Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tesla Gets $34 Million Tax Break, Adds Capacity For 35,000 More Cars

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the ramping-things-up dept.

Businesses 238

cartechboy writes "The state of California will give Tesla Motors a $34.7 million tax break to expand the company's production capacity for electric cars, state officials announced yesterday. Basically, Tesla won't have to pay sales taxes on new manufacturing equipment worth up to $415 million. The added equipment will help Tesla more than double the number of Model S sedans it builds, as well as assemble more electric powertrains for other car makers. In addition to continued Model S production, Tesla plans to introduce the Model X electric crossover in late 2014, as well as a sub-$40,000 car — tentatively called Model E — that could debut as soon as the 2015 Detroit Auto Show. It turns out California is one of the few states to tax the purchase of manufacturing equipment — but the state grants exemptions for 'clean-tech' companies."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Move to breeder reactors (1)

areusche (1297613) | about 10 months ago | (#45730137)

Elon's next company should be called "FusionX" that creates portable breeder reactors. It would be a nice addition to his current portfolio of cars and rockets.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 10 months ago | (#45730191)

That should be FissionX, fusion is a whole different energy source.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 10 months ago | (#45730227)

it doesn not matter how the technology works, what the technology is or if the technology works... if it sounds good enough FTB will come after me for a sock i purchased outside the state to give tesla a break.

damn... i sound like a tea bagger lol

Re:Move to breeder reactors (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45730387)

Not that fusion is as far off as people think it is. There are some really promising experiments other than the big ones, that seem single digit years away from usable designs.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 10 months ago | (#45730451)

source please, would love to read and keep the hope alive :)

Re:Move to breeder reactors (2)

tedgyz (515156) | about 10 months ago | (#45730465)

Like holographic memory? That has been single-digit years away for decades.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730649)

Fusion is easy.
Fusion with a decent gain factor is hard.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#45730793)

Fusion is easy.
Fusion with a decent gain factor is hard.

I thought it was only *controlled* fusion that was hard. Producing energy using fusion [wikipedia.org] was tested and working over 50 years ago.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731385)

Iirc most of the increased yield is from fast neutrons from the D-T fusion reaction increasing fission rate, the thermal energy output of the fusion process accounts for less than 2% of total yield in a typical thermonuclear device.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (2)

dpilot (134227) | about 10 months ago | (#45730689)

It's not that far off - in only 20 years we'll have fusion power.

Just as it's been for the past 30 years or so.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730991)

There are some really promising experiments other than the big ones, that seem single digit years away from usable designs.

No they really aren't.

Re:Move to breeder reactors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730539)

But then he wouldn't be able to call the product the Mr Fusion. ;)

Re:Move to breeder reactors (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 10 months ago | (#45730811)

Get the reactor small enough to run a car and break out the "Gone Fission" bumper stickers!
This could put an end to tailgating drivers... one way or another...

Re:Move to breeder reactors (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 10 months ago | (#45731121)

And after that, devices to capture ghosts, right?

Thanks, California taxpayers! (4, Informative)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45730165)

The rest of us are grateful for your generous contributions to our new luxury cars.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (5, Insightful)

grogdamighty (884570) | about 10 months ago | (#45730263)

Meanwhile, if Tesla revolutionizes the modern car and creates a mini-Detroit (Golden Age, not now), I'm pretty sure California's taxpayers will be happy with the investment.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730449)

Only if Tesla stays in CA after the free money handouts stop and the "pay back to the people who made you rich and successful" part starts. If they up and move their primary manufacturing centers to the next sucker --- oops, I mean, "forward-looking business friendly state" --- to offer them free money/power/impunity once CA's generosity runs out, that mini-Detroit could end up wherever the leader in the national race to the bottom happens to be.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (4, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#45731057)

Moving a factories costs a fortune. Giving tax breaks in exchange for job creation is standard practice at the state and local levels across the US.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731211)

Big tax breaks provide the fortune that can make moving worthwhile. While corporate welfare handouts are certainly "standard practice," that's not equivalent to "good practice" --- the practice of megacorporations ditching cities to rot in a race to the bottom is also "standard practice," and today's manufacturing centers are increasingly flexible and mobile to maximally exploit the chain of suckers.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (4, Informative)

Carnivore (103106) | about 10 months ago | (#45731229)

The Fremont factory is enormous. They're only using a fraction of it for Model S production, with plans to activate more of it for Model E, etc.

Given that they own a building that exists and will support their needs for the near- to medium-future, it's unlikely that they would move.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (5, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 10 months ago | (#45731339)

Only if Tesla stays in CA after the free money handouts stop and the "pay back to the people who made you rich and successful" part starts. If they up and move their primary manufacturing centers to the next sucker --- oops, I mean, "forward-looking business friendly state" --- to offer them free money/power/impunity once CA's generosity runs out, that mini-Detroit could end up wherever the leader in the national race to the bottom happens to be.

Except setting up a brand new factory from scratch is expensive. Tesla is in their current location because Toyota, the previous owner, wanted out. So Tesla bought the entire factory for a good price with equipment in it.

The cost to move means having to either re-buy all the equipment again, or move the equipment. Both are very expensive options with the latter involving a whole system shutdown.

Boeing, despite having moved their head office, still makes planes in WA state where their head office used to be, because all the expertise and equipment is there.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (2, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#45730371)

Presuming some sarcasm in there, does this mean you refuse to fly? After all, Boeing and Airbus both get direct subsidies greater than Tesla. Or is it OK when a standard tax break is given to Boeing, but not for Tesla? $9 billion is greater than $34 million. By more than $10!

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730399)

No, it's bad when Tesla gets a tax break and it's bad when Airbus and Boeing get tax breaks. Businesses should not get tax breaks, ever, for any reason.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

JeffAtl (1737988) | about 10 months ago | (#45730517)

From the state's point of view, it is an investment. The point is to give a company a relatively small tax break so that it will generate much more tax revenue for the state in the future.

It also falls into the category of x% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

To be clear, I'd push for the US and the individual states to eliminate business taxes altogether.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 10 months ago | (#45730695)

You'd rather Tesla moves production offshore?
Businesses follow the money. If it's cheaper to go elsewhere, they go elsewhere, and take the jobs and profits with them.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

prelelat (201821) | about 10 months ago | (#45731033)

Tax breaks are an incentive to new and upcoming technology. It's great when it's helping a company like Tesla innovate an electric car. Giving tax breaks to companies that are well established is laughable. In the case of Tesla it's still a question of if they can keep increasing the tech at this level and how much of a benefit is it going to be to everyone. The gov. funds research in this exact same vein. Instead of investing in the company and taking a stock and risk being called a socialist they instead get to fund and support it with tax breaks. It advances science.

Not only that but as JeffAll said as well it keeps jobs local as well as keeps such a major project strictly American.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#45731171)

No, it's bad when Tesla gets a tax break and it's bad when Airbus and Boeing get tax breaks. Businesses should not get tax breaks, ever, for any reason.

Why not? Any business tax is equivalent to a tax on citizens since anything that increases the cost of doing business (including taxes), gets passed along to consumers and employees through increased product costs or lower salaries. Many would argue that business taxes shouldn't exist at all.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 10 months ago | (#45730527)

i think he means that the product is geared towards mid-to-upper class buyers and basically all (including poor) taxpayers are subsidizing it. It would be like apple getting subsidies for the gold iPhone.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (5, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 10 months ago | (#45730665)

Tesla is not getting tax breaks for the Model S. They are getting tax breaks for manufacturing equipment. The Model S is not the only thing they build and sell with that equipment. Tesla batteries are used in the Smart car, the Mercedes B-class will use a Tesla powertrain, and they supply most of the guts for new Toyota RAV-4 EVs. It's a smart investment by California - they give Tesla a break on the equipment, and then get additional income from the increase in products that Tesla sells (both their own vehicles, as well as parts sold to other companies). It's not like they give Tesla the tax break and then never see anything from that money again.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730855)

i didn't realize tesla was manufacturing batteries in california.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 10 months ago | (#45730425)

They're likely unveiling the Model E, perhaps half the price, at the Detroit Auto Show in Jan 2015.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730535)

Half the price of a $90k car is still pretty steep for a lot (read, the vast overwhelming majority) of Americans. Especially for something that will likely have a significantly shorter driving range than the expensive cars (batteries are expensive). Certainly a step in the right direction, but still up in the "luxury car" range (reduced from Porsche to BMW prices).

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45730819)

Once you subtract $180/mo in gas, it gets a lot less steep.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730929)

Once you subtract $180/mo in gas, it gets a lot less steep.

After you add back in the cost of Electricity, the price of replacing the batteries when they die, rental cars when you actually need to go somewhere, hotel rooms when you get stranded waiting for it to charge, tow trucks when you run out of charge, opportunity cost because the you can't travel anywhere while your waiting for you piece of shit electric car to charge, etc...

The price sky rockets back up again.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (4, Interesting)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#45731083)

Electricity is cheap. I pay $30/month for my car to go 1000 miles. How far does your car go for 30 bucks?

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

prelelat (201821) | about 10 months ago | (#45731273)

wow you are looking for things to rag on. If you live in an area with a tesla charge station it free to charge in about 30 minutes. If you don't it's not that expensive compared to a regular car. Which you can charge while you are at home. Unless you are traveling in excess of 160miles a day I find it unlikely on average that you will ever need to stop somewhere and charge your car.

Batteries die and it's a huge huge huge expense this is the only one I see relevant in your post.

If you are going somewhere in a tesla S it can reach up to 300miles and there are more and more tesla charging stations popping up. Usually somewhere close to services like food. Most people typically get out and stretch for a bit every few hundred miles. I'm not saying you might have to stop and rest when you don't want to, or that right now you might end-up somewhere that you have to stay over night to charge your car, but that's going to be fade fast if Tesla is able to keep building infrastructure for their cars.

You ran out of a charge on the road, you are just as likely to run out of gas. I think it's easier to find a plugin than a gas station. I think the charge for a tow truck is the same regardless.

Bottom line the only thing that will not be fixed with time(infrastructure and charge times at charging stations) is the battery is going to die. Tesla has been looking at ways to fix this as well. Tesla cars right now are kind of in a beta testing mode, they work, they are cool and most of the flaws have fixes set out for them that need to be implemented. It's going to take time but outside of a battery replacement I don't think having one in the future is going to cost as much as you think.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 10 months ago | (#45730985)

Only if you are paying that much a month in gas... I try not to... and I drive what the state calls an SUV.

Heck, even over 5 years, the savings is *only* 10k, which only brings the effective price of the 40k car down to 30k... which is still more than most of us are willing/able to pay for something newer.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#45731215)

Only if you are paying that much a month in gas... I try not to... and I drive what the state calls an SUV.

Heck, even over 5 years, the savings is *only* 10k, which only brings the effective price of the 40k car down to 30k... which is still more than most of us are willing/able to pay for something newer.

Maybe *most* of us won't pay $30K for a car, but the average new car price [usatoday.com] in the USA is $31K so that brings it within reach of a lot of potential buyers.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

Lazydriver (1821680) | about 10 months ago | (#45731265)

Maybe so, but it's also an investment into a technology that will hopefully be extremely popular someday. It also cuts down on nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide emissions in the long run. Imagine if the skies weren't hazy anymore because there weren't (in the case of the bay area, where these types of cars are most popular) ten million people riding around with smog machines. You'd be able to see the other side of the bay without a yellow haze. And it would slow global warming and the associated (arguably worse) acidification of the oceans. The same investment in technology these buyers make also improves battery research, so your battery can hold more of a charge. That means perhaps someday only recharging your smartphone once a week.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 10 months ago | (#45731181)

The Model S starts out at around $64000, not $90 grand for a kick off.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730571)

so the 500e will still be a better buy.

Re:Thanks, California taxpayers! (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 10 months ago | (#45731255)

We get it back on taxes every (small) Tesla employee pays, every local supplier, and even the sandwich shop down the street.

Why shouldn't it? (5, Insightful)

fisf (2677113) | about 10 months ago | (#45730205)

Unless you value your environment nothing, why shouldn't there be a financial reward for companies that reduce the harm on it, either directly or indirectly?

Re:Why shouldn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730515)

Because there's no solid evidence that what Tesla is doing is actually saving the environment. First of all, they only market to the rich, which means the change in the carbon footprint generated by cars will be minimal at best. Second, it doesn't take in to account the manufacturing process of the cars, or the electrical sources used to charge the batteries. Pushing the pollution off somewhere else is not a solution, it's just shifting the blame.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730659)

hey i need to reduce the carbon foot print for my car so i can keep my air conditioned garage at optimal levels...

Re:Why shouldn't it? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730685)

"For the rich" is still a valid objection, pending future decreases in battery costs. However, your concerns about manufacturing process and moving energy use around are ignorant trolling. An electric car uses vastly less energy overall than an internal combustion engine (heat engines being limited by thermodynamics and material properties to poor net efficiencies). Even with "worst case" electrical power sources (burning fossil fuels to run generators), the full cycle efficiency of an electric car is far better than gas vehicles. Electric infrastructure also allows transitioning to more clean energy sources as they become available --- your car gets "cleaner" as wind/solar/tidal/geothermal/etc. power sources are rolled out. The up-front manufacturing processes are (a) similar to existing gas cars, (b) do not dominate environmental impacts over a car's lifetime, and (c) the "extra stuff" (batteries) not in regular cars is highly recyclable.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730797)

First of all, they only market to the rich, which means the change in the carbon footprint generated by cars will be minimal at best.

Except that their plan is and has always been "sell cars to people in this income bracket, get money, use money to design/build cars to people in next bracket down, rinse and repeat".

Second, it doesn't take in to account the manufacturing process of the cars

Is there any evidence that their manufacturing is any more polluting that that of other cars?

or the electrical sources used to charge the batteries. Pushing the pollution off somewhere else is not a solution, it's just shifting the blame.

What you call "pushing the pollution off somewhere else" is in reality consolidating the sources of pollution, which makes it more manageable.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 10 months ago | (#45730851)

Even assuming fairly bad battery production overheads, you pollute at roughly the same rate as a 50mpg car while using electric from the grid as it stands.

California has a fairly green grid, so you'd need a 60mpg car to compete.
The Pacific Northwest is even better - needing nearly 70mpg to compete.
Oklahoma and other coal-burners are worse, and you only need 40mpg to compete.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731099)

Second, it doesn't take in to account the manufacturing process of the cars, or the electrical sources used to charge the batteries. Pushing the pollution off somewhere else is not a solution, it's just shifting the blame.

Electric cars actually do better in terms of reducing pollution and energy usage versus normal cars. You should read the UCLA's electric car lifecycle analysis:

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/media_IOE/files/BatteryElectricVehicleLCA2012-rh-ptd.pdf

Even if you count the energy and emissions costs of extracting resources for the batteries, manufacturing of the batteries, and shipping the car, the electric car's lifecycle sees it using 40% less energy, and incurring 50% less emissions than a comparable conventional car. Just because you anti-electric car idiots refuse to read up on the facts, that doesn't give you the right to go spreading misinformation.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (1)

Lazydriver (1821680) | about 10 months ago | (#45731301)

That's shortsighted. They're making a profit off of electric cars by selling them to the rich. That's good, because there's a financial incentive for increasing the size of the customer base: their test market liked a very well designed and powerful electric car that didn't look like the moon lander. As for shifting the pollution, at worse (even if it is 1:1), you're getting rid of respiratory problems within an urban area. Secondly, you could theoretically charge these on your own solar grid. Thirdly, the amount of energy used by batteries is /used/ versus wasted. Something on the order of 20% of the energy from combustion actually gets used to move your car - the rest gets wasted as heat and carbon dioxide. So it's still at least five times more efficient. Will it save the environment? By itself at this time, no. But if this technology becomes popular, it may single handedly stop the significant rise in global temperatures and acidification of the oceans /and/ the solution would be a market driven one. What's not to love?

Re:Why shouldn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730583)

34 million on luxury cars? Do you seriously think that this money couldn't have made more sense elsewhere? What a shill.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730771)

"Could have been"? Most assuredly. "Would have been"? Not in the Megacorporate States of America. In the grand scheme of corporate welfare dollars handed out to the companies with the worst societal/environmental externalities, this doesn't seem so bad. Until you get rid of Capitalist Oligarchy, your choices are going to be between "poor use" and "terrible destructive use" of wealth --- this is the closest Capitalism comes to socially and environmentally responsible spending.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730745)

There is nothing wrong with holding dirty industries accountable for the environmental damage they cause. Should they get a free pass on externalizing costs, granting them an economic distortion that gives them an unfair advantage? You as the tax payer ultimately foot the bill for environmental damage through cleanup costs, reduced quality of living, increased healthcare costs.

Tax breaks for green industries aren't handouts. They're just leveling the playing feild.

For that mater Tesla is the leader and major innovator in the new industry of electric vehicle drive trains. Why would California not want them there?

I know a lot of you conservative cock guzzlers are going to bitch and whinge and apologize for polluters. Shut up. Just shut the fuck up. We're tired of your shit. Some of us that have lived in California have lived long enough to remember what it was like before Cali upset the apple cart and implemented real, tough emission standards many years ago. (Yeah, you fucksticks would not shut up then either) Southern California was a nast, hazy, smogy toxic soup. It's hundreds of times better today. Yes, the problem can be reversed.

Want further proof? Fire up google and look for pictures of big cities in China. Smoke so thick it looks like london fog. Children with lung cancer. Everyone outside with face masks and respirators.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731047)

Tax breaks for green industries aren't handouts. They're just leveling the playing feild.

In other words a handout since they can't compete on their own.

Re:Why shouldn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731213)

Unless you value your environment nothing, why shouldn't there be a financial reward for companies that reduce the harm on it, either directly or indirectly?

Selling overpriced luxury electric cars is not helping the environment. These are sports cars for rich people. It's conspicuous consumption.

So let me get this straight... (4, Interesting)

lxs (131946) | about 10 months ago | (#45730223)

Big corporations are evil because they don't pay their taxes unless it's our pet company in which case it's all wine and roses.

Re:So let me get this straight... (0)

zlives (2009072) | about 10 months ago | (#45730289)

i wish California would incent me to purchase more by lowering its sales tax or gas tax or road tax or insurance tax or....

Re:So let me get this straight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730791)

I approve and would vote for a such a proposal. When do you run for governor?

Re:So let me get this straight... (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 10 months ago | (#45730339)

I think you've articulated the fundamental problem in today's tax policies very succinctly.

Re:So let me get this straight... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730341)

Tell me, why should a state get a cut of a business transaction between two independent parties?

Get it straight? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730537)

Are you kidding? "A cut of business transactions between two independent parties" describes nearly all taxes.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730541)

Because the state guaranteed the transaction occurred with neither party killing the other, it built roads to allow the two parties to more easily meet, it paid their education (not valid for US) so both knew how to read the contract, it paid for the health (not valid for the US?) needs of both parties when they got ill... I could go on. If that deal isn't good enough for you, you should move to a better country like Somalia and finally enjoy the benefits of a stateless society.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

DaHat (247651) | about 10 months ago | (#45731017)

Because the state guaranteed the transaction occurred with neither party killing the other

Last time I purchased something in California... I do not recall there being a bomb proof barrier between me and the sales person that had been built by the state.

Re:So let me get this straight... (2)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#45731267)

Because the state guaranteed the transaction occurred with neither party killing the other

Last time I purchased something in California... I do not recall there being a bomb proof barrier between me and the sales person that had been built by the state.

Yet, unless you arranged the purchase over Craigslist and met the seller in a bad part of town [gamespot.com] (in which case you're probably not paying any taxes anyway), law enforcement and regulation from the state and federal government has helped ensure that the clerk at the convenience store is not going to hit you over the head with a baseball bat and take your money, and you can walk into a huge big-box store and not worry that the roof is going to fall on your head - but if something like that does happen, then you'll be relying on government to find and punish that sales clerk, or to dig you out of the rubble from the store after a freak snowstorm made the roof collapse

In some countries you may pay less (or no taxes), but can't count on the general freedom and safety that we rely on every day as we go about our lives.

Re:So let me get this straight... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730623)

Extreme libertarian retardation alert.

Great News (1)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | about 10 months ago | (#45730281)

This is great news for me and my shares in TSLA. :D

Re:Great News (2)

Twinbee (767046) | about 10 months ago | (#45730447)

The stock price went down a little actually today so far.

Re:Great News (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730457)

This is great news for me and my shares in TSLA. :D

That and $40 million in pre-orders for the Tesla S, yeah, I'd say you're doing all right.

Horrah!! (4, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 10 months ago | (#45730315)

Another business that can't survive without tax payer money to help keep the costs down on a vehicle that only wealthy folks can afford. Brilliant.

Re:Horrah!! (2)

zlives (2009072) | about 10 months ago | (#45730355)

hey now... it takes money to bribe the government.

Re:Horrah!! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#45730385)

Like Boeing? They were offered about $9 billion.

Re:Horrah!! (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#45730561)

Like Boeing? They were offered about $9 billion.

Yea, just like that.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Horrah!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730839)

But three lefts make a right.

Re:Horrah!! (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#45731287)

States rights is good, until a state does something we don't like. Also, tax breaks are bad, but we'll whine louder when it's a company/CEO we don't like.

Re:Horrah!! (4, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | about 10 months ago | (#45730403)

RTFA - The state the company is located in is one of the few with the madness to tax manufacturing equipment. There's a policy guaranteed to help lower unemployment! /sarcasm. In this particular case they're not surviving on taxpayer money - they're getting a sensible exemption from an absurd policy.

Re:Horrah!! (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 10 months ago | (#45730615)

the policy exists to help transition manufacturing to areas where labor can be more easily exploited. Guess they are now realizing that perhaps that was not a wise long term policy. but don't worry this sensibility will soon pass.

Re:Horrah!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730663)

Pretty much every business that can has already left the state of California. We are left with service industry and tourism jobs that don't come anywhere close to a living wage, especially when you consider the real estate costs.

Re:Horrah!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731059)

Right. No one can afford the real estate costs; that's why they are so high.

Reminds me of the restaurant that no one goes to any more because it's too crowded.

Re:Horrah!! (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45731197)

Right. No one can afford the real estate costs; that's why they are so high.

No, they're high because people can still get mortgages that will bankrupt them when and if interest rates ever rise back to sensible levels.

How many people could afford those houses if they had to pay cash?

Re:Horrah!! (3, Funny)

hawguy (1600213) | about 10 months ago | (#45731317)

Pretty much every business that can has already left the state of California. We are left with service industry and tourism jobs that don't come anywhere close to a living wage, especially when you consider the real estate costs.

San Francisco is practically a wasteland these days - all of the tech companies that have no fixed assets thus can move easily have already left. You can stand in the middle of 101 at 8:30am and not see a single car for hours. Real estate has never been so low - landlords are offering 6 months free rent to anyone that comes, and multiple landlords are getting into reverse bidding wars to try to win you over with low prices.

Yeah, all of the businesses in California have packed up and left, leaving nothing but wildlife behind - which explains why Coyotes are moving into San Francisco [sfgate.com]

Re:Horrah!! (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 10 months ago | (#45730489)

Another business that can't survive without tax payer money to help keep the costs down on a vehicle that only wealthy folks can afford. Brilliant.

At least this time, we got off for 1/30th of what Solyndra cost us, and we get jobs out of it.

Re:Horrah!! (4, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 10 months ago | (#45730637)

The last step in making technology cheap enough for everyone is not something fresh out of R&D. It's something established that isn't cheap enough for everyone being refined and perfected and improved upon to suddenly be cheap enough for everyone. IBM and DEC didn't start out with commodity hardware. They made mainframes, then they made minicomputers, and then they made PCs and commodity servers.

This is American technology built with American manufacturing. In this day and age, that alone is exciting. This is electric cars -- not hybrids -- and they don't look like a Little Tikes Cozy Coupe. And the company is working to change nationwide infrastructure as well, and busting up the dealer middlemen that artificially inflate our auto prices. Fuck yes, I'd be happy to give them a tax break. They're actually doing something that might just benefit me as a citizen, a consumer, and an Earthling.

Oh thank christ (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730405)

Let's throw money at the company that does nothing but produce luxury cars for the ultra-wealthy. Fuck you government, and fuck you Tesla.

Re:Oh thank christ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730461)

A $40,000 car is cheaper than most BMW 3 series models and most Prius trim levels. This isn't exactly a Maybach we are talking about... it is something to compete with the Leaf.

Re:Oh thank christ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731043)

not sure where yo are shopping Prius for 40K i can't find one at my nearest two dealers over 29K
and this is if the TeslachEap actually is half the price.

Re:Oh thank christ (5, Informative)

couchslug (175151) | about 10 months ago | (#45731069)

"Luxury" funds early adoption of tech when it's expensive. The cost drops later. At one time all automobiles were luxury purchases.

A computer user above all should understand how that works.

Customers whose purchases make high performance video cards profitable to develop come to mind as examples.

Re:Oh thank christ (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 10 months ago | (#45731365)

We should subsidize SSDs with taxpayer money, is what youre saying. Works for me.

Re:Oh thank christ (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 10 months ago | (#45731227)

Yeah and our pitchforks also go to the early companies and adoptors of SSDs, LCD displays, washing machines, and more! If only they hadn't produced for them for the rich, then we wouldn't have.... er... also.. been able to affor.... oh wait.

More corporate lobbyism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730435)

Regulate and tax the hell out of companies, then when they start going bust as a result or just leaving the state, start handing out big subsidies (to the ones who lobby the most) to get some back. Wonderful. California bankrupt in how many years ?

Re:More corporate lobbyism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731133)

California has a BUDGET SURPLUS!

Models... (5, Funny)

SeanBlader (1354199) | about 10 months ago | (#45730453)

Surprised no one posted that Tesla will have Models identified as S, E and X when these are all rolled out.

Re:Models... (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 10 months ago | (#45730891)

finally geeks/nerds can complete the set and WIN

hey i resemble that remak

Re:Models... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730969)

One can therefore assume that their next model will be Y.

one advantage of a VAT (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 10 months ago | (#45730523)

With a value-added tax (VAT), if you buy $150 of intermediary stuff, and use it to produce $200 of stuff, the tax is levied on $200 in total value, which is charged as $150 on the first sale and $50 to the second sale. If you buy equipment that is producing goods or more equipment, you only pay sales tax on the incremental value added, not on the cost of the machinery.

With a sales tax, you either charge on both sales for the full amount, in which case a $200 product has paid sales tax on $350 worth of sales in this example, or you do special-case exemptions, such as exempting "manufacturing equipment" from sales tax entirely, as some states do. Sales taxes are also more brittle because since the entire tax on charged on the final retail transaction, it encourages black-market no-sales-tax sales.

Secret plan (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730547)

Could it be that the US just wants get rid of the arab oil dependency by sponsoring tesla?

SCAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45730591)

Selling carbon credits to California: Crony capitalism at its finest.

The Wealthy? (3, Insightful)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about 10 months ago | (#45730967)

Why is it if some guy in Arkansas drops $70K on a Ford F450 "dually" he's just a hard-working good ol' boy, but if someone in California buys a Tesla they're they wealthy elite? (I'd never spend over $30K on a car myself, but I just find the comparison interesting).

Re:The Wealthy? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 10 months ago | (#45731217)

Why is it if some guy in Arkansas drops $70K on a Ford F450 "dually" he's just a hard-working good ol' boy, but if someone in California buys a Tesla they're they wealthy elite?

Let me guess: the first is buying his pickup because he needs it for his job, while the second is buying his Tesla because he'd be embarrassed to be seen in a Civic?

Re:The Wealthy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731311)

How cute. People actually needing their truck for the job. That's the vast minority.

Re:The Wealthy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45731297)

I think you're asking the wrong crowd regarding your initial premise. I see something like that, and unless it's covered in hit and hauling stuff, I immediately assume the guy either be 8 feet tall or have an inch long dick to need to be driving it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?