Tea Party Governor Signs Bill Banning Direct Tesla Sales

[Lonestar_logic]

Excuse me, but I thought the Tea Party was all about free enterprise and competition? Instead Snyder gives Michigan more cronyism with the backing of Government Motors.

Governor Rick Snyder today signed bipartisan legislation aimed at discouraging Tesla Motors from selling its electric cars directly through company stores.

House Bill 5606, sponsored by state Rep. Aric Nesbitt, also prohibits auto manufacturers from dictating fees franchised dealers can charge customers. The legislation allows individual auto dealers to make the business decision whether to charge the transaction fee.

Snyder said direct sales of new vehicles is already banned in the state. This law will explicitly require all automakers to sell through a network of franchised dealers.

Earlier today General Motors urged the governor to sign the bill.

Gov. Snyder signs bill banning direct Tesla sales

What part of "bipartisan legislation" do you not understand?

What part of the governor has veto power do you not understand and why do you not understand that pointing to the fact this was bipartisan legislation does not help your case any? You're pointing out the fact that multiple Republicans in Michigan are hypocrites.

Why would the governor veto a bipartisan bill that they all agree is needed?

 

[WinterBorn]

The point is, there is no solid reason why the gov't should step in and tell companies how they should sell their goods. This is about removing competition, nothing more.

Teslas are about as far removed from the free market as you can get.

If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars We d All Save Some Money - Forbes
If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money
The public is still on the hook for Tesla, and will be for the foreseeable future.

First, there’s the $7500 taxback bonus that every buyer gets and every taxpayer pays. Then there are generous state subsidies ($2500 in California, $4000 in Illinois—the bluer the state, the more the taxpayers get gouged), all paid to people forking out $63K (plus taxes) for the base version, to roughly $100K for the really quick one.

The latest round of Tesla wonderment came when it reported its first quarterly profit earlier this month. TSLA stock darned near doubled in a week. Musk then borrowed $150 million from Goldman Sachs (shocking!) and floated a cool billion in new stock and long-term debt. That’s how we—the taxpayers—were repaid.

So the taxpayers were repaid? Then what is your complaint?

And as for the tax credit, those who spend between $65k and $100k for a car probably have a pretty fair sized tax bill. The $7,500 isn't coming out of our pocket. It is allowing them to keep more of their own money for doing something positive.

That said, using the IRS as a punishment or reward for whatever reason is despicable.

 

[WinterBorn]

Excuse me, but I thought the Tea Party was all about free enterprise and competition? Instead Snyder gives Michigan more cronyism with the backing of Government Motors.

Governor Rick Snyder today signed bipartisan legislation aimed at discouraging Tesla Motors from selling its electric cars directly through company stores.

House Bill 5606, sponsored by state Rep. Aric Nesbitt, also prohibits auto manufacturers from dictating fees franchised dealers can charge customers. The legislation allows individual auto dealers to make the business decision whether to charge the transaction fee.

Snyder said direct sales of new vehicles is already banned in the state. This law will explicitly require all automakers to sell through a network of franchised dealers.

Earlier today General Motors urged the governor to sign the bill.

Gov. Snyder signs bill banning direct Tesla sales

What part of "bipartisan legislation" do you not understand?

What part of the governor has veto power do you not understand and why do you not understand that pointing to the fact this was bipartisan legislation does not help your case any? You're pointing out the fact that multiple Republicans in Michigan are hypocrites.

Why would the governor veto a bipartisan bill that they all agree is needed?

Because it shouldn't be a law? Because the gov't has no business telling a company they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Excuse me, but I thought the Tea Party was all about free enterprise and competition? Instead Snyder gives Michigan more cronyism with the backing of Government Motors.

Governor Rick Snyder today signed bipartisan legislation aimed at discouraging Tesla Motors from selling its electric cars directly through company stores.

House Bill 5606, sponsored by state Rep. Aric Nesbitt, also prohibits auto manufacturers from dictating fees franchised dealers can charge customers. The legislation allows individual auto dealers to make the business decision whether to charge the transaction fee.

Snyder said direct sales of new vehicles is already banned in the state. This law will explicitly require all automakers to sell through a network of franchised dealers.

Earlier today General Motors urged the governor to sign the bill.

Gov. Snyder signs bill banning direct Tesla sales

What part of "bipartisan legislation" do you not understand?

What part of the governor has veto power do you not understand and why do you not understand that pointing to the fact this was bipartisan legislation does not help your case any? You're pointing out the fact that multiple Republicans in Michigan are hypocrites.

Why would the governor veto a bipartisan bill that they all agree is needed?

Because it shouldn't be a law? Because the gov't has no business telling a company they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods?

Is he your Governor?

 

[Iceweasel]

The point is, there is no solid reason why the gov't should step in and tell companies how they should sell their goods. This is about removing competition, nothing more.

Teslas are about as far removed from the free market as you can get.

If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars We d All Save Some Money - Forbes
If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money
The public is still on the hook for Tesla, and will be for the foreseeable future.

First, there’s the $7500 taxback bonus that every buyer gets and every taxpayer pays. Then there are generous state subsidies ($2500 in California, $4000 in Illinois—the bluer the state, the more the taxpayers get gouged), all paid to people forking out $63K (plus taxes) for the base version, to roughly $100K for the really quick one.

The latest round of Tesla wonderment came when it reported its first quarterly profit earlier this month. TSLA stock darned near doubled in a week. Musk then borrowed $150 million from Goldman Sachs (shocking!) and floated a cool billion in new stock and long-term debt. That’s how we—the taxpayers—were repaid.

So the taxpayers were repaid? Then what is your complaint?

And as for the tax credit, those who spend between $65k and $100k for a car probably have a pretty fair sized tax bill. The $7,500 isn't coming out of our pocket. It is allowing them to keep more of their own money for doing something positive.

That said, using the IRS as a punishment or reward for whatever reason is despicable.

Uhhhh, we were repaid by them bumping up their stock. A tax back bonus means they are getting money, from us.

 

[WinterBorn]

Excuse me, but I thought the Tea Party was all about free enterprise and competition? Instead Snyder gives Michigan more cronyism with the backing of Government Motors.

What part of "bipartisan legislation" do you not understand?

What part of the governor has veto power do you not understand and why do you not understand that pointing to the fact this was bipartisan legislation does not help your case any? You're pointing out the fact that multiple Republicans in Michigan are hypocrites.

Why would the governor veto a bipartisan bill that they all agree is needed?

Because it shouldn't be a law? Because the gov't has no business telling a company they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods?

Is he your Governor?

That doesn't matter at all.

 

[WinterBorn]

The point is, there is no solid reason why the gov't should step in and tell companies how they should sell their goods. This is about removing competition, nothing more.

Teslas are about as far removed from the free market as you can get.

If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars We d All Save Some Money - Forbes
If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money
The public is still on the hook for Tesla, and will be for the foreseeable future.

First, there’s the $7500 taxback bonus that every buyer gets and every taxpayer pays. Then there are generous state subsidies ($2500 in California, $4000 in Illinois—the bluer the state, the more the taxpayers get gouged), all paid to people forking out $63K (plus taxes) for the base version, to roughly $100K for the really quick one.

The latest round of Tesla wonderment came when it reported its first quarterly profit earlier this month. TSLA stock darned near doubled in a week. Musk then borrowed $150 million from Goldman Sachs (shocking!) and floated a cool billion in new stock and long-term debt. That’s how we—the taxpayers—were repaid.

So the taxpayers were repaid? Then what is your complaint?

And as for the tax credit, those who spend between $65k and $100k for a car probably have a pretty fair sized tax bill. The $7,500 isn't coming out of our pocket. It is allowing them to keep more of their own money for doing something positive.

That said, using the IRS as a punishment or reward for whatever reason is despicable.

Uhhhh, we were repaid by them bumping up their stock. A tax back bonus means they are getting money, from us.

A tax credit simply lowers their tax burden by that set amount. I doubt anyone buying a car priced that high has a tax bill of less than $7,500. They keep more of their own money. And the tax credit begins to phase out when the company sell 200k of the vehicles.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What part of "bipartisan legislation" do you not understand?

What part of the governor has veto power do you not understand and why do you not understand that pointing to the fact this was bipartisan legislation does not help your case any? You're pointing out the fact that multiple Republicans in Michigan are hypocrites.

Why would the governor veto a bipartisan bill that they all agree is needed?

Because it shouldn't be a law? Because the gov't has no business telling a company they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods?

Is he your Governor?

That doesn't matter at all.

Sure it does. If you have no dog in the fight then why are you whining?

States have the right to do whatever they please within the confines of the Constitution. You should be more concerned about the federal government forcing you to purchase goods.

 

[WinterBorn]

The point is, there is no solid reason why the gov't should step in and tell companies how they should sell their goods. This is about removing competition, nothing more.

Teslas are about as far removed from the free market as you can get.

If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars We d All Save Some Money - Forbes
If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money
The public is still on the hook for Tesla, and will be for the foreseeable future.

First, there’s the $7500 taxback bonus that every buyer gets and every taxpayer pays. Then there are generous state subsidies ($2500 in California, $4000 in Illinois—the bluer the state, the more the taxpayers get gouged), all paid to people forking out $63K (plus taxes) for the base version, to roughly $100K for the really quick one.

The latest round of Tesla wonderment came when it reported its first quarterly profit earlier this month. TSLA stock darned near doubled in a week. Musk then borrowed $150 million from Goldman Sachs (shocking!) and floated a cool billion in new stock and long-term debt. That’s how we—the taxpayers—were repaid.

So the taxpayers were repaid? Then what is your complaint?

And as for the tax credit, those who spend between $65k and $100k for a car probably have a pretty fair sized tax bill. The $7,500 isn't coming out of our pocket. It is allowing them to keep more of their own money for doing something positive.

That said, using the IRS as a punishment or reward for whatever reason is despicable.

Uhhhh, we were repaid by them bumping up their stock. A tax back bonus means they are getting money, from us.

They bumped up their stock? Do you own Tesla stock? If not, how does that effect you?

 

[WinterBorn]

What part of the governor has veto power do you not understand and why do you not understand that pointing to the fact this was bipartisan legislation does not help your case any? You're pointing out the fact that multiple Republicans in Michigan are hypocrites.

Why would the governor veto a bipartisan bill that they all agree is needed?

Because it shouldn't be a law? Because the gov't has no business telling a company they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods?

Is he your Governor?

That doesn't matter at all.

Sure it does. If you have no dog in the fight then why are you whining?

States have the right to do whatever they please within the confines of the Constitution. You should be more concerned about the federal government forcing you to purchase goods.

We are the United States of America. I feel fine speaking out on wrongs in other states. I do not want the feds telling businesses that they have to use a 3rd party to sell their goods either. Nor do I want them forcing me to purchase goods.

But this piece of legislation is something that should be fought by more than just Michigan residents.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why would the governor veto a bipartisan bill that they all agree is needed?

Because it shouldn't be a law? Because the gov't has no business telling a company they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods?

Is he your Governor?

That doesn't matter at all.

Sure it does. If you have no dog in the fight then why are you whining?

States have the right to do whatever they please within the confines of the Constitution. You should be more concerned about the federal government forcing you to purchase goods.

We are the United States of America. I feel fine speaking out on wrongs in other states. I do not want the feds telling businesses that they have to use a 3rd party to sell their goods either. Nor do I want them forcing me to purchase goods.

But this piece of legislation is something that should be fought by more than just Michigan residents.

Not if this is what Michigan residents want. Does what they want matter?

 

[WinterBorn]

Because it shouldn't be a law? Because the gov't has no business telling a company they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods?

Is he your Governor?

That doesn't matter at all.

Sure it does. If you have no dog in the fight then why are you whining?

States have the right to do whatever they please within the confines of the Constitution. You should be more concerned about the federal government forcing you to purchase goods.

We are the United States of America. I feel fine speaking out on wrongs in other states. I do not want the feds telling businesses that they have to use a 3rd party to sell their goods either. Nor do I want them forcing me to purchase goods.

But this piece of legislation is something that should be fought by more than just Michigan residents.

Not if this is what Michigan residents want. Does what they want matter?

What the residents of Alabama wanted was segregation.

This legislation is paid for by the car dealers and the manufacturers. "The People" haven't spoken. The dollar has spoken. The only reason for such legislation is to protect car dealerships.

 

[Iceweasel]

They bumped up their stock? Do you own Tesla stock? If not, how does that effect you?

Crony capitalism funded by the taxpayer works for you huh?

 

[WinterBorn]

They bumped up their stock? Do you own Tesla stock? If not, how does that effect you?

Crony capitalism funded by the taxpayer works for you huh?

The company is making a profit. The CEO wants more capital to improve the manufacturing. Not sure why it should bother me, since they repaid the taxpayers and are continuing to grow.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Is he your Governor?

That doesn't matter at all.

Sure it does. If you have no dog in the fight then why are you whining?

States have the right to do whatever they please within the confines of the Constitution. You should be more concerned about the federal government forcing you to purchase goods.

We are the United States of America. I feel fine speaking out on wrongs in other states. I do not want the feds telling businesses that they have to use a 3rd party to sell their goods either. Nor do I want them forcing me to purchase goods.

But this piece of legislation is something that should be fought by more than just Michigan residents.

Not if this is what Michigan residents want. Does what they want matter?

What the residents of Alabama wanted was segregation.

This legislation is paid for by the car dealers and the manufacturers. "The People" haven't spoken. The dollar has spoken. The only reason for such legislation is to protect car dealerships.

The people spoke at the ballot box.

Alabama? No this is Michigan in 2014. Stay on topic.

 

[WinterBorn]

That doesn't matter at all.

Sure it does. If you have no dog in the fight then why are you whining?

States have the right to do whatever they please within the confines of the Constitution. You should be more concerned about the federal government forcing you to purchase goods.

We are the United States of America. I feel fine speaking out on wrongs in other states. I do not want the feds telling businesses that they have to use a 3rd party to sell their goods either. Nor do I want them forcing me to purchase goods.

But this piece of legislation is something that should be fought by more than just Michigan residents.

Not if this is what Michigan residents want. Does what they want matter?

What the residents of Alabama wanted was segregation.

This legislation is paid for by the car dealers and the manufacturers. "The People" haven't spoken. The dollar has spoken. The only reason for such legislation is to protect car dealerships.

The people spoke at the ballot box.

Alabama? No this is Michigan in 2014. Stay on topic.

I am on topic. The point was that what the people want (in my example they were far more vocal) is not always the right thing.

And when the people elected the politicians I doubt the legislation was discussed.

The state telling a business that they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods is simply wrong. And the reason behind such legislation is equally wrong.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Sure it does. If you have no dog in the fight then why are you whining?

States have the right to do whatever they please within the confines of the Constitution. You should be more concerned about the federal government forcing you to purchase goods.

We are the United States of America. I feel fine speaking out on wrongs in other states. I do not want the feds telling businesses that they have to use a 3rd party to sell their goods either. Nor do I want them forcing me to purchase goods.

But this piece of legislation is something that should be fought by more than just Michigan residents.

Not if this is what Michigan residents want. Does what they want matter?

What the residents of Alabama wanted was segregation.

This legislation is paid for by the car dealers and the manufacturers. "The People" haven't spoken. The dollar has spoken. The only reason for such legislation is to protect car dealerships.

The people spoke at the ballot box.

Alabama? No this is Michigan in 2014. Stay on topic.

I am on topic. The point was that what the people want (in my example they were far more vocal) is not always the right thing.

And when the people elected the politicians I doubt the legislation was discussed.

The state telling a business that they must use a 3rd party to sell their goods is simply wrong. And the reason behind such legislation is equally wrong.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and just saying it's wrong means anything. The dealerships say it's right thing to do. Me personally, I don't give a rats ass what Michigan does.

 

[Iceweasel]

The company is making a profit. The CEO wants more capital to improve the manufacturing. Not sure why it should bother me, since they repaid the taxpayers and are continuing to grow.

It was a gamble, a big gamble, by people who aren't good at ti. With our money. How did it work out for Solendra? Big risk, little reward isn't how free market venture capitalism works. Making rich people richer isn't what government was designed to do.

 

[WinterBorn]

The company is making a profit. The CEO wants more capital to improve the manufacturing. Not sure why it should bother me, since they repaid the taxpayers and are continuing to grow.

It was a gamble, a big gamble, by people who aren't good at ti. With our money. How did it work out for Solendra? Big risk, little reward isn't how free market venture capitalism works. Making rich people richer isn't what government was designed to do.

As I have stated before, I disagree with the tax incentives, since it basically means the IRS is rewarding (or punishing) society.

But the issue is whether or not a state should force a company to sell it's good only thru a 3rd party. That is simply bullshit.