Naming Elon Musk Person Of The Year Is Time’s ‘Worst Choice Ever’, Say Critics | Nick Tsagaris

Publication cites Tesla boss’s influence ‘for good or ill’, but accolade is criticised over his views on tax, unions and Covid

Elon Musk, founder of Tesla and SpaceX, has been made Time’s person of the year for 2021. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Martin Farrer and agenciesTue 14 Dec 2021 10.40 GMT

Time magazine’s decision to make Tesla billionaire Elon Musk its person of the year for 2021 has been criticised because of his attitude to tax, opposition to unions and playing down the dangers of Covid. Musk, who is also the founder and chief executive of space exploration company SpaceX, recently passed Amazon founder Jeff Bezos as the world’s wealthiest person as the rising price of Tesla shares pushed his net worth to around $300bn (£227bn). Big families sound great, Elon Musk. But who’s going to take care of the kids? Catherine Bennett Read moreDescribing him as a “clown, genius, edgelord, visionary, industrialist, showman”, Time cited the breadth of Musk’s endeavours, from his founding of SpaceX in 2002, to his hand in the creation of the alternative energy company SolarCity in addition to Tesla, the most valuable car company in the world. The magazine emphasised that its annual acknowledgement was not an award, but rather, “recognition of the person who had the most influence on the events of the year, for good or for ill”. The award has previously been bestowed to popes, Ebola healthcare workers and Greta Thunberg but also Hitler and Stalin, who received it twice. In 1982, it went to “The Computer”. Elon Musk on the cover of Time’s upcoming issue. Photograph: APAdvertisement But the accolade drew sharp criticism in the US, where Musk is a controversial figure because of his attitude to tax, opposing a “billionaires tax” floated by some. He, along with other prominent super-wealthy people, paid only small tax rates relative to the significant increase in his total wealth between 2014 and 2018 according to a Propublica investigation this year, with Musk paying a “real” rate of 3.27%. While legal, the rates expose the failures of America’s tax laws to levy increases in wealth derived from assets in the way wages – the prime source of income for most Americans – are taxed. Senator Elizabeth Warren tweeted that the Time decision highlighted the need for the tax code to be reformed “so the person of the year will actually pay taxes and stop freeloading off everyone else”. Robert Reich, who served as labour secretary in the Clinton administration, said the announcement was a good time to remind people that he “illegally threatened to take away stock options if employees unionised”, an apparent reference to a 2019 National Labour Relations Board finding regarding a tweet in which Musk wrote: “Why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing?” Musk also earned controversy in 2020 by playing down the dangers of Covid in a series of tweets and initially kept his northern California factory open despite a local “shelter-in-place” order, before later halting production. The author Kurt Eichenwald said it was the “worst choice ever”. I held back on saying much about Time selecting Elon Musk as person of the years until I read their reasoning. In a year when the developers of the mRNA vaccines have saved millions and helped restore global economies, the selection of Musk this year may be the worst choice ever. — Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) December 13, 2021Time magazine also noted the sway Musk holds over an army of loyal followers (and investors) on social media, where he skewers the powerful and also regulators attempting to keep in check an executive that is far from traditional. Advertisement Using his 66 million followers on Twitter, he offers outlandish advice to the world and drives even his own followers and investors mad by roiling markets. He was sued by stock market regulators for tweeting in 2018 about taking Tesla private, and they alleged in correspondence to Tesla this year that two further tweets were not pre-approved by the company’s lawyers, as required by a court settlement in the earlier case.