Perhaps you are confused, the regulatory credits were sold by Tesla to other car makers so they could meet their emissions requirements. That $11 billion came from other automakers, not taxpayers.

▲

jordanb 5 hours ago | parent [-]

So you're saying Tesla made $3 billion directly from taxpayers and another $11 billion in cash transfers from their competitors required by the government?

▲

WarmWash 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not saying that, it's strictly true.

Tesla was given $3 billion in government subsidies.

It made $11 billion selling regulatory credits created by government regulation.

I'm not interested in getting bogged down in how actually government regulation is the same thing as subsidy even though the taxpayer doesn't foot the bill (but does collect the tax on the backend of it.) There is a good reason why subsidy and regulation are not the same interchangeable word. I suppose that without glasses of nuance/understanding they blur together and look the same (government action -> money for someone), but lets wear glasses here.

	▲	matthewdgreen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The original argument was that Tesla made a substantial amount of its revenue from subsidization, i.e., government mandated payments extracting money from one set of people to fund another. Subsidies can entail direct taxation, followed by payment to a company. Alternatively, they revolve around regulatory schemes that mandate transfer payments from one group (in this case, ICE car manufacturers and their customers) to another (EV manufacturers.) Although the mechanism is slightly different, they're both subsidies. To be clear: I have no problem with these subsidies! Just think your pedantry is misfiring.