www.forbes.com
That is true. If we want to be accurate, we should call it "subsidies and tax loopholes". I stuck with the former term only, because it was the phrasing used in the post to which I was responding.Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies
In any presidential election year it is inevitable that candidates on both sides of the political spectrum will begin hailing or bashing tax breaks, subsidies, and regulations throughout the US business landscape.
Tesla gets relatively little of that yet dominates the EV market. Everyone else is running scared trying to catch up to Tesla by spending money like it comes from the government. Oh wait, their funding does come from the government.Mostly wrong. Yes the latest battery technology has made EVs more viable, but what has fueled this latest EV spurt is taxpayer dollars including worldwide government subsidies for all aspects of EV R&D (including batteries), subsidies for EV manufacturers, subsidies for EV component manufacturers and governments having to bribe the public to buy EVs. Since at least as far back as 1976 the US government has been subsidizing EV development. Back then it was to wean us off foreign oil, now it's to save us from climate change. Use whatever narrative you want to make your version of reality work, but it doesn't change the facts. EVs would still be that Popular Science novelty project if it wasn't for all the government handouts.
An EV is just another tool. If it is as great as some make it out to be it will become the dominant vehicle type on its own and should not need trillions in subsidies and to be legislated down our throats. I'm with shooterdon, other than the subsidies and the environmental hypocrisy, I have nothing against EVs and would consider one if it made economic sense for our situation.
Just going to leave this here
Taxpayers Are Subsidizing Rich Electric-Vehicle Owners—To the Tune of Billions
A new report has exposed electric vehicles as wasteful money pits, living up to the adage: If it seems too good to be true, it is.www.heritage.org
As an amateur student of the economy and government largesse I am not convinced the oil industry got the favoritism oil haters have successfully painted to be. The oil haters count tax deductions for equipment necessary for the production of oil and gasoline as a "subsidy". No honest businessman or accountant would agree.
Don't most businesses use tax write offs? According to the article, other companies are getting more write offs than big oil and nobody complains about those.
It's hard to find historic data on exactly how much Tesla and its buyers have received in federal and state tax credits and incentives, but the number is massive... I saw one source name it at close to $5 billion total, although I personally have my doubts it's that high. Whatever the number, arguing they receive little today, because they've already max'd out many of the program limits, is like suggesting one closes the barn doors after the horse is gone.
Yes... I sure do! But many such write-offs are crafted to specifically favor those operating in the oil industry. I'm not complaining, I've benefitted from it as well, but if we're going to keep both sides of the debate honest...
I agree with your point, we are not a free market economy, the government has long held sway over the winners and losers... nothing new. But your first sentence seems to disagree with the one right behind it?
You pose the question of comparing subsidies to encourage buying a certain vehicle, to subsidies to a natural resource used to promote a healthy country with economic development and industrialization.