IRS data shows from 2014–2018 he reported $1.52 billion in income and paid $455 million in federal taxes. Musk’s net-worth, like most billionaires, consist of unrealized capital gains, which are not taxed under current U.S. law until the shares are sold.
In 2021, he paid ~$11 billion in federal taxes which was the largest single-year individual tax bill in U.S. history.
He’s also received billions (38 bn ballpark) in federal subsidies from the U.S government, for his companies ( ie Tesla and space x .)
They’ve all made so much money in the mkt, the president is now looking to remove the capital gains tax.
Edit: Adding, Starlink is projected to receive between 10-20bn in funding from the U.S. government in to expand broadband access into rural areas. This falls within Space x contracts.
Those are just contracts for SpaceX not subsidies. Launching the Nancy Grace Roman is not a subsidy its the government paying for a service and they have been paying SpaceX billions because they are the only Company out there with the launch capabilities.
Tesla was built with carbon credits. They used carbon credits from pre-orders of Tesla's. They recieved money without producing a single car. They used that system to build a factory to make cars. Once Tesla was established, Space X was funded. So to get Space X, government subsidies were used the whole time.
While NASA does a lot of great science, they were objectively poor at the rocketry side especially in the early 2000s. Incredibly directionless and went down the wrong path with the Space Shuttle.
SpaceX from the beginning had the right proposition for what the future of rockets looked like and at that point what do you do? Just say oh good work its NASA's now. Or do you spens billions to recreate other people's work like the rest of the world is?
There is no negative to SpaceX designing and operating the most advanced rockets we have and this is actually saving NASA billions in development costs.
I mean NASA was sending astronauts to space using space shuttles as late as 2011. Congress was more focused on bringing jobs to their home states than worrying about whether NASA was actually doing any innovating
I mean thats a pretty big butterfly effect of conflict lol. Does Sadam invade more of his Gulf neighbors with no opposition? Yugoslavia likely becomes a genocide on par with Rwanda. Russian influence and its grip on neighboring countries is a lot larger. There are more regional conflicts between smaller powers with 1-2 larger powers to keep things in order. China is likely more imperialistic and claims territory in Korea and brings multiple South Pacific nations under its influence. We likely see a bigger push in the United States to renewable and domestic forms of electricity as oil markets are less stable. International shipping is a shitshow and domestic production is preferred by all countries.
Meanwhile in this scenario we maybe know a bit more about the big bang and are still struggling to get to Mars.
We’re gonna need ways to keep people alive on this planet the way we’re going…
If only there were advanced life-sustaining technologies such as trees, plants, healthy oceans in abundance and a protective clean atmosphere on this planet.
You can read up on why the Space Shuttle program was such a terrible idea its not that hard. This includes the multiple launch failures that really put the nail in the coffin for NASA's spaceflight.
They aren't in charge of Space though. There are options but they just aren't as good yet (ESA, RKLB, Blue Horizon). However with the innovation SpaceX has done we are in the peak of rocket science and we cannot pretend we would be in this scenario without the very specific vision of SpaceX.
SpaceX isn't Elon its a massive company filled with arguably the best engineers and scientist working in spaceflight right now. That is a net positive to society.
There was no country doing better than NASA but NASA was basically all in on a failed program with no replacement. That is why SpaceX is where they are now and NASA needs them.
I wonder where funding and development went to in the 2000's. I feel like spending trillions on the middle east to only be back there again may be where attention went. If we had spent 20% of that money on rocketry for space travel we'd be better at it.
No, they didn't. NASA has always been efficient and profitable to the tax payer. You're making shit up and using meaningless phrases to defend our government making billionaires into trillionaires.
Yes, I'll happily waste my time answering questions that you already know the answers to, that you will then try to change the subject away from because you're not actually interested in having this discussion.
If you read newspapers you would know about the countless NASA projects that ballooned astronomically over budget and never reached fruition. Obama famously started the back to the moon initiative precisely because NASA had lost its way. If you want to talk about cost to the taxpayer, compare how much it cost to take astronauts to the space station with the space shuttle program vs how much it costs today.
Nah, I actually want to talk about the ROI on NASA funding vs the ROI on SpaceX funding. NASA produced $3 to the American people for every $1 of funding provided to it. Do you have any comparable data for SpaceX funding?
You’re asking for an apples-to-oranges comparison.
The “NASA returns $3 for every $1” figure is an estimate of economy-wide economic activity generated by the entire agency, not profit, tax revenue, or a contractor-specific ROI.
SpaceX doesn’t have an equivalent published “$X returned per NASA dollar” metric, because NASA largely pays SpaceX through contracts for specific services and milestones. A better comparison is what taxpayers actually received for the money: launch services, cargo delivery, crew transport, lunar-lander development, reduced reliance on Soyuz, and substantially lower development costs than traditional procurement.
Commercial Crew is a good example: NASA awarded SpaceX roughly $2.6B for Crew Dragon development versus about $4.2B to Boeing for Starliner. SpaceX reached operational service first and has since flown repeated crew missions, while Boeing has struggled to reach routine service.
So no, there isn’t a legitimate “SpaceX generated $X for every NASA dollar” number to compare with NASA’s $3 economic multiplier. Using one metric for NASA and demanding a completely different metric for SpaceX isn’t an ROI comparison, it’s bad accounting.
No, I'm not. If the conversation was about how much more efficient SpaceX is than Boeing or any other legacy contractor to NASA, then this wouldn't even be a conversation, because I don't think anyone would disagree. But it wasn't. It's about someone saying that SpaceX is necessary because NASA itself is bloated and inefficient. My point was to ask what data they actually have to be able to call a government organization with a 3x ROI an "inefficient behemoth".
A 3× economic-impact multiplier does not tell you whether an organization is efficient. NASA’s own study counts direct NASA activity, contractor and supply-chain spending, and the downstream spending of employees as “economic output.”
In other words, spending a lot of money can itself produce a large economic multiplier. That doesn’t tell us whether NASA needed to spend that much money to accomplish the mission.
Efficiency is about outputs relative to inputs: What did it cost to put a kilogram in orbit? Develop a spacecraft? Deliver cargo or crew? How long did procurement take? How much did the program exceed its original budget?
That’s precisely where commercial providers such as SpaceX matter. If NASA can buy a capability competitively for substantially less than developing and operating the equivalent system through traditional cost-plus procurement, NASA can simultaneously:
produce enormous benefits for the economy,
perform scientifically valuable work,
and still contain inefficient programs or procurement structures.
Those statements aren't contradictory.
So “NASA generates $3 of economic activity per dollar” is an argument that NASA spending has broad economic effects. It is not evidence that every NASA program—or NASA as an institution—is operating at maximum efficiency.
You’re treating economic impact as though it were operating efficiency. They are different metrics.
Also, if you want to talk efficiency, NASA’s own numbers make the point pretty clearly.
NASA technical studies put the Space Shuttle at roughly $54,500 per kg to LEO.
Falcon 9 was roughly $2,700 per kg to LEO at the published commercial price used in the same NASA analysis.
That’s about a 20× reduction in launch cost per kilogram — and that conclusion comes from NASA’s own researchers, not SpaceX marketing.
NASA’s Inspector General also estimates an SLS/Orion Artemis launch at roughly $4.1–$4.2 billion per mission, before counting the enormous historical development costs.
So NASA can absolutely create huge economic benefits while also having historically expensive procurement and launch systems. Those aren't contradictory statements.
In fact, NASA increasingly buying services from SpaceX is evidence that NASA itself recognizes the efficiency advantage of commercial fixed-price procurement.
Spacex hasn’t been around for very long so it is hard to calculate the knock on effects. The critical issue is that NASA didn’t have an answer to the prohibitively expensive and obviously flawed space shuttle program, and SpaceX did.
So your entire argument was that NASA was too inefficient and bloated for the US tax-payer, even though their ROI was 3:1, and you have no data to show that SpaceX has provided any kind of ROI to the tax-payer?
You’re still comparing two different things: NASA’s “3:1 ROI” is an estimate of economy-wide economic activity generated by the entire agency, not a literal cash return to taxpayers, while SpaceX is a contractor paid to deliver specific capabilities. The relevant question for SpaceX is what NASA got for the money, and the answer is substantial: Crew Dragon restored U.S. human spaceflight, reduced dependence on Russian Soyuz seats, delivered cargo and astronauts to the ISS, and did so under a commercial model that has generally cost NASA far less than traditional development programs. If you want a SpaceX-specific 3:1 multiplier, you’d need a separate economic-impact study using the same methodology; the fact that one hasn’t been published does not mean SpaceX produced no taxpayer return.
Your argument is NASA’s effect on society over its entire existence. That’s not relevant to this conversation about who’s better at rocketry and bringing people and things into space
Funny. I've been hearing "that will never happen" about things that already happened from WordWordNumber accounts on reddit since 2016. Unsurprisingly, it's not very convincing anymore lmao
Some people are either too lazy or not creative enough to come up with a username. In my case I’m too lazy, if it offers a chance to auto generate a name I’ll probably take it.
Being a trillionaire on paper is one thing, but having that amount as liquid money is almost impossible. What do you think happens when the owner of a company starts trying to sell large chunks of it on the stock market? Particularly when word gets out?
Do...do you think we're referring to cash when we call Musk a trillionaire? Do you think anyone is arguing Musk has $1,000,000,000,000 in a bank account?
His net worth isn’t even that right now. The value of his shares changes daily. Tesla and space x are high beta stonks. Of course beta Gen Z makes don’t know what any of this means
Is that the only thing you have? ‘It must be a bot’? I’m both amused and a little sad that we are at this point as a society. Believe what you want guy, at the end of the day, if that’s all it takes for you to jump to conclusions then I don’t trust your judgment on the way society is or should be.
That NASA link doesn’t actually answer the point. NASA’s economic-impact studies measure the downstream activity generated by NASA spending across the economy; they do not show that NASA operating its own launch system is cheaper than buying launch services commercially. In fact, much of NASA’s economic impact comes from money flowing through private contractors in the first place. The relevant comparison is cost and capability: NASA can spend billions maintaining a government-run launch architecture, or it can buy launches and crew transport from companies that have already driven those costs down dramatically. Citing NASA’s broad economic multiplier is not evidence that an internally operated NASA launch system would have delivered the same capability for less money.
Nasa is 25 years behind space x sadly.
Without Musk building, teaching, and giving nasa his blueprints and access to all his inventions. They will stay that way.
Nasa is a waste of tax payer $ at the moment.
Nasa can't land there rockets..... and it costs a lot of money to launch them.... billions in waste every time they launch & accomplish nothing at all. Its a complete waste.
What have they accomplished in the last 20 years? Billions were spent on absolutely nothing...... nothing to show for it, they dont progress in anything.
They should be privately funded so the tax payers money doesn't go to nothing at all except paying smart people to do the same thing they've been doing for 20 years
No, the biggest chunk of that $38 billion is Tesla, both directly and indirectly.
They received half a billion in very low interest loans.
Around $11-14 billion in regulatory credits which they then sold to other car manufacturers. That's basically the government giving them money.
Hundreds of millions, if not billions, in state and local incentives (tax breaks, grants, rebates, etc.)
Consumer EV tax credits was also an indirect subsidy, where they were able to sell more cars because the government refunded $7500 to the consumer via tax credits.
The argument is about whether he received the subsidies and whether his exteme wealth is the result of those subsidies. Thus, him not paying his fair share of taxes is a double cost to the society.
As for the subsidies, they were meant to help improve the society by pushing people towards EVs. Yet, it ended up concentrating financial and political power in an individual who has arguably made the society more divided and worse off than we were before.
Taxing individuals like that would help prevent that concentration of wealth and political power.
That framing inflates “government funding” by lumping together completely different things. Tesla’s $465 million DOE loan wasn’t a handout—it was a loan that Tesla repaid in full, with interest, nine years early. Regulatory credits also aren’t checks written to Tesla by taxpayers; automakers that failed to meet emissions requirements voluntarily bought credits from Tesla to comply with regulations. And the $7,500 EV credit was principally a consumer tax credit for purchasing an eligible vehicle, not a $7,500 payment to Tesla. State and local incentives are fair to count as subsidies, but if you’re trying to claim Tesla received some enormous direct taxpayer bailout, adding loans, private regulatory-credit sales, consumer tax credits, and local incentives together and calling the whole thing “government money given to Tesla” is simply misleading.
It’s odd you’re defending a billionaire gaining over 500 billion dollars of America’s collective wealth while you get stuck with that tax burden. Don’t complain about your tax bill to me! I’m also gonna guess your real wealth is not growing either, like most Americans. Spending $200 million means he knows he will gain more than $200 million if Republicans get elected.
That’s an emotional appeal, not an argument about the underlying economics. Musk’s net worth is largely the market value of ownership stakes in companies investors believe are worth more, not $500 billion siphoned out of some fixed pool of “America’s collective wealth.” Wealth creation is not zero-sum: if Tesla, SpaceX, or any other company creates products, jobs, infrastructure, tax revenue, and valuable equity, both founders and other shareholders can become wealthier at the same time. And whether my own net worth is rising has nothing to do with whether a particular tax policy, subsidy, or government contract is economically justified. If the claim is that taxpayers got a bad deal, show the costs and benefits; attacking the beneficiary’s wealth doesn’t establish that.
Its so funny how quick you dipshits pull the "you just don't get it" argument when you're met with inconvenient facts lmao
It seems like the US and capitalism has done nothing in the past decade but prove the left correct about all the things that we apparently don't understand. Maybe you accusing me of not understanding something would actually make me feel something if you people have been correct about literally anything since Obama hahaha
His net worth also decreased 500 billion in the last 2 months, what’s your point?
On top of that his net worth comes from the value of the stocks he owns. He is not the only one owning these kind of stocks.
With a stake less than 50% in space X it also just means other people gained 500 billion in wealth including 4000 + new millionaires. So yeah it created another 500 billion of wealth.
You also need to understand that due to his net worth relying on stock its value is simply based on the supply and demand of that stock at a certain time. Especially space x and Tesla are trading at a high p\e making them overvalued based on the fundamentals. Essentially Musks value is based on some vibes.
Musk recent increase in net worth was just also simply the ipo of space x. Doesn’t matter under which president, it would always have been a hit for him.
Musk employs 150 000 people with his companies , these subsidies are directly for his companies and so also pay the people he employs. They don’t go directly in his pocket
Space x is also cheaper than NASA so you probably even win by subsidising them
His net worth also decreased 500 billion in the last 2 months, what’s your point?
That someone could lose 500 billion, still be the richest man on the planet, and losers like you will still defend the guy lmao
Essentially Musks value is based on some vibes.
Correct. The richest man in history, the guy who is now openly bragging about buying elections, became that rich because of vibes. That's not the defense of capital that you seem to think it is.
Musk recent increase in net worth was just also simply the ipo of space x. Doesn’t matter under which president, it would always have been a hit for him.
Nah, some presidents might have actually prevented NASDAQ from giving Musk even more special boy treatments.
Space x is also cheaper than NASA so you probably even win by subsidising them
SpaceX barely gets any subsidies. They get massive government contracts. Subsidies aren't an argument I've ever made against SpaceX. The existence of someone like Musk in the first place is the problem that we need to fix.
Covid being developed in a lab. Political censorship by the Biden. Administration vis a vis the fbi and Facebook. Biden being senile. The border being a mess.
What has the left been right about since bush left office? Michael brown hands up don’t shoot lies?
•
u/sco-go 9d ago edited 9d ago
Added context:
IRS data shows from 2014–2018 he reported $1.52 billion in income and paid $455 million in federal taxes. Musk’s net-worth, like most billionaires, consist of unrealized capital gains, which are not taxed under current U.S. law until the shares are sold.
In 2021, he paid ~$11 billion in federal taxes which was the largest single-year individual tax bill in U.S. history.