Slashdot Mirror


Direct Sales OK Baked Into Nevada's $1.3 Billion Incentive Deal With Tesla

The new battery factory that Tesla has announced it will build in Nevada comes with some nice perks: specifically, with a package of tax incentives, road construction, and legislative protection from the kind of dealer cartels that have hindered Tesla's ability to sell cars in some other states. A Bloomberg wire story gives some details about the size of the deal that Nevada made to attract the company: The biggest chunk of the deal, Tesla's sales tax exemptions, is worth an estimated at $725 million. In addition, the company would save more than an estimated $300 million in payroll and other taxes through 2024. ... Among the bills approved in both houses was a provision phasing out and eliminating 1970s-era tax credits for insurance companies, which backers said would free up about $125 million over five years beginning in 2016 for transferable tax credits to Tesla. The package would also gut a pilot program approved just last year giving tax credits to the film industry, freeing up about $70 million for Tesla. ... Lawmakers also agreed to buy right of way to build a road connecting I-80 and U.S. 50, a project estimated to cost $43 million that will improve access to the industrial park from other regions of the state.

36 of 149 comments (clear)

  1. Why is this legal in the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a non-American, I find the notion a government exempting one specific company from one or several taxes bizarre. Is this really legal in the U.S.? Why?

    1. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by Kkloe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      as a non-american, your country probably has\makes the same deal with major industries, you probably just dont know about it

    2. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It happens regularly in this country. The taxpayers get the shaft so private industry doesn't have spend their money. Our football teams (U.S. football, not your football), when they need a new stadium, threaten to take their team to another city unless the taxpayers cough up their money to build the new stadium and related matters, while the team continues to charge exorbitant prices.

      This country wastes hundreds of billions of dollars each year by making sure private industry doesn't have to suffer the pangs of going out and getting financing for its projects like the rest of us do when we want to buy a home or do major repairs.

      Don't forget we used several trillion dollars to prop up our banks and financial firms when, through their own incompetence, our financial system went into meltdown. These folks then used the taxpayer money to give themselves bonuses for the great job they did AND have told us taxpayers to go pound sand any time it is mentioned they should thank us for protecting them.

      For all our talk about free markets and capitalism, we are incrementally closer to fascism than we are to a representative democracy. Industry, as a whole, gets what it wants, even if it means the taxpayers have to bend over and take it.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by wile_e_wonka · · Score: 5, Informative

      This factory is expected to be gargantuan and will employ a great many smart people with good paying jobs. The factory will have a great many trucks going in and out. The money going to pay these people is coming from the income from a California company. So, well paid engineers will receive California money to purchase houses and furniture and food, etc. in NV. The engineers will pay sales taxes, property taxes, and will spend money in the casinos (I almost mentioned income taxes, until I remembered that NV doesn't have a state income tax--they have casinos instead). The calculus that NV is making with this deal is that the tax revenue it is giving up from Tesla will more than be made up for by the cut of the income they keep from the money that Tesla will pay to its employees and to NV truck drivers and suppliers, etc. The thought is that this will be a net positive for NV.

    4. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by qbast · · Score: 2

      As a non-American I find forbidding car manufacturers from selling directly to customers even more bizarre.

    5. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by plover · · Score: 2

      Don't forget we used several trillion dollars to prop up our banks and financial firms when, through their own incompetence, our financial system went into meltdown. These folks then used the taxpayer money to give themselves bonuses for the great job they did AND have told us taxpayers to go pound sand any time it is mentioned they should thank us for protecting them.

      The only thing I would disagree with in this statement is the word "incompetence." It seems to me that any banker who could walk away with millions in bonuses after all that theft is an extremely competent criminal.

      --
      John
    6. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by DrXym · · Score: 2

      The US was bitching that Apple paid a really low rate of tax in Ireland just recently while Ireland was claiming it was all above board. I'm not sure if it was or not but Ireland has always insisted their taxation scheme is transparent - it's just that it allows big corps to launder their profits through a few countries to shake off the tax liabilities.

    7. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      because corporations buying, controlling, and/or bribing government is legal.... and then the opposite is true, government can bribe corporations into doing things too (in this case, build a factory in a specific state).

      essentially the end result is, nevada tax payers are paying for most of the startup and construction costs of the factory.

    8. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least the tax breaks for Tesla make more sense than the ones for the film industry. States continuously try to attract film and television through massive incentive programs, but they only work if the state has one of the best packages at the time of filming a particular film or season.

      Texas had a good package for a while, and things were filmed here. Other states got better, and shooting moved to places like Louisiana. Right now Georgia has a great package and things like The Walking Dead and Archer are shot there, but don't for a moment think The Walking Dead wouldn't move to Louisiana or Arkansas or northern California if the incentives changed.

      It's much more difficult for Tesla to move their factory, since they'll have extensive immovable infrastructure costs. The film industry is used to packing up every 6-26 weeks as films or seasons end.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    9. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by Jaime2 · · Score: 2

      The Federal government already has a model to fight this. They just raise federal taxes and send piles of money back to individual states as long as those states fall in line. Once federal taxes are raised and a portion on the state's budget is covered, the only choices are to lower state taxes or lose people. They already did it for highway and education funding. Of course, this has done more harm than good, so it's probably better to just leave states to make their own decisions as the Constitution says they should.

      Technically, elections are supposed to be how to make people accountable. However, elections seem to be about gay marriage and religion nowadays.

    10. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by tomhath · · Score: 2

      Why would a government not want to provide incentives? It happens all the time, everywhere. Sometimes it benefits one industry a subsidy (think "green" energy), sometimes it benefits one company (think Solyndra or General Motors), sometimes it actually makes sense to help a company or lure it into your region so you can charge other taxes (Tesla). Keep in mind that the US is a federation of states - not one monolithic government. This is a state (Nevada) which is competing with other states (California and Texas). Kind of like Ireland or Poland luring companies away from France.

    11. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by weilawei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an American, I also find it really fucked up.

    12. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by knightghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most countries are just sneakier - they have government officials embedded in "private" corporations. France and China come to mind. Other countries indirectly support their home grown monopolies through technicalities.

    13. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by Adriax · · Score: 2

      If you're going to have crime then it's better to have it organized and out in the open. Easier to keep track of and keep from getting too out of hand.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    14. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 2

      "Under the EU's state aid rules, national authorities cannot take measures allowing certain companies to pay less tax than they should if the tax rules of the Member State were applied in a fair and non-discriminatory way,"

      It is not possible to specifically write one company into the law as exempt. Now it has been done by making laws such that they only apply to one company, but these practices are being sued now.

      http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...

      So no, it is not common place outside the US, and certainly not as easy.

      But the voting in the US is dominated by companies anyways, it is a very different climate and understanding of democracy than anywhere else.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    15. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by schlachter · · Score: 2

      I think a factory this big is going to lead to a thousand smaller businesses being started in the area or moving from other locations to service Tesla itself and the large population of people that Tesla will employ.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    16. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      In Nevada, they can't write a law exempting a specific company from taxes, etc. but to get around this they write the law with enough specifics to practically make it apply to only a specific company.
      In Tesla's case, the new law says "any company" which invests at least $3.5 billion and manufactures electric cars... etc. so theoretically another company could qualify for the exemption but not likely to find another company which meets all the criteria.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    17. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is the correct answer. Northwest Nevada is currently an economic wasteland. The plan is to make it a central hub of the US battery design and manufacturing industry. That applies to a lot more industries than just electric cars. If that plan works, any tax revenue they give up in the short term will be more than made up in the long term.

    18. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by kilodelta · · Score: 2

      Due to some verbiage placed into a Supreme Court ruling in the 19th century, corporations suddenly had the same rights as we flesh and blood entities.

      The case in question is Southern Pacific Railroad vs. Santa Clara County in 1886. The head reporter for the court inserted language into the judgement that asserted corporations had the same rights as people.

      That court reporter was one Bancroft Davis - may he be rotting in hell!

    19. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by jfengel · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a certain amount of lock-in to the film incentives, especially for TV series. Shooting a film requires a substantial amount of infrastructure, both personnel and equipment, which doesn't exist everywhere. These people are often not employed by the studio directly, but form local service companies. And where those companies exist, it's easier for more film projects to move in.

      Even if Walking Dead were to pack up and move, Georgia may still have accomplished its goals with the subsidies. I know that Maryland is similarly pushing this. They developed a lot of that infrastructure a while back during the filming of Homicide in Baltimore, and there have been a lot of follow-on projects. They're now trying to boost that with House of Cards, which is an enormous undertaking that employs many hundreds of people (at least part time). The resources of material and knowledge built up in the local economy attract other film projects that can do the job faster and better because it's already here, rather than building it up from scratch.

      Of course, producers know that, and will drive up the price as far as they can. Maryland nearly lost House of Cards in a kind of game of chicken; neither side wanted the production to move but each wanted to get a better deal. In the end, House of Cards largely won, and people in the local film industry are extremely happy about that. I don't know if it's really a good deal for the state in the end, but at least for the moment it's employing a lot of people, and since it's a series they'll go on having work to do for a while.

    20. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These poor Nevada citizens, winning the bidding war for thousands of new jobs, plus plenty of taxes than the ZERO they'd collect if Tesla went elsewhere.

      Poor, poor, Nevada.

    21. Re:Why is this legal in the U.S.? by macpacheco · · Score: 2

      Except in the Giga factory announcement the State Govt executive coordinating the deal made the following clarifications:
      1 - Tesla is 100% performance bound. They don't get a dime worth of benefits unless they deliver. The norm typically has been to give the benefits in hopes of the company getting them honors its word. This deal is the extreme opposite.
      2 - The bill the governor's office is sending to NV legislature isn't Tesla specific.
      Of course, I haven't read the documents. I'm just pointing out your utter ignorance for the announced facts.
      I'm yet to see Tesla / SpaceX / Elon Musk make what could be called a dirty deal.
      While most other deals are of the kind: Give me the benefits and I just might do what I promise.
      Its a projected 3% increase in NV GDP @ a US$ 1 of incentives for each US$ 80 of economical benefits.
      If you want to criticize in any meaningful way, you'll have to question the numbers instead.

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Re:On thing is fore sure. by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

    As much as I detest the man, Harry Reid has nothing to do with the State Legislature, other than perhaps some back channel clout with certain lawmakers. This is a State thing, not a Federal thing.

  4. I never liked those state/city incentives by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Not the legal protections (those are fine), I mean the monetary incentives.

    They are anti-competitive, and bad for the economy.

    Frankly, the federal government should put a user fee on them at a prohibitive rate - i.e. 50%, paid out of the money given.

    That is, if a state wishes to give a benefit worth $100 million to a company, that company owes $50 million paid immediately.

    These things are usually paid to convince someone to build X in Y state, rather than Z state. It is almost never paid to get something built inside the USA, rather than outside the USA.

    As such, any benefit to that particular state is outweighed by the loss to another state.

    It is even worse when it comes to sports teams. Then, usually the teams make out like a bandit without in any way increasing the economy of the state (in particular, big cities will always get sports teams, even if the city refuses to build a stadium, because the city is where the CUSTOMERS for sports teams live. People in NYC are not going to suddenly decided to root for and see baseball in New Jersey if the Yankees and Mets leave the city. Not even if the stadium is build in Hoboken. Instead, some other team will build a stadium in New York, earn a ton of money from New Yorkers coming to them, then buy good players and suddenly everyone will be rooting for the NYC Metros, or whatever they call themselves (just like New Yorkers don't still root for the Dodgers, after all.)

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:I never liked those state/city incentives by WillAdams · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now, now, you can't go criticizing sports teams when the N.F.L. is a non-profit organization which exists for the good of the game and to enhance the beneficial effects which the game has on society, right? I'm sure the goals of the other sports organizations are as noble and that their bookkeeping is similarly transparent.

      I'm sure that it's some bizarre, pestilential outside influence which has banned community ownership of teams (save for the grand-fathered-in Greenbay Packers) and required that a minimum percentage of a team be owned by a single individual.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    2. Re:I never liked those state/city incentives by gurps_npc · · Score: 2
      I don't find that to be a similar case

      The universities are hiring the professors, the professors would not work if they did not get paid by the state. Passing a law about two parts of an organization not competing for the individual is a very questionable act.

      In my case, the states are BRIBING companies and sports teams that would still work if they were not being paid by the state, they would simply work elsewhere. The companies are not supposed to be paid by the states, they are supposed to get money from their customers.

      My law is about stopping governments from bribing people, where the law you are talking about is stopping governments from competing with each other.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  5. Re:Connecting I-80 and U.S. 50 by sycodon · · Score: 2

    So the view of the other single wide mobile homes and the washer dryer sets in the front "yard" will be obscured?

      Nevada, for the most part, is dirt and weeds.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  6. Re:Suercaps by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 2

    Yep, and with the advancement of portable fusion reactors the need for supercaps will be going sharply down. And with the advancement of Star Trek-style transporters the need for cars will be going sharply down. And with the advancement of brain uploading technologies the need for physical transportation will be going sharply down. And so on...

    But in reality, businesses will develop their fields until they become completely unprofitable. SSDs are completely mainstream now, but all major HDD manufacturers are still developing new HDDs, and do not seem to slow down.

    And I don't see how these supercaps would outperform lithium batteries in terms of cost, efficiency, reliability and so on in the nearest decade or so. Of course, I want my goddamned flying car right now, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't buy some nice Tesla in the meantime.

    --
    Absence of proof != proof of absence.
  7. Re:The dealership model is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most options do not involve simple add-ons, but fundamentally different components or treatment (engine types, upholstery, paint colour). There is no such thing as a vanilla model.

    What you propose is essentially moving the final assembly to dealerships. That is much less efficient, it would require massive dealerships with massive investments and the only benefit would be that cars can be delivered somewhat quicker.

  8. Re:A Billion Dollars? by brunes69 · · Score: 2

    Money flows. 100,000 people working at a factory all need to spend the money they earn on consumer goods, food, and housing. All of that money makes a lot of taxes for the state, even if Tesla is not paying much tax.

  9. Re:The dealership model is broken by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 2

    >True... However the dealership model is one of the few decent middle class jobs creator in the country that doesn't require a lot of education and/or certification.

    It used to be, but sadly that is no longer true. The owner makes good money, and so do the parts manager, shop manager and sales manager. Sales droids, for the most part, don't make a living wage and don't last very long, with the exception of maybe 10% of them. Parts guys don't make squat. The mechanics make a good middle-class income, but that work needs to be done anyway whether at the dealership or a private shop. Also, being a mechanic these days takes an AA degree and lots of certifications.

    If car companies owned the retail outlets, it would all be pretty much the same, except the owner wouldn't be getting rich. If one guy owns half the Ford dealerships in the state, how is that better than Ford Motor Co. owning them?

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  10. Re:The dealership model is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    aftermarket maintenance

    That is a fantastic way to say "oil change". Thank god we have these precious dealers to bequeath unto us their holy ritual that we mere mortals are unable of performing. And let us not speak of those ne'er-do-well dens of scum and villainy known as ANY OTHER MECHANIC.

  11. Re:So, tax cuts... by Jeremi · · Score: 2

    but if a political party (let's say the GOP) proposed general tax cuts that apply to everyone, it would be mocked and pilloried by the commie libs who post here. Why?

    Commie lib here: because the GOP's tax cut proposals always amount to massive cuts for their hyper-rich campaign donors, coupled with a fig-leaf of minor tax savings for everyone else, followed one year later by the inevitable budget crunch

    that then impacts the quality of life of everyone except those who can afford to seal themselves away from society. It's a grift -- everyone but the GOP's campaign funders end up poorer afterwards.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  12. Re:A Billion Dollars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    FTA: The gigafactory is expected to create 6,500 direct jobs and thousands of indirect jobs.
    What's this about 100K jobs?

  13. Re:Connecting I-80 and U.S. 50 by tomhath · · Score: 2

    Wild just means they live in the wild; whether the animal is indigenous or exotic is another question.