Agree and disagree. Incentives should not be to cherry pick based on the price of the car. It’s actual intention should be to reduce carbon emissions and provide a bonus to anyone who reduces yet another ice vehicle off the road.
And which actually costs taxpayers more out of pocket in terms of subsidizing an EV buyer?
50k bolt - 6k hst
14 rebate
Net: -8k to the govnt
130k tesla - 16.9k hst
14 rebate
Net: +2.9k to govnt
150k Tesla - 19.5k hst
14 rebate
Net: +5.5k to govnt
I’m addition, the luxury buyer is likely forgoing a luxury V8, premium ice vehicle ie. Mercedes, E/S , Porsche Cayenne/911, BMW 535/750/x5/x7, Audi A6/S7/A8, Land Rovers etc
Thereby reducing quite a bit of carbon footprint.
The mid range buyer is likely to be foregoing a similarly classed vehicle ie. Acura, bmw 3, Merc c, Honda Accord, Camry, Ford Fusion etc etc. Many of which have efficient 4 cyl engines and much lower footprint.
All I’m saying is why cherry pick and penalize those who have consciously made the commitment to bring another EV to the road and reduce Ice? As an owner of an MS and soon MX, I can say I look forward to the incentive rebate (just scrapped in) as it reduces my overall out of pocket over my 4 yr lease. I’m not what anyone would consider affluent but by grace my business can lease this vehicle and earn it’s tax write off as well as net reduction through the rebate. I think I may have been slower to consider the MX if the 14k was gone.
I agree the fact that it’s going to help a lot of mid range buyers adopt EV’s as they are more price concious and would generally made a final call based on the incentive to shift.