Tesla Gets $34 Million Tax Break, Adds Capacity For 35,000 More Cars 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."
Thanks, California taxpayers! (Score:5, Informative)
The rest of us are grateful for your generous contributions to our new luxury cars.
one advantage of a VAT (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Why shouldn't it? (Score:2, Informative)
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:Thanks, California taxpayers! (Score:5, Informative)
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:Oh thank christ (Score:5, Informative)
"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:Why shouldn't it? (Score:2, Informative)
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:Thanks, California taxpayers! (Score:5, Informative)
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:Move to breeder reactors (Score:4, Informative)
I used to be his cheerleader, not anymore.
But I'm still waiting for proof he's a total scam. Also waiting to proof that his product is for real as well.
He did give his reactor a chance to be tested for what 48hrs by some very sharp scientists, the test results were published, they couldn't peek inside, but they could futz around with all external connections all they wanted. No hidden wires found, no weird electrical signal hiding the energy. And the reactor is too small for anything but a nuclear reaction.
Before that test, I was pending back to he's a fraud, now I just don't know.
Fleishman & Poons experiment also appears to be in direct conflict with currently accepted laws of physics, so I my books, it's the laws of physics that need revisiting, and until those can be reconciled, I believe we can't use the laws of physics to rule out the e-cat as a fraud.
In my view, he has one last year to deliver.
I have to warn you that I also see a bunch of very rabid people that probably has some seriously vested interest in the billions being wasted in my opinion on fusion and others employed by the dirty energy lobby that I see your testimony just as questionable as Mr. Rossi's work.