Connect with us

Business

Elon Musk opens Tesla’s first European plant, near Berlin.

Published

on

Elon Musk opens Tesla’s first European plant, near Berlin.

Tesla formally started making vehicles in Europe on Tuesday, opening an meeting plant in a vital market the place Elon Musk, the corporate’s chief government, plans to construct 500,000 electrical automobiles a yr.

Mr. Musk escorted Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany and different officers on a tour of the massive, low-slung $7 billion plant simply outdoors of Berlin. It was constructed in little greater than two years, a velocity that amazed German officers and commentators.

“Electromobility will form the mobility of the longer term,” Mr. Scholz mentioned after the stroll by the plant.

Robert Habeck, a German vice-chancellor and the nation’s economic system minister, mentioned it was “a special occasion additionally for Germany and a special occasion for the mobility transformation in Germany.”

Mr. Musk, for his half, wrote on Twitter: “Danke Deutschland!!”

Advertisement

Mr. Musk celebrated the day by handing over the primary 30 European-built Teslas to prospects who had ordered them and been invited to the occasion. Tesla will construct its Mannequin Y S.U.V.s on the plant.

The manufacturing unit, known as Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg, was first revealed in a shock announcement by Mr. Musk just a little over two years in the past, and it overcame various authorized and political challenges to achieve its manufacturing certification.

Tesla raced to construct the manufacturing unit, and was allowed to proceed after securing solely preliminary approvals from authorities authorities — on the situation that Mr. Musk agreed to tear down the plant and depart the location as he discovered it if state boards finally refused the venture. It was a chance that the carmaker received earlier this month when authorities accredited the manufacturing website.

A battery manufacturing plant on the property nonetheless requires state approval earlier than going dwell.

The two.4 million-square-foot plant locations Tesla in one of the vital vital electrical automotive markets on the planet. European nations have handed legal guidelines to ultimately part out inner combustion engines.

Advertisement

And electrical vehicles are more and more becoming a member of the mainstream. Greater than 20 p.c of latest vehicles bought in Europe and Britain in December have been powered solely by electrical energy, information from authorities companies confirmed. Europeans additionally purchased extra electrical vehicles than diesels in December; diesels have been as soon as the preferred engine possibility in Europe.

The German website is Tesla’s third main plant, after vegetation in Fremont, Calif., and Shanghai. One other plant, outdoors Austin, Texas, is anticipated to open quickly. The brand new vegetation are anticipated to double the corporate’s manufacturing capability to about 2 million automobiles a yr, in response to analysts at Wedbush Securities.

As soon as it’s absolutely operational, the German plant will make use of 12,000 workers. Some 3,000 workers already work there, in response to Tesla.

Constructed simply 130 miles east of Volkswagen’s headquarters in Wolfsburg, on an outdated East German military coaching website, the plant was additionally a direct problem to German carmakers who had been attempting to make inroads within the electrical automotive sector.

Whereas state and federal governments have supported the development, various environmental and civic teams have criticized the manufacturing unit, particularly for its projected water use. Protesters on Tuesday walked across the Tesla website with handwritten indicators directing criticism at Mr. Musk and Tesla.

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Counting freeloading relatives as a hardship? Not so fast, the IRS says

Published

on

Counting freeloading relatives as a hardship? Not so fast, the IRS says

Dear Liz: I lived in a house for 45 years. During that time, my daughter and her family moved in due to the 2008 financial crisis. I have not charged her rent. However, I moved out five years ago, and her family is still there rent-free. I understand that when I sell, I will owe capital gains tax because it is no longer my primary residence. Are there any hardship rules that may help me?

Answer: Unfortunately, the IRS doesn’t consider freeloading relatives as one of the hardships that can modify the home sales exclusion rules.

Your capital gain will be calculated by subtracting your tax basis in the home from the sales proceeds, minus selling costs. Your tax basis is generally what you paid for the house, plus the cost of qualifying upgrades.

You can exclude up to $250,000 of home sale capital gains (or $500,000 if married filing jointly), but only if you’ve owned and lived in the property as your primary residence for at least two of the past five years. There is a partial exclusion for people who fall short of the two-year mark because of certain reasons, such as a work- or health-related move.

Dear Liz: My mother recently passed and my sister is handling all the legalities. At one point, my sister mentioned our mother had a sizable savings account plus two retirement accounts valued at $400,000, and that I would receive something. Now she is simply saying, “I don’t know where the money has gone.” She handled all my mother’s finances for years before her death. How is this possible? I can’t hire an attorney, nor do I want to alienate my sister or seem greedy. What should I do?

Advertisement

Answer: If your sister handled your mother’s finances for years and she’s settling the estate, then she almost certainly knows where the money went. Why she won’t tell you is the mystery.

Your mother’s money may have been eaten up by long-term care expenses, which can be breathtakingly expensive. That’s especially true if there was a long gap between your sister’s disclosure about the accounts and your mother’s death.

If that were the case, though, your sister could just say so.

There are many other possibilities. Your mother could have been scammed, or gambled away the money, or been the victim of financial elder abuse. Abusers are often people the elders know, including relatives and caregivers.

Perhaps your sister didn’t help herself during your mother’s lifetime, but arranged to be the beneficiary of all the accounts, either with or without your mother’s consent.

Advertisement

You don’t have many options if you aren’t willing or able to consult an attorney, but you wouldn’t be greedy to ask for some clarity from your sister.

Dear Liz: I read your column about the parent who unexpectedly had to take over for their incapacitated son. You suggested every adult have a power of attorney and healthcare proxy. Excellent advice! However, as I discovered in dealing with my father’s illness and estate, these general documents are not always recognized by the very institutions they were designed for. His bank, mortgage company and health insurance company would only recognize their versions of these documents.

Fortunately, while he was still able to, I was able to procure each of these documents with his signatures on them but it was very stressful at a difficult time for all of us. I would suggest you amend your advice to people to check to see if their banks and so on also require their specific forms.

Answer: Financial institutions are supposed to accept properly drafted powers of attorney, but some of them insist on their own forms, agrees Burton Mitchell, an estate planning attorney in Los Angeles.

“Sometimes one can get around these rules by appealing to higher ups in the organization, but it is unnecessarily difficult, time-consuming and complicated,” Mitchell says.

Advertisement

Checking with your financial institutions now could avoid hassles later.

Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner®, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.

Continue Reading

Business

Europe’s Pharma Industry Braces for Pain as Trump Tariff Threat Looms

Published

on

Europe’s Pharma Industry Braces for Pain as Trump Tariff Threat Looms

Insulin, heart treatments and antibiotics have flowed freely across many borders for decades, exempt from tariffs in a bid to make medicine affordable. But that could soon change.

For months, President Trump has been promising to impose higher tariffs on pharmaceuticals as part of his plan to reorder the global trading system and bring key manufacturing industries back to the United States. This month, he said pharmaceutical tariffs could come in the “not too distant future.”

If they do, the move would have serious — and wildly uncertain — consequences for drugs made in the European Union.

Pharmaceutical products and chemicals are the bloc’s No. 1 export to America. Among them are the weight-loss blockbuster Ozempic, cancer treatments, cardiovascular drugs and flu vaccines. Most are name-brand drugs that yield a large profit in the American market, with its high prices and vast numbers of consumers.

“These are critical things that keep people alive,” said Léa Auffret, who heads international affairs for BEUC, the European Consumer Organization. “Putting them in the middle of a trade war is highly concerning.”

Advertisement

European companies could react to Mr. Trump’s tariffs in a range of ways. Some pharmaceutical companies trying to dodge the tariffs have already announced plans to increase production in the United States, which Mr. Trump wants. Others could decide to move production there later.

Other companies appear to be staying put, but could raise their prices to cover the tariffs, pushing up costs for patients. And higher prices could affect not only American consumers, but also patients in Europe. Some companies have begun to argue that Europe should create more favorable conditions for their businesses by dismantling some of the rules that keep drug prices down.

Or some middle ground could play out: Companies might shift their financial profits to the United States for accounting purposes to avoid import charges, even as they leave their physical factories overseas to avoid the expenses of moving and challenges of having to set up new supply chains.

Ms. Auffret’s group has already warned European officials that they must not hit back at an attack on the important industry by tariffing American drugs in return: Tit for tat would come at too serious of a cost to European consumers.

But the pharmaceutical sector is complicated. Agreements with insurance companies and government agencies can make it difficult to rapidly adjust prices for branded drugs, while government regulations can make moving both a challenge and a long-term commitment. The upshot is that no one can confidently predict the outcome.

Advertisement

“We haven’t tariffed pharmaceuticals in a very long time,” said Brad W. Setser, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations who has closely studied the tax rules that incentivize overseas production.

Even as Mr. Trump has paused his so-called “reciprocal” tariffs in favor of an across-the-board rate of 10 percent during the hiatus, he has left in place some industry-specific tariffs and made clear that computer chips and pharmaceutical products would be next. The United States recently kicked off investigations into both sectors, a first step toward hitting them with tariffs.

Many industry experts expect that the new tariffs could be 25 percent, in line with those on steel, aluminum and cars.

For the countries at the center of Europe’s drug industry, the possible tariffs are particularly worrisome. That is especially true for Ireland, where pharmaceuticals make up 80 percent of all exports to the United States.

Many drug companies originally moved to Ireland because it offers very low corporate tax rates. But it has also worked to develop its pharmaceutical industry and offers access to a highly skilled work force.

Advertisement

In recent years, the sector has grown rapidly. More than 90 pharmaceutical companies are now based there, according to Ireland’s Foreign Direct Investment Agency, and many of the biggest American drugmakers have operations in the nation. Last year, Ireland’s pharma industry exported 58 billion euros, or about $66 billion, in pharmaceutical and chemical products to the United States.

“The Irish are smart, yes, smart people,” Mr. Trump said in March, while Prime Minister Micheál Martin of Ireland was visiting the White House. “You took our pharmaceutical companies and other companies,” he said. “This beautiful island of five million people has got the entire U.S. pharmaceutical industry in its grasps.”

Now, tariffs could chip away at the benefits of manufacturing there — which is Mr. Trump’s goal.

“In the U.S., we don’t make our own drugs anymore,” Mr. Trump said last week from the Oval Office, adding that “the drug companies are in Ireland.”

Firms are already bracing. Companies have been rushing to export their pharmaceuticals from Ireland and into the U.S. market before the gauntlet falls, statistics suggest.

Advertisement

Nor is Ireland the only country affected. Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Slovenia are also major exporters.

“It’s an enormous issue for Europe,” said Penny Naas, who leads a competitiveness program for the think tank the German Marshall Fund and has long worked in European public policy and corporate affairs.

European leaders have been reaching out to both American officials and the industry. In addition to the Irish prime minister’s recent visit to the Oval Office, the Irish foreign affairs minister traveled to Washington to meet with the commerce secretary.

Ursula Von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, has met in Brussels with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, the lobby group representing Europe’s biggest drugmakers.

The industry is leveraging the moment to push for wish-list items, like less red tape.

Advertisement

The European drug lobby group told Ms. von der Leyen that companies could shift production or investment toward the United States to limit their exposure to Mr. Trump’s tariffs, especially when faster approvals and easier access to capital are making America more attractive.

At least 18 members of the group, which includes Bayer, Pfizer and Merck, have planned nearly €165 billion in investments in the European Union over the next five years. As much as half of that could shift to the United States, the federation said. Nor is it alone in that prediction.

“Pharma needs more attractive conditions to produce in Europe,” said Dorothee Brakmann, the director of Pharma Deutschland, Germany’s largest association of pharmaceutical companies.

Such warnings seem to have teeth. Some companies have begun to lay out plans to spend more in the United States; the firm Roche last week announced a $50 billion American investment plan, the latest in a string of such announcements.

In commentary published last week, the chief executives of Novartis and Sanofi suggested that less regulation was not enough to stem the bleeding. They argued that “European price controls and austerity measures reduce the attractiveness of its markets,” and that the bloc should pave the way for higher prices.

Advertisement

Industry executives have also warned that tariffs on the sector could disrupt supply lines, impair patient access and dampen research and development.

“There’s a reason” that tariffs on medicines are set to zero, Joaquin Duato, the chief executive of the drugmaker Johnson & Johnson, said on a recent earnings call. “It’s because tariffs can create disruptions in the supply chain, leading to shortages.”

Ms. von der Leyen has emphasized similar concerns, warning that tariffs on the pharmaceutical sector risk “implications for globally interconnected supply chains and availability of medicines for European and U.S. patients alike.”

Pharmaceutical tariffs also hold another danger for the European Union.

The bloc has been trying to build up its ability to manufacture generic drugs, which are medically essential but much less profitable than the name-brand products, and are frequently made in Asia.

Advertisement

But if U.S. tariffs mean that generic drug manufacturers in China and India are suddenly looking for customers outside of America, it could send a flood of cheaper-than-usual pills toward Europe.

That could make it even more difficult for the European Union to establish a domestic manufacturing base for generics, even as tariffs lure name-brand drug production toward the United States.

“We do think that it’s likely that this is going to cause increased investment in the U.S.,” said Diederik Stadig, a sectoral economist at ING. “The European Commission needs to be on the ball.”

Continue Reading

Business

Covered California pushes for better healthcare as federal spending cuts loom

Published

on

Covered California pushes for better healthcare as federal spending cuts loom

Faced with potential federal spending cuts that threaten health coverage and falling childhood vaccination rates, Monica Soni, the chief medical officer of Covered California, has a lot on her plate — and on her mind.

California’s Affordable Care Act health insurance exchange covers nearly 2 million residents and 89% of them receive federal subsidies that reduce their premiums. Many middle-income households got subsidies for the first time after Congress expanded them in 2021, which helped generate a boom in enrollment in ACA exchanges nationwide.

From the original and enhanced subsidies, Covered California enrollees currently get $563 a month on average, lowering the average monthly out-of-pocket premium from $698 to $135, according to data from Covered California.

The 2021 subsidies are set to expire at the end of this year unless Congress renews them. If they lapse, enrollees would be on the hook to pay an average of $101 a month more for health insurance — not counting any premium hikes in 2026 and beyond. And those middle-income earners who did not qualify for subsidies before would lose all financial assistance — $384 a month, on average — which Soni fears could prompt them to drop out.

At the same time, vaccination rates for children 2 and under declined among 7 of the 10 Covered California health plans subject to its new quality-of-care requirements. Soni, a Los Angeles native who came to Covered California in May 2023, oversees that program, in which health plans must meet performance targets on blood pressure control, diabetes management, colorectal cancer screening and childhood vaccinations — or pay a financial penalty.

Advertisement

Lack of access to such key aspects of care disproportionately affects underserved communities, making Covered California’s effort one of health equity as well. Soni, a Harvard-trained primary care doctor who sees patients one day a week at an urgent care clinic in Los Angeles County’s public safety net health system, is familiar with the challenges those communities face.

Covered California reported last November that its health plans improved on three of the four measures in the first year of the program. But childhood immunizations for those under 2 declined by 4%. The decline is in line with a national trend, which Soni attributed to postpandemic mistrust of vaccines and “more skepticism of the entire medical industry.”

Most parents have heard at least one untrue statement about measles or the vaccine for it, and many don’t know what to believe, according to an April KFF poll.

Health plans improved on the other three measures, but not enough to avoid penalties, which yielded $15 million. The exchange is using that money to fund another effort Soni manages, which helps 6,900 Covered California households buy groceries and contributes to more than 250 savings accounts for children who get routine checkups and vaccines. Some of the penalty money will also be used to support primary care practices around California.

In addition to her bifurcated professional duties, Soni is the mother of two children, ages 4 and 7.

Advertisement

KFF Health News senior correspondent Bernard J. Wolfson spoke with Soni about the impact of possible federal cuts and the exchange’s initiative to improve care for its enrollees. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Covered California has record enrollment of nearly 2 million, boosted by the expanded federal subsidies passed under the Biden administration, which end after this year. What if Congress does not renew them?

A: Our estimates are that it will approach 400,000 Californians who would drop coverage immediately.
We hear every day from our folks that they’re really living on the margins. Until they got some of those subsidies, they could not afford coverage.

As a primary care doctor, I am the one to treat folks who show up with preventable cancers because they were too afraid to think about what their out-of-pocket costs would be. I don’t want to go back to those days.

Q: Congress is considering billions in cuts to Medicaid. How would that affect Covered California and the state’s population more broadly, given that more than 1 in 3 Californians are on Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid?

Advertisement

A: Those are our neighbors, our friends. Those are the people working in the restaurants we eat at.

Earlier cancer screenings, better chronic disease control, lower maternal mortality, more substance use disorder treatment: We know that Medicaid saves lives. We know it helps people live longer and better.

As a physician, I would be hard-pressed to argue for rolling back anything that saves lives. It would be very distressing to watch that come to California.

Q: Why did Covered California undertake the Quality Transformation Initiative?

A: We were incredibly successful at covering nearly 2 million, but frankly we didn’t see improvements in quality, and we continue to see gaps for certain populations in terms of outcomes. So, I think the question became much more imperative: Are we getting our money’s worth out of this coverage? Are we making sure people are living longer and better, and if not, how do we up the ante to make sure they are?

Advertisement

Q: There’s a penalty for not meeting the targets, but no bonuses for meeting them: You meet the goals or else, right?

A: We don’t say it like that, but that is true. And we didn’t make it complicated. It’s only four measures.

It’s things that as a primary care doctor I know are important, that I take care of when I see people in my
practice. We said get to the 66th percentile on these four measures, and there’s no dollars that you have to pay. If you don’t, then we collect those funds.

Q: And you use the penalty money to fund the grocery assistance and child savings accounts.

A: That’s exactly right. We had this opportunity to think about what would we use these dollars for and how we actually make a difference in people’s lives. So, we cold-called hundreds of people, we sent surveys out to thousands of folks, and what we heard overwhelmingly was how expensive it is to live in California; that folks are making trade-offs between food and transportation, between child care and food — just impossible decisions.

Advertisement

Q: You will put up to $1,000 a child into those savings accounts, right?

A: That’s right. It’s tied to doing those healthy behaviors, going to child well visits and getting recommended vaccines. We looked at the literature, and once you get to even just $500 in an account, the likelihood of a kid going to a two- or four-year school increases significantly. It’s actually because they’re hopeful about their future, and it changes their path of upward mobility, which we know changes their health outcome.

Q: Given the rise in vaccine skepticism, are you worried that the recent measles outbreak could grow?

A: I am very concerned about it. I was actually reading some posts from a physician colleague who trained decades earlier and was talking about all the diseases that my generation of physicians have never seen. We don’t actually know how to diagnose and take care of a number of infectious diseases because they mostly have been eradicated or outbreaks have been really contained. So, I feel worried. I’ve been brushing off my old textbooks.

Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending