3 ms·

It's very clear that Tesla benefits from excessive subsidies. They even had states compete on how many tax cuts and other benefits they could provide: https://

by chiaro 9y ago

It's very clear that Tesla benefits from excessive subsidies. They even had states compete on how many tax cuts and other benefits they could provide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1#State_competition_and_incentives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1#State_competitio... By even bringing up SpaceX you're trying to narrow the goalposts to something no one else is talking about.

greglindahl 9y ago
It's the LA Times article that brought up SpaceX. Also, I'm part of "no one else".
- chiaro 9y ago
  Yes, the "else" implies a singleton, not a null set.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    nkoren and I are different people. "no one else is talking about X" is not true when 2 people are talking about X.
Retric 9y ago
So does Honda. Theses fall under normal 'subsidies', hell Trump was known for getting similar subsidies on Hotels and golf courses that don't create large numbers of high paying jobs. As long as it's local not federal money I don't see the need to complain, because it's not my money.
- chiaro 9y ago
  Just because everyone in the US is accustomed to larger companies being able to negotiate a lower tax burden doesn't mean that a transparent, regulated system of breaks and incentives is vastly more equitable and less vulnerable to corruption and capture. Individual states shouldn't be undercutting each other either and bidding away their revenue.
  - Retric 9y ago
    While I don't disagree, companies are forced to play this game lest their competition under cut them. However, locations are forced to play the game from network effects which push companies out of small communities. So, banning this behavior is likely to make things even worse for small town America. Still, getting rid of this might be better, but it's not as clear cut as you might think.
azemetre 9y ago
Is there a single US corporation that doesn't rely on government handouts? Complaining only about Tesla seems disingenuous when you have massive handouts given to oil and gas companies, not too mention how many cities are offering Amazon what is equivalent to free reign if they get HQ2. You can complain about corporate welfare but only complaining about one corporation isn't really fair. Walmart utilizes local police forces to skimp on internal security (not too mention using welfare to subsidize poor pay), Military companies relying on politicians literally stuffing their coffers while the Pentagon argues otherwise, resource extraction companies are given free permits to bleed the land dry, agricultural subsidies, 0% interest loans dictated through the Fed, the auto bailouts, the financial bailouts, propping up home prices through artificial means. The pattern seems to be taking tax dollars and giving them to corporations.
- chiaro 9y ago
  The vast majority of US corporations are far too small to get tailored breaks and incentives. TARP/lending of last result is another thing entirely.

by chiaro 9y ago

greglindahl 9y ago

It's the LA Times article that brought up SpaceX. Also, I'm part of "no one else".

chiaro 9y ago
Yes, the "else" implies a singleton, not a null set.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  nkoren and I are different people. "no one else is talking about X" is not true when 2 people are talking about X.

Retric 9y ago

So does Honda. Theses fall under normal 'subsidies', hell Trump was known for getting similar subsidies on Hotels and golf courses that don't create large numbers of high paying jobs. As long as it's local not federal money I don't see the need to complain, because it's not my money.

chiaro 9y ago
Just because everyone in the US is accustomed to larger companies being able to negotiate a lower tax burden doesn't mean that a transparent, regulated system of breaks and incentives is vastly more equitable and less vulnerable to corruption and capture. Individual states shouldn't be undercutting each other either and bidding away their revenue.
- Retric 9y ago
  While I don't disagree, companies are forced to play this game lest their competition under cut them. However, locations are forced to play the game from network effects which push companies out of small communities. So, banning this behavior is likely to make things even worse for small town America. Still, getting rid of this might be better, but it's not as clear cut as you might think.

azemetre 9y ago

Is there a single US corporation that doesn't rely on government handouts? Complaining only about Tesla seems disingenuous when you have massive handouts given to oil and gas companies, not too mention how many cities are offering Amazon what is equivalent to free reign if they get HQ2. You can complain about corporate welfare but only complaining about one corporation isn't really fair. Walmart utilizes local police forces to skimp on internal security (not too mention using welfare to subsidize poor pay), Military companies relying on politicians literally stuffing their coffers while the Pentagon argues otherwise, resource extraction companies are given free permits to bleed the land dry, agricultural subsidies, 0% interest loans dictated through the Fed, the auto bailouts, the financial bailouts, propping up home prices through artificial means. The pattern seems to be taking tax dollars and giving them to corporations.

chiaro 9y ago
The vast majority of US corporations are far too small to get tailored breaks and incentives. TARP/lending of last result is another thing entirely.