mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

U.S. Should Offer New Tax Credit For Electric Vehicles, GM President Says

General Motors president Mark Reuss wants the United States to implement a new tax credit for electric vehicles that will extend to used EVs.

Reuss wrote an article on his LinkedIn page this week titled ‘Punching the Accelerator on the Road to EVs’ that outlines the various ways the automotive industry and the government can work to speed up the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. Reuss says “several key policy elements would help the U.S. lead in electrification,” including a new consumer incentive that can be used toward the purchase of a used electric vehicle.

Mark Reuss

The longtime GM executive also wants the federal government to implement investment tax credits that will incentivize companies to establish EV manufacturing capacity in the U.S. and help build out the U.S. supply chain. He also believes investing in EV infrastructure, such as fast-charging stations in urban areas and along highway corridors, will help give consumers more confidence to buy a battery-powered vehicle.

Buyers of GM EVs can no longer receive the $7,500 federal tax credit, as GM hit the 200,000 unit sales threshold back in 2018. GM previously expressed a desire to see this threshold extended so as to not punish early adopters of EV tech.

GM plans to introduce 30 new EVs globally through to 2025. In North America, these EVs will include the GMC Hummer EV pickup and SUV, Cadillac Lyriq crossover and an unnamed electric Chevy pickup, among others. The automaker has also introduced two new production-ready EVs this year in the way of the 2022 Chevy Bolt EV and 2022 Chevy Bolt EUV.

“2021 is the tipping point toward EVs,” Reuss also said in the LinkedIn post. “That’s what we believe and that’s what I believe – and we are committed to making it happen. And as we all know by now, a lot can happen in a year.”

Subscribe to GM Authority for ongoing GM electric vehicles news, GM-related politics news and General Motors news coverage.

Sam loves to write and has a passion for auto racing, karting and performance driving of all types.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Nothing more pathetic than a business asking for government hand outs.

    Reply
    1. I’m a big fan of EVs, but I agree with this 100%. Companies like GM make investment decisions all the time. It seems pretty straight forward that if the fat lady is warming up for an ICE final act, then OEMs and suppliers will need to decide whether they want to persist in being viable companies beyond the final curtain and follow the market. Capitalism is wonderful thing; if GM doesn’t want to invest its own capital, someone else surely will (and they already are).

      Reply
      1. So you’re okay with Toyota, Hyundai, VW, Honda, etc… getting the tax credit, but Tesla and GM the two American companies that led the way excluded?

        GM (and Tesla) would be fine if the whole program was dropped. Right now they are on an uneven playing field.

        Reply
        1. Under the law as it is currently written, GM and Tesla leaned in and exhausted the tax credits. They should be congratulated. If the proposal is to renew the credits for all companies and let them all wind down at the same time, then do that. As I understand it, though, that’s not what Mark Reuss is proposing.

          Reply
    2. What we need is to make the current EV tax credit available to all EVs right now and phase out the EV tax credit for all vehicles at the same time.
      Right now GM has to offer its EVs for $7,500 less than Nissan.

      Reply
      1. Eliminate all EV tax credits, use that money to strengthen the Grid System.

        Reply
    3. They need the credit to N million first come first serve period! And taken off at the register aka dealer upon deliver and deal closing.

      Reply
      1. I am disappointed it was not in the kong flu relief bill. People who pay taxes should subsidize people who can buy 75k and up vehicles,let them depreciate them over 5 yrs. also

        Reply
  2. No when you have politicians handing out money like candy and forcing you into EV products you take any advantage you can get.

    When this latest COVID bill went through only 9% of the 1.9 trillion dollar deal was for COVID. Just look at the things they are paying money out for in this bill.

    1. $1 Billion for ‘Racial Justice’ for Farmers

    “The $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus package being pushed by President Biden puts more than $1 billion toward ‘socially disadvantaged’ farmers and related groups — including an equity commission, agricultural training and other assistance to advance racial justice in farming,”

    2. $50 Million for ‘Environmental Justice’ Grants

    The legislation allocates $50 million for “environmental justice” grants via the Environmental Protection Agency. The Republican Study Commission decried these grants as a “thinly-veiled kickback” because much of this money will end up going to left-wing political groups.

    3. $112 Million for California Transit Project

    In an expenditure with zero apparent connection to COVID-19, the new bill allocates $112 million for the “Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) expansion” program. The money would largely go to a specific “underground rail project in Silicon Valley for which planning has been going on for several years but hasn’t yet broken ground,”

    4. $10 Million for Native American Language Preservation

    Slipped into the seemingly endless bill text is a $10 million appropriation to “ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages during and after the public health emergency.”

    5. $200 Million for Museum and Library Services

    Museums and libraries are, for the most part, closed across the country. Yet under this bill, the Institute of Museum and Library Services (did you even know that was a thing?) would be allocated $200 million in taxpayer money.

    6. $750 Million for ‘Global Health’

    One might expect the US Congress’s COVID-19 legislation to focus on, well, the US. But the new legislation allocates a whopping $750 million for the Centers for Disease Control to spend on global health problems and vaccination efforts in other countries.

    7. $750 Million for Native American Housing

    The bill also allocates $750 million—on top of existing and prior funding—for “housing assistance and supportive services programs for Native Americans.”

    8. Expansion of Obamacare Subsidies

    House Democrats have long sought to expand Obamacare subsidies and eliminate caps that prohibit them from going to high-income individuals. Unable to find the votes to do so via the normal legislative process, they’ve simply slipped this partisan priority into their “COVID” relief legislation.

    9. Billions for Public Schools Whether They Reopen or Not

    The behemoth legislation doles out $129 billion for K-12 schools, ostensibly earmarked for helping them reopen. But it’s actually just a handout for teachers’ unions and public schools. They get the money regardless of whether they reopen or not, and much of it is allocated for spending in 2022 through 2028, long after the pandemic.

    10. Countless Pet Projects for Powerful Lawmakers

    There are too many in the bill to count, but one glaring example of the corruption and cronyism peppered throughout this bill comes courtesy of the $1.5 million it allocates for the Seaway International Bridge. The bridge “connects New York to Canada and is a priority for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer,” the Wall Street Journal notes.

    The least they could do as they bankrupt the country is help people pay for the more expensive EV products being forced on us by government regulations.

    Reply
    1. and just like clockwork, psuedo fiscal conservatives start being concerned about debt when it isn’t tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires and corporations.

      Reply
      1. Matters little who the party is.

        I am the working guy who is seeing less in my pay check and higher taxes on my home. Now increase cost to buy more expensive vehicles.

        It is called the squeeze where I am from and it knows no party when it comes to my wallet.

        If they can bail out every fringe group they can help the working man paying for it for once.

        Most people today are no longer are blind to the political BS. But unfortunate too many still are and just want to blame a party or the people already paying for much of this.

        Reply
        1. did you complain trump’s 1 trillion dollar tax cut? no need to reply. we all know the answer.

          Reply
      2. What an ignoarant statement Steve.

        Reply
        1. you want to elaborate?

          Reply
        2. spelling 101! ironic to say the least

          Reply
      3. Steve – That comment is ignorant pure and simple… its just stupid… The economy over the last 3 years is indicative of what the businessman’s tax cut did for the American Citizen vs what a crusty, incompetent, arrogant, demented dinosaur would do….

        Reply
      4. High taxes on business just makes the business migrate to lower tax countries, resulting in job loss. Have government raise money the way it was originally intended, with import tariffs. The current system rewards foreign companies and punishes local ones.

        Reply
      5. I am not rich but I have benefited from tax cuts and in turn my tenants also.

        Reply
    2. C8.R
      1. This is an auto website, you don’t mention anything auto related in your statement.

      Second
      US population = 330 million
      50 million = ~ 15 cents for every man, woman and child in America
      Don’t waste my time with anything that costs me less than $1

      Reply
      1. And how many actually put in more than they suck back like being a contributor versus a drain.

        Reply
    3. 11. Don’t forget the $400B for mismanaged Blue States to cover revenue shortfalls due to citizens fleeing high tax states with tone deaf Governors.

      12. And: $85B hand out, FREE cash to unions to fully fund their pensions…

      To all you morons saying the tax credit should be blah blah blah… that’s a taxpayer financed incentive for an industry and behavior modifications by the Gubment. There should be ZERO incentives because if GM chooses to make EV’s and the market says no, THEY CAN GO OUT OF BUSINESS. Fascism is Govt control over the means of production… there should be ZERO collusion by Govt and business in a free Republic.

      These idiots at GM have bet their farm on EV’s and this is an incentive for THEM not for YOU!

      Reply
      1. are you sure red states didnt get any money also?

        Reply
        1. Probably not much cause they did not shut everything down and add to the economic crisis.

          Reply
          1. Just because there are dem.house members in red states,otherwise they would have told them to pound sand and raise your reasonable state tax rates if you need cash. They also would have made the non-Caucasian farmer provision apply in blue states only

            Reply
  3. Of course he does, because GM ends up getting more money upon sale. It does nothing to encourage EV sales. This is what happens. The government gives out a tax credit for $7,500, then GM adds on $7,500 on to a vehicle otherwise worth 30k. GM gets a sale of $37,500 and the buyer ends up financing a larger amount. The buyer thinks they’re getting $7500 back for a vehicle they should have otherwise paid 30k for. Sell the cars at market value and watch your sales grow. They’re skimming the market at this stage to recover their investment.

    Reply
  4. Of course they do.

    They’re putting all their eggs in one basket and now they need the government to prop up their bad business decisions.

    F GM. I mean CM.

    Reply
  5. Hasn’t the government been incentivizing EVs for at least 10 years trying to get folks to buy them? In my city, their are exclusive lanes for car pools or EVs. There’s been plenty done to encourage folks to buy EVs. I think the category needs to sink or swim on its own merits now. It’s been adequately supported or propped-up already so as to allow it to develop as an alternative. Further incentives only take money from lower income taxpayers to incentivize vehicle purchases being made by higher income individuals that are able to buy a $100,000 Hummer EV or Teslas or Audi E-Trons. Most of the EVs are at the upper end of the price scale and I personally don’t support charity for the most affluent at the expense of the least.

    Reply
    1. I mostly agree with you but there are a few points I want to make.
      1. Getting someone to drive an EV instead of an ICE reduces the amount of pollution helping everyone.
      2. Right now GM and Tesla are at a disadvantage to other auto makers because they no lounger have the tax credit when other companies do. So we need to change something.

      Reply
      1. What if I buy and ICE vehicle and drive it 5000 miles pyr but you get an EV and drive it 15K pyr. Whats the environmental impact to create the electricity not to mention the mining of the materials needed for the batteries?

        The only disadvantage GM has is it pathetic management team AND its $30.00 per hour cost handicap when building vehicles due to the UAW. GM ought to decertify the UAW and offer new jobs to folks at competitive wages & benefits. Zero other mfr’s employees are interested in unions and are doing just fine w/out one. Ford & GM & Chrysler if you recall faced bankruptcy due to legacy costs.

        Reply
        1. youre wrong… when you account for the manufacturing for both ev and ice and the cost of producing fuel for each the ev comes out on top.

          Reply
          1. Prove it…. I have my own facts but prove what you just said… I might agree or laugh at you…

            Reply
  6. A bit on my social plate, I think the US should subsidized new vehicle technology if they want alternative powered vehicles in the future. It’s not like other nations don’t do it.

    Reply
  7. I’m waiting for some group government or otherwise to start building all the power plants and other infrastructure that will be needed to implement EV usage. Going to have to be a tremendous amount of charging stations installed to make it work.

    Reply
  8. Ask any first responder if they have been trained and equipped to deal with an extraction or fire in an EV and the vast majority will respond they have not. None of the first responders I deal with even knew that NHTSA has a one page protocol summary and that NFPA has developed training programs. There is no such thing as a minor fire when lithium ion car batteries are involved. At a minimum every fire and rescue department should have isolation poles and the same PPE as dealerships have. Federal and local government should be providing infrastructure as a priority, not subsidies to the end product. I loose more respect for Ruess over this form of panhandling, it’s like he wants me to buy my own road so he can give away free cars of his choice for my troubles, since there won’t be any fuel tax coming in to fund it.

    Reply
    1. Agree 100 percent. Good thoughts.

      Reply
  9. I don’t believe in subsidizing a vehicle purchase, but if government insists on doing so, it should be available equally to all manufacturers. Don’t punish those who got in on EVs early. A better solution is to end subsidies for all EVs. They can stand on their own merit now.

    Reply
    1. Troy,

      I disagree. All manufacturers were/are entitled to a certain subsidy to help them to develop the technology and offer the product at a more palatable price that the public is willing to accept. That was the mission; a subsidy to defray developmental cost and make EVs more affordable. GM and Tesla got in early and have now used up all their subsidy money. Other carmakers are further behind and still entitled to monies to defray their now-occurring costs. Do you really think Tesla needs a subsidy now? Their tech is developed, proven, and has already been commercially successful. One might argue that GM blew their funds on the halfway effort that was the now defunct Volt but that was GM’s choice. They should get no more money. Like you, I don’t think anyone should’ve gotten it in the first place but there should for sure be no extensions.

      Reply
      1. Unless a manufacturer is willing to give free vehicles to all taxpayers there should be zero subsidies paid for by taxpayers. The whole idea of being a business is to create your own product which people want to purchase.

        Reply
        1. Exactly! Never good for the government to help pick winners.

          Reply
  10. Not a fan of government stepping in with taxpayer money to pick winners in the market place. End all subsidies.

    Reply
  11. How about GM build a car so good that customers actually want it. I only know one person who welcomes the switch from the ICE to Electric. Once upon a time in the USA they built vehicles “The Customer” asked for, not something some sierra club appointee mandates. Get out of the individual’s business people and get a life. Let the market decide what people actually “want”.

    Reply
  12. I’ve got a novel idea they might try, try building EVs people can afford, since there are fewer parts that they brag about I would think it should be possible. My wife and I are old enough that we don’t have children for tax deductions, our home is paid for so no mortgage deductions, in other words we are in the financial class where we no longer pay income taxes as the standard deductions out weigh the taxes so a tax break means nothing to us, we will have pay full price, and I haven’t seen an EV yet that we could drive to see our families. Hers are spread from TN to OH, mine are scattered from TN to Al, IN, IL, KS, TX, all of them at least a 2-4 day drive including stops for recharging. No thanks, when they get them to the recharging time it takes to refill a gas tank I might change my mind.

    Reply
    1. Bob the prices will fall as batteries are already coming down in price. Charging is getting shorter and ranges are getting longer.

      By the time you are ready for a EV they should not be life style changers at least for the none ICE enthusiast.

      I want a ICE Corvette but I also understand where this is going and EV models will only grow and the prices will be under ICE in the not yo distant future.

      Keep up on what is going on as this change is coming no matter what some thing and or why.

      The bottom line is automakers now see they can build cars cheaper and still make money with the advancements they are seeing. To continue to build ICE will only get more expensive.

      This is not about saving trees. This is about a more profitable future with more affordable and competitive vehicles. This whole dynamic changed with battery advancements.

      Reply
      1. No body asking how the grid will be expanded to accommodate all the cars and trucks changing or how much this will cost and increase rates. In several highly populated states (California and Texas being two) the grid is already inadequate. Can expansion meet future needs using only solar and wind? Cloudy days, wind not blowing? Lots of unanswered questions. Total conversion to EVs seems longer away than manufacturers are planning for.

        Reply
    2. You have hit the nail on the head. They are in no way practical for many people.

      Reply
  13. GM goes 100% EV and I am done with them. Carbon emissions from cars only account for 6% of the crap in the air. We will see

    Reply
  14. Why should conservative taxes bail out liberal customers?

    Reply
    1. Liberals are well known to donate their tax refunds and even cut big checks to the US treasury for woke pork barrel spending.

      Reply
  15. The Government should just stop subsidizing oil and gas. That will force EV adoption really fast! Though the people who cry the most about EV subsidies are the ones that would cry the most about the government removing oil and gas subsidies.
    Honestly the current EV subsidy in the US is setup poorly. GM and Tesla currently don’t get anything from the Federal government. The current setup punishes early pioneers and should be adjusted to a more fair system for all that phases out over time.

    Reply
    1. How will hard working, middle American families get the milk home from Walmart if gas isn’t subsidized and costs $10 a gallon? Will AOC loan out her tesla?

      Reply
  16. She does not drive.Limos and private planes are “campaign expenses”

    Reply
  17. Why subsidize EVs from foreign countries and not just AMERICAN evs? Oh yeah, CHINA JOE!

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel