Re Car Heaven. I am sure that if your look more closely at the Car Heaven scheme it ensures that vehicles that are donated pass through the hands of the "Professional Auto Recycling Industry" so by resulting in "Virtually Zero Carbon Recycled Parts". This is a totally different route for vehicles that would come under the "Clunker or Scrapage Plans" which would be Crushed. I have however had it on good autority today that a large Auto Recycler in The USA has just been asked if they would like to buy "Clunker Vehicles". The vehicles would be stripped of Engine, Transmission and other major components so their answer was "Thanks for the Offer but No Thanks". Also if you look closely at Europe you would discover that the schemes that operate in the countries you mention can be found on wikipedia. Click here for the wikipedia Page Mr GreenFootprint
Any thoughts or guesses on when could be this plan will be implemented? I am waiting for this so I can take advantage on my 1997 FORD TAURUS SEDAN to trade in (I am not sure if I will be eligible though?)...
Find your car there. They will be using the combined *new* figure for any and all cars and trucks. It needs to get *LESS THAN* 18mpg, though the details are likely to change before it's voted upon and it may include 18mpg.
Since many many vehicles get 19-21mpg, we're all out of luck if we own cars instead of SUVs and huge trucks.
The Taurus in question is rated at 20mpg combined, so no incentive for you...
As is usual it is the enviro wacko Waxman holding up the process. He will not be happy unless you buy a Prius with the money. He would prefer you trade your clunker for a lifetime bus pass. The guy is so far from reality it is hard to imagine his being able to dress himself.
Unemployment went up from 5+ to 8+ %. Only 3% point more lost their job. Sure the economy is bad. But 92 % are still employed and most are in very secure jobs. Malls are packed last weekend I can see. Same stores sales is down 5 % from year ago. Some are up. Nothing is down 45% like the autos.
Truth is everyone is waiting for clarity from Washington. What car I can buy qualifies for that $4~5 thousand . Everyone here reading this thread is waiting. What are you doing here ?
China and Germany's export oriented economy suffered as much as ours. They enacted car incentives 4 ,5 month ago. l Their auto sale is up 20%. Ours is down 45%. There's no excuse we don't have a bill.
It was a big mistake to blast to the media the idea of a clunker plan. They have probably hurt auto sales more than they know. Of course This and the last Congress are the WORST in American History, so no surprise.
I was at Costco yesterday and the parking lot was full when the store opened. Not everyone is out of work. As you point out about 92% are still working. We know from past experience when Unemployment gets down into the 4% range there are lots of job openings. What that tells me is only about 5% of the unemployed are really wanting a job. In many states there are 5% to 10% that are perfectly satisfied living on Welfare. Even though they may be halfheartedly looking for a job to satisfy the welfare people.
It's extremely difficult to live on welfare. You wouldn't want to try it. I doubt there's a job in the world that pays less than welfare. Maybe collecting old cans.
The Clunker Plan is only going to work IMO with a very scaled down American auto industry. The two have to coincide I think for us to see tangible results.
I believe it's the bankruptcy process that's scaring buyers, not so much that they are waiting and waiting for the Clunker plan. In other words, I don't think that JUST a Clunker Plan will push a buyer past his/her concern over Ch. 11 restructure, or possibly even Ch. 7 liquidation, of the company who made his new car.
The federally measured unemployment rate measures only those who are receiving unemployment compensation. IIRC in order to do so, you have to provide evidence that you are actively seeking employment.
I think the government is definitely not serious about helping the environment out, but only wants to clear trucks out of dealer lots, for example, I haven't read anything about being able to trade in a truck for a car, and the MPG requirements for trucks are a total waste. They should stop wasting everyone's time and just call it like it is. Anyway they do it I still think this is a bill that is needed.
I agree 100%. These clunker plans have nothing to do with environment. It's a business stimulus--so next time anyone cries "socialism" you can ask the car companies to please lobby aggressively against any car buying incentives. :P
They would be much better off just treating this as a stimulus plan. The mixed bag is killing the plan.
If you pulled out the clunker portion and just had vouchers for the new cars you could still allow a trade-in in addition to the rebate. In my case if i were doing anything it would be with my 2000 Accord. The car still has value - enough that an either/or deal rebate or trade in wouldn't be worth my while. both is another story.
Maybe I still have to buy somebody's 20 year old Econoline for $400 and trade that in and sell the Accord privately.
It will be interesting to see what the final bill looks like. I hadn't been in the market and may still not be but if they are going to seriously make it worth my while I could be persuaded.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
stove1: I really could care less what the governments of China and Germany instituted for their automotive industry. Move to China or Germany if you like what their government is doing. I don't think this Clunker bill will help our US car manufacturers and will likely help Toyota, Honda and Nissan the most. I don't think it is a good idea for Congress to coerce people to take on more debt. If someone can afford to buy a car and needed a car, there has been plenty of opportunities over the past year to buy a car with all the great deals and rebates that have been out there. And there still are tremendous deals.
We lost another half million jobs in April. That puts us at 5.7 million lost in the past year and half. Our banking system came within a hair of completely collapsing due to over leveraging. Foreclosures went up again in April. Unemployment is at a 20 year high and will probably reach 10% by fall. Oil and gas prices are rising again for no explicable reason. Banks are not lending money like they did 2 years ago. The stock market is dropped 40% and many people lost half of their wealth. But you are convinced that Congress is holding the key so they can go and buy that car they so desperately need. Mind you, Chrysler is offering $6000 off their vehicles and no one is lining up to buy their vehicles.
One question for you: When did it because shameful to buy a used car? If you need a car so bad, tons of good late model used cars out there.
They would be much better off just treating this as a stimulus plan. The mixed bag is killing the plan.
You are probably right. But don't forget the environmentalist had a heavy hand in the first edition of this bill. Now everyone is trying to put something in it for their constituents which means we get a watered down, complex bill that few will qualify for.
I'm in the market but mostly like for a used car not unless I can get a sweet deal on the Sonata.
You're smart to be shopping like you are. lightly used cars are and always have been the best deals to be had. A Sonata is a good choice as well as long as you plan to keep it long term. They depreciate like crazy. I suspect that will lessen as folks realize they have closed the gap and are now pretty much on a par with Camry and Accord. They drive much more like the former.
What you really need would be two separate bills if you want to accomplish both objectives. The newer version of any vehicle will get better mileage and have better emissions than the older one. Eventually the natural replacement of the fleet will take care of this.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I have a 2000 Intrigue with 176k miles. Highest mileage car i have ever had. Still runs good but the body is starting to show signs of aging. Plus there are things I tolerate that another person would be appalled like the driver seat has lost the support on the cushion. The next major issue (not maintenance items) and it is off to the dealership.
Our focus over the next year is to clean up our debt. I make way too much money to rely on banks and credit card companies. i want to be done with them by this time next year (not including the mortgage). My present will be a family trip to Disney World using nothing but cash.
I like that present idea. Thinking of that one myself.
That Intrigue was a really nice looking car. My killer with Oldsmobile was at the time GM pulled the plug they were making the nicest cars they'd ever made. They still look contemporary.
Debt cleanup is always a good idea. I get so far and start to slide. We do OK but I can see how we we could do much better.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
I don't know how much you lost in this financial 'crisis' but a lot of us are doing quite well. My portfolio has recovered everything I lost last year in the last two month. The economy is turning up again. Stores are packed with shoppers. Went to Sears hardware store , Home Depot , Academy stores today. They all have hiring sign on the door. Restaurants are packed with diners if you read their quarterly report.
My point is Congress by holding up the clunker bill , buyers will wait to find out which cars are eligible. That is causing the 45 % decline in auto sales. Unemployment claims are way up and the auto industry has a lot to do with it.
Chrysler ? You can't price trash $6000 off expect people to pay for it. Besides I question wheather the $6000 off is genuine. Detroit is always offering big rebate. And they give like 20% discount to rentals and affiliated people (employees) . Something like 30% of their sales are made that way. Which is one reason I never buy Detroit. I don't have that employee rebate, knowing the next guy can buy it 20% cheaper than me, that just doesn't work for me.
I don't know how much you lost in this financial 'crisis' but a lot of us are doing quite well. My portfolio has recovered everything I lost last year in the last two month.
Lost about 35-40% in my 403B. Luckily I have 25 years until I retire.
I'm glad you have a rosy picture of our economy. I see people at Walmart, Home Depot, Targeet as well. I don;t see people in Betsy's Arts & Craft or Lenny's Shoes or Smith clothing store. The high unemployment has to do with the huge loss in the stock market, decline in the housing market, and unavailable credit. I'm sure there are a couple of other reasons that don't include the auto industry. Still don't get how Congress holding up this bill is causing the 45% decline in auto sales. But I am willing to learn. The bill is only designed to help move one million cars. So instead of selling 9M cars, we'll sell 10M cars. A far cry from 16M-17M.
I don't like the bill for the reasons I mentioned before. But if it works for you, go for it. I'm sure the bill will be passed soon.
"Why would the qualifications be so easy to meet for truck owners and so much more rigorous for cars? Could it have anything to do with the glut of trucks sitting on dealer lots across America? Every since gas prices shot up last summer, trucks sales have flatlined."
God, i hate to read this kind of stuff. "Welfare cheats" were always a tiny minority (made highly visible by reactionary citizens and the media), and these days the notion that there are a bunch of lazy people out there living the high life off of government cheese is an idiotic one to entertain.
The unemployment figures are WAY below the real numbers. People who lost their REAL jobs years ago have found ways to scrape by, but they're still essentially unemployed, doing odd jobs, selling things on eBay, picking up the occasional few extra off-the-books dollars, and working as greeters at Wal-Mart.
Let's say you were an accounts analyst at a fairly large media company - a newspaper, magazine, or television production facility - and you were laid off in 1994 when Congress deregulated that industry. You lost your job. Not a lot of that kind of job available anyway, and the economy was getting tougher at that time. So you file for unemployment and get a check every week for (i can't remember what they paid then or now). But it runs out in less than a year, right? And it was nowhere near what you were making, anyway. So you have to find some way to get some money into the house. Your wife gets a part-time job. You get a part-time job. You get laid off again for some stupid reason. You find another one, but your back goes out because it's manual labor and you're 47 years old, so you have to quit. But you find out you can do a couple of your friends' tax returns for a little cash. They tell their friends and you've got a little bit of dough coming in at tax season. Then your wife has to quit her job because it's causing the kid problems at school. They're acting out emotionally and they showed up late a few times because the car hasn't been running well. Grades are suffering. She takes in the neighbor's laundry and watches their kids for a little cash.
You see how it goes? There are thousands and thousands of lives out there just like this. People who aren't doing what they're good at - people whose expensive educations have becoming totally irrelevant - people who daily perform degrading, tiresome, underpaid tasks with no chance of rising higher in the pecking order - wondering why they have to start all over at the bottom after years of playing by the rules and climbing the ladder slowly. They're not on the unemployment rolls. They're ignored by all surveys and TV news stations and People magazines looking for "hot" topics. But they're out there.
And someday you might be standing right next to them, reading the want ads, wondering what happened. So think twice - or maybe even once - before making stupid remarks about all those "people who don't want jobs".
I think it is the truck glut. I just heard the local Ford dealer on the radio selling an XLT Ranger extended cab with automatic for $12k and change. That is cheap. I am thinking I will get one and sell this POC 99 Ranger.
I do feel for those that are in desperate need of a job. I am sure the case you spoke of is all too common. There are those that are not interested in working as long as they can play the welfare and unemployment game. I worked around people in Arctic villages that were not interested in high paying jobs handed to them on a platter. Here is the article I alluded to for your enjoyment. And welcome to the Forum.
A few days after David Adler's wife decided to leave her law firm in December, he was laid off from his job designing software at Brightcove.
It was shocking. And scary.
Until it wasn't. Adler has quickly learned to appreciate some aspects of his unexpected unemployment.
The 42-year-old spends his days doting on his 6-month-old daughter, visiting museums with his family, and preparing for a possible exhibit of his photos at a local coffee shop in Dedham. Living off savings, unemployment, and severance packages, Adler knows he has to get a job eventually and has started the search. But for now, he's cherishing every moment. "It's our first child and I love watching her grow," Adler said. "And it's nice to have time off and get in touch with my old hobbies."
As the ranks of the nation's unemployed grows, more Americans are facing the reality of life without work. Despite the grim task of making ends meet (firing the nanny, bailing on Whole Foods, applying for unemployment), there is a newly forming society of people who are making the best of being laid off. They are rediscovering hobbies. They are greeting kids at the school bus. They are remembering what daylight actually looks like.
And the massive layoffs by companies nationwide - nearly 600,000 jobs were lost last month - has helped remove the stigma and shame of being unemployed, according to John A. Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago outplacement firm.
"There's less of a 'why aren't you working attitude' that is giving people some extra space and freedom to explore new directions and just take time off to do the things they've wanted to do, whether it's spending more time with children, taking a class, or traveling around the world," Challenger said.
John Stephen Dwyer so far isn't missing his job or former office overlooking Chinatown. The 41-year-old Boston native was laid off in November from his $40,000-a-year job as education coordinator for the Clinical Research Graduate Program of Tufts University Sackler School of Biomedical Sciences. And he hasn't started seriously looking for new work.
GM says UAW wages with overtime, vacation pay, night shift bonuses and cost of living expenses is $39/hour. Not bad wages indeed, but it's not $100K a year. After taxes, maybe $60K. Average base pay for newbies is $28/hour.
Average welfare payment to a family of 3, including AFDC and food stamps, is $7000 a year. Yahoo, live like a king.
Er.....why exactly are these poor people including in a discussion about buying new cars? They can't even pay the rent + food bill each month unless they can do it on $583 a month.
Unemployment taxes are collected strictly for that use. They cannot be used for anything else. Most governments understand that this type of benefit is necessary to remain social stability.
When you look at the hard numbers, nobody under these umbrellas is staying all that dry.
Shifty: just FWIW, the $28/hr income you quoted for an entry-level UAW worker with no skills in Michigan is $58,240 per year. That's higher than the starting salary for a police officer in Atlanta, a city with one of the highest murder rates in the U.S. It's also higher than the salary for a public school teacher in Georgia with a master's degree and twenty years of experience.
Something, in other words, is desperately wrong. Correcting it will be painful.
And, by the way, my apologies for further hijacking an already hijacked thread.
The actual number including those who are in that sort of "in between/falling through the cracks" is now a 15.8% real unemployment. The figure is even more shocking in certain areas of the nation. California, for instance, is at nearly 20% underemployed, unemployed and those that have stopped looking and aren't counted at all.
Recession? It's going to take a generation to dig out of this one, even if Obama fixes everything. Wait - I think there's a word for that...
No it's not hijacking at all. If we can reflect on various aspects of the present situation of the auto plants and the UAW workers, we can better understand what all the rhetoric on both sides is about, and what the government is trying to do.
If you've never visited a modern auto assembly plant in Detroit, please do so. It's quite an eye-opener.
The idea that a UAW worker is somehow living high on the hog, breezing through his workday in jolly comraderie, strikes me as a bit one-sided. Yes, they make pretty good money for unskilled workers, and yes, *some* of them have worked themselves up into pretty hefty salaries, especially if they developed trade skills. But there is a substantial downside, one that a cop does not face.
