PDA

View Full Version : Economics More money from thin air...House to give you $4500 to buy a Toyota


mlyonsd
06-10-2009, 01:47 PM
House OKs $4 billion 'clunker' bill

Full House votes on a bill to subsidize new car sales for consumers who turn in gas guzzlers. Status of proposal in Senate is unclear.

By Jennifer Liberto (http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/economy/mailto:jennifer.liberto@turner.com), CNNMoney.com senior writer
Last Updated: June 10, 2009: 10:34 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney.com) -- The House on Tuesday waded deeper into the rescue of the troubled auto industry when it passed a $4 billion plan to subsidize new cars sales for consumers who scrap old ones.

By a vote of 298-119, the House approved the "cash for clunkers" program.

The measure would give consumers vouchers worth as much as $4,500 to turn in gas guzzlers and buy new cars that are more fuel efficient.
The legislation now goes to the Senate. President Obama has said he supports such a measure.

The House bill would go into effect within 30 days of enactment but it is not retroactive for new purchases made earlier this year.

The move by the House would deepen the federal government's involvement in the auto industry, only a week after federal officials announced spending another $30 billion in addition to the $19.4 billion already given to GM (http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/01/news/companies/gm_bankruptcy/index.htm?postversion=2009060204) to cover its losses and operations.

"The bipartisan cars act will shore up millions of jobs and stimulate local economies. It will improve our environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said bill sponsor Rep. Betty Sutton, D-Ohio, during floor debate. "The cars act demonstrates that we can free ourselves from the false argument of either you are for the environment or you are for jobs. You can do both, you must do both."

While the original cash-for-clunkers proposal had its roots in an environmental initiative, this bill aims to jump-start sales of new cars and trucks, including some that don't quite meet the average fuel efficiency standards.



Clunkers eligible for the program must get 18 miles per gallon, or less, in combined city and highway driving. The subsidy ends up benefiting more owners of light trucks, SUVs and mini-vans more than it would owners of regular old passenger cars, auto experts say.

A $3,500 subsidy can be used toward purchasing cars and vans that are more fuel efficient than the older clunkers by four miles per gallon. A $4,500 subsidy can be used toward purchasing cars and vans that are more fuel efficient than older cars by 10 miles per gallon.

However, cars that have not been insured for the past year or those that are older than 25 years are not eligible to be traded in for vouchers.

The House measure aims to spend $4 billion in new dollars toward the measure, and was expected to get added through a war supplemental funding bill.

That could prove to be a sticking point, since some Republicans in the Senate said they rather such a measure use already allocated dollars.

"We're going to have to pay the piper at some time," said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. "This is a clunker of a bill."

The program lasts either one year or until the funding runs out.

So now the focus turns to the Senate, where two versions of a subsidy bill have been introduced. Neither has yet to be voted on or fully debated.

The Senate proposal that is most similar to the House bill is sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., along with Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas. That bill takes its funding from existing stimulus dollars and is retroactive for new purchases made since March 31.

Environmental lobbying groups are pushing for an environmentally tougher bill geared more toward cutting carbon emissions. That measure, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., aims to replace more gas guzzlers with more environmentally sensitive and fuel efficient cars. http://i.cdn.turner.com/money/images/bug.gif (http://cnnmoney.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=House+passes+cash+for+clunker+bill+to+boost+new+car+sales+-+Jun.+9%2C+2009&expire=-1&urlID=404572045&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmoney.cnn.com%2F2009%2F06%2F09%2Fnews%2Feconomy%2Fcash_#TOP)

First Published: June 9, 2009: 5:20 PM ET

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/09/news/economy/cash_for_clunkers/?postversion=2009061010

dirk digler
06-10-2009, 01:51 PM
I don't know how or if it will work here but has worked wonderfully in Germany and other places.

wild1
06-10-2009, 01:54 PM
Having to get 18 miles per gallon or worse combined mileage in your current vehicle is going to exclude many family SUVs and other vehicles.

Is it the EPA rating? Is it an average of city/highway? What number will be used?

Cannibal
06-10-2009, 01:55 PM
Although more spending sucks. 4 billion is not much and it goes towards reducing dependence on foreign oil. All in all, I would be for this measure.

Cannibal
06-10-2009, 01:56 PM
If this can be stacked with a 4,500 voucher being talked about for a Chevy Volt, you could get one for about 25 grand.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 02:00 PM
So a guy could trade in his 2000 Yukon, buy a 2009 Yukon and the pres will pick up 4500 bucks of that?

Im amazed. This is a great deal for people with money. Damn.

SBK
06-10-2009, 02:00 PM
LMAO

Can't wait for the coming tax hike because gas taxes aren't brining in enough.

Speaking of, we've had a 100% increase in the price of a barrel of oil since Lord Barry took office and not a peep......
Posted via Mobile Device

Brock
06-10-2009, 02:01 PM
So a guy could trade in his 2000 Yukon, buy a 2009 Yukon and the pres will pick up 4500 bucks of that?

Im amazed. This is a great deal for people with money. Damn.

Yep. I'm trading in my Tahoe as soon as this thing goes through.

dirk digler
06-10-2009, 02:04 PM
Well this won't work for me. Damn

wild1
06-10-2009, 02:04 PM
So a guy could trade in his 2000 Yukon, buy a 2009 Yukon and the pres will pick up 4500 bucks of that?

Im amazed. This is a great deal for people with money. Damn.

It must be nice to rule, I mean govern, like the bills will never come due.

mlyonsd
06-10-2009, 02:07 PM
Im amazed. This is a great deal for people with money. Damn.

You don't need money. They're paying you to go 20-25K in debt.

Rain Man
06-10-2009, 02:10 PM
Who cares about the subsidy? I'm going to buy up a bunch of clunkers for $500 and sell them to people for $2,500 so they can get the credit. That's where the real money is.

MagicHef
06-10-2009, 02:11 PM
I'm glad I own two small, old, fuel efficient cars. This does nothing for me.

MagicHef
06-10-2009, 02:11 PM
Who cares about the subsidy? I'm going to buy up a bunch of clunkers for $500 and sell them to people for $2,500 so they can get the credit. That's where the real money is.

Hmm...

Iowanian
06-10-2009, 02:13 PM
So what constitutes a "clunker"?

What happens to those clunkers/gas guzzlers?
The dealer will ship them to the auction, they'll be purchased by used car dealers and go right back on the road.


This is stupid.

mlyonsd
06-10-2009, 02:16 PM
So what constitutes a "clunker"?

What happens to those clunkers/gas guzzlers?
The dealer will ship them to the auction, they'll be purchased by used car dealers and go right back on the road.


This is stupid.

Actually the dealer is supposed to send it to a demolition center. Don't know how they track that though.

Maybe we'll implement a 20 million dollar clunker tracking program on top of it.

dirk digler
06-10-2009, 02:19 PM
So what constitutes a "clunker"?



Well since you can't seem to read. :p

Any vehicle that gets 18 miles per gallon, or less, in combined city and highway driving

banyon
06-10-2009, 02:22 PM
I think this is a bad bill for the reasons written below. It's not a bad idea, it's just been hastily and crappily crafted.

http://www.mnn.com/transportation/cars/blogs/cash-for-clunkers-bill-should-be-junked

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/newJimMotavalli_0.jpg
Cash for clunkers bill should be junked
The 'compromise' between President Obama and Congress on the car scrappage bill is a big, wet kiss for automakers and dealers. But it doesn't help the environment much. Viva the reform bill!
Fri, Jun 05 2009 at 5:58 PM EST

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/junkyarddog.jpg
Junkyard dogs are overwhelmingly in favor of the tougher legislation. (Credit: Flickr)

Got an old V-8-powered clunker lying around? The government says it could be worth $4,500 towards the purchase of your next SUV — and it’s OK if it only gets marginally better gas mileage. I love the idea of the federal cash-for-clunkers law, but I hate the way it is shaping up in Washington, the city where dreams go to die.


There’s no question that cash for clunkers is a good idea. According to a Center for American Progress white paper, cars 13 years old or older account for 25 percent of the miles driven, but 75 percent of the auto-related pollution. They’re 30 times dirtier. And we could scrap 2 million gas guzzlers for $5 billion, a relative bargain.

But the compromise worked out between the House of Representatives has resulted in a bill that doesn’t make much sense, especially when it comes to trucks. The clunker has to get 18 mpg or worse, but the trade-in can be only two mpg better and you still get a $3,500 voucher. For $4,500, it only has to be five mpg better. This is not a misprint — two and five mpg — we’re not saving the planet with tiny increments this way.

The bill is a bit better for cars — it has to be 10 mpg better for you to clear the $4,500 voucher, but even if there’s only a four mpg improvement you’re good for $3,500. Thanks, Captain Planets of the U.S. House of Representatives!

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy says the scrappage program “needs repair.” According to Therese Langer, ACEEE’s transportation program director, “I can’t see using taxpayer dollars to sell a Hummer H3T [which meets the 15-mpg large truck threshold].”

There’s a better bill, introduced in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Charles Schumer (D-NY).

This one would achieve 32 to 38 percent greater fuel savings than the House compromise, and would demand that the car you buy has above-average fuel economy in its class. The trade-in will have to be 17-mpg or worse, which may raise the price on ’74 Cadillac Eldorados. New cars under their version of the program will have to get at least 24 mpg and trucks 20 mpg. The new car will have to be at least seven mpg better than the one traded in, and the new truck at least three mpg.

The senators think their version would save 176 gallons of gas per vehicle per year (compared to 133 gallons in the House bill) and 11,451 barrels of oil per day (House: 8,706 barrels). Feinstein says the House compromise would “allow for the scrapping of perfectly adequate vehicles in return for federal incentives to purchase gas-guzzling vehicles. That’s unacceptable.”

It’s not surprising that the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers likes the Senate version of the bill backed by Deborah Stabenow (D-MI) and Sam Brownback (R-KA). It’s much friendlier to SUVs and other cars Detroit is still stuck with. New cars have to get 22 mpg instead of 24, and trucks 18 mpg instead of 20. Brownback and Stabenow say it will sell a million vehicles over its one-year life. That’s great for Stabenow’s state of Michigan, but what kind of cars will they be?

According to Alliance President and CEO Dave McCurdy, “With just-released May auto sales reporting a continued decline towards numbers that haven’t been seen in a quarter century it is imperative to consumers, dealers, manufacturers and the communities they represent that a fleet modernization proposal be passed by Congress and quickly signed into law by the President.” That's their emphasis.

Jack Hidary, one of the authors of the Center for American Progress white paper and the chairman of Smarttransportation.org, says the compromise bill came about because lawmakers needed the vote of powerful Michigan Congressman John Dingell on the climate bill, and "he demanded a much lower bar because U.S. automakers produce so few fuel-efficient cars."

U.S. automakers currently have a million cars in inventory, so action is needed fast. Ten other countries, including Germany and Italy, have instituted their own version of clunker bills, and they're already producing increased car sales.

Let’s get rid of the clunker of a bill now moving forward. The reform bill would actually help, compared to legislation that is a big wet kiss to auto states and car dealers. It is still early in the process, Hidary says, and it is possible that the legislation that actually gets passed will be a further compromise — between the Stabenow and Feinstein versions of the Senate bills. The differences could be worked out in a Senate conference.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 02:27 PM
Actually the dealer is supposed to send it to a demolition center. Don't know how they track that though.

Maybe we'll implement a 20 million dollar clunker tracking program on top of it.

Can that be true? this this is more ignorant than I figured.

InChiefsHell
06-10-2009, 02:41 PM
I can't believe this is friggin' happening. The environment (which I always knew was just another way for the government to gain control and push an agenda) is not going to be changed by this ridiculous shit. Meanwhile, what will they do for the poor folks who can't afford a new car, even with the 4500.00 voucher? Bet me they will come up with something to give every poor family a brand new car, at some point. If not, what's the point?

God, this is so damn stupid, and as usual, not well thought out. I'll be calling my senator for sure.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 02:44 PM
I can't believe this is friggin' happening. The environment (which I always knew was just another way for the government to gain control and push an agenda) is not going to be changed by this ridiculous shit. Meanwhile, what will they do for the poor folks who can't afford a new car, even with the 4500.00 voucher? Bet me they will come up with something to give every poor family a brand new car, at some point. If not, what's the point?

God, this is so damn stupid, and as usual, not well thought out. I'll be calling my senator for sure.

Wait till I unload the Yukon dammit

mikey23545
06-10-2009, 02:46 PM
Man, it is coming down all around us, and I'm afraid it may be too late to do anything about it....

vailpass
06-10-2009, 02:47 PM
LMAO I'd heard about this but never thought it might become reality.

I just started looking for something to replace my 2007 Denali XL, want to go from XL to standard. Think I'll wait another month to see if the POTUS is going to kick in a few grand towards my next new SUV. Dear Leader will have us all in new cars soon.

banyon
06-10-2009, 02:55 PM
I can't believe this is friggin' happening. The environment (which I always knew was just another way for the government to gain control and push an agenda) is not going to be changed by this ridiculous shit. Meanwhile, what will they do for the poor folks who can't afford a new car, even with the 4500.00 voucher? Bet me they will come up with something to give every poor family a brand new car, at some point. If not, what's the point?

God, this is so damn stupid, and as usual, not well thought out. I'll be calling my senator for sure.

This is another handout to Detroit, or what's left of it, with environmental superficial icing on the cake.

wild1
06-10-2009, 03:05 PM
So what constitutes a "clunker"?

What happens to those clunkers/gas guzzlers?
The dealer will ship them to the auction, they'll be purchased by used car dealers and go right back on the road.


This is stupid.

Shut up and worship.

wild1
06-10-2009, 03:06 PM
Actually the dealer is supposed to send it to a demolition center. Don't know how they track that though.

Maybe we'll implement a 20 million dollar clunker tracking program on top of it.

So the $4,500 is to compensate you for the fact that the dealer is going to give you $0 for the car on trade-in, since they have to send it to get crushed.

I don't get it. If you have an average car that you see on the road that is 6 or 7 years old, you can probably get at least $3,000 on a trade-in.

BigRedChief
06-10-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't know how or if it will work here but has worked wonderfully in Germany and other places.
It will get me to buy a new American car.

shitgoose
06-10-2009, 03:15 PM
Actually the dealer is supposed to send it to a demolition center. Don't know how they track that though.

Maybe we'll implement a 20 million dollar clunker tracking program on top of it.

No way in hell

Brock
06-10-2009, 03:17 PM
It will get me to buy a new American car.

Yeah, big surprise there.

InChiefsHell
06-10-2009, 03:18 PM
Years ago, Clinton had a gun buy back program, they would pay 50.00 for any gun, working or not, no questions asked. I was looking to offload my dad's old worthless non-functioning Japanese sniper rifle for 50.00...but they discontinued the worthless stupid pointless program.

OK, so my wife has a less than fuel efficient 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. What happens if I DONT want to trade it in? At what point do they MAKE me trade it in? You know, to save the environment and such? Are they going to call me un-American because I won't participate in the "program" they have to stimulate car sales?

Seriously people, think about the long term repercussions of this type of thing.

This country is going whacko. I just took a smoke break at work, smoking a .25 cent cigarette out in the street, on account of the fact that we can't smoke anywhere on the property here. I'm looking at my car, which is now not acceptable to der Fuhrer and wondering what they will make me do next...

...this country has gone insane...slowly of course, so as not to alarm too many people...but it has gone insane.

wild1
06-10-2009, 03:21 PM
OK, so my wife has a less than fuel efficient 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. What happens if I DONT want to trade it in? At what point do they MAKE me trade it in? You know, to save the environment and such? Are they going to call me un-American because I won't participate in the "program" they have to stimulate car sales?

If they just forced you to trade it in, that would be stupid.

Instead, they will just find a way to tax you into oblivion such as by massively increasing fuel taxes. It still more or less forces you to trade it in, but now they get to rob your pocketbook at the same time. Bonus.

SBK
06-10-2009, 03:41 PM
When you want to buy a car go pick up a piece of shit that hardly runs for $100 or so and trade it in for $4,500 and laugh at the bastards who pay taxes.
Posted via Mobile Device

jjjayb
06-10-2009, 04:15 PM
Although more spending sucks. 4 billion is not much and it goes towards reducing dependence on foreign oil. All in all, I would be for this measure.

Let me ask you this. If you were told you would have to pay $4000 of your own money to help your neighbor buy a car, would you still be for it?

This money doesn't come from nowhere. I am in the car business. It will benefit me. I am against this. Enough with the frigging spending.

WE WOULDN'T BE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL IF WE DRILLED OUR OWN.

shitgoose
06-10-2009, 04:43 PM
Although more spending sucks. 4 billion is not much and it goes towards reducing dependence on foreign oil. All in all, I would be for this measure.

Yeah, 4 billion is nothing. I got that laying around under a mattress.....

I wonder what the true cost will be after we pay interest on this money for the next 160 years? I guess they could just borrow out of social security to pay for this new program. Oh, wait, social security is 10 years from being insolvent. Better spend more money bailing out the car companies instead of doing something that might actually be beneficial in the long run. I don't know about the rest of you but I pay into social security every two weeks and I doubt I will ever see a dime. Oh **** it. Lets have everyone buy new cars! Just tow in your pile of shit 1986 Chevy Caprice and get a $4500 voucher. We can just print the money! Just attach it to the war bill. Is this all they have? Surely they have more pork to attach to this thing. Surely there is a $750 million dollar bridge to be built in Idaho or a new Fuktard former member of Congress museum that needs built in Texas?

This is asinine. Sorry for the rant.

Rain Man
06-10-2009, 04:48 PM
I'm serious. Doesn't this radically increase the value of clunkers? I seriously think there's a business opportunity to sell clunkers to rich people.

banyon
06-10-2009, 05:06 PM
I'm serious. Doesn't this radically increase the value of clunkers? I seriously think there's a business opportunity to sell clunkers to rich people.

I would think (or hope) that there is a provision in the bill requiring some term of actual and not just pass-through ownership of the vehicle.

BucEyedPea
06-10-2009, 05:34 PM
Schiff mentioned this weeks ago in a video. LMAO.
Cash for clunkers. The govt wants you in more debt when keeping a clunker keeps you out.

wild1
06-10-2009, 05:45 PM
I'm not sure why the government needs to distribute tax dollars to people who want and have the ability to purchase new cars.

Many working families can't afford a new car even with a $3000 credit. Sounds like this is funneling more tax dollars to the rich, I say!

mlyonsd
06-10-2009, 08:30 PM
Just to be clear some republicans bought off on this.

I have two beefs with this....of course the first is printing money to fund it.

Second, why not make it just available to cars built by companies that live in the US? Why make it available to car makers from foreign lands?

F'ing stupid.

KcFanInGA
06-10-2009, 08:51 PM
They will make it back when they start taxing us per mile as we drive. Also...goodbye Ford!

KcFanInGA
06-10-2009, 08:54 PM
Cant wait to get me a Fiat!

tiptap
06-11-2009, 08:11 AM
Years ago, Clinton had a gun buy back program, they would pay 50.00 for any gun, working or not, no questions asked. I was looking to offload my dad's old worthless non-functioning Japanese sniper rifle for 50.00...but they discontinued the worthless stupid pointless program.

OK, so my wife has a less than fuel efficient 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. What happens if I DONT want to trade it in? At what point do they MAKE me trade it in? You know, to save the environment and such? Are they going to call me un-American because I won't participate in the "program" they have to stimulate car sales?

Seriously people, think about the long term repercussions of this type of thing.


This country is going whacko. I just took a smoke break at work, smoking a .25 cent cigarette out in the street, on account of the fact that we can't smoke anywhere on the property here. I'm looking at my car, which is now not acceptable to der Fuhrer and wondering what they will make me do next...

...this country has gone insane...slowly of course, so as not to alarm too many people...but it has gone insane.

Probably not, but I will call you un Amercian along with being an addict.

tiptap
06-11-2009, 08:14 AM
WE WOULDN'T BE DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL IF WE DRILLED OUR OWN.

So false. Keep thinking the oil is under any rock. (now if you mean coal at least you are in the Saudi Arabia of Coal)

kepp
06-11-2009, 08:16 AM
Actually the dealer is supposed to send it to a demolition center. Don't know how they track that though.

Maybe we'll implement a 20 million dollar clunker tracking program on top of it.

I would write the clunker tracking system (CTS 1.0) for half that cost. Have them call me.

KC native
06-11-2009, 09:10 AM
Just to be clear some republicans bought off on this.

I have two beefs with this....of course the first is printing money to fund it.

Second, why not make it just available to cars built by companies that live in the US? Why make it available to car makers from foreign lands?

F'ing stupid.

Because if you isolate American only manufacturers it would be an illegal subsidy and you would start a trade war.

BigRedChief
06-11-2009, 09:19 AM
Because if you isolate American only manufacturers it would be an illegal subsidy and you would start a trade war.
When they did this in Germany and England what was the criteria?

KC native
06-11-2009, 09:22 AM
When they did this in Germany and England what was the criteria?

Don't know but I'm sure it was WTO compliant.

Brock
06-11-2009, 09:23 AM
Just to be clear some republicans bought off on this.

I have two beefs with this....of course the first is printing money to fund it.

Second, why not make it just available to cars built by companies that live in the US? Why make it available to car makers from foreign lands?

F'ing stupid.

Outmoded thinking. There are no American companies anymore, not at that level. They don't think of themselves as American, they're Global.

Radar Chief
06-16-2009, 09:13 AM
Appears that this may not be the sweetheart deal I thought it was going to be. For instance, anything pre ’85 is ineligible. Not out of any respect for auto-restorers, but because the fuel mileage of vehicles isn’t tracked any further back than that.
More at the link.

http://jalopnik.com/5285032/cash-for...ses-we-analyze
∑ Cash For Clunkers Bill: House Passes, We Analyze

By Matt Hardigree, 6:25 PM on Tue Jun 9 2009, 15,855 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp)
∑ The Community Assistance to Recycle and Save Act (CARS Act), more commonly known as the Cash for Clunkers bill, passed the U.S. House of Representatives moments ago by a vote of 298-to-119. So how's it work?
The concept behind "cash for clunkers" as practiced by both the House and Senate versions of the bill, as well as successfully in other countries, is to create demand for new cars and raise fuel efficiency standards by encouraging consumers to trade in their gas guzzling "clunkers" for more efficient vehicles and, as an incentive, to give them cash.
The compromise House version of the CARS Act (HR 2751) proposes $3,500 or $4,500 vouchers for consumers interested in trading up to a more efficient vehicle. Once the program is enacted you'll have approximately one year to make the move. The hope is the Act will increase new vehicle sales by one million units in the first year at a time when the market is expected to experience sales of less than 10 million. The bill still has to go to the Senate, where it's expected some tweaks will be made before a final bill goes to the President.
How do you qualify for the voucher?

For Passenger Cars
If you have a passenger automobile not classified as a truck you qualify for a $3,500 credit if you trade in a less efficient vehicle for one with a combined fuel economy value at least 4 MPG higher that costs less than $45,000. The passenger car being trading in has to get 18 MPG or less, meaning you can't trade in a first generation Prius for a newer one. Additionally, the new vehicle has to get 22 MPG or better. In order to qualify for $4,500 you need to buy a vehicle that gets 10 MPG better combined than your trade-in.

For Light Duty Truck And SUVs
If you decide you want to trade in your category 1 light truck or SUV you need to find a new vehicle capable of getting a combined MPG of better than 18 MPG. If the new vehicle gets 2 MPG better you're eligible for $3,500. If you want the full $4,500 you need to find a new truck capable of getting a combined mileage 5 MPG higher.

For Heavy Duty Trucks And Vans
If you have a large Class 1 truck you're eligible for a $3,500 voucher if you trade up for one capable of getting at least 15 MPG combined and gets 1 MPG combined. For $4,500 the new vehicle will also have to provide performance 2 MPG or better than the trade in.

For Work Trucks
The best you can get for trading up to a Class 2 truck like a Ford F-250, is $3,500. In order to get this voucher you need to be trading in a vehicle with a model year older than 2001 for a new truck of smaller or similar size. Because of recent federal regulation changes, it's assumed the new truck is going to have a higher fuel economy.

Trading Up
After receiving questions about this from commenters, we contacted the sponsoring Congresswoman's staff and they assured us you can trade up from a truck or SUV to a passenger car (or smaller truck) assuming the new vehicles meets the minimum requirements (18 MPG or better, under $45,000) and is more efficient than the trade-in.

No Cheating
Those wishing to buy an older junked car for $200 and trade it in for $4,500 towards a new car are going to be dissapointed. :cuss: The bill requires you to own and operate the car for more than a year before trading it in and it has to be in drivable condition, meaning the clunker can't be overly clunky.

No Old Cars
Many car enthusiasts fearful someone will trade in a rare classic will applaud the section limiting the cars to those produced in model year 1985 or after. Of course, this wasn't done for the sake of car fans. They can't easily determine the combined fuel economy of vehicles before the date because the EPA didn't track this data.

To The Crusher!
The law is very explicit on this point: the car has to be crushed. No salvaging it. No retitling it. No shipping it off to another country. The car has to be crushed and the title has to be transferred. Anyone trying to pass the voucher off and then resell the car could be penalized $15,000 per violation. However, you can strip and sell any part of the car that isn't the engine block.

BigRedChief
06-16-2009, 09:30 AM
Appears that this may not be the sweetheart deal I thought it was going to be. For instance, anything pre í85 is ineligible. Not out of any respect for auto-restorers, but because the fuel mileage of vehicles isnít tracked any further back than that.
More at the link.

http://jalopnik.com/5285032/cash-for...ses-we-analyze
∑ Cash For Clunkers Bill: House Passes, We Analyze

By Matt Hardigree, 6:25 PM on Tue Jun 9 2009, 15,855 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp)
∑ The Community Assistance to Recycle and Save Act (CARS Act), more commonly known as the Cash for Clunkers bill, passed the U.S. House of Representatives moments ago by a vote of 298-to-119. So how's it work?
The concept behind "cash for clunkers" as practiced by both the House and Senate versions of the bill, as well as successfully in other countries, is to create demand for new cars and raise fuel efficiency standards by encouraging consumers to trade in their gas guzzling "clunkers" for more efficient vehicles and, as an incentive, to give them cash.
The compromise House version of the CARS Act (HR 2751) proposes $3,500 or $4,500 vouchers for consumers interested in trading up to a more efficient vehicle. Once the program is enacted you'll have approximately one year to make the move. The hope is the Act will increase new vehicle sales by one million units in the first year at a time when the market is expected to experience sales of less than 10 million. The bill still has to go to the Senate, where it's expected some tweaks will be made before a final bill goes to the President.
How do you qualify for the voucher?

For Passenger Cars
If you have a passenger automobile not classified as a truck you qualify for a $3,500 credit if you trade in a less efficient vehicle for one with a combined fuel economy value at least 4 MPG higher that costs less than $45,000. The passenger car being trading in has to get 18 MPG or less, meaning you can't trade in a first generation Prius for a newer one. Additionally, the new vehicle has to get 22 MPG or better. In order to qualify for $4,500 you need to buy a vehicle that gets 10 MPG better combined than your trade-in.

For Light Duty Truck And SUVs
If you decide you want to trade in your category 1 light truck or SUV you need to find a new vehicle capable of getting a combined MPG of better than 18 MPG. If the new vehicle gets 2 MPG better you're eligible for $3,500. If you want the full $4,500 you need to find a new truck capable of getting a combined mileage 5 MPG higher.

For Heavy Duty Trucks And Vans
If you have a large Class 1 truck you're eligible for a $3,500 voucher if you trade up for one capable of getting at least 15 MPG combined and gets 1 MPG combined. For $4,500 the new vehicle will also have to provide performance 2 MPG or better than the trade in.

For Work Trucks
The best you can get for trading up to a Class 2 truck like a Ford F-250, is $3,500. In order to get this voucher you need to be trading in a vehicle with a model year older than 2001 for a new truck of smaller or similar size. Because of recent federal regulation changes, it's assumed the new truck is going to have a higher fuel economy.

Trading Up
After receiving questions about this from commenters, we contacted the sponsoring Congresswoman's staff and they assured us you can trade up from a truck or SUV to a passenger car (or smaller truck) assuming the new vehicles meets the minimum requirements (18 MPG or better, under $45,000) and is more efficient than the trade-in.

No Cheating
Those wishing to buy an older junked car for $200 and trade it in for $4,500 towards a new car are going to be dissapointed. :cuss: The bill requires you to own and operate the car for more than a year before trading it in and it has to be in drivable condition, meaning the clunker can't be overly clunky.

No Old Cars
Many car enthusiasts fearful someone will trade in a rare classic will applaud the section limiting the cars to those produced in model year 1985 or after. Of course, this wasn't done for the sake of car fans. They can't easily determine the combined fuel economy of vehicles before the date because the EPA didn't track this data.

To The Crusher!
The law is very explicit on this point: the car has to be crushed. No salvaging it. No retitling it. No shipping it off to another country. The car has to be crushed and the title has to be transferred. Anyone trying to pass the voucher off and then resell the car could be penalized $15,000 per violation. However, you can strip and sell any part of the car that isn't the engine block.
I can trade in my old 98 Ford Explorer that gets 18 MPG and get $4,500 for vehicle thats worth $1,000 maybe....Just have to get a car/truck that gets 28 miles a gallon?

Plus take all my taxes, escise tax and sales tax off my taxes above the line? Man thats a sweet deal

Brock
06-16-2009, 09:33 AM
I wonder if I can strip off the parts that I want to keep before they send it to the crusher.

MagicHef
06-16-2009, 09:37 AM
It's kind of funny that it has to be in drivable condition, but it must be crushed. I doubt the environmental gain of better fuel economy will be enough to offset the wasted material and energy used to make the car that must replace it.

Garcia Bronco
06-16-2009, 09:51 AM
This is the same tax credit that's been in place all through the oaughts.

Iowanian
06-16-2009, 10:35 AM
To The Crusher!
The law is very explicit on this point: the car has to be crushed. No salvaging it. No retitling it. No shipping it off to another country. The car has to be crushed and the title has to be transferred. Anyone trying to pass the voucher off and then resell the car could be penalized $15,000 per violation. However, you can strip and sell any part of the car that isn't the engine block.


This is stupid.
Lets assume the rule is to get these off of the road. If ObamaCo is really interested in saving the earth, there are many of these trade-ins that would have value in parts (fenders-doors, windows, interior, drivetrain.....and THEN let them be crushed.

stupid. stupid. Stupid.

King_Chief_Fan
06-16-2009, 12:47 PM
shouldn't he give buyers 5K to buy a car from Government Motors instead?

BigRedChief
06-16-2009, 12:50 PM
shouldn't he give buyers 5K to buy a car from Government Motors instead?
Can't say buy GM, Ford or Crysler only. That would kick off a trade war.

mlyonsd
06-16-2009, 12:53 PM
Can't say buy GM, Ford or Crysler only. That would kick off a trade war.

I thought we were already in one since our trade deficit was $29.2 billion in April.

Guru
06-16-2009, 01:23 PM
Having to get 18 miles per gallon or worse combined mileage in your current vehicle is going to exclude many family SUVs and other vehicles.

Is it the EPA rating? Is it an average of city/highway? What number will be used?Yep, I purchased two vehicles this year and this would have done me no good at all.

Screw the people with big families.

and no, I don't agree with them throwing more money out there for crap like this.

wild1
06-16-2009, 01:30 PM
LMAO what a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars. "Working families" paying a subsidy so people who can afford to buy a new car right now can buy a fancier one.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2009, 03:30 PM
so if the dealer has to junk your trade, what do you think you will get for the trade in?

mlyonsd
06-16-2009, 04:18 PM
so if the dealer has to junk your trade, what do you think you will get for the trade in?

$3500 or $4500 respectively.

HonestChieffan
06-16-2009, 04:30 PM
why? He doesnt get 4500 or 3500...you do. He gets scrap value only.

mlyonsd
06-16-2009, 04:37 PM
why? He doesnt get 4500 or 3500...you do. He gets scrap value only.

Why would he give you money for something he has to scrap?

You raise an excellent point.

I have a 2002 3/4 ton Chevy pickup that gets 11 mpg. Last I checked it was still worth about 7k.

Why would I trade it in?

HonestChieffan
06-16-2009, 04:40 PM
Why would he give you money for something he has to scrap?

You raise an excellent point.

I have a 2002 3/4 ton Chevy pickup that gets 11 mpg. Last I checked it was still worth about 7k.

Why would I trade it in?

Amazing bit of legislation....its automatically limited to cars that run, valued under 4500 and that have a scrap value.

mlyonsd
06-16-2009, 04:48 PM
Amazing bit of legislation....its automatically limited to cars that run, valued under 4500 and that have a scrap value.

Three years ago I owned a 1985 Caprice and a 1986 Caprice and used them as highway cars.

Between them I had $1500 in them excluding maintenance. I put about 100,000 miles total on them.

Each of them got about 18mpg but why would I trade one of them in and still have to pay $15k?

This whole thing is stupid. But it's only a $4,000,000,000 program. Chicken feed these days.

Toyota and Honda have to be loving this.

Infidel Goat
06-16-2009, 06:19 PM
Interesting.

I drive a 1992 Nissan Maxima. The estimated fuel economy is 19 mpg (17 city, 24 highway). Those figures, imo, are inflated--it seems like most cars mpg estimates were downgraded recently.

I wonder if they will consider a car like the one I drive with retroactive mpg changing. Otherwise, I will be sorely tempted to trade my car for any clunker (younger than 25 years) that officially gets worse than 18 mpg so that I can trade that vehicle in for the voucher.

My car only has 92,000 on it, but a $4,500 voucher would probably motivate me to buy a new fuel efficient vehicle. I think it would pull the base Prius down to $18K or so. The Honda Fit could probably be had for $10-11K.

I'm not sure the gov't wanted to target a car that only drives 4,000 miles per year currently, but we'd certainly make it our primary errand/trip car replacing the vehicle that currently averages 21 mpg (19 city, 25 highway).

KCTitus
06-16-2009, 06:26 PM
Does anyone know how to convert a Honda Odyssey to a coal burning engine? This 'for the environment' BS is about to make me go over the edge.

mlyonsd
06-16-2009, 08:00 PM
Does anyone know how to convert a Honda Odyssey to a coal burning engine? This 'for the environment' BS is about to make me go over the edge.

Watch your words or you'll be on a list.

Guru
06-16-2009, 08:06 PM
Does anyone know how to convert a Honda Odyssey to a coal burning engine? This 'for the environment' BS is about to make me go over the edge.You don't care about your planet?:D

googlegoogle
06-23-2009, 03:51 PM
Who cares about the subsidy? I'm going to buy up a bunch of clunkers for $500 and sell them to people for $2,500 so they can get the credit. That's where the real money is.

I could see scams like that popping up.

anytime the government makes deals like these then people take advantage of it.

googlegoogle
06-23-2009, 03:53 PM
I'm not sure why the government needs to distribute tax dollars to people who want and have the ability to purchase new cars.

Many working families can't afford a new car even with a $3000 credit. Sounds like this is funneling more tax dollars to the rich, I say!

I consider this more vote buying. Buying cars for the poor.