That gift horse? Elon Musk ain't looking it in the mouth.

The Tesla Motors chief appears to be pretty happy about last week's presidential election results, saying that four more years of President Barack Obama likely means more electric vehicle (EV) production, Reuters reports. More newsworthy, Musk also said that the first East Coast Superchargers will soon be installed in Washington, DC and Boston.

Musk added that, unsurprisingly, he'd support raising the federal tax credits for EVs to as much as $10,000 per vehicle. That's about a tenth of the pricetag of a top-of-the-line Tesla Model S sedan, which just won Motor Trend magazine's 2013 Car of the Year Award. Obama previously suggested the $10,000 level, which would represent an increase of $2,500 to the maximum tax credit currently allowed.

EV production subsidies were a hot topic leading up to the election, with Republican candidate Mitt Romney taking aim at US Energy Department (DOE) loans to companies like Tesla, Fisker and Ford. Tesla received a $465-million DOE loan in 2010.

Not to merely rest on federal loans, Tesla said last month that it will get $10 million from the state of California to upgrade its San Francisco Bay Area factory for Tesla's Model X crossover, which is slated to start production in 2014.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 34 Comments
      Grendal
      • 2 Years Ago
      All tax policies promote a specific industry. That's what they do...
      Brandt Hardin
      • 2 Years Ago
      Obama has time and time again tried to champion Clean Energy Sources. Public access to real facts is being whitewashed by this rhetoric while conservative hands paint the Blackface on our President. Watch them mix and apply the paints to his face in a portrait of Obama being Bamboozed by the Far Right at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html
      throwback
      • 2 Years Ago
      If the elected folks in DC are serious about the deficit, I would expect the EV credits to be part of an elimination of certain deductions. If you look at the demographics of the people buying EVs (including the Leaf) they would qualify as "rich" per the president.
        Vlad
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        I have to regretfully admit that I'm nowhere near $250K/year, despite driving a Leaf.
        hodad66
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        I lease a Volt because I support alternative energy..... I make 60K. Not rich by any standards.
        Dave R
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        The thing is - even though only people that are relatively well off can afford the current crop of plug-ins - many of these people are also rather frugal. There was an article talking about how many well-off people drive a Prius (a car with a very low TCO) despite being able to afford a car 2-3x times more expensive.
        Spec
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        Yeah, I don't think they are going to roll back an EV tax credit signed into law by President Bush. The administration indicated they wanted to raise it to $10K per car and they'll give up on that. They've learned how to negotiate better.
        BipDBo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        Well, if he's going roll back their tax reductions, I guess it's a wash if they buy an EV and get a rebate.
        brotherkenny4
        • 2 Years Ago
        @throwback
        If the elected folks in DC are serious about the deficit, I would expect deep cuts into the most expensive military that has ever existed.
          skierpage
          • 2 Years Ago
          @brotherkenny4
          @Marcopolo take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures and tell us which enemy is outspending the USA. It helps to have a clue before you type endlessly.
          Dave R
          • 2 Years Ago
          @brotherkenny4
          One could hope. It seems that only Democrats have the balls to even mention reducing spending in the military. For some reason it seems that Republicans only want to further increase military spending.
          Marcopolo
          • 2 Years Ago
          @brotherkenny4
          @ Dave R Military spending is a very hard call. What if you don't spend and the enemy does ? But is your spending creating an arms race ? What about the military themselves. Will they become demoralized at a lack of adequate and up-to-date ordinance ? What if a lack of spending actually encourages enemies ? Are you putting the lives of US service people before money ? Is not spending today, folly, as it will be far more expensive to rebuild capacity than maintain it? ....etc.. Hmmmm...not easy questions, I'm glad I'm not President !
