Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by bmmayer1 4304 days ago
This is not an investment, it's redistribution.

Tesla gets $1.25B from Nevada. That means that the taxpayers of Nevada, collectively, have $1.25B less while Tesla has $1.25B more. Now Tesla may spend every dollar of that money in the state of Nevada, hiring people, buying supplies, making investments, etc. But for every dollar being spent by Tesla, that's one fewer dollar being spent by a Nevada taxpayer into the same economy. Those dollars that would have been spent hiring people, buying supplies, making investments, and so on from Nevada taxpayers are now not being spent on those things.

So you can count up all the "stimulus" from the money that goes to Tesla over the next decade, but you're ignoring the money that now isn't getting spent and the jobs that now aren't getting created.

Actually, it's worse than just redistribution, for two reasons:

1) It's likely that a lot of the money will not be spent in Nevada, and I doubt anyone is auditing this deal for the next decade to make sure that it is.

2) Before, those dollars were being spent privately by millions of taxpayers who got to decide if the money they spent for X product or Y employee was worth it, and could take individualized risks with their own dollars. But now that their money has been pooled and dumped into Tesla, those taxpayers of Nevada have taken on a substantial risk with no equivalent reward. If Tesla is explosively successful, they don't see any more money than if Tesla just limps along for a couple decades. But if Tesla fails, they've lost it all with nothing to show for it (save for the few people who got a job out of the deal...but there aren't enough jobs at Tesla to compensate every taxpayer in Nevada for the risk).

In short, it's difficult to see this deal as anything more than a great benefit to a few people (Tesla investors, Tesla employees, Tesla consumers) at the expense of the taxpayers of Nevada.

1 comments

Tesla does not get $1.25B... they just won't have to pay $1.25B over the next 20 years. The Nevada tax payers have the same amount they would have if Tesla never got the deal and thus never built in Nevada.
Not entirely true.

Tesla gets $195 million in tax credits that they can sell to other companies. Note that it's a credit and not simply a tax break or deduction.

Furthermore, the state and local county will have to pay large amounts of money to support the explosive growth of the community. If they expect 6,500 new workers and 22,000 new residents overall, that means huge upgrade to infrastructure, police, education, etc. That is potentially hundreds of millions that the will not be offset by property or sales taxes from Tesla. That money will be coming from Nevada tax payers.

A tax break and a subsidy are the same thing as far as taxpayers are concerned. As it turns out, tax breaks are considered more politically palatable, but the effect is the same--all taxpayers pay more money than they otherwise would have, to make up for lost revenue from the tax break.
Tax payers are not paying more, likely they are paying less. Hopefully the $1.2B in tax breaks leads to an overall net gain for Nevada (why else would they do it?)

The other option is Tesla builds elsewhere. At no point was there ever an option for Nevada to get the Tesla factory and NOT give tax breaks.

>At no point was there ever an option for Nevada to get the Tesla factory and NOT give tax breaks.

Because there are competing states which can offer tax breaks. But is it better for the US as a whole if states can give tax breaks to individual companies?