Sorry it is not. The credit is essentially a discount, implemented as a rebate. The difference is, the taxpayers are paying for the rebate.
Do you think anyone considers an electric car without considering the tax credit?
Even Tesla admits as much, as someone else posted from their web site:
"At the base price of $62,400, including the $7,500 Federal Tax Credit"
That $62,400 price less the credit is the market price of the vehicle. That is the price Tesla's marketing and business folks came up with that would maximize gross profit of the vehicles. But for every vehicle they sell at an effective price of $62,400, they take in $69,900 from the buyer, and the buyer gets a refund from the taxpayer of $7,500. If the tax credit did not exist, Tesla would have to lower their price.
"Are you against lower taxes?"
This is not "lower taxes". Lower income taxes are contingent on lowering the taxes on the same income for anyone making the same money, either through a lower rate or a deduction or credit available to anyone making the same amount of income.
This is laundering taxpayer money to a man in return for contributing triple digit dollars to Obama.
As for paying back the loan, why didn't Musk go to a bank or a VC or a PE fund? The taxpayers are not a bank or a private equity fund, nor should they be.
Loaning money to for someone to make very expensive vanity cars is nuts. Teslas are not vehicles ordinary people can consider. People buy Teslas instead of Jaguars, BMW 7-Series, or Range Rovers.
Government subsidizing any goods can be debated. Subsidizing luxury goods is insane.
If Teslas were so great, they would not need any subsidy.
As I stated earlier, they are selling below demand and they did increase their price recently. The tax credit exists for all auto companies, not just Tesla and will phase out after 200,00 cars. I do not see this as an unusual favor for one company.
This is laundering taxpayer money to a man in return for contributing triple digit dollars to Obama.
This tax credit is open for all auto manufactures. So I do not see why you think that it only favors Tesla?
As for paying back the loan, why didn't Musk go to a bank or a VC or a PE fund?
Well, the tax payer decided to be the bank during the liquidity crisis of 2008. It was available to all car makers. If Tesla did not borrow from the lowest cost of capital source during that period, then it would be bad business decision, just like you optimize your tax at the end of the year, weather you agree with a favorable tax break or not.
100% correct. A point I've made a few times on this thread. The Tesla has not taken/will never take a single "gas-guzzler off the road." Not one, because people who drive the low-fuel efficient vehicles are not the same people who buy Jags & Beemers. Yet, that's what the story is boasting. We've gotten dragged off onto a tangent about cost effectiveness, which is arguable. Someone who buys a $75k auto is not likely to care about a $12,000 battery in 10 years.
I do care. I have a $35k vehicle that's going to cost >$10k when the battery dies out of warranty. It bugs me when somebody calls that balloon payment "minimal maintenance costs."