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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
There are also people excluded because they drive clunkers that actually were being driven daily but don't have any money to buy a replacement especially a new replacement. They work low-paying jobs now and are barely getting by; they are not financing fodder for the car salesmen.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This latter group just loves it some CFC government cheese!
More CFC cheese, please!
Now I'm completely confused.... who are you responding to - "mikemartin" or "ponderpoint"?
I work at a large Fortune 500 company with most of my co-workers making over 100k. Most of my neighbors are somewhat affluent and older and live rural (not a lot of them). I come from an extended family with all children grown and in or completing college.
NONE of the people I have come in contact with have have taken advantage of "cash for clunkers" and I have not come across one person yet that has used the program. I will keep checking in my little part of the world.
A friend who is a confirmed bachelor/airline pilot thought about it briefly and then concluded it was just a waste of time and money given the status of his present vehicle. The only other person is a family member that loves the Prius and traded in a late model Prius for a brand new one (they like the new set-up with the selector paddle on center console), "cash for clunkers" was obviously not involved.
I will be talking to a friend who is an analyst shortly and get their take on it - that will probably be my last post on this subject - this is getting facetious.
I generally pay cash and have never had a dealer ask me my income. If they did I would let them know in no uncertain terms that it is none of their business.
Very few people pay cash with a cashier check, because the exact out-the-door price is often not known until at the very end of the transaction .
Very good point. I have walked out of dealerships when they ask for my Social Security number. I don't give that out to just any car salesman. When you pay cash, they get a check and you get a car. Your income is NO ONE's business except yours and the IRS.
Hardly. This isn't welfare, and a socialist would be horrified about it (is there a living socialist left in America?) :confuse:
This is BUSINESS STIMULUS. It invites financially sound people to take advantage, which (shocking!) financially sound people have probably tended to do all their lives in order to GET financially sound.
It seems rather far-fetched to suppose that the C4C participant is typically broke and living beyond his means. I suggest quite the opposite will show in the data. We'll see.
I do agree though with most people like me who are socially liberal and financially conservative, that the program has to end after the next round or two. C4C is a shot in the arm for someone with a very bad case of the flu, not a medication for the terminally ill.
Of course, you are not going to do this at a half dozen dealerships along the strip. You only do this when you are buying the car, not when you are still negotiating.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
With all the paperwork lined up, it's even easier to make 'em deliver the new car to your house, wire the money at that point, get the keys, and skip the F&I hour long mop and glow wait entirely.
btw, the credit agencies won't ding you anymore if you have multiple pulls during a short time period at multiple dealers.
Well, sometimes your needs just change. For instance, bigger cars tend to be better suited to long highway cruising than buzzy little economy cars. So, let's suppose you bought a Crown Vic years ago because you had to do a lot of highway driving, and the 25 mpg or so you could eke out of a Crown Vic was worth it for the added comfort over the 37-38 mpg you might have gotten out of a Corolla in the same circumstances.
But, suddenly, your needs change. You don't do a lot of highway driving anymore, and now it's mostly short-trip, local stuff, and the advantages of the Crown Vic aren't so obvious anymore.
There are tons of scenarios like this. For example, say you needed the towing capacity of a big vehicle, or needed the extra seating capacity of a van, or needed a big vehicle for work, but now, suddenly you don't.
That is good to know. I just do not give anyone the opportunity that does not need to know. The lady at Wells Fargo said if you get more than one for the same loan in less than 30 days it does not ding you. I started the HARP refi on the phone and then went into the local branch, when I got transferred to someone that I could not understand a word she was saying. I really don't like transacting important business online or over the phone. I am big on eye contact and body language.
But Chunglau's comment kills my usual blast for fax kind of negotiating - with everyone going gangbusters, the fax or email would get lost in the piles of paper on every flat surface. The CARS FAQ even says that "Consumers should expect to conduct their deals at their dealership of choice, not on the Internet."
And they also have a few people who have ran off a lot of the "great" menbers or bored them to the point they lost interest and left.
As a newcomer to these forums I guess you can't appreciate this.
I have very mixed feelings about the C4C program and I can argue both viewpoints.
Personally I think the 3500-4500 dollar amounts are way too high and I can't understand how they came up with those amounts. They could have accomplished the same results with a lot less money.
What I have noticed is a feeling from a lot of C4C people that they don't really appreciate this program. Some act like it's an entitlement.
I guess I'll go outside and have a smoke....Oh wait! I don't smoke!
I book marked this post for use later if you ever, ever have a questions in Real World Trade in values or any other place where salespersons take their own personal time to answer questions about cars and the car business.
Keep that in mind if you are ignored entirely.
Just watched a video of Congress man Russ Carnahan getting the 3rd degree over the C4C program. Seems a lot of folks in his district are not thrilled with the program. Sadly our representatives do not always listen to their constituents.
Carnahan held a press conference at McMahon Ford in south St. Louis city. Constituents who showed up to politely and peacefully voice their concerns were both barred from entering the lobby where Carnahan was fielding press inquiries and prevented from asking their elected official any questions.
The congressman was nearly drowned out by chants of “Can Carnahan!” He even got into a verbal scuffle with a reporter who asked the congressman a valid question, a question Carnahan avoided. He would only address the constituents as “naysayers.” It’s unfortunate that we live in an era where showing up to voice your concerns to your elected official is deemed “disruptive.”
Video link
New job. Retirement. Change of location. The list goes on. . .
If you got it thru inheritance, marriage, etc I agree- no fault of your own.
If you bought it because it made sense at the time, and not no longer does, it is though fault of your own IMO. Believe me, I've made car purchases that in retrospect weren't too smart, but since no one was holding a gun to my head, they were my own fault.
Not saying at all that people are not responsible for their own decisions.
But, for example: is it "my" fault that my house has dropped in value by about 40% in three years? No - it was the fault of people doing things which I had no control over.
But I do have to keep paying my mortgage on a house that might NEVER come back up to the value I bought it for.
My fault? No. My problem? Yes.
But I do get your point.
The dealer I bought my other new car in 2003 did ask me to sign a credit check form. I also wrote a check and they allowed me to drive the new car home.
P.S. The new cars I bought are not very expensive (e..g, not Lexus or Benz).
250,000 units is 1% of this fleet. It's not surprising in your affluent group that maybe only 1 in 100 might take advantage of the program. On this end we get all the 1%-ers arriving in one place...the auto store.
I'm not sure about that. Just from my own experience, it had to be well worth it for us to take advantage of it. Our van was probably worth around $1,900. If the clunker deal was close to the $1,900, we wouldn't have made a move at this time. That $4,500 put us in the market for a new car when would have normally bought another gently used as we've been doing since we started a family.
250,000 units is 1% of this fleet. It's not surprising in your affluent group that maybe only 1 in 100 might take advantage of the program. On this end we get all the 1%-ers arriving in one place...the auto store.
Most Americans have a negative net wealth, even those approaching retirement, and they're getting deeper in debt by the day, even though there has been a temporary savings boom of about 5% of income (which may or may not be used by crazy American consumers to reduce total debt levels at some point in the future, rather than be spent).
In fact, the U.K. and the U.S.A. have, by far, the highest levels of household debt in the world.
Not only that, but Americans' wealth has shrunk by 15 trillion dollars based on falling home and other asset values, since 2007. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/epaper/2009/07/26/sunbiz_- - debtdecline_0726.html
The government is running a 1.7 to 2.2 trillion dollar annual deficit, depending on what metrics you use.
The government has over 60 trillion dollars of unfunded, mandatory future liabilities, and that money will have to be appropriated by taxation or other means from U.S. citizens and businesses.
This is based on the sworn testimony and analysis of David M. Walker, the former Comptroller General of the United States of America.
You should see 'IOUSA,' as it's a terrific documentary, and very frightening at the same time.
So, the United States does not have "a huge amount of wealth."
The United States has a huge amount of debt, also known as negative net wealth.
Now that was a low blow. First of all, the contributing salesman members make themselves known as salesman...they don't have to do that. They could just lurk around or post incognito. I appreciate having them here to bounce things off of or to hear their point of view. Salesman are people too!
In the past we used to call the check-writer's bank if it was during business hours to verify if the funds were in the account. After hours that's not possible.
///////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I'm assuming this also means "most Americans have a negative net worth". Do you have any valid statistics that back up that claim?
This is something I have never heard before and would like to see a what basis you use to make such a claim.
Maybe they trust me because I am always in shorts, sandals and Hawaiian shirts.
I'm not trying to be difficult, just curious as I've never been asked my income when buying a car.
If there is anyone in this forum who ACTUALLY traded in your clunker, how long did it take for the government to approve?
If you are a dealer, what has been your typical turn-around on getting approvals from the DOT?
This particular discussion is more about the "big picture" of the program. There's another discussion, Cash for Clunkers--Does it Work for You? which might offer more of the information you're seeking.
If they pay with a check you have them fill out a credit app similar to as if they were financing. I've never been asked for anything when I pay by check, although some of the dealers have held the titlework for a few days.
Here's another question for you. If they want to take if for a day long test before they buy, do you require them to fill out something to show their credit worthiness first? I've never been asked to do that either.
i think this is a side benefit of the program.
Sorry if I read that wrong. It seemed to imply that people were being rescued for making bad decisions. And my response was that this was never the intent of the program, even if there could be some correlation in what you say.
There is most certainly a "bail out" but it's for the auto industry.
Staying too long in Ch 11 would have been fatal for GM and Chrysler. Notice how fast they worked to get out of that stigmatizing label?
The last auto company to survive Ch. 11 was Studebaker in 1934.
Although I didn't state it, I was speaking more to housing bailouts and personal responsibility. The people who bought houses they couldn't afford and those that used the house as bank account to draw out equity when appraisals were increasing over the last few years.
C4C may or may not prove "wise" but I don't see it in any way as corrupt behavior.
I was leaning to your side anyway in not wanting to bail *most* mortgage holders. I finally decided that it should have been conducted on a case by case basis and that the foolish or corrupt should be held completely responsible, and the blameless given a hand.
But I'm definitely pro-C4C because I don't see a serious down side at the moment, now that I know most of the stats.
Too bad we can't trade today's federal government in; it surely qualifies as a "clunker".
Regards, DQ