I see this a lot, but people often don’t understand where a lot of the money he’s gotten comes from. The big ones that come up beyond regular tax incentives for building something somewhere are… (these often don’t cost money, it means less money in though)
SpaceX - They bid on contracts and won them and are often the lowest cost bidder. Sure it’s government money but its not in anyway shape or form close to welfare. They are actually saving tax payers billions of dollars.
Tesla - They got a DOE loan while times were hurting yes, but it was a LOAN, that they paid back in full early. Nothing special here and not a bailout. Tax payers benefited from the interest.
Tesla - ZEV credits - People can complain about this one if they want as it’s the closest to what you’re describing, but it was intended to spur new business which it did. This is the one that others couldn’t realistically benefit from but Tesla could. The money comes from other manufactures though, not taxpayers. But it was forced by the government, so in a sense this one is a handout in the form of a punishment.
Tesla - $7500 200k rebates were open to everyone up to 200k vehicles. GM also used these up.
Tesla - $7500 IRA Have convinced Tesla and other OEMs to source more materials within NA boosting the NA economy and it’s independence from outside threats, so while it’s money out, it’s also money in and improved national security.
You gotta remember, as a corporation, they are obligated to use any and all incentives available to them, or they would be breaching their fiduciary duty and open to shareholder lawsuits. They do not have a choice on the matter.
Edit: Clarity on some points, but I also wanted to add, that SpaceX is going to save the US government more money than Tesla will ever have taken from taxpayers. Its a fact, not up for debate. It might have already done so as well given the below quote.
Quote from a general in the military
“General Hyten, [then] the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told me last year … the fact that we have competition now on going to space – just for the military – has saved them $40 billion in launch costs.”
What bothers me admit space X, was they awarded a 3 billion dollar contract for Starship. They were awarded this by Kathy Lueders, and interim director at NASA, who reached out to only SpaceX and told them to drop their bid to get the contract. She, as an interim director, single handedly and I’d argue fraudulently awarded over 3 billion dollars to SpaceX. She then went on to retire from NASA six months later to take a job as manager of the SpaceX facility at Boca Chica.
Fraud and lies means we’re probably not going back to the moon. Just like how Tesla got so popular because they deceive investors with unachievable ranges on electric cars and the promise of full self driving cars.
I had to look this up, but that’s not exactly what happened.
Proposals from all 3 were looked at, but due to the funding available from congress (they only gave 25% of what NASA asked for) there was only enough funding to fund one and SpaceX was the best option. She did ask SpaceX to reasses their bid, but SpaceX did not change it, and still won.
Even given that though, it does sound a little sketchy how it all played out, especially with the job after.
Blue Origin the next lowest bid was 2x Spacex’s 3 Billion.
The protest from the other companies was then rejected by the courts.
Edit: Also Re: Tesla range - Your beef is with the EPA and their testing mechanism, not Tesla. Tesla cars have consistently met EPA ranges in EPA type tests. Until the Model 3 highland (released in 2024), they would rapidly drop off in range at prolonged 70mph (considered ‘real world driving’ which autoblogs test with) but that’s on the EPA test, not Tesla. Tesla built the car to get the EPA range.
Edit: More on the EPA, in addition to a better ‘real world driving’ metric at prolonged high speeds, they also need a cold weather metric, as all EVs suffer on range in cold weather, and knowing how a specific car will handle it due to differences like heat pumps vs resisitive heating, is much needed to make informed decisions.
I see this a lot, but people often don’t understand where a lot of the money he’s gotten comes from. The big ones that come up beyond regular tax incentives for building something somewhere are… (these often don’t cost money, it means less money in though)
SpaceX - They bid on contracts and won them and are often the lowest cost bidder. Sure it’s government money but its not in anyway shape or form close to welfare. They are actually saving tax payers billions of dollars.
Tesla - They got a DOE loan while times were hurting yes, but it was a LOAN, that they paid back in full early. Nothing special here and not a bailout. Tax payers benefited from the interest.
Tesla - ZEV credits - People can complain about this one if they want as it’s the closest to what you’re describing, but it was intended to spur new business which it did. This is the one that others couldn’t realistically benefit from but Tesla could. The money comes from other manufactures though, not taxpayers. But it was forced by the government, so in a sense this one is a handout in the form of a punishment.
Tesla - $7500 200k rebates were open to everyone up to 200k vehicles. GM also used these up.
Tesla - $7500 IRA Have convinced Tesla and other OEMs to source more materials within NA boosting the NA economy and it’s independence from outside threats, so while it’s money out, it’s also money in and improved national security.
You gotta remember, as a corporation, they are obligated to use any and all incentives available to them, or they would be breaching their fiduciary duty and open to shareholder lawsuits. They do not have a choice on the matter.
Edit: Clarity on some points, but I also wanted to add, that SpaceX is going to save the US government more money than Tesla will ever have taken from taxpayers. Its a fact, not up for debate. It might have already done so as well given the below quote.
Quote from a general in the military
What bothers me admit space X, was they awarded a 3 billion dollar contract for Starship. They were awarded this by Kathy Lueders, and interim director at NASA, who reached out to only SpaceX and told them to drop their bid to get the contract. She, as an interim director, single handedly and I’d argue fraudulently awarded over 3 billion dollars to SpaceX. She then went on to retire from NASA six months later to take a job as manager of the SpaceX facility at Boca Chica.
Fraud and lies means we’re probably not going back to the moon. Just like how Tesla got so popular because they deceive investors with unachievable ranges on electric cars and the promise of full self driving cars.
I had to look this up, but that’s not exactly what happened.
Proposals from all 3 were looked at, but due to the funding available from congress (they only gave 25% of what NASA asked for) there was only enough funding to fund one and SpaceX was the best option. She did ask SpaceX to reasses their bid, but SpaceX did not change it, and still won.
Even given that though, it does sound a little sketchy how it all played out, especially with the job after.
Blue Origin the next lowest bid was 2x Spacex’s 3 Billion.
The protest from the other companies was then rejected by the courts.
Edit: Also Re: Tesla range - Your beef is with the EPA and their testing mechanism, not Tesla. Tesla cars have consistently met EPA ranges in EPA type tests. Until the Model 3 highland (released in 2024), they would rapidly drop off in range at prolonged 70mph (considered ‘real world driving’ which autoblogs test with) but that’s on the EPA test, not Tesla. Tesla built the car to get the EPA range.
Edit: More on the EPA, in addition to a better ‘real world driving’ metric at prolonged high speeds, they also need a cold weather metric, as all EVs suffer on range in cold weather, and knowing how a specific car will handle it due to differences like heat pumps vs resisitive heating, is much needed to make informed decisions.