tax people who make more money so maybe that's fair).
If the buyer's previous-year adjusted gross income is too high they still don't qualify, and if the buyer's purchase-year adjusted gross income is too high they can end up owing money to the IRS.
And dealers/sellers have to qualify and register but...
> Advance payments received by the registered dealer are not treated as a tax credit to the dealer and may exceed the dealer’s regular tax liability. Advance payments received by the registered dealer are not included in the gross income of the dealer.
That does read as a direct subsidy equivalent to a refundable tax credit straight from the general fund.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/topic-h-frequently-asked-questi...
Or is there more to the incentive structure?
Though, of course, you don't earn interest on it while the government is holding it.
Then who is making up the difference between the tax that would have been paid, and the credit reduction?
No, it does not. See Q4 at the following link:
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/topic-h-frequently-asked-questi...
And then you contradicted yourself 2 phrases over.
E.g. a early 2000's Nissan frontier base model was $23k in today's money. It was a somewhat better speced (e.g. more hauling capacity) and much better range, but this new car likely has significantly lower operating costs that would easily justify a 5k uplift.
So I think it ought to be perfectly viable without the subsidy, especially so long as the absurd CAFE standards continue to exist giving EV's a monopoly on this truck size.
That's why we have TeH gOvErNmEnT.
