The Tesla Thread

Glaucus said:
they really aren't much different, its a saving. just because government likes to hide it from the books, doesn't mean you should be so gullible.

fossil fuels get huge amounts of subsidies around the world, direct and indirect. people just don't realise it as you and others have shown in this very thread.

going back to your original point, it is in no way creative tax fiddling.
Click to expand...

It's only a saving because the oil company has to pay a tax rate significantly higher than the equivalent situation in other industries. They are still paying double the rate (in the example above, which is broadly accurate) the renewable company would be paying.

It's a bit like saying the poor subsidies the rich because the rich tax rate of 55% went down to 50%, whereas everyone else pays 20%.

Tbh it's not me that doesn't "realize", it's more you don't appear to understand the nuances of the situation, the issues with definition and the cons quenches of those differences.
 
except I do understand, and I wasn't the one who said t was only the case due to creative tax accounting. That was you, that was your opinion, until all these articles kind of blew your thought out the water. you then moved to subsidies for the poor, which is part of it, but no where near all off it. so you seem to be the one who lacks understanding and tries to deflect what is actually happening.

and no that example is complete bs, that's not what is happening at all.
 
Glaucus said:
no, if you take into account co2, then its in the trillions. the 500billion is largly things like the vat reduction.

or you know rather than taking one governments definition, they apply the same definition to all governments and come u with such figures.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that, you just repeated what I said. It's why I posted the way I did in the first post I made.

There is no equivalent in the UK to the type of direct subsidy the renewable energy companies get. The "subsidies" the U.K. Government provide are largely a reduction in an exceptionally high tax rate* that is still significantly higher than other industries and tax breaks on decommissioning costs, written against the tax raised from the field over the years. So basically the government still come out ahead money wise with the oil industry, but tax negative with the renewables industry.

*partly due to quirks over the years. For example some fields have tax rates of around 80% because by and large the rate of the field is set at the rate the tax was when it was first discovered, which is where the current tax break situation comes from.
 
because its realy the same, of course government makes more money from fossil fuel, its an absolutely massive industry. so your comparing apples to oranges yet again.

when renewables are on the same turnover then you might have a point, that isn't the case and wont be for decades.
 
Glaucus said:
except I do understand, and I wasn't the one who said t was only the case due to creative tax accounting. That was you, that was your opinion, until all these articles kind of blew your thought out the water. you then moved to subsidies for the poor, which is part of it, but no where near all off it. so you seem to be the one who lacks understanding and tries to deflect what is actually happening.

and no that example is complete bs, that's not what is happening at all.
Click to expand...

I didn't say tax accounting... I said accounting. As I've said all along it depends what your definition of subsidy is. Some organizations use a very broad definition, some use a more "traditional" definition. Both have their reasons and both are useful for different situations. The British government definition is more useful when dealing with the kind of subsidies relevant to this thread.
 
Glaucus said:
because its realy the same, of course government makes more money from fossil fuel, its an absolutely massive industry. so your comparing apples to oranges yet again.

when renewables are on the same turnover then you might have a point, that isn't the case and wont be for decades.
Click to expand...

So you're agreeing with my point.

Thank you. The British government are not directly subsidizing the oil industry.
 
lol, creative accounting is not in anyway the same as tax breaks.

yes they are, just because the government decides to call it something else, doesn't make it anything different.

so rather than giving inefficient grants, they gave renewables a negative tax rate. then that wouldn't be a subsidy?
any cost reduction is a subsidy regardless of what the government puts it down in the books as.

and why you know bodies who look at many countries, ignore government definitions as they re meaningless.

see you haven't commented on the g7 finding.
 
Last edited:
My statement of "creative accounting" was related to the definition of subsidy, which if explained multiple times to you. Depending on where you put the "money" and define the cost depends on the overall "subsidy". Creative accounting. To use your phrase. The NGO is taking both the apples and the oranges and calling them "fruit", whereas the British government is taking the apples and calling them apples, and the oranges, oranges. Depends if you're a lumper or splitter I guess. :p

We shall have to disagree then. My feeling is reducing a tax of 60% to 40% (when others pay 20%) is not a subsidy in the traditional sense. You could argue it the opposite way and say the renewables companies are not just getting the direct subsidies but also getting a standard 40% subsidy on top of that, because they aren't paying the 60% tax they "should" be.
 
it seems your definitions need work as creative accounting can never be thought of like you at enow saying, after you found out things you didn't know before hand.
 
wildest_jjk said:
That's one of my concerns but also how long until I would actually receive one. I've been reading some articles that talk about production levels reaching where they need to be 2018/19!!
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put the money down until I know what the actual price is for the model you actually want. The interior will probably be fine, its still a relatively premium car at the end of the day.

Lets face it a long range, quick, auto pilot enabled Model 3 with a few bells and whistles is not going to be $30,000. More I would say more like double.

If you want an electric car now, get an i3 and have a look again once they are available. Or a second hand model S may well be a better value option.
 
They are going to sell in droves. A useful range, sensible price, good technology, and a long warranty.
I can't see them keeping up with demand for a good many years.

I will be in the market for a new car in a couple of years and if the lease deals are good on the Model-3 I will be getting one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom