backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by troysavary.. on Dec 26 at 9:55 PM


Tesla Model S
The tax break is for new manufacturing equipment worth up to $415 million

The Golden State is giving Tesla Motors a hefty tax break in order to up its production of clean vehicles. 

According to SFGate, the state of California is giving Tesla a $34.7 million tax break on new manufacturing equipment worth up to $415 million. This eliminates sales and use taxes on such equipment, giving the automaker a helping hand when it comes to production of electric cars and powertrains. 

This exemption will help increase Tesla's annual production by 35,000 cars. It currently expects to deliver 21,500 Model S' this year. 

The tax break and purchase of new equipment will also add approximately 112 new jobs at Tesla. This, coupled with increased EV sales, is expected to return a $24.4 million net benefit to the state of California.  

California is currently one of the few U.S. states that tax the purchase of manufacturing equipment. However, the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority can give exemptions to clean-tech companies. 

This is great news for electric vehicle maker Tesla, which is based in Palo Alto and has a factory in Fremont. But this isn't the first time the automaker received the exemption. 
 
Tesla was granted exemption before on equipment worth up to $612 million, which helped it retool its Fremont factory and launch the Model S. The exemption will also help launch the Model X crossover SUV.
 
This is a great way to close one heck of a year for Tesla. The company already successfully paid off its $465 million government loans nine years early back in May, pulled a surprise profit for Q2 2013 with a revenue of $405.1 million, unveiled new tech for its Model S (such as swappable battery tech) and the Model S even snagged the highest safety rating from the NHTSA.
 
The company's only real hiccups have revolved around the three Model S fires throughout October and November of this year, which resulted in an investigation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
 
But that isn't stopping Tesla CEO Elon Musk from fighting for his EVs. He's currently battling auto dealerships around the country in an effort to sell his vehicles directly to the consumer, which he believes will be a better business model for the company. 

Source: SFGate



Comments     Threshold


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

Great, but won't help...
By SublimeSimplicity on 12/19/2013 11:32:48 AM , Rating: 2
If they wanted to help boost Tesla production, they should have given tax incentives to Panasonic to increase battery cell production. Battery supply is what is hold back Tesla production.

However I'm sure Tesla is more than willing to accept a tax break :)




RE: Great, but won't help...
By Samus on 12/19/2013 12:24:02 PM , Rating: 4
Considering how many jobs they've created and how much tax revenue they pay to California (property taxes alone on all their supercharger stations are in the millions) I think a $30 million tax break is entirely acceptable.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By sleepeeg3 on 12/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: Great, but won't help...
By wordsworm on 12/19/2013 7:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
How many manufacturing jobs does Ford generate in California?


RE: Great, but won't help...
By sleepeeg3 on 12/19/13, Rating: -1
RE: Great, but won't help...
By sleepeeg3 on 12/19/2013 11:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and $34,700,000.00 in tax breaks / 112 new jobs = $309,821.43 / job.

What a bargain!


RE: Great, but won't help...
By The Von Matrices on 12/20/2013 12:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
And how long do the machines last? It's no where near $309K/year. You also ignore a lot of the benefits to the state of California.

You forget about the jobs needed to manufacture the manufacturing equipment, the goods and services used by the newly created employees, and the revenue generated from the taxes these new employees have to pay.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By sleepeeg3 on 12/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Great, but won't help...
By 91TTZ on 12/20/2013 11:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You forget about the jobs needed to manufacture the manufacturing equipment, the goods and services used by the newly created employees, and the revenue generated from the taxes these new employees have to pay.


You could use that logic for any company, couldn't you?


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Florinator on 12/20/2013 1:31:11 PM , Rating: 3
Your math is wrong, because it doesn't quite work like that. Those 112 jobs will pay federal income taxes, state taxes and property taxes, not to mention sales taxes on everything those people buy. Those 112 jobs also generate other jobs in the economy because they will pay for goods and services.

I'm not saying that all government incentives are good or that I support this, but things are not as simple as you make them look.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Schrag4 on 12/20/2013 2:11:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Those 112 jobs will pay federal income taxes, state taxes and property taxes, not to mention sales taxes on everything those people buy. Those 112 jobs also generate other jobs in the economy because they will pay for goods and services.


That thinking is flawed, and I suspect you know it. If $34.7 million wasn't collected as taxes in the first place, it would have still been spent, "generating other jobs in the economy," and it would have been spent more efficiently (no overhead for collecting/distributing those taxes).


RE: Great, but won't help...
By The Von Matrices on 12/19/2013 11:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
You need to reread the article. The tax break was only for purchasing manufacturing equipment. It doesn't matter if other car companies provide service jobs in California, that's not what the tax break was for. If Ford got rejected for a tax break on purchasing equipment to open a new factory, that would be a comparable situation.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By sleepeeg3 on 12/20/2013 6:30:40 AM , Rating: 1
Other companies don't manufacture in California, because it already is so expensive to operate. The fact that this state even has a tax on manufacturing to begin with should be explanation enough of why there are no manufacturing jobs here.

Chrysler, Ford and GM all used to have plants in this state, but the outrageous taxes pushed them elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_automo...

Tesla is only here, because the state gives them massive tax incentives to support rich liberals obsession with global warming. 65 million years ago the largest animals on the planet lived and CO2 levels were 10x higher than they are now. Even if CO2 is increasing 2ppm/year, it would still take over a thousand years to reach that level - no one is going anywhere.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By NellyFromMA on 12/20/2013 12:47:42 PM , Rating: 3
Woah there political conspiracy theorist level 10! You should probably factor in the fact that of all the EVs in America, Tesla's are currently the best overall from performance-to-cost-value.

They are the leader in the industry from the tech stand point, so I mean, of all the bets, this is a good one.

The vehicles are actually good.

There are plenty of good examples of political pandering on each side of the aisle, pick a better one to get angry about.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Great, but won't help...
By troysavary on 12/26/2013 9:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it is hard to find an auto company that hasn't gotten some form of government assistance. Most the Japanese firms have. The Korean firms do. GM and Chrysler have. I'm pretty sure most of the Italian makes are on life support. Not that it makes this ok, just that it is hardly unique.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By ciparis on 12/20/2013 11:00:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ford doesn't have to pay those taxes to begin with, since Michigan (smartly) doesn't tax production machinery.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By NellyFromMA on 12/20/2013 12:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, you're comparing Quite literally David and Goliath and asking why things aren't applied evenly to both? Haha what?


RE: Great, but won't help...
By 91TTZ on 12/20/2013 1:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
No, he's not literally doing that. He's figuratively doing that.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/20/13, Rating: 0
RE: Great, but won't help...
By tayb on 12/23/2013 9:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
Do you realize how much of a moron you sound comparing everything to fascism? You don't even know what fascism is. You just throw the word around because you heard it on Fox News and it sounded like a nice thing to say. You sound like a moron. So long as you keep being a Fox News parrot no one is going to take anything you say seriously.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Argon18 on 12/23/2013 2:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
Um, you're confused. I'm pretty sure calling everyone and everything you disagree with "fascist" is a left-wing democrat thing. Try MSNBC.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By troysavary on 12/26/2013 9:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
The first post you have ever made that I agree with.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Mint on 12/20/2013 2:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
All companies deserve to not to pay sales tax on investments, which is why almost all states don't charge it. This is one of the few times I will align with the anti-taxers.

We need to discourage hoarding and encourage reinvestment and hiring. Tax on profits with deductions for salary and equipment is how it should be. Sales tax on equipment works counter to that.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By 91TTZ on 12/20/2013 11:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering how many jobs they've created and how much tax revenue they pay to California (property taxes alone on all their supercharger stations are in the millions) I think a $30 million tax break is entirely acceptable.


What about GM and Ford? They employ way more people, sell way more cars, and have a much larger impact on the economy than a tiny novelty car company like Tesla. Seriously, when you compare the size of these companies Tesla isn't a major player at all.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Mint on 12/19/2013 1:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
Panny is ramping up production, but you gotta remember that there's a risk for them. The Model S had much better sales than several suppliers had originally expected (some will be they gotta take Elon's projections with a grain of salt).

That's why they had that 2 billion cell contract with Tesla, because it lets Panasonic be sure that it won't wind up investing in production only to see the main client cut orders later on. Tesla also needed to make sure the batteries lasted as long as expected before making such a commitment. These are the kinds of things that create the big hump for a new industry. There's still lots of ridiculously high pricing right now (e.g. VW's e-Up) due to uncertainty in volume, competition, and technology.

Nissan is having a similar issue with electrode supply for its LEAF, as the price cut tripled US sales, and it took them a while to secure more supply. They also recently switched to a US supplier for magnet wire, but it took a couple years to qualify and set up logistics.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By milktea on 12/19/2013 2:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
I bet Nissan is having supply issue, because I'm seeing lots of LEAF on the road lately. Much more LEAF than Tesla S.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/19/2013 8:20:08 PM , Rating: 1
Leaf doesn't cost 70 grand.
Leaf's range is nowhere near 300 miles
Leaf doesn't use nearly as many batteries as a Tesla.
Leaf doesn't provide supercharger stations.

Comparing a Leaf to a Tesla S is like comparing a Toyota Corolla to Lexus ISF.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Schrag4 on 12/20/2013 2:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
Your analogy is way off. The things you listed aren't so much luxery as they are function. The Toyota and the Lexus will get you across the country in very, VERY similar fashion.

I'd say comparing the two is like comparing a handgun to a rifle. They each have situations where they excel and where they fall flat. Using MY analogy, comparing the Toyota to the Lexus is like comparing a budget AR15 to a high-dollar AR15 that's all decked out with expensive accessories. They'll both run like a top and shoot the same groups (they fit the same role), but one might last longer, has better customer support, and has some bells and whistles that may or may not come in handy sometime.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Mint on 12/20/2013 2:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
The LEAF is now a very good value proposition if you can deal with the range. You can't get a new car that good which costs you ~$235/mo in fuel+lease.

Word needs to get out that it's great for two car households (which is more than half) when they need to replace one of them.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/19/2013 4:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
Tesla is a company built on the backs of the taxpayer.

If Musk believed his own PR, he would start to refuse these handouts and subsidies and stand on his own as he claims he's capable of.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By wordsworm on 12/19/2013 7:20:20 PM , Rating: 1
How long do you think he'd be a CEO for if he did something like that? In any case, no one is going to war in Iraq over batteries. That's a hefty bill that your government paid for control over oil, not to mention the human casualties.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/19/2013 7:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
lol are you serious? Only crazy people and dummies still think Iraq was for oil.

America is a net oil exporter, but we "war for oil". HAHAHAHA!!! OMG...


RE: Great, but won't help...
By tanjali on 12/19/2013 8:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
So,,, why they spent Trillion dollars of our tax payers money going to Iraq, Afghanistan...?
WHY?


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/19/2013 8:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
Look we didn't get any oil from Iraq, not a drop. This has been stated, proved, and re-stated so many times I can't believe you idiots didn't get the memo.

A bona fide oil war is one where you go in, wage war on the people who currently possess the oil and take physical possession of the oil. That didn't happen, not even close.

Like you said, we spent trillions on the wars. Think about it....we spent trillions of dollars on a war for oil. Oil that we were paying for before the war, and oil we paid for still AFTER. Hello? That makes sense right!?


RE: Great, but won't help...
By tanjali on 12/19/2013 8:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, it makes perfect sense to spent trillions on something that doesn't make any sense.
Now to spend millions on domestic industry and jobs in U.S. for you is outrages, right?
Now, this makes perfect sense!


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/19/2013 8:55:04 PM , Rating: 1
Lol another one that swallowed Bush's BS hook, line & sinker.

Hussein refused to award the oil contract to Cheney's & Bush's pet oil contracting company - Halliburton.

S. Hussein was removed forcibly from power and a new provisional puppet government was put in place.

I wonder who has those contract now, hmmm? I wonder of the permanent government in Iraq would have the balls to award those contracts to anyone other than Halliburtion in the future. I'm guessing not.

Please look back to the War on Terror(tm).
Bush: "That damn OBL has dared to attack us! Rage, Fire & Brimstone! Kill those damn terrorists!!"

The whole world fell in behind Bush to track down and punish OBL. In fact there are soldiers still there to this day long after OBL was killed. But almost as soon as troops hit the shore in Afghanistan....

Bush: *shock1* "Saddam is using WMD on his citizens!! You guys keep on fighting in Afghanistan while we pop on over to Iraq and spank Saddam!"

OOPSIE! We didn't find any WMD. Somebody goofed! Oh well, let's kick out Saddam because he is being a prick and not letting our U.S. contractor Halliburton have that $7B oil contract that only they were allowed to bid for.

No Reclaimer, you didn't get any oil from Iraq. In fact the U.S. (country) didn't get any benefit from that 'war' at all. It got royally shafted to the tune of 6 TRILLION dollars. For what? To pad Cheney's wallet? Halliburton, and by extension Cheney, is raking in billions of dollars from those Halliburton contracts. All at the expense of the AMERICAN TAXPAYERS.

Tell us Reclaimer, why was America in that country at all? Iraq was doing nothing at all to the U.S. or anyone else. Because Hussein used WMD on his citizens? Well, Syria's president used WMDs on his citizens and THAT is actually proven. What about Pakistan?

The US government itself has used similar gas weapons openly as recently as the FBI/ATF attack on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas in the spring of 1993. 76 men, women and children died in this senseless military style assault which used highly lethal levels of military CS gas as a primary weapon.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/19/2013 9:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
Nice conspiracy theory. Linking random tidbits of data and making some nutty conclusion.

I suppose Bush was behind 911 too, right? Let's put it all out on the table.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By wordsworm on 12/19/2013 11:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
He certainly is responsible for the fiction surrounding the event and the coverup. He was the president after all. Or are you going to argue that he didn't have the authority?


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/20/2013 10:07:38 AM , Rating: 2
Hate to burst your bubble, but the entire world intelligence community was the first to form the hypothesis that Iraq had WMD's. The UN was screaming about WMD's before Bush ever picked up the torch. And every intelligence annalist advising Bush was certain Iraq had or was working on WMD's.

This story you guys have concocted that Bush could manufacture intelligence data out of thin air, get everyone in Congress to go with it and vote for a war, is just impossible to believe.

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998:

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."


Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998:

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."


French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003:

"There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."


Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 1998:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/20/2013 7:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really believe all that propaganda? Hitler would have loved you as you would have believe every pound of BS that he shoved down your throat.

Why was the U.S. the only country to go rushing over to Iraq, ignoring the U.N. recommendations to stay out of it> Why did the U.S., the country that was ATTACKED on 911 drop tge hunt for OBL in everyone else's lap and go running over to Iraq and spend 6 TRILLION DOLLARS just because Saddam wouldn't turn their oil contracts over to Halliburton?

OBL is the one that attacked the U.S. on 911. Not Saddam Hussein & Iraq. But instead of hunting OBL line your president Bus said he was going to do, he immediately diverted the vast majority of his troops to Iraq. For what? Non-existant WMDs.

And when he didn't find them, WHY DID HE NOT PULL BACK TO AFGHANISTAN? Because Bush and Cheney wanted Saddam out of power so they could put their own puppet government in place.

Everybody knows this happened - it wasn't all that long ago.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/21/2013 9:01:24 AM , Rating: 2
Propaganda?

I've proven that before Bush was even in office, there was a consensus who believed Iraq had "WMD's" and that Saddam should be dealt with. This included Bill Clinton and Democrats and the international community.

You've claimed that Bush created all this out of thin air as a justification to invade for oil or whatever nonsense you believe.

You are wrong.

quote:
Why was the U.S. the only country to go rushing over to Iraq


Because we weren't? It was a multinational effort by a coalition. Dude seriously, it's getting a little old that you don't have the basic facts.

quote:
Everybody knows this happened - it wasn't all that long ago.


No. Wacky leftists think this happened.

You haven't provided any evidence, and in true conspiracy nut style, you claim the absence of evidence is proof.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By wordsworm on 12/21/2013 1:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
There's been more than one Bush with links to Iraq. I've often thought that Bush II was just the puppet to Bush I. He clearly lacked intelligence, and could not have done great evil without a major guiding hand. It goes without question that they did have WMD. The question is whether or not they had them when they invaded, or whether or not that was the reason for the invasion. Prior to invasion, inspectors had declared that Iraq was complying.

Thus, it can be easily deduced that the true motivation for invading Iraq was oil, not WMDs.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Monkey's Uncle on 12/22/2013 11:09:20 AM , Rating: 1
No, G.W.Bush was Dick Cheney's puppet.

The Iraq mission was successful. The provisional government awarded Halliburton their Iraq contracts and assured ongoing future contracts for Halliburton over the long term.

Attaboy Dick. It was expansive, but you got what you wanted. You can retire a very rich man now.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By wordsworm on 12/22/2013 1:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree. Bush I was in Iraq to put Saddam in power in the first place. Certainly he pressured Bush II to do it. Cheney, if nothing else, was one of the cheerleaders. Who knows, maybe he would have been the fall guy if something had gone amuck.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By troysavary on 12/26/2013 9:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
You know Bush lacked intelligence how? Oh yeah, because the left wing media said so. The said it often enough hoping that would make it true. Agree or disagree with policies, I see Obama as being not nearly as intelligent as Bush. Obama can barely form a coherent sentence without a tele-prompter. He thought USA had 57 states. If anyone is a puppet, it is Obama. Sadly, he is a puppet for anti-America globalists. If it isn't apparent by now that Obama was given the task of destroying America by his handlers, then there is no hope for you.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Argon18 on 12/23/2013 2:43:04 PM , Rating: 3
You're smoking some real strong hashish there son. Take it easy, you don't need to smoke it all at once.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By troysavary on 12/26/2013 9:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
The UN wanted US out of the way because UN officials were making a killing with the aid-for-oil workaround to the sanctions in place against Iraq. Saddam used WMDs against the Kurds. He had them right up until shortly before the US invasion. The UN delayed acting for so long he was able to sell them to countries like Syria before inspectors could look for them. Saddam had already proven to be an unstable element in the region with his invasion of Kuwait and launching missiles at Israel. USA wanted to deal with him that time but the UN was against it. He violated no fly restrictions placed as a consequence of the Kuwait invasion, repeatedly refused access to weapons inspectors, and was committing genocide against the Kurds, but "it was about the oil."

USA gets more oil from us up here in Canada than they ever did from Iraq, but I have not seen them invade us for the last 200 years. Maybe they are still smarting from the ass-whooping we gave them last time, but that is probably not the reason. Perhaps the real reason is that the US doesn't randomly invade for oil. Nah, couldn't be that.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By 91TTZ on 12/20/2013 11:18:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
He certainly is responsible for the fiction surrounding the event and the coverup


Coverup? What coverup?


RE: Great, but won't help...
By StormyKnight on 12/20/2013 1:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So,,, why they spent Trillion dollars of our tax payers money going to Afghanistan...?

History lesson: We went into Afghanistan to bring war to those responsible for attacking New York and Washington D.C.

Iraq I'm still scratching my head over. It was stable under that murdering lunatic and he kept the terrorists out. Obama seemed to have followed in W's footsteps in Libya and Egypt. They were stable too until their murdering lunatics were removed from power.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By tanjali on 12/19/2013 7:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Troll!
Do you really know how much and where else our tax money go?
If you would know that, you wouldn't spill that garbage that go out of your mouth.
You probably don't know last thing about financing and where the money came from and where goes,, troll.
Tesla is rare company that have in mind betterment of humanity and they deserve not just loans and tax breaks but grant loans. Grant loans should be offered to any proven, profitable company that has environment, health and more jobs in mind.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/19/2013 7:48:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Tesla is rare company that have in mind betterment of humanity


Uhhh no. Tesla is a company that "have in mind" making Musk more billions.

You people are just sick in the head. It's an electric car, NOT a philanthropic endeavor.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By tanjali on 12/19/2013 7:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
You’re an idiot, he almost lost all the money to get Tesla and Space x started. He could live with he's PayPal money not thinking about finances, for him and his children and probably grandchildren.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Solandri on 12/20/2013 2:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You’re an idiot, he almost lost all the money to get Tesla and Space x started.

So has everyone I know who has started a company. In fact the ones whose companies failed did lose all their money. There's nothing special about that.

Those who choose the safe and easy route and become an employee often don't realize how much work and risk it takes to start a business. It's not that Musk didn't care about losing his money. It's because everyone who starts a company believes that it'll succeed. If they didn't believe, they wouldn't have started it. They frequently believe it so much they'll work 16 hour days and max out their credit cards trying to keep it afloat. About half get lucky and it does succeed. The other half go bankrupt and have to start again from scratch. What Musk did is completely normal for anyone who starts a business.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Reclaimer77 on 12/20/2013 1:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
Musk took less of a risk than you think. He knew beforehand he would be a favored Obama crony. All he had to do was make an electric vehicle, the rest would be taken care of.

These other people you speak of who started their own company? They could never even DREAM of the kinds of breaks and handouts/bailouts Tesla has received. They had to go it alone and take real risks.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Mint on 12/22/2013 3:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose Musk had a time machine to pull off that feat?

The critical moment for Tesla came in fall of 2008, when the recession made a financing round fall apart. Elon literally put together a last-hour deal on Dec 24 to keep Tesla alive, and used all his money for it.

The DOE loan wasn't awarded until June 2009, which Elon said helped accelerate development, but wasn't critical to keep the company alive.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Argon18 on 12/23/2013 2:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
You're retarded. Any successful business was started by someone bold enough to risk everything. Greater risk = equals greater reward. Go take a business 101 class. Or go back to sleep. Either way, STFU with your clueless nonsense.


RE: Great, but won't help...
By Mint on 12/22/2013 3:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
ZEV credits are awarded to whichever company fulfills California's public desire for EVs. Any company could get them , and Tesla beat out everyone else.

It's fundamentally the same as any gov't contract, except it leaves no room for gov't favoritism. ZEV credits are exchanged entirely in the private sector.


Hey California
By Ammohunt on 12/19/2013 2:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why doesn't California give Huy Fong foods a break instead! They manufacture a product Americans actually want(Sriracha)!




RE: Hey California
By quiksilvr on 12/19/2013 2:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
In my opinion, Sriracha is just a crutch for sub par asian food that's placed on the table to mask the crap being eaten instead of actually cooking quality food.


Oh great
By mindless1 on 12/20/2013 9:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Another case of the government taking tax money away from everyone so a favored company can make toys for the rich. That's wrong in more than 3 completely separate ways.




Federal Debt?
By havoti97 on 12/21/2013 12:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Last I heard, California still owes the US government billions of dollars for their generous unemployment payout. I was thought it is generally regarded as a good practice to pay back your debt before you give out what you don't have. Or maybe California can just file for bankruptcy and absolve itself of all debts.




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














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