The House of Representatives, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court will all be firmly in the hands of Republicans starting this January. Heck, the Republican party even has more state governors. With the country now overwhelmingly voting for just one party this month, EV supporters are wringing their hands that the federal taxpayer subsidies for pricey electric vehicles may be in jeopardy. We agree with them, but not for the reasons you might suspect.
First, a few facts. Congress passes tax laws, and they don't even need a President to do so. No other entity can create or pass a tax law at the federal level. There is this old document some guys in weird hats wrote back in the 1700s that explains it all. So when you read that a president is going to change a tax law, you’re reading something written by a dummy or a person taking shortcuts to keep the topic simple (there is nothing wrong with that. We do it, too). Presidents most certainly do set out goals, and they absolutely work with members of Congress to influence laws, but only Congress can write those laws. Another inconvenient truth is that during President Trump's first term, the American Congress did include tax incentives for EVs, and every Democrat voted against it. It passed despite their objections to the new tax law, which subsidized EVs, solar, and a lot of other things.
Can we agree that if electric vehicles cost less than conventional vehicles, often called ICE, as in internal combustion vehicles, they don't actually need or "deserve" federal subsidies? After all, every blue-blooded EV supporter will tell you that EVs are cheaper to power and cheaper to maintain. So, if the price of the vehicle is the same or less, can we agree that there should not be corporate welfare price supports? I test EVs and will tell anyone interested that I prefer a battery-electric powertrain. They simply drive better. So, if we can agree that vehicles with all these advantages shouldn’t need price supports, keep reading. If you are in the camp that just wants a free car and free power, don't waste your time reading any further. Unless you are just curious.
Here Is A List Of Reasons Why the Government Should Stop EV Price Supports
We will give you a long list of well-crafted reasons why the government should stop supporting EV prices, but none of them are my personal arguments or Torque News arguments. These are all arguments from pro-EV folks who advocate for EVs. Here is the list with a short quote and a link.
New York Times - Electric Vehicles Could Match Gasoline Cars on Price This Year
Electrek - EV prices nipping at gas-powered vehicle heels with discounts and cheaper options
The Electric Viking - The reason Electric Cars will be cheaper than ICE cars in 2025
Forbes - Electric Vehicles Cost Less Than Half As Much To Drive
Forbes - Electric Cars Cheaper Than Gas Counterparts
Washington Post Climate Solutions - New electric car prices dropped $2,000 in the U.S. last month, bringing EVs close to price parity with gas-powered cars.
Yahoo Finance - EV costs on track to match gas guzzlers as early as next year as battery prices drop 'dramatically'
Automotive News - Electric cars cost less than similar gas cars over 5 years
CBT News - EVs prove cheaper to own than gas cars over five years despite high initial costs
Road & Track - EVs Are Cheaper to Own Than Gas Cars in All But 2 States
QAD - Why the EV is Now Cheaper than an ICE Vehicle
Bloomberg - Long-Range EVs Now Cost Less Than the Average New Car In the US
Reuters - EVs will be cheaper to produce than gas-powered vehicles by 2027
Consumer Reports - EVs Offer Big Savings Over Traditional Gas-Powered Cars
Spectrum News 1 - Used EV prices fall below gas-powered cars for the first time
Green Car Reports - Used EV Prices have plummeted, now stand below ICE cars
Green Cars - Used EVs Are Now Cheaper Than Used Gas Cars
Fortune - For the first time, used EV prices fall below those of gas cars
My personal opinion differs from those listed above. I know from reviewing the facts (data) that EVs cost much more than their conventionally-powered peers with one important exception. I know EVs are less reliable, and I know they have higher ownership costs than other options. So, for those reasons, I think a simple to use, universal EV price support system makes sense. Maybe an on-the spot, once in a buyer's lifetime $5K subsidy offered for every BEV model built in America and sold in America. No other qualifiers. But, hey, I’m not in Congress, so what does my opinion matter?
Tell us in the comments below if you agree with all of the sources we listed that point out very clearly that EVs cost less than ICE cars and, therefore, EV price supports should end.
John Goreham is a credentialed New England Motor Press Association member and expert vehicle tester. John completed an engineering program with a focus on electric vehicles, followed by two decades of work in high-tech, biopharma, and the automotive supply chain before becoming a news contributor. He is a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE int). In addition to his eleven years of work at Torque News, John has published thousands of articles and reviews at American news outlets. He is known for offering unfiltered opinions on vehicle topics. You can connect with John on Linkedin and follow his work on our X channel. Please note that stories carrying John's by-line are never AI-generated, but he does employ Grammarly grammar and punctuation software when proofreading.
Image of money by John Goreham.
Comments
I agree with the writer--…
Permalink
I agree with the writer---EVs are not as rosy of a picture as the mass media would have us believe. Closer to the truth, IMNSHO, however, is that the media cranks out what is most profitable for that publication. It is a business, and businesses do what they have to do to survive. And that is fair to a point.
Unfortunately, news today is geared toward the masses and has to have an entertainment element to it; otherwise, it will not be read. The whole EV vs ICE fiasco is a good example, and the media plays a part in that because it appeals to readers. The more polarizing the topic, the more drama it invokes (and provokes)---the more attention it gets. I see the EV vs ICE issue as a political smokescreen for the masses. The foundation for building EVs is the noble argument of reducing greenhouse gases and stopping Global Warming. Which in print sounds like an honorable California-esque/Tesla-marketed goal.
However, no believable evidence exists that a world going totally EV can achieve this goal—one case-in-point (of many) is the uncontrollable mining exploitation of minerals needed for EV manufacture.
In the November 2nd-8th issue of The Economist titled "The Antarctic: Diplomacy on Ice" pp. 53-54 and "Minerals: Dig, Baby, Dig" pp.60-61, the underlying message is that more minerals are needed for an EV World and this provides more of geopolitical market domination/National Security reason for EVs and not so much for an environmental reason.
When has exploitive mining ever been good for the environment?!
In other words, the governments play chess, and the public plays checkers...or worse yet, tic-tac-toe. "Give me my subsidy and the most popular EV" is all anyone wants, and the government knows this.
Thank you for your…
Permalink
In reply to I agree with the writer--… by Timothy Boyer
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Timothy! One way I dumb down the good points you made about mining and EVs is to say, "Raise your hand if you want to live next to the new lithium mine, lithium processing facility, or lithium recycling plant."