Feds To Offer Cash For Your Clunker 740
coondoggie sends along a NetworkWorld piece that begins, "The government... wants to motivate you to get rid of your clunker of a car for the good of the country (and the moribund car industry). A 'Cash for Clunkers' measure introduced this week by three US Senators, two Democrats and a Republican, would set up a national voucher program to encourage drivers to voluntarily trade in their older, less fuel-efficient car, truck, or SUV for a car that gets better gas mileage. Should the bill pass, the program would pay out a credit of $2,500 to $4,500 for drivers who turn in fuel-inefficient vehicles to be scrapped and purchase a more fuel-efficient vehicle."
Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the person with the junker will buy a used car that costs them about how much they're being reimbursed by the government for, and then the person who just sold their car will buy a slightly newer used car, then that person will buy a new car? In the end a new car is bought, it just might take a couple sales to get to it.
GP is right though. Foreign is where it's at right now.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Informative)
Say A buys a used, more fuel efficient car from B, B buys a used, more fuel efficient car from C, C buys a used, more fuel efficient car from D, and D buys a new, more fuel efficient car.
All the old cars are exactly as fuel efficient as they always were, one new fuel efficient car was bought at the cost of 4 vouchers for a total of $10,000-$18,000, and one old car is either being scrapped, or more likely is put on the market for someone else to drive.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
It says you have to scrap it. So no, it's not going back on the market. That would defeat the entire point...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's not suggesting it goes back on the market - the car at the bottom of the "chain", for which the voucher is issued, is scrapped. What he's suggesting is that the voucher goes towards a used, rather than new, replacement.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
I think people are missing the idea. You only get money when you are scraping your car. Let's say you take that ~4k and buy a 3 year old Civic. Well the used Civic market would improve so more people might decide to trade their Civic in and buy a new one but they don't get a credit. Net result trading in an old clunker a far more fuel efficient car and costing the government ~4k.
There will probably be some limitation that the car must be in use, but it's still a begging for people to dump a lot of old cars that are not in active use. AKA the old pickup truck that you use every other month is now worth 4k.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
The poor who can't find a Used Junker end up staying poor and often go on welfare. I'm all for the environment but not at the expense of humans, especially the disadvantaged poor. You lose all credit when you attempt to say the poor can just suffer some more because you have some arbitrary ideal of what the environment should be. And yes, it is arbitrary because you have no clue if your preferred version is the right version, you only know that someone told you something and you seem to like it.
That being said, I hope someone starts a guns for junk cars campaign so the poor can extract their just revenge on people like you when their already hard lives become harder. Not all people live within walking distance or biking distance to a job that pays more then minimum wage. I have no idea why your so eager to make more people become trapped into those conditions but if I was on a jury, I couldn't find one of them guilty if they ever did anything towards you. I want you to know that because if you survive or someone you know who believes the same as your ever has anythign happen to them and the criminal who caused it gets off scott free, it is directly because of your position of making them suffer more because you have some unsubstantated idea of what things should be like.
I will accept your version if you accept mine. I will sleep comfortably in doing so too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This rises a question: why do cars cost so much ? I see them competing on looks, "sportiness", extra equipment etc. but never on price. How much would a car designed to be cheap (which, obviously, includes being energy efficient) with nothing extra (not even a radio) cost ?
That might be something for auto makers to consider.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I have no clue of the actual numbers or averages, but I cant see this being bad. Even if everyone goes out and buys a used car with their vouchers you are still ridding the market of their previous used cars, and there is a good chance some would(or would have) to get a newer car. If you think of it, the only people that will go after the vouchers are people that will profit from it. For example they can get more money from the vouchers than selling the car. This means you will be getting rid of very low value cars which are most likely the bottom of the barrel for fuel usage (excluding vintage cars).
Anyways going back to the GP if you want to keep that example it would be A uses a voucher and buys off B, who in turns upgrades and buys off C, which pushes D to buy a new car. That would be 1 voucher for 2500-4500, and 1 car being scrapped, with 1 new car sale.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm also afraid a little over this required scrap clause. It might cause us to lose more of some classic cars that can and SHOULD be restored.
Someone might have what is currently a 'junker' GTO or Camaro...and with this, the car is scrapped, and a piece of history is lost.
If they have to do this law, maybe they can make some provisions that antique and historically valuable cars can be saved if they are to be restored.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You understand that it is possible that the government could do more than one thing at a time, right?
We fought a war in Viet Nam and sent a man to the moon (supposedly) at the same time.
I know it's an unpopular thought among the neo-Randian, faux-libertarian, techie subculture that believes writing an iPhone app is accomplishing something, and who believes in less government but wants it to look just like Star Tr
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
It costs about 50,000 miles worth of gasoline, at 25mpg average, to build a new car (energy cost). Even if you upgraded from a 25 mpg old car (like mine) to a 50mpg hybrid, the gas savings are not going to be enough to offset that initial manufacturing cost.
A wiser solution is to simply impose a mandatory minimum of 60mpg on car manufacturers. They can continue building their SUVs, but their "top" car must be able to get at least 60mpg (instead of the current U.S. peak of 40mpg). That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but their "top" car must be able to get at least 60mpg (instead of the current U.S. peak of 40mpg). That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Ever consider that you can't generally get something for nothing? IE the costs of making a mass market 60mpg car would make it either so expensive or feature sparse that they can't make their development costs back from it?
We're still stuck with physics, thus it's not like we can just legislate a XXX mpg car into existence.
That way those of us who care about the environment, when we finally decide to buy a new car, will have the option of a 60mpg or better vehicle.
Ah yes, the ecoleaner 2010. 60mpg, comes
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also afraid a little over this required scrap clause. It might cause us to lose more of some classic cars that can and SHOULD be restored.
If there is a good enough reason to restore a car, that car will be worth enough to somebody to buy one for more than the voucher is worth.
In all honesty, though, unless you're a museum, you aren't providing ANY worth by doting on your antique.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
In all honesty, though, unless you're a museum, you aren't providing ANY worth by doting on your antique.
Very few hobbies have anything to do with worth. Old cars can be fun.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Lol.. Do you think? And your the honest judge of the worth other people contribute to society?
I guess old cars should only be relegated to people who have money then. I purchased a 69 Chevelle for $1200, several years ago. It took me around 8 years to put it back into cherry condition and when I purchased it, I had to barrow the $1200 to do so. It's won a placement in two thirds of the shows I have put it in and it had to double as a daily driver for a year when everything else was going south.
So realistically, I have done nothing to contribute to anything and my effort aren't worth anything. Ok, I can buy that. Just please excuse me when I arbitrarily decide you aren't worth anything and scheme to make your hobby twice as expensive if not out of existence for your income range. Now, don't get mad, I didn't get mad at you, but computers as a whole on average use way more electricity in a year then any antique or collector cars so maybe we should arbitrarily impose restricted taxes on them and make them 2 to 3 times as expensive as they are today. We can call it an electronic tax and apply it to all electronic like big screen TV and dual core processors and all. Then only the rich can afford those things and we save a bunch of energy. How does that sound?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your logic is based on the assumption that one has an old car, then buys a new car which one proceeds to drive for 15 years. That just doesn't work out.
In my experience, people change cars about every 4-5 years. The older (more polluting/less safe) cars are "handed down", while a less polluting/more safe car is aquired. It's not just about the energy, but also safety and comfort. And for some, status.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
It *is* good economics. Maybe it does not lend an astonishing improvement in fleet efficiency but it does spark car sales.
Another way to describe what you have is 4 people trade in their clunker and buy increasingly expensive replacement vehicles. One guy buys a car with the same price as the value of the voucher, another adds in some from their savings, the third takes out an auto loan equal to value of voucher, and the forth uses the voucher as a down payment for a 3-5 year Auto loan. That is a lot of money changing hands.
What would improve fleet efficiency if all this happened with fuel being over $3.00 per gallon. So paying for the program with a national fuel tax would dramatically strengthen the effects... 1: it would encourage participation 2: it would make vehicle efficiency a more important factor in future purchases 3: It would allow for a larger program (more clunkers off the road).
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? Are you claiming that the voucher will *encourage* people to spend money they don't have? If they need the voucher as a downpayment to get a loan, they probably can't afford to pay off the loan to begin with. So you're setting yourself up for lots of defaults after some time, once the vouchers are used up.
Sorry, but economics that encourages people to take out loans they can't afford is even worse than what I was imagining.
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:4, Interesting)
No, he's right. Take my example. I'm in the market for a new(er) car, but I'm not going to go out and take out a loan for the whole sum. But, if I had a somewhat sizeable lump of money, taking out a loan is more reasonable.
I can afford taking a loan for 100% of the car, but I just plain *don't want to*. A loan for 60-70% of the car OTOH, makes a lot more sense to me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If they don't spend, the economy craters even more and we enter a depression
Mr. Hoover demonstrated that this isn't actually the case.
When the economy is in the tank, the feds need to run up the debt. Public spending replaces the private spending that would not happen, thus stabilizing the economy. When boom times return, the government should slash it's spending to pay back the debt run up during the downturn, since pri
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
This "idea" from Congress is the equivalent of breaking all the windows in your house, just so you can keep the glass-makers employed. It is the exact *opposite* of productivity. It is wasteful. Like burning money. PLUS every new car built costs the energy equivalent of 50,000 miles of gasoline (2000 gallons). It is better for the environment to keep older cars operational than to waste energy/resources building new ones.
Laws make inefficiency (Score:5, Interesting)
You're absolutely right. But it gets even worse. Here's a stupid situation I could hypothetically be in soon: I drive an old car that is probably qualified to be traded in under this bill. Suppose it breaks down, and the repairs would cost $1000. The car isn't really worth that, so without this bill, I probably would have junked it. WITH this bill, since the "Cash for Clunkers" program requires the car to be in working condition, it's now to my advantage to get it repaired, trade it in for my $2500-$4000 federal money, and then it gets sent to the junkyard anyway. Building things just to destroy them - THAT is government destroying an economy.
Broken window fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it does not lend an astonishing improvement in fleet efficiency but it does spark car sales.
If you want to promote a measure to "spark" transactions in the market, you have to be very careful that your measure won't cause a perverse effect due to the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org]. When money changes hands for the sake of money changing hands, it distracts the people involved from actually putting value into their products or services.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If bad cars were not taken off the market and crushed. If emission control laws and safety laws were not enforced. If people were not motivated to buy cleaner more efficient cars (i.e. If now that gas is temporarily low, all those folks went out and buy SUVs). Then, yes you are correct.
This can be avoided by enforcing existing emission and safety regulations; Ensuring all cars in this program are crushed, dismantled, recycled, or in some other way really removed from the market; and keeping a price floor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. You are looking at too small of a picture here. People who drive junkers do so for a reason. Either they can't afford it or don't want to afford a new vehicle. There is a good used car business simply because they don't purchase new cars and don't want the expense of payments.
What you are doing is trying to get people to invest in loans, now they have a financial burden making them less resilient to future financial shifts. You are also shifting their financial expenditures from somewhere t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cost of policing illegal traffic in recycled cars? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's NOT smart. Giving away free money just makes prices rise. Those buying new cars will pay more. Why would a car company give a discount when the extra money is free?
The U.S. government has NO money. The U.S. government is DEEPLY in debt [brillig.com], more in debt than any organization has ever been in the history of the world. This bill would be funded by the Chinese, Saudi, and Dubai governments, among others, and eventually by inflation of the U.S. dollar. Inflation makes everyone pay more, forever.
Have you checked the prices of used SUV's lately? The prices for used cars have gone UP, because people don't want to spend the money for a new car.
Many people with old cars drive old cars because they drive very, very little. There's no yearly mileage requirement in the bill. The fuel economy will not be what the bill's sponsors say.
Someone who drives an "old clunker" now will not want to buy a 2004 or later model car, and probably would not be able to buy a car that expensive. Also, there are many small old cars that get close to the 18 miles per gallon specified in the bill, and many 2004 model year or newer "fuel efficient" cars that get not much more. Someone could, for example, trade in an old Toyota and buy a 2004 SUV or pickup that gets worse gas mileage, but still good gas mileage for that "class" of an SUV or pickup.
Someone who gives a 1998 car to the recyclers that runs fine but gets 16 miles per gallon and buys a far, far more expensive 2004 or newer car that gets 28 miles per gallon, and drives 5,000 miles per year, saves 133 gallons of gas per year. Under the bill, that person gets a $1,500 credit.