      Ashton
      • 2 Years Ago
      I wonder who Elon voted for (obviously we'll never know, and a guy in his position should keep it to himself), but still, I'm curious. He says he's a libertarian, which shares many of the same views as a conservative republican. I think he would prefer Romney, to Obama (overall). However he already knows Romney thinks electrics cars aren't practical...and that they are the "future"(a future that is always juuuust over the next hill). Verses Obama, which is a known quantity. Space X is doing good as well as Tesla, and Elon would love to simply keep the status quo the same...which is that future astronauts will ride in his Dragon capsule using his Falcon rocket. Another Obama term (which is what we got...and that still bothers me) has one silver lining for me. Electric cars are here to stay. Over these next 4 years there will be enough charging points and a large enough EV selection & EV sales that they won't be able to be stopped by anyone come 2016.
        Ryan
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Ashton
        Conservative Republicans want to take over the Libertarian vote, but there are a lot of real differences. And Green Libertarians or socially liberal libertarians do not like the current GOP. Even true fiscal conservatives want to reduce military spending like Ron Paul (and I will say he didn't even go far enough). And yes, EVs will expand enough in the next 4 years once prices come down another 25%-40% for the major manufacturers. They will become more common, but they also have to figure out how to get them outside of California and Hawaii.
      Ugo Sugo
      • 2 Years Ago
      As much as I support EVs and I don't support the LOOSERS (LOL), I believe that a tax credit should be limited to cars that cost less than, lets say, 50K. If someone has 90K to spend on a car, he probably has 10k more to pay for it.
      EZEE
      • 2 Years Ago
      California is giving $10 million to big business? Liberal EZEE Raises his head.... While millions of brown skinned wheel chair bound Muslim gay children starve in crumbling schools every single day, the means spirited hateful govern,ent of California is giving handouts to the rich fat cat factory owning robber barons. How much money does one person need anyway? And this isn't a tax break, or depreciation scheme, like the oil companies get...a handout! Oh, wait, electric cars? This is the type of thing we need to clean up the environment and jump start the economy. After all, it was John F. Kennedy that said: This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities of private expenditures. And this is what our forward thinking government in California is doing!
        EZEE
        • 2 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        Kennedy went on to say: Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. Yes.
          American Refugee
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          The top marginal tax rate when Kennedy made that statement was 91%. In other words, it worked at the time. Real conservatives, not ideologues like you, believe in adjusting the policy to the problem. That was what Kennedy was saying, because that was the problem of his time. It is not now. Revenues are too low now because taxes have been slashed too far by people with political connections. Like all ideologues, you don't care about the problem and adjusting the solution, you care about always forcing everything to your ideology so you can always be right. It's boring. Really, really boring.
          EZEE
          • 2 Years Ago
          @EZEE
          @american Refugee... But what about all those tax dollars going toward if businesS? Don't you care about the gay brown skinned wheel chair bound Muslim children with aids? And when you use hateful labels, like 'ideologue', you not just diminish me, you diminish us all. So forgive me....for caring....
        Marcopolo
        • 2 Years Ago
        @EZEE
        @ American Refugee and Ezee, To be fair, Ezee raises a good point. As I said when this grant was first published, a $10-20 million 'gift' to any commercial enterprise, especially one owned by a billionaire, would appear to be an gross misuse of taxpayers money. This not a loan, or a tax incentive, but a 'cash gift' ! I could think of 100 more worthy causes in the State of California to 'give' $10 -20 million dollars. As Ezee points out, California had to borrow this money to 'give' it to Elon Musk and the Tesla shareholders. Now I support Tesla, and I support the concept of incentives in the form of ; tax credits, HOV lanes, subsidized charging infrastructure, etc.., but a straight gift of $10 mil ? OTOH, the world and the economy of 1963, was very different from today ! American refugee made a valid point that even conservatives must accept. No nation should cut it's tax revenue and make up the difference by reckless borrowing. When a nation borrows, it must be for projects that have a benefit only realized in the distant future. The justification being, 'those who will receive the benefit, with be responsible for paying for the benefit '. This is best done by selling bonds to raise the money to build the asset, to be repaid by those who enjoy the asset. If the immediate needs of the nation demand more tax revenue, (and after the government has reduced every unnecessary item of expenditure) , the tax revenue collection must be raised. Since the poor can't pay, it's up to every citizen to contribute. It's self evident that the rich must bear the brunt of paying the burden. Naturally, the middle class and the rich will complain that they are paying for the wantonly wasteful policies of government elected by the poor, and those who believe that it's ideologically 'correct' on 'moral' grounds to 'make the rich pay'. It's not ! It's a sign of bad, and wasteful government ! However, the situation must be resolved with tact and sophistication, or the 'rich' simply organize their affairs so that they are no longer rich for tax purposes ! A fight of private and corporate capital overseas, would further damage the US economy, and deliver a worse result for all citizens. Morally, I believe it's wrong to allow any citizen to pay no tax ! Even the poorest should pay something, no matter how token, simply to feel he is contributing something to being a citizen. It's the duty of Federal and State Governments to ensure sufficient economic activity that each citizen can play a useful role in the nations economy. Which is why I have nothing but admiration for American entrepreneurs like Elon who has created more than 3000 new 'real' jobs within the US economy and even greater potential employment from future export earnings. But I don't think he deserves, (or probably expected) a 'gift' of $10 million taxpayer dollars that should be better spent on the genuinely needy, or better still never borrowed in the first place!
      A_Guy
      • 2 Years Ago
      Yes, the government is helping nurture electric cars. I'd rather see this than money being spent on wars overseas and the billions it costs to continue giving rich tax cuts. People complain when China is advancing faster than us in things like solar panels or EVs, but then they complain again when our government actively tries to help these businesses grow in the U.S.
        mikeybyte1
        • 2 Years Ago
        @A_Guy
        Plus the Chinese government pumps a ton of cash into their businesses. That whole Solyndra scapegoat is a great example where private US enterprise could not beat the Chinese at a government funded lower cost option. As others have posted, tax incentives help seed new technology. There are billions in farm subsidies in the US. EV tax credits are minimal compared to what corn farmers get.
        throwback
        • 2 Years Ago
        @A_Guy
        have you looked at the declared income for Leaf buyers for example? If you do not want to give the "rich" tax cuts, why give them tax deductions?
      Letstakeawalk
      • 2 Years Ago
      "I think that we can expect at least that things will continue as they have," Musk told reporters at an event in New York. "I wouldn't expect it to get any worse for electric vehicles, hopefully it will get a little better." Cautiously optimistic. Here's a nice nugget: "Tesla is considering installing "superchargers" at hotels to address the spotty access to car charging stations in the United States." So, which hotel chain has Tesla been talking to?
        Michael Walsh
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        "So, which hotel chain has Tesla been talking to?" Presumable one that rents by the hour! ; )
          Michael Walsh
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Michael Walsh
          Presumably, I mean. Gah!
          Ashton
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Michael Walsh
          @ GR...The car charge might be free, but "she" won't be. :)
          GR
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Michael Walsh
          So get your Tesla supercharged, while you do a little, er, supercharging??? ;-)
        mikeybyte1
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        I vote for the Super 8 chain. Supercharge at Super 8. It just rolls off the tongue.
        Doug
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Letstakeawalk
        Level 2 chargers are good enough for hotels. Superchargers are best for lunch spots.
      Michael Walsh
      • 2 Years Ago
      Instead of (or maybe as well as) I'd like to see the EV tax credit be something you can roll-over, like you can with the tax credit for PV (solar) systems. That way, maybe people who have (much) less yearly liability than the $7500 will begin to consider them.
      throwback
      • 2 Years Ago
      So giving the rich a tax break is ok if it nurtures new technology. How about giving the rich tax breaks for new fracking technology that could help us to become energy independent, or for the "job creators"? This is the problem when you use tax policy to promote a specific industry.
      A_Guy
      • 2 Years Ago
      Because it is helping nurture new technology. I already stated that. :)
    • Load More Comments