Should Tesla setup a Blank-Check Co. (SPAC) or separate IPO for Cybertrck so that buyers can qualify for a $7500 rebate?

[Dids]

So you don't think I should be allowed to pay less in taxes just because I have a mortgage deduction? It is pretty much the same.

And that's the end of this discussion for me.

No I don't think anyone should pay less for government services than other people just because someone have a mortgage, just like anyone shouldn't pay less because they have a child etc. People don't use less services, they are mearly being subsidized. The point of a subsidy is to promote activity or competitiveness. In the case of mortgage deduction it's to promote homeownership but it doesn't function like that. The market prices the deduction into home prices and in the long run the only people that benefit are people that get a percentage of higher home price transactions. The losers are everyone else that are subsidizing realtors.
In the case of EV tax rebate it was to get manufactures to create vehicles helping to offset the higher price of low volume vehicles.
People can argue that to help increase the rate of shift to electric vehicles it is worth subsidizing rich people into a new vehicle, but what they cannot argue is that they don't get government handouts when they get tax rebates.

Advertisement

 

[cybertruckthatisaboat2]

No I don't think anyone should pay less for government services than other people just because someone have a mortgage, just like anyone shouldn't pay less because they have a child etc. People don't use less services, they are mearly being subsidized. The point of a subsidy is to promote activity or competitiveness. In the case of mortgage deduction it's to promote homeownership but it doesn't function like that. The market prices the deduction into home prices and in the long run the only people that benefit are people that get a percentage of higher home price transactions. The losers are everyone else that are subsidizing realtors.
In the case of EV tax rebate it was to get manufactures to create vehicles helping to offset the higher price of low volume vehicles.
People can argue that to help increase the rate of shift to electric vehicles it is worth subsidizing rich people into a new vehicle, but what they cannot argue is that they don't get government handouts when they get tax rebates.

Did you give back your stimulus money?

 

[cybertruckthatisaboat2]

No I don't think anyone should pay less for government services than other people just because someone have a mortgage, just like anyone shouldn't pay less because they have a child etc. People don't use less services, they are mearly being subsidized. The point of a subsidy is to promote activity or competitiveness. In the case of mortgage deduction it's to promote homeownership but it doesn't function like that. The market prices the deduction into home prices and in the long run the only people that benefit are people that get a percentage of higher home price transactions. The losers are everyone else that are subsidizing realtors.
In the case of EV tax rebate it was to get manufactures to create vehicles helping to offset the higher price of low volume vehicles.
People can argue that to help increase the rate of shift to electric vehicles it is worth subsidizing rich people into a new vehicle, but what they cannot argue is that they don't get government handouts when they get tax rebates.

Did you give back any Cares Act or PPP or Unemployed money?

 

[Dids]

Did you give back any Cares Act or PPP or Unemployed money?

No and no. I kept my PPP and it converted to a grant, that's how I'm paying for CT! ? But I'm not pretending it isn't a government hand out. But that's a separate question from is it good policy.

 

[Bigfoot DeLorean]

If it’s legal, it should be on the table. One man’s tax savings is another man’s tax loophole. If it is available and legit, they have a fiduciary duty to consider it.

However, if there is significant public relations damage risk, that needs to be factored in as well...similar to taking PPP money. But make no mistake, there are thousands of large companies that look for every tax benefit they can get - just like we all do. Govt sets the rules, we play by them. There are always unintended consequences with tax law (or any law) in such a large complex system...but if it’s legal, it’s legal.

Someone - likely our kids or grandchildren - will eventually have to pay the piper. We all are now to, relatively - with out personal tax rates exceeding most companies. A previous poster was right - nothing is free. But the recent huge “bailouts” of businesses aren't over, and new ones for schools, municipalities, etc are coming.

I don’t have an issue with taking advantage of tax rules if it’s legal - I’ll take every one my accountant can identify. So before judging tesla for doing the same, perhaps look at other laws on the books like 1031 exchanges and decide what tax laws are you should really rally against.

Just sayin...there are probably better targets for outrage. Although, outrage today seems to be in unlimited supply.

 

[craz]

If the CT really has 600k+ reservations, why does Tesla need the tax credit to sell its truck?

I think tax credits and other economic incentives that primarily benefit the wealthy and megacorps go against the personal politics of many Tesla owners, but they look past that because they like Tesla.

If Elon wants to make a new company so the government can subsidize a truly mass market, sub $20k EV to encourage adoption from lower classes then I’d be all for it since it moves the mission forward. But let’s not pretend like Tesla isnt a boutique product right now, and subsidizing them feels gross.

 

[lawdog]

True to a point. Taxes are used to pay down govt debt. Those that pay less means others still got to pay down that debt which isn't going shrink mysteriously. A better option is to offer tax credits opportunities to all tax payers...even those who can never afford a Tesla.

Perhaps a starter tesla where the battery is leased/owned by Tesla and the vehicle is well under 20k?

sorry, you lost me at "taxes are used to pay down govt debt" lemme know when your comedy act hits the road, i need some tickets.

 

[Delusional]

It's more than just a tax rebate, it's a stimulus. Cybertruck buyers may not be in the. poor house, but a very small percentage of buyers will qualify as anything other than what is termed a "consumer".
When government puts money into the hands of consumers that money always goes right back out the door. It ends up being that that seventy-five hundred dollars is spent twice. Once on the CT and once on other things. Providing benefit to the car maker, the consumer, and then the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker also get to experience the $7500 too.
It's a double-your-money play for the government. And don't forget, the government will get. a significant portion of the money back in taxes, when it's spent twice.
And it's even better than that, in ways I won't get into, but....

People need to realize that stimulus to CONSUMERS, ends up being an amazingly incredible play for a government that can create money out of thin air.

 

[CyberG]

If the CT broke off as a separate company, there would like be a million share holder suits filed. At least some part of the meteoric rise in the stock is due to the 650k preorders of the CT. It would undoubtedly cause the share price to fall. You can’t unveil the CT under the banner of Tesla and later say, ‘I was kidding, it’s really going to be produced under a different company.’

 

[ldjessee]

If the CT broke off as a separate company, there would like be a million share holder suits filed. At least some part of the meteoric rise in the stock is due to the 650k preorders of the CT. It would undoubtedly cause the share price to fall. You can’t unveil the CT under the banner of Tesla and later say, ‘I was kidding, it’s really going to be produced under a different company.’

Companies sell products, the rights to make products, and all kinds of other things to a newly formed company that will just make these products obtained from another company.

Not that I support spinning off CyberTruck to its own brand... atleast, not yet, but it is also pretty common in the car world to have multiple badges... US, Japanese, and European automakers do this, so it is nothing really new either, nor remotely illegal.

I do not think Tesla should spin off the CyberTruck at this point just because it helps get the Tesla name out there more. Eventually I could see a C-Trucking company that has the CyberTruck (maybe of multiple sizes), the Semi, and the transporter van... and maybe even a platform for duty/service trucks.

Now, if they starting to spin things off, I could see Tesla being the holding company, and it would own the car company, the truck company, the hardware/software company, the battery company, and the solar company. Oh, and the manufacturing technology company (keep forgetting they bought Grohmann Automation).

I just do not see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Cebliminal]

To be truthful I’m buying Cybertruck for a toy to muscle around in and feel the performance Of a Tesla I’m not trying to save the planet, if I save some gas money cool. if not cool also, but I’m not about to give up my ice vehicles or Harley’s. But then I won’t be taken advantage of either, like price increases, I feel that I was asked to put down 100 dollars I would of put down more but was not asked to, lock in the dual motor at that listed price. The price can go up if I add upgrades only. Also adding 1000 more for full self driving upgrade just seems tacky. By the time it comes around you will be paying more On top of what you already paid. Also selling upgrades like 2000 dollars to gain a second faster with 0-60. The vehicle should be at the top of its game when purchased.

 

[Scot Braley]

It's great that you can afford the cyber truck at that price but some of us could use whatever brakes are available.

 

[ricinro]

sorry, you lost me at "taxes are used to pay down govt debt" lemme know when your comedy act hits the road, i need some tickets.

I guess you are correct. The government does have debt and instituted occasional bake sales to generate the revenue to pay for debt and its other obligations.

But since my act does have a two drink minimum as you down drink number two consider that the government does try to create incentives using taxation. Personally I think unintended consequences are the rule and not the exception with this approach.

The path to switch from fossil fuels to the sustainable future that Tesla proposes could be better done by green-lighting the standards and removing regulatory obstacles as they arise in any transition.

So fast track our camera side mirrors etc.

 

[lawdog]

I guess you are correct. The government does have debt and instituted occasional bake sales to generate the revenue to pay for debt and its other obligations.

But since my act does have a two drink minimum as you down drink number two consider that the government does try to create incentives using taxation. Personally I think unintended consequences are the rule and not the exception with this approach.

The path to switch from fossil fuels to the sustainable future that Tesla proposes could be better done by green-lighting the standards and removing regulatory obstacles as they arise in any transition.

So fast track our camera side mirrors etc.

yeah i definitely agree there