Connect with us

News

Tesla on the winning end of proposed U.S. import tax

Published

on

U.S. automobile sales might slow as a result of the proposed import tax affecting vehicles with manufacturers outside of the country. However, this change could stimulate up to 1 million additional vehicles could be manufactured in the U.S., which would add 50,000 more jobs at car production and part assembly plants.

That good news/ bad news scenario is according to researchers at Baum & Associates, LLC, which advises suppliers. Their report is intended to provide estimates to show the relative impact of the tax plan on each automaker. Dan Luria, an economist at the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center in Ann Arbor, is the lead author of the Baum & Associates report, which accounts for imports of both finished vehicles and parts for domestic cars that are made overseas.

According to a report by Bloomberg, Tesla is the single automaker that would be able to maintain consistent pricing before and after such a tax implementation, as it manufactures all its cars in the U.S. and incorporates predominately U.S. made parts.

Border tax consequences for automakers

According to Baum & Associates, LLC, most automakers would need to raise vehicle prices by thousands of dollars. They would also likely have to assume a portion of the higher tax burden.

  • Ford, with significant domestic manufacturing, would accrue the smallest price hike among major automakers, at about $282 per vehicle;
  • General Motors Co. would experience a $995 increase per vehicle;
  • Volvo and VW vehicle prices would have to rise by about $7,600 and $6,800, on average;
  • Jaguar’s Land Rover, which is 100% imported, would require an increase of more than $17,000 per vehicle.

According to Alan Baum, the founder of the West Bloomfield, Michigan-based firm which produced the report, “The plan results in a net cost for automakers. Each company will then make its own decisions on pricing in order to best compete and maximize its profits.”

In what direction might a proposed border tax shift automakers’ current business practices? Essentially, the tax would create an incentive for automakers to keep U.S. plants running at the expense of those in Canada and Mexico. It could also steer auto companies currently conducting business in the U.S. to other markets.

Advertisement
  • Automakers may boost U.S. parts procurement and production from existing vehicle assembly plants;
  • Overseas automakers including Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.’s Subaru, Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Mazda Motor Corp., Hyundai Motor Co., and Kia Motors Corp. may consider expanding existing U.S. operations or building new capacity;
  • Volkswagen AG could build another U.S. assembly plant;
  • Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV may accelerate the conversion of factories in Michigan to build pickups there instead of Mexico;
  • Nissan Motor Co. might export more from Mexico to Latin American markets and less to the U.S.;
  • Mazda and Mitsubishi, which rely entirely on imports to the U.S. market, may have to quit the U.S. market or pay other manufacturers to assemble their cars.

Meanwhile, Toyota Motor Corp. is one of the corporations that is warning that the proposed border tax will result in many costlier products, not only in automobiles, but also in food, clothing, and gasoline, among other areas.

Other analysts weigh in on the effects of a proposed border tax

It’s not just Baum and associates who are advising clients on their prospective bottom lines should a border tax become legislated by U.S. officials. Other analysts are weighing in on the proposed border tax effects on commerce. Colin Langan, an analyst at UBS Securities LLC, argues that the proposed border tax could raise average prices in the U.S. by about 8 percent, or $2,500 per vehicle.

The border tax has the potential to reduce annual sales by about 2 million vehicles, Langan said.

He also projects that, while the tax has the potential to move through the House of Representatives, it is “very unlikely” to pass in the Senate. Langan predicts the chances of the border tax being enacted at less than 50 percent.

The proposal to begin levying companies’ imports and domestic sales and make exports tax-exempt would completely overhaul the U.S. tax code.

Advertisement

Carolyn Fortuna is a writer and researcher with a Ph.D. in education from the University of Rhode Island. She brings a social justice perspective to environmental issues. Please follow me on Twitter and Facebook and Google+

News

Tesla robotaxi test details shared in recent report: 300 operators, safety tests, and more

Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

During the Q1 2025 earnings call, Tesla executives reiterated the idea that the company will be launching a dedicated robotaxi service using its Full Self Driving (FSD) Unsupervised system this coming June.

A recent report from Insider, citing people reportedly familiar with the matter, has now provided a number of details about the preparations that Tesla has been making as it approaches its June target date.

Remote Operators

As noted by the publication, about 300 test operators have been driving through Austin city streets over the past few months using Teslas equipped with self-driving software. These efforts are reportedly part of “Project Rodeo.” Citing test drivers who are reportedly part of the program, Insider noted that Tesla’s tests involve accumulating critical miles. Test drivers are reportedly assigned to specific test routes, which include “critical” tracks where drivers are encouraged to avoid manual interventions, and “adversarial” tracks, which simulate tricky scenarios.

Tesla has launched an initial robotaxi service for its employees in Austin and the San Francisco Bay Area, though the vehicles only operate in limited areas. The vehicles also use safety drivers for now. However, Tesla has reportedly had discussions about using remote operators as safety drivers when the service goes live for consumers. Some test drivers have been moved into remote operator roles for this purpose, the publication’s sources claimed.

While Tesla is focusing on Austin and San Francisco for now, the company is reportedly also deploying test drivers in other key cities. These include Atlanta, GA, New York, NY, Seattle, WA, and Phoenix, AZ.

Advertisement

Safety Tests

Tesla reportedly held training events with local first responders as part of its preparations for its robotaxi service, Insider claimed, citing documents that it had obtained. As per the publication, Tesla had met with the city’s autonomous vehicle task force, which include members of the Austin Fire Department, back in December.

