Cash for clunkers or tax deductions on new cars?

From today's news: http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/23/autos/government_car_incentives/index.htm?postversion=2009012909

Discuss.

Seems like a great idea. /sarcasm

What got us into this mess?

So lets go ahead and saddle up with some more debt!

I got this from Sema, it is a backdoor way of getting the Cash for Clunkers through after thousands of us complained about the old try which got rejected.... buttheads are still trying to get our future project cars junked

aussiesmg wrote: I got this from Sema, it is a backdoor way of getting the Cash for Clunkers through after thousands of us complained about the old try which got rejected.... buttheads are still trying to get our future project cars junked

THIS.

So basicly the idea behind this is to get people to turn in their 40 mpg gross polluter 91 civic or 95 saturn or whatever, and buy a 20 mpg "crossover", or something like that? Just think how much oil we will save if everyone does this. lol

Yeah, destroying old but running equipment sounds like a great way to get our culture to be less wasteful and more resource efficient.

Salanis wrote: Yeah, destroying old but running equipment sounds like a great way to get our culture to be less wasteful and more resource efficient.

But, but, but... we're RECYCLING the old clunkers! 9_9

that article makes me want to punch babies. hard. in the windpipe area.

[article] Crushing the old car has two benefits. First, it ensures that the consumer's purchase of a more efficient vehicle actually has a net environmental benefit. Second, it prevents a glut of used cars on the market, which would reduce trade-in values for new car buyers, which would cut into the sales incentive effect. [/article]

OK, point number one is pure horse-E36 M3. The old parts already exist. Scrapping those parts to throw them into a cupela to melt them down into new parts has all sorts of negative environmental effect. Not sure how they spun that into a net benefit, but no doubt it's based up on a formula assuming horrendous inefficiency and gross pollution spewing out of the old car, but the new car will have baby powder as its only emission and will get 500 mpg.

Point number two is very poorly written. The author has stated "cause, not effect, not effect."

My favorite part of this is the fact that the only people that will benefit from this are people that can already afford a new car.

So what if the gov't gives you $2500-$4500 on your new car if the credit's not available for the rest, and you can't afford a $300/month car payment anyway?

And what's the restriction on the new cars? So I turn in my 22mpg 2.3L Foxbody, are they going to stop me from buying a 15mpg (on a good day) Suburban?

I read the Summit/Sema email a few days ago. I think I remember the car you buy has to get 25% higher fuel economy than the class average? So yeah, if you worked at it you could buy a "fuel efficient" new vehicle that gets worse mileage than the one you turn in.

I'm sure the state would love for me to get some new cars too, just so they can bust my ass with $150+/each tags every year instead of the $25/each my old cars cost me now.

The way they're spinning this it sounds like they expect people who are currently driving old clunkers to turn around and buy brand new cars.

Umm... hello the sort of people currently driving cars in poor enough condition to demolish them do not have the scratch to go out and buy new cars.

It's Reduce - Reuse - Recycle. In that order. This plan is Consume - Discard - "Recycle". I'm betting most of the demolished cars end up sitting around and don't make it to an actual recycling facility.

The state of california will buy pre-1987 cars for 650$, they wanted mine. I think it is stupid, some people drive older cars and like that they aren't full of modern conveniences. So what if my car produces the smog of a hundred prius' I think you get hooked on the funky old car smell.

Salanis wrote: It's Reduce - Reuse - Recycle. In that order. This plan is Consume - Discard - "Recycle". I'm betting most of the demolished cars end up sitting around and don't make it to an actual recycling facility.

No, cars are some of the most recycled materials. And they are trying to make them even more recycleable.

And to counter the "wasters"- while they probably wound't stop you from getting a vehicle that gets worse milegage, they also wouldn't stop you from geting a car with BETTER milage.

Replace the Fox body with an equal sized car- say a Fusion. Or smaller- a Focus. Heck, even a modern Mustang will get better than 22mpg with the V6.

And how about replace the Civic with a civic? Or a Fit?

Why do we always assume that people will get the worse car? I don't understand that.

OTOH, what angry posts is, indeed, an issue. While recycling uses a LOT less energy to get the materials vs. mining and refining, it's still takes energy to produce a car. That whole energy argument is gaining speed, too- as the CO2 emitter people REALLY ask themselves if buying new Hybrids is the correct answer or not (since if the net CO2 is worse, then what's the point?).

For the whole issue, I am torn, though. I can see both sides of the argument pretty darned clearly.

Eric

ReverendDexter wrote: My favorite part of this is the fact that the only people that will benefit from this are people that can already afford a new car. So what if the gov't gives you $2500-$4500 on your new car if the credit's not available for the rest, and you can't afford a $300/month car payment anyway?

For sure. We sell used cars, and the people we deal with wouldn't give a E36 M3 if the car was $2,000 or $20,000, as long as the payments were less than $200 a month. The total price of a car matters very little to the majority.

Just in case I don't get my free dirt-powered Trebant in the next few years, I'm saving up for one of these babies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY

ReverendDexter wrote: My favorite part of this is the fact that the only people that will benefit from this are people that can already afford a new car. So what if the gov't gives you $2500-$4500 on your new car if the credit's not available for the rest, and you can't afford a $300/month car payment anyway?

There are dealers around here that are already offering $2,500 to $4,500 off sticker without this program and they still have lots full of unsold cars.

People who are afraid of losing their jobs are NOT going to sign up for car payments of $400 a month or more for three or more years no matter what kind of 'deal' they get. This will not work.