Here's (link below) a pretty balanced view of pros and cons of wedding your life to the UAW, and it brings up issues quite relevant to this discussion I think: (don' worry, it is far far from a liberal tirade) :P
Shifty, the article you cited is the reason I no longer work in the apparel plant where I took my first job, at 17. But that's my point, in a way: those UAW jobs have more in common with the minimum-wage factory job I was doing then, than they do with other jobs at the income level UAW workers "earn." They require relatively little skill, yet they pay vastly better than jobs that either (a) require advanced training, or (b) involve significantly greater risk.
The 53 year old who is complaining that despite years of six-figure salaries, he'll "have to take a buyout soon?" Give me a break! I'm almost that age and still paying on my student loans, working in higher education to give his kids the skills they'll need to take advantage of those other options. And I and my colleagues do it because we believe in it, and we do it for less than $50k a year. Less than $40k, in many cases.
I make less than the eighteen year old who walks in the front door at GM with no qualifications other than showing up. Nobody's offering me a buyout. And I'll have to work till I'm eighty in order to retire as comfortably as he can right now. Enjoy your retirement and your motorhome, buddy.
And if you think I'm mad about it, try talking to the nurses, cops, and firefighters who put their lives on the line for less than the UAW worker gets. Or the inner-city middle school teachers who have to contend with overcrowded classrooms, drugs, weapons, gangs, the possibility of a homicide or suicide everytime they walk in the classroom. In Georgia they start at $33k a year, with a college degree, and they are required to use some of that to fund (a) classroom supplies that the state won't pay for, and (b) continuing professional development through additional coursework. They have much more right to complain than I do. If anyone should be making $58k a year to start, it's the nurses, cops, firefighters, and teachers, not the unskilled eighteen year olds.
yes the article is very interesting. Of course, arguing on these lines can be a slippery slope. Why does an attorney have to make $200 an hour? Despite training, expense of college, and his legal skills, isn't this still disproportionate on the other end of the scale?
What the UAW can't do is re-create a world that no longer exists IMO.
I agree with your assessment, Shifty--the days when manufacturing was the gateway to a middle-class income in the U.S. are gone, and they aren't coming back.
Speaking of a middle-class lifestyle: I assert that the most direct beneficiaries of the proposed cash-for-clunkers legislation (the customers most likely to scrap a clunker and buy a new vehicle) will be middle-class buyers who are already in the market, but have postponed a purchase because of fear. I might be one of those customers, depending on the particulars of the finished law, as I have a fifteen year old Dodge truck that is mostly gathering pollen in the front yard. I don't really need to replace it, since I have other vehicles for transportation, but I'd consider swapping it for a smaller, basic pickup which would probably be more practical and thus used more often.
For people who genuinely can't afford a new vehicle, $3500-4500 won't make a huge difference--either they still don't have the rest of the cash, or they can't get a loan because of the current banking mess.
I assert that the most direct beneficiaries of the proposed cash-for-clunkers legislation (the customers most likely to scrap a clunker and buy a new vehicle) will be middle-class buyers who are already in the market, but have postponed a purchase because of fear.
The problem though is what this will do to a lot of future classics and older cars. A good example is how here in California, anything 1975 or older doesn't need to pass smog, which is a huge expense sometimes. So to benefit from this, all you would need to do is buy a cheap old ratty v8 from that year or earlier, pay about $50 in registration and then turn it over to get crushed. Instant profit with almost zero effort.
The last I heard, there was a provision in the proposal that would have required a twelve-month ownership period to be eligible for the voucher.
As for how this will affect "future classics," I'm not sure I see your point. No one is forcing these owners to take the deal (unlike some earlier proposals). Owners of cars they think will be worth something are welcome to keep them. But there's not likely to be anything collectible about my '94 Ram, at least within my lifetime.
Parts? As I understand it, the scrapped vehicles are to be stripped of usable parts before being crushed.
There aren't going to be many "future classics" anyway, and some clapped out 1980s American car can't be economically restored anymore anyway at today's labor rates, so the point I think is mostly moot. No one is going to scrap a real muscle car from the 60s and most 80s cars are worthless. People like to call cars "classic" when they are really just old cars with a book value of $1500. Why is the book value so low? Because nobody wants them. Period. Not now not ever. If a car is only worth $1500 after 30 years of waiting for it to become "classic", it's not going to happen. Did it take until 1995 for someone to realize that a 1965 Corvette was worth money? No, of course not.
So old cars that are now valuable will be preserved because they are worth more than the incentive, and old cars worth less than the incentive will be turned in for cash.
People today are not badly informed about old cars like they were 20 years ago. They know what's worth money and what isn't.
an editorial the other day that stated that "experts agree the passage of this law will cause the values of recent-model used cars to decline". Why will it do that? Because there is more incentive to get a new car instead? If that's the reason, I hardly think it will suppress used car values much among recent-model cars.
Of course they also expect that a great many 8-10 year old trucks and SUVs, perhaps a million or so, will be "sent to the crusher". I see no down side to that. :-)
If a few autos that might some day have been "classics" fall into the crusher along with al the Explorers and F150s, then so be it. As Shifty has said, I don't think anyone with a car or truck like that will have it destroyed.
Is there any chance that something like an F150 Lightning could some day be a classic? If so, would any current owners of Lightnings have them crushed for the extra $4500 from the Feds? Probably not, right? Since such a truck is still worth a fair amount in the used market anyway.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't know about 'classic' but anything with a lot of horsepower is always going to command some interest in the used car market. That's why for instance Buick Grand Nationals are about the only 80s car that anybody puts serious money into restoring, and also why the 96 Impala SS is the only 90s American sedan that anybody wants.
It's all about HP, and by American mass production standards, some rarity.
So yeah, not very many modern used cars will fall into that category---a few, and those are already worth more than the rebates being talked about.
I think all cars before 2001 should be eligible for the rebate.Not just cars with epa less than 18mpg.Why should these folks pay for Detroit`s faults?Everyone should be treated equally.Infact they should get more incentive as they are replacing a fuel efficient car. Your thoughts folks?
The purpose of the program is to get inefficient, high-polluting vehicles off the road and replace them with more efficient vehicles. Why would the government want to take my '99 Civic off the road? There is much more benefit to society as a whole by removing my '94 Dodge Ram.
Unless, of course, you think the government should pay for both, in which case I have a crash course in budgeting for you: there isn't enough money to do that! So where will the limited amount of money do the most good?
Well,the exact details of the program are a hogwash.You can trade in a clunker that gets 18mpg and all u need to do is a buy a vehicle which gets 22mpg.Just 4mpg than the clunker. Don`t think this reduces the pollution by much!! :shades: In that case the rule should be,,whatever clunker u own,,u must buy a new one that gets atleast 4mpg than the clunker.So if my old clunker gets 25mpg,then to qualify for the rebate my new car must get atleast 29mpg. Yes,,it reduces pollution!! :P I feel the rebate must be for everyone,period,,no exceptions!! :surprise:
I feel the rebate must be for everyone,period,,no exceptions!!
All rebates and tax credits or incentives are aimed at a very narrow audience. I think Steve hit it on the head. The automakers have a glut of PU trucks and SUVs to unload the the lawmakers are just trying to help them out. I will have a hard time finding a PU that is rated 4 MPG more than my 1999 Ford Ranger. Even though my truck has never really gotten close to the EPA rating. There is probably about 150 million pre 2001 vehicles on the road. If everyone got the $4500 where would that many vehicles come from. I think they are talking a limit of one million vouchers and that is it. I don't see it helping more than a few buyers with junkers that are not worth $4500.
I think the marketplace is a better arbiter of when it's time to send vehicles to the crusher than politically motivated bureaucrats. This plan is a pay back to the UAW and other politically influential groups, such as dealers. It also plays off of the naivete of those seeking something for nothing. Unfortunately, it's add to the deficit and will have a short term stimulative effect.
That is a very good question. The plan is the recycle many of the parts from these vehicles before being crushed. Where are these wrecking yards? There were 3 in my little town growing up and I worked for two of them rebuilding transmissions. I personally think we were a lot more conservation minded in the 1950s and 60s than we are now. Little fender bender and the car is a total. 1960 a fender bender and a ball peen hammer and you were back on the road.
So now we have to establish some kind of business to recycle all the parts these clunkers will provide. When the plan ends the wrecking yards are out of business.
Another thing. If you are silly enough to trade say a 2000 Chevy 1500 in on a new 1500 Chevy. They have the same 16 MPG rating 10 years later. So much for bailing out Obama motors.
Well the taxpayers will pay for this again! Let the market work itself out & quit using taxpayers money. I am hearing the incetives will go directly to dealers not to taxpayers. I am sure that when they (dealers) figure this out there will be all kinds of fraud by the dealers to get the incentive money.
Comments
I am sure that if your look more closely at the Car Heaven scheme it ensures that vehicles that are donated pass through the hands of the "Professional Auto Recycling Industry" so by resulting in "Virtually Zero Carbon Recycled Parts".
This is a totally different route for vehicles that would come under the "Clunker or Scrapage Plans" which would be Crushed.
I have however had it on good autority today that a large Auto Recycler in The USA has just been asked if they would like to buy "Clunker Vehicles". The vehicles would be stripped of Engine, Transmission and other major components so their answer was "Thanks for the Offer but No Thanks".
Also if you look closely at Europe you would discover that the schemes that operate in the countries you mention can be found on wikipedia.
Click here for the wikipedia Page
Mr GreenFootprint
Any thoughts or guesses on when could be this plan will be implemented? I am waiting for this so I can take advantage on my 1997 FORD TAURUS SEDAN to trade in (I am not sure if I will be eligible though?)...
Thanks in advance,
Find your car there. They will be using the combined *new* figure for any and all cars and trucks. It needs to get *LESS THAN* 18mpg, though the details are likely to change before it's voted upon and it may include 18mpg.
Since many many vehicles get 19-21mpg, we're all out of luck if we own cars instead of SUVs and huge trucks.
The Taurus in question is rated at 20mpg combined, so no incentive for you...
"If the administration is serious about boosting car sales in order to jump-start the economy, it can do much better,"
Cash for Clunkers Legislation Eyed for Tuneup (AutoObserver)
Same stores sales is down 5 % from year ago. Some are up. Nothing is down 45% like the autos.
Truth is everyone is waiting for clarity from Washington. What car I can buy qualifies for that $4~5 thousand . Everyone here reading this thread is waiting. What are you doing here ?
China and Germany's export oriented economy suffered as much as ours. They enacted car incentives 4 ,5 month ago. l Their auto sale is up 20%. Ours is down 45%. There's no excuse we don't have a bill.
I was at Costco yesterday and the parking lot was full when the store opened. Not everyone is out of work. As you point out about 92% are still working. We know from past experience when Unemployment gets down into the 4% range there are lots of job openings. What that tells me is only about 5% of the unemployed are really wanting a job. In many states there are 5% to 10% that are perfectly satisfied living on Welfare. Even though they may be halfheartedly looking for a job to satisfy the welfare people.
The Clunker Plan is only going to work IMO with a very scaled down American auto industry. The two have to coincide I think for us to see tangible results.
I believe it's the bankruptcy process that's scaring buyers, not so much that they are waiting and waiting for the Clunker plan. In other words, I don't think that JUST a Clunker Plan will push a buyer past his/her concern over Ch. 11 restructure, or possibly even Ch. 7 liquidation, of the company who made his new car.
Unemployment Rate: 8.9% in Apr 2009
Why would anyone buy a car now knowing the incentive is on the way but you have to choose the right vehicle to get it. $4500 is no small potato.
If you pulled out the clunker portion and just had vouchers for the new cars you could still allow a trade-in in addition to the rebate. In my case if i were doing anything it would be with my 2000 Accord. The car still has value - enough that an either/or deal rebate or trade in wouldn't be worth my while. both is another story.
Maybe I still have to buy somebody's 20 year old Econoline for $400 and trade that in and sell the Accord privately.
It will be interesting to see what the final bill looks like. I hadn't been in the market and may still not be but if they are going to seriously make it worth my while I could be persuaded.
We lost another half million jobs in April. That puts us at 5.7 million lost in the past year and half. Our banking system came within a hair of completely collapsing due to over leveraging. Foreclosures went up again in April. Unemployment is at a 20 year high and will probably reach 10% by fall. Oil and gas prices are rising again for no explicable reason. Banks are not lending money like they did 2 years ago. The stock market is dropped 40% and many people lost half of their wealth. But you are convinced that Congress is holding the key so they can go and buy that car they so desperately need. Mind you, Chrysler is offering $6000 off their vehicles and no one is lining up to buy their vehicles.
One question for you: When did it because shameful to buy a used car? If you need a car so bad, tons of good late model used cars out there.
They would be much better off just treating this as a stimulus plan. The mixed bag is killing the plan.
You are probably right. But don't forget the environmentalist had a heavy hand in the first edition of this bill. Now everyone is trying to put something in it for their constituents which means we get a watered down, complex bill that few will qualify for.
I'm in the market but mostly like for a used car not unless I can get a sweet deal on the Sonata.
What you really need would be two separate bills if you want to accomplish both objectives. The newer version of any vehicle will get better mileage and have better emissions than the older one. Eventually the natural replacement of the fleet will take care of this.
Our focus over the next year is to clean up our debt. I make way too much money to rely on banks and credit card companies. i want to be done with them by this time next year (not including the mortgage). My present will be a family trip to Disney World using nothing but cash.
That Intrigue was a really nice looking car. My killer with Oldsmobile was at the time GM pulled the plug they were making the nicest cars they'd ever made. They still look contemporary.
Debt cleanup is always a good idea. I get so far and start to slide. We do OK but I can see how we we could do much better.
My point is Congress by holding up the clunker bill , buyers will wait to find out which cars are eligible. That is causing the 45 % decline in auto sales. Unemployment claims are way up and the auto industry has a lot to do with it.
Chrysler ? You can't price trash $6000 off expect people to pay for it. Besides I question wheather the $6000 off is genuine. Detroit is always offering big rebate. And they give like 20% discount to rentals and affiliated people (employees) . Something like 30% of their sales are made that way. Which is one reason I never buy Detroit. I don't have that employee rebate, knowing the next guy can buy it 20% cheaper than me, that just doesn't work for me.
you have to be able to want to take on the responsibility of a new loan.
I don't know how much you lost in this financial 'crisis' but a lot of us are doing quite well. My portfolio has recovered everything I lost last year in the last two month.
Lost about 35-40% in my 403B. Luckily I have 25 years until I retire.
I'm glad you have a rosy picture of our economy. I see people at Walmart, Home Depot, Targeet as well. I don;t see people in Betsy's Arts & Craft or Lenny's Shoes or Smith clothing store. The high unemployment has to do with the huge loss in the stock market, decline in the housing market, and unavailable credit. I'm sure there are a couple of other reasons that don't include the auto industry. Still don't get how Congress holding up this bill is causing the 45% decline in auto sales. But I am willing to learn. The bill is only designed to help move one million cars. So instead of selling 9M cars, we'll sell 10M cars. A far cry from 16M-17M.
I don't like the bill for the reasons I mentioned before. But if it works for you, go for it. I'm sure the bill will be passed soon.
Is it a "Cash for Clunkers" Bill? Or Just a Way to Clear Out the Truck Inventory? (Edmunds Daily)
The unemployment figures are WAY below the real numbers. People who lost their REAL jobs years ago have found ways to scrape by, but they're still essentially unemployed, doing odd jobs, selling things on eBay, picking up the occasional few extra off-the-books dollars, and working as greeters at Wal-Mart.
Let's say you were an accounts analyst at a fairly large media company - a newspaper, magazine, or television production facility - and you were laid off in 1994 when Congress deregulated that industry. You lost your job. Not a lot of that kind of job available anyway, and the economy was getting tougher at that time. So you file for unemployment and get a check every week for (i can't remember what they paid then or now). But it runs out in less than a year, right?
And it was nowhere near what you were making, anyway. So you have to find some way to get some money into the house. Your wife gets a part-time job. You get a part-time job. You get laid off again for some stupid reason. You find another one, but your back goes out because it's manual labor and you're 47 years old, so you have to quit. But you find out you can do a couple of your friends' tax returns for a little cash. They tell their friends and you've got a little bit of dough coming in at tax season. Then your wife has to quit her job because it's causing the kid problems at school. They're acting out emotionally and they showed up late a few times because the car hasn't been running well. Grades are suffering. She takes in the neighbor's laundry and watches their kids for a little cash.
You see how it goes? There are thousands and thousands of lives out there just like this. People who aren't doing what they're good at - people whose expensive educations have becoming totally irrelevant - people who daily perform degrading, tiresome, underpaid tasks with no chance of rising higher in the pecking order - wondering why they have to start all over at the bottom after years of playing by the rules and climbing the ladder slowly. They're not on the unemployment rolls. They're ignored by all surveys and TV news stations and People magazines looking for "hot" topics. But they're out there.
And someday you might be standing right next to them, reading the want ads, wondering what happened. So think twice - or maybe even once - before making stupid remarks about all those "people who don't want jobs".
A few days after David Adler's wife decided to leave her law firm in December, he was laid off from his job designing software at Brightcove.
It was shocking. And scary.
Until it wasn't. Adler has quickly learned to appreciate some aspects of his unexpected unemployment.
The 42-year-old spends his days doting on his 6-month-old daughter, visiting museums with his family, and preparing for a possible exhibit of his photos at a local coffee shop in Dedham. Living off savings, unemployment, and severance packages, Adler knows he has to get a job eventually and has started the search. But for now, he's cherishing every moment. "It's our first child and I love watching her grow," Adler said. "And it's nice to have time off and get in touch with my old hobbies."
As the ranks of the nation's unemployed grows, more Americans are facing the reality of life without work. Despite the grim task of making ends meet (firing the nanny, bailing on Whole Foods, applying for unemployment), there is a newly forming society of people who are making the best of being laid off. They are rediscovering hobbies. They are greeting kids at the school bus. They are remembering what daylight actually looks like.
And the massive layoffs by companies nationwide - nearly 600,000 jobs were lost last month - has helped remove the stigma and shame of being unemployed, according to John A. Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago outplacement firm.
"There's less of a 'why aren't you working attitude' that is giving people some extra space and freedom to explore new directions and just take time off to do the things they've wanted to do, whether it's spending more time with children, taking a class, or traveling around the world," Challenger said.
John Stephen Dwyer so far isn't missing his job or former office overlooking Chinatown. The 41-year-old Boston native was laid off in November from his $40,000-a-year job as education coordinator for the Clinical Research Graduate Program of Tufts University Sackler School of Biomedical Sciences. And he hasn't started seriously looking for new work.
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/02/23/for_now_laid_off_and_loving_i- t/
As you can see these are not high paid guys like in the UAW making $100k+ per year. Just lower middle class folks enjoying the time with the kids.
Average welfare payment to a family of 3, including AFDC and food stamps, is $7000 a year. Yahoo, live like a king.
Er.....why exactly are these poor people including in a discussion about buying new cars? They can't even pay the rent + food bill each month unless they can do it on $583 a month.
Unemployment taxes are collected strictly for that use. They cannot be used for anything else. Most governments understand that this type of benefit is necessary to remain social stability.
When you look at the hard numbers, nobody under these umbrellas is staying all that dry.
Something, in other words, is desperately wrong. Correcting it will be painful.
And, by the way, my apologies for further hijacking an already hijacked thread.
The actual number including those who are in that sort of "in between/falling through the cracks" is now a 15.8% real unemployment. The figure is even more shocking in certain areas of the nation. California, for instance, is at nearly 20% underemployed, unemployed and those that have stopped looking and aren't counted at all.
Recession? It's going to take a generation to dig out of this one, even if Obama fixes everything. Wait - I think there's a word for that...
If you've never visited a modern auto assembly plant in Detroit, please do so. It's quite an eye-opener.
The idea that a UAW worker is somehow living high on the hog, breezing through his workday in jolly comraderie, strikes me as a bit one-sided. Yes, they make pretty good money for unskilled workers, and yes, *some* of them have worked themselves up into pretty hefty salaries, especially if they developed trade skills. But there is a substantial downside, one that a cop does not face.
Here's (link below) a pretty balanced view of pros and cons of wedding your life to the UAW, and it brings up issues quite relevant to this discussion I think: (don' worry, it is far far from a liberal tirade) :P
Escape From an Auto Plant
The 53 year old who is complaining that despite years of six-figure salaries, he'll "have to take a buyout soon?" Give me a break! I'm almost that age and still paying on my student loans, working in higher education to give his kids the skills they'll need to take advantage of those other options. And I and my colleagues do it because we believe in it, and we do it for less than $50k a year. Less than $40k, in many cases.
I make less than the eighteen year old who walks in the front door at GM with no qualifications other than showing up. Nobody's offering me a buyout. And I'll have to work till I'm eighty in order to retire as comfortably as he can right now. Enjoy your retirement and your motorhome, buddy.
And if you think I'm mad about it, try talking to the nurses, cops, and firefighters who put their lives on the line for less than the UAW worker gets. Or the inner-city middle school teachers who have to contend with overcrowded classrooms, drugs, weapons, gangs, the possibility of a homicide or suicide everytime they walk in the classroom. In Georgia they start at $33k a year, with a college degree, and they are required to use some of that to fund (a) classroom supplies that the state won't pay for, and (b) continuing professional development through additional coursework. They have much more right to complain than I do. If anyone should be making $58k a year to start, it's the nurses, cops, firefighters, and teachers, not the unskilled eighteen year olds.
What the UAW can't do is re-create a world that no longer exists IMO.
Speaking of a middle-class lifestyle: I assert that the most direct beneficiaries of the proposed cash-for-clunkers legislation (the customers most likely to scrap a clunker and buy a new vehicle) will be middle-class buyers who are already in the market, but have postponed a purchase because of fear. I might be one of those customers, depending on the particulars of the finished law, as I have a fifteen year old Dodge truck that is mostly gathering pollen in the front yard. I don't really need to replace it, since I have other vehicles for transportation, but I'd consider swapping it for a smaller, basic pickup which would probably be more practical and thus used more often.
For people who genuinely can't afford a new vehicle, $3500-4500 won't make a huge difference--either they still don't have the rest of the cash, or they can't get a loan because of the current banking mess.
The problem though is what this will do to a lot of future classics and older cars. A good example is how here in California, anything 1975 or older doesn't need to pass smog, which is a huge expense sometimes. So to benefit from this, all you would need to do is buy a cheap old ratty v8 from that year or earlier, pay about $50 in registration and then turn it over to get crushed. Instant profit with almost zero effort.
As for how this will affect "future classics," I'm not sure I see your point. No one is forcing these owners to take the deal (unlike some earlier proposals). Owners of cars they think will be worth something are welcome to keep them. But there's not likely to be anything collectible about my '94 Ram, at least within my lifetime.
Parts? As I understand it, the scrapped vehicles are to be stripped of usable parts before being crushed.
So old cars that are now valuable will be preserved because they are worth more than the incentive, and old cars worth less than the incentive will be turned in for cash.
People today are not badly informed about old cars like they were 20 years ago. They know what's worth money and what isn't.
Of course they also expect that a great many 8-10 year old trucks and SUVs, perhaps a million or so, will be "sent to the crusher". I see no down side to that. :-)
If a few autos that might some day have been "classics" fall into the crusher along with al the Explorers and F150s, then so be it. As Shifty has said, I don't think anyone with a car or truck like that will have it destroyed.
Is there any chance that something like an F150 Lightning could some day be a classic? If so, would any current owners of Lightnings have them crushed for the extra $4500 from the Feds? Probably not, right? Since such a truck is still worth a fair amount in the used market anyway.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's all about HP, and by American mass production standards, some rarity.
So yeah, not very many modern used cars will fall into that category---a few, and those are already worth more than the rebates being talked about.
'lightings' are 100% low volume 'special editions'.
Your thoughts folks?
Unless, of course, you think the government should pay for both, in which case I have a crash course in budgeting for you: there isn't enough money to do that! So where will the limited amount of money do the most good?
Don`t think this reduces the pollution by much!! :shades:
In that case the rule should be,,whatever clunker u own,,u must buy a new one that gets atleast 4mpg than the clunker.So if my old clunker gets 25mpg,then to qualify for the rebate my new car must get atleast 29mpg.
Yes,,it reduces pollution!! :P
I feel the rebate must be for everyone,period,,no exceptions!! :surprise:
All rebates and tax credits or incentives are aimed at a very narrow audience. I think Steve hit it on the head. The automakers have a glut of PU trucks and SUVs to unload the the lawmakers are just trying to help them out. I will have a hard time finding a PU that is rated 4 MPG more than my 1999 Ford Ranger. Even though my truck has never really gotten close to the EPA rating. There is probably about 150 million pre 2001 vehicles on the road. If everyone got the $4500 where would that many vehicles come from. I think they are talking a limit of one million vouchers and that is it. I don't see it helping more than a few buyers with junkers that are not worth $4500.
What happens after the plan ends?
That is a very good question. The plan is the recycle many of the parts from these vehicles before being crushed. Where are these wrecking yards? There were 3 in my little town growing up and I worked for two of them rebuilding transmissions. I personally think we were a lot more conservation minded in the 1950s and 60s than we are now. Little fender bender and the car is a total. 1960 a fender bender and a ball peen hammer and you were back on the road.
So now we have to establish some kind of business to recycle all the parts these clunkers will provide. When the plan ends the wrecking yards are out of business.
Another thing. If you are silly enough to trade say a 2000 Chevy 1500 in on a new 1500 Chevy. They have the same 16 MPG rating 10 years later. So much for bailing out Obama motors.