Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Friday August 1, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2009, 06:50 PM   #1
Chromer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 20325
Join Date: Jun 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
08 Yamaha WR250R
07 Suzuki DL650

Default $42,000 in tax credits on a Tesla Roadster

...if you live in Colorado.

Quote:
We didn't believe it until we verified it with our own eyes, but amazingly it's true: Colorado is offering a $42,083 rebate on the 2009 Tesla Roadster until December 31st. Carry the one, move the decimal point... yep, that's a 38-percent discount on what must be the most desirable electric car currently for sale in the United States.

So, exactly how did this come about? Is the thin air that's distorting people's better judgment? Not exactly. The incentive actually applies to a slew of qualifying hybrid and electric vehicles and will be paid in the form of an income tax credit that's calculated by determining the difference in price of the alt-fuel car or truck as compared to a competitive gas-powered model. In the case of the Tesla Roadster, Colorado figures the EV costs a whopping $50K more than its competitive set... which we imagine might be the Lotus Elise.

Want to take advantage of the rebate but not interested in a fully-electric sportscar? Buyers can also get a $20K rebate on the 2009 Lexus LS 600h L or about three grand on either the new Honda Insight or Toyota Prius.
More details here (pdf warning)
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

Last edited by Chromer; 10-22-2009 at 07:33 PM. Reason: Clarified thread title...
Chromer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:09 PM   #2
sil0nt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30584
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago
Vehicle:
05 STi Black
07 S4 Avant Black

Default

This is why EV's won't make it. Even cool, desirable EV's require huge incentives. Until people have real reason to buy high mileage vehicles, nothing is going to change.
sil0nt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:10 PM   #3
Tim-H
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 65751
Join Date: Jul 2004
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Redmond, WA
Vehicle:
'10 VULVA

Default

but the more they sell the cheaper they will get. It's technology.
Tim-H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:18 PM   #4
Masterauto
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 198376
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Delaware
Vehicle:
X5D Subaru BRZ
Nissan GT-R

Default

I don't know why anyone thought Tesla could make a profit? We went through this in the 80s and no car co. ever made any profit from electric cars. Golf cart anyone?
LNG or Gasoline/Propane flex fuel would be most advantageous as humongous natural gas finds recently.
Most taxis in Bangkok run on LNG quite economically.
Man, they have millions of them too!
Masterauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:21 PM   #5
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2006 Pontiac GTO M6
Triumph Street Triple R

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterauto View Post
I don't know why anyone thought Tesla could make a profit?
Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

Quote:
Tesla Motors says it earned a profit last month [Aug 09], the first time the Silicon Valley automaker has run in the black since its founding in 2003.
Quote:
“The revenue is primarily the result of new car deliveries and not some atypical one-time event,” Konrad said.
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/08/tesla-profit/
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:30 PM   #6
Chromer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 20325
Join Date: Jun 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
08 Yamaha WR250R
07 Suzuki DL650

Default

Tesla gets their full $109,000.

It's just that Colorado's tax rebate program has a big "oops" in it, and under ideal circumstances you can claim up to $48,000 in tax credits spread over five years if you trade in a clunker for a Tesla Roadster... AND you earn enough each year to be able to claim the full credit (about $200k/year, apparently).
Chromer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:32 PM   #7
Balantz
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 101457
Join Date: Nov 2005
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Vehicle:
Czar of Sweet Dance
Moves

Default

I'll take one in black, plz, thx.
Balantz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:35 PM   #8
Dragicon
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 112323
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: 香港
Default

I love colorado.
Dragicon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:44 PM   #9
Mike Wevrick
RIP 1/19/64 - 7/23/11
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 24654
Join Date: Sep 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: saraseager.com
Vehicle:
1957 Taggart Comet
atlasshruggedpart1.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromer View Post
Tesla gets their full $109,000.

It's just that Colorado's tax rebate program has a big "oops" in it, and under ideal circumstances you can claim up to $48,000 in tax credits spread over five years if you trade in a clunker for a Tesla Roadster... AND you earn enough each year to be able to claim the full credit (about $200k/year, apparently).
So basically rich people get a taxpayer subsidy to buy an expensive toy?

PS I don't believe in these subsidies at all but at the very least there should be cap on them eg the $3000 the Prius and Insight get.

Last edited by Mike Wevrick; 10-22-2009 at 07:49 PM.
Mike Wevrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2009, 07:51 PM   #10
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2006 Pontiac GTO M6
Triumph Street Triple R

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Wevrick View Post
So basically rich people get a taxpayer subsidy to buy an expensive toy?

PS I don't believe in these subsidies at all but at the very least there should be cap on them eg the $3000 the Prius and Insight get.
They are instituting a $6000 cap Jan 1st. It was just a poorly written law (shocking).
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 06:55 AM   #11
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Wevrick View Post
PS I don't believe in these subsidies at all but at the very least there should be cap on them eg the $3000 the Prius and Insight get.
Subsidies need to be carefully considered when implemented.

There is actually no reason to cap at Prius and insight levels though.

What is the subsidy for supposedly? Reducing gasoline usage. As such it should be based on how much you reduce usage. That means if you have a car that is more efficient (a prius is better than in insight) it should get a bigger subsidy.

In general luxury sports cars or cars over $X should be excluded though. Tesla Roadsters are not cars that families buy and drive now. Thus the gas savings are not really going to be as significant. One should never make a subsidy based on how expensive things are (as the CO law did) this discourages lowering prices.


The easier solution to all this is to increase gas taxes significantly, or registration fees based on the amount of fuel used. But people hate "taxes" so instead they subsidize to try and get the same effect. Then they tax you elsewhere quietly to pay for it. Instead they should just increase gas taxes significantly and let the market work it out.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 09:17 AM   #12
sil0nt
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30584
Join Date: Nov 2002
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: Chicago
Vehicle:
05 STi Black
07 S4 Avant Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
The easier solution to all this is to increase gas taxes significantly, or registration fees based on the amount of fuel used. But people hate "taxes" so instead they subsidize to try and get the same effect. Then they tax you elsewhere quietly to pay for it. Instead they should just increase gas taxes significantly and let the market work it out.
Unfortunately, almost consumer good we buy is directly tied to the price of gas because of delivery, so higher gas prices lead to higher prices everywhere. The gas guzzler type tax at time of purchase is a better idea.. but it has its faults, too.
sil0nt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 10:00 AM   #13
Mike Wevrick
RIP 1/19/64 - 7/23/11
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 24654
Join Date: Sep 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: saraseager.com
Vehicle:
1957 Taggart Comet
atlasshruggedpart1.com

Default

^^So? If higher gas prices increases the cost of other goods, it will discourage the use of those good, thus reducing gas usage

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
What is the subsidy for supposedly? Reducing gasoline usage. As such it should be based on how much you reduce usage. That means if you have a car that is more efficient (a prius is better than in insight) it should get a bigger subsidy.

In general luxury sports cars or cars over $X should be excluded though. Tesla Roadsters are not cars that families buy and drive now. Thus the gas savings are not really going to be as significant. One should never make a subsidy based on how expensive things are (as the CO law did) this discourages lowering prices.

The easier solution to all this is to increase gas taxes significantly, or registration fees based on the amount of fuel used. But people hate "taxes" so instead they subsidize to try and get the same effect. Then they tax you elsewhere quietly to pay for it. Instead they should just increase gas taxes significantly and let the market work it out.
Agreed on all points. (That said, I don't believe there is a need to "save gas" in the first place.)
Mike Wevrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 10:50 AM   #14
jigga
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 9960
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: in bed...
Vehicle:
2002 Impreza WRX
WRBlue Perl

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sil0nt View Post
This is why EV's won't make it. Even cool, desirable EV's require huge incentives. Until people have real reason to buy high mileage vehicles, nothing is going to change.
Have you looked at oil prices lately? Back over 80 dollars a barrel, and the economy isn't exactly on boil right now either...
jigga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:15 AM   #15
Chromer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 20325
Join Date: Jun 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
08 Yamaha WR250R
07 Suzuki DL650

Default

And at $80 during a time massive oversupply due to the economic crash. If the economy keeps picking up at its current pace, people will be screaming 'drill baby drill' en masse again in a year or so. Hopefully the coming demand spike doesn't trigger yet another worldwide economic crash...

Fortunately there should be more viable and affordable non-oil-dependent vehicle choices on the market by then. For commercial as well as passenger use...
Chromer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:26 AM   #16
sgilson
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 161746
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Gas will end up around $100 per barrel and probably stay there as the economy stabalizes. The oil companies will keep us over there barrel until we accept the ways of not using so much of there product. Does anyone know what we were paying a gallon when crude topped $100/barrel? From the looks of things to me, the oil companies are just figuring out what we are willing to pay before we slow down consumption. These are my guesses and they are guesses:

$2.50 a gallon, buy more gas guzzlers love the American Ride "Toby Keith"
$3.00 people sell personal items to buy gas for there gas guzzler.
$3.50 keep the gas guzzler, but start driving that old Honda Accord 5 speed.
$4.00 start complaining that the oil companies are making too much profit and gas costs so much the family is starving.
$4.50 trade guzzler for hybrid and take a beating on the trade.
$5.00 The hybrid becomes the talk of the neighborhood.
$5.50 Gas guzzlers are parked at the peir. Only used when they are really really needed. Hauling 5 bags on concrete will not justify starting the motor. Take the old Accord.
$6.00 Demand for useable public transit will be off the charts.

Just a thought.
sgilson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:32 AM   #17
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

The problem with raising the price of gas is it cripples the rest of the country. Every industry suffers. I am not willing to support a high gas price when it will hurt every industry in this country. Also, I personally believe that the incentives for hybrids should be stopped all together. If people want them, they will buy them. If people need to be bribed to buy a car, then the market is not primed for that product and they are creating an artificial demand that does not really exist. If the car is worth the money, then people will pay it. Why should the government sacrifice tax dollars to prop up a product that most people do not want.

Last edited by SCRAPPYDO; 10-23-2009 at 11:39 AM.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:37 AM   #18
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

If they phased it in gradually it would work fine. CAFE standards are part of the same effort, but still doing it backwards b/c people get all upset about gas taxes. As the fleet becomes more fuel efficient we will need greater gas taxes anyway to pay for roads.

If they said that fed gas taxes would go up 3% every year until they are double or something like that businesses would be fine. The key is they need predictability so they can plan. If you have no idea if gas will cost 90 cents/gal or $7/gal it limits your ability to make good decisions.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:44 AM   #19
Chromer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 20325
Join Date: Jun 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
08 Yamaha WR250R
07 Suzuki DL650

Default

Just curious what you're basing that oil price target of $100 on. You are aware of the lead times to bring significant new production to market, the production costs on non-conventional oil, and the demographic forces at work on the demand side, I presume?

Personally I think the old high of $14x/bbl is going to be a fond memory unless we can find a way to cut our demand faster than the oil-producing and developing economies raise their demand...
Chromer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:52 AM   #20
sube-trex
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 97577
Join Date: Oct 2005
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: OR->WA->TX->OR->CA
Vehicle:
Bug In Your
Eye

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgilson View Post
The oil companies will keep us over there barrel until we accept the ways of not using so much of there product. From the looks of things to me, the oil companies are just figuring out what we are willing to pay before we slow down consumption.

Greed

Plain and simple, nothing else.
sube-trex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 11:53 AM   #21
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

Or we can just raise our demand faster and suck all the oil from the developing countries. Why give them the easy cheap energy source. I say burn the candle at both ends. Increase our oil usage while developing our alternative energy sources.

In a perfect world we would suck up all the oil and deprive all the other countries of it just as we get our alternative energy sources online. We would have power and nobody else would... haha...

Yeah, I can be called greedy.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:04 PM   #22
Chromer
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 20325
Join Date: Jun 2002
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Vehicle:
08 Yamaha WR250R
07 Suzuki DL650

Default

That plan requires we be prepared to pay more than anyone else in the world for each available barrel. I can't afford that, maybe you can though.
Chromer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:12 PM   #23
sxotty
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:
2003 WRX wagon
Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
Or we can just raise our demand faster and suck all the oil from the developing countries. Why give them the easy cheap energy source. I say burn the candle at both ends. Increase our oil usage while developing our alternative energy sources.

In a perfect world we would suck up all the oil and deprive all the other countries of it just as we get our alternative energy sources online. We would have power and nobody else would... haha...

Yeah, I can be called greedy.
We are already trying this. It works differently. Developing countries with oil suck all the money from us. Then they buy US companies and assets. Once we are done buying all their oil they will own everything. They own a great deal of AMD now the only serious chip maker besides Intel. They were trying to purchase the majority of shipping. And all of this is completely legitimate. We have a gigantic trade deficit and it is from oil not trade with china. We have a deficit there but it is far smaller.
sxotty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 12:17 PM   #24
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

I never said it was a good plan, guys. But I think it would work. The companies sxotty mentioned did not have to sell out to China. What made them do that. Wait, I know..

Greed. Greed is the only thing that will destroy this country. Nothing else can hurt it.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2009, 01:53 PM   #25
JC
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 692
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Vehicle:
2006 Pontiac GTO M6
Triumph Street Triple R

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post
One should never make a subsidy based on how expensive things are (as the CO law did) this discourages lowering prices.
The CO law is based on the difference between the cost of the hybrid/EV and a gasoline equivalent not how expensive it is. If they said the Tesla was equivalent to a $100k car the subsidy would be only a fraction of what it is now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chromer View Post
Just curious what you're basing that oil price target of $100 on. You are aware of the lead times to bring significant new production to market, the production costs on non-conventional oil, and the demographic forces at work on the demand side, I presume?

Personally I think the old high of $14x/bbl is going to be a fond memory unless we can find a way to cut our demand faster than the oil-producing and developing economies raise their demand...
I think $100/bbl is around the area where alternative fuels start making financial sense. We do have the capability to create drop-in alternatives to gasoline, diesel, and Jet-A they just aren't at the point where it's economical to produce them at scale. Advancing technology and increasing oil prices will change that. Once oil gets above a certain price it will cease to be cost competitive.

Quote:
What is green diesel fuel?
Green diesel fuel has superior product properties to other options available today with higher cetane levels, lower cloud point and lower emissions. It is indistinguishable from traditional diesel fuel and can work as a drop-in replacement or as a valuable blend stock that will enhance the quality of the existing diesel pool. Because it is chemically similar to traditional diesel fuel, green diesel can be used in today's tanks, pipelines, trucks, pumps and automobiles without changes, which will save significant expense as demand for renewables grows.
http://www.uop.com/renewables/10010.html
JC is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.