SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
The world is yours
Joined
·
174 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, everyone has heard of this right? I don't know the specifics on all this but I think if you bring in an old car, not more than 25 years old and you buy a car with better fuel economy, you can earn up to 4,500.

This is why it pisses me off.....

What about all the people in this country who DO NOT OWN A CAR! What about the people who have been taking public transportation all their life OR people who sell their car for whatever reason and now just use public transport?



So sell your environment killing car for a less environmental killing car, uncle sam will pay you. BUT never pollute...or decide to pollute even less, you get jack squat, besides higher rider fares.

Anyone else with me on this??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Not sure of the situation. I'm presuming its in the USA?

It does seem unfair. However, you must realise that motorists are heavily subsidised in many parts of the world anyway. This is the tip of the iceburg.
 

·
My Mind Has Left My Body
Joined
·
7,266 Posts
An op/ed that I read a few weeks back that I thought made some good points.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-0706edit2jul06,0,6709103.story

What a clunker
July 6, 2009

There is a way to get Americans out of gas-guzzling cars: $4-a-gallon gasoline. When pump prices soared last summer, people parked their SUVs, cut back on their driving and shopped for cars with better gas mileage.

This did not require a government subsidy. It did not require an act of Congress. It was painful for pocketbooks, but it did change our driving habits for the better.

But gas prices settled back down. And now Congress, rather than do something neat and clean such as raise gasoline taxes, has given birth to "cash for clunkers," an impossibly complicated $1 billion plan to reward some buyers of new cars and trucks with government subsidies of up to $4,500.

The sponsors say they want to get Americans out of gas-guzzling vehicles, to help the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But this is really about boosting new car sales.

Cash for clunkers was tucked into a war-funding bill President Barack Obama signed recently, so it's now the law of the land.

Here's how it works:

The owner of a car that gets less than 18 miles per gallon can get a $3,500 government credit toward a new car that gets at least 22 miles per gallon. He can get $4,500 if the new car gets 28 miles per gallon.

The owner of an SUV that gets less than 18 miles per gallon can get $3,500 if he buys a new SUV that gets 20 miles per gallon, and $4,500 if it gets 23 miles per gallon.

The trade-ins must be drivable, built no earlier than the 1984 model year, and have been insured and registered to the same owner for at least the last year. Dealers must destroy the old cars. They can't be resold.

Got all that? A fuel-efficiency increase of as little as 2 miles per gallon could net you several thousands dollars courtesy of your fellow taxpayers because, of course, this subsidy has to come from somewhere. No wonder some call this "handouts for Hummers."

It's not hard to see all the flaws in this. Some drivers will trade in older vehicles for new, fuel-efficient rides -- but they might have done so anyway. People who trade in an older vehicle for a more fuel-efficient used car -- because that's all they can afford -- will get nothing from the government. And as older cars are destroyed before the end of their useful life, there will be fewer choices for people who simply can't afford to buy anything else.

The government is not usually very good at picking winners and losers, and it won't be in this case.

The best that can be said of this program is that it could have been much worse, meaning it could have cost taxpayers $4 billion, as originally proposed, instead of $1 billion. Cash for clunkers is due to expire in November. But experience shows that subsidies, once started, become addictive. Germany has extended its program once and the French are under pressure to do the same. Unfortunately, this clunker may be around awhile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
You go into a dealer and tell them you're interested in the program. While buying the car, you have to fill out roughly a thirty six page form. Then, you wait to get a forty five or thirty five hundred dollar rebate check from the government. I don't know if it's worth it or not.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
53,131 Posts
those "fuel efficient" cars still have a laughable mileage compared to European cars. Why not buy a modern diesel car? They can get 45 mpg, and with Ultra low sulfur diesel, the exhaust problems are much smaller than they used to be, they have 97% less ppm than regular low sulfur diesel.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
53,131 Posts
What about all the people in this country who DO NOT OWN A CAR! What about the people who have been taking public transportation all their life OR people who sell their car for whatever reason and now just use public transport?
Public transport is already subsidized every time you use it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Cash for clunkers is the best program that has come out of the current stimulus plan. It is direct investment in the industry. It brings old cars off of the road, replaces them with newer, less-polluting cars, and in the process it stimulates the business of the struggling car companies. All of this comes at a relatively low price for the government. It's the kind of program that the stimulus package should be focusing more on providing for the people. It helps people, it helps business, it helps the environment - 3 birds with 1 stone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
An op/ed that I read a few weeks back that I thought made some good points.
The problem with this article is that it assumes it's for environmental reasons. It's not. The whole point is to stimulate the economy, and there have been reports that have proven that it is helping to stimulate the business of the major car manufacturers, which is the entire point. It is a STIMULUS package after all, not an environmental package. And in the process it also happens to help out the environment some.

