> But we don't care about more profits, we care about more EVs.

Which is why the tax credit is for making EVs.

you're just circling back to the GP's last comment, without refuting that comment.

>Credits on profits incentivize short term profit taking, while credits in products incentivize number of units shipped. The second is much better for society.

There aren't credits on profits. There are credits for making EVs (which the manufacturers get) and for buying EVs (which the customers get).

They are, by definition, credits on profits made from selling EVs, and not from selling EVs. If Tesla made EVs without making a profit they wouldn't have received a penny.

They're credits against taxes. Since corporate income taxes are on profits, that implies that there would have to be some profits in order for there to be taxes to take the credit against, but that doesn't make them credits on profits. If they had made more profits without making more EVs, they wouldn't have gotten more credits. If they had made more profits but offset the taxes with some other credits then they might not have been able to use these, not because they didn't make enough profits but because they didn't pay enough taxes.

And this works the same for the consumer EV credits; you can't get them unless you were paying that much in taxes.

If your point is that non-refundable credits are stupid, yes. All credits should be refundable. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether they're credits for the manufacturer or the consumer.

Making the consumer credits non-refundable is actually worse, especially for the credits on used EVs. Because then you can't get the credit if you're unemployed or a student or otherwise don't make enough money to be paying the value of the EV credit in taxes, so it becomes a tax credit for the affluent that the poor aren't eligible for.