Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
That's right, he did. He'll just tell me to load up on Toyota though. :P
A case in point...My local Nissan dealer has gone from over 20 Altima's on the lot down to just 4. My local Honda dealer has gone from over 50 Civics down to 6.
You want to know who is going to make a lot of money?? Its the flatbead tow truckers who need to haul these clunkers 1-by-1 to the crushers. With the engines disabled, they can't load them all up in a car carrier and haul them away in bulk!!
Every one had owned the traded vehicle for 12-18 yrs having paid it off nearly a decade ago, had kept it insured, and was still driving that vehicle. These buyers were the opportunist buyers that are exactly the targetted demographic of this plan. It's very likely that these frugal, well organized, well-off buyers would have continued to drive their older vehicles indefinitely. Now they've committed to buying a new vehicle. These buyers are additional business to the auto industry this year....right now when they're needed.
Additional Funds For Cash for Clunkers Will Require More than a Voice Vote
Cash for clunkers is a clunker
Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a think tank that promotes libertarian views.
But if it were rationalized - individuals and businesses combined and allocated according to the amount of taxes paid - your cost would be well under $1 per year
I think the time to buy, particularly if you don't have a clunker to get rid of (which I don't, even though 2 of my cars are 17 and 22 years old), is going to be in the fall or late this year when the dealerships are really hungry again.
I believe you are correct. But the end of the calendar is always a good time to buy. I wouldn't be surprised to see a slow September and October.
So maybe the government should start a program to give:
1) everyone $500 to go buy a new couch and take the old one to the dump.
2) $250 for each new kitchen appliance - of course only Energy Star ones
3) $500 clothing allowance for new clothes, if you buy at least 1 size smaller. Encouraging decreased obesity.
4) $100 credit towards annual gym membership - again the obesity thing.
yada, yada, yada ...
The government can just keep giving money away, the economy will take off, everyone will have a job, and the Treasury will be brimming with $ from all the new taxes. If the government spends infinite money, we'll be infinitely rich, and we'll never have to work again!
Place the blame where it belongs...with me.
This bill has little to do with Obama or Congress. It was written by the poobahs in Detroit and Torrance with the full throated support of every dealership in the US. WE gave it to Congress and said...'Do this'.
Since the travel industry is hurting, I'll also take some Cash for Cruising!
///////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Yeah - you can bet your life on that.
Reminds me of the gal that worked at a Hooters in Florida. Thought she was going to get a new car by winning the best bar-maid contest. She won and the owner handed her a plastic doll! She said WTH! The owner replied, "I said the winner got a free Toy-Yoda, not Toyota!
Be careful what you wish for. I may not get around to doing a clunker deal but I have $1,500 in the hopper as a tax credit for my new heat pump when I file my taxes next April.
'Cash for Clunkers' Will Pass Senate, Reid Says (TheStreet)
"Reid's Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell, (R., Ky.) concurred, and other Republicans said they had no plans to block the effort, AP said. But their agreement depends on whether Reid would allow them to make changes to a House-passed bill to infuse the program with $2 billion."
So yes I think the program had its intended effect, taken an older vehicle off the road and generated new more efficient car sales.
I don't think the clunker mandate makes sense, since people would have generated additional fuel efficient new car sales regardless of whether they owned a gaz guzzling clunker or not.
So the argument that this program works for people with clunkers is ridiculous. ANY program that gives you 4,500 dollars for free is going to be popular with the people that benefit from it. $4,500 is 4,500 dollars, any way you slice it. It would work on people with 35 MPG Civics from the 80's and 90's as well, just as well as for people with 10 MPG Hummers .
This part of the program you have no say about because the national security apparatus wants these clunker gas-guzzlers off the road and dead. They want Ol' Betsy to be returned to life as a steel beam in a bridge or as rebar in concrete. When this group wants something then they get their way.
I know that you're pissed because you're being excluded but you'll have to complain to the CIA / NSA / Pentagon about that.
He should throw a few billion to the cause (maybe 5 billion), now that would be funny. Certainly funnier than what our gov't is doing.
I wouldn't mind a good sports car with a 5,500 voucher.
i saw this npr article...made me feel like i contributed
"Americans overall are more closely divided over the “cash for clunkers” program itself. Forty-four percent (44%) think it was a good idea, while 38% disagree."
Thanks for supporting my view on level of support for C4C! :P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ----
CONGRESS -- I see no more talk of "filibuster". That went away pretty fast. Somebody whispered in McCain's ear obviously. The only other clever way the GOP can sabotage C4C would be to insist on changes to the House version, thereby throwing it back to the House, which is set to adjourn for the summer. That might work to kill C4C without incurring voter wrath.
They could claim "well, we voted for an improved version".
LIBERTARIANS VIEW OF C4C -- Yeah you'd figure Cato would take that position, even though in most respects they are more liberal than libertarian. Just not in economics. They are Friedman freaks, and he of course was a Keynesian turned heretic.
Cato has some very good ideas. Criticism of C4C just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Check it out:
Edmunds Guide To Clunker Rules
Very Very Wrong! Most are not invited to the table, or cannot afford to attend this banquet. We are required to pay the bill, however. Your mind is wearing blinders. :confuse:
My guess is this program will be followed by a succession of clunker programs, as has been the case in Europe.
Will this allow sunshine to break through the dark cloud above your head.
The House left town yesterday, so that ploy will backfire if they try it. When the Senate pols get home, no matter how they voted, they'll get hammered.
I don't believe that for one second. Any money spent on this program could have been better spent in other areas. You can say "this money came from here, and this from here" but it's all coming from the same place.
Wrong again. The invitation is ONLY sent out to people who belong to the exclusive "Clunker" club. It's a "MEMBERS ONLY" dinner. How can you call that everyone?
///////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Starting to sound like everybody is wrong except you. :P
This program contains a tiny fraction of the U.S. Gov't will spend this year. Roughly 0.10% or one-tenth of one percent. This program is not only about the people who buy and/or sell cars. It's about the entire nation's economy.
2% of the working population of the U.S. has a job that is related to the auto industry and they have been in very bad shape over the last 10 months. This helps directly and immediately.
But you know the old saying, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".
Four thousand bucks or so given to taxpayer A to "buy something", in this case, a motor vehicle has to come from taxpayer B.... It is NO different than food stamps, it IS a welfare component, strange, but a welfare component.
The only equalizing factor is that the wealthy can utilize the program (for a change) just as the "supposedly" poor can. Even with that I highly doubt Warren Buffett will trade in his car anyway - it's late model and he likes it.
The difference between taxpayer A and B is that while A pays hardly any tax and whines about everything and gets cash for an old car, taxpayer B keeps the old car or, bought something SENSIBLE in the first place ie; NOT A GAS GUZZLING SUV! Taxpayer B continues on sensibly for a few more years without the "clunker" problem. Taxpayer B is getting screwed for being responsible and efficient in the first place while taxpayer A drove the Escalade every other night to a chain restaurant and got morbidly obese.
The one good thing is taxpayer B is getting really upset lately and wants the roads fixed instead of some whiner getting more money they're not entitled to... These protests are called "Tea Parties", try to keep up with current events.
Whoops, there's that word again.... Entitlement......
Taxes exist for the greater good not self centered materialistic gain from a given taxpayer.that can't figure out personal responsibility - I wish I could run up my credit card and then simply stop payments but I can't. In my world that is called a deadbeat. Somebody that bought a large SUV seven years ago that couldn't afford it, in my world, is called a deadbeat.
And yes, our household enjoys two late model vehicles that get over thirty mpg and do NOT qualify as clunkers. An old pick-up truck does but it is required around the place (rural) to do heavy lifting like picking up bare root fruit tree stock to grow trees to FEED PEOPLE! It gets horrible mileage but we figure it's worth the trouble......
The 14% of the population that actually pays more in taxes than they receive in benefits pay for the program (not okay).
Dealers and manufacturers, with few exceptions, roll back incentives and rebates when CFC is implemented (not okay).
Consumers pay as much, if mot more, for that new car, even with the vouchers, than they would had CFC never been implemented (not okay).
The estimated cost of each trade-in under CFC to the taxpayer is between $24,000 and $43,000, depending on the analysis (not okay).
Dealers and manufacturers essentially get the full benefit of the vouchers, rather than consumers, at the expense of the taxpayer (not okay).
Prices of used cars rise as supply shrinks (not okay).
Salvage yards and recyclers get screwed (not okay).
Working class and working poor get shafted as there are fewer used cars to choose from at higher prices (not okay).
More Americans, even if not all who traded in a car, go into deeper debt, at a time when the economy blows, and they should be building a cash cushion (not okay).
This program is a real POS all around, unless you are a dealership, work at one, or are a automobile manufacturer.
No, it just looks like I'm the only one here who is not getting something out of the deal. It's a YOU YOU world, isn't it?
If you have a $75000 Taxable income in 2009 then your tax bill will be ~ $11,000 to the IRS. If like most Americans your taxable income is well under $75000 then this discussion becomes ridiculous.
If your tax bill is $11,000 out of the $2.2 Trillion collected by the IRS then 'your' percentage of tax paid to run this country is 1 / 200,000,000. As a decimal that is 0.000000005. That means that for each $1 Billion spent 'your' part is $5... that's it.
If you want to whine and moan over $5 be my guest. Stay under your dark cloud.
I wish I had wrote that. So you get a walloping amount of money (thousands) for the clunker, but you STILL have bought something that requires painful payments EVERY month. The get-a-clue phone is ringing and people desperately need to pick up!
This is NOT a good deal for anybody! There is price and there is value, Americans need to decipher value component and this is making these times VERY scary!
If you want to whine and moan over $5 be my guest. Stay under your dark cloud.
So if you add the $700 billion for Tarp and the $787 billion for the stimulus bill and my cost in taxes is $5 per billion it would add $7435 to my already high tax bill. Again your tunnel vision of the auto industry has blinded you to the big picture. Raising taxes on the middle class is about to happen. In spite of the campaign lies. Someone has to pay for the wasteful spending in DC.
Though crushing all the clunkers for steel to start using on the infrastructure would be a step toward what Obama promised. That part of the stimulus seems to be stalled.
I was not and am not in favor of the TARP bailouts simply because I think that we were held up at gunpoint. " Give me $700 Billion or I'll kill your economy' That being said these were loans and they're being paid back ( not all, some ). When the loans are paid back and the original borrowed principal gets paid back to China then we're left with the profit of the net interest. As much as I'm against it this $700 Billion cost your and me nothing. In fact it probably turned a small profit.
Now the gift to AIG of $180 Billion is a different story. That will never be paid back fully and we'll be lucky to recover a fraction of that bailout. Now this one cost us.
The $785 stimulus bill is entirely different. Too early to tell frankly.
Oh but that is different. AIG holds the retirement accounts for all of Congress. Gotta protect them.
I think we will see little or nothing from the $787 billion. As most of it has gone to health and human services. The Feds owed many of the states billions for Medicaid. Last I read 90% of the stimulus spent has gone to those welfare programs.
Now if Obama had snagged a couple Billion from ACORN for the C4C program I would be as much of a rah rah supporter as you.
We the tax payers and more so our children will still pay for all this crazy stimulus. And it failed in the 1930s for FDR and it will not create jobs for BO either. It will give your dealership a slight reprieve from the recession. You can be thankful for that. Though the VW dealer I talked to today was super relieved I was not bringing in a clunker to trade.
O.K., Even though I don't normally respond to purely personal attacks, I'll bite, clue me in - Who is buying these cars? (and please don't start one of those "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" speeches, it's really tiring these days)
Seriously.... Snark away......
Any stats to back anything up here?
Are there any credible databases about used car supplies shrinking, or used car prices going up, or people paying more for a car with a voucher than before the vouchers? Where's all this coming from?
In any event, the people who did the deals are not at all unhappy, nor are dealers, or recyclers. Where are all these complaints being published?
Well, nothing new there, internet wise.... The internet - 95% complete rubbish, 5% actual useful information.
The only thing I know of that can be proven (shortly) is that the charities that relied on donated clunkers/vehicles really got hurt. The donations were literally snatched up by "Cash for Clunkers"
Probably one of the first indications that an agenda of socialism does not work and hurts the poor.
Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize Winner in Economics last year, thinks that the $787 Billion is 35% too small. It should have been $1.2 Trillion according to him. Because the amount is too small the recovery effects won't be strong enough to get us out of the mess.
No bad credit, upside-down, get-me-dones. Why? The trader has to have a clear title in hand. The trade has to be paid off.
A common profile of the typical trader is an well-to-do ( or at least comfortable ) couple of boomer age who purchased an SUV or pickup back when their kids were growing up and they were fixing their home. They used the SUV or pickup when gas was under $1 a gallon in the 90's. They paid it off and kept it. It's been cared for and insured and registered with everything in order as are their lives.
Most if not all have little or no debt and FICO scores above 750.
Several, as noted previously herein, have monthly incomes in excess of $30000. Their purchases are cash...no financing. These buyers suddenly appeared out of nowehere. Why? Because they sensed a good deal and had the means and organization to react swiftly.
Now you can see why your statement was entirely wrong.
Even if the government keeps reloading the crack pipe, sales may take a mighty fall, from already depressed levels, given the true economic stress enveloping the nation and globe.
More government crack please!, dealers and automakers cry out in unison.
I think it comes from unqualified clunker owners or people who bought car before C4C. I hope Congress introduce a new bill, required mandatory car safety checks when car gets older than 8-10 years.