Petition for government subsidies for EV’s

[George Marley]

I don't think that John D Rockefeller got rich through subsidies!

 

[raynewman]

I don't think that John D Rockefeller got rich through subsidies!

In his case, the word is monopoly.

 

[George Marley]

In his case, the word is monopoly.

Yes, but he got the monopoly because selling gasoline has always been (and still is) fabulously profitable despite paying high taxes and receiving no subsidies.

 

[raynewman]

Yes, but he got the monopoly because selling gasoline has always been (and still is) fabulously profitable despite paying high taxes and receiving no subsidies.

and burning all the electric transport that existed at that time.
and not paying taxes...

 

[George Marley]

It has been reported that Elon Musk pays zero tax on the money he gets by borrowing against the shares he is given.

Elon Musk fact-checked Wikipedia and said he'd go bankrupt if his companies failed. He could be right — and it shows how complicated CEO compensation has become.

On Sunday, Musk implied that his billions mostly consist of stock in his two companies.”If Tesla & SpaceX go bankrupt, so will I. As it should be,” Musk tweeted, after requesting that Wikipedia edit his page. He also took issue with being described as an investor: “I do basically zero investing,” he wrote.

Earlier this month, Musk won a defamation lawsuit brought forward by a British diver whom he referred to as a “pedo guy” on Twitter last year. During court testimony, Musk discussed his finances. “People think I have a lot of cash. I actually don’t,” Musk said, adding: “I have stock in SpaceX and Tesla, and debt against that.”

Even though Musk has a net worth of about $US27.1 billion, according to Bloomberg, most of that wealth is tied up in Musk’s massive holdings in Tesla and SpaceX stock, as he testified and tweeted. Those holdings may be difficult or even impossible for Musk to quickly sell for cash, meaning it’s quite possible that he could face a liquidity crunch.

It’s not uncommon for top executives like Musk to be paid largely in potentially illiquid stock or options in the companies they lead. Indeed, Musk has refused his cash salaries from Tesla and received nearly all his compensation from that company in the form of stock.

 

[raynewman]

It has been reported that Elon Musk pays zero tax on the money he gets by borrowing against the shares he is given.

Elon Musk fact-checked Wikipedia and said he'd go bankrupt if his companies failed. He could be right — and it shows how complicated CEO compensation has become.

On Sunday, Musk implied that his billions mostly consist of stock in his two companies.”If Tesla & SpaceX go bankrupt, so will I. As it should be,” Musk tweeted, after requesting that Wikipedia edit his page. He also took issue with being described as an investor: “I do basically zero investing,” he wrote.

Earlier this month, Musk won a defamation lawsuit brought forward by a British diver whom he referred to as a “pedo guy” on Twitter last year. During court testimony, Musk discussed his finances. “People think I have a lot of cash. I actually don’t,” Musk said, adding: “I have stock in SpaceX and Tesla, and debt against that.”

Even though Musk has a net worth of about $US27.1 billion, according to Bloomberg, most of that wealth is tied up in Musk’s massive holdings in Tesla and SpaceX stock, as he testified and tweeted. Those holdings may be difficult or even impossible for Musk to quickly sell for cash, meaning it’s quite possible that he could face a liquidity crunch.

It’s not uncommon for top executives like Musk to be paid largely in potentially illiquid stock or options in the companies they lead. Indeed, Musk has refused his cash salaries from Tesla and received nearly all his compensation from that company in the form of stock.

Elon Musk paid at least $593 million in income tax in 2016, according to a filing by Tesla Inc. He was hit with that huge tax bill after he exercised stock options that were going to expire at the end of 2016. As far as how he paid the taxes, he did so by selling some of the shares that he got from the options, and kept the remaining options.

NOW - REDACTED by moderator.

 

[meloccom]

Elon Musk paid at least $593 million in income tax in 2016, according to a filing by Tesla Inc. He was hit with that huge tax bill after he exercised stock options that were going to expire at the end of 2016. As far as how he paid the taxes, he did so by selling some of the shares that he got from the options, and kept the remaining options.

NOW - REDACTED by moderator.

Hi @raynewman , it seems a shame you choose to ruin what was quite an informative post with an unnecessary ad-hominem attack. I have redacted the ad-hominem part. We welcome members from all over the world to the Australian section of TMC, please consider this going forward.

 

[Shock-On-T]

I'd call it a low/no interest loan. You're not giving anyone money that they don't already have.



Just because something is not taxed at your preferred rate does not make that a subsidy. This is not my definition, it's the dictionary's.

subsidy
noun [ C ]
money given as part of the cost of something, to help or encourage it to happen

It's a complete corruption of the language to call this tax situation a subsidy, so much so that the dictionary has a separate definition for a "tax subsidy":
a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:

When you start talking about CCS subsidies, let's offset that against the massive amount of tax that fossil fuel already raises, and you're still nowhere near what sane, rational people understand as a subsidy.

If you start complaining about low tax rates being a subsidy, then what's to stop me claiming that product X deserves to be taxed at a higher rate and is therefore getting a subsidy? It's patently absurd. And to use language like this alienates normal people who will assume that public money is being handed to oil companies.

And if you think renewables are becoming cheaper, I have a bridge to sell you. Amy place that has a high mix of renewable energy generally has the most expensive prices. See South Australia.

I am all for seeing genuine renewable energy, but this subsidy nonsense turns my stomach. Renewable energy needs to stand on its own feet to become viable. You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

So you're saying that it's a corruption of the language to call a reduction in tax a subsidy, because the dictionary definition of a reduction in tax is a tax subsidy?
All these people brutalising the language by calling tax subsidies subsidies!?

And South Australia has a higher mix of renewables because electricity is expense there, not the other way round.
It is more lucrative to deploy renewables in that expensive market, so the renewables investors are preferentially going there. It's so expensive you could even make money deploying a giant battery! Someone should get on that...

 

[George Marley]

So you're saying that it's a corruption of the language to call a reduction in tax a subsidy, because the dictionary definition of a reduction in tax is a tax subsidy?
All these people brutalising the language by calling tax subsidies subsidies!?

And South Australia has a higher mix of renewables because electricity is expense there, not the other way round.
It is more lucrative to deploy renewables in that expensive market, so the renewables investors are preferentially going there. It's so expensive you could even make money deploying a giant battery! Someone should get on that...

I don't think you need to drag the dictionary into the argument.
Surely by definition a subsidy is a taxpayer funded payment towards a purchase.
A tax concession is a reduction in the amount of tax that would normally be payable.

 

[paulp]

So you're saying that it's a corruption of the language to call a reduction in tax a subsidy, because the dictionary definition of a reduction in tax is a tax subsidy?
All these people brutalising the language by calling tax subsidies subsidies!?

And South Australia has a higher mix of renewables because electricity is expense there, not the other way round.
It is more lucrative to deploy renewables in that expensive market, so the renewables investors are preferentially going there. It's so expensive you could even make money deploying a giant battery! Someone should get on that...

Indeed power in SA is so expensive you can install solar panels and they become a paid off investment after 2 years

 

[meloccom]

I don't think you need to drag the dictionary into the argument.
Surely by definition a subsidy is a taxpayer funded payment towards a purchase.
A tax concession is a reduction in the amount of tax that would normally be payable.

So an investor is deciding to make an investment.
Spend money on say a Wind Farm or search and drill for oil.
Both have fixed costs which would be tax deductable, but only oil gets a tax deduction for the search for oil and even the development of wells that come up dry as legitimate cost of business.
Once a wind farm is sited and setup, you don't need to search for wind, it will come along, hopefully at the capacity factor you calculated.
So, all other expenses equal, the tax deduction for oil search is subsidising the cost of oil versus renewables potentially altering investment decisions in its favour.
Financially and environmentally that's suboptimal and lends weight to the notion that oil is subsidised. However way you want to argue about the definition of a subsidy.

 

[Shock-On-T]

I don't think you need to drag the dictionary into the argument.
Surely by definition a subsidy is a taxpayer funded payment towards a purchase.
A tax concession is a reduction in the amount of tax that would normally be payable.

The dictionary came willingly!

 

[Vostok]

Surely by definition a subsidy is a taxpayer funded payment towards a purchase.

Which is exactly what the fuel tax credit scheme is - taxpayers footing part of the bill towards a purchase.

I can see you're being creative in your mental gymnastics to convince us that this thing that looks, swims and quacks like a duck isn't one, but the easiest way to test whether something is a subsidy or not is to threaten to take it away. If people who currently benefit from it scream, it's a subsidy.

 

[George Marley]

Which is exactly what the fuel tax credit scheme is - taxpayers footing part of the bill towards a purchase.

I can see you're being creative in your mental gymnastics to convince us that this thing that looks, swims and quacks like a duck isn't one, but the easiest way to test whether something is a subsidy or not is to threaten to take it away. If people who currently benefit from it scream, it's a subsidy.

The fuel tax credit scheme is an almost A$6 billion subsidy each year to industry. ... The fuel tax credit scheme rebates excise tax to those businesses that consume diesel on non-public roads

That sounds quite fair and reasonable to me.
And it is NOT a subsidy.
It is a reduction in tax that would have been payable.

Perhaps it would be clearer if we were to use the term incentive rather than quibble about the difference between a tax reduction and a subsidy.

If it should happen that governments decide to levy a per mile charge or per Kw-H charge on EVs I think the screaming from EV owners would be quite loud.

 

[Shock-On-T]

The fuel tax credit scheme is an almost A$6 billion subsidy each year to industry. ... The fuel tax credit scheme rebates excise tax to those businesses that consume diesel on non-public roads

That sounds quite fair and reasonable to me.
And it is NOT a subsidy.
It is a reduction in tax that would have been payable.

Perhaps it would be clearer if we were to use the term incentive rather than quibble about the difference between a tax reduction and a subsidy.

If it should happen that governments decide to levy a per mile charge or per Kw-H charge on EVs I think the screaming from EV owners would be quite loud.

It's a tax subsidy.

 

[George Marley]

It's a tax subsidy.

OK...time to get out the dictionary again..

subsidy
noun

1. 1.
   a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low.

tax subsidy
noun
reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:

 

[Shock-On-T]

OK...time to get out the dictionary again..

subsidy
noun

1. 1.
   a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low.

tax subsidy
noun
reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that it's not a "subsidy", but rather it's a "tax subsidy"? Isn't that just a type of subsidy?

 

[Vostok]

And it is NOT a subsidy.

Using your logic the USA does not subsidise EVs, since individuals who purchase EVs merely get a tax rebate. You should don your armour and wade into the many US forums where this “taxpayer subsidy” is used by conservatives and right wingers as a perpetual stick with which to beat Tesla. They need you over there to fight the good fight that they’ve been wrong all this time! Quick!

If it should happen that governments decide to levy a per mile charge or per Kw-H charge on EVs I think the screaming from EV owners would be quite loud.

I’d be quite OK with a usage charge on all vehicles to “cover the cost of the damage to roads” as long as it is accompanied by a pollution charge on all vehicles to “cover the cost of the damage to the atmosphere” - in proportion to the amount of damage they cause on both counts, of course. Anything else would be inequitable.

 

[PC__LoadLetter]

Using your logic the USA does not subsidise EVs, since individuals who purchase EVs merely get a tax rebate. You should don your armour and wade into the many US forums where this “taxpayer subsidy” is used by conservatives and right wingers as a perpetual stick with which to beat Tesla. They need you over there to fight the good fight that they’ve been wrong all this time! Quick!

Depends whether the tax rebate is a limited offset rebate against the taxes you'd otherwise pay on the taxable item (the car), or if it's offset against all your other taxable income from that financial year (your salary/wages).

In my opinion the former is a tax rebate and the latter is a subsidy.

 

[Shock-On-T]

Depends whether the tax rebate is a limited offset rebate against the taxes you'd otherwise pay on the taxable item (the car), or if it's offset against all your other taxable income from that financial year (your salary/wages).

In my opinion the former is a tax rebate and the latter is a subsidy.

A tax rebate is a subsidy.