> Its important to not that GM, Ford and Fiat-Chrysler received far, far, far more resources in the 2008-2012 timeframe and most of that has unlike Tesla not been payed back
Most has not been paid back? What figures are you using for this? My understanding is that the bailout was ~$80bn, but the final cost to the government was approximately $9bn.
When people complain about Tesla being taxpayer funded, they're generally referring to EV incentives, not the DoE loan. Tesla has indeed been supported quite a lot in that way.
But even if you value the environment at $0, other car manufacturers are going to benefit just as much from at least the FITC, so the argument is transient at best.
I have not researched this in many years but not all that money has been payed back by Ford, GM and so on. Just recently Ford moved back another payback claiming Corona as an excuse.
I assume the majority has been payed back but I have not followed this in exact detail. However the point stands that Tesla has not received the majority of government help.
> When people complain about Tesla being taxpayer funded, they're generally referring to EV incentives, not the DoE loan. Tesla has indeed been supported quite a lot in that way.
Frankly, this is just a wrong believe people have. Tesla has the exact same EV incentives as the competition, that amounts to 7500$ per car. Tesla has long run out of these, as they only cover 250'000 vehicles and then fall off. GM just like Tesla has made use of this and has also almost ran out as well. Ford still has many left and will and does make use of that to make their upcoming Mach-E a more price competitive product.
So there really is nothing Tesla specific and the competition has profited just as much.
Next up, there are credits based on fuel standard compliance. This existed long before Tesla. These are competitively sold for California (and other states) and Europe. Tesla does make a money from these this is not from the government or tax payers, rather other car companies who do not comply with fuel standards. Its a fine for car makers who fail to comply with regulation. But again, all car manufactures have the exact same opportunity to engage in that market.
Yes, it is a wrong belief. I think it was pretty clear I wasn't endorsing it, just explaining it.
It's a bit of a bummer to say something of the form: I think they mean X, which is still wrong because Y. Only to be downvoted and have multiple responses explaining that X is wrong because Y.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote in either comment (with the exception of the bailout payback thing, which I do believe you overstated).
> But even if you value the environment at $0, other car manufacturers are going to benefit just as much from at least the FITC, so the argument is transient at best.
My post should be read as: the position I think GP is taking is different to what you're responding to, but either way it's bullshit.
Most has not been paid back? What figures are you using for this? My understanding is that the bailout was ~$80bn, but the final cost to the government was approximately $9bn.
When people complain about Tesla being taxpayer funded, they're generally referring to EV incentives, not the DoE loan. Tesla has indeed been supported quite a lot in that way.
But even if you value the environment at $0, other car manufacturers are going to benefit just as much from at least the FITC, so the argument is transient at best.