Confed999

Well, first off we can make it from anything carbon based. Secondly, as gas becomes more expensive then that will be the incentive. I still think investing in R&D, and economic expansion, is a very fair and much more effective way to use tax deductions to acheve the same, nay a better, end.
There has to be a tax to get a deduction, so it could be said a deduction is a tax only some people pay.

Edit: I really hate the unfair stuff. The only people getting tax deductions should be the poor.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Trooth

The cost may not be financial, it might be greater instability in the world in a bid to keep the cost at the pumps low.

Confed999

Sorry, I still don't see how that makes extra tax fair...

Ironduke

There would be no extra tax. The only way people would pay extra tax is if they are required to pay more than they are normally required. If some people get a tax deduction, the people not receiving a tax deduction are not paying extra.

Confed999

They're paying more than the other person. A tax deduction is a tax, or part of a tax someone doesn't have to pay. Are you two really so against R&D and cost cutting efforts instead? Make a product people want, can afford, that works well, and people will buy it. No bribes needed...

Ironduke

They are not paying extra, that's my point.

I am absolutely for R&D and cost-cutting efforts for hybrid and electric vehicles, which would be immensely spurred by tax deductions for individuals purchasing such vehicles.

Furthermore, self-suffiency in our energy supply should be a foremost conservative and Republican issue, and we need the means to accomplish this end. I don't want to wait for the next oil embargo or extremely high gas prices.

Confed999

Then I don't understand your point. My point is that it isn't fair for one person to pay more, based on a purchase. I don't care what the purchase is either.
Would be spurred even more by putting the tax breaks into the R&D and cost cutting efforts instead. That R&D and cost cutting will help other industry as well. People who can afford to buy a new car are not poor, and do not deserve to pay less tax than anyone else.
And I don't see how the current technology is going to accomplish that, thus my idea to put the money where it will do the most good, R&D. BTW, it takes very little to run a car off of alcohol, hydrogen, or virtually anything flamable, just as they sit. Why push a technology that is overpriced, requires more maintainence, puts the lead, and toxic gel, of dozens of batteries into our landfills, instead of pushing one of those alternate fuels? Replacing one problem, with a whole set of new problems, and as they still use gas and oil, along with the original problem, seems like a bad idea too me. Using unfair taxation seems to be a dirty way to do it too.

Trooth

So you are in favour of a tax incentive to a company to do R&D in an effort to replace a technology that has matured over the last century. Whereas recent evidence have it that the same tax incentive you are proposing could be put into the showroom and achieve the goal (more hybrid cars) instantly.

Ironduke

So automobile companies should get tax breaks alone, and not individuals? You realize you're advocating shifting the tax deduction to industry from people. I don't think Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc., qualify as poor.

Again, I don't see what's "unfair" about a tax break for middle-class person. People not eligible would not be paying any more than they are obliged, they would not be penalized and be forced to pay extra, so I hardly see it as "unfair".

As far as toxic stuff goes, I can think of many toxic things in a regular automobile stuff. Brake fluid, coolant, transmission fluid, oil, power steering fluid, etc., are all toxic. More batteries will pile up in the landfill from an average automobile than a hybrid or fuel cell vehicle, those batteries are designed to last the life of the car.

jjacobs43

I think the bottom line on all this talk is that if you are using up oil and costing America extra money in fighting in the Middle East and in medical care for wounded soldiers you should pay more than others in taxes. It's not unfair; you're just paying for the problems you are creating.

If tax breaks for hybrids comes off better to the people than tax hikes for oil, then so be it. It's time to get started on this. Our dependency on oil is hurting us dearly.

Praxus

Then let us dig in Alaska and the Gulf for Christ sake.

jjacobs43

Well, it's actually not up to me!

But it sounds like this would just be a short lived temporary solution to the real problem. We need to eliminate the dependency.

Confed999

Actually the ones doing the investing are regular people.
Wow! Instant sub-standard products, what a great thing! They don't do the job they're needed to do for everyone.
Companies shouldn't be paying taxes at all. And the people investing, are individuals.
The hybreds currently can't do my job. So I can't use them. So I have to pay the government because there are none that I can use to do the job I need them too. Would it be ok for a woman that uses tampons instead of pads to get a tax deduction, and men get to pay full taxes no matter what?
All the same stuff, plus the extra batteries, exist in a hybred. Hybreds still use gas BTW.

Trooth

If you are basiing the quality of product today as being substandard because better ones will come out in the futre you are saying that you should never go to market with anything. In fact going to market stimulates demand which reduces the product development lifecycle.

Indeed, and heavy vehicles aren't suitable for the job for me, nor are SUVs, both of which have received tax breaks. I understand you don't think they should have received tax breaks, but equally we can learn from the experience - that the tax break stimulated a sector of the market.

Confed999

Unless you're saying putting the tax breaks towards R&D, instead of a select group of people, won't speed product development, then you really haven't countered my point effectively. I have agreed to your point, but since it is not fair, I will not support it.