Back in March, Tesla reportedly participated in about six hours of testing with local first responders, which included members of the fire department and the police, at a close test track. Around 60 drivers and vehicles were reportedly used in the test to simulate real-world traffic scenarios. 

Interestingly enough, a spokesperson from the Austin Police Department stated that Tesla did hold a testing day with emergency responders from Austin, Williamson County, as well as the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Reported Deadlines

While Tesla has been pretty open about its robotaxi service launching in Austin this June, the company is reportedly pursuing an aggressive June 1 deadline, at least internally. During meetings with Elon Musk, VP of AI software Ashok Elluswamy’s team reportedly informed the CEO that the company is on track to hit its internal deadline.

One of Insider’s sources, however, noted that the June 1 deadline is more aspirational or motivational. “A June 1 deadline makes a June 30 launch more likely,” the publication’s source noted.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Atty who refused to charge six-time Tesla vandal sparks controversy

Despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

Published

on

Pilottap, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who made the decision not to charge 33-year-old vandal Dylan Bryan Adams after he keyed six Teslas around Minneapolis last month, has found herself in the middle of controversy

The controversy came amidst her decision to press charges against a 19-year-old first-time vandal who keyed one vehicle at the White Castle in Brooklyn Park.

The Tesla Vandal

Moriarty’s decision not to charge Adams after he keyed six Teslas was met with widespread criticism. Adams’ actions resulted in more than $20,000 worth of damages, more than $10,000 of which was to a single vehicle, as noted in a New York Post report. Yet despite the multiple offenses, Moriarty opted to enter Adams into an adult diversion program instead.

The fact that Adams is a state employee who works for the Department of Human Services as a program consultant triggered allegations that his dismissal might be partly influenced by Gov. Tim Walz. Walz is a staunch critic of Musk, previously stating that the falling price of TSLA stock gives him a “boost” in the morning.

As noted in a report from The Minnesota Star Tribune, Moriarty’s decision was so controversial that she was asked about the matter on Wednesday. In response, the attorney argued that her office made the decision outside of any political consideration. “We try to make decisions without really looking at the political consequences. Can we always predict how a story will be portrayed in the media or what people will say? No,” Moriarty stated.

Advertisement

Actually Charged

As noted by the Tribune, Moriarty has made arguments around the fact that Adams was a first-time offender, even if he opted to deface six separate Teslas. But even this argument has become controversial since Moriarty recently charged a 19-year-old Robbinsdale woman with no criminal record with first-degree felony property damage after she allegedly keyed a co-worker’s car. The damage incurred by the 19-year-old woman was $7,000, substantially less than the over $20,000 damage that Adams’ actions have caused.

Cases surrounding felony first-degree property damage are fairly common, though they require the damage to be over $1,000. The 19-year-old’s damage to her co-worker’s car met this threshold. Adams’ damage to the six Teslas he vandalized also met this requirement.

When Moriarty was asked about her seemingly conflicting decisions, she noted that her office’s primary goal was to hold the person accountable for keying the vehicle and get restitution to the people affected. She also noted that her office tries to avoid convictions when possible since they could affect a person’s life. “Should we have treated this gentleman differently because it’s a political issue? We made this decision because it is in the best interest of public safety,” she noted.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla faces emission credits tax in Washington state

House Bill 2077 taxes emissions credits, mainly hitting Tesla. Lawmakers expect $100M/year from the taxes.

Published

on

(Credit: Tesla)

Washington state lawmakers are advancing a bill that would tax Tesla’s emission credits, targeting profits under the state’s clean vehicle policy. Lawmakers who support the bill clarify that the Tesla credit tax is unrelated to Elon Musk.

HB 2077, introduced in mid-April, seeks to impose a 2% tax on emission credit sales and a 10% tax on banked credits. The bill primarily affects Tesla due to exemptions for companies with fewer credits.

In 2022, Washington’s Department of Ecology mandated that all new cars sold by 2035 be electric, hydrogen-fueled, or hybrids, with 35% compliance required by next year. Carmakers selling more gas-powered vehicles can buy credits from companies like Tesla, which sells only electric vehicles.

A legislative fiscal analysis projects taxes on those credits would generate $78 million in the 2025-27 biennium and $100 million annually thereafter. About 70% of the taxes will be allocated to the state’s general funds, and the rest will help expand electric car infrastructure.

Advertisement

HB 2077 passed the state House eight days after its introduction and awaits a Senate Ways and Means Committee vote on Friday. At a House Finance Committee hearing, supporters, including union and social service advocates, argued the tax would prevent cuts to state services.

House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon emphasized its necessity amid frozen federal EV infrastructure funds. “We didn’t have a budget crisis until this year. And we didn’t have the federal government revoking huge amounts of federal dollars for EV infrastructure,” he said.

Tesla’s lobbyist, Jeff Gombosky, countered that the proposal “runs counter to the intent” of the state’s zero-emission policy. Rivian’s lobbyist, Troy Nichols, noted a “modest” impact on his company but warned it could undermine the EV mandate. Kate White Tudor of the Natural Resources Defense Council expressed concerns, stating, “We worry it sets a dubious precedent.”

Fitzgibbon defended the tax, noting Tesla’s dominant credit stockpile makes it “one outlier” that is “very profitable.” “That’s the kind of thing legislators take an interest in,” he said. “Is it serving the interest of the public for this asset to be untaxed?”

With the legislative session nearing its end, the bill remains a key focus in budget talks in Washington.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending