logo
Trump megabill axes $7,500 EV tax credit after September

Trump megabill axes $7,500 EV tax credit after September

CNBC5 days ago
A massive tax and spending package championed by President Trump and passed by the Senate on Tuesday would end tax credits for electric vehicles within three months.
The legislation, which Republicans are trying to get to the president's desk by July 4, would axe tax breaks for consumers who buy or lease EVs after Sept. 30, 2025.
Lawmakers would eliminate a $7,500 tax credit for households that buy or lease a new EV, and a $4,000 credit for consumers who purchase a used EV.
"If you're interested in driving an EV — either new, used or leased — now is the time to act," said Ingrid Malmgren, senior policy director at Plug In America, a nonprofit advocating for a quicker transition to electric cars.
"This is going to be the summer of the EV, because come the end of September those credits will be gone" if the legislation passes and remains unchanged, Malmgren said.
The bill passed the Senate on the narrowest of margins — 51-50, with a final, tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President JD Vance. It now heads to the House for approval.
The Senate's timeline to nix the EV tax credits is more stringent than an initial version of the legislation passed in May by House Republicans, who would have ended the tax breaks after Dec. 31, 2025. The House One Big Beautiful Bill Act also exempted certain EVs from that deadline.
The Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark climate law signed by former President Joe Biden, offered the tax breaks for EVs through 2032.
The federal tax incentives aimed to boost uptake of EVs — and reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions — by making them more affordable relative to traditional cars with an internal combustion engine.
The transportation sector accounts for about 28% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest contributor of U.S. emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
More from Personal Finance:Trump bill mostly benefits the richSpending bill boosts child tax creditRepublican tax bill passes 'SALT' deduction cap of $40,000
Fully electric cars don't emit planet-warming greenhouse gases from their tailpipes because they don't burn fossil fuels.
While some emissions may be created when electric cars are built and charged, EVs are "unambiguously better for the climate" than gasoline-powered cars even when factoring in those life-cycle emissions, according to researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
New EVs have historically come with higher price tags than comparable traditional cars, experts said.
In May, the average new EV had a price tag around $57,700 before subsidies, while gas cars cost around $48,100, according to Kelley Blue Book data. Used EVs had a price point around $36,000, slightly higher than the $34,000 for used internal-combustion-engine cars, it found.
The price gap is shrinking, experts said.
Federal tax incentives like the $7,500 federal tax credit "play a pivotal role in accelerating the break-even point between electric vehicles and gasoline vehicles," wrote researchers at the University of Michigan in 2024.
Despite a higher price tag, EVs may be a better financial deal for consumers over the long haul because maintenance, repair and fuel costs tend to be lower than those for gas cars, experts said.
Even if the federal tax credit disappears, state and local tax incentives may still be available for EV buyers, experts said.
If Republicans nix the federal tax credit, consumers would need to ensure they have the car in hand by Sept. 30 in order to claim the subsidy, Malmgren said.
She recommends opting for the tax break upfront at the point of sale instead of claiming it next year on one's annual tax return.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.
The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.

Boston Globe

timean hour ago

  • Boston Globe

The Supreme Court stripped judges of a powerful tool to fight Trump's autocracy. Congress must give it back.

But now they can't. Based on the Supreme Court's reading of a 1789 law, lower courts can now only take such action on specific cases before them, meaning that even clear-cut violations of the law could continue against those without the wherewithal to go to court. Advertisement Congress can and must correct this mistake. Lawmakers should pass legislation that protects judges' ability to provide robust equitable remedies when people's rights are threatened by legally or constitutionally dubious administration actions. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Now, it's true that there have been problems with universal injunctions, and judges have sometimes misused them. But the court's ruling took a sledgehammer to a system that should have been fixed by Congress with a scalpel. And in the case of Trump, the ruling opens the door for him to strip birthright citizenship from American-born babies, continue whisking migrants to countries foreign to them with little notice and without due process, and engage in other actions that threaten people's rights and freedoms. Advertisement The court's 6-3 ideologically split opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was based on the majority's interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The justices considered if the statute authorizes broad preliminary injunctions like that issued by Boston-based US District Court Justice Brian Murphy, which paused Trump's executive order to deny birthright citizenship to children born to some migrants. 'The answer is no,' Barrett wrote for the majority. Instead, the court held, challengers of the policy who have standing to bring suit can only obtain such preliminary relief for themselves. '[P]rohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship,' Barrett wrote. 'And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render her relief any more complete.' This is untenable, and will only lead to a cruel game of judicial whack-a-mole that fails to provide adequate protection to those most imperiled by these policies. The onus should not fall on those who are targeted by these policies to fend for themselves. It should fall on the administration to show that it is acting in a lawful way. The court did just the opposite, holding that it is the administration that will likely suffer irreparable harm if courts dare to exercise their authority as a check on the executive. The overuse of universal injunctions has been an issue of increasing bipartisan concern, particularly since the Obama administration. In the last two decades, both the number of executive orders issued and the number of temporary injections blocking them have steadily ballooned. But the number of executive orders Trump has issued in his second term is without historical precedent, even exceeding Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who issued a flurry of edicts in an effort to implement his New Deal agenda. Advertisement And many of Trump's orders are based on strained legal or constitutional arguments, such as the administration's claim that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protection only extended to children of enslaved people, that the Alien Enemies Act allows migrants to be deported without due process, or that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the government to send migrants to countries where they've never been and to which they have no connection. Judges must have the ability to decide when relief extending beyond named plaintiffs is warranted. Should there be limits on that power? Yes, and Congress can include them in its bill. It can also underscore that states can still seek statewide relief from policies they can demonstrate harm all of their residents, and ease the process for class actions to be formed at the earliest stages of litigation to give relief to groups of people who demonstrate a need for protection. Judges handling the flurry of Trump-related litigation need more tools, not fewer. It's lawmakers' duty to give those tools to them. The Supreme Court must also swiftly take up and decide the constitutional and legal questions presented by Trump's orders. The justices could have rejected the Trump administration's erroneously limited reading of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship protections, but opted instead to leave that question for another day. But given the risks of the order, there is no time like the present. And in the meantime, federal judges must do all they can to help challengers who will be harmed by Trump's policies. The Supreme Court did not tie judges' hands completely when it comes to equitable relief. Quick certification of class actions and swiftly granting relief to states that demonstrate the peril to their residents are among the arrows still in judges' quivers. They must use them. Advertisement We are not as bound or doomed by history as the Supreme Court's justices believe. The public needs to demand that members of the legislative and judiciary branches stand up and reclaim their powers to check a president who believes he is above the law and the Constitution. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us

Idorsia Ltd's (VTX:IDIA) 15% gain last week benefited both retail investors who own 48% as well as insiders
Idorsia Ltd's (VTX:IDIA) 15% gain last week benefited both retail investors who own 48% as well as insiders

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Idorsia Ltd's (VTX:IDIA) 15% gain last week benefited both retail investors who own 48% as well as insiders

Idorsia's significant retail investors ownership suggests that the key decisions are influenced by shareholders from the larger public A total of 11 investors have a majority stake in the company with 50% ownership Insider ownership in Idorsia is 28% Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. A look at the shareholders of Idorsia Ltd (VTX:IDIA) can tell us which group is most powerful. We can see that retail investors own the lion's share in the company with 48% ownership. That is, the group stands to benefit the most if the stock rises (or lose the most if there is a downturn). Following a 15% increase in the stock price last week, retail investors profited the most, but insiders who own 28% stock also stood to gain from the increase. Let's take a closer look to see what the different types of shareholders can tell us about Idorsia. See our latest analysis for Idorsia Institutional investors commonly compare their own returns to the returns of a commonly followed index. So they generally do consider buying larger companies that are included in the relevant benchmark index. Idorsia already has institutions on the share registry. Indeed, they own a respectable stake in the company. This implies the analysts working for those institutions have looked at the stock and they like it. But just like anyone else, they could be wrong. It is not uncommon to see a big share price drop if two large institutional investors try to sell out of a stock at the same time. So it is worth checking the past earnings trajectory of Idorsia, (below). Of course, keep in mind that there are other factors to consider, too. We note that hedge funds don't have a meaningful investment in Idorsia. Our data shows that Jean-Paul Clozel is the largest shareholder with 19% of shares outstanding. Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is the second largest shareholder owning 11% of common stock, and Martine Clozel holds about 6.3% of the company stock. After doing some more digging, we found that the top 11 have the combined ownership of 50% in the company, suggesting that no single shareholder has significant control over the company. While it makes sense to study institutional ownership data for a company, it also makes sense to study analyst sentiments to know which way the wind is blowing. There is a little analyst coverage of the stock, but not much. So there is room for it to gain more coverage. While the precise definition of an insider can be subjective, almost everyone considers board members to be insiders. Company management run the business, but the CEO will answer to the board, even if he or she is a member of it. Insider ownership is positive when it signals leadership are thinking like the true owners of the company. However, high insider ownership can also give immense power to a small group within the company. This can be negative in some circumstances. It seems insiders own a significant proportion of Idorsia Ltd. It has a market capitalization of just CHF473m, and insiders have CHF134m worth of shares in their own names. We would say this shows alignment with shareholders, but it is worth noting that the company is still quite small; some insiders may have founded the business. You can click here to see if those insiders have been buying or selling. With a 48% ownership, the general public, mostly comprising of individual investors, have some degree of sway over Idorsia. While this group can't necessarily call the shots, it can certainly have a real influence on how the company is run. It seems that Private Companies own 11%, of the Idorsia stock. It might be worth looking deeper into this. If related parties, such as insiders, have an interest in one of these private companies, that should be disclosed in the annual report. Private companies may also have a strategic interest in the company. I find it very interesting to look at who exactly owns a company. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. Be aware that Idorsia is showing 4 warning signs in our investment analysis , and 3 of those are significant... If you are like me, you may want to think about whether this company will grow or shrink. Luckily, you can check this free report showing analyst forecasts for its future. NB: Figures in this article are calculated using data from the last twelve months, which refer to the 12-month period ending on the last date of the month the financial statement is dated. This may not be consistent with full year annual report figures. — Investing narratives with Fair Values Suncorp's Next Chapter: Insurance-Only and Ready to Grow By Robbo – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: A$22.83 · 0.1% Overvalued Thyssenkrupp Nucera Will Achieve Double-Digit Profits by 2030 Boosted by Hydrogen Growth By Chris1 – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: €14.40 · 0.3% Overvalued Tesla's Nvidia Moment – The AI & Robotics Inflection Point By BlackGoat – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: $359.72 · 0.1% Overvalued View more featured narratives — Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

Alleged mastermind behind shooting of Colombian senator and presidential candidate arrested

timean hour ago

Alleged mastermind behind shooting of Colombian senator and presidential candidate arrested

BOGOTA, Colombia -- The alleged mastermind behind the shooting of a conservative Colombian senator and presidential candidate was taken into custody Saturday, almost a month after the attack, law enforcement authorities said. Elder José Arteaga Hernández, alias 'Chipi" or "Costeño,' was arrested in a neighborhood in the northwestern part of the capital, Bogota, National Police Director Maj. Gen. Carlos Fernando Triana told reporters. Authorities had previously accused him and other suspects of being near the Bogota park where Miguel Uribe Turbay was shot in broad daylight on June 7. Uribe was giving a political speech in the park when he was attacked from behind and wounded in the head, allegedly by a minor who was captured as he fled. Three other people have been arrested for participating in the logistics and execution of the crime. The motive is still being investigated. Uribe, who in October announced his intention to run in the 2026 presidential election, remains in intensive care and has undergone several surgeries. From his Senate seat, he had become one of President Gustavo Petro's most vocal critics. The attack has been widely condemned in a country with a dark past in which drug cartels and insurgent groups murdered and kidnapped politicians. Charges against Arteaga include attempted aggravated homicide; manufacturing, trafficking and carrying firearms or ammunition; and using minors to commit crimes. Interpol issued a red notice against him Friday. It was not immediately clear Saturday if Arteaga had an attorney who could comment on his behalf. Authorities said he would make his first court appearance over the weekend. Triana last month said Arteaga 'has been involved in a life of crime for more than 20 years, performing hit jobs in all types of crimes in Bogotá.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store