Cash for Clunkers - good idea?

[carmenc 0]

Germany,Britain, Austria, France, Italy, Portugal and Spain have already got schemes going, and the US is imminent.

Some of them, like Germany's, just get old cars off the road without fuel economy requirements. Others (Britain, US) have modest requirements.

My own view: the US rules have fuel economy requirements that are way too weak.

[PhreeZone 15]

Its a bad idea. This is not going to go on top of trade in prices, its to replace it. Basically no matter what you trade in you now get up to $4500 for it. If someone has a car that they are driving today that its value is so much below $4500 that it makes it worthwhile to scrap the car and take this odds are that they are not going to be able to afford the payments on a brand new car.

I do see this being a loophole that some people use to buy junk cars for $200-300 and then use those as a trade in towards a new car that they were going to purchase already and therefor have the government pay for part of the purchase cost. I know that had this program been around a few months ago when I bought an additional car for us I would have bought a cheap clunker and traded it in towards the new car that we were going to buy anyways.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[TomAiello 25]

I think it's a bad idea to turn the government into a used car dealer.

But, if it does happen, I've got an old truck that I never drive, which is probably worth about 500 bucks. I'd be happy to trade it in for the credit, since I've been thinking about buying a new car anyway.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Gawain 0]

Aside from the fact that anything coming out of Congress is a bad idea nowadays, it amounts to a regulation of used car values, regardless of condition. I'm tempted to go to the junk yard and start "flipping" cars.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[penniless 0]

Quote

I do see this being a loophole that some people use to buy junk cars for $200-300 and then use those as a trade in towards a new car that they were going to purchase already and therefor have the government pay for part of the purchase cost. .

The junker has to have been continuously insured BY YOU for the 12 preceding months.

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Quote

I do see this being a loophole that some people use to buy junk cars for $200-300 and then use those as a trade in towards a new car that they were going to purchase already and therefor have the government pay for part of the purchase cost. .

The junker has to have been continuously insured BY YOU for the 12 preceding months.

I'm pretty sure it just needs to have been registered, because not all states require insurance.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I do see this being a loophole that some people use to buy junk cars for $200-300 and then use those as a trade in towards a new car that they were going to purchase already and therefor have the government pay for part of the purchase cost. I know that had this program been around a few months ago when I bought an additional car for us I would have bought a cheap clunker and traded it in towards the new car that we were going to buy anyways.

In the U.K, the scrap initiatives rules state that you must be the registered keep of the car for longer than a year, to qualify.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[1969912 0]

Great idea, as long as the funds come from Donated money, NOT from taxes. Better yet, keep the gov't out of it and have concerned citizens simply buy/scrap the cars themselves.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[warpedskydiver 0]

I have an old Geo Prizm I want to get rid of due to a rod knock.

It could be fixed if someone wanted to, but i don't want to just junk it, it has $500 in tires on it.


Plus it gets 35mpg.


So the government would not used this as a junker trade in.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

1. My money going to buy people new cars instead of getting my step kids through college disgusts me. It's bread and circuses of the worst sort.

2. It's the housing crisis all over where we're encouraging people to spend irresponsibly. Most people who are in a position to afford a new car should have a trade-in worth $3500-$4500.

3. It allows the same SUV loop hole that we have in the CAFE standards. If it's reasonable to legislate fuel economy it's not fair to declare some passenger vehicles "light trucks" subject to lower standards. Encouraging people to buy SUVs which get 20 MPG when station wagons would work as well is stupid.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I do see this being a loophole that some people use to buy junk cars for $200-300 and then use those as a trade in towards a new car that they were going to purchase already and therefor have the government pay for part of the purchase cost. .

The junker has to have been continuously insured BY YOU for the 12 preceding months.

I'm pretty sure it just needs to have been registered, because not all states require insurance.

From Edmunds.com (the car pricing site):

Q. How long do I need to have owned the vehicle I'm trading in? A. The vehicle must be insured and registered in your name and in use for at least one year.


From Washington Post:

To guarantee vehicles are actually roadworthy -- and not just sitting on cinder blocks -- trade-ins must be registered and insured to the same owner for at least a year.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,473]

Bad idea. Just enforce the current emissions laws.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I do see this being a loophole that some people use to buy junk cars for $200-300 and then use those as a trade in towards a new car that they were going to purchase already and therefor have the government pay for part of the purchase cost.

The way I heard it explained is that you will be required to have owned that car for at least a year, in order to qualify. That would eliminate this kind of trickery. Unless people create false paperwork, which they will.

I'm against paying taxes to give someone else a break on a new car. I don't care what the damn justification.

The fact that they're going to save on fuel expenses with that new car should already be enough financial justification for them, without taking money out of my wallet.

[headoverheels 292]

Bad idea. If you want to get them of the road, tax them off. Don't buy them off.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

I'm against paying taxes to give someone else a break on a new car. I don't care what the damn justification.

The fact that they're going to save on fuel expenses with that new car should already be enough financial justification for them, without taking money out of my wallet.

Me too.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

Bad idea. If you want to get them of the road, tax them off.

The liberal way to try to control people. Tax them into submission!

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

I'm against paying taxes to give someone else a break on a new car. I don't care what the damn justification.

.

AGreed, but I also find it unsavory that the beneficiaries are limited to those who bought gas guzzlers in the first place. Someone who has an old car getting 25mpg can't benefit if they buy a new 35mpg model.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[billeisele 123]

Quote

Quote

I'm against paying taxes to give someone else a break on a new car. I don't care what the damn justification.
.

AGreed, but I also find it unsavory that the beneficiaries are limited to those who bought gas guzzlers in the first place. Someone who has an old car getting 25mpg can't benefit if they buy a new 35mpg model.

this is another crazy way our new President - I didn't vote for him but since I live here he is mine, right? - is trying to accomplish a number of things, shift money from one class to another, provide an incentive to buy cars which he hopes are from his new auto companies so his over-paid voters, the auto unions, will be happy, save the environment, etc. - in general none of these are good reasons for this program

that said - I have one of these clunkers, a 1998 Ford Explorer with 221,000 miles that looks and runs great, in its prime it got 21 mpg on the highway and 18 in town, the charts they are using to determine the mpg of cars says that it gets 17 highway and 14 city, cha ching
thank you for your generous donation, now off to the Lexus dealership where I will order a new shiny car, use my clunker bucks to buy a car that I was going to buy anyway

I intend to strip the truck of everything that the local junk dealer will buy: spare tire, wheel, hub caps, (and i need a couple lug nuts to fix another problem), jack, Yakima rack, trailer hitch, seats, A/C compressor (2 years old), the battery is even going home with me when I leave the dealer (can always use another battery), the rules only say that it has to run, been titled in your name and have had insurance for the past year, no problem - I put 320 miles on it in the last 2 weeks

I might even put a couple bullet holes in it just for fun after taking it off-road for the last time - but first I got to siphon the gas, its full

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Bad idea. If you want to get them of the road, tax them off.

The liberal way to try to control people. Tax them into submission!

I love it - That should be their new motto . . . Change, not real change, it's just all you will have left in your account after we are done with you.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun