backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Jun 6 at 6:09 PM

Tesla Model S Signature starts at $105k

As if successfully completing the first commercial mission to the International Space Station and back wasn't enough, Elon Musk is also finding quite a bit of success with his electric venture: Tesla Motors.
 
Inside Line is reporting today that the Model S Signature Performance, the top-of-the-line trim level, is already sold out and Tesla Motors is no longer accepting pre-orders. Customers now wanting to purchase the Model S Signature Performance will have to be put on a waiting list.
 
Interestingly, the standard model is still available for pre-order and has a base price of "only" $57,400 before a $7,500 federal tax credit (President Obama wants to see that federal tax credit increased to $10,000). The Signature Performance, however, has a base price of $105,400.
 
The standard Model S comes with a 40 kWh lithium-ion battery pack (8-year, 100,000-mile warranty), can hit 60 mph in 6.5 seconds and has a top speed of 110 mph. Range is listed at 160 miles.

 Model S Signature at the Tesla Fashion Island Signature Weekend [Image Source: Tesla Motors]
 
The Signature Performance ups the ante with an 85 kWh lithium-ion battery pack (8-year, unlimited miles warranty). As its name implies, performance improves greatly with 0-60 times dropping to 4.4 seconds while the top speed increases to 130 mph. The maximum driving range of the Signature Performance is listed at 300 miles.
 
The first deliveries of the Model S Signature Performance will begin on June 22. Those who have ponied up for the standard Model S will receive their vehicles later this fall. Those who haven't already pre-ordered the standard Model S still have time to get in line; Tesla is still accepting $5,000 deposits for the vehicle.

Source: Inside Line



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By kattanna on 6/4/2012 2:53:49 PM , Rating: 5
applying these tax credits to promote an EV that most tax payers cannot afford is an issue of mine.

if it was a car costing around $20K then I could get behind that, but $60-$110K? please, If they can afford such a car, then they dont need me to help them pay for it.




RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Florinator on 6/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Souka on 6/4/2012 9:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
I'm for these tax credits for consumers... but only on afordable "common" electric cars.

$10k discount, at tax payers expense, on a sports car? Hell NO....


By Chernobyl68 on 6/5/2012 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 1
The Tesla S is a 4-door, if that matters. Its not really a sports car.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Mint on 6/4/2012 4:50:49 PM , Rating: 5
The tax credit will probably pay for itself over the lifetime of the vehicle. Driving an EV 200k miles (may need a battery replacement, but they're very low maintenance and mechanically simple otherwise) instead of a car averaging 28MPG combined (which is unlikely in the luxury sport sedan market) will prevent the burning of 7000 gallons of gas.

That's $15-30k of oil imports, depending on how you count and what the price is. Money circulating in the economy creates jobs and gets taxed a lot more than money leaving the country. The trade deficit would be almost zero without oil imports. You'll also have lower urban pollution, reducing health care costs for respiratory problems and other ailments.

Remember that the government is borrowing at a negative real interest right now. Even breaking even on a long term investment reduces the debt.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Mint on 6/5/2012 3:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
Have you looked at all the countries that tried to significantly cut spending recently? ALL of them had their economies tank.

You can't compare to the past, as everything was different. To get out of the early 90's recession, the free market has increased private debt by 10% of GDP per year, and it continued up to 2007. All of that net debt went into production/services of some sort (otherwise it wouldn't have been borrowed). Now the private economy hit its debt ceiling and can't keep creating it at that rate, so its missing that 5-10% funding of the economy that it got used to for 15 years. We're not going to get unemployment back to 4% ever (unless you want to force people to take $3/hr jobs). This is all independent of government spending, BTW.

Of course it's possible for there to be expenditures which pay itself back. It's true with every business, and it's true with the government.

In the off chance that you're not as mathematically inept as you seem, read this to see how spending can reduce the debt if the conditions are right:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/05/fiscal-polic...

Treasury rates are insanely low right now. Entities with money are begging the government to borrow it and give them any tiny return, even if its less than inflation and ties their money up for 10 years. Despite the lowest cost of capital ever, AND the lowest tax burden in 50+ years, AND millions of desperate (i.e. cheaper than ever) workers, the free market STILL can't figure out anything to do with its money. So tell me again why you think killing the part of the economy funded by the gov't helps?

Using public money to give a few rich people tax credits for buying a car (with a bunch of societal benefits) is wrong, but using it give all of them tax cuts (like every Republican candidate wants) for hoarding money and stagnating the economy is right? Give me a break...


By JediJeb on 6/6/2012 2:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't compare to the past, as everything was different. To get out of the early 90's recession, the free market has increased private debt by 10% of GDP per year, and it continued up to 2007. All of that net debt went into production/services of some sort (otherwise it wouldn't have been borrowed). Now the private economy hit its debt ceiling and can't keep creating it at that rate, so its missing that 5-10% funding of the economy that it got used to for 15 years. We're not going to get unemployment back to 4% ever (unless you want to force people to take $3/hr jobs). This is all independent of government spending, BTW.


This is an example of why the thought that the government can spend our way out of a bad economy is flawed. If the private sector ran out of money, then the government will also if it tries to continue the course that is already failing, since the money which the government has also comes from the private sector(private sector is who pays taxes to fund the government). Now, if the government was sitting on a surplus of cash and decided to spend that thus putting part of a surplus back into circulation, then Keynesian economics might work to solve this problem.

Where your logic has problems( I realize it isn't just your logic, but is what you mentioned) is that it takes the private sector to fund the government which is then supposed to put the money back into the private sector to make it grow. Now if the government could somehow take in $1 in taxes, grow it to anything above $1+expenses and put that back into the private sector then we might be able to use this type of funding, problem is how would the government be able to grow the money without using devaluation to do so? If government workers worked for free so that there were no expenses for handling the money in the loop, you still only break even keeping the money at the same value, unless the government loans it out to someone else and collects interest on it, but to make that work the government has to loan it outside the economy it is trying to support and hope it comes back with enough interest to pump money back into the economy it is supporting.

Right now governments around the world are struggling and doing just the opposite of the above. They are selling bonds to make liquid cash to spend now, and will have to pay back interest on those later, that ends up being a net negative cash flow that the government will have to make up somehow in the future. Right now most governments are operating like people addicted to pay-day loans/check advances. They borrow more hoping to get out of debt, then have to borrow even more to pay the note due on what they borrowed before. There are only two ways out of that cycle. One is to cut your expenses to the point you finally have enough left over to cover the loan and pay it off. The other is to get a better job making enough money to pay off the loan. The US government is hoping for number two, in that they hope they can spark the economy enough to increase the tax base to bring in more cash. What happens though if that doesn't work? Then you are in the situation Greece is in where the only option left is to cut the expenses deep enough that you finally have enough money left over to pay off your debts. The absolute final option that no one wants to talk about is the same for governments as it is for the private sector, file bankruptcy.

What happens if you have taxed the people to the point they have no money left over after paying basic living expenses, then tax business to the point they have no money left over after paying their expenses and yet you still can not cover the cost of running all the government programs? At that point there is no money for the businesses to give raises to the workers, and no money for the people to buy more things to cause the economy to grow, and no money for higher taxes to be collected. Yet even at this point businesses want people to buy more of their products, and people want raises to be able to buy more products, and the government wants more taxes to be able to do more for the people. What can you do then to solve the problem? We need to think of that answer soon, since most of the world governments are headed to that point rather quickly. I guess we can hope for a solid gold asteroid to fall out of the sky and make one group super wealthy so that they spend tons of money and it spreads out around the world, but would we even then be wise enough to handle the cash flow so that we do not end up back in the same place we are now?

Look up the theory on the "Dept Wall", which says that we will soon hit the limit of easily available cash to fund governments, and the economy. At this point governments will have no more avenue for collecting taxes from the surplus money citizens have, but will then have to begin collecting money directly out of citizens pockets. Think of the stories like Robin Hood when the tax collector shows up and simply demands payment of taxes instead of taking a small percentage from your paycheck.

The theory that the "1 percenters" can carry the load is also rather faulty. Consider that the current budget being proposes by the executive branch calls for spending with a $1 Trillion plus deficit. If we had one thousand billionaires we would have to tax them an additional $1 Billion each to cover that. I don't think we have one thousand billionaires in the US right now. So let's step it down to cover all millionaires. For that we need one million millionaires to pay an extra $1 Million in taxes next year to cover that $1 Trillion deficit. Now maybe we do have one million millionaires in the US, but how much to all the people who have a million dollars actually make each year in individual incomes? If we set the tax rate for this group to 30% then they must have an annual income of at least $3.3 Million each year to just cover the $1 Trillion deficit, that would be in addition to what they already pay in taxes. If they do not have that much income, do we simply as them to write a check for enough to cover the difference they are short of the $1 Million out of their bank account?

It will definitely not be an easy and quick fix to this current economic situation, and those who promise quick fixes are not the ones we need to be voting into office any time soon. Doesn't matter what party they are from, if they claim a magic solution then they do not know what it takes to fix the problem and are only saying what they know we want to hear. The person who will stand up and tell it straight even when it is something hard to hear, that is the one we need.


By bjacobson on 6/4/2012 8:06:50 PM , Rating: 3
and no gas tax revenue is collected meaning it's driving on the roads for free.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By lelias2k on 6/4/2012 5:57:27 PM , Rating: 5
Funny, I've never heard anyone complaining about the tax breaks one could get for buying Expeditions and Suburbans. (The old 6000lbs loophole) :|

I also don't see anyone asking to stop the tax breaks oil corporations get, while profiting billions and causing huge environmental accidents.

If we tax the crap out of tobacco companies because they are bad for us, why not do the same with oil companies? I still haven't heard anything about Phillip Morris going out of business.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2012 8:03:38 PM , Rating: 1
First off stop saying you don't see anyone complaining about such things. They do. Often. The President himself "complains" about them constantly, I would certainly say he qualifies as "someone".

Secondly the Government wasn't trying to get people to buy SUV's over other cars. That was a tax break to help farmers that was poorly framed and allowed people to get a break on buying those vehicles. Is that REALLY comparable to the EV subsidy argument? Of course not.

Oil companies provide a product that's in such demand they profit in the billions. Electric vehicles are literally only on the market because of Government funding, every sale is also subsidized, and there's barely any demand for them judging by total sales. Yeeeah, another even comparison there. The oil subsidies only lower our price at the pump, the product would still exist without them. The same cannot be said for most EV's.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Jedi2155 on 6/4/2012 8:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
The main thing is that EV's provide a benefit to society that normal vehicles do not.

- Reduce foreign oil dependence/national security.
- Extend supplies of existing oil reserves.
- Helps lower pump cost for everyone else (lowering demand)
- Cleaner air quality and locally produced fuel (Nuclear/Renewable/Natural gas)

Those are the big ones, that EV's provide to society while a normal gas burning vehicle provide no such benefits. That's why I think government subsidies are justified for the time being.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By 1prophet on 6/4/2012 9:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's right, society can go pound salt since it's all about me. (^_-)


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2012 9:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
This sort of thing NEVER produces stronger better societies. You have it all wrong.


By testerguy on 6/6/2012 2:55:44 AM , Rating: 2
Society as a collective philosophy is not necessarily political, it's a logical necessity, all parties and all political views encompass a society view.

You've failed to address any of the very real and logical benefits outlined by the original poster.


By Kurz on 6/5/2012 3:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
What makes up societies? Individuals.
If the Individual is cast aside for the 'greater good' the rest of society suffers as their base weakens.


By JediJeb on 6/6/2012 5:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
Some of those benefits might come true if EVs were to be sold in large amounts, but for now the hand full that have been sold really do nothing for those things. You will not see any of those benefits until they sell EVs at prices around $20k or lower. When they finally make the "Everyman's " version then maybe they will take off and begin to change things. Even then, around where I live it will only mean more coal will be burned to provide the electricity needed for them, since that is the only type of power plants around here.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Schrag4 on 6/5/2012 9:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I also don't see anyone asking to stop the tax breaks oil corporations get, while profiting billions and causing huge environmental accidents.


A couple of points:

- These tax breaks you talk about aren't specific to the oil industry, they're tax breaks that ALL industries enjoy. What you're calling for isn't for the oil industry to stop being favored, rather you seem to want it to be punished.
- The profit margin that the oil industry sees is about the same that other industries see, somewhere around 8 or 9 percent. They just happen to move a lot of product.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2012 11:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What you're calling for isn't for the oil industry to stop being favored, rather you seem to want it to be punished.


That's what all these people want basically. It's so obvious. Oil represents everything liberal morons are against.


RE: can we stop subsidizing luxury please
By testerguy on 6/6/2012 3:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
It's painfully obvious why the majority of people (regardless of their political view) are uneasy with the oil situation (not agreeing that they want anyone to be punished).

A world utterly dependant on a commodity which is in very short supply and which many believe could lead to global wars in the near future unless said dependence is removed.

A push towards renewable and therefore sustainable energies is the logical solution, and it's also logical that to accelerate this process the government adds an incentive to the population to invest in this new technology.

It has nothing to do with political stance in general - it's simply about sustainability and national security, which pretty much all parties would agree are important.


By JediJeb on 6/6/2012 5:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Except that even switching to EVs won't cure those ills, only shift them to others. Think about it, once we are off "foreign oil", these EVs make us dependent on those who will supply the needed metals for producing the motors and batteries. So after we avoid a war for oil, then we have a war for Lithium, or one of the "rare earth" metals. Instead of having wars in the middle east, we now focus on China and South America. What happens to stability in the Middle East once the oil cash cow dies? Will the Saudi's begin to rattle their swords demanding cheaper supplies of Lithium? It sounds silly, but you have to think about it.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki