-----
To qualify for the federal tax credit, one must not exceed the following adjusted gross income limits:
$300,000 for married couples filing jointly
$225,000 for heads of households
$150,000 for all other filers
Federal EV Tax Credit is not refundable, which means one must have federal tax due to take advantage of it. If the tax due is less than the credit amount, one can only claim the credit up to the amount of the tax due.
--------------
Here's how cheap you can get a new Model 3 RWD right now (including fed & local EV incentives):
• VT: $26,320
• MA: $26,830
• PA: $27,330
• MD: $27,330 - Delivered after July 1, 2023 https://marylandev.org/maryland-ev-tax-credit
• RI: $27,820
• DE: $27,820
• NY: $28,320
• CA: $28,330
• CO: $28,330
• CT: $29,030
• ME: $29,320
on top of above info federal, state and local incentive info that i posted , some employers are also providing ev incentive like exaple bank of america employees gets $5k incentive , in this case the best case scenario is like below
example scenario
• VT: $26,320 - $5000 bank of america employee ev incentive = $21,320
-------------
CA CLEAN VEHICLE REBATE PROGRAM
$2K is available if your household makes <$200k.
There is an increased rebate of $7500 ($5500 on top of the $2k) available if you fall below income caps based on your household size.
Family of 4 max is $111k, Family of 6 is $149k.
This comes in the form of a check in 2-3 months. https://cleanvehiclereb
This is separate from the CARB Clean Vehicle Grants described below the dashes. It is possible to qualify for both, but the timing is different.
----------------
And California residents that live in a disadvantage community (DAC) https://cleanvehiclegra
Disadvantaged communities are determined using CalEnviroScreen (https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscr...
here's the DAC map: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
And receive an Approval Letter through email.
You must receive an Approval Letter BEFORE you purchase a vehicle. We do not offer rebates and you cannot redeem a grant if you have purchased a vehicle before being approved.
This post can be edited by most users to provide up-to-date information about developments of this thread based on user responses, and user findings. Feel free to add, change or remove information shown here as it becomes available. This includes new coupons, rebates, ideas, thread summary, and similar items.
Once a Thread Wiki is added to a thread, "Create Wiki" button will disappear. If you would like to learn more about Thread Wiki feature, click here.
Top Comments
https://www.tesla.com/model3/design
Deal is even sweeter if you live in a state with additional credits:
VT: $26,320
MA: $26,830
PA: $27,330
RI: $27,820
DE: $27,820
NY: $28,320
CA: $28,330
CO: $28,330
CT: $29,030
ME: $29,320
Full tax credit details below, but the following income limits apply:
$300,000 for married couples filing jointly
$225,000 for heads of households
$150,000 for all other filers
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deduc...3-or-after
Withholding is totally irrelevant to qualifying for the credit.
If you're unclear on this go read a 1040.
The part where you compute tax liability is lines 16 through 24.
THAT is where the $7500 EV credit comes off.
Your withholdings aren't even looked at until after that on line 25+
This is also not correct.
The Child Tax Credit is worth a maximum of $2,000 per qualifying child. Up to $1,600 is refundable for the 2023 tax year.
Refundable credits are computed AFTER non-refundable ones-- so the CTC is only "worth" $400 off your tax burden for these purposes- the $1600 left is refundable.
Thus if you had say $7900 in tax burden and one CTC and one EV credit, your tax burden would go to $0 and you'd get a full refund of the $1600 refundable part of the CTC
Source:
https://www.nerdwallet.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
1.8K Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
next we need to get solar charging onto cars.
200 w on roof of car is easy toyota selling this for 610 on prius. elon musk should follow
400 w is doable if including hood.
maybe elon musk could make it 400 on roof and another 200 on hood making it 600w
400 gives about 3200-4000w per day
600 gives about 4800-6000w per day
600 w would give about 30 miles per day then.
400 w is 20 miles
200 is 10 miles
it's not a bad option.
since most people in cities have no garage since people are peasants its good for the peasants to have this option.
for the wealthier classes that have garages then its not as useful.
musk should sell this as an option ideally.
600 should ideally be at 1200 dollars tbh its not that expensive to put the solar panels its already 70 dollars per 100 watts.
so thats 420 and the rest is extra to hold it together and make profits.manufacturing cost shouldn't be more than 600.
toyota is just upcharging it and saying RnD cost a lot when hackers did it already a while ago.
their RnD was just giving themselves raises for stealing another person idea like most of corporate america. the RnD spending.
thus 600 dollars for 600 watts is totally doable but I'm giving them 1200 dollars as an add on.
ideally they could seamlessly integrate it.
the issue with hacking your car to do this is that it looks ugly is the only reason to pay extra for this method otherwise many are just modding their own cars for this solar power feature.
this is complementary to the car savings.
1200 pay back period for 600 w is about 2 years.
lets say electric costs are 30 cents
1.8 per day x 365 = save 657 per yr.
payback period is 2 years.
please note manufacturers must realize the payback period and don't upcharge over the payback period too much else its worthless.
ev charging is getting expensive almost as much as gas soon so ev economical value is declining.
"The average residential electricity rate in Los Angeles, CA is 24 ¢/kWh, which is 19% lower than the average electricity rate in California of 30.17 ¢/kWh."
so yes ca has electric rates of 30 cents.
full charge is 30 cents x 80k whr = 24 dollars.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank
next we need to get solar charging onto cars.
200 w on roof of car is easy toyota selling this for 610 on prius. elon musk should follow
400 w is doable if including hood.
maybe elon musk could make it 400 on roof and another 200 on hood making it 600w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usqSJ7z
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
https://electrek.co/2016/06/20/to...lar-panel/ [electrek.co]
WHOA 2 whole miles of range a day..... in good conditions...if parked in the sun all day.. maybe.
Even less useful on a Tesla where the vast majority of buyers are charging at home in a sunless garage anyway.
NOT offering a bunch of frivolous options, all of which vastly increase manufacturing and supply chain complexity, is part of how Tesla got where it is today leading the EV and manufacturing revolution in cars.
Toyota BTW appears to finally be realizing how hilarious far behind Tesla they are on this front-
https://www.reuters.com/business/...023-06-13/ [reuters.com]
Toyotas new plans:
Dedicated EV platform
Heavily automated assembly
Gigacasting of vehicles
reduce prep and process and complexity by 50%
Exactly the stuff Tesla knew was the future a decade ago and has been doing ever since.
The new factory "hopes" to produce 1.7 million BEVs by 2030. Tesla for reference expects to production more than that this year
You claimed that charging 10-70% during lunch/dinner is "Bad" for the battery. it isnt at all. Neither is charging 5-40% in 10 minutes. You can do that as much as you want. Perfectly healthy for the battery. You've yet to link to a tesla.com source that says they dont want you charging to 100% on a supercharger.
Uhh, :"Charging 300 miles in 30 minutes would explode the battery cells in any EV" sounds like you live in the real world, dude.
VW better:
1. ride quality - although the new tesla are improved, the VW is better
2. safety features - I know ppl will say stuff based on what they read but the new tesla are even worse with their sensors removed! cameras are unreliable when you need them the most - bad weather. The Tesla also has no rear incoming traffic detection.
Tesla better:
1. Software - VW is about a decade behind and the gap continues to widen because VW updates their software once every 3 yrs and tesla once every 3 wks. You can't even start your AC or change your charge % with the app reliably. Everything w VW software is a disaster.
2. Public charging - Electrify America is a joke. Tesla is also more than a decade ahead of EA. We took the VW on one roadtrip and never again!
3. Acceleration
4. Driver assist
5. range
400 gives about 3200-4000w per day
600 gives about 4800-6000w per day
600 w would give about 30 miles per day then.
400 w is 20 miles
200 is 10 miles
it's not a bad option.
since most people in cities have no garage since people are peasants its good for the peasants to have this option.
for the wealthier classes that have garages then its not as useful.
musk should sell this as an option ideally.
600 should ideally be at 1200 dollars tbh its not that expensive to put the solar panels its already 70 dollars per 100 watts.
so thats 420 and the rest is extra to hold it together and make profits.manufacturing cost shouldn't be more than 600.
toyota is just upcharging it and saying RnD cost a lot when hackers did it already a while ago.
their RnD was just giving themselves raises for stealing another person idea like most of corporate america. the RnD spending.
thus 600 dollars for 600 watts is totally doable but I'm giving them 1200 dollars as an add on.
ideally they could seamlessly integrate it.
the issue with hacking your car to do this is that it looks ugly is the only reason to pay extra for this method otherwise many are just modding their own cars for this solar power feature.
this is complementary to the car savings.
1200 pay back period for 600 w is about 2 years.
lets say electric costs are 30 cents
1.8 per day x 365 = save 657 per yr.
payback period is 2 years.
please note manufacturers must realize the payback period and don't upcharge over the payback period too much else its worthless.
ev charging is getting expensive almost as much as gas soon so ev economical value is declining.
"The average residential electricity rate in Los Angeles, CA is 24 ¢/kWh, which is 19% lower than the average electricity rate in California of 30.17 ¢/kWh."
so yes ca has electric rates of 30 cents.
full charge is 30 cents x 80k whr = 24 dollars.
8 hours of full, direct sun is 1.6kWh. A M3 can get 3.5-4 miles/kwh, so congratulations that solar panel will get you on the order of 5-6 miles (per 8 hours of full sun). BUT as you mention, that panel also has costs, adds weight (will reduce the mi/kwh slightly), and adds complexity. Also makes the roof opaque. It's up to the customer to decide if the cost/benefit is there for them. For myself, we pay probably some of the highest rates for electricity in CONUS at around $0.35/kwh, so the panel might save around 50-60 cents a day (on a GOOD day, we have winter here too so these results can't be extrapolated x 365) but let's say the upgrade is $610, that would be on the order of 3-4 years payback (probably longer honestly), assuming nothing went wrong with the panel or charging, assuming the car is basically never garaged, etc.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank
Because they are the safest.
Which is why the factual statements in question remain on Teslas website almost 5 years later.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-...sted-nhtsa [tesla.com]
If you want a deeper dive-
NHTSA officially only gives 1-5 "stars" as ratings.
So if you score in a given range, you get that number of stars.
NHTSA complained because officially Tesla only got 5 stars and so did other cars.
But their actual raw test data is available to compare everyone who gets 5 stars.
And when you do that, the lowest cars on the list for probability of injury are Teslas.
all the lowest on the entire list are Teslas.
- "Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA"
- ..."NHTSA's tests also show that it has the lowest probability of injury of all cars the safety agency has ever tested."
- "The agency's data shows that vehicle occupants are less likely to get seriously hurt in these types of crashes when in a Model 3 than in any other car," and,
- "But when a crash happens in real life, these test results show that if you are driving a Tesla, you have the best chance of avoiding serious injury."
The issue is that NHTSA doesn't rank cars according to safety, and its front crash tests only compare cars of similar weight.
All of that puts it at the top of the top tier of NHTSA's safety ratings, but it doesn't guarantee the lowest overall risk of injury in a crash, because NHTSA doesn't rank those cars.
"This is not the first time that Tesla has disregarded the Guidelines...We have therefore also referred this matter to the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection to investigate whether these statements constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices," the letter said.
"Tesla's statements are its own, are based on sound public data, and do not contravene NHTSA's guidelines." Tesla Deputy Counsel Al Prescott wrote Oct. 31, 2018.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank
No, I'm citing NHTSAs own data just as Tesla did at that link.
Read the citations in the link.
Teslas cars have the lowest probability of injury of all cars the NHTSA ever tested.
In case you lost the link, I reproduce the citation info here for you to realize you're wrong about this--bold added in a couple relevant places you seem to have missed.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!