lafrisbee
Active Member
After hours volume is about like yesterday 850k the first 45 minutes
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
I feel you don’t pay enough tax.
ZachF
Active Member
AMZN misses badly,
Macro eyes on AAPL next ...
+ both missed ... so down Nasdaq day or more more $ flowing into the new #1
FAANG is played out
lafrisbee
Active Member
Union? I wore a union suit to Playboy's "Girls of the SEC" Photo Spread Completion Pajama Party at The Heart of Auburn Hotel. Yeah that vision you just had...I was asked to be "The Date" for one of the girls. It wasn't Playgirl. All of those hotties are now over 60 if alive.Noooo!!! Stop!! Not that union discussion again!
Maybe OT;I just want to see a Hertz Model 3SR+/LFP beat a Hertz Mustang GT350H in a quarter mile race.
Cheers!
In the mid-60's, My dad would sometimes rent the GT350H when he came home to NY on weekends from CA (Long Story).
I remember the first one was white (with a 4 speed), I left the radio on all night and ran the battery dead. He was not a happy man when he missed his flight from JFK to LAX on Monday AM.
But loved that car and had a couple of mid 60's mustangs later on.
The Tesla's in the Hertz fleet will light a fire in both the Parents that rent them and the Kids that ride in them.
It was previously speculated that BBB EV credit would be paid for with a wealth tax, which falls under the category of "direct" taxes.
The constitution requires that revenue raised by direct taxes be spent in (or given to, depending on your reading) the various states proportionally to their population... which is tricky, and has effectively prevented congress from implementing a direct tax until now.
The last time this came up, we got the 16th Amendment. Which many people think of as the income tax amendment.
Prior to that amendment, Congress already levied income taxes. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an income tax levied on income derived from property ownership (i.e., charging rent) was a type of direct tax. That is why the text of the amendment reads, in part, "congress can tax income derived from any source without apportionment". "Any source" and "without apportionment" are a direct response to the court's finding that taxing rental income was a kind of direct tax.
So, based on a couple hundred years of precedent [see edit], congress probably can't institute a wealth tax to pay for the EV tax credit without another constitutional amendment.
How could you make it constitutional without an amendment? At a minimum (and I'm not sure this fig leaf would pass muster), the wealth tax would be apportioned and spending from other revenue sources would be adjusted to align total spending with Congress's priorities... so essentially a complete overhaul of all federal spending.
We can barely even pass a budget now, when 99.9% of the budget is "what we did last year +3% here, -5% there". So I wouldn't be optimistic for a complete overhaul.
Edit, just to clarify a point I made obliquely above: Congress has considered implementing direct taxes (including apportioned income taxes) in the past. Actually implenting those ideas was considered so challenging that we got a constitutional amendment instead.
Last edited:
I like to think people on this board see the extreme potential of Tesla and have analyzed the future projections of what the world could be in 2030 and how Tesla is a capital element to shape the world differently in he midst of climate change. While the average American or Canadian goes on Meta (Facebook) to post cat videos and memes of cat videos. Nothing against one of the member here even if he likes cats.
mejojo
Active Member
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
That's not typically how that works though.
They don't literally say "this specific tax money goes to this specific program" for each new tax.
Outside of a few very specific things (FICA for example) taxes go into the general fund. And then spending comes out of the general fund.
So even if the wealth tax (which is unlikely to even be in the final bill) was kicked out by courts, it wouldn't change the rest of the bill---they'd just get the $ for the rest of the bill elsewhere (probably by just printing it if history is any guide).
Remember how part of the ACA funding was from the penalty charged for not having coverage? The penalty went away- but the ACA did not.
EDIT- Checking news stories from within the last hour- the wealth tax thing appears to have already been abandoned, so even more a non-issue as relates to the EV credit.
Last edited:
If it's the high side, it's (1.05)^35 * $1077 = $5902. Low side, just over $3000. If you're going to play with number, at least play with them rightConsidering the current theory that the MMs (or whomever we are pinning the tail on) are intentionally capping each day's SP movement around the 3% gain mark, this falls nicely within the 3%-5% / day range I had mentioned earlier as being completely okay with me as far as their putting a governor on the stonk.
If they were to keep such a pace of holding daily ATHs to a measly 3% / Trading Day over the next 35 market days, let's see,... working on my fingers,... do the carry,... add the columns,... er, ... that would be an SP of ~$3,000 before New Year's Day.
Possibly as high as $3420.69.
Yep, I think this would just about temper any animosity I might hold toward the MMs.
Too optimistic?
Note to self: Stop playing with numbers in public, it is silly, and might even aggravate the real analysts reading this forum.
.
ThisStockGood
Still cruising my Model S 70 2015
Spacep0d
Active Member
Some laws that benefit/penalize individuals on the basis of marital status will probably be challenged in the future as marital status discrimination, especially with the declining incidence and utility of marriage given the expense and tremendous potential downsides. This includes vehicle insurance penalties for being unmarried in the 49 states where this unusual penalty is still legal. Weirdly, Tesla insurance still does this despite this practice now being illegal in Massachusetts and the European Union. They probably should rely more on individual driver metrics (as is their plan) than whether someone is married or not, sometimes not even by choice, e.g., can't find a spouse, too young given trends to delay marriage, spouse died, etc.
In fact, the unmarried penalty (car insurance) is a statistical shell game, because the highest-risk drivers (young people) tend to be unmarried, especially nowadays where more people are eschewing marriage or are simply waiting longer. Times are tough as we come out of the pandemic, and marriage/divorce is expensive. Elderly people who may find themselves unmarried due to death of a spouse, given that men tend to die earlier than women.
Some forms of discrimination (literal, not using this pejoratively) are currently 'legal' but that doesn't mean they're ethical or consistently applied, even if they remain unchallenged or even if the majority are unaffected due to the incidence of prevailing lifestyle choices.
Seeing that Elon is himself unmarried, Tesla Insurance should probably stop dinging people for being unmarried with respect to insurance rates. Some might argue statistics here, but we could make the same arguments about other lifestyle choices as they pertain to insurance claims, even for immutable characteristics unrelated to driving. There are metrics that would illustrate without ambiguity how absurd it is to penalize people based on lifestyle choices; marriage, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), job type, education level, charitable donations, etc.
Also childless for me is 'child-free'.
GrandEnigma
Member
Gotcha, so we are playing this game again tonight. Capping the upside by walking up after hours. We saw this during a number of sessions last year too. At least this means I can pay attention at work as we know it will trade flat for the day after open
I feel you don’t pay enough tax.
The mantra of the nearly half (61% in 2020) of US households that pay no federal income tax:
"Those of you who do pay federal income tax need to start paying your fair share."
dhanson865
Well-Known Member
I thought you were going to say first ID.3 deliveries started in September 2020 so the line should be steeper, like between model 3 and model Y if they didn't get the quantities wrong also.
Domestic content is for the $500 battery credit (i.e., battery cells made in U.S. so problematic for imported LFP).
Domestic assembly (which requires union assembly) gets the last $4500 .
In other words...
Foreign battery plus non-union assembly = $7500k credit
U.S. battery plus non-union assembly (Mach E?) = $7500 credit
U.S. battery plus non-union assembly (Model Y and 3 currently -- other than SR+ 3 with imported cells) = $8000
U.S. battery plus union assembly (F-150 Lightning?) = $12,500 credit
Looking for Tesla killers is similar to looking for a unicorn.
Yesterday and today, after-hours trading has pushed the stock price higher than I've seen on "typical"/non-event days. Yesterday, after-hours trading pushed it up a higher percentage total than the regular trading day's percentage total. So far today, it looks like it may happen again. I'm curious who benefits from trading after-hours. Are they shorts covering and buying shares back in after-hours trading to avoid bigger run-ups in the day?
huh, it's up almost $10 after hours right now. Hopefully it can keep the party going tomorrow...
I agree that the US legacy OEM’s will use it to throw a few batteries into pickups and tie an electrical cord to their bumpers—Ta da! PHEV’s. I’m doubtful that such subsidized PHEV’s will be plugged in much. Hence, they may have worse CO2 emissions, given the extra battery weight they’re carrying around. IIRC, that is what the result was in Europe of PHEV subsidies.
The are two questions in my mind. Will many consumers actually buy many PHEV’s as BEV options become more available, e.g from BYD and VW as well as Tesla? If so, will the legacy OEM’s use the funding to actually try to transition to BEV’s, or just aim for another bailout when falling BEV prices crush demand for PHEV’s?
It’s helpful to Tesla, but I’m not so sure about the legacy OEM’s (or Biden’s legacy for that matter). In other words, I’m not sure this will do for the legacy OEM’s what the administration apparently or at least ostensibly believes.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
