Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You forgot the very "unimportant" detail which was that electric cars in Norway were zero VAT and tax for electric cars until this year (normal VAT is 25%).

Well, gee, no wonder that people were buying them left and right when the tax discount was about 16-20k NOK per car on average!

And that is just buying the car - Norway subsidizes electric mobility in many other ways so even today registering a new electric is cheaper than a gasoline car, despite the gas powered vehicles normally costing about 50% less.

So, please, when waving this sort of argument about, don't "forget" to put it in context.

Norway is a special case because of government policies, not because Tesla did anything particularly great there. They were just the only ones on the market at the time so people essentially had to buy a Tesla if they wanted to benefit from the generous subsidies because there simply wasn't anything else available. Today the situation is different, though.



This does not, however, change the fact that it became one of the first mass markeds in the world for electric cars, where Tesla has kept the lead even when all the legacy auto companies are selling electric cars. The Model Y is the most sold var model in Norway in 2023, outselling the number two, VW ID4 by 3-4 times.

Model Y is the most sold car model in the world in 2023.


> Model Y is the most sold car model in the world in 2023.

Not quite, the Toyota Corolla and RAV-4 both outsold it


That exemption was available for any electric car. You’re just supporting the conclusion that Tesla was definitely the leader of electrics.


Of course it was leader in a market of one. The alternatives were Nissan Leaf and probably the first gen Renault Zoe. Nobody would buy those.

The original argument was not that they were "leader" but that somehow people were buying Teslas for their quality or being better than everything else.


First, a market of 3 is not a market of one.

Second, they are still the leader. The quality arguments are clearly nitpicky since people seem to be buying them in droves anyway.


They did nothing great apart, from being the first new car startup in the US in more than 100 years, with an entirely new business model.

OPs point had nothing to do with wether the government subsidised EVs or not.


More than 100 years? Are you SURE about that?


The first one to not fail. All extant US automakers have been in business for over a century.


You are making the assumption that Tesla will survive. A lot of things can happen in the next 85 years.


This just brought the price of electric cars in line with petrol cars of the same size.

When Tesla introduced the Model S there were no other electric sedans on the market.

Tesla introduced the Model X in 2015, it’s now 2023 and you still have to wait almost 2 years more if you want Volvo’s competitor to the Model X. Even with all the amazing subsidies Volvo is still a decade late to the party!


yes - wouldn't it be lovely to see governments uninvolved in these sorts of market decisions?

If the government discounts cars by 25% - that's one thing. But let's not forget too that the greater part of the cost of running a car (the fuel) is mainly made up by tax on the fuel - it itself is an artificial price.

Nothing about transport is reflective of the underlying reality. Its simply a governmental chess board, and could be shifted at any time by new legislation, eg if a tax is introduced to add 50% tax on the electricity used for cars.

Regardless of the worthiness of this or that cause - its most interesting that none of this the free market in action. Its also licensing, government grants, taxes... in all honesty what is the difference between this and communism - where the government overtly controls the actions of the masses?


> yes - wouldn't it be lovely to see governments uninvolved in these sorts of market decisions?

I agree. It should start with stopping all fossil fuel subsidies, 7 trillions/year and growing. And ethanol subsides, subsidizing ethanol production on 40m acres, just in US.

And have fossil fuel companies pay for their own military to protect their 6 million assets and 16 million transportation flows[2]. It should be determined by the companies themselves (free market) if these are worth protection, instead of having Govts protect these worldwide. Solar, on the other hand, will not require there protections, it does not depend on the exploration, extraction, shipping, processing, burning, waste output of any fuel. Solar is distributed, on every roof and field, nearly impossible for anyone to invade and destroy.

[1] Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Reached $7 Trillion in 2022, an All-Time High: https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-subsidies-2022

[2] https://github.com/Lkruitwagen/global-fossil-fuel-supply-cha...


Is there a story to your username? Do you think we're down to the last few gallons of oil or something..?


> the greater part of the cost of running a car (the fuel) is mainly made up by tax on the fuel

That may be true in Europe, but not here in the US. In the US, the federal gasoline tax is currently about $.18 per gallon, and state taxes range from about $.09 to $.58 per gallon[1] (with the median around $0.27). The average price of gasoline in the US has been around $3.00 per gallon[2] ($0.79 per liter), so the total tax would range from about 9% to 25% of the cost, depending on the state.

The price of gas in most European countries is much higher, with Norway paying over twice the US average (US $7.87 / US gallon).[3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_State...

[2] https://www.finder.com/gas-prices

[3] https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/Europe/




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: