In a sense it benefits everybody. I think I'd rather that autoworker be on the line assembling Chryslers and Chevies rather than becoming desperate and sticking a gun in my face or be slingin' rocks on the corner.
The "common good" means that thousands of your fellow American autoworkers might keep their jobs. Does this benefit to people in Ohio really help us out in a direct way? No, not at all. Will the government intervene to save YOUR job? Maybe, maybe not. It's not "fair". It might offend our "values".
On a related note, I drove past the Cobalt/G5 plant in Lordstown Ohio this weekend, going to Cedar Point. On Saturday, when we were going out, the parking lot was just about empty. Yesterday, on the way home when we passed it again, there were only a handful of cars in the lot. I imagine once upon a time, that parking lot would have been jam packed with employee cars.
Oh yeah, there was also a big sign on the side of the building that said "The Cruze is Coming!"
I think most Americans in fact lie between the extremes of growing grass on your roof and building nuclear power plants next to kindergartens, don't you?.
Well look at it this way...if your kids start glowing in the dark, they'll be easier to spot in a crowd, and you'll save money on nite-lites! :P
And while it may be okay to grow grass on your roof in Cali, I think that's still illegal in the other 49 states and DC...even if it's for medicinal purposes!
In a sense it benefits everybody. I think I'd rather that autoworker be on the line assembling Chryslers and Chevies rather than becoming desperate and sticking a gun in my face or be slingin' rocks on the corner.
In 3 lines, you just described exactly what this bill is about. I don't like the bill but the reality is the government has to do everything in their power to help keep jobs.
Yes; similarly aren't oil and uranium ore natural products of our good ole green Earth? Mankind only digs up and uses what nature has provided. :P
As far as "we need to support the auto industry because the laid-off workers will otherwise turn to crime" theory - why didn't this happen when the defense industry collapsed in 1990, or the steel industry collapsed in the 70's? It seems to me these workers went on to other jobs and careers, though they may not have provided the same pay.
From the few people I see here posting that they have a clunker to get rid of, I see that the German and Japanese companies will be seeing a lift in sales.
Mankind only digs up and uses what nature has provided.
Would you like some fresh ground arsenic on that green salad sir?
All Georgia has to do is harness the power of kudzu and we'll be set with biofuel forever.
On Thursday, Congress sent the $1-billion measure to President Barack Obama for his signature. Not sure what the holdup is on signing it is. Waiting for the perfect photo op (perhaps in front of bankruptcy court)?
Problems? Not many to see unless the public refuses to educate it self. Delays? Probably in the beginning as the rules become known. We started yesterday, literally, in anticipation of the plan taking effect a week from tomorrow. Fraud? Be real. The plan is limited to 250,000 vehicles at first, probably 1 million in toto after a year. Some may try to cheat and create false documents...but...what will the result be? The result will be that a true clunker will be taken off the road and replaced by a more efficient vehicle.
If ... as gagrice worries ... this plan has no chance of reaching its volume goals, well then maybe the Feds will encourage people to commit fraud by bringing in clunkers that they've owned for 45 minutes or so.....yuk, yuk.
Hows that for irony. Here I am stuffed in a sandwich between the hate-filled one to whom I responded that wants all the low-life losers kept in line and not be allowed to join this program because they don't deserve squat.
And my responder who wants the less fortunate to get a bigger break and the more fortunate to take a seat in the back of the bus.
I think that I'll just step out of the way and let you two have at it.... :shades: yuk, yuk.
Hey wait a second... I've got an idea. Why don't we make it so that we all qualify if we own a low mileage vehicle that we want to trade in. Then anyone who wants to trade it can do so. Hey then everyone can trade his or her clunker at our store and no judgements will be made :shades: . Cool.
I have a questions about how this bill is targeting a particular situation. Say i have a car with 18 mpg or less that qualifies for CFC. If i want to replace it with a minivan, does that put me under the passenger car group restrictions (at least 4mpg better for $3500; at least 10mpg better for $4500) or it puts me under light truck / minivan group restrictions? Any ideas on this one? Unfortunately, there isn't any minivan available that gives 22mpg or higher combined EPA.
Buyers are being turned down left and right with all kinds of impeccable credentials ( couples with double 750 FICO scores and family incomes of over $200,000...
One wonders why, with that level of income, they would need to get a loan to buy a car.
I believe your question is answered at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/cash4clunkers.shtml. The first column on the table says new vehicle type. In your case, since you are considering buying a new minivan, that would be "Category 1 Truck."
So a van that gets 2 mpg better than your old clunker would be eligible for a $3500 voucher. If the improvement is 4 mpg or more, the voucher would be worth $4500.
Looking at that table, it appears to be that only the new vehicle type matters for "normal" vehicles (cars and cat. 1 trucks). From reading someone's post here, I'd gotten the impression before that it was the opposite, that I could trade my minivan on a car that got 5 mpg more and collect $4500.
Jeffyscott, from the table it appears that in order to get the full $4500 you'd have to swap your minivan for a car that gets 10 mpg better. So if the van in question is, say, an 18 mpg Chevy Astro, you'd have to go for something on the order of a Focus/Civic/Cobalt/Corolla to get the full $$. On the other hand, trading my 13 mpg Ram pickup for a 23 mpg Sonata/Altima/Fusion/Malibu would get me the full $4500.
Right, that is what I am seeing there now too. Since the kid I was thinking to let use this gambit is not currently interested in anything that is 10 mpg above my 17 mpg minivan, I'm gonna be inclined to keep it. For $4500 it would be hard to say no to this deal as I'd probably would not get more than $2500 for it in a private sale, but for $3500..it's much less compelling.
Just as well as the kid was probably going to want to wait to see if he likes the Ford Fiesta anyway.
I think there are a lot of folks who, when they do the math, will realize that it isn't for them. Part of the logic there is the fact that $4500 doesn't get you all that close to even the cheapest new car.
For argument's sake, let's say the "cheapest acceptable new car" is a Nissan Versa 1.6, stick, with air and ABS added. That car sells for roughly $11500, plus taxes and fees. Its EPA combined fuel economy is 29 mpg.
I have a qualifying 13 mpg clunker that is truly on its last leg, plus a ten year old Civic that runs well but will need some attention soon. Right now the Civic is worth maybe $3000. So I am coming into this transaction with $7500 toward the $11500 purchase price. So I need to come up with another $4000 plus taxes. Since Georgia computes sales tax on the difference, and my local dealer charges $199 as a doc fee, let's round up and say my out-of-pocket expense will be $4400.
But wait. I'd be better off to put the $4400 toward killing other debts, right? Plus, I could then bank the money that currently goes toward the payments on those debts.
Except that the Civic would have to last me a full five years in order for me to accumulate as much money through that method as I would receive right now through the voucher program. It might--but how comfortable am I with the assumption? For me the timing does matter.
I think a lot of people are assuming that the answer will be a lot more obvious than it really is. I probably will take advantage of the program, for what appear to me to be sound economic reasons--but for a lot of people it's as much a matter of psychology as economics.
They each made over $100,000 and they drove a 5 Series and a Hummer. They wanted a loan to buy a $16000 Corolla for their daughter. The couple had never missed one payment. What was the catch?
Every shred of credit they had was maxxed out to the limit. No bank, period, would touch them.
Another woman wanted to trade her 2 y.o. car ( with negative equity ) on a new SUV. FICO was well over 750 if not over 800. Up until last fall she was always approved simply on her FICO score. She too never missed even one payment. What was the catch?
She made $3500 per month gross. Her bills with the new SUV loan would be $5500 per month!!!!!! No bank, period, would touch her.
I can't understand the program. It reads like you can only trade a truck for a truck and a car for a car. Elsewhere I saw that up to 6000 lbs, a truck is a car. Also, does the voucher value represent a trsade-in value and therefore the voucher amt is subtracted off the new vehicle price before sales tax is calculated? 7% of 4500 is $315. If the clunker was really worth $500, the sales tax reduction would actually add $280 to the voucher value if tax was affected.
My Sonoma is rated at 17 mpg. Wonder if a Colorado can be configured to be rated at 21 mpg combined?
If I went to a car, would it need 27 combinedto qualify for $4500? Some 2.4L mid sized get 25 combined. Does it take a 1.8L M6 with useless back seat to get 27 mpg combined?
I will pay in to soc sec far more than I ever get out. I look at is as supporting my parents and their friends. Is that moral? C4C money gets people a transportation upgrade and keeps an auto worker able to keep his kids in a decent school, possibly college. Maybe the guy who bought my '87 Astro can use C4C to get a Colorado W/T and the air bags will save his life some day.
I can't understand the program. It reads like you can only trade a truck for a truck and a car for a car. Elsewhere I saw that up to 6000 lbs, a truck is a car.
Dave, please look at the federal government's Cash for Clunkers website at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/cash4clunkers.shtml. There's a table there that shows what happens for each category of trade. It's much simpler to figure it out there. Since you are trading a 17 mpg Category 1 truck, all you have to do to get the $4500 is swap for something that gets 5 mpg better. A Colorado won't, but a Ranger can--and you are certainly NOT limited to another truck.
By the way, a 2010 Fusion S four cylinder with automatic is EPA rated at 27 mpg combined.
I think there are a lot of folks who, when they do the math, will realize that it isn't for them.
I'd say you're absolutely right about that. I have a 15 mpg clunker that I'd guess is worth $500 or so. It's street worthy, but that's about the best thing I can say about it (a rwd/open diff. truck isn't worth much in the snow...). I don't really need the truck any more, so it's very tempting to get an extra $4k for it...
But there's the catch - to get $4k, I have to spend/borrow $10k or more. I already have a daily driver (as does my wife), so there's no need to replace either of those, so any new vehicle wouldn't be driven on a regular basis. So what's left that gets 25 mpg or better that would make a good third car? Not much, if you ask me. Maybe a case could be made for a Mini or GTI, but even those strike me as better suited as fun daily drivers than fun third cars.
Bottom line is that the extra money for the clunker requires that I spend too much for a car I don't need or want. That makes it worthless to me. It's too bad, it's certainly tempting at first glance.
"Some purported "Cash for Clunkers" Web sites are asking consumers to provide personal information, including names, addresses and social security numbers, so they can "register" for the program, said Patricia Swift-Oladeinde, a spokeswoman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the government agency assigned to administer the program."
Forboystoo, don't know, but my guess is that the states will tax you on the full purchase price that's on the contract and they'll treat the CARS voucher money just like any other rebate or incentive you may get when you buy a new car. Anyone?
I look at is as supporting my parents and their friends. Is that moral?
At the risk of digressing from the thread topic, that is exactly what you are doing with SS payments. The money you pay is not going into an account earning interest that will then be paid out to you when you become eligible. It goes from your wallet to your parents/grandparents pocket. There is no govt held account with the name "dave8697" on it and your money in it. At best there's just an IOU. It's the ultimate govt sponsored Ponzi scheme.
I'm going to guess that sales tax will be charged depending on local policies, so there is probably no across-the-board rule here. I would hope that local policies would treat the voucher as they would a trade-in (that is, some states only charge sales tax on the difference between a new car and a trade in, not the full cost of the new car), but I wouldn't count on it.
If you were asking about income tax, the voucher value is supposed to be exempt.
Dave, please look at the federal government's Cash for Clunkers website at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/cash4clunkers.shtml. There's a table there that shows what happens for each category of trade. It's much simpler to figure it out there. Since you are trading a 17 mpg Category 1 truck, all you have to do to get the $4500 is swap for something that gets 5 mpg better.
To be clear it is not the trade that determines how much the increase needs to be, it is the new vehicle. The first column there is "new vehicle type", reading across it says to me that if the new vehicle is a car, then the mpg increase needs to be 10 mpg to get $4500, regardless of what the trade in vehicle is. So, my interpretation is if he trades for a car it has to be +10 mpg, but if he trades for a "truck" it has to be only +5 mpg to get $4500.
BTW, if you go to http://cars.gov/ there is a link to the text of the actual law, my reading of that results in the same conclusion...that it is the new vehicle that controls the rebate category, not the trade vehicle. The trade vehicle does have to be <18 mpg, of course.
Another question is what is a "truck", it appears that vehicles like the PT cruiser and Chevy HHR are listed as "SUV" on the fueleconomy.gov website, does this make them "trucks" for purposes of the cash for clunkers (or CARS) program?
Given that this seems to promote truck purchases over cars, perhaps they should have worked out a different acronym...how about TRUCS for "TRade Ur Crap Soon"...or maybe SUV for "Scrap Usable Vehicles"?
I'm not sure it promotes truck purchases over cars, actually. But clearly it does provide an incentive to scrap older trucks in favor of something--anything--that will either pollute less, or use less fuel, or both.
She made $3500 per month gross. Her bills with the new SUV loan would be $5500 per month!!!!!! No bank, period, would touch her.
I'm thankful that at least the banks are finally waking up and looking at the big picture, rather than just approving people on FICO scores and income alone.
Also, $200K annually might sound like a lot of money on the surface, but usually as income rises, people adjust their lifestyles and spending habits to match. Plus, I'd imagine that if you go where the $200K jobs are, you're going to pay through the nose for real estate, taxes, etc, unless you want a really long commute.
So in theory, I could be making $200K here, in the DC area, but actually live a better lifestyle if I was making $50K and living in Holly Brook Va (that just popped into my mind because my family has some land down there)
Now, if a $200K salary suddenly fell into my lap and I didn't change my lifestyle, I'd have it made! I'd still probably finance a car though, if the rate was low enough.
If you read the reply it was a $16K Corolla that they wanted to finance. Sorry, I don't care where you live, if you have had a $200K income for a few years and have not managed to save even a lousy $16K (and not only that, have every source of credit charged up to the maximum, as was also indicated), it is pathetic financial mismanagement. I know it is the american way to live beyond your means, no matter how great those means are...but the fact that is is common, does not make it any less foolish.
Shoot, at $200K, I'd live exactly like I do now and have absolutely NO DEBT. I would just keep my income a secret from my girlfriend! "Oh, I want a new CTS-V!!! It's important to me!"
Sad. First of all, why are they buying the little princess a new car anyway? Can't she do what I did and get a job and buy her own car? I was so proud of that $650 Buick Special Deluxe because I earned it!
I was so proud of that $650 Buick Special Deluxe because I earned it!
Same here. Mine was a 1947 Pontiac convertible for $60. Made the money mowing lawns and working after school at two different wrecking yards. That also made it easier to keep it running. I never had a top the whole time I owned it. I also paid my mom and dad room and board from the time I was 13 years old.
I'd not criticize their choice to buy a new car for her, if they had actually had the money. We are not in that income category, but live as though we had about 1/2 or maybe 2/3 of the income we do have, so had we wanted to we could have bought new cars for the kids. We didn't, but I did sometimes think that for greater safety, perhaps we should have...so I think there can be valid reasons for doing that.
OTOH, one reason we did not do this is we did not like the message it would send them. Though we did supply a $2000-3000 vehicle at HS graduation to each of them...partly this was because one kid went far away to college and the vehicle allowed her to visit her nearby grandma and the other two commute to a local tech school.
Yes for you and most Americans who have a perfectly good daily driver or my wife & I where none of our vehicles qualify or for those that can't or shouldn't qualify for a new loan then this program is not for us. It's limited in scope to a very select group, namely.. ..those that have a qualifying 'clunker' ..those that want to give up that 'clunker' ..those that want a new vehicle, as opposed to a used vehicle ..those that want a new more fuel efficient vehicle, as opposed to a less efficient vehicle ..those that can pay cash or qualify for a loan
I believe that you're correct steve. States don't like to give up sales tax on the rebates so the rebates are required to be shown 'below the line' after all taxes are computed. Your State May Vary ( YSMV )
I was thinking that a lot of potential customers might be businesses with small fleets, like the company that runs a van-based shuttle from here to the Atlanta airport (70 miles each way). Then I remembered that the law does not allow multiple vouchers. So much for that idea.
the question in some cases is...is it a rebate or a trade in value?
In my state rebate would be subject to sales tax, but the trade is not...you pay sales tax on the purchase price after subtracting the trade-in value but before accounting for any mfr rebates.
CA you pay full sales tax on the selling price before trade-in. Some towns as much as 10% and at least 8.75%. I would not be surprised if the state of CA does not count the clunker cash as income and tax you on it. At least the Feds will let you write off the sales tax through the end of 2009.
So a $3500 voucher is worth same as $3271 trade in. My 7% Sales tax state doesn't tax trade in value. The dealer gets to resell the $3271 trade in for possibly $6500, making $3200 for themselves. As a voucher car, the dealer makes $30.
Won't dealers add several hundred to trade in values to get the resellable car when it's close?
The $3271 trade can be used to buy a 4 yr old $35k SUV that some dealer is asking $10k for. Voucher is for new only.
The dealer gets to resell the $3271 trade in for possibly $6500,
Dave, I think you've missed something. As part of the C4C deal, the trade-in must be treated as salvage. The engine and transmission must be destroyed, and the remainder can be parted out by a "recycler."
Comments
On a related note, I drove past the Cobalt/G5 plant in Lordstown Ohio this weekend, going to Cedar Point. On Saturday, when we were going out, the parking lot was just about empty. Yesterday, on the way home when we passed it again, there were only a handful of cars in the lot. I imagine once upon a time, that parking lot would have been jam packed with employee cars.
Oh yeah, there was also a big sign on the side of the building that said "The Cruze is Coming!"
Well look at it this way...if your kids start glowing in the dark, they'll be easier to spot in a crowd, and you'll save money on nite-lites! :P
And while it may be okay to grow grass on your roof in Cali, I think that's still illegal in the other 49 states and DC...even if it's for medicinal purposes!
In 3 lines, you just described exactly what this bill is about. I don't like the bill but the reality is the government has to do everything in their power to help keep jobs.
Yes; similarly aren't oil and uranium ore natural products of our good ole green Earth? Mankind only digs up and uses what nature has provided. :P
As far as "we need to support the auto industry because the laid-off workers will otherwise turn to crime" theory - why didn't this happen when the defense industry collapsed in 1990, or the steel industry collapsed in the 70's? It seems to me these workers went on to other jobs and careers, though they may not have provided the same pay.
From the few people I see here posting that they have a clunker to get rid of, I see that the German and Japanese companies will be seeing a lift in sales.
Would you like some fresh ground arsenic on that green salad sir?
All Georgia has to do is harness the power of kudzu and we'll be set with biofuel forever.
On Thursday, Congress sent the $1-billion measure to President Barack Obama for his signature. Not sure what the holdup is on signing it is. Waiting for the perfect photo op (perhaps in front of bankruptcy court)?
Government Launches Cash for Clunkers Web site; Rules Being Written (AutoObserver)
That depends on the recovery time of the economy, and whether or not it's a successful program.
I think that depends entirely on the response rate. So far we have conjecture from all sides, but exactly zero real data.
Delays? Probably in the beginning as the rules become known. We started yesterday, literally, in anticipation of the plan taking effect a week from tomorrow.
Fraud? Be real. The plan is limited to 250,000 vehicles at first, probably 1 million in toto after a year. Some may try to cheat and create false documents...but...what will the result be? The result will be that a true clunker will be taken off the road and replaced by a more efficient vehicle.
If ... as gagrice worries ... this plan has no chance of reaching its volume goals, well then maybe the Feds will encourage people to commit fraud by bringing in clunkers that they've owned for 45 minutes or so.....yuk, yuk.
And my responder who wants the less fortunate to get a bigger break and the more fortunate to take a seat in the back of the bus.
I think that I'll just step out of the way and let you two have at it.... :shades: yuk, yuk.
Hey wait a second... I've got an idea. Why don't we make it so that we all qualify if we own a low mileage vehicle that we want to trade in. Then anyone who wants to trade it can do so. Hey then everyone can trade his or her clunker at our store and no judgements will be made :shades: . Cool.
One wonders why, with that level of income, they would need to get a loan to buy a car.
I believe your question is answered at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/cash4clunkers.shtml. The first column on the table says new vehicle type. In your case, since you are considering buying a new minivan, that would be "Category 1 Truck."
So a van that gets 2 mpg better than your old clunker would be eligible for a $3500 voucher. If the improvement is 4 mpg or more, the voucher would be worth $4500.
Just as well as the kid was probably going to want to wait to see if he likes the Ford Fiesta anyway.
For argument's sake, let's say the "cheapest acceptable new car" is a Nissan Versa 1.6, stick, with air and ABS added. That car sells for roughly $11500, plus taxes and fees. Its EPA combined fuel economy is 29 mpg.
I have a qualifying 13 mpg clunker that is truly on its last leg, plus a ten year old Civic that runs well but will need some attention soon. Right now the Civic is worth maybe $3000. So I am coming into this transaction with $7500 toward the $11500 purchase price. So I need to come up with another $4000 plus taxes. Since Georgia computes sales tax on the difference, and my local dealer charges $199 as a doc fee, let's round up and say my out-of-pocket expense will be $4400.
But wait. I'd be better off to put the $4400 toward killing other debts, right? Plus, I could then bank the money that currently goes toward the payments on those debts.
Except that the Civic would have to last me a full five years in order for me to accumulate as much money through that method as I would receive right now through the voucher program. It might--but how comfortable am I with the assumption? For me the timing does matter.
I think a lot of people are assuming that the answer will be a lot more obvious than it really is. I probably will take advantage of the program, for what appear to me to be sound economic reasons--but for a lot of people it's as much a matter of psychology as economics.
Every shred of credit they had was maxxed out to the limit. No bank, period, would touch them.
Another woman wanted to trade her 2 y.o. car ( with negative equity ) on a new SUV. FICO was well over 750 if not over 800. Up until last fall she was always approved simply on her FICO score. She too never missed even one payment. What was the catch?
She made $3500 per month gross. Her bills with the new SUV loan would be $5500 per month!!!!!! No bank, period, would touch her.
Also, does the voucher value represent a trsade-in value and therefore the voucher amt is subtracted off the new vehicle price before sales tax is calculated?
7% of 4500 is $315. If the clunker was really worth $500, the sales tax reduction would actually add $280 to the voucher value if tax was affected.
My Sonoma is rated at 17 mpg. Wonder if a Colorado can be configured to be rated at 21 mpg combined?
If I went to a car, would it need 27 combinedto qualify for $4500? Some 2.4L mid sized get 25 combined. Does it take a 1.8L M6 with useless back seat to get 27 mpg combined?
Dave, please look at the federal government's Cash for Clunkers website at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/cash4clunkers.shtml. There's a table there that shows what happens for each category of trade. It's much simpler to figure it out there. Since you are trading a 17 mpg Category 1 truck, all you have to do to get the $4500 is swap for something that gets 5 mpg better. A Colorado won't, but a Ranger can--and you are certainly NOT limited to another truck.
By the way, a 2010 Fusion S four cylinder with automatic is EPA rated at 27 mpg combined.
I'd say you're absolutely right about that. I have a 15 mpg clunker that I'd guess is worth $500 or so. It's street worthy, but that's about the best thing I can say about it (a rwd/open diff. truck isn't worth much in the snow...). I don't really need the truck any more, so it's very tempting to get an extra $4k for it...
But there's the catch - to get $4k, I have to spend/borrow $10k or more. I already have a daily driver (as does my wife), so there's no need to replace either of those, so any new vehicle wouldn't be driven on a regular basis. So what's left that gets 25 mpg or better that would make a good third car? Not much, if you ask me. Maybe a case could be made for a Mini or GTI, but even those strike me as better suited as fun daily drivers than fun third cars.
Bottom line is that the extra money for the clunker requires that I spend too much for a car I don't need or want. That makes it worthless to me. It's too bad, it's certainly tempting at first glance.
No registration is required.
Beware 'Cash for Clunkers' scams (CNN)
Forboystoo, don't know, but my guess is that the states will tax you on the full purchase price that's on the contract and they'll treat the CARS voucher money just like any other rebate or incentive you may get when you buy a new car. Anyone?
At the risk of digressing from the thread topic, that is exactly what you are doing with SS payments. The money you pay is not going into an account earning interest that will then be paid out to you when you become eligible. It goes from your wallet to your parents/grandparents pocket. There is no govt held account with the name "dave8697" on it and your money in it. At best there's just an IOU. It's the ultimate govt sponsored Ponzi scheme.
If you were asking about income tax, the voucher value is supposed to be exempt.
To be clear it is not the trade that determines how much the increase needs to be, it is the new vehicle. The first column there is "new vehicle type", reading across it says to me that if the new vehicle is a car, then the mpg increase needs to be 10 mpg to get $4500, regardless of what the trade in vehicle is. So, my interpretation is if he trades for a car it has to be +10 mpg, but if he trades for a "truck" it has to be only +5 mpg to get $4500.
BTW, if you go to http://cars.gov/ there is a link to the text of the actual law, my reading of that results in the same conclusion...that it is the new vehicle that controls the rebate category, not the trade vehicle. The trade vehicle does have to be <18 mpg, of course.
Another question is what is a "truck", it appears that vehicles like the PT cruiser and Chevy HHR are listed as "SUV" on the fueleconomy.gov website, does this make them "trucks" for purposes of the cash for clunkers (or CARS) program?
I'm thankful that at least the banks are finally waking up and looking at the big picture, rather than just approving people on FICO scores and income alone.
Also, $200K annually might sound like a lot of money on the surface, but usually as income rises, people adjust their lifestyles and spending habits to match. Plus, I'd imagine that if you go where the $200K jobs are, you're going to pay through the nose for real estate, taxes, etc, unless you want a really long commute.
So in theory, I could be making $200K here, in the DC area, but actually live a better lifestyle if I was making $50K and living in Holly Brook Va (that just popped into my mind because my family has some land down there)
Now, if a $200K salary suddenly fell into my lap and I didn't change my lifestyle, I'd have it made! I'd still probably finance a car though, if the rate was low enough.
Same here, only minus the girlfriend. My wife might get ticked off about that one.
On second thought, I probably would hire a lawn service. I hate cutting grass.
Same here. Mine was a 1947 Pontiac convertible for $60. Made the money mowing lawns and working after school at two different wrecking yards. That also made it easier to keep it running. I never had a top the whole time I owned it. I also paid my mom and dad room and board from the time I was 13 years old.
OTOH, one reason we did not do this is we did not like the message it would send them. Though we did supply a $2000-3000 vehicle at HS graduation to each of them...partly this was because one kid went far away to college and the vehicle allowed her to visit her nearby grandma and the other two commute to a local tech school.
..those that have a qualifying 'clunker'
..those that want to give up that 'clunker'
..those that want a new vehicle, as opposed to a used vehicle
..those that want a new more fuel efficient vehicle, as opposed to a less efficient vehicle
..those that can pay cash or qualify for a loan
I was thinking that a lot of potential customers might be businesses with small fleets, like the company that runs a van-based shuttle from here to the Atlanta airport (70 miles each way). Then I remembered that the law does not allow multiple vouchers. So much for that idea.
In my state rebate would be subject to sales tax, but the trade is not...you pay sales tax on the purchase price after subtracting the trade-in value but before accounting for any mfr rebates.
Won't dealers add several hundred to trade in values to get the resellable car when it's close?
The $3271 trade can be used to buy a 4 yr old $35k SUV that some dealer is asking $10k for. Voucher is for new only.
Dave, I think you've missed something. As part of the C4C deal, the trade-in must be treated as salvage. The engine and transmission must be destroyed, and the remainder can be parted out by a "recycler."