Tesla

I heard there gonna build the new battery plant in Nevada. . Kick in the balls to California! .. Could have produced lots of money and jobs for Cali..

That sucks, CA has too many regulations .

Can has too many epa regulations for that to be possible. 

Tesla building Cars in California makes no sense to begin with, from abusiness standpoint going to New Mexico when they had the chance was the smart move. Labor is far cheaper, real estate was cheaper, business climate is better overall.  Don't expect Tesla to stay here in Taxafornia for ever

they should build these...too bad i dont drive 80K cars....I drive 800 dollar cars...better deal

Tesla Boat hmmmmm  Yeah, I could see it happen.  There hs been some big forward steps in electric powered outboards & inboards with reasonably sized/weight battery systems.  Could be the future of boating.  Might be a bit longer before we see a Tesla Kayak

I heard there gonna build the new battery plant in Nevada. . Kick in the balls to California! .. Could have produced lots of money and jobs for Cali..

Too many laws and taxes in this state to have a battery factory. California was last on their list for a battery factory.

I think Texas was high on their list.

Nevada also has the only lithium mine in the US

Thought this was something about Nicolai Tesla,

 My Boy's Hero, and do they love Tesla Coils…

  Salute to the Man before his time….

and Good Job Fellas,  Just don't set the world on fire…

 

I think they were thinking Saudi Arabia..Largest lithium mines?

I'm going to offer the other side of the argument- for your consideration. If states adopt a policy of seducing companies by providing tax incentives, and rolling back environmental regulations, are we engaging in a sort of "race to the bottom"? Does the state that offers workers and the environment the least protection, and taxes the lowest, get the business?

If that's the case, isn't this akin to offshoring, but within our own borders?

I didn't think that California was likely to be chosen, but just how sweet a deal would (did?) ensue if Texas and Nevada do their best to woo a company?

I'm going to offer the other side of the argument- for your consideration. If states adopt a policy of seducing companies by providing tax incentives, and rolling back environmental regulations, are we engaging in a sort of "race to the bottom"? Does the state that offers workers and the environment the least protection, and taxes the lowest, get the business?

If that's the case, isn't this akin to offshoring, but within our own borders?

I didn't think that California was likely to be chosen, but just how sweet a deal would (did?) ensue if Texas and Nevada do their best to woo a company?

Business is business, if California can't compete, then what does it need to compete, production jobs are dead and or dying here in this state, and by in large in this country.    Our goverment does all that it can to help out foreign companies, we allow foreign workers into to work for less, allow the company to move to anohter country to violate every know enviormental law, labor law, and yet as a state and nation we do nothing to work with them to stay, except impose new rules, regulations, fines and taxes. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2743200/Plant-gets-Tesla-closer-electric-car-masses.html

In Nevada, Tesla will pay no sales tax for 20 years. It will pay no property or business tax for 10 years.

I understand the objective- Tesla is striving to build a car it can sell for $35,000.00 in 2015. They have to lower the cost of their batteries.

I do think it raises interesting questions about just how far a state can legitimately go to lure a business. Do other existing businesses in Nevada enjoy the same tax benefits? If Texas has to bend over further to lure Tesla away from Nevada, and Arizona has to do the same to lure Tesla away from Texas, where does it end?

Just food for thought