Goodbye Federal $7,500 tax credit - no way it survives Trump/Senate/House

[RDoc]

Filibuster.

The Senate Filibuster isn't in the Constitution, it's just a Senate rule that can be changed by a simple majority vote. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate.

Incidentally, IMHO what the Democrats or Republicans did or didn't do isn't really relevant for this discussion. The problem is that with the real potential for a major change in US environmental policy, companies that rely on the government continuing pro-environment rules really have to reevaluate their plans. It's a risk just like any other and has to be taken into account.

 

[dc_h]

I think the $7500 may be at risk, but it seems unlikely to be a first 100 days issue. Presumably they will focus on tax reform and repatriating earnings. Regulatory relief (whatever you want to call it), and some form of immigration reform. Cutting the $7500 tax break in 2017 would hurt Tesla the most. Cutting the $7500 break in 2018 would hurt GM and Ford, who still have to sell in ZEV states. Other states are joining California, so they will be very pro tax credit.
Eliminating or stopping increases in CAFE requirements will help big oil by increasing demand. This makes America more dependent on foreign oil, but will be countered by increased fracking. On the whole, this will probably help Tesla, regardless of the collective wisdom of CAFE's value to national security and the environment.
The biggest regulatory risk to Tesla, is Solar tax incentives. Maybe they can compress the prices to be competitive without the tax credit, but that is going to be tough. It requires a 1/3 cut in pricing. Some people will still move to solar, but it pushes the market back to early adapters or homeowners who think the product differentiates their home. I think this could force Tesla Energy to focus on commercial services, rather than consumer systems in markets where there is a cost advantage.
If Trump's programs do increase growth rates (I'm not picking sides), it could have additional advantages versus tax credits or any government EV incentives.
On the whole, the shift to banking, pharma and infrastructure plays is hurting Tesla today. Hard to say what the impact will be in a month or year.

 

[msnow]

The Senate Filibuster isn't in the Constitution, it's just a Senate rule that can be changed by a simple majority vote. The Republicans have a majority in the Senate.

No, that's not entirely correct. It's been a Senate rule since the early 1800's and you cannot end it with a simple majority. A cloture vote (which ends a filibuster) requires a super majority, which is 3/5's or 60 votes. The Republicans don't have 60 votes.

 

[RDoc]

No, that's not entirely correct. It's been a Senate rule since the early 1800's and you cannot end it with a simple majority. A cloture vote (which ends a filibuster) requires a super majority, which is 3/5's or 60 votes. The Republicans don't have 60 votes.

Well, we're getting into some pretty murky waters, but my understanding and Wikipedia's, is that amending the filibuster rule requires 2/3, but the rule, about how the filibuster rule can be amended, itself could be changed by a simple majority. So the path would be 1) change the rule about how the filibuster rule could be amended, 2) amend the filibuster rule. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Senate can change its rules by a simple majority.

There's another general principle that a Congress cannot bind the actions of a future Congress so, if it's not in the Constitution, ultimately it's fair game.

 

[Snerruc]

Both parties at different times have threatened to end the filibuster for their own purposes. While cloture takes 60 votes, changing the rules only takes 51.

 

[Akikiki]

This thread subject is simply speculation - a guess - maybe even a scare tactie to rile people up. It serves no USEFUL purpose. Its as bad as Juan Williams on Fox News pre-judging the president-elect before he even knows his real actions.

 

[Snerruc]

Back to the subject, I regard the $7500 tax credit as welfare for the rich. That is why I didn't take it on my Tesla.

 

[X Fan]

No, that's not entirely correct. It's been a Senate rule since the early 1800's and you cannot end it with a simple majority. A cloture vote (which ends a filibuster) requires a super majority, which is 3/5's or 60 votes. The Republicans don't have 60 votes.

Hhhhm. Seems to me Harry Reid's approach broke the congenitally of the Senate and 60 was ignored for Affordable Care Act and placement of judges below the SCOTUS level. Legal scholars advised that breaking tradition was a foolhardy approach since elections change Party representation.

We will see what McConnell does but don't think it's not possible for Republicans to take the same approach as the Democrats.

Now, back to Tesla. As I noted, 3 success is key to company's future vs 7,500 tax credit. Also, with other companies positioned to benefit I'm sure there will protection in this area.

 

[msnow]

Well, we're getting into some pretty murky waters, but my understanding and Wikipedia's, is that amending the filibuster rule requires 2/3, but the rule, about how the filibuster rule can be amended, itself could be changed by a simple majority. So the path would be 1) change the rule about how the filibuster rule could be amended, 2) amend the filibuster rule. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Senate can change its rules by a simple majority.

There's another general principle that a Congress cannot bind the actions of a future Congress so, if it's not in the Constitution, ultimately it's fair game.

They call that the "nuclear option" which every Congress has not excerised in over 200 years. Your right though, they could vote to eliminate the filibuster altogether but slim chance of that since both parties want to keep it for when they are out of power which is the reason it survives and will continue to survive.

 

[adiggs]

Completely understood. I would ask then, what did the Democrats do, or not do, for there to be such a voter backlash to setup this across-the-table run? Seriously. This represents a lot of pissed off people for someone as polarizing as Donald Trump to have these kinds of coat tails.

The clearest statement I've seen, and that makes sense to me, of what the Democrats / liberals did wrong, that created this backlash is here:
http://reason.com/blog/2016/11/09/trump-won-because-leftist-political-corr

The most salient paragraph or two (at least for me - I added the bolding but not the italics):
"...
Trump won because he convinced a great number of Americans that he would destroy political correctness.
...
What is political correctness? It's notoriously hard to define. I recently appeared on a panel with CNN's Sally Kohn, who described political correctness as being polite and having good manners. That's fine—it can mean different things to different people. I like manners. I like being polite. That's not what I'm talking about.

The segment of the electorate who flocked to Trump because he positioned himself as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness" think it means this: smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society."


The thing about this, is that both points of view are right, from the point of view of the people who see the world the way they see it. This election result, IMHO, should strongly suggest to people with the former POV (being polite and having good manners), that there are a whole bunch of very angry people who see it very differently. Differently enough to have this define how they voted, and in enough volume to move a very large election.

Angry enough to vote for somebody who (also from the linked article):
"Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions. That's a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is."

 

[msnow]

Hhhhm. Seems to me Harry Reid's approach broke the congenitally of the Senate and 60 was ignored for Affordable Care Act and placement of judges below the SCOTUS level. Legal scholars advised that breaking tradition was a foolhardy approach since elections change Party representation.

We will see what McConnell does but don't think it's not possible for Republicans to take the same approach as the Democrats.

Now, back to Tesla. As I noted, 3 success is key to company's future vs 7,500 tax credit. Also, with other companies positioned to benefit I'm sure there will protection in this area.

No, in December 2009 the vote was 60-39. The Democrats didn't have a super majority but the two Independents voted with them.

 

[N5329K]

For better and worse, we've lived with anomalously low interest rates for a long time now. That doesn't mean low interest rates will be here forever. Or even another year. A bump in the perception of risk (from, say, breaking international trade treaties) will likely push rates upwards. Ask yourself what car loans substantially higher than today's rates will do to sales. Same with loans for PV systems, Powerwalls and all. That's why I think things that have been pretty smooth are about to get a lot stickier.
Robin

 

[RDoc]

This thread subject is simply speculation - a guess - maybe even a scare tactie to rile people up. It serves no USEFUL purpose. Its as bad as Juan Williams on Fox News pre-judging the president-elect before he even knows his real actions.

This is the investor's forum. If Tesla effectively has a forced $7500 price increase on its cars, that's going to have an impact.

Another area to consider is the Federal CAFE standards. Trump has said he wants to eliminate that which likely will have an impact on manufacturers who sell ICE vehicles as well. I'm not sure what effect that would have on Tesla but I don't think it would be good.

As I've said before, I don't own Tesla stock, but I would like Tesla to stay healthy so they can keep servicing my car!

 

[X Fan]

No, in December 2009 the vote was 60-39. The Democrats didn't have a super majority but the two Independents voted with them.

How Obamacare Became Law — Brian Sussman

 

[msnow]

How Obamacare Became Law — Brian Sussman

Very good and it did remind me of the shenanigans from back then due to the death of Kennedy, thanks. Obviously you can tell from the tone that it was written from the perspective of the right but it's still accurate. But, this wasn't short circuiting cloture which is what we were talking about. Reid never went nuclear he just did something else. Expect filibuster to be used for Supreme Court nominations particularly because Obama never got his appointment confirmed and people are pissed. Apologies for the diversion people, back on topic.

 

[adiggs]

For better and worse, we've lived with anomalously low interest rates for a long time now. That doesn't mean low interest rates will be here forever. Or even another year. A bump in the perception of risk (from, say, breaking international trade treaties) will likely push rates upwards. Ask yourself what car loans substantially higher than today's rates will do to sales. Same with loans for PV systems, Powerwalls and all. That's why I think things that have been pretty smooth are about to get a lot stickier.
Robin

The way I think about the extended period of low interest rates we've been experiencing (POV - USA) is that there is a lot of slack in the economy. That slack translates to people not working, people working but below their capability and/or desire, etc.. It doesn't mean those low interest rates will be forever as you say, though I also believe that one of the reasons for the low interest rates is the oversupply of oil and oil products in the world (consequence being that the % of the economy needed to pay for energy to run the economy is lower than it has been in the past). If that economic slack isn't taken up somewhere else, then we see persistent structural slack in the economy.

The best expression of what I see coming for the economy from a Trump presidency is here:
What Does President Trump Mean for the Economy & Market? | Pragmatic Capitalism

Big infrastructure spending that takes up some of that slack in the economy (good thing MHO). And more shifts and adjustments in taxation that results in further increases in income inequality in the country (bad thing MHO).


I do believe that for interest rates to move up, we need to see more economic activity. And in the current situation, I don't see a good alternative to government spending on infrastructure (leading to more demand for labor, leading to more competition for labor and higher rates for labor, leading to higher inflation). Roughly 0% interest means we're around 0% inflation, in an economic system I believe is healthier at 2% inflation (and just happens to be the Fed's target inflation rate). We've got a lot of room to expand inflation to get UP to 2%.

 

[N5329K]

The way I think about the extended period of low interest rates we've been experiencing (POV - USA) is that there is a lot of slack in the economy. That slack translates to people not working, people working but below their capability and/or desire, etc.. It doesn't mean those low interest rates will be forever as you say, though I also believe that one of the reasons for the low interest rates is the oversupply of oil and oil products in the world (consequence being that the % of the economy needed to pay for energy to run the economy is lower than it has been in the past). If that economic slack isn't taken up somewhere else, then we see persistent structural slack in the economy.

The best expression of what I see coming for the economy from a Trump presidency is here:
What Does President Trump Mean for the Economy & Market? | Pragmatic Capitalism

Big infrastructure spending that takes up some of that slack in the economy (good thing MHO). And more shifts and adjustments in taxation that results in further increases in income inequality in the country (bad thing MHO).


I do believe that for interest rates to move up, we need to see more economic activity. And in the current situation, I don't see a good alternative to government spending on infrastructure (leading to more demand for labor, leading to more competition for labor and higher rates for labor, leading to higher inflation). Roughly 0% interest means we're around 0% inflation, in an economic system I believe is healthier at 2% inflation (and just happens to be the Fed's target inflation rate). We've got a lot of room to expand inflation to get UP to 2%.

Agreed. If you're in infrastructure or pharmaceuticals (price controls sidelined) or suffering under the constraints of Dodd Frank you'll do OK. However (and it's a very big however), funding infrastructure costs. Tax cuts cost. Some pretty reliable, non-partisan estimates put those numbers in the low trillions. With a "t".
When the government enters the bond market in that big a way, rates can spiral up very, very fast. When international trade drops and Uncle Sam is competing for loans with countries in even worse shape, rates can spiral up very, very fast.
I think that high interest rates would depress real estate values and put a heavy thumb on any purchase that requires a loan. No problem for Tesla buyers with cash. But that excludes most, maybe all the mass market the Model 3 is supposed to capture. And that, I believe, would be a serious problem.
And I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Robin

 

[Snerruc]

The clearest statement I've seen, and that makes sense to me, of what the Democrats / liberals did wrong, that created this backlash is here:
Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash

The most salient paragraph or two (at least for me - I added the bolding but not the italics):
"...
Trump won because he convinced a great number of Americans that he would destroy political correctness.
...
What is political correctness? It's notoriously hard to define. I recently appeared on a panel with CNN's Sally Kohn, who described political correctness as being polite and having good manners. That's fine—it can mean different things to different people. I like manners. I like being polite. That's not what I'm talking about.

The segment of the electorate who flocked to Trump because he positioned himself as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness" think it means this: smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society."


The thing about this, is that both points of view are right, from the point of view of the people who see the world the way they see it. This election result, IMHO, should strongly suggest to people with the former POV (being polite and having good manners), that there are a whole bunch of very angry people who see it very differently. Differently enough to have this define how they voted, and in enough volume to move a very large election.

Angry enough to vote for somebody who (also from the linked article):
"Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions. That's a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is."

Political correctness is the translation of the Soviet term dating to the Soviet newspapers in the 30s. It was/is used to enforce thinking and actions to a predetermined course of the communist party.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The clearest statement I've seen, and that makes sense to me, of what the Democrats / liberals did wrong, that created this backlash is here:
Trump Won Because Leftist Political Correctness Inspired a Terrifying Backlash

The most salient paragraph or two (at least for me - I added the bolding but not the italics):
"...
Trump won because he convinced a great number of Americans that he would destroy political correctness.
...
What is political correctness? It's notoriously hard to define. I recently appeared on a panel with CNN's Sally Kohn, who described political correctness as being polite and having good manners. That's fine—it can mean different things to different people. I like manners. I like being polite. That's not what I'm talking about.

The segment of the electorate who flocked to Trump because he positioned himself as "an icon of irreverent resistance to political correctness" think it means this: smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society."


The thing about this, is that both points of view are right, from the point of view of the people who see the world the way they see it. This election result, IMHO, should strongly suggest to people with the former POV (being polite and having good manners), that there are a whole bunch of very angry people who see it very differently. Differently enough to have this define how they voted, and in enough volume to move a very large election.

Angry enough to vote for somebody who (also from the linked article):
"Nobody votes for Trump or likes Trump on the basis of policy positions. That's a misunderstanding of what the Trump phenomenon is."

That sounds like just a candy coated, ahem, "politically correct" way of saying that the angry far right voters described agreed deep down with many of Trump's racist, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-environmental views (note I'm saying the "far right", and not putting all people who voted for Trump under the same umbrella, as I know some of them personally).

The reality is political correctness has nothing to do with it. If Hillary or "the left" started calling the other side "dumb inbred hicks" or if Hillary out right described the other side as my long list above (racist, etc) in an effort to offend them, do you really think the other side would like her and the left more? The far right just doesn't like the direction the country is going, not that they don't like "political correctness". They like it perfectly fine when it protects them from people calling them insults or offending them (see recent articles about people feeling offended by being called "uneducated").

The whole analysis also ignores the actual statistics. Voter turnout for this election was low on both sides. Trump got less turnout than Romney did (which I think most people would agree was a far less "charismatic" candidate to the far right than Trump), which goes against the characterization that this election result was from a rebellion of the far right.

What actually was the critical factor was Hillary got even less turn out on the left side (far bigger gap with Obama than Trump with Romney). And in the critical "rust-belt" states where Trump barely won, that's likely largely because Hillary took the area for granted and didn't really present solutions to their plights (manufacturing jobs declining). And overall, Hillary simply was a far less compelling candidate to the Democrat base (not helped by the last minute email-gate investigation).
Over 90 Million Eligible Voters Didn’t Vote in the 2016 Presidential Election

 

[MikeDog77]

I personally think the whole country is a little paranoid right now, and I don't blame them because of what Trump has said in the past year. But if you take a deep breath and realize a couple of things.

1. Republicans want what is best for the USA to, they just have a different opinion on how to get there than you or me
2. Republicans in the house EXTENDED the Solar tax credit under Obama
3. Electric cars means more electricity that can't be imported. A quick adoption of EV's is the only thing that would add life to Coal plants
4. George Bush INCREASED the CAFE standards by 40%

Even if you ignore or don't care about Climate Change, it makes economic sense, energy independence sense to support a strong alternative energy program.