Bah, it will help people afford newer better gas milage cars, boost the auto industry a bit help keep factory workers working instead of cashing an unemployment check.
If gas goes up to $4 and $5 dollars like it did last year how many of us can truly afford to drive a gas guzzler as our primary car anyway? What about in 5-10 years when it could be closer to $8?
When I first bought my camaro it cost me $20 to fill my tank, just before I sold it last year it cost me $70 and would last less than a week if I drove it regularly.
Its time to realize that there are fewer years in front of the combustion engine than behind.
SEC. 3.(e)(1)(D) NO COMBINATION OF VOUCHERS- A person may only apply 1 voucher issued under the Program toward the purchase of a new fuel efficient automobile.
Yeah, because so many people driving around beaters worth less than $3500 that can’t afford gas can afford to go out and buy brand new cars if you give them $3500.
This bill is majorly flawed because it’s full of compromise.
If it was truly about getting guzzlers off the road they would allow people to do this on used cars. Then the people driving real clunkers could probably afford to trade them in on new better MPG used cars and their clunker would come off the road. That doesn’t help sell new cars though.
If it was truly about selling more cars they wouldn’t have the requirement in there that the traded in clunker gets destroyed. Then someone like me could trade in my Expedition, get the 5k from the government AND the trade in value from the dealer since he could then resell the Expedition as a used car. That of course doesn’t get my gas guzzler off the road though.
So the way it’s written now it’s mostly going to help a few people willing to scam the system by picking up a beater that is probably barely being driven anyway, using it to get the voucher, then trading in their real daily which will only end up back on the road when it’s sold as a used car.
H.R.1550, the one he linked, was sent to committee. AKA, it’s dead.
H.R.2751 is the one that passed the house and has been placed on the senate calendar.
This is the version waiting for the Senate:
A few very key differences.
The dollar amounts are $3500-$4500.
And this one:
(7) the term `eligible trade-in vehicle' means an automobile or a work truck (as such terms are defined in section 32901(a) of title 49, United States Code) that, at the time it is presented for trade-in under this Act--
(A) is in drivable condition;
<b>(B) has been continuously insured consistent with the applicable State law and registered to the same owner for a period of not less than 1 year immediately prior to such trade-in;</b>
(C) was manufactured in model year 1984 or later; and
(D) in the case of an automobile, has a combined fuel economy value of 18 miles per gallon or less;
So much for my $5000 for a $250 beater plan. Honestly, I’m glad to see they weren’t dumb enough to set this at 120 days.
as this is a good idea in theory it still wont change anything for the better. not to mention those vouchers are not coming out of a magic pool of endless money.
so the 84 and later is that older then 84 or newer?Sorry if it sounds stupid just want to make 100% sure what year I’m going to buy and throw on with my extra plate.
Going back to what I said earlier… I really don’t see this getting used much at all. I just don’t see that many people driving around in sub $2000 daily drivers that will be able to run right out and buy a brand new car just because you knock $4500 off. Most people who can afford to buy new cars are driving around DD’s that are at least worth $3500. They don’t benefit at all from this program since by submitting their car as a “clunker” by law it has to be shredded, which means the dealer can’t give you anything for it in trade.
See, this is the biggest point of contention that I’m wondering about… I initially argued with someone that this was more aimed at getting guzzlers (older boat-cars, SUVs, etc) off of the road, and they were afraid that the gov’t was “going after their performance cars” ( :roll: )… however I really think that the program is going to see super limited use because the consumer will be looking at JUST the voucher amount, not the voucher atop of the trade. I can’t forsee a dealer giving Choda $6k for his truck when they are not gonna be able to send it to auction or resale it and get that money back… :shrug:
Let’s see. carsdirect.com shows a stripped 09 Civic DX with an auto transmission at $15589. It’s got a combined MPG of 30.
So you’re rocking an 80’s crown vic with a trade in value of, “we’ll give you $50 not to leave that on our lot for us to dispose of” (something actually said to one of my friends trading in a car), and will get the full $4500 credit.
(A) to accept vouchers as provided in this section as partial payment or down payment for the purchase or qualifying lease of any new fuel efficient automobile offered for sale or lease by that dealer; and
That sounds like the voucher is treated as a down payment, meaning the full price of the vehicle will be taxed.
Ok, so, the numbers:
15589 * + 8.75% sales tax = $16953
-4500 government voucher = $12453
title, reg, fees etc = $12653 Financed 5 years at 5% = $237/month
Just like the infomercials though… BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
How many people rocking beaters are paying for full coverage insurance on them? Right, not likely very many. So now their insurance is going to probably triple in cost because they have to add full coverage to a shiny new car. Add another $50-$100 a month.
So how many people driving $500 piles are going to be ready to drop almost $300 a month on car?
They need to let people use this on used cars, but then it’s not a bailout for the auto industry.