The Real Costs of Electric Car Ownership - CNET

[Ingomike]

Teslas been turning a profit since 2019.
View attachment 362941

Yep, turning a profit after feeding at the taxpayer trough…

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/tesla-inc

Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Los Angeles entrepreneur Elon Musk has built a multibillion-dollar fortune running companies that make electric cars, sell solar panels and launch rockets into space.

www.latimes.com

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There’s plenty of that sweet taxpayer’s money to subsidize all of the EV manufacturers.

“Taxpayers footed a $250 million bill for the plants, so 5,000 jobs would to come to Kentucky, but production is paused at one of the plants because of expected demand”

 

[jamil]

Teslas been turning a profit since 2019.
View attachment 362941

Then why do we have to subsidize it?

 

[KLB]

There’s plenty of that sweet taxpayer’s money to subsidize all of the EV manufacturers.

“Taxpayers footed a $250 million bill for the plants, so 5,000 jobs would to come to Kentucky, but production is paused at one of the plants because of expected demand”

Tax incentives or a grant?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Tax incentives or a grant?

Incentives.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Tax incentives or a grant?

The $250 million is neither. It's a forgivable loan. If they hit the targets for employment and hourly wages, it becomes a grant. If they don't, Ford & partners are on the hook to repay it. They have until the end of 2026 to employ 2500 people, and until 2030 to employ 5000. Salary targets are something like $26.50 in 2026 and $30 in 2030.

However they did get the land granted to them and the state agreed to pay for some work force training in the area to get locals qualified. That was roughly $50 million in total value, with (again, roughly) 1/2 the value being the land signed over from the county to the plant.

 

[KLB]

The $250 million is neither. It's a forgivable loan. If they hit the targets for employment and hourly wages, it becomes a grant. If they don't, Ford & partners are on the hook to repay it. They have until the end of 2026 to employ 2500 people, and until 2030 to employ 5000. Salary targets are something like $26.50 in 2026 and $30 in 2030.

However they did get the land granted to them and the state agreed to pay for some work force training in the area to get locals qualified. That was roughly $50 million in total value, with (again, roughly) 1/2 the value being the land signed over from the county to the plant.

So delaying too long will cost them.

 

[04FXSTS]

Back in the 1980's the company I worked for had a big layoff. The state offered financial incentives based on employment levels so the company would get money if they had enough people working. Alot of those called back mostly swept floors or painted instead of actual work. As soon as the incentive program was finished most were laid off again. Jim.

 

[jamil]

The $250 million is neither. It's a forgivable loan. If they hit the targets for employment and hourly wages, it becomes a grant. If they don't, Ford & partners are on the hook to repay it. They have until the end of 2026 to employ 2500 people, and until 2030 to employ 5000. Salary targets are something like $26.50 in 2026 and $30 in 2030.

However they did get the land granted to them and the state agreed to pay for some work force training in the area to get locals qualified. That was roughly $50 million in total value, with (again, roughly) 1/2 the value being the land signed over from the county to the plant.

It's still government interfering with free enterprise. They should butt the **** out. Regulation of a market is one thing, and is necessary to a point. But deciding winners and losers in the market is something entirely different. If the market doesn't want the thing the government imposes through coercive incentives, that's not regulation.

In this case, companies should be able employ the number of people they reasonably need to meet their manufacturing goals. Regulation to make sure the relationship between labor and management is fair, is a reasonable function of government. Putting their thumbs on the scale to require employment quotas is not reasonable nor fair.

 

[KLB]

It's still government interfering with free enterprise. They should butt the **** out. Regulation of a market is one thing, and is necessary to a point. But deciding winners and losers in the market is something entirely different. If the market doesn't want the thing the government imposes through coercive incentives, that's not regulation.

In this case, companies should be able employ the number of people they reasonably need to meet their manufacturing goals. Regulation to make sure the relationship between labor and management is fair, is a reasonable function of government. Putting their thumbs on the scale to require employment quotas is not reasonable nor fair.

Would your take be the same if it were a factory making some other product with the same loan/requirements? THis kind of thing is not unique to EV or green businesses.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Would your take be the same if it were a factory making some other product with the same loan/requirements? THis kind of thing is not unique to EV or green businesses.

Of course it’s not unique. Incentives come in many forms and the post I posted that precipitated this sub-string of posts was meant to show that incentives are indeed not unique to Tesla (in particular) and, by extension, other green businesses. Any time the government gives direct payments, loans, tax abatements, or what have you, they are all incentives to get the company to build a new plant, invest in expansion, add jobs, etc.

 

[KLB]

Of course it’s not unique. Incentives come in many forms and the post I posted that precipitated this sub-string of posts was meant to show that incentives are indeed not unique to Tesla (in particular) and, by extension, other green businesses. Any time the government gives direct payments, loans, tax abatements, or what have you, they are all incentives to get the company to build a new plant, invest in expansion, add jobs, etc.

He said this

But deciding winners and losers in the market is something entirely different. If the market doesn't want the thing the government imposes through coercive incentives, that's not regulation.

I doubt the government here was trying to pick winners and losers, other than thinking they were making themselves winners by getting the plant built there.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's still government interfering with free enterprise. They should butt the **** out. Regulation of a market is one thing, and is necessary to a point. But deciding winners and losers in the market is something entirely different. If the market doesn't want the thing the government imposes through coercive incentives, that's not regulation.

In this case, companies should be able employ the number of people they reasonably need to meet their manufacturing goals. Regulation to make sure the relationship between labor and management is fair, is a reasonable function of government. Putting their thumbs on the scale to require employment quotas is not reasonable nor fair.

Corporate welfare gonna corporate welfare. https://fox59.com/indiana-news/is-t...deal-for-eli-lilly-a-good-deal-for-taxpayers/ seems timely.

Looks like KY got a bargain.

 

[dsears2]

Interested in how the direction of this conversation goes... I find it difficult to discuss electric cars with some folks

I really, really want a Tesla. I think they are neat and the future. I don't care about the environment, I don't care about saving money.

Whenever I mention those 3 things up front, some immediately want to steer the conversation towards how they "don't help the environment as much as claimed" or "it costs more than they say" in a passionate attempt to dissuade me from wanting one.

Bring on the Cybertruck!

Brother, if that is what you want, go for it! Personally I went with a hybrid. Loving the 41 mpg with no worries about recharging or having to find a site to recharge on a long trip. My Ford Maverick truck is a fine ride too. Let us know what you end up driving? safe travels.

 

[jamil]

Would your take be the same if it were a factory making some other product with the same loan/requirements? THis kind of thing is not unique to EV or green businesses.

The example I replied to was a requirement to employ so many people. I don't think there was a stipulation that it had to be EV. Yes. Of course that goes for other businesses. That particular requirement is the government putting a thumb on which side of the labor relation should win. Regulating to keep a market fair is the only legitimate role government might have in markets.

 

[MCgrease08]

Brother, if that is what you want, go for it! Personally I went with a hybrid. Loving the 41 mpg with no worries about recharging or having to find a site to recharge on a long trip. My Ford Maverick truck is a fine ride too. Let us know what you end up driving? safe travels.

41 mph is decent, but I thought hybrids got better than that.

Heck, my Honda Civic averages almost 38 mpg. I think I could crack 40 if I actually drove the speed limit.

 

[KLB]

The example I replied to was a requirement to employ so many people. I don't think there was a stipulation that it had to be EV. Yes. Of course that goes for other businesses. That particular requirement is the government putting a thumb on which side of the labor relation should win. Regulating to keep a market fair is the only legitimate role government might have in markets.

Ah, that is not how I see the requirement. It looks more like the .gov is looking to get their return on the investment.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

41 mph is decent, but I thought hybrids got better than that.

Heck, my Honda Civic averages almost 38 mpg. I think I could crack 40 if I actually drove the speed limit.

The Civic is also about 1k lbs lighter and more aerodynamic than the Maverick. Not really fair to compare an economy car to a small truck.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The example I replied to was a requirement to employ so many people.

So you'd rather the businesses just be given carte blanche and keep the incentives with no performance metrics? What other financial arrangement do you believe should be this one sided?

 

[jamil]

So you'd rather the businesses just be given carte blanche and keep the incentives with no performance metrics? What other financial arrangement do you believe should be this one sided?

No. I'm saying no incentives. It's not the government's job to "incentivize" a player in the market. Leave it the **** alone, other than regulating it to prevent monopolization, unfair trading practices, fraud, etcetera.