Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

wolfstreet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

#21

Post by JumpCrisscross »

_jezell_ wrote: post #18

It's hardly a "bailout" when Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth. The sales tax alone on many of the current models exceeds this tax credit.

> Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth

California collects a 7.5% sales tax on the purchase of new vehicles [1]. A $40,000 car would thus generate $3,000 of state sales tax income. That appears to be much less than the value of the proposed credits.

[1] https://www.salestaxhandbook.com/california/sales-tax-vehicl...

Re: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

#22

Post by kenjackson »

maxharris wrote: post #9
2bluesc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bike as well and never thought of this. Now, I'll never be able to forget it.

One solution is to simply treat everyone equally and not give anyone a tax break. I know this is not what most people think, but in the context of good governance, my view is that no (legal) behavior is any more or less meritorious than any other.

Why would you think this? For illegal activities there is a hierarchy -- why would there not be for legal activities?

Re: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

#23

Post by [deleted] »

cybernytrix wrote: post #17
valuearb wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the benefits of the subsidy are disproportionately given to companies that exhaust federal subsidies. And Tesla will be the only one to do that for some time. EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet. It's not unreasonable to wait until battery costs come down so mass adoption comes naturally. They do make sense environmentally, but there is a far better way to compensate them for the actu…

What about the carbon emissions in order to manufacture the car, dig up mines for lithium etc? Surely that needs to be accounted as well.

[deleted]

Re: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

#25

Post by Someone »

dragonwriter wrote: post #19

The Business Insider piece sourced it's information on what the bill does not on the bill text, but on a combination of an advocacy email from an opposed legislator and reporting by the Mercury News. The rebate plan does not do at all what the article claims; specifically, for instance, it does not establish a new general rebate that is designed to match the difference between an electric vehicle's price and that of…

Good to hear, as the way they phrased this was as a blanket invitation for electric vehicle manufacturers to raise prices (if they add $x to their prices, their revenue would go up by $x, but customers wouldn't complain, as they would get $x more rebate)

Re: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

#26

Post by dragonwriter »

aphextron wrote: post #10

I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. There are currently 4 other large volume production EV's being sold in California (Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, BMW i3). EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.

> I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here.

Because clearly the included plug-in hybrid subsidy is obviously a handout to Tesla, which doesn't even participate in that market.

Or because it's a hit piece that doesn't cite anything in the actual bill, only claims in an email from a hostile legislator and reporting by other news outlets.

Re: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

#27

Post by dragonwriter »

valuearb wrote: post #15
aphextron wrote: post #10

I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. There are currently 4 other large volume production EV's being sold in California (Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, BMW i3). EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.

Because the benefits of the subsidy are disproportionately given to companies that exhaust federal subsidies. And Tesla will be the only one to do that for some time. EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet. It's not unreasonable to wait until battery costs come down so mass adoption comes naturally. They do make sense environmentally, but there is a far better way to compensate them for the actu…

> EV's don't make good sense "economically" for California yet.

Presumably, the scare quotes around “economically” are recognition that this argument is based on ignoring emissions-related externalities, management of which is almost the entire cited premise of the bill.

Re: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

#29

Post by _jezell_ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21
_jezell_ wrote: post #18

It's hardly a "bailout" when Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth. The sales tax alone on many of the current models exceeds this tax credit.

> Tesla generates more revenue for the state than these tax credits are worth California collects a 7.5% sales tax on the purchase of new vehicles [1]. A $40,000 car would thus generate $3,000 of state sales tax income. That appears to be much less than the value of the proposed credits. [1] https://www.salestaxhandbook.com/california/sales-tax-vehicl...

As I said, current models. Those are future models. And this is not the only revenue the state gets from Tesla.

Re: Is California Bailing Out Tesla through the Backdoor?

#30

Post by thewhitetulip »

dragonwriter wrote: post #26
aphextron wrote: post #10

I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. There are currently 4 other large volume production EV's being sold in California (Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, Chevy Bolt, BMW i3). EV's make good sense both economically and environmentally for California in the long run, but we still need the tax incentives for the next few years until battery costs come down with new production capacity.

> I don't understand why they are singling out Tesla here. Because clearly the included plug-in hybrid subsidy is obviously a handout to Tesla, which doesn't even participate in that market. Or because it's a hit piece that doesn't cite anything in the actual bill, only claims in an email from a hostile legislator and reporting by other news outlets.

Why would any govt want to subsidize hybrids? isn't their goal to be all electric by 2050 something?
Post reply on HN