Sure, the mpg improvement of some of these deals is very limited, but any progress is good progress. I'm not even covering the fact that new cars are safer, and also less expensive to maintain.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
18,168 Posts
Cash for clunkers is the best program that has come out of the current stimulus plan. It is direct investment in the industry. It brings old cars off of the road, replaces them with newer, less-polluting cars, and in the process it stimulates the business of the struggling car companies. All of this comes at a relatively low price for the government. It's the kind of program that the stimulus package should be focusing more on providing for the people. It helps people, it helps business, it helps the environment - 3 birds with 1 stone.
Except that the government ran out of money, the government has not been keeping up with dealers' requests to be compensated and dealers are hesitant to extend the deal to consumers, prices for used cars will go up since the clunker cars have to be scrapped by law, engine parts from clunkers cannot be sold so fixing older cars that people cannot afford to replace will be more expensive, the carbon footprint of making a car to replace a clunker will usually take 5 to 10 years to offset, no stimulus is really happening since this is a transfer of money instead of wealth creation, and this program is creating an auto bubble that will result in a decrease in the purchases of cars for the next 1-3 years. Other than that, though... :|
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,153 Posts
This program is stupid, it made people turn in what were sometimes perfectly good cars that were destroyed. You have taxpayer money going to boost car sales so the companies that already got bailout money will get more money and car sales will pick up artificially. The money ran out and car sales will be lower again, I swear our government is so stupid there is no hope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
Except that the government ran out of money, the government has not been keeping up with dealers' requests to be compensated and dealers are hesitant to extend the deal to consumers, prices for used cars will go up since the clunker cars have to be scrapped by law, engine parts from clunkers cannot be sold so fixing older cars that people cannot afford to replace will be more expensive, the carbon footprint of making a car to replace a clunker will usually take 5 to 10 years to offset, no stimulus is really happening since this is a transfer of money instead of wealth creation, and this program is creating an auto bubble that will result in a decrease in the purchases of cars for the next 1-3 years. Other than that, though... :|
On the other hand, investing in a newer car also has its benefits. It means that consumers will spend less money on replacing and maintaining their cars, at least temporarily, and reduce the burden aging cars puts on people. It gets more people into newer cars. It will also mean that these people pay less on gas. Right now, reducing the burden on the consumer is the best program. And they're also safer, and you could argue that this program could even indirectly save lives (no I would never go "cash for clunkers saves lives, it's a good program!" but it's a fact that new cars are safer). And sure it may create a "car bubble" but the fact is is that there never would've been car sales to create this bubble in the first place without this program. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

I don't really support it because of the environmental benefits, I support it because of the benefits it gives to consumers. It reduces the costs that aging cars with low gas mileage put on the consumer. The environmental impact is a relatively minor benefit - I wouldn't really consider myself too much of an environmentalist.

Maybe the program isn't a game-changer, but any amount of progress is good progress. Unfortunately doubters will declare it a failure because it's the kind of program whose full benefits cannot be directly measured and whose drawbacks are more readily apparent. The negatives are always easier to focus on than the positives.

The only thing I disagree with is that I think the cars should be allowed to be sold, but this isn't enough of a drawback to make me withdraw my support.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
554 Posts
This program is stupid, it made people turn in what were sometimes perfectly good cars that were destroyed. You have taxpayer money going to boost car sales so the companies that already got bailout money will get more money and car sales will pick up artificially. The money ran out and car sales will be lower again, I swear our government is so stupid there is no hope.
But those car sales never would've happened without the cash-for-clunkers program. What's better - a temporary spike, or continuously poor sales? With or without the program, the car sales would've picked up at about the same time, but while we're waiting for car sales to increase, there was a temporary spike that resulted in more sales than there would've been otherwise.

So far the government has only invested $3 billion in this program, which is a relatively meager amount especially considering there have been bailout programs that have cost much more money with far less benefit. I'm sure 90% of the people who take advantage of this program will save money in the long-run and be glad that they made the purchase. In the current recession, helping the consumers cut down on expenses is the most effective way to ease the burden it puts on people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
it could be a big boost for the economy maybe that could help
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
262 Posts
Here's my issue with the prgramme:
Over the years I've lived in LA I've had a Ford Festiva, Subaru Justy, Chevy Aveo, and Ford Focus. All are very small cars by American standards and all get at least 34mpg on the open road. The reason why I bought them is because they're good city cars and because of the fuel economy (to help my pocketbook and the environment).

Many Los Angelenos (and Americans in general) bought SUV's and trucks as status symbols early this decade. Fuel was cheap and they would never use the truck for its intended purpose. The closest they would ever go to go off-roading would be a trip to Blockbuster to rent "Jurassic Park". Their reasons to buy was because of looks, a false sense of security, and that fuel will always be cheap.

Last year fuel prices spiked to unheard prices and these same people were stuck with their gas-guzzlers. They made a poor decision and had little foresight of what could happen. They realised they really didn't need such a big vehicle, but couldn't couldn't sell them,

Now the government has offered them a way out and is "rewarding" them for their poor decision. People like myself, who have always had fuel efficient cars and made sensible choices get nada. For years I've had to put up with Hummers and other large SUV's threaten to run me over on the roads and watch them waste their fuel. Now they get paid by the government by my tax dollars!? It's infuriating and unfair.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
18,168 Posts
On the other hand, investing in a newer car also has its benefits. It means that consumers will spend less money on replacing and maintaining their cars,
Less money spent on repairing cars means less money going to mechanics. They need to make a living, just like car dealers do.

It will also mean that these people pay less on gas.
Actually, we all pay the same amount at the pump, but this is about wording rather than the program. What you meant to say is that these people will buy less gas.

Right now, reducing the burden on the consumer is the best program. And they're also safer, and you could argue that this program could even indirectly save lives (no I would never go "cash for clunkers saves lives, it's a good program!" but it's a fact that new cars are safer).
I agree with reducing the burden on the consumer. But at the expense of others? Reports and articles are now coming out that the government is so slow getting money to dealers (about 2% of clunker money, based on some states), that dealers have cancelled the program. That's the government for you: even when they do something right (assuming one thinks that this is right), they do it wrong. The Wall Street Journal reports that dealers take about a $1,000 hit on each car from their own pocketbooks until they get reimbursed by the government. Smaller dealerships that don't have the large amount of capital or any rainy day money are under threat of going out of business because they don't have the money to continue operating with all of the losses that they took on and haven't been reimbursed for. Is that the kind of stimulus we need?

And sure it may create a "car bubble" but the fact is is that there never would've been car sales to create this bubble in the first place without this program. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Huh? Are you saying that the bubble was created by the bubble or something? Yes, the bubble wouldn't have existed if this program wasn't created; those cars would've been replaced when their "lives" ran out, and the sales would've been spread out over several years. Since they've all been replaced now, that means that several years' worth of sales have been completed, and future sales will be slow. Look for dealers to be hurting in the future and possibly laying of a bunch of people to stay afloat. Also, bear in mind that since this is a transaction of cash from consumers to dealers for a car, there is no stimulus; it's just a transfer of money. A real stimulus would be something that saves money for everyone, like the introduction of a new technology (such as computers making it easier to analyze a project over doing it on paper and thus opening up more time for other jobs).

I don't really support it because of the environmental benefits, I support it because of the benefits it gives to consumers. It reduces the costs that aging cars with low gas mileage put on the consumer. The environmental impact is a relatively minor benefit - I wouldn't really consider myself too much of an environmentalist.
I don't care for the environmental benefits either, but some do, and the trade-ups are really marginal: most of the trades are for similar models, like old conversion vans for new conversion vans, and old sedans for new sedans. There are very few examples of people trading in SUVs or conversion vans for hyrid small sedans. Those delas are the ones with the noticeable environmental benefit. The others really don't do too much (and we haven't factored in the environmental impact of producing the cars yet). Some people, not you, are promoting the environmental benefits, when they really aren't that big.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top