5 ms·

There are so many things wrong with this article. First of all, Tesla is paying back its federal loan 9 years early. So all the stuff about what we taxpayers h

by ebbv 13y ago

There are so many things wrong with this article. First of all, Tesla is paying back its federal loan 9 years early. So all the stuff about what we taxpayers have paid for is bogus. The carbon credits issue is brought up as though we already agree that it's wrong/bad with no discussion. I don't agree. I think it's clearly the right way to go, and other manufacturers should be moving to EVs. The phrase "environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg" should qualify as slander against all environmentalists. He is the opposite of an environmentalist. Every step of the way he's been arguing against fighting climate change. He's a shill for the status quo, and whenever you see someone cite him, you can rest assured they are arguing for oil, coal, etc. Tesla is about the future. Anyone without vision is going to clearly be upset about the compromises we have to make now in order to get us where we want to be. But those people would be the same ones moaning about how much money we're wasting on NASA in 1964.

skaevola 13y ago
The article mentions paying back the federal loans. It's claim that we taxpayers are paying through government subsidies ($7,500 federal, up to $6,000 state) and mandated credits. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on your political beliefs. Frankly, I think it's great that a new alternative to gasoline powered vehicles is becoming viable, but these other factors are also worth thinking about.
homerowilson 13y ago
I agree strongly with ebbv and further take issue with a point in the article: "Taxpayers pay first so Tesla can build the cars and again to help the wealthy buy them." It turns out that anyone subject to AMT (my guess is a substantial portion of Tesla buyers) does not in fact qualify for the federal tax credit.
newbie12 13y ago
Taxpayers still took a huge downside risk with the loan to Tesla, and that loan has to be measured against the overall government loan program's losses, which is a massive failure costing billions.
- josefresco 13y ago
  Care to supply a link backing this claim that the overall losses have cost billions and been a "massive failure" ? If we're talking about this program in particular, the Energy Department had the following to say: "losses in the $34 billion loan portfolio amount to about 2% of the total." Even if that 2% is wrong, a loss of even a few billion compared to the entire portfolio of lending is minimal. Now I'm not going to suggest that all government loans work, as picking winners in the private or pubic sector is very, very hard. But please before regurgitating a statement please back it up with some evidence or reporting on the matter.
riggins 13y ago
There are so many things wrong with this article. WSJ content is behind a paywall. WSJ opinion pages are free. If you're a capitalist, and believe goods fetch their market value, that tells you all you need to know.
- e40 13y ago
  It's even worse than this. I have a left of center friend that has had a WSJ subscription for many years. After Murdoch bought the WSJ, he constantly complains of the major shift to the right in the content. It's to the point now, where I won't ever follow a link to the WSJ. It is a tainted property for me.
lukesandberg 13y ago
Even if EV is the way everything should be going it doesn't mean that the current set of government incentives that Tesla is taking advantage of is the best way to get there. We should all be concerned with the efficient allocation of capital in general, but especially when that capital is sourced from tax payers. I am sure that lots of people did moan about the money spent on NASA in the 60s and I am also sure that at least some of that money was 'wasted' (i.e. spent inefficiently). We should all be concerned about these kinds of issues, even if we like the programs.
- rattray 13y ago
  The current set of government incentives that Tesla (and others) is taking advantage of seems fairly close to what I'd see recommended in econ 101: subsidize goods with a positive externality (assuming that's the case with electric cars, which is questionable). Of course, I'm not saying there aren't better ways; I'd be curious what you might suggest?
- ebbv 13y ago
  > We should all be concerned about these kinds of issues, even if we like the programs. And exactly what form should this concern take? Require a ballot initiative on every expenditure over $10,000? Let's be realistic here. Whenever you're doing something on a huge scale there are going to be inefficiencies and problems. We have to accept them up to a point. Now that $8 billion that went missing in Iraq? That's probably something worth being up in arms about. The small amount of money we're spending on EV credits? Not wasteful and not worth freaking out about. That program is working exactly as intended.
bob13579 13y ago
"But those people would be the same ones moaning about how much money we're wasting on NASA in 1964." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias It's quite telling that you're ignoring the billions/trillions we've wasted on useless projects since 1964.
- ebbv 13y ago
  > It's quite telling that you're ignoring the billions/trillions we've wasted on useless projects since 1964. Because it's not relevant to the discussion.
lambda 13y ago
We taxpayers are still paying in the form of the tax credits you get for buying EVs. Why is it that I pay $7,500 more in federal taxes for riding my bicycle to work than someone who purchases a $70,000 luxury car? Why don't people who don't even own a car in the first place, and take the bus to work, get that tax credit? We're basically transferring wealth from the middle class to the wealthy by offering these sorts of tax credits (at least, in the case of Tesla; other manufacturers like Nissan are offering more affordable electric cars that are actually within the price range of the middle class). By offering a tax credit to people who buy electric cars, yes, the average taxpayer is still funding Tesla. Now, the carbon credits are another issue. I think that those are somewhat more reasonable; you are making the manufacturers of vehicles that have substantial negative externalities fund ones that have significantly less. Again, though, I wonder why only other automobile manufacturers are able to sell these credits; it would be nice for, say, bicycle manufacturers, electric bike manufacturers, public transit systems, and municipalities which build infrastructure more suitable for living without cars to be able to sell credits as well. Only allowing automobile manufacturers to be in the game means that you are still supporting transportation that requires each individual person to haul around a couple of tons of metal with them for 20 or more miles a day, taking up lots of extra space for storing them both at home and at work, leading to congestion and the necessity for more money to go into infrastructure.
- Uchikoma 13y ago
  "taking up lots of extra space for storing them both at home and at work," + 1 "The High Cost of Free Parking" http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988 http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/18848299...
- ebbv 13y ago
  As pointed out elsewhere, if you are wealthy (qualify for the Alternate Minimum Tax) you don't get the tax credit. So that claim is false. Secondly, the total cost of those tax credits is miniscule. We subsidize a lot of other much worse things a lot more. If you're going to get up in arms about tax subsidies, we'll be here all day. Additionally, EV subsidies are not unique to Tesla. The only thing that was unique to them was the loan which they're paying back early. So bringing up the rest of it in an article ostensibly about Tesla is a bit misleading. I think EV subsidies make sense, and I made the point of NASA for a reason. Sometimes when we have an important goal (interstate freeway, getting to the moon, moving the entire country over to electric vehicles) it's worth investing in. You may disagree, and you can express that disagreement by writing to your local Congress critters and by voting.

by ebbv 13y ago

skaevola 13y ago

The article mentions paying back the federal loans. It's claim that we taxpayers are paying through government subsidies ($7,500 federal, up to $6,000 state) and mandated credits. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on your political beliefs. Frankly, I think it's great that a new alternative to gasoline powered vehicles is becoming viable, but these other factors are also worth thinking about.

homerowilson 13y ago

I agree strongly with ebbv and further take issue with a point in the article: "Taxpayers pay first so Tesla can build the cars and again to help the wealthy buy them." It turns out that anyone subject to AMT (my guess is a substantial portion of Tesla buyers) does not in fact qualify for the federal tax credit.

newbie12 13y ago

Taxpayers still took a huge downside risk with the loan to Tesla, and that loan has to be measured against the overall government loan program's losses, which is a massive failure costing billions.

josefresco 13y ago
Care to supply a link backing this claim that the overall losses have cost billions and been a "massive failure" ? If we're talking about this program in particular, the Energy Department had the following to say: "losses in the $34 billion loan portfolio amount to about 2% of the total." Even if that 2% is wrong, a loss of even a few billion compared to the entire portfolio of lending is minimal. Now I'm not going to suggest that all government loans work, as picking winners in the private or pubic sector is very, very hard. But please before regurgitating a statement please back it up with some evidence or reporting on the matter.

riggins 13y ago

There are so many things wrong with this article. WSJ content is behind a paywall. WSJ opinion pages are free. If you're a capitalist, and believe goods fetch their market value, that tells you all you need to know.

e40 13y ago
It's even worse than this. I have a left of center friend that has had a WSJ subscription for many years. After Murdoch bought the WSJ, he constantly complains of the major shift to the right in the content. It's to the point now, where I won't ever follow a link to the WSJ. It is a tainted property for me.

lukesandberg 13y ago

Even if EV is the way everything should be going it doesn't mean that the current set of government incentives that Tesla is taking advantage of is the best way to get there. We should all be concerned with the efficient allocation of capital in general, but especially when that capital is sourced from tax payers. I am sure that lots of people did moan about the money spent on NASA in the 60s and I am also sure that at least some of that money was 'wasted' (i.e. spent inefficiently). We should all be concerned about these kinds of issues, even if we like the programs.

rattray 13y ago
The current set of government incentives that Tesla (and others) is taking advantage of seems fairly close to what I'd see recommended in econ 101: subsidize goods with a positive externality (assuming that's the case with electric cars, which is questionable). Of course, I'm not saying there aren't better ways; I'd be curious what you might suggest?
ebbv 13y ago
> We should all be concerned about these kinds of issues, even if we like the programs. And exactly what form should this concern take? Require a ballot initiative on every expenditure over $10,000? Let's be realistic here. Whenever you're doing something on a huge scale there are going to be inefficiencies and problems. We have to accept them up to a point. Now that $8 billion that went missing in Iraq? That's probably something worth being up in arms about. The small amount of money we're spending on EV credits? Not wasteful and not worth freaking out about. That program is working exactly as intended.

bob13579 13y ago

"But those people would be the same ones moaning about how much money we're wasting on NASA in 1964." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias It's quite telling that you're ignoring the billions/trillions we've wasted on useless projects since 1964.

ebbv 13y ago
> It's quite telling that you're ignoring the billions/trillions we've wasted on useless projects since 1964. Because it's not relevant to the discussion.

lambda 13y ago

We taxpayers are still paying in the form of the tax credits you get for buying EVs. Why is it that I pay $7,500 more in federal taxes for riding my bicycle to work than someone who purchases a $70,000 luxury car? Why don't people who don't even own a car in the first place, and take the bus to work, get that tax credit? We're basically transferring wealth from the middle class to the wealthy by offering these sorts of tax credits (at least, in the case of Tesla; other manufacturers like Nissan are offering more affordable electric cars that are actually within the price range of the middle class). By offering a tax credit to people who buy electric cars, yes, the average taxpayer is still funding Tesla. Now, the carbon credits are another issue. I think that those are somewhat more reasonable; you are making the manufacturers of vehicles that have substantial negative externalities fund ones that have significantly less. Again, though, I wonder why only other automobile manufacturers are able to sell these credits; it would be nice for, say, bicycle manufacturers, electric bike manufacturers, public transit systems, and municipalities which build infrastructure more suitable for living without cars to be able to sell credits as well. Only allowing automobile manufacturers to be in the game means that you are still supporting transportation that requires each individual person to haul around a couple of tons of metal with them for 20 or more miles a day, taking up lots of extra space for storing them both at home and at work, leading to congestion and the necessity for more money to go into infrastructure.

Uchikoma 13y ago
"taking up lots of extra space for storing them both at home and at work," + 1 "The High Cost of Free Parking" http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/1884829988 http://www.amazon.com/The-High-Cost-Free-Parking/dp/18848299...
ebbv 13y ago
As pointed out elsewhere, if you are wealthy (qualify for the Alternate Minimum Tax) you don't get the tax credit. So that claim is false. Secondly, the total cost of those tax credits is miniscule. We subsidize a lot of other much worse things a lot more. If you're going to get up in arms about tax subsidies, we'll be here all day. Additionally, EV subsidies are not unique to Tesla. The only thing that was unique to them was the loan which they're paying back early. So bringing up the rest of it in an article ostensibly about Tesla is a bit misleading. I think EV subsidies make sense, and I made the point of NASA for a reason. Sometimes when we have an important goal (interstate freeway, getting to the moon, moving the entire country over to electric vehicles) it's worth investing in. You may disagree, and you can express that disagreement by writing to your local Congress critters and by voting.