Re: Trim Tesla rebate, Feb. 27.
Trim Tesla rebate, Feb. 27.
I believe your editorial concerning electric vehicle incentives and Tesla is somewhat misguided and here’s why: the point of the program is to reduce the number of fossil fuel cars, all fossil fuel cars, on the road.
The $14,000 incentive that convinces a “modest” car buyer, as you put it, to purchase a Chevy Volt is a much larger percentage of the car’s total cost than the same $14,000 is to the much more expensive Tesla. If it’s okay to convince someone in the average car category to go electric, what is wrong with doing the same for luxury car buyers? If it is enough of an incentive to convince someone to purchase an electric Tesla over an expensive Mercedes or BMW, what’s wrong with that?
Michael Knox, Brampton
Your editorial slamming the maximum electric car rebate for Teslas misses the point. The people I know who’ve bought a Tesla went far above their usual purchase price for a car. They wouldn’t have bought it, often by borrowing, without a generous incentive rebate. It’s not a luxury car; it’s simply expensive, because of its large battery.
You want buyers of the car that reduces pollution the most to be penalized. That’s nonsensical posturing. The incentive should treat all buyers of electric cars fairly, based on a minimum battery size. That’s what the government’s current program aims to do.
By the way, Tesla owners aren’t criticizing the nearly 30 per cent rebate for the excellent Chevrolet Bolt. (It’s only 10 to 14 per cent for Tesla.) We’re all in this together, right?
Paul Rapoport, Tesla Owners Club of Ontario, Ancaster
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.