I disagree with a bunch here but I'll try to keep my points limited to a couple.Part of the reason subsidies were attached to TSLA vehicles were to prevent TSLA going into bankruptcy. It is a new green technology incentive. Same applies to technology to reduce pollution for fossil fuel dependent industry, battery technology, solar, wind etc. However, there needs to be an economic metric to decide when to stop. That’s logic of being fiscally conservative. Now TSLA has unambiguously reached a stage where hundreds of thousands are waiting in line to get the new gadget. Many or most hopefully are able to afford it or we shouldn’t be buying a car. Tsla WILL NOT or IS NOT dependent on government handouts anymore (period). Neither should citizens be dependent on subsidies to buy Tesla. We have reached a stage where the numbers of super chargers and vehicles are substantial enough to speak for themselves. We really need to think of how to spend but do it in a fiscally conservative way. Ford GM and others need the subsidy because they have a big set of problem which is to divert their system to EV and disengage the heavy investments already made for other cars!! So just my humble opinion that continuing rebates for Tesla cars when such a huge waiting line exists isn’t fiscally responsible for US sitting on 30T in debt
Firstly I understand and respect your fiscal conservatism and used to identify similarly.
But, Tesla IS STILL the beneficiary of subsidies. Subsidies that are not paid directly, but are enabled by government policy. If you follow the financial performance of Tesla you may recall a recent quarter's profitability completely driven by the purchase of renewable energy/ electric vehicle regulatory credits.
Second, the government should be creating a level playing field for: 1. EV producers, and 2. EV purchasers. Not extending a similar subsidy to Tesla creates an unequal playing field and discourages innovation; that same innovation that led to the success now. Not extending a subsidy to EV purchasers including for what are now more expensive cars discourages or completely blocks lower income households from purchasing EVs. We do not have a 25k EV for the masses, yet. EV adoption based on the current income equality in the country is troublesome in a multitude of ways, but just a few examples: wealthy communities with more Tesla /equivalent cars will be safer (less auto injuries), less polluted (cleaner air statistically = smarter people), and more prepared for the disruption that occurs when big oil is taken on more directly and with more seriousness.
So, I think I get the idea of what you are trying to say: if you can afford a 60k car, you don't need a subsidy.
But that's not the point of the subsidy, it's not for those people. It's to make a 60k car cost only 50k, so the family who couldn't afford 60k, can make a stretch and maybe afford 50k
To simplify the point I think you are trying to make,it's that maybe your qualification for the subsidy should be based off your ability to afford the car at MSRP, using some type of indicator like income or wealth. I don't disagree with that, but it's very tricky to implement, especially because so many wealthy think they deserve so much.