TESLA DEAL IS A GREAT DEAL…FOR TESLA
The Sandoval administration is creating enough wind patting
themselves on the back to qualify for typhoon status over the decision by
electric car manufacturer Tesla Motors to build its battery gigafactory in
Nevada. But not everyone is a happy camper.
Nor should they be.
The decision was not exactly a surprise, even though Nevada
was competing with three other states to land the facility. Tesla was looking for relatively inexpensive
land in a state where wages were comparatively lower than those paid in Palo
Alto, California where Tesla’s manufacturing operation is located.
Not only did Nevada qualify on both counts, but Reno is a
lot closer to the company’s home office than Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. Location, location, location.
Tesla was also looking for a juicy package of tax breaks -
something all four states were willing to cough up. And the Nevada package reportedly weighs in
at some $1.1 billion!
According to Sean
Whaley of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, the deal “will result in essentially no taxes being
collected from the electric car manufacturer for nearly a decade.” No sales or use taxes. No real property taxes. No personal property taxes. And no modified business taxes (employee head
tax).
Sweet!
So much for the claim by “low tax deniers” that a state’s
tax climate isn’t a major factor in deciding to move here.
Oh, and since our government-run schools continue to stink
on ice, yet Tesla is moving here anyway, so much for the liberal argument that
businesses won’t locate here because we supposedly “underfund” education.
But back to the tax breaks…
I’m happy to lower taxes, for sure. But if lower taxes equals more businesses
moving into Nevada, shouldn’t we lower sales, property and employee taxes for
EVERYONE? Why is it right for the government
to extend tax breaks to some companies and not others?
And I still can’t get beyond the unfairness of this sort of
thing to home-grown Nevada companies.
We have businesses that started in Nevada years and years
and years ago. Those businesses have
helped Nevada grow and mature as a state.
They’ve contributed millions and millions of dollars in tax revenue, not
including charitable contributions. And
they’ve survived the Bush-Obama recession, which hit Nevada particularly hard.
Where are THEIR tax breaks, huh?
And according to Mr. Whaley’s story, some of the tax breaks going
to Tesla will be at the expense of other businesses!
For example, the $80 million worth of film tax credits the
Legislature passed last session to entice movie producers to shoot their flicks
in Nevada will be cut to $10 million, with the difference going to Tesla. Oh, and a 40-year-old home office tax credit
for Nevada-based companies, worth some $25 million, will be redirected to
Tesla, as well.
How is that right?
This is a great deal for Tesla. Kudos to Elon
Musk, the company’s CEO, for playing five states against each other and
getting such a great deal for his company.
Well played.
And it’ll be great for the estimated 6,500 people who will
be working on the project and the contractors who will build the factory.
For the rest of us though, not so much.
PLAYING THE RACE CARD GAME
Is it now racist to simply identify a black as a black? You’d think so if you read a Las Vegas
Review-Journal story about a robbery that took place around 2 a.m. Thursday
morning in which a pair of victims were shot in the leg even after giving the
robbers what they demanded.
The couple was mugged by “four to five men” who were described
in the paper thusly…
“The men are described to be about 16- to 18-years-old wearing dark clothing and basketball shorts. The gunman is said to be about 5 feet 6 inches to 5 feet 10 inches tall with a thin build in a white t-shirt, black shorts, black thick-rimmed eyeglasses and having short dreadlocks.”
Fine, but um…were they Black, White, Hispanic, Asian,
Klingon or what? I mean, wouldn’t that
help in the identification process that law enforcement is requesting from the
public at the end of the story?
Or are we just to assume they were black because they wore “basketball
shorts” and one had “dreadlocks”? But wouldn’t
that be stereotyping? And isn’t that
considered politically incorrect?
And why is a 16-year-old robbery suspect in this incident referred
to as a “man,” but 18-year-old Michael
Brown of Ferguson, MO, was referred to as a “child” after robbing a
convenience store there last month?
Would somebody please get all the rules dealing with race down
on a sheet of paper so we can all sing from the same song sheet? This is way too confusing.
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“Heterosexuals get drunk and pregnant, producing unwanted
children; their reward is to be allowed to marry. Homosexual couples do not
produce unwanted children; their reward is to be denied the right to marry. Go
figure.” - Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit in an opinion striking down
Indiana and Wisconsin’s anti-gay marriage policies
No comments:
Post a Comment