> As pointed out elsewhere, if you are wealthy (qualify for the Alternate Minimum Tax) you don't get the tax credit. So that claim is false. Source? Everyone i

> As pointed out elsewhere, if you are wealthy (qualify for the Alternate Minimum Tax) you don't get the tax credit. So that claim is false. Source? Everyone in this thread on the Tesla forum seems to think that you can still get the credit if you pay AMT: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/9263-Is-7500-tax-credit-lost-if-you-are-subject-to-the-Alternative-Minimum-Tax http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/9263-Is-7500-t... And if you check IRS form 1040 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf and its instructions http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf, you will see that the tax credit for electric vehicles is added to line 53, which is subtracted from your tax liability whether or not you paid AMT (line 45). AMT applies to taxable income, preventing you from claiming exemptions if your income is over a certain amount. Tax credits apply to your tax liability, which are subtracted after computing your tax and alternative minimum tax. So yes, you get the tax credit no matter how wealthy you are. > I think EV subsidies make sense, and I made the point of NASA for a reason. Sometimes when we have an important goal (interstate freeway, getting to the moon, moving the entire country over to electric vehicles) it's worth investing in. I agree that EV subsidies are worthwhile, but I think that there are better places that we could apply subsidies, such as all of the other infrastructure improvements I suggested, and promoting low-car lifestyles rather than pouring all of that investment into alternative types of cars. But those other improvements aren't as sexy, because they frequently don't involve exciting new technologies but instead simple restraint, better planning, and investment in things that are associated with lower classes (busses, trains, dense urban planning), rather than upper and middle classes (sexy cars, suburban living). And you know, another way for me to disagree is doing exactly what I'm doing here; trying to urge restraint of many people who think that Tesla is so amazing and so much the future that they lose sight of other, simpler, cheaper ways of solving the problems that Tesla is supposedly solving. There are an awful lot of people here who equate negative opinions of Tesla with being evil, backward thinking, luddites, while really, some people are just asking "is Tesla really profitable (as paying off the loan early might make you believe), or are they still making money off of the taxpayer and zero-emission credits paid for by other manufacturers? How long should the taxpayer fund toys for the wealthy in order to help bootstrap an EV manufacturing industry, as opposed to putting money into other, even more sustainable infrastructure improvements?"