Tesla Will Cut Prices To Combat Tax Credit Phase Out (cnn.com)

Tesla is cutting its car prices in the United States by $2,000 to combat a cut in a federal tax credit for its buyers. "Tesla triggered the tax credit phase-out in July when it became the first car maker in the United States to sell more than 200,000 plug-in vehicles," reports CNN. "The government designed the credit to be phased out for each automaker once it reaches that milestone." From the report: Before that benchmark, Tesla buyers were entitled to a tax credit of $7,500 for purchasing a plug-in electric car. But as of January 1, Tesla buyers will only get half that credit, or $3,750, for the next six months. The credit falls to $1,875 in July, and then disappears in 2020. The tax credit phase-out comes just as Tesla was preparing to sell a $35,000 version of its Model 3 sedan, the first time it will be taking aim at the price-conscious mass market. CEO Elon Musk said in an interview on "60 Minutes" that he expects the lower-priced version of the Model 3 to be available in five to six months.

Tesla also reported strong production and sales for the just completed fourth quarter. Total sales were up 8% and Model 3 sales were up even more, about 13%, to 63,150 vehicles. That works out to an average of about 4,900 Model 3s per week in the quarter, putting it in range of its goal of 5,000 Model 3's a week.

Comments

Sell at a loss! MAKE IT UP IN VOLUME!

[Anonymous Coward]

The doobies and booze way!

That's Unpossible

[SuperKendall]

Tesla also reported strong production and sales for the just completed fourth quarter. Total sales were up 8% and Model 3 sales were up even more, about 13%

Slashdot assured me electric car sales were saturated and that electric cars were just a fad.

I don't think Tesla cares much at all that subsidies are fading out - that is as it should be. The subsidies did the job they were designed for, got Tesla off the ground and to a place where they can sell the car on merits alone without any tax advantages. There certainly are few other cars, period, I'd be interested in looking at these days.

Re:That's Unpossible

[swillden]

The subsidies did the job they were designed for, got Tesla off the ground and to a place where they can sell the car on merits alone without any tax advantages.

Maybe. Yes, they got Tesla going, but the goal of the tax credits was to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs. By that measure, the job is far from finished. It never made sense to me that the credit phased out on a per-automaker basis. It seems to me that if it makes sense to use tax credits for this purpose, the credits should continue until a certain percentage of all new car sales are EVs. Tesla, in particular, is on the edge of being able to really increase the EV numbers in the US. A $7500 credit on an $80K model S is nice, but the car is still far too expensive for most people. A $7500 credit on a $35K Model 3, on the other hand, drops the price to $27.5K, which is in range of a relatively large set of the US population.

I'd like to see Congress restructure the credit to continue until, say, 10% of new passenger vehicles are zero-emissions.

Re:That's Unpossible

[zlives]

what is this "$35K Model 3" you speak off

Re:That's Unpossible

[AmiMoJo]

The $35k will be cancelled or dropped fairly quickly. It's just not competitive in terms of performance and features, and actually quite expensive for what it is.

They want $35k for a 200 mile range car, when Hyundai and Kia have 260 mile range cars for closer to $30k, and Nissan are about to release their new Leaf with similar spec. Those two offer you a lot more in terms of features too - by the time you add options to the Tesla to bring it up to the same level it's added $10k to the price.

I'm sure some people will buy one because it's a Tesla, but given how long people have been waiting I think most of the pre-orders will go for more expensive models having had years to save up the extra cash.

This is a good thing of course. Long range EVs got cheaper faster than anyone predicted, and Tesla's seemingly aggressive goal turned out to be pessimistic. In particular LG really stepped up with the battery tech, using pouch cells (like mobile phones) instead of cylindrical ones for lower cost and higher density.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the reasoning, but the price slashing proves that the tax incentive is artificially increasing the price of EVs across the board, thus making them less appealing to purchase and harder to justify for lower income people.

A $7500 credit on a $35K Model 3, on the other hand, drops the price to $27.5K, which is in range of a relatively large set of the US population.

Sure, except that Tesla has never actually sold a $35K Model 3. If you go to their website and try to order the cheapest possible Tesla 3, then it is $44,000 before "estimated savings" (which includes the gas savings without also including added electricity costs). With the $3,750 tax incentive, the cheapest Tesla 3 is $40,250.

In most states, there's also some form of property tax and/or sales tax, which is also on the total value, not the "estimated savings" or even tax-assisted value.

More importantly, why should the federal government be helping you to pay for greater than 20% of your car (7500/35000)? Especially for those people that already own one, the tax payers are only helping richer people keep their money while simultaneously buying a BMW-class, luxury car.

I'd like to see Congress restructure the credit to continue until, say, 10% of new passenger vehicles are zero-emissions.

This isn't realistic because they can't even manufacture that percentage even if they could sell that many. Tesla is by far the lions share of EVs sold, but they are still a small fraction of cars sold.

I hope that they continue to grow, largely because I hate most of the existing automakers and Tesla seems to be constantly improving existing models, but other companies like VW need to pick up their entry into the EV market before we see huge percentage growth markers in EV sales relative to non-EVs. We also probably need better, generic car recharging. I would not consider purchasing a non-Tesla right now due to the slow charging, and I even consider Tesla to be slow charging (compared to gas). But the thing that stops me the most is that I do not currently own a luxury car (I own a Hyundai), and I'm not going to buy a luxury car just to own an EV -- and I can afford it.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

There certainly are few other cars, period, I'd be interested in looking at these days.

Unfortunately for Tesla, most people are not as stupid as you are.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Dragonslicer]

Tesla also reported strong production and sales for the just completed fourth quarter. Total sales were up 8% and Model 3 sales were up even more, about 13%

And yet their stock price dropped about 7%, supposedly because total sales were up 8% from the previous quarter instead of 9% (a.k.a. "failed to meet Wall Street expectations). Sometimes I completely fail to understand stock market investors.

Re:That's Unpossible

[swillden]

The $35k will be cancelled or dropped fairly quickly. It's just not competitive in terms of performance and features, and actually quite expensive for what it is.

They want $35k for a 200 mile range car, when Hyundai and Kia have 260 mile range cars for closer to $30k, and Nissan are about to release their new Leaf with similar spec. Those two offer you a lot more in terms of features too - by the time you add options to the Tesla to bring it up to the same level it's added $10k to the price.

As has been discussed before, you're making a very slanted comparison, bumping the price of the Tesla to meet features of the others without doing the same in the other direction.

However, none of that has any bearing on my point, which is that if the goal is to use the tax credit to accelerate EV adoption, now is when it will really be effective.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

They are down because they missed their targets yet again and have had to cut prices which also eats into profit. What the fuck did you think was going to happen?

Re:That's Unpossible

[K. S. Kyosuke]

They want $35k for a 200 mile range car, when Hyundai and Kia have 260 mile range cars for closer to $30k

Hilarious. Are you talking about the Kona, for $30k - *after* the $7500 tax credit, manufactured at a fraction of the rate of Model 3? Originally planned 30000 vehicles per year! As many manufactured in a month as Tesla does in half a week...competition indeed? How is the $35k model "uncompetitive" against this? The waiting list for this is going to be even worse!

Re:That's Unpossible

[110010001000]

They aren't saturated yet, but it is getting there. Growth is SLOWING. I don't think you know what that means. Eventually you run out of suckers to sell $60k+ cars to.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey faggot, the fact they they have to cut prices to keep people buying their shit cars is proof that demand has collapsed.

Re:That's Unpossible

[110010001000]

Uh, that is because the price of the stock is based on the idea of EXPONENTIAL FUTURE growth. Growth of 8% isn't going to cut it. I don't understand how people don't understand the basics. The growth is slowing. It doesn't support a stock price that high, unless there will be continuous massive growth.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

The real fun will be cross checking post histories where people say specs don't matter in Apple vs PC but suddenly style doesn't matter when it comes to cars.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Actually, I do RTFA]

. It never made sense to me that the credit phased out on a per-automaker basis.

They want to encourage a healthy competition for e-Vehicles. The per-automaker basis encourages later entrants to get involved - it makes their cars cheaper and more affordable. So either they can price compete effectively with established players even if their initial costs of production are $7,500 more each, or lure customers away by offering a price competitive discount if it costs less than that.

Or, in summary, you have the goal wrong. It's not to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs. It's to incentivize EVs to exist to be shifted to

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Style does matter. And Teslas are hideously ugly.

Re:That's Unpossible

[mspohr]

Tesla growth for 2018 is up 93% and is accelerating... is that enough?

Re:That's Unpossible

[mspohr]

When they have 35% growth in 2017 and 93% growth in 2018, that doesn't seem like it's slowing.
https://www.fool.com/investing...

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

And still failed to be profitable.

Re:That's Unpossible

[110010001000]

No, growth is NOT accelerating as the last quarter proved (8% growth is bad) and the stock has a NEGATIVE P/E ratio. That is why the stock fell. So to answer your question: no that is not enough growth to support the stock.

Re:That's Unpossible

[drinkypoo]

Maybe. Yes, they got Tesla going, but the goal of the tax credits was to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs. By that measure, the job is far from finished

Maybe. Or maybe we're past the tipping point. Maybe enough people already want them that they'll get cheap and ubiquitous enough that they'll run down to their price floor sooner than later.

It never made sense to me that the credit phased out on a per-automaker basis. It seems to me that if it makes sense to use tax credits for this purpose, the credits should continue until a certain percentage of all new car sales are EVs.

Or at least until a certain number of cars are sold, based on the budget available for the program. Whoever sells them first "gets" the credit.

Re:That's Unpossible

[swillden]

. It never made sense to me that the credit phased out on a per-automaker basis.

They want to encourage a healthy competition for e-Vehicles. The per-automaker basis encourages later entrants to get involved - it makes their cars cheaper and more affordable. So either they can price compete effectively with established players even if their initial costs of production are $7,500 more each, or lure customers away by offering a price competitive discount if it costs less than that.

Or, in summary, you have the goal wrong. It's not to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs. It's to incentivize EVs to exist to be shifted to

You really think that Ford and GM need help to compete with a tiny upstart like Tesla? A little price difference isn't what's holding them back, it's broader consumer interest. You want more EVs on the market, get more EVs on the street, regardless of who makes them, and then competition will build.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Ford and GM don't. When another small upstart (that will probably eventually be purchased by Ford or GM) starts up, it'll need the help.

Re:That's Unpossible

[swillden]

Ford and GM don't. When another small upstart (that will probably eventually be purchased by Ford or GM) starts up, it'll need the help.

There won't be any more upstarts. Do you know how rare a thing a successful automaker startup is?

Re:That's Unpossible

[swillden]

Maybe. Yes, they got Tesla going, but the goal of the tax credits was to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs. By that measure, the job is far from finished

Maybe. Or maybe we're past the tipping point. Maybe enough people already want them that they'll get cheap and ubiquitous enough that they'll run down to their price floor sooner than later.

Given how weird average people think EVs are, I think we're still some way from that.

It never made sense to me that the credit phased out on a per-automaker basis. It seems to me that if it makes sense to use tax credits for this purpose, the credits should continue until a certain percentage of all new car sales are EVs.

Or at least until a certain number of cars are sold, based on the budget available for the program. Whoever sells them first "gets" the credit.

Sure, that works, too. Actually, my preferred alternative is to drop the EV subsidies and focus instead on removing the subsidies on fossil fuels, and then using taxation to internalize the externalities. For example, a carbon tax. It's quite difficult to accurately assess the full cost of fossil fuels, but I think we should take a stab at it. Honestly, whatever we come up with will probably be too low.

Re:That's Unpossible

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's not accelerating. And having TSLA with a larger market cap than Ford, GM, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, FiatChrysler, and many other car manufacturers - all of whom consistently turn a profit AND typically pay dividends, and who all sell more than the ~1% of US sales that Tesla handles, is clearly an over-priced stock with no support. If it doesn't do exponential, annual-share-doubling sales, it's a big fail. Realistically, TSLA should be down around $5 billion, like Mazda. And even that is generous.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

They want $35k for a 200 mile range car, when Hyundai and Kia have 260 mile range cars for closer to $30k

Hilarious. Are you talking about the Kona, for $30k - *after* the $7500 tax credit, manufactured at a fraction of the rate of Model 3?

The discussion is the 35k Model 3, with a current manufacturing rate of 0. They cannot yet make a 35k Model 3 so you're comparing a car that does exist with a car that doesn't and saying that latter fantastical car that doesn't even exist is more competitive.

Originally planned 30000 vehicles per year! As many manufactured in a month as Tesla does in half a week...competition indeed? How is the $35k model "uncompetitive" against this?

Because it doesn't exist. If it did exist then we could compare manufacturing rates but the manufacturing rate of the 35k Model 3 is 0 so it's hardly going to be competitive with anything that has a > 0 manufacturing rate.

Re: That's Unpossible

[mspohr]

You sound convinced. Please don't buy the stock.

Re:That's Unpossible

[sexconker]

People with brand new Teslas are having to send them back to the factory to get fixed for incredibly obvious shit. This is a trend that spiked in December.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://forums.tesla.com/forum...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Sales went up because they absolutely gutted quality control in order to roll out more vehicles before the end of the year. I'd bet my life on it being a deliberate move to placate moronic investors who still swallow the the tripe and believe the hype. Oh, you wanted us to manufacture X number of ACCEPTABLE cars? Give us another year to get those numbers up.

Re:That's Unpossible

[sexconker]

If style mattered, people wouldn't buy Mazda 3s, Priuses, or any Scion.

Re:That's Unpossible

[sexconker]

Do you know how rare a thing a successful automaker startup is?

Well it's precisely 1/N less common than you think it is.

Re:That's Unpossible

[sexconker]

I don't know how Tesla fanbois do it. Back when I had Ford stock, I felt absolutely no need to hang onto every bit of news or meticulously watch the ticket.
It was pretty boring when those dividends just kept coming in like clockwork.

Re:That's Unpossible

[LynnwoodRooster]

See, that's the problem - Ford was making money, paying dividends, and building millions of vehicles per year. The new Sillycon Valley approach is to lose billions, pay nothing, base yourself entirely on a much larger, independent 3rd party company (Panasonic, in the case of Tesla), and make less than 1% of the market - and then lead the market in market cap. Sure, you lose money on each unit, but you'll make it up in volume! The quickest way to unicorn status? A business plan that loses billions...

Re: That's Unpossible

[theskipper]

Agreed, the Jun 21 '19 180 puts are a much better buy...and you can buy 30x as much ;)

Re:That's Unpossible

[swillden]

Do you know how rare a thing a successful automaker startup is?

Well it's precisely 1/N less common than you think it is.

This comment makes no sense to me. Perhaps I'm dense. Wouldn't be the first time.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

See that poor QC is what keeps me away. As a 2 car family I love the idea of being able to replace one with an electric vehicle. There's nothing (yet) that can replace my pickup but certainly an EV as the second car would be just fine, I just don't want to have to deal with such poor quality control especially when you've got a company barely struggling to make a profit and get vehicles out the door they're just not interested in taking the time to actually fix your issue ... of course that's just the issues you can see, not the gremlins lurking beneath that the bad QC has missed.

From everything I've read and actual owners I've spoken to things seem to be getting worse.

Re:That's Unpossible

[RhettLivingston]

The performance of the Tesla Model 3 is better than that of my wife's BMW 330ci and you're comparing it to the Hyundai and Kia offerings? That is nuts.

Many, many Tesla owners bought because they want an EV and love it because they got a fun family vehicle that outperforms most sports cars. This has been making a slow but sure change in the reason people really buy Teslas, for the thrill of it.

Re: That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Also, the Kona which is sold at cost. Yes, that's right, with no profit.

Re:That's Unpossible

[DontBeAMoran]

If looks really mattered, a lot more people should wear brown bags over their head when they leave their house.

Re: That's Unpossible

[DontBeAMoran]

That's okay, they'll make it up in volume. Which goes to 11.

Re:That's Unpossible

[SuperKendall]

I don't like the look of the other Tesla models but I happen to think the Model 3 is a great looking car. I think they actually got the styling right there and I like it more than any other sedan I've seen in a long while.

Re:That's Unpossible

[inking]

That’s amazing. BoA seems to be convinced that the price cuts are a result of there being less demand. EVs will be fine; Tesla has a very good chance of going bust though:

Analysts questioned whether the $2,000 price cut on all models signaled lower demand in the United States, and ultimately whether the move would undermine nascent profitability at the Silicon Valley automaker, which has never posted an annual profit.

"In our view, this move could suggest that what many bulls assume to be a substantial backlog ... for Tesla may be less robust," wrote Bank of America analyst John Murphy in a client note.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Dragonslicer]

(8% growth is bad)

It was 8% from the third quarter to fourth quarter, which would be an annual growth rate of 36%. At that rate of growth, by 2035 Tesla would be selling 25 million cars every year, which is more than the total number of new car sales in the US (Tesla would reach 100% US market share about 2033). I would seriously question any stock broker who thinks that's a bad growth rate.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Fisker much?

Re: That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Out performs most sports cars? The 0-60 time is not competitive. Nor is the quarter mile. Not the 0-100. Not the 0-100-0. None of the performance stats are sports car range.

You Tesloids are so mindless. You will say any dumbass thing to support your religion despite all facts to the contrary.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really that stupid? 2nd to 3rd quarter had 200% growth. Maybe they should just keep that up 800% annual rate of growth up? They could be selling 27 million cars/quarter in Q2 2021!!

Re:That's Unpossible

[superdave80]

... bumping the price of the Tesla to meet features of the others without doing the same in the other direction.

How would that work? If the Kia and Leaf are already cheaper, how do you get the Tesla down to the same price (in the other direction)?

Re:That's Unpossible

[Powercntrl]

the goal of the tax credits was to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs.

Giving rich people a tax breaks on electric cars is just crony capitalism. The government should only step in when the free market has completely failed (healthcare/drug costs, monopolies, those sorts of things).

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Just nod and let the crazy man believe his short sales aren't going to bankrupt him.

Re:That's Unpossible

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Because it doesn't exist. If it did exist then we could compare manufacturing rates but the manufacturing rate of the 35k Model 3 is 0 so it's hardly going to be competitive with anything that has a > 0 manufacturing rate.

Didn't Bolt beat Model 3 to the market by 8 month? And yet, today, Model 3 is being produced at a rate of over 20000 units per month where Bolt remains at 2000 per month or so. So while you may be technically correct, if I mentally time-travel to January 2017, your argument that this somehow predicts future performance falls apart.

Re: That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

The Model 3 performance model has been clocked at 0-60 in 3.3s. That would beat the 2019 Corvette Grand Sport. It is certainly competitive, in a similar price class, and a vastly safer car.

Re:That's Unpossible

[AmiMoJo]

The Kona is less than the $35k Model 3 before the tax credit here. They are ramping up production fast too, deliveries scheduled for September are arriving this month.

Also note that the Model 3 isn't even available outside the US. If you live in Europe you can't buy one, there is no launch date for the expensive models, and if you order now the earliest delivery you could expect is some time in 2020.

Re:That's Unpossible

[AmiMoJo]

Well the Kona has been benchmarked at 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, which isn't far off the base Model X at 6.0 seconds. Of course the base X costs more than 2x as much.

But it really depends how you define performance. The range of the Kona and Niro is comparable to the most expensive Tesla models, and greatly exceeds the $35k base model. In terms of features they are much higher spec than the base model, and particularly the Niro is more practical too in terms of having more cargo space and a much, much larger boot (trunk) opening.

Also, you can buy both of them outside the US. The Model 3 isn't even available anywhere else yet.

I'm not saying Tesla cars are bad or anything, just that at the affordable end of the market they have been overtaken. That's a good thing, it will drive them to improve hopefully, and means we have more options. Also, I'm not a badge snob, if it's a good car I don't care if it says Kia or Hyundai on it.

Re: That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no teslas at the tracks for a reason.....

Re:That's Unpossible

[bluefoxlucid]

the goal of the tax credits was to incentivize Americans to shift to EVs. By that measure, the job is far from finished. It never made sense to me that the credit phased out on a per-automaker basis

I prefer the invisible-hand approach (yes, I know), so I never liked consumer-end subsidies. We should have subsidized the manufacturers.

When you buy a car, you buy a $12,000 used Chevy Volt. The other $25,000 is useful for other things.

Well, wait, if you buy a new Tesla, you get $7,500 from the Government. If you don't buy the Tesla, you lose $7,500 when the subsidies go away, so now there's an incentive to buy the new Tesla. Demand goes up, and of course the manufacturers raise the price to take that subsidy for themselves.

So...you can't sell a $30,000 car for $25,000. It won't work. You need to sell above cost or you'll be out of business.

Well, for each actual sale, we could give the manufacturers $7,500. That $35,000 car is now a $27,500 car. It's competing with $30,000 cars, so people who were looking for a new $30,000 car are now looking at this $27,500 car priced competitively and with competitive features. Lower price, same demand, higher quantity demanded.

That's how you get the market to solve the problem. At this point I'd say we should implement such a subsidy.

Re:That's Unpossible

[drinkypoo]

You really think that Ford and GM need help to compete with a tiny upstart like Tesla?

Absolutely yes. Ford's sales continue to fall, GM has already had to be bailed out, and wall street has nothing but disdain for both corporations.

Re: That's Unpossible

[mspohr]

Shorts gotta do what shorts do.

Re:That's Unpossible

[drinkypoo]

See, that's the problem - Ford was making money, paying dividends, and building millions of vehicles per year.

Wall street doesn't want dividends, they want splits, so that traders can make money on them. Neither GM nor Ford has anything special in the pipeline; all automakers are chanting the same crap about mobility services, but none of them have a game-changing plan for delivering them.

Re:That's Unpossible

[swillden]

You really think that Ford and GM need help to compete with a tiny upstart like Tesla?

Absolutely yes. Ford's sales continue to fall, GM has already had to be bailed out, and wall street has nothing but disdain for both corporations.

Okay, do you think they deserve help? :-)

More seriously, do you think that tax dollars pumped into encouraging sales of Ford/GM EVs will do more to get EVs on the road than pumping the same dollars into Tesla? I don't. And the healthy, well-run automakers don't need help to compete with Tesla.

Re:That's Unpossible

[swillden]

Heh. I prefer the even more invisible hand. Don't subsidize at all, just internalize the externalities of fossil fuels. Tax tailpipe emissions. Adding a few dollars per gallon of pollution taxes, or a couple thousand per year of pollution taxes at vehicle registration time (has challenges, but would enable innovation in pollution capture/reduction technologies), would make EVs much cheaper to operate and have all sorts of other beneficial market-based effects toward reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Re: That's Unpossible

[terrycarlino]

There are no teslas at the tracks for a reason.....

Yes that would be that the racing organizations have rules that prevent any car not using an internal combustion engine from qualifying, regardless of its capabilities. Its the same reason gas turbine vehicles are not allowed at the track, despite being superior in almost every way in the racing environment, if not on the road.

I'm not a rabid Tesla fan, or an EV fan either. They are a niche vehicle, only good for local transport. In that niche they are adequate, but still overly expensive for what they are. This will change as technology gets better and economy of scale kicks in.

Any one who is honest can't knock their performance though. The Model 3 3.3 sec 0-60. The Model S 2.5 sec 0-60 speed makes it the fastest production car in the world, equal to the famous Bugatti Veyron, which is no longer being produced and cost much more. So $78K compared to $1.5 million.

Re:That's Unpossible

[K. S. Kyosuke]

The Kona is less than the $35k Model 3 before the tax credit here.

Kona is $30k after tax credit and $37.5k before. The $35k Model 3 is supposed to be $35k before tax credit.

Also note that the Model 3 isn't even available outside the US. If you live in Europe you can't buy one, there is no launch date for the expensive models, and if you order now the earliest delivery you could expect is some time in 2020.

Well, in that case, neither can I buy a Kona at one tenth the manufacturing rate.

Re:That's Unpossible

[bluefoxlucid]

Excise tax mostly hurts the poor. You're not making EVs cheaper; you're making non-EVs more-expensive.

Imagine if poor people could afford 30 days's worth of cheap junk-quality food or 12 days's worth of produce and fresh meat. They keep buying garbage processed canned goods, so you tax the shit out of it so they can only afford 9 days's worth of canned goods. What happens?

Re:That's Unpossible

[AmiMoJo]

As I say, it depends where you live. In Europe the base spec 64kWh Kona is cheaper than the $35k Model 3, based on current Tesla USD:EUR pricing conversions. And you can order a Kona now, with delivery around late January/February from what people are reporting. The system tells everyone "September" by default but people who ordered last month are getting emails saying their car is due in a couple of weeks.

Re:That's Unpossible

[K. S. Kyosuke]

the base spec 64kWh Kona

How is the long-range model "base spec"?

is cheaper than the $35k Model 3

How is 39k Euro cheaper than $35k?

And you can order a Kona now, with delivery around late January/February

I hope I'd be luckier than Canadians.

Re:That's Unpossible

[LynnwoodRooster]

They seem to be able to deliver millions of vehicles that people want - which in the US, is NOT cars (it's SUVs and trucks). No need to be flashy if you want to make money. Of course, Ford and GM actually make profit - Tesla? We'll see - they just fell below Musk's vaunted "5000 Model 3s a week!" production rate last quarter, so...

Re:That's Unpossible

[AmiMoJo]

The 64kWh version is the closet to the Model 3 Short Range spec in terms of price and performance. It's a bit awkward, the Model 3 SR is expected to have about 10-20% better range than the 39kWh Kona, maybe calc, maybe 20-25% less than the 64kWh model, so it's right in the middle.

39k Euro is in Germany and includes tax of 19%. If you deduct that it becomes 31.5k Euro, significantly cheaper than the Model 3 SR. As ever in the US, $35k is before tax.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk to me when ANY other car manufacturer has a long-distance network to let you travel in your EV more than, say 400 miles in a day. This is the one thing EVERY other manufacturer is completely missing the boat on. Sure, most people will use them as commuter vehicles, but only a Tesla can be used beyond that frankly.

Re:That's Unpossible

[Anonymous Coward]

Why compare it to a Model X which is closer to a SUV (can seat 7) than the sedan, a Model S (seats 5) which is more comparable? Oh, because the 0-60 time on a base model S is 4.2 seconds which is QUITE a bit different than the Kona's 6.3.

Doesn't that justify its phase out?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is explicit evidence that the phase out of the tax credit is justified.

The federal government should not be funding luxury car purchases that also quite literally increase the price of the car, just because the federal government will pick up the tab.

Re:Doesn't that justify its phase out?

[Anonymous Coward]

My kingdom for mod points (for some reason, I used to almost always have plenty but the recently, perhaps the last month, I rarely get them).

Re:Doesn't that justify its phase out?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a hell of a lot cheaper than the trillion dollar oil wars of the past.

Re:Doesn't that justify its phase out?

[Powercntrl]

This is explicit evidence that the phase out of the tax credit is justified.

You actually can witness this shit every time eBay does one of their "X% Off Everything!" coupons. The sellers jack up the prices proportionally. Subsidizing the cost of things in a free market doesn't actually make them cheaper.

This is a CNN story

[WCMI92]

So it is probably fake right?

Re:This is a CNN story

[Anonymous Coward]

They may have missed a few details

Re:This is a CNN story

[Gravis Zero]

This is a CNN story so it is probably fake right?

Only if you get your information from an entertainment network that explicitly dodges liability for it's lies because it's "not a news station" or are gullible enough to believe what a documented compulsive liar tells you.

There are other incentive programs

[bobstreo]

Local electric providers around me have sent out a couple offers towards the purchase of a (I assume new) EV. Rebates and other incentives are available.

Of course if you got the full Federal tax credit on top of it all, it ended up quite good, considering the cost the of Nissan Leaf was only 23K.

I'm surprised Tesla didn't raise the price instead. There is a waiting list, so you could consider their products as high in demand, low in supply.

Re:There are other incentive programs

[RhettLivingston]

I was not in the least surprised to see the price drop and see the fact that they didn't drop it $3750 as a sign that they are still supply constrained.

There will be a bit of a drop off in US demand now, but it will be more than compensated for by a shift of more than half of the supply to the overseas markets which should be larger than the American market and will, once again, be soaking up the highest end Model 3s first keeping margins very high for the next half year though there will be a glitch in 1Q due to the need to fill the long supply pipeline to foreign markets. The pipeline depth will soak up at least 3 weeks production just to get it filled. Thus 1Q sales will likely be 3 weeks production short of 1Q production.

By the time they fill the high-end foreign demand backlog six to nine months from now, the low-end Model 3 will be ready to step in, and we'll be simultaneously discussing the impending Model Y and 1st Semi shipments while viewing videos of sightings of the pickup prototype. It will be a good year though 2020 will surpass it.

Re:There are other incentive programs

[slashdice]

The waiting list is idiots who put $1000 down hoping to buy a $25,000 (after state and federal tax credits) Tesla. They'll be waiting quite a bit. But yes, there is a high demand for a $25,000 Tesla.

Further Proof

[makotech222]

Further proof that tax cuts merely inflate profit, not make it more affordable for people to buy.

Re:Further Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its proof that Tesla a) understands the inverse relationship between price and demand and b) is a public company in an industry where monthly production quotas are a common measuring stick.

We know Tesla is cash short, so it would either have to slow production to not "waste" cash on unsold inventory - with little or no fixed cost savings, and a hit to stock / reputation; or drop the top-line price and sacrifice marginal revenue that way, but generally maintaining production volume without increasing holding costs.

Also, the price cut of $2000 is less than $3750 drop in the tax credit.

Re:Further Proof

[im_thatoneguy]

Further proof that conservatives just hate Tesla.

When Tesla is unprofitable (even with "inflated" prices) they say Tesla is a sham that can't make money so we shouldn't be subsidizing a failed business model.

When those "inflated" (subsidized) prices finally help build a sustainable business suddenly it's proof that they never needed subsidies and Tesla was always going to succeed anyway.

The same is said of wind power and solar. We shouldn't offer solar\wind subsidies because they're a dead end waste of money. When solar\wind finally are cost effective then suddenly those subsidies are scams because solar\wind is cost competitive.

I guess expecting people to see cause\effect relationships is asking too much. Kind of like the person who said Bush and Obama shared "equal blame" for the financial crisis... of 2007 (a year before Obama took office).

Re:Further Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla is still unprofitable.

Re:Further Proof

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how much of your tax money has ended up in tesla hands?

I'm guessing no.

Re:Further Proof

[DNS-and-BIND]

Who's saying this? Citation please? I can't imagine anyone but Libertarians. Tesla is a business hero to many conservatives.

Re:Further Proof

[makotech222]

1. I'm a Marxist, not a conservative 2. Tesla is still not profitable, so all that tax money did was go to the investors 3. A tax credit for buying a Tesla isn't the same as a subsidy for producing a good (wind/solar). A tax credit for purchase intends to make a customer choose the credited option over a different option. A subsidy would target the creation of a good to make production more economically viable because producing it would be a social good that offsets the subsidy cost. I have more to say about how the free market is a terrible way to run an economy, but I'll leave it at that. I disagree strongly that private capitalists should be allowed to profit off of government funds, but, since the government is owned by the same capitalists, its not likely to change any time soon.

Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

Since we're no longer subsidizing electric cars, how about we stop subsidizing oil for ICE cars too? How about we stop subsidizing coal too? Putting tons of CO2 into the air is currently 100% environmentally subsidized and that needs to end before it destroys our ecosystem. Instead, people need to start paying so that every gram of CO2 released is also being extracted. It's a market friendly solution to pollution but wouldn't you know it there are people who are against accepting personal responsibility for their own actions.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we all move to a deamworld where we can maintain our current standard of living while not using fossil fuels.

As far as these kickbacks, I'm sick of paying for my co-workers cars when they are making north of 150k/yr.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the non existent subsidies.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Solandri]

On a per unit of energy basis, the subsidies for renewables far, far exceed subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear. If you factor in fuel taxes, there's a huge net tax on oil consumption. Zeroing those out to make for "fair play" would put renewables at a monumentally huge disadvantage.

EV owners are going to be hit by the fuel tax portion of this in the coming years. Fuel taxes are used to pay for construction and maintenance of roads. EVs, by virtue of not using gasoline, are not paying for the roads they ride upon. So as the percentage of EVs on the road increases, the amount of money available to build and maintain roads decreases. States are thus experimenting with an extra vehicle registration fee for EVs. As the nationwide average of federal and state gasoline taxes is about 50 cents/gallon, and each car on average consumes about 650 gallons a year, that's an extra $325/yr that EV owners will have to pay to register their car.

Also, forcing people to pay for every gram of CO2 they emit is a tax on breathing.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Jeremi]

Since we're no longer subsidizing electric cars, how about we stop subsidizing oil for ICE cars too?

Except, we are still subsidizing electric cars. Tesla reached its first cap when it sold its 200,000th vehicle, just like every manufacturer will at some point. Even so, they are still getting a (smaller) federal subsidy, plus various state and local subsidies.

Re:Time for fair play.

[LynnwoodRooster]

What are the subsidies given to the oil companies? Please list them, and explain how they are exclusive to just the oil companies and not all corporations.

Re:Time for fair play.

[swillden]

So as the percentage of EVs on the road increases, the amount of money available to build and maintain roads decreases. States are thus experimenting with an extra vehicle registration fee for EVs.

States should really take the opportunity to rationalize the road construction and maintenance cost allocation. According to the US GAO, road damage is proportional to the fourth power of per-axle weight, times the number of axles. They estimate that an 18-wheeler does 9,600 times as much damage as a passenger sedan, and that's on a per-mile basis. When you also factor in that many trucks cover 100K miles per year, vs, say, 15K for a car, that means the trucker's share is 64,000 times that of the car owner.

This approach should be applied uniformly: every vehicle, large and small, should be assessed an annual tax based on miles driven and a * (w/a)^4, where a is the number of axles and w is the vehicle weight. That's not quite accurate because weight isn't distributed evently, but it's close enough. EVs would end up paying more than their ICEV counterparts, because they tend to be heavier.

Oh, of course, with this system, all gasoline and diesel taxes that fund road maintenance should be dropped, and replaced with pollution taxes which attempt to compensate for the environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. CO2, particulates, NOx, etc.

Also, forcing people to pay for every gram of CO2 they emit is a tax on breathing.

Nonsense. Unless they're eating fossil fuels, people are carbon neutral. Every gram of CO2 they emit is a gram of CO2 that was absorbed by the plants they ate (or the plants that were eaten by the animals they ate, etc.). The problem isn't CO2 emissions, the problem is the emission of CO2 that was dug out of the ground where it had been safely locked away.

Re:Time for fair play.

[swillden]

Nonsense. Unless they're eating fossil fuels, people are carbon neutral. Every gram of CO2 they emit is a gram of CO2 that was absorbed by the plants they ate (or the plants that were eaten by the animals they ate, etc.). The problem isn't CO2 emissions, the problem is the emission of CO2 that was dug out of the ground where it had been safely locked away.

Oh, I should also note that a proper carbon tax would not apply to fuels that are biological in origin. So biodiesel, the ethyl alcohol in ethanol, etc, would not be taxed. If subsidies on ethanol were dropped as these taxes were imposed, this would also allow market forces to rationalize ethanol production. Odds are that it would kill ethanol dead, since the farmers growing the corn to make the alcohol and the distillers running the alcohol production operations would have to pay pollution taxes on all of the fossil fuels they use.

But, whatever, if we just tax fossil fuels adequately to internalize the pollution externalities then let the markets work, all of that will be sorted out.

Re:Time for fair play.

[sexconker]

the nationwide average of federal and state gasoline taxes is about 50 cents/gallon

Man, fuck my state.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

For immediate and direct monetary subsidies there is a brief report by the Treasury department in 2015: https://www.treasury.gov/open/...
However, the more important and far more expensive is the environmental subsidies. Basically, they've gifted corporations the right to sell products that causes pollution when used without having to clean the pollution up. That gift is by definition a subsidy (check your own link if you want) and therefore it's subsidized pollution. We need to start including the full price of a product in it's sale price.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn’t faggot.

Re:Time for fair play.

[whoever57]

Fuel taxes are used to pay for construction and maintenance of roads. EVs, by virtue of not using gasoline, are not paying for the roads they ride upon.

Neither are large trucks, which cause almost all the damage to road surfaces. That's a much bigger financial hit.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

This approach should be applied uniformly: every vehicle, large and small, should be assessed an annual tax based on miles driven and a * (w/a)^4, where a is the number of axles and w is the vehicle weight.

Get ready for amazon prime to only be $50 for shipping per item instead of the plebian $100 with that tax policy.

Anything but local shipping would be prohibitively expensive. Say goodbye to international produce. Who will buy fruit in the winter when it's $40 a pound?

Think about what the world you want to live in would be like if no one but the wealthy could afford anything produced more than 100 miles away from their homes.

Having pure EV shipping wouldn't even decrease the cost.

That crazy world got 4 moderation points from people with greater capacity for ideals than critical thinking.

Re:Time for fair play.

[dgatwood]

States should really take the opportunity to rationalize the road construction and maintenance cost allocation. According to the US GAO, road damage is proportional to the fourth power of per-axle weight, times the number of axles. They estimate that an 18-wheeler does 9,600 times as much damage as a passenger sedan, and that's on a per-mile basis. When you also factor in that many trucks cover 100K miles per year, vs, say, 15K for a car, that means the trucker's share is 64,000 times that of the car owner.

This. One of the best things about driving a Tesla is realizing that I'm no longer helping subsidize the trucking industry's massive externality. We should be massively expanding our country's (electric) rail network, not using trucks (diesel or otherwise) to deliver everything.

If diesel fuel were charged at a fair tax (about $4,500 per gallon of diesel fuel), we would have the best road and rail system in the country. Heck, even if we charged trucking companies only 0.1% of their fair share (about 7x what they pay now), that alone would make a huge difference in improving the state of our country's failing infrastructure. Just saying.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is, fuckwad.

Re:Time for fair play.

[exomondo]

We need to start including the full price of a product in it's sale price.

Yeah "we need to" do a lot of things, a lot of people say that about a whole lot of different things but actually doing something is a very different ballgame so how about this: you work out how much that is (the full price of the product) for all the things you buy, tally that up and let us know how much it is, then you donate that to an environmental organization. That should get the ball rolling.

Let's see how much your fully unsubsidized life works out to. You say "we need to" do this, so I'm curious to see specifically what that would mean.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Powercntrl]

It's a market friendly solution to pollution but wouldn't you know it there are people who are against accepting personal responsibility for their own actions.

So, people living paycheck-to-paycheck have to pay more for gas? I suppose that means less food for their kids, because "Sorry little Billy, we've gotta save the planet!".

Look, I'm all for environmental stewardship, but do it in a way that doesn't fuck up the standard of living for people who are struggling to get by. Perhaps, oh, I don't know, maybe find a way to make the 1%ers pay for it? Those who derived the biggest benefits from society should bear the lion's share of the financial burden to maintain it. I know, not a popular idea in the USA where we're more inclined to punish the poor for their failure to be successful, than require the rich to give back a bit of their success.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're eating petroleum based fertilizers.
Surely you know that?
Why do you think corn based products are so cheap? Beef? We're literally converting fossil fuels into artificially large amounts of food. It's part of why most people are obese.

It's insane shit man.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

The poor will always be victims when change is required and nobody considers them. However, discussing caveats when introducing a general concept is just wasting people's time and derailing the discussion with details that aren't foundational.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you fucking retarded? What kind of argument is that? Seriously, choke on a dick.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

you work out how much that is (the full price of the product) for all the things you buy, tally that up and let us know how much it is, then you donate that to an environmental organization.

Sadly, the environmental cost of many products is hidden from the buyers. It would require government regulation to ensure the proper pricing is applied. However, your point that it would cost more and you snidely do not wish to pay for it is exactly the point. This new market force will result in an entirely new line of products that are far more environmentally friendly and therefore less expensive than existing products. The key is not to dump high prices on everyone all at once but rather slowly raise them an allow companies to adapt.

The free market isn't perfect but cost optimization is something it does very well.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

OH MY FUCKING GOD! Just kill yourself already!

Re:Time for fair play.

[swillden]

This approach should be applied uniformly: every vehicle, large and small, should be assessed an annual tax based on miles driven and a * (w/a)^4, where a is the number of axles and w is the vehicle weight.

Get ready for amazon prime to only be $50 for shipping per item instead of the plebian $100 with that tax policy.

You're exaggerating wildly, but let's assume you're accurate. What does that mean? It means that Amazon Prime is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. We're forcibly collecting money from hundreds of millions -- and collecting most of it from the non-wealthy -- then burying that money in long strips in the ground.

You're implicitly assuming that trucking is the only possible long-distance delivery mechanism. It's absolutely not. Rail is better and cheaper in virtually every way, including being easier to electrify. But rail is used only for the heaviest bulk cargos in the US because of the massive subsidy the trucking industry gets. This is economically wasteful, which hurts all of us.

It's much better to remove the subsidies, internalize the externalities and then let market forces work their optimization magic. We'll spend less of our GDP on shipping... and if shipping costs go up, they'll go up by less than the amount that Americans save on road maintenance, and those savings will be distributed among all vehicle owners.

That crazy world got 4 moderation points from people with greater capacity for ideals than critical thinking.

Actually, it got moderation points from people can do math and understand economics.

Re:Time for fair play.

[swillden]

If diesel fuel were charged at a fair tax (about $4,500 per gallon of diesel fuel)

That's three orders of magnitude too high (should be $4.03; see below), and, also, there are lots of diesel-using vehicles that aren't semi trucks so taxing the fuel isn't the right approach. We should tax vehicle miles by weight and axles.

Your comment motivated me to look up some numbers and do some calculations (that link is a Google Sheet, which links to my sources). From the DoT's 2016 report (the latest available), 247,644,981 light duty vehicles logged 2,849,718,000,000 miles, while 11,498,561 trucks logged 287,895,000,000 miles. Applying the 9600x damage factor to the trucks, that makes their mileage 2,763,792,000,000,000. The total cost of roads and highways in 2016 was $219B. Based on damage-adjusted miles, the light duty vehicle share of that is $225,576,097.53 while the truck share of that is $218,774,423,902.47.

On a per-vehicle basis, the light-duty share is $0.91 (!), while the truck share is $19,026.24. That last number sounds terrible for truckers, but it's really not so bad when you compare it to the existing costs of trucking.

The current cost per mile (2017 ATRI numbers; yeah I should find their 2016 report instead) is $1.59. That includes equipment, labor, fuel, taxes, fees, everything. The share per damage-adjusted mile of the 2016 highway maintenance costs is $0.76, and the current per-mile cost of fuel taxes is $0.07. So after dropping the fuel taxes and adding the $0.76, we get a new per-mile cost of $2.28. This means the cost of truck transport would increase by 43%. That's a considerable amount, large enough that it would need to be phased in over time, but it's far from unmanageable.

Oh, and as for the "fair" fuel tax: The trucking industry used 54B gallons of fuel in 2016. If the damage-based cost were allocated to the industry with fuel taxes, we'd need to replace the current ~$0.07 taxes with $4.03.

Re:Time for fair play.

[swillden]

This approach should be applied uniformly: every vehicle, large and small, should be assessed an annual tax based on miles driven and a * (w/a)^4, where a is the number of axles and w is the vehicle weight.

Get ready for amazon prime to only be $50 for shipping per item instead of the plebian $100 with that tax policy.

Actually, I ran the numbers, and the cost of truck transport would increase by about 43%. Of course, the total cost of shipping includes a lot more than just the truck transport, and Amazon Prime fees cover more than just shipping, but if we ignore all that then my proposal means that the cost of Prime will go from $119 (the current cost, not $100) to $170.

That crazy world got 4 moderation points from people with greater capacity for ideals than critical thinking.

You should be more careful when you accuse people of not thinking critically.

Re:Time for fair play.

[drinkypoo]

If diesel fuel were charged at a fair tax (about $4,500 per gallon of diesel fuel), we would have the best road and rail system in the country.

Long-haul rail depends on diesel, so no we wouldn't. Also, my car runs on diesel, it was built in 1982 and gets 30 MPG on the freeway. I drive far less than average, so the energy cost of production of a vehicle is far more critical for me than for the average person. Around a third of a normal person's vehicle's typical lifetime energy consumption is spent in production, but for me it's probably more like two-thirds or more. By not buying a vehicle every ten years (as is typical) I save enough energy to make up for at least two other people who do. And since my car has no emissions equipment, it produces safer emissions than modern cars. DPFs burn soot until it comes out as finer particles you can't see, and gassers produce just as much soot as diesels, but my car produces nice big chunky soot particles that are easy to cough up.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like you're advocating for diesel transport trucks. After all, the vast majority of costs you mentioned are for road maintenance. And diesel transport trucks are cheaper than electric transport trucks. The cost of the fuel (before taxes) would pale in comparison to the taxes, which would still be present for the electric transport truck.

Good job, by using the government to solve the problem you didn't.

Re:Time for fair play.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Deductions from taxes aren't subsidies. Or do you claim all your own tax deductions are subsidies? You have to pay taxes to get a subsidy. NONE of that list you linked are subsidies; they are deductions, and are analogous in each case to allowed deductions in other industries. There are no subsidies you've provided. None. Zero.

Now, you want to talk about environmental damage? Cool! Then let's also include the damage for refining steel, copper, rare earth metals, and such as needed for building renewable energy sources. And then let's deduct the benefits of the results - the petroleum used for fertilizer and medicines. The plastics used for preservatives and coverings. The petroleum used to build cable sheathing for PV arrays. Or do you only want to consider costs? Then let's rack them up... You'll find that "big oil" is a massive net contributor to the quality of life we live.

You can go live in the Borneo or Congolese jungle and be free of the influence of "big oil" - we'll see what you think of the results. Remember, no plastics, nothing manufactured after ~1880, no modern medicines. Get rid of that "vegan leather" belt, and make sure you sail across the ocean on a wooden boat with cloth sails...

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

Deductions from taxes aren't subsidies.

LOL! What planet do you live on? It sounds nice there.

Now, you want to talk about environmental damage? Cool! Then let's also include the damage for refining steel, copper, rare earth metals, and such as needed for building renewable energy sources.

This is correct. If done improperly then all manufacturing can have serious environmental consequences. However, it should be noted that once refined, it's quite easy to recycle these things. While I may be pointing out petroleum pollution in this case, I think that all manufacturing should have to pay to clean up the pollution they cause. People and organizations of all kinds around the world should be all be held responsible for their pollution and the best way to do that is to include the price of reversing the pollution directly in the price of the goods/service they are selling. Why is that idea so objectionable to you?

And then let's deduct the benefits of the results - the petroleum used for fertilizer and medicines.

You're just acting silly now. The problem is the pollution from burning petroleum, not petroleum itself.

Re:Time for fair play.

[swillden]

Sounds like you're advocating for diesel transport trucks.

No, I'm advocating for fair allocation of road construction and maintenance costs.

After all, the vast majority of costs you mentioned are for road maintenance.

Not "the vast majority". All. Except at the and where I shifted gears to talk about pollution taxes. Which would, of course, deter the use of diesel transport trucks.

You should re-read the post you replied to.

Re:Time for fair play.

[LynnwoodRooster]

There's a reason I linked to the definition of a subsidy. I guess you consider yourself subsidized because you take an income tax deduction? Subsidies are a cash grant; only an idiot or liar would claim that a cut in taxes (meaning you pay less, but you still pay) is a subsidy. So which are you?

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

Subsidies are a cash grant; only an idiot or liar would claim that a cut in taxes (meaning you pay less, but you still pay) is a subsidy.

well you better go fix wikipedia and some dictionaries! LOL!

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Tax subsidy
Government can create the same outcome through selective tax breaks as through cash payment.[3] For example, suppose a government sends monetary assistance that reimburses 15% of all health expenditures to a group that is paying 15% income tax. Exactly the same subsidy is achieved by giving a health tax deduction. Tax subsidies are also known as tax expenditures. Tax subsidies are one of the main explanations for why the American tax code is so complicated.[8]

Tax breaks are often considered to be a subsidy. Like other subsidies, they distort the economy; but tax breaks are also less transparent, and are difficult to undo.[9]

https://dictionary.cambridge.o...

tax subsidy
noun [ C or U ] UK US TAX, GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS
a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:

Re:Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

a * (w/a)^4, where a is the number of axles and w is the vehicle weight

That seems fair.
Now if only we could set up all laws in this functional fashion instead of the stereotypical legalese.
Bonus points if it's kept in version control and there were a pull-request feature where suggested changes to law are ratified by a voting body.

Re:Time for fair play.

[exomondo]

However, your point that it would cost more and you snidely do not wish to pay for it is exactly the point.

I never said or implied that, my point is that you're saying "we need to" do this but the reality is you can't even say how much that would be or even suggest how you would go about making it happen much less actually do anything to make it happen. If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.

Re:Time for fair play.

[exomondo]

It's not an argument at all, try again.

Re:Time for fair play.

[exomondo]

Haha, I'll just leave it up to you but you'll just keep telling me how you need to do it but never actually do anything :P

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

my point is that you're saying "we need to" do this but the reality is you can't even say how much that would be or even suggest how you would go about making it happen much less actually do anything to make it happen.

How much it costs is dependent on the product and the manufacturing process. Do you expect me to go and investigate every product before suggesting something? Also, I pointed out that government regulation is the way to accomplish this. It's not rocket science to know you need the government involved here.

If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.

Well the alternative is turning the planet into Venus and everything dies, so what's that worth to you?

Re:Time for fair play.

[dgatwood]

There has to be something very wrong with either your numbers or your approach. The damage per mile for an 18-wheeler is, assuming it is fully loaded down, ~10,000 times that of a passenger car, and you're advocating raising the gas tax to only a factor of 10 times what cars pay.

Diesel trucks use somewhere on the order of 4x as much fuel per mile. Divide that 10k by 10 and you have 1k, and divide it by 4, and you get 250. With your approach, trucks are paying on the order of 1/250th of their fair share.

For your numbers to be reasonable, diesel trucks would have to burn 1000x as much fuel per mile as passenger cars, which would require trucks with gas tanks approximately as big as a thirty-foot swimming pool. Clearly, this is not the case.

The biggest problem I see is adding the cost of equipment in, as though we should treat that as somehow paying for the cost of roadways. That causes you to be off by one entire order of magnitude compared with the fuel costs, which are only a small part of the cost of trucking. However, your 54B number is also problematic. The industry as a whole used 54B gallons of fuel, but only used 39B gallons of that were diesel fuel, which is to say that the 54B gallon number includes a very large number of vehicles that aren't even big enough to use diesel. If you only want to look at big rigs, the number is likely single-digit billions, and given that smaller trucks do orders of magnitude less damage, we really have to focus on big rigs here.

The only reasonable way to tax this would be to take (at least) the road repair portion of the gasoline tax, multiply it times the weight multiplier (9,600 or whatever), and divide it by some factor based on the vehicle's miles per gallon (4-ish) compared with a normal passenger vehicle.

To be fair, only about two-thirds of state gas taxes go to pay for road maintenance, but the rest are usually spent for things like public transit infrastructure, and it seems reasonable to pass that on to the trucking industry as well, to pay for rail infrastructure expansion and improvements that would dramatically improve long-haul transportation efficiency when compared with trucking.

Bearing in mind that light duty trucks do not fill up at the same gas stations as tractor trailers (they won't fit under the canopy at a normal gas station), it seems entirely plausible that we could tax their fuel differently.

An alternative approach would be to dramatically increase the heavy vehicle use tax, basing it on mileage. Currently, this tax is capped at only $550 per vehicle per year, and only for vehicles over 55,000 pounds. If we lowered the limit to 10,000 pounds (about twice the heaviest passenger vehicles on the road) and taxed it at a rate of m[*d*((a/5000)^4) - b] where m is the mileage, a is the axle weight, computed as the taxable weight divided by the number of axles, b is the road damage estimate for a two-axle vehicle that weighs 10,000 pounds, and d is twice the baseline damage caused by an average passenger vehicle, you'd be in the ballpark.

In a a state with 35.6 cents per gallon state tax plus 24.4 cents per gallon federal tax, with 60% of the state tax for road repair, we get 21.36 + 24.4 cents, or 45.76 cents per gallon going to road repairs, divided by 24.7 miles per gallon on average, or 1.85 cents per mile for an average passenger vehicle. That's b, and the average vehicle weight for those vehicles is about 4,000 pounds.

Road damage for a 10k pound vehicle is (2.5^4) times that, which is about 39x, so 72.15 cents per mile. That's d.

So for a five-axle vehicle that travels 5,000 miles and weighs 80,000 pounds (16,000 per axle), m[*d*((w/10000)^4) - b] is 5000[(.7215 *(3.2^4)) - .0185], or about $378k.

I'll let you ponder the degree of an externality so massive that a truck can do $378k in damage and pay only $550 in heavy vehicle use taxes plus about $370 in gas taxes to cover that damage.

Re:Time for fair play.

[swillden]

My numbers and approach are fully detailed in the spreadsheet I linked. Take a look; if there's a problem you should be able to point to it.

The biggest problem I see is adding the cost of equipment in

Huh? I didn't add cost of equipment in anywhere.

Re: Time for fair play.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is a google Sheet? Is that like some kind of amateur Excel clone?

Re:Time for fair play.

[exomondo]

How much it costs is dependent on the product and the manufacturing process. Do you expect me to go and investigate every product before suggesting something?

No, I'm pointing out that it's impractical. Can you do it for say even half a dozen products? Probably not.

If you're lobbying for it or doing the math and putting that forward then I'd be very interested to see it, if we do indeed need to do it then then I'm curious as to what you're doing.

Well the alternative is turning the planet into Venus and everything dies, so what's that worth to you?

If you believe it is indeed that dire then again, what is it you're doing?

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

No, I'm pointing out that it's impractical. Can you do it for say even half a dozen products? Probably not.

I don't think it's impractical and you haven't pointed out anything that would make it impractical. Obviously you are not going to want to charge people 100% of the cost overnight as it will take a bit of time for corporations to adapt to the new cost optimization paradigm. As I wrote, "The free market isn't perfect but cost optimization is something it does very well."

If you believe it is indeed that dire then again, what is it you're doing?

Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place.

Re:Time for fair play.

[exomondo]

I don't think it's impractical and you haven't pointed out anything that would make it impractical.

Well can you calculate it for even one thing?

Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place.

No I mean specifically on this issue?

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

Well can you calculate it for even one thing?

Sure, it's not very expensive to capture CO2: $94 to $232 per ton CO2 from the atmosphere
The question is what to do with it afterward but I'm sure there are good uses.

No I mean specifically on this issue?

Why are you asking me what you mean?

Re:Time for fair play.

[exomondo]

Well can you calculate it for even one thing?

Sure, it's not very expensive to capture CO2: $94 to $232 per ton CO2 from the atmosphere The question is what to do with it afterward but I'm sure there are good uses.

So that price is just added to the cost of everything depending on how much CO2 it takes to produce? A carbon tax?

No I mean specifically on this issue?

Why are you asking me what you mean?

You said: "Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place."

I'm asking what specifically that entails.

Re:Time for fair play.

[Gravis Zero]

So that price is just added to the cost of everything depending on how much CO2 it takes to produce? A carbon tax?

There is more than just CO2 to consider but that would be an excellent start.

You said: "Everything in my power to ensure better environmental policies are put in place."

I'm asking what specifically that entails.

Aside from working to reduce my own ecological impact and supporting environmentalists, I'm working to get this idea of paying upfront for environmental damage incorporated into a future environmental bill. I'm not claiming it will happen but you insisted on knowing. The free market only works if you know the costs.

Quick news brief

[SuperKendall]

Putting tons of CO2 into the air is currently 100% environmentally subsidized and that needs to end before it destroys our ecosystem.

Your ecosystem uses CO2 as food...

Re:Quick news brief

[Anonymous Coward]

Your body uses water as food. Would you survive being submerged in it?

Re:Quick news brief

[Gravis Zero]

Your ecosystem uses CO2 as food...

My ecosystem is carbon neutral. It absorbs and later expels CO2. It's existed for billions of years (in various forms) but has never been in short supply of CO2. However, too much CO2 causes the oceans to become increasingly acidic and the atmosphere to retain too much heat that is disrupting the balanced cycles of life that it enshrines.

Water is absolutely vital for humans to survive but feel free to go drink water until you develop a case of water toxemia. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing.

Re:Quick news brief

[SuperKendall]

My ecosystem ...existed for billions of years..... However, too much CO2 causes the oceans to become increasingly acidic

Sorry to bother you, Mr Auquaman.

Re:Quick news brief

[SuperKendall]

Your body uses water as food. Would you survive being submerged in it?

I have indeed been swimming several times.

I have also been to the desert, and know that a compete lack of water is far worse for me than a small rainstorm.

Re:Quick news brief

[Gravis Zero]

You seem to be another ignorant individual. The continental ecosystems and oceanic ecosystems are connected and their is complex interplay between them but honestly, we need the ocean more than the ocean needs us.

Consider this though, as the Earth gets hotter, there will be a mass migration of humans because the regions of arable land are going to shift while others become completely uninhabitable to all but the most extreme lifeforms. Every anti-immigrant reject should be screaming about the threat of global warming. Famine is in the future but it will be a great time for diseases to flourish. It might be that pollution from the human population is brought under control because disease wipes out most of humanity.

Re:Quick news brief

[110010001000]

If you believe that you better run out and buy a $60k+ Tesla. You know, to "save the environment".

Re:Quick news brief

[LynnwoodRooster]

The oceans are already quite base; we're SLOWLY becoming more neutral, NOT acidic. But then, that's not quite so extreme-sounding, is it? Additionally, if you look at the temp record, our temperatures are moderating. Average highs are not moving; average lows are slowing increasing. We're not having more extreme weather, we're having more moderate weather (which also explains why tornadoes and cyclones are dropping).

Re:Quick news brief

[bingoUV]

The ocean is not a living thing - it needs nothing.

Re:Quick news brief

[Terwin]

Over the last 300m years the ocean PH has averaged around 8.2
Today it is 8.1
ref: https://www.nationalgeographic...

the EPA recommends municipal drinking water be kept between 6.5 and 8.5

Ref: https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/d...

If we continue this break-neck pace, the oceans will leave the EPA recommended range for municipal drinking water shortly before the earth is consumed by the sun.
(300m*16=4.8b Red Giant ~10b - current age(4.6b) = 5.4b giving us roughly 600m years between ocean ph dropping below 6.5 before the sun is a full-sized red giant)

Ref: https://study.com/academy/less...

Re:Quick news brief

[Anonymous Coward]

I also have ate shit because food regulations only specify a maximum quantity of fecal matter, not the complete absence thereof, i.e. fecal matter from rats and mice or maybe from an animal's bowels.

Re:Quick news brief

[Gravis Zero]

Oceans are ecosystems, retard.

Re:Quick news brief

[bingoUV]

So? You are not educated enough to understand that ecosystems can be (and mostly are) non-living ?

Oceans don't need anything - even if you call them ecosystems. They don't care about their own pH, size, water content, salt content, living being content, health of those living beings, or even their own existence.

Re:Quick news brief

[Gravis Zero]

Ecosystems by definition contain living organisms. If they do not contain organisms then they are not an ecosystem. Stop being dense.

Re:Quick news brief

[bingoUV]

So you are not educated enough to understand the difference between being a living organism, and containing living organisms.

Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[melted]

Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon. As a taxpayer though, I think it's great I no longer have to subsidize cars for the rich. Phase all of this shit out tomorrow, I don't care.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[sphealey]

As opposed to the $1 trillion/year subsidy to the oil industry known as the "US Army" that those with electric vehicles are still paying.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... I doubt I will ever own a car worth $35,000+ in today's money equivalent, ever. I'm on my 2nd $22,000 Camry, first one lasted 10 years. Couldn't care less about woes of the rich. Why are my taxes going to subsidize this s...t?? If they can afford 40k car, they can spring another 7 grand.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[guruevi]

The US Army is heavily subsidizing electric and hydrogen systems for tanks - making troop movements more stealthy, better accelerating and less dependent on a supply/repair line is any army's dream.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[110010001000]

Because the Technorati like more money. Taxpayer money is the best. Subsidizing $60k+ cars (or any car) is insane.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[melted]

They repeatedly vote for the idiots who think it's prudent for the US to wage 7 wars at the same time and be the world police, so I have no sympathy for them either. The bill will come down some once Trump unwinds the war engagements, denuclearizes NK, and makes our NATO "allies" pay 2% of their GDP like they're supposed to.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[Anonymous Coward]

Total defense spending isn't even $1T. The US Army is only one component and gets about 25% of the spending. Troops in Japan, Korea and other such locations are doing a poor job of protecting the oil industry.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[LynnwoodRooster]

US DOD budget is quite a bit lower than $1 trillion - and that's more than just the "US Army". Additionally, we're in the Middle East not for ourselves, but to stabilize oil supplies for our allies in Europe and Asia (where most of the oil goes; the most we get from the ME is the 6% from Iraq).

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[misnohmer]

If it's the rich who use it, then they already pay more taxes than the not rich, even after the government gives them back the EV rebate amount (if you don't pay taxes the government doesn't give you any rebates for buying an EV).

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[whoever57]

The bill will come down some once Trump unwinds the war engagements, denuclearizes NK, and makes our NATO "allies" pay 2% of their GDP like they're supposed to.

IOW, never.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[sphealey]

- - - - - Additionally, we're in the Middle East not for ourselves, but to... - - - - -

Sure.

Re:Shoulda stayed on that advisory board, Elon

[LynnwoodRooster]

When you get a basic fact like $1T wrong in the first place, a come-back of "sure" lacks more than a little "gravitas"...

Do the wealthy need the tax break

[Anonymous Coward]

A Tesla model three isn't exactly the affordable model Musk promised. People who buy them probably don't need the tax break to convince them to buy it. Given that 3000 plus were sitting at factory unsold. Means a possible diminished demand already for a model that has been shown to be riddled with defects and issues. For such a technology marvel the basics of proper assembly an quality control seemed to have been overlooked as a priority.

RTFS

[SuperKendall]

what is this "$35K Model 3" you speak off

The tax credit phase-out comes just as Tesla was preparing to sell a $35,000 version of its Model 3 sedan

Re:RTFS

[Anonymous Coward]

is this the same 35K car that was promised 3 years ago by taking deposits from 400k consumers... and is still not available? i guess we can wait and see when it shoes up in 2035

Re:RTFS

[superdave80]

They've been 'preparing' to sell a $35k car for years now. Wake me when they actually roll one off the assembly line.

Re:RTFS

[Anonymous Coward]

You are probably retarded enough to think that the hardware for full self driving comes on every Tesla too.

Re:RTFS

[gl4ss]

"You are probably retarded enough to think that the hardware for full self driving comes on every Tesla too."

well it's retarded to have listened to what musk said like 3 years+ ago so yes.. anyways. tesla made a purposeful pump of cars in the last quarter to make it look good, at expense of quality and customer care.

and yes the promises of being able to produce model 3 at 35k cost while making profit was a big deal and teslas not hitting that. and come on, waiting 1-2months to get a certified preowned car from tesla is apparently normal right now too due to the organization being totally fucked up.

Re:RTFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure the hardware come on every Tesla. Just the same as the hardware to safely drive a car for humans comes equipped on babies, but it doesn't mean that babies are capable of using it right away.

Re:How does it feel

[Sique]

There are people who pay more for a house, that also can't do what an ICE can do.

Lies or facts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation for subsidies exclusive to oil for ICE cars please.

Make a new company...

[ClarkMills]

Make a new company, sell the IP & plant to the new company for $1.

TeslA check
TeslB
TeslC ...

Profit :)

Re:Make a new company...

[eepok]

Isn't this what Enron did?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special-purpose_entity

Re:Tesla is about to get a hard dose of reality

[guruevi]

Big word there is 'when'. So far nobody has because Tesla-style EV's are still a niche. You either cram so much batteries in it that it becomes prohibitively expensive or you don't and you have a 50 mile range (what GM tried) or you come with an anemic hybrid so mechanically complicated (drivetrain with both ICE and an electric motor) it is going to be prohibitively expensive to maintain long term (Toyota).

The biggest problem is for the largest markets you'll continue needing an ICE due to issues with energy density even if you can use a battery pack for the short haul.

Not even close to enough

[raymorris]

Actually the growth is decelerating, as they continue to fail to fulfill their promises. That's not the point, though.

What you have to remember is that the current stock price has Tesla larger and more profitable than Volkswagen, Toyota, or any other car company.

Volkswagen did $270 billion last year, and had a profit of $23 billion. Toyota did a bit more.

Tesla did about $15 billion sales and lost money.

In order to justify the current stock price, Tesla would need to be 20 times larger than they are and infinitely more profitable.

"I think Tesla will grow!", they say. Yeah it *might* grow to be the size of Toyota, in 50 years. Tesla growth for 2018 is up 93% and is accelerating... is that enough? already IS that big, and is that profitable. So to value the two companies the same is insane. Guess what - Toyota might grow even bigger and even more profitable too.

"But Tesla has ELECTRIC cars!" Toyota unveiled three new electric cars last year and has seven more scheduled for release within 24 months. Not "pay us $40,000 today and maybe in three or four years we'll figure out how to build a car". And that's a relatively small project for Toyota - they aren't betting the company on the next model.

Re:Not even close to enough

[dgatwood]

"But Tesla has ELECTRIC cars!" Toyota unveiled three new electric cars last year and has seven more scheduled for release within 24 months. Not "pay us $40,000 today and maybe in three or four years we'll figure out how to build a car". And that's a relatively small project for Toyota - they aren't betting the company on the next model.

Did I miss something? A far as I can tell, Toyota has only built one electric car in their entire history — the Rav4 EV — and that is discontinued because almost nobody could deal with an EV that had only a 110-mile range.

Fuel cell vehicles are not real EVs. The biggest trick the automakers managed to pull on California's government was tricking them into giving carpool stickers to fuel cell vehicles. A fuel cell is not green. Most hydrogen comes from splitting natural gas, which is far from clean energy; it is dramatically less green than even the average for California electrical power. And even with huge subsidies, hydrogen still costs anywhere from 4x to 15x as much per mile as EVs. Fuel cell vehicle manufacturers are parasites on the clean energy bandwagon.

Similarly, plug-in hybrids are also not real EVs. Yes, you can at least use them as EVs, but only over a fairly short range, which is typically less than the average daily commute. So most drivers end up using at least some gasoline.

Basically, Toyota pays lip service to EVs while basically doing everything they can to avoid actually building one. I don't expect them to pull their heads out of their backsides any time soon. And Tesla told them that they needed to offer a model with a bigger battery, but Toyota execs thought nobody would buy it. And here we are, with people buying the Model X for four times as much money. And every single Model X sale was a lost Rav4 EV sale that Toyota could have easily had, if their management had not been completely and totally oblivious to the needs of their consumers.

That's why Tesla's stock is so valuable. It isn't an indication that the company is going to rapidly grow to be bigger than Toyota. Rather, it's a bet that over the long term, a company managed by people who actually understand technology and are looking forwards will do better than a company managed by people who don't understand technology and are always looking backwards.

Re: Not even close to enough

[mspohr]

Newspeak. 93% growth is actually a decline in growth?

Re:Not even close to enough

[drinkypoo]

Toyota has only built one electric car in their entire history â" the Rav4 EV â" and that is discontinued because almost nobody could deal with an EV that had only a 110-mile range.

Nope. Toyota canned it because it wasn't profitable. Rav4 EV owners were universally happy with their vehicles AFAICT, because they were purchased by people for whom the range was not a problem. They could have sold more or less as many of them as they felt like, but they didn't want to sell more.

oil $

[bussdriver]

We need oil sold in US $ simply to keep propping up that history which adds value to the US $ and at a time when it's going to need it more than it used do.

Re:Sell at a loss! MAKE IT UP IN VOLUME!

[DontBeAMoran]

Guy: How much are these bricks?
Dude: The more you buy, the cheaper they are.
Guy: Okay then, fill up my pickup truck bed until they're free.

Huh? Arithmetic

[raymorris]

I'll leave your No True Scotsman alone since that could be considered a matter of opinion, I suppose. You love the company. That's cool. Maybe you love the former CEO. Okay, some people like the guy.

I wonder about your arithmetic on stock valuation, though.

> That's why Tesla's stock is so valuable. It isn't an indication that the company is going to rapidly grow to be bigger than Toyota.

You probably know shares of stock essentially represent a share of the company's profit. If you own X% of a company's stock, you get X% of the profits. For example, after I quit working at a certain company, I still owned 100% of the stock in the corporation, so I got 100% of the profit.

If you loan me $1000 today, how much do you need me to pay you per year in order to make it worth your while?
If you give me $1,000 today and I give you $100 / year, that would be a typical stock.

Would you give me $1,000 today if I agree to give you $10 / year in exchange?

Tesla stock: if you spend $1,000 on Tesla stock, your share of profit is $0.15 / year.

If the company gets ten times as big, your $1,000 investment will get you $15 / year as your share of profit. That's of it grows ten times it's current size - still an absolutely horrible deal.

The value of the stock is based on the amount of profit you expect it will generate. Typically, a stock is worth about 15 years earnings, less for risky stocks, up-and-coming companies, more for less risky companies with a track record of 30 years or more of success. We'll just take 15 years of profit as a typical way to value the profits that the stock represents.

Operating margins in the automobile industry are 3%-4%, meaning $100 in revenue will generate $3-$4 in profit each year. If you value your share based on 15 years of profit, the value is $52.50 per hundred in revenue. Telsa has revenue of about $24 billion, so they should be making about $84 million profit. As I recall they actually lost money last year, but let's pretend they made the $84 million we'd expect a decent company to make on $24 billion revenue. Multiply that by 15 and the present value of their future profit is $1.26 billion. That's the value of a car company with $24 billion revenue. Their actual stock price is is $53 billion - forty two times their current fair valuation based on their current valuation. They have to get 42 times bigger just to justify their current stock price and have investors not LOSE money.

If Tesla grows to be 100 times the size it is, a $1,000 investment today will generate $150 / year in profit for the stockholder. That's a pretty decent return. That requires the company to grow 100 times larger, though. And do you want to wait 100 years to get your money? Cause it might well take more than 100 years for Tesla to grow 100X bigger.

Re: Economic stupidity w straight lines

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot draw a straight line and assume a company or country or any economic entity in a high growth phase f5om small to big will continue at that rate.

This is just like the morons who draw straight lines for Chinese growth (based on fake Chinese government numbers, too) and claim China will be the biggest best etc by 2030 or whatever date. Nonsense. Childish idiocy.

It is easy to have 100% growth when your baseline is 1 unit. Only take 2 units. Much harder when baseline is 100k units. Takes 200k.

So sad the schools (nor parents either) seem to teach basic logic and common sense.

Re: Hate. Federal government = tax payers

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate Musk. I hate Tesla. I hate Tesla fan boys. I hate being forced to subsidize fan boy car buying through my taxes. Why cant I get a tax credit for buying an Audi or Lexus or Beamer? Who gives a shit that Tesla uses toxic batteries poisoning ground water instead of burning gas making CO2? You are all more likely to die from Tesla poisoned cancer causing water than global warming.

Yes, less is decline

[raymorris]

Read your words carefully "a decline in growth".
Yes, going from 150% growth to 93% would be a declining growth rate.

Which is a problem, because in order to justify a $51 billion valuation on a few million profit, one must expect they'll achieve a 1,000% growth rate.

Re: Yes, less is decline

[mspohr]

Actually, official numbers released today show 364% growth in 2018. (But don't let facts get in the way of your narrative)

https://cleantechnica.com/

You fail at linking

[raymorris]

You fail at internet. I believe you meant to link this puff piece https://cleantechnica.com/2019...

If you want to be a true believer, that's fine with me.
You think Telsa is going to make 50% more money than any car company ever has, and they are going to do that real soon now, go ahead and believe that.

Re:You fail at linking

[mspohr]

I know it's hard for facts to pierce your bubble but that article has some hard facts that you might want to consider.
I operate on facts, not beliefs.

Thereby proving that the tax break was

[Anonymous Coward]

not necessary and just increased the profit margins. I am probably one of the most right-wing people on Slashdot --- most Republicans are to my far left, and yet I love Elon Musk's companies. SpaceX is an example of what all our ossified aerospace firms could, and SHOULD be; the more-established firms have simply become too fat, dumb, and lazy off of "cost-plus" defense contracts. The Boring Company is exactly the sort of problem solving company that should be popping up all across the country; it's the sort of enterprise that used to arise all across the country as inventors rushed to try new solutions to local problems that annoyed them. Tesla is doing a fantastic job of shaking up the auto industry; sadly the US automakers seem to be missing all the lessons in almost exactly the same way they missed similar lessons being taught to them by the Japanese in the 1970s and 80s. I'm even OK with Solar City.

It's the taxpayer subsidies for Tesla and Solar City that I oppose, NOT the companies themselves or their tech, or their people. Middle class taxpayers should not be taxed so that upper-income elitists can virtue-signal with subsidised luxuries. I'm not one of those Lockheed or Boeing shills who deceitfully claims SpaceX is subsidized (it's not, it is simply being paid to launch government payloads just as Boeing and Lockheed are). And I'm tired of all the lefties who continually lie about gas-powered cars being subsidised (they're not. The gas companies are getting normal business tax breaks, and actually gasoline is being taxed by both the feds and the states at the pump at obscene rates (a $3 gallon of gas in CA contains a 98cent tax)).

I sincerely hope Tesla kicks all the other car companies to the side, perfects the electric car, and becomes the dominant car make in the states, but in a non-subsidised, free market that is un-distorted by politicians. The winning product in a truly unmanipulated competative market will always be better than the winning product in a marketplace that is distorted by politicians with all sorts of side motives.