Personally, I have no problems with Teslas. Nor any hybrid or fully electric vehicles (FEV). But, there is one thing we should all have a problem with
Middle class bearing Tesla subsidy
When the sale of its 200,000th vehicle occurs later this year, Tesla buyers will no longer be able to claim a $7,500-per-vehicle federal tax credit for purchasing one. But fear not! California’s climate-crazy legislature is coming to the rescue.
Gov. Jerry Brown and state legislators plan to pass a $3 billion electric vehicle (EVs) subsidy to replace the soon-to-end federal rebate. Under California’s generous program, electric vehicle buyers could soon receive up to $40,000 to buy’s Tesla’s most expensive models.
Despite the federal government having provided a $465 million low-interest loan for Tesla to develop a cheap electric vehicle in 2009 and the billions of dollars in tax credits given to buyers, Tesla has continued to turn out $110,000 luxury cars designed for and marketed to millionaires. Those buyers obviously could afford to pay the full freight for their vehicles but instead took money from the poor and middle-income households to fund their “green lifestyle†purchases.
Is there any reason that these vehicles are offered subsidies and tax breaks, when it is essentially rich people who are buying them? I can see this with a Nissan Leaf or a low trim Prius (Prius’ no longer get tax breaks, BTW, nor do many other hybrids/FEV who have already exceeded the cap), as middle class folks would buy them. Of course, then this is being done off the backs of the poor, but, generally, they are part of the class that really doesn’t pay net income taxes.
Aside from receiving substantial federal tax credits and a massive government low-interest loan, Tesla and its wealthy customers also benefit from other subsidies given at the expense of everyone else, including state tax incentives and free charging stations. A 2015 study from researchers at the University of California at Berkeley and National Bureau of Economic Research found the richest 20 percent of Americans received 90 percent of the hundreds of millions of dollars given in taxpayer subsidies for EVs.
If Liberals want to talk about the rich soaking the poor, well, it’s right there.
It was only a few months ago that Tesla passed Ford and General Motors in market valuation, based on stock price. Both Ford and GM are profitable, and paying dividends, while Tesla has been and still is losing money. That’s what I call fanciful valuation.
No products should be subsidized by government. Politicians should never be allowed to pick winners and losers in business.
Remember ‘Cash for Clunkers’? That was s’posed to be an oh-so-great program, but what it really was welfare for the well-to-do. It was the worst part of the recession when C4C was active, and the plan was to encourage people to buy new, more fuel efficient vehicles. Thing is, in 2009-2010, the only people who could afford to buy new cars were people who were weathering the recession very well, people whose jobs weren’t in jeopardy, people who secure enough to qualify for new car loans, or who could pay cash. Then, they’d get a tax break the following April, after they had already demonstrated that they could afford to buy a new car!
And there was another down side. The people who could afford to buy new cars had, generally speaking, the newest used cars around. When those cars were traded in, C4C required that the engines be disabled in an unrepairable manner. That took the best used cars out of the market, and poorer Americans, the ones that can only shop the used car market, faced a lower availability of used cars, pushing up prices, and the used cars that were on the market were older vehicles.
Of course, the elites who put together that cockamamie program were all wealthy enough to be new car buyers, and they knew next to nothing about the poorer Americans who could never buy new.
You’re dead bang on point. I never discuss really what I do, but, I got really, really tired of the wireless industry, and went into car sales. I worked for CarMax for a few years (made better money), and, with CFC, we suddenly saw a big reduction in vehicles that would have been lower cost alternatives for people. Ones in the 60-100 miles range, under 8 years old, which were actually in good shape. Ones in the $10-12K range, perfect for people with low or limited credit, or wanting a really low payment, a commuter vehicle, a vehicle for the kids.
It was a real shame for the customers, and for us who sold them.
[…] By William Teach […]