Does anyone know if the vehicle you purchase needs to be new? Does the Cash for Clunkers program work on used cars (i.e., can I purchase a used car and still get the rebate if I qualify)? Thanks.
Does anyone know if the vehicle you purchase needs to be new? Does the Cash for Clunkers program work on used cars (i.e., can I purchase a used car and still get the rebate if I qualify)? Thanks.
This program may not even be "green." It takes a whole lot of energy to make a new car. Seems like a subsidy for those well off enough to purchase a new car (and the politically ocnnected unions who make them). Meanwhile I drive ot my 50+ hour per week job in a 17 year old 195k miles car trying to pay my loans off the old fashioned way before I buy a newer car. Cheers, yuppies!
My Money wrote:
I recently replaced a car that would not have qualified for this program because I had done the right thing and bought a high gas mileage car years ago. I paid for my new car with my hard-earned money. Now my neighbor, who just took advantage of the program, who made a poor decision with a car before, is bragging about getting a lot more money than his car was worth. I told him "You're welcome" and he said "For what?" I don't make a lot of money and I work hard for what I get, so I do not like the idea of having to pay towards a car for a guy who makes twice what I do, but has been irresponsible with his money.
No matter what his lips say, Obama is taxing the hell out of us middle-income people because all of us taxpayers are contributing to the "incentive money."
Not so fast my friend - tax and fees are based on the MSRP, not on the price you are paying. Taxes and fees can EASILY run $2,000 - $5,000 dependent on the vehicle bought.
THAT IS ALL FREE $$$$$ to the Govt.
Also, you cannot buy a USED vehicle under the Govt. program.
Interesting how the program is getting such a great response.
Basically people driving a $1,000 car with no car payments are turning them in for what amounts to be at most a $3,500 ($4,500 less the vaulue of their $1,000 car) savings on a new car that would require a car pmt.
They should be able to negotiate further from the MSRP but many may not know that.
Dealers were alraedy offering these kinds of discounts without anywhere near this kind of response.
here by inteligent design wrote:
People who are taking advantage are the upper middle class trading in the homemaker-wife's oldie.
The poor and the ghetto dwellers who daily-drive these clunkers are going to continue to drive them as they can't afford to turn them in for a brand new one.
Great. It gives people who can afford to buy a car more incentive to buy one and thus the right people are spending their money. And of course, America's prosperity is based on getting the people with money to spend it on unnecessary things. Who cares if the ghetto dwellers like me continue to drive clunkers. It gets me to work, it gets me back home, and I still have all my cash in my pocket. It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.
I just bought a new car getting rid of an old van with worth maybe 1,500. Still it seems a waste. There are many poor people out there with cars that have poorer gas mileage that would have loved that van. I felt guilty havingit crushed and melted.
I profitted from the deal but its just wrong. The van was good to me and didn't deserve to go out like that.
the Bluepill aint viagra wrote:
Answer this one question 'Foolishness': How will we pay down/balance our federal deficit in the future?
this here is one scenario.
As we have been doing for a couple of decades already, we are going to sell everything to foreign interests, the whole fuukin country to pay the interest and re-fi costs on the steadily rising debt. Eventually, with noting left to sell we'll have American Revolution, sequel II....disown all foreigners, take everything back w/o compensation and start over, no wiser than before.
Basically, a personal bankruptcy on a national scale.
Doug Heffernan wrote:
This program may not even be "green."
As far as greenness goes, it would be much better to encourage people to keep driving whatever car they own until it dies and then buy a fuel efficient vehicle. It isn't environmentally friendly to junk a serviceable vehicle to purchase a new car even if the new care gets better gas milage.
Come on now, I hope you aren't that naive. Paying the future debt can be done easily by merely taxing offshore subsidiary profits, and by implementing a long waited for tax on previously earned foreign profits that are sitting in Caribbean and other secretive banks. Obama has proposed this, Treasury research has confirmed the huge amounts involved, International monetary authorities concur on the massive tax revenue that is available from this quasi-legal money, but guess who is fighting it?
True, it's not green, but it is turning out to be hugely successful and is in fact creating jobs and boosting the economy at a time when we need it. Going to higher mileage vehicles earlier, certainly is an admirable goal, but I doubt it is even green neutral. I suspect that those who are ridiculing this program are the same wingnuts who want the country to fail under Obama. Sorry, you wingnuts, the economy is already beginning to turn and this program is one of many reasons why it is happening sooner than expected. The party of NO and the wingnuts need something else to pound on...try dirt.
My Money wrote:
No matter what his lips say, Obama is taxing the hell out of us middle-income people because all of us taxpayers are contributing to the "incentive money."
ditto for 'mortgage relief' and other Obie's BS
LC wrote:
Doug Heffernan wrote:This program may not even be "green."
As far as greenness goes, it would be much better to encourage people to keep driving whatever car they own until it dies and then buy a fuel efficient vehicle. It isn't environmentally friendly to junk a serviceable vehicle to purchase a new car even if the new care gets better gas milage.
You are not even close. 70% of the total emmisions produced by all the cars in the US are actually being produced by 5% of operating cars. These are older models that are still running.
The amount of fuel consumed and emissions produced during the manufacturing of a car is a tiny fraction of the total amount of fuel consumed over the lifetime of car. Think about it, the average car consumes about 2 gallons of gas every day of its life. Over ten years that is 7,500 gallons of fuel. Do you really think it takes 7,500 gallons of fuel to produce 1 car? Think before you speak.
Youre a funny dude, I hope you are not serious.
Foolishness wrote:
Come on now, I hope you aren't that naive. Paying the future debt can be done easily by merely taxing offshore subsidiary profits, and by implementing a long waited for tax on previously earned foreign profits that are sitting in Caribbean and other secretive banks. Obama has proposed this, Treasury research has confirmed the huge amounts involved, International monetary authorities concur on the massive tax revenue that is available from this quasi-legal money, but guess who is fighting it?
Yes closing these loopholes should be done. Will they remotely come close to covering the shortfall? Of course not. Im not sure whether to even take your borderline gibberish seriously.
"but guess who is fighting it?" Uh, I dunno, the same group of plutocratic prick pigs that have been around for many years and have had the majority of politicians in their pocket?
Im guessing youre a troll, and Im probably wasting my time...good luck.
Krikey wrote:
You are not even close. 70% of the total emmisions produced by all the cars in the US are actually being produced by 5% of operating cars. These are older models that are still running.
The amount of fuel consumed and emissions produced during the manufacturing of a car is a tiny fraction of the total amount of fuel consumed over the lifetime of car. Think about it, the average car consumes about 2 gallons of gas every day of its life. Over ten years that is 7,500 gallons of fuel. Do you really think it takes 7,500 gallons of fuel to produce 1 car? Think before you speak.
You have to consider the environmental cost of disposing of hundreds of thousands of cars, not just the cost of producing the new ones.
My brother just did this deal this weekend. He had a old Nissan Pathfinder which got about 10 miles a gallon. He bought a 30 mpg Nissan Versa. The Versa was 16,100 sticker price. He talked them down to 15,500 got a manufacturers rebate of 1500 bringing it to 14,000 then got the 4,500 rebate bringing it to 9,500. The car that he traded in might have gotten him 500 dollars. He will end up paying off his car in 2 years and honestly the savings in gas that he will get will pay for almost half of his payment. Overall it seems like a good deal to me.
On a side note I haven't heard anyone say this yet but he is supposed to get a check for the amount of scrap metal minus a 15% processing fee the dealership is taking. So he should get a little bit of money for that.
Also, Krikey, the amount of fuel used over the car's entire life is irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is the amount of fuel that will be used over the rest of the cars life from this point forward.
LC wrote:
Also, Krikey, the amount of fuel used over the car's entire life is irrelevant to this discussion. What matters is the amount of fuel that will be used over the rest of the cars life from this point forward.
A klunker, remaining on the road for 4 years longer than it would with this program, will consume more fuel and produce more emissions than the manufacture of a hybrid and the subsequent fuel that the hybrid will consume in the same four years. As far as the impact of disposal of the klunker, that is irrelevant because eventually the car would have to be disposed of anyways.
Facts are facts. Most of the polution produced by cars are produced by a proportionally small number of old klunkers. Replacing these with newly minted efficient cars, though not the best thing for your wallet, is the best thing you can do for the environment.
If you think I'm a troll, I guess the one wasting his time is me. If you really care, read this for starters:
Mr Conundrum wrote:
I profitted from the deal but its just wrong. The van was good to me and didn't deserve to go out like that.
So your objection to the program is based upon your emotional attachment to an inanimate object?
methinks that's a good sign for the program.
My Money wrote:
I recently replaced a car that would not have qualified for this program because I had done the right thing and bought a high gas mileage car years ago. I paid for my new car with my hard-earned money. Now my neighbor, who just took advantage of the program, who made a poor decision with a car before, is bragging about getting a lot more money than his car was worth. I told him "You're welcome" and he said "For what?" I don't make a lot of money and I work hard for what I get, so I do not like the idea of having to pay towards a car for a guy who makes twice what I do, but has been irresponsible with his money.
No matter what his lips say, Obama is taxing the hell out of us middle-income people because all of us taxpayers are contributing to the "incentive money."
could you try to explain that logic one more time?
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Why's it cost every household $5000 in taxes just to run a public school?