bobb1951 - Have you figured out the answer to your question from 11/6 post??

40% discount WAS avaiable to anybody during the clunker sale. This 40% isnt always the case for employees either- dont get employess confused.There were huge rebates at the time. Plus and extra $5000 for employess on limited models only.you wont save $16000 on jeeps right now. during clunker you (anybody) would save about $10,000 on trucks and that is LARGE discounts. with the clunker thing ANYBODY could save $50 on calibers. they had 4500 rebate and 4500 clunker and most sold were about $20k list.

Hannah, thanks for responding but your situation is very different than the regular person. An approx. 40% discount is not available to anyone outside the auto industry.Even with the discount it's still a bad investment. Luck has absolutely nothing to do with my(or anyone else's) ability to buy an auto for cash. By not doing stupid things with my money allows me to do that and more. I'm not criticizing you but you are not taking ALL costs into the equation. To all others who's vanity has driven(ha,ha) them to purchase a new car: "There is no necessary relationship between the level of posession and the level of well being". Bill Mckibben:Deep Economy

"nothing that is even close as bad as an investment for your money than buying a new car. "
yes ther eis buying a used car. Like I said new or used are both bad choices I wont use word investment cause it isnt BUT we need them to get around.

andrew jackson- this is true it is a bad investment but buying new vs new and finding out which works better takes many calculations.
i will give you an example. I get an ep discount. I bought a new $43k vehicle for $25,000. I put the lifetime bumper to bumper warranty on it . It is good for as long as I own this car and tend to for at least 10 years. Now at this time wholesale for this car used WITH MILES on it about 20 k would have only saved me a few thousand dollars.PLUS IT WOULDNT have lifetime warranty on it cause that doesnt transfer. so take that few thousand over 10 years and compare that to buying used. Yes not all are ep pricing purchased but you need to look at this big picture.

It doesnt matter if you buy new or used youre still losing money cause the fact it is a depreciating asset will never change. That is lucky for you to have enough cash laying around to buy a car. MANY dont have money laying around and have to finance the car. I could go on but this should help a bit.


okay I have to go on. Lets tkae this clunker car a person paid ONLY $10,000 for. they could sell this in one year and make a profit!! or keep it and still be driving it at a real good deal. again this disproves your point NEVER buy a new car.

There is absolutely, positively, 100%, nothing that is even close as bad as an investment for your money than buying a new car. If people were to actually sit down with a calculator and figure out what they REALLY cost, I think sales would fall off the chart. But vanity in America is a very powerful force! P.S. I haven't had a car payment since 1977.

janesvillean- correct if going to catagory 1 to catagory 1 with a small fuel improvement yould get $3500. If you traded that cat 1 for a gas saving car and gained 10 mpg you would get 4500.
some cargo van to minivan vans were $4500 .

It was very interesting on fuel ec of
00 dodge van 3.3 I think it was wouldnt qualify but all other years around it same engine would. A t&c same year same engine also would. Makes NO sence at all.

These vans also had to get a 4.0 to qualify for the fuel eco diffenence if chrysler brand van- van. Those were going like hotcakes.

a 5.9 v8 ram to a 5.7 v8 ram got the full $4500.

I believe these are "Category 1 trucks" which means that the $3500 credit only applies for gas mileage differences between the trade-in and new vehicle of 2-5 mpg. (For Category 1 cars, it's 4-10 mpg.)
http://www.cars.gov/faq

I would like to know what dealership Hanna works at?

"but I know for a fact that many cars that would pass a safty inspection were crushed for cash for clunkers."

only way to know is to DO A SAFETY. I doubt many paid for a safety when it is going to c4c.

As an exboyfriend used to tell me when my car broke down, "SwissChickie, it's just a machine. It's only as strong as it's weakest link".

Hanna: I do realize that just because a car looks good doesn't mean it will pass a safty inspection, but I know for a fact that many cars that would pass a safty inspection were crushed for cash for clunkers. I have been around the automotive business in one way or another for my entire life.
As for people thinking that they will never have problems with a used car, how many people think that they will never have a new car break down? It all comes down to if it is mechanical sooner or later it will break down.
And yes I do agree that the fedalis extended warranty is a big ripoff.

johhny- just cause they look good doesnt mean theyll pass safety!! It is very difficult for a 15 year old car to pass safety. It is very pricey if it doesnt pass safety to set up the car for the lot and people dont understand WHY a used older car can cost so much. This is why many dealers dont sell $5000 cars. To much head ache. The customer thinks it is a new car cause it passed safety. It may still need repairs now and in the future. Cannot warranty them either. - oh yes I guess you can by calling fidelis(sp) yes warranty your 10 year old car with 150 k WOW how much would that cost. more than the value of the car that is for sure.have you seen that commercial???

It was a terrible time to do this because yes vamping up production would have been great but it was the end of 09 production and couldnt build if they wanted to.

Those who started early did get some discount. A week later we said WE CANNOT discount anymore and those who understood you are the only one with anything left were happy to pay retail and get A vehicle while getting 4500 for their 100 car.

"They had no idea it would be so popular, or they would have ramped up production ahead of time. Ask an actual dealer or salesperson."

you are correct and ask those who "have to think about it" who didnt get a car. Originally they had 2 billion to use by nov or dec or so. 2 weeks into they say WOOOAAAAA. stop for now till we compute and calculate. 2 more billion or so added and all she wrote in only ONE MONTH total!!

we were taking deposits on cars they havent even driven yet. those who thought about it I am talking about HOURS and the one they want is gone and traded to another dealer and already sold . All within an hour on this specific person.

Hanna: That may have been the case at the dealership that you are at, but at many of the large dealerships that I saw there were many vehicles that would have passed safty inspections.

The purpose of C4C was to stimulate the economy, nothing else. The government was smart to include a fuel efficiency component, however small. It wouldn't have been environmentally wise to provide incentives for people to trade in their clunker neon for a new SUV, for example.

Ezoner wrote:
"1. CFC destroyed residual value in the autos/trucks"

Not any more than the huge incentives already being offered by the manufacturers. GM and Chrsyler have been destroying their residual value for years with huge rebates. In many instances, the manufacturer rebates plus your trade-in value would have been MORE than the $4,500 C4C rebate.

"2. The Gov money will be considered income and taxes."

A widely spread idea that is mostly false. The cash-for-clunkers measure, known as the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009, exempts consumers who take advantage of the program from paying (Federal) taxes on the rebate. But it does not exempt car dealers.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090803...

Each state is handling state sales differently. For purposes of Wisconsin's sales and use tax laws, the amount of the electronic voucher applied by the car dealer under the "CARS" program as a partial payment or down payment towards a person's purchase of a new fuel efficient vehicle is NOT subject to Wisconsin sales or use tax.
http://www.dor.state.wi.us/taxpro/news/0...

Because the CARS payment is NOT included in federal taxable income, it will NOT be included in state taxable income unless the state legislature enacts a provision requiring an add-back adjustment. No state has done that so far.

"3. Dealers, manufactures had less of a reason to negotiate on price - they new a demand was coming."

They had no idea it would be so popular, or they would have ramped up production ahead of time. Ask an actual dealer or salesperson.

"4. Increased warrranty risk for manufacturers"

What? Selling MORE cars increases warranty risk? That make no sense. Warranty cost is built into the price of every vehicle, or no manufacturer would ever make a profit. By your logic, manufacturers would want to sell as few vehicles as possible. Wow.

"5. Lower repair and aftermarket demand for parts and services -- higher margin business."

This was a one-for-one trade. Yes, newer vehicles get repaired less than old vehicles, but the economic activity of pulling forward thousands of sales is huge compared to fewer repairs done to cars almost ready for the scrap pile.

"6. Gov money interest to taxpayers"

You mean interest on national debt? Well, that's a cost of any stimulus. I won't argue economic policy in this post.

"7. Higher payment or increased personal debt carried, may take some out of the home market."

You seriously think a significant number of people saving to buy a home purchased a car instead? There is no evidence to suggest that. As someone else pointed out, most of the transactions were paid with cash.

"8. Some states have personal property tax laws that include property taxes on vehicles (New cars would mean higher tax revenues and higher taxes)."

What states will tax the CARS rebate? See #2 above.

like I mentioned before MOST of those vehicles WOULDNT have passed a safety!! I would say 3 out of 32 we had were decent like youre speaking of. ONE of the 15 I sold was decent. The rest we scary just to drive down the road to park it. One lady took hers back cause it didnt qualify and gave to her son. It was terrible and VERY unsafe.

One big problem I had with the program is that there was alot of perfectly good vehicles with many more miles of use left on them that were destroyed. Instead of flooding the scrap steel market and driving down the price to next to nothing, why couldn't they sell the good vehicles that would of passed a safty inspection to low income families at a reduced rate? This would of removed alot of even older and unsafe vehicles off of the road as well as helping out the lower income families that are struggling trying to keep their old cars running.

I never once referred to those people as "rich". I agreed that most of the people purchasing those vehicles were probably more well off than people like me.

just becuae you have $10,000 in the bank that you have been saving for a new car in 10 years doesnt mean youre rich. Middle class people sometimes save to buy things vs getting a loan. rich people usually arent the ones buying $10,000 new budget cars.

You claim it wasn't a "rich" persons plan, but then further claim that most of those people "paid cash". You just made my point.

Swiss chick- yes I got it- not only have I not had a raise in a few years as well I make a lot less than I used to in the last three years.
I was just trying to point out the fact that this isnt a "rich" persons plan. I understand that maybe not even a 250 is workable but this plan compared to buying a used $10,000 car worked very well.

For those who said a lot of repoes will be coming up- doubt it. most paid cash. Like I said some of these clunkers turned in were in their normal trade cycle anyway and they had cash down as well.

Bun Bun is correct and I will elaborate.

1. CFC destroyed residual value in the autos/trucks
2. The Gov money will be considered income and taxes.
3. Dealers, manufactures had less of a reason to negotiate on price - they new a demand was coming.
4. Increased warrranty risk for manufacturers
5. Lower repair and aftermarket demand for parts and services -- higher margin business.
6. Gov money interest to taxpayers
7. Higher payment or increased personal debt carried, may take some out of the home market.
8. Some states have personal property tax laws that include property taxes on vehicles (New cars would mean higher tax revenues and higher taxes).

I cannot believe that anyone fell for this nor believes this program was a positive.

A better idea is a tax break for middle class, putting more money in their pockets.

hannah - Apparently, you have all the answers. I haven't had a raise in 3 years. With the economy like it is, I didn't want to compromise my future earnings with an added payment in case I lost my job. I work for a construction company and, in case you haven't noticed, there isn't a whole lot of building going on right now. Got it?

One point that was probably missed, it the program was for clunker trades to get more gas milage. Isn't 1-3 mpg "more". Also, any new vehicle complies with Gen IV technology and not only gets better gas milage, but better tailpipe emissions. I am NOT for these government programs, but here is one that worked, was easily tracked, and they shut it down. Half way into the $730B bank bailout, the GAO asked banks to provide details of where the money went, and nobody knew. Nobody can provide details that the bank bailout worked. It seems to be the opposite with this program. Keep in mind, that only 10% (national average) of people are unemployed, that means 90% (of eligible) are working. It is that 90% that is going to turn this economy around.

As for the program benefitting the rich I have 2 problems with that idea. 1. The rich probably do not have old "clunkers". If they do have a gas guzzler it is because they want that size. 2. Rich people do not need to trade. They can buy. I think the program was meant to help low/middle income people. Those are the people who drive their cars until they die. Unfortunately, a new car payment is out of reach for the low income and even some middle income people. Try as you may, no program for whatever situation will help more than 50-60% of the people intended. There will always be others who were not intended to get help but are able to capitalize. That is human nature and the American way.

I've never been to college or taking economics but it seems to me 3 billion dollars to keep people working is a better investment than 3 billion to extend unemployment benefits. But I do know that standing around with your thumb in your backside gives you nothing but a sore back!

I've always had a problem with Cash4Clunkers. To me it seems to go against simple supply and demand economics. How can we push all of these new cars into a market already saturated with used and repossessed vehicles (see www.repofinder.com)? Now new cars are worth even less, we have more Amerians in debt, and eventually more repossessions.

Another program the government could not make work.

swisschick- you could buy a new vehicle for $10,000. 72 months is under 250 a month. this isnt a "rich" payment. a lot of peoples usual trade cycle is 7-10 years(their personal one I mean) it fell into this program at a great time. some trades SHOULD BE OFF THE street for safety reason and MOST of them were that way. there are plenty of junkers left. the salvage yards get all that product they can get off it it for almost free and can sell it. so it benefits them as well.

"I would've like to see something that would get me out of my 14 year old car and into a newer used vehicle."

$10,000 for a used vehicle isnt going to get you much either. It is a very popular price point for a used car. you are still going to need to pay for it with a loan. you wont get as long of a term with that used car or as good of a rate. So with that being said you can have a new car for about $50 more a month OR LESS. the new one has a warranty. The used one wont have a whole lot of warranty. If there is a loan youre going to have to insure it anyway. the new cars rates may possible be less than an older car because of safety ratings. that could off set the small amount of payment difference.

enutpenfry - I definitely agree with the first line of your post. I would've like to have a newer vehicle, but I simply couldn't have afforded 4 years (or more) of payments on new vehicles. If you're well off, you benefitted from this program. I would've like to see something that would get me out of my 14 year old car and into a newer used vehicle.

The Cash for Clunkers program may have been promoted as a way to help the environment, but it turned out to be a tax break for the "rich" (defined as those who could afford a new car). To add insult to injury, the Cash for Clunkers program has driven up the price of used cars, making it harder for the "poor" to get a replacement vehicle. According to several news reports, the Cash for Clunkers program resulted in the destruction of many perfectly good vehicles that got decent gas mileage.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...

Ultimately, I think this was truly intended to be a kick-back to the auto unions from the Democrats, but people instead mostly purchased Toyotas and Hondas, thereby pouring more salt into a wound.

1) starting in 08 model years across the board the big numbers are more conservative. so if you had a 07 minivan and traded for 08 same engine etc it would show on paper mileage went down when truly it didnt. So when buying this 09 truck the mileage would actually be 2-4 better than the old.

2) old clunkers did get worse mileage AND since theyre old may not have the optimum mileage anymore. We do need to sell trucks too and some people still NEED a truck cause they use them for work etc.
3) you did only receive 3500 if the fuel improvement was 1-3 better. If you did trade the truck for a gas saver you received the FULL 4500 if a 10 mpg improvement.
4) REMEMBER the fuel economy guideline we set BY THE GOV!!
example 4 door wranglers didnt qualify cause fuel eco wasnt 17 or better or was it 18 well what ever. this was automatic transmission- on the window label 6 speed transmission is about 1-2 better fuel economy over the auto. but guess what on the gov site theyre rated the same. It is a very well selling vehicle on its own so gov stepped in and made it NOT eligible - MY GUESS.

5) it is still a fuel improvement CORRECT.

income gained- doubt it. It was also shown as trade money and not even taxed- I was shocked!!
youll also get to deduct the tax paid on that vehicle on your 09 taxes if you itemize or not. Seems the biggest exclusion is if you make over $250k married couple and $150 or $175 k single. sorry cannot remember the single income limits.

why are you so upset about this program. Are you mad you didnt take advantage of it?
Yes it is tax payer money. I think they should have done this long ago instead of the big bail outs and pass all this on to the regular folks. I wish theyld do it again like they extended the new home buyer tax credit and added if you already own a home credit.

Well 1-3 mpg is better but I also think they were trying to get people to buy new cars and trucks to help get the economy moving. The trade ins are also off the road for good not in a used car lot. Has the program been perfect? No but it was one of the better ideas I have seen.

it doesnt make sense. but they had to set some kind of parameters. and the truck for truck fell into the parameters they set. not a perfect program but it did waaaay more for the auto industry than the billions they gave gm to only delay bankruptcy...

just wait till the suckers that bought under this program get hit on thier taxes for the "income" gained for the cash for clunkers--ha, ha!