[nickm]

Neither of these three can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. Granted they cost significantly less to buy than a Model S, but even if people want to spent more on performance, Tesla is the only one to offer now...

I'm not sure how you can draw any comparison between sub 30k electric cars and a 90k model s. Why not just go to the 800k 918 and tell us it's how hybrids all should be?

 

[Built4Sin]

Maybe you guys have forgotten how industry works. There is inherently a lot of government subsidy in everything fuel wise. Ethanol anyone? Great idea to subsidize a fuel made from corn... Of which comes from nutrients in soil that we already globally have a depleting problem with.

As for the talk about powering the cars nationally off a dirty grid. Well that can change if we're able to get back to nuclear and change over to that carrying the base load. From there you can add in the other renewable options to your hearts desire.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8937984
(Skip over the talk of Cruz)

Fact is that while your cutting down Tesla for taking handouts you seem to be forgetting what saved GM a few years ago to the tune of 50 billion.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3T0MR20140430

Tesla, SpaceX, and solar city have combined cost he government only 4.9 billion. (Now we could get creative and say did we lose that when you take in the workers added and value? That's for another topic.)

https://www.rt.com/usa/264065-musk-tesla-government-subsidies/

So while your getting all high and mighty just remember they all take the edge where they can find it.

 

[Spiegelglatt]

Most I think are bothered by Tesla because the purchase of their product is subsidized by the masses when the people purchasing them are generally significantly above the median income / net worth level. These vehicles are also likely third or fourth cars in these households.

If you take out the tax subsidies and we the people have nothing to do with subsidizing them, then I would be fine with them.

An EV would be good as a commuter, but makes more sense to me to buy an old $4,000 mk4 Golf with a gas 2.0 and a manual (would love a TDI, but that old has a billion miles on them). Odds are the Mk4 will still be on the road ten years from now given how easy that motor is to work on and how old the tech is...

 

[Built4Sin]

Spiegelglatt,

I hear that and that's exactly my take away. But that isn't something you hold against a single company when all diesel and EVs are taking tax credits (subsidies).

It's no different than anything else in life. Hey I see you put up a solar system on your house; you know I helped you pay for that. (Tax credit)

Or Hey congrats and the more efficient windows and machines; you know I helped you pay for that. (Tax credit)

Lol, hey how's your kid doing in school? You know I care because I helped you pay for that. (Property taxes)

It's endless; welcome to society.

 

[BeemerMikeTX]

Most I think are bothered by Tesla because the purchase of their product is subsidized by the masses when the people purchasing them are generally significantly above the median income / net worth level. These vehicles are also likely third or fourth cars in these households. If you take out the tax subsidies and we the people have nothing to do with subsidizing them, then I would be fine with them.

^ This. I wish Tesla the best in developing a workable, affordable, stylish electric car. I might even buy one. But unless Elon is trying to develop compact nuclear fusion to power his electric cars, then my tax dollars should be used to subsidize Tesla buyers.

 

[yuyueyuyue]

I'm not sure how you can draw any comparison between sub 30k electric cars and a 90k model s. Why not just go to the 800k 918 and tell us it's how hybrids all should be?

the point is there's no 90k Nissan Leaf to buy...

 

[Built4Sin]

the point is there's no 30k Tesla to buy...

Fixed it for you.

 

[richyrich2]

But we're not giving government subsidies to fossil-fuel burning cars.

Ahem - memories are short - U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout | Reuters

 

[Oregon TDI]

Another way to look at it is the e-car buyer's $7500 tax credit is the same whether they're buying a $30K LEAF or a $90K Tesla. UNFAIR!! Lol.

Tesla is a market disruptor with its entire business model. I want to see how far they can go in that mode.

Tax breaks: Let's see, I get to deduct property taxes, mortgage interest, dependents, etc. I'm also on Social Security and Obamacare. Soon it'll be Medicare. I'm skating through on government subsidies! *eek*

 

[BeemerMikeTX]

Fact is that while your cutting down Tesla for taking handouts you seem to be forgetting what saved GM a few years ago to the tune of 50 billion.

Actually, the government did not save GM. If the government had stayed out of it, GM have gone through the normal reorganization bankruptcy process, and would have come out as an operating company with less debt. GM would have survived. What the government saved through its interference in the normal bankruptcy process was the UNIONS involved, at the expense of GM's creditors. In other words, the government picked the winners and the losers, and with a Democratic administration that meant the winners would be the unions. That's almost always the result when the government picks. Politics drives the answer.

 

[BeemerMikeTX]

Ahem - memories are short - U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout | Reuters

And understanding is even shorter. Look at who REALLY benefited from the GM bailout.

 

[BeemerMikeTX]

^ This. I wish Tesla the best in developing a workable, affordable, stylish electric car. I might even buy one. But unless Elon is trying to develop compact nuclear fusion to power his electric cars, then my tax dollars should be used to subsidize Tesla buyers.

Sorry. Typo. "Should NOT be used to subsidize Tesla buyers."

 

[m-fine]

Ahem - memories are short - U.S. government says it lost $11.2 billion on GM bailout | Reuters

You mean the government spent $11.2 billion of taxpayer money on a kickback to the UAW as a thank you for their years of support every campaign season.

Also, just because they wasted money in one place does not make it OK to waste more everywhere else.

 

[PL69]

Actually, the government did not save GM. If the government had stayed out of it, GM have gone through the normal reorganization bankruptcy process, and would have come out as an operating company with less debt. GM would have survived. What the government saved through its interference in the normal bankruptcy process was the UNIONS involved, at the expense of GM's creditors. In other words, the government picked the winners and the losers, and with a Democratic administration that meant the winners would be the unions. That's almost always the result when the government picks. Politics drives the answer.

Not surprised by this at all, same problem here in Canada, it's been going on from the beginning of the unions, it's called corruption and it's always the taxpayers who end up with the bill at the end..

 

[BeemerMikeTX]

Not surprised by this at all, same problem here in Canada, it's been going on from the beginning of the unions, it's called corruption and it's always the taxpayers who end up with the bill at the end..

No, this is not a "unions" issue in general. It was just a unions issue (and a little bit "green" issue) in the GM situation. The fundamental problem is the government trying to pick winners and losers when that selection should be made by the marketplace. If Tesla electric cars are economically viable then the marketplace will let us know, without the need for the government to put the taxpayer's thumb on the scale to help Elon.

 

[PL69]

Anyways that damn E-Golf isn't even available where I live, This would perfectly fit my daily commute needs..

 

[BeemerMikeTX]

Anyways that damn E-Golf isn't even available where I live, This would perfectly fit my daily commute needs..

For shorter, daily commuting where you can recharge at home overnight, an e-car probably makes sense. Just don't ask the taxpayers to subsidize your e-car purchase.

 

[Built4Sin]

Actually, the government did not save GM. If the government had stayed out of it, GM have gone through the normal reorganization bankruptcy process, and would have come out as an operating company with less debt. GM would have survived. What the government saved through its interference in the normal bankruptcy process was the UNIONS involved, at the expense of GM's creditors. In other words, the government picked the winners and the losers, and with a Democratic administration that meant the winners would be the unions. That's almost always the result when the government picks. Politics drives the answer.

Have you taken a look at GM's debt? Not big deal @ 173 Billion, right? As for the unions and how that affected their business, who's fault is that? You picked a bad company to pan against Tesla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization

GM was losing money because Lutz "thought" he knew what the customers wanted. GM was pushing cars that weren't selling, thats the reason. It had been that way since 2004 when they started accumulated debt in the billions because of it. They went under before the collapse, the collapse just accelerated the proceedings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01auto.html?_r=0

What about Space X?
Musk is launching rockets into space at 57 Million each.
The US was previously paying around 380 million each on the average.

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Air & Space Magazine

Sounds like the investment is paying off according to your view of GM.

 

[BeemerMikeTX]

Have you taken a look at GM's debt? Not big deal @ 173 Billion, right? As for the unions and how that affected their business, who's fault is that? You picked a bad company to pan against Tesla.

I'm not panning GM against Tesla. I'm refuting the idea that the federal government "saved" GM.

 

[BeemerMikeTX]

What about Space X?
Musk is launching rockets into space at 57 Million each.
The US was previously paying around 380 million each on the average.

So, you agree that when the government manages and controls, it costs more than when private industry manages and controls? No argument from me.