That 1998 car doesn't get "recycled" of course. If it runs well, it becomes part of illegal traffic in inexpensive cars for people who don't have jobs. Or, it becomes illegal traffic to Mexico. Cities and states will hire more policemen to prevent the illegal activity.
To get the $1,500 credit, the owner gave a car worth $3,000 [craigslist.org] or more! That's if the car was in a condition that it was actually being used. Obviously, no one will do that.
What will mostly happen, of course, is that people who want to buy a 2004 or newer car will first buy a damaged car in "drivable condition" that has been sitting in someone's driveway not being used. The buyer will give the junker to the recyclers and will use the free money from the U.S. government to save a little on the newer car. But the savings won't be much, because the prices of all cars will rise.
The biggest effect of that bill, other than lowering the value of the dollar and raising the price of newer cars, would be to cause the price of worthless cars in "drivable condition" to go up enormously.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Won't Help Big Three (Score:5, Interesting)
Such a scheme worked here in Ireland, but it was about the era of the dot-com boom, and also the start of cheap credit (and we all know where that led...)
However, it has meant that once and for all we got rid of all the bangers. This allows the government to get away with bringing in a "National Car Test" to ensure cars are a certain operational standard. As a result, most cars on the road are no older than 10 years. The few "bangers" nowadays are maybe 15 years old and they have at least passed the NCT.
Old Stereotypes (Score:4, Insightful)
Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
Not really. Japanese companies are putting more emphasis on hybrids (and have better developed hybrid-tech), and so they get a lot of press in that regard, with some models topping 50mpg in fuel economy. But most cars sold are still conventional gasoline models, and in that regard, Japanese and American models are broadly similar in terms of fuel economy. Compare for instance, two competitors in the sedan market, a 2009 V-6 Toyota Camry, and a 2009 V-6 Ford Taurus. The Camry gets 19/28 mpg, and the Taurus gets 18/28.
As for the "more variety"... where? The beauty of Japanese car company philosophy is that they offer few models. Instead of offering vehicles for every possible niche, the Japanese companies have a few, well-designed and well-built models. Part of the problem that American companies have(and especially GM) is that they'll sell 3 to 5 versions of the same car, sometimes with little difference in the sheet metal. American car companies take "platforming"... using a base car platform to make multiple models... to ridiculous extremes.
Ford sells more fuel efficient models in europe (Score:5, Interesting)
Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
Not really (...)
Actually, pretty much all companies that operate in both US and EU markets have different models for each market, with a BIG difference in fuel efficiency. This includes american companies... At least, Ford has a decent market share in Europe and the cars it sells here are "european" cars, meaning that they go by european standards of size and fuel-efficiency... But even the asian car-makers sell huge boxes in the US that nobody would buy here in europe.
By the way, last I read the auto fleet in europe is currently about TWICE more fuel-efficient than the US fleet... although the numbers themselves are not that impressive. I think it's about 14 vs 7 km/l.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see this helping the Big Three very much. Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
Don't forget that it takes far more energy to make a car in the first place than it does to actually use it. Despite their heavy fuel consumption, old Volvo 240s are one of the most ecologically-friendly cars ever made. They have a design life of over 20 years, and many of the earliest ones are much older than that. Furthermore, because they're easy to repair, it's possible to keep
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be true in the past but with Ford coming out with the new Fiesta for the US market at the beginning of 2010 and a new Focus with more fuel-efficient engines by fall 2010, that benefit Ford as they will have a ready product line to take advantage of people buying more fuel-efficient cars.
Ford is working on a new technology called EcoBoost (essentially much-improved turbocharged engines) that will offer very good fuel economy without sacrificing power. Don't be surprised that Ford offers a 1.4-lit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My car gets 86mpg on the highway. People in Europe consider anything less than 45mpg to be a gas guzzler.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>> My car gets 86mpg on the highway.
I call bullshit. What car? What circumstances?
One of the most fuel efficient cars in Europe is the VW Polo diesel, which gets 33/50 USMPG city/highway.
Then there's the VW Lupo 3L special edition, which gets 78MPG. So even with that you would have to do some hypermiling to get to 86.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And why should we help them? They REFUSE to bring in efficient cars, choosing, instead, to market them in the UK.
Probably because their North American factories are set up to produce the gas guzzlers they decided on a few years back and they can't change overnight. The cars sold in the UK- and the rest of Europe- are mainly made in the EU, so importing them would effectively waste their North American capacity (and put lots of you guys out of work).
Also, EU-made cars would face an economic hurdle since they came from outside NAFTA (the opposite is also true, which is one reason why there are comparatively few North
It Will Help The Big Three (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It Will Help The Big Three (Score:5, Insightful)
This proposal would not help the Big Three, because it won't encourage sales of new cars. People are not going to trade in a $200 clunker in exchange for $2,000 of a $20,000 debt on something that depreciates if they can even get a loan in this environment.
This proposal will help used car dealers at the expense of pretty much everyone. The demand for used cars will skyrocket as people try to trade in their $200 clunkers for $1,500 used cars. Of course in that $1,500 won't buy them what it would buy them now.
There _may_ be environmental benefits as people dump less fuel efficient cars for already existing more fuel efficient cars, but it's certainly not obvious that is going to be the case.
Unless you are a used car salesman, the only real benefit here is reducing our demand for foreign energy. But the amount of oil this is supposed to save after 4 years is only 40,000 to 80,000 barrels per day. That's not even a drop in the bucket. It's not even a drop in the bucket of how much our demand will have increased during the same time period!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"This proposal will help used car dealers at the expense of pretty much everyone. The demand for used cars will skyrocket as people try to trade in their $200 clunkers for $1,500 used cars. Of course in that $1,500 won't buy them what it would buy them now."
You are dead fucking right.
For one thing, dealers will lawfully sell clunkers to their buddies (repos, trade-ins,running wrecks) who will lawfully tag and register them. They will then lawfully use the money from turning them in elsewhere to buy rides fr
What environmental cost to build a new car? (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I think the 'ism supported here is consumerism, not environmentalism. Let old cars die their natural death.
Re:What environmental cost to build a new car? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in BC, they have a ScrapIt program, where you 'sell' your car to a scrapyard, and in exchange you get either a big discount on a bike, bus passes for a number of months, or a relatively small amount of cash. So it encourages switching/using a alternate form of transportation.
Of course, when I put my car into ScrapIt, I resold the bus passes and bought another car...
Re:What environmental cost to build a new car? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Let old cars die their natural death."
What's wrong with a yearly mandatory test? Fail the test either fix it and get a certificate of compliance or your heap of junk will be taken off the road, as is the case in parts of Europe.
Would improve road safety too.
Re:What environmental cost to build a new car? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was stunned that there's no national mandatory MOT for cars in the US.
Although, as a British motorist, I hear the daily moans from newspapers about how "britain's motorists are being milked for every penny!" - but a £50 test every year to meet a minimum safety and emissions standard can only be a good thing.
Some of the deathtraps I've seen clanking through car parks in the US made me wonder just how insane you have to be to drive them, even if you're poor, there are other options for cheap, low-maintenance cars that would be much safer to drive.
Re: (Score:3)
The MOT in the UK isn't only about emissions - it's part of the test, but only a small part. The rest of the test deals with the safety of the car itself - so things that can fail the test are too much rust on the body in structural areas, non-working lights (signals, break lights, headlights, fog lights, reversing lights), poor brake performance, damaged or excessively worn components in the suspension and steering system, tyre condition, damage to body panels that could cause a hazard to pedestrians (so a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of which, that's something I see and notice quite a lot in US-made films and TV drama - people regularly driving after being at a bar drinking for (presumably) some time, and rarely is any comment made about them doing it ("Gremlins" is about the only example I can think of that did). Is this really fairly accepted practice in the US, or just artistic licence?
My old car is fine (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My old car is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
My 1995 Saturn SL1 gets 40 MPG (overall- probably 43-44 on the highway) in the winter (less in the summer when I need to run the a/c, of course). That's a full-size sedan that seats 5, and can fit almost two bodies in the trunk.
The first engine and clutch (on a manual- my first manual transmission) lasted 231,400 miles, and the first time it stranded me for anything other than a dead battery was at that point. Drop in a used engine, and it's back on the road- getting 40 MPG while meeting the county's stringent air quality laws by nearly half.
What the heck, Detroit? What did you do to our cars? (I know- gave them decent acceleration and class, but- dangit, I like my Saturn. Even if everybody else laughs at me, it's saved me a lot of money and hassles over the years.)
Re:My old car is fine (Score:5, Funny)
Hans Reiser, is that you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hear you. I love my 1998 SC2, which looks pretty slick for the $2700 I paid a couple of years back and saves me in gas while not polluting as much as cars from pretty much every other American brand. And they're getting rid of the line. Way to go, Detroit.
Re:My old car is fine (Score:4, Insightful)
no it isn't fine - 34mpg blows
you yanks are convinced that 30mpg is some sort of decent figure for fuel economy - go buy a japanese super-mini (quit whining about it being a girl's car) and revel in the 40mpg+ efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Passo [wikipedia.org]
US gallon vs Imperial gallon (Score:5, Insightful)
I too was always shocked at the quoted American miles per gallon figures until I realised that the British figures were using the Imperial gallon (4.55 litres) compared to the American figures using the US gallon (3.79 litres)
Therefore, a car doing 34 miles to the (US) gallon is equivalent to a car doing 40 miles to the (Imperial) gallon.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Therefore, the environmentally responsible thing to do is import imperial gallons from the British.
Re:My old car is fine (Score:5, Informative)
So 34 mpg (US) is a little over 40 mpg (UK).
Oops, that 15 year old car hit that 40+ mpg efficiency you deem so magical.
6 MPG --- and 18 MPG (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder about imperial vs. U.S. gallons, which is important.
But even so, if the Daihatsu girl car drives 10,000 miles per year, 40 MPG vs. 34 MPG provides a fuel savings of about 45 gallons of fuel, right? Even with gas at $5.00/gallon, which it currently is not, that's only $225/year.
If 100,000 people suddenly did just pick up and follow your advice, you'd probably see a maximum savings of 200,000 barrels/year of crude, depending on how that crude is refined into fuel.
Assuming the Corolla is paid for, and given that a 2009 Passo (fwd,1.0) would run you about $13,400 plus taxes plus overseas shipping and insurance (given that you can't buy one at a dealership in the U.S.) plus the annoyance of a weird warranty situation and never having parts in stock, the financial break even point is far, far, far out versus keeping the Corolla and paying for its maintenance and the pittance more in fuel.
I know I'm kind of diverting from your actual argument here. Your point about advertised fuel economy for the American Big 3 Auto Makers is true and well-taken. I chuckle at their television ads touting "best-of-class" fuel performance of 30MPG. But when I look at things holistically, this big picture keeps me from doing any reveling. The amount you would have to spend in order to "save" doesn't warrant making any changes right now, especially given that the Corolla wouldn't be eligible for this theoretically federal voucher because it has a a fuel economy better than 18 miles per gallon.
From TFA:"The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I work for the mail service, as a driver. Our cars see a lot more than 15,000 miles a year. For example, they bought a Volkswagen Transporter last June and it has 20,000 km on it now. Just over half a year old, 20k km. And it's all in the city driving. And even that thing gets a lot better than 30 mpg.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding me? 15k a year is "a lot?".
Give me a break. I live in the UK (a quarter the size of Texas) and do 12k a year, and I don't commute long distances. Talk to sales reps who roll up and down Britain's motorways week in, week out in their American designed, European built Fords, Vauxhalls, and Japanese and other Euro makes (Hondas, VW, BMW, Toyota etc)
There is a *world* of difference between the quality of supposedly identical models of cars in Europe, Japan and America, and let me tell you, the c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The really crazy part of this is the argument that doubling the kinetic energy available to accidents makes things safer. Sure, if you are inside a car hit by something else, then making it stronger (or at least better at absorbing impact), and probably heavier makes it safer. However, for everyone else, it's much better if your car is lighter. Even for you, it's much better if the other car is lighter.
Safety regulations which demand heavier cars should be banned.
Opposed (Score:4, Insightful)
I am totally opposed to this bill. As a hot rodder the last thing I or my fellows want is for everyone to turn their old cars in for scrap. It is better for them to remain in junkyards where they can be used as spare parts to keep other old cars in good running condition. Really guys, there are not THAT many older cars on the road compared to newer ones, so the older cars really aren't contributing a whole lot to emissions. If all these cars are scrapped then the result in millions of car enthusiasts will have a tough time restoring their older cars, all the scrap steel will go to China, and you and I will have to foot the bill for it all through taxes.
Improve the economy... (Score:4, Insightful)
By making it less and less efficient! Yay for progress!
Just a question (Score:3, Informative)
Is this the first time the US goverment give helps to replace old cars? In Europe is a common practice and I though it was a worldwide routine.
(If I recall correctly, it started here in mid 80s to help the transition from leaded to unleaded gas and to improve the general safety of the cars - you know, in those days people drove those 70's tiny tin-'cubic'-car with sharp edges and no safety belt)
Save America! Buy More! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like an automotive version of gun buybacks, and equally as silly.
If the goal is to save the environment, tying the credit to the purchase of a new vehicle just takes a perfectly good car whose environmental costs have already been incurred out of circulation.
If the goal is to reduce oil consumption, using taxpayer money to fund the purchase of new cars, instead of getting affordable, useful mass transit, seems like a horrible waste of money.
Clearly, this is designed to prop up the auto industry. By reducing the number of used cars on the market, which compete with new cars, and using taxpayer money for what normally would be the trade-in value of their car, they're artificially reducing the supply of cars in the country in order to drive sales of new cars. This has the effect of screwing over people who would never be able to buy a new car, since there will be a reduction in the supply of used cars.
But that's ok. The government wants you to get deeper into debt to buy things you can't afford. That's the ticket out of this recession!
Not QUITE... (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
The catches:
* The traded-in vehicles must have a fuel economy of no more than 18 miles per gallon;
* Auto needs to be in be in drivable condition, and have been registered for at least the past 120 days;
* The voucher needs to be used towards the purchase of a vehicle that has value of less than $45,000, is model year 2004 or later, and meets or exceeds federal emissions standards;
* Vouchers could also be redeemed for transit fares for participating local public transportation agencies.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 2002 and later, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $4,500; the purchase of a used vehicle: $3,000; a transit fare credit: $3,000.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1999 - 2001, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $3,000; the purchase of a used vehicle: $2,000; a transit fare credit: $2,000.
For traded-in vehicles that are model year 1998 and earlier, drivers would receive a voucher for: The purchase of a new vehicle: $2,000; the purchase of a used vehicle: $1,500; a transit fare credit: $1,500.
So... you are free to buy a USED car as well - only you get less cash for that. Then again - a used car WILL be cheaper.
And you can even use the money for public transport - if you want to go really green and give up your car completely.
Sounds like what we have in Singapore (Score:5, Interesting)
To encourage car owners to scrap cars before 10 years, we have
1. Road tax increases for cars > 10 years old [lta.gov.sg]
2. Rebates for cars unregistered before 10 years [onemotoring.com.sg]
The majority of the cars on the roads here are 10 years old. Cars unregistered are either scrapped or exported to another country for resale.
Yet another case of "screw the responsible people" (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in 2000, I bought a Toyota Echo that gets about 40 miles/gallon. In 2002, even though I could have afforded more I bought a small condo, skipping out on an ARM to get a 30 yr fixed rate. Now I'm learning that I should have bought a gas-guzzler so I could get free cash down the road, I should have taken out a huge ARM on an overpriced house because the gov would get my lender to reduce the principal anyway, and maybe I should have tried to run a company or two into the ground to get a mammoth bailout. Why is the government trying to take away every incentive to act prudently and responsibly?
Re: (Score:3)
To shut up the whiners who didn't act prudently or responsibly?
Unfortunately, the majority of the US population are children over the age of 20.
Tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
So they're going to offer us our own tax dollars we've paid them, to get rid of the cars we have?
Re:Tax dollars (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called a pyramid scam for a reason.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like lemonade mix. One packet per liter. But, one liter won't go far enough. So, you dilute it with water. You keep diluting it more and more, until you get something that is akin to water.
Meanwhile, all those foreign countries which lent us money won't trust us anymore. After all, would you lend money to someone whose currency is virtually worthless? Well, paper money will have a worth. We will always need toilet paper, provided we don't find a "cure" for why we defecate.
In all seriousness though, the
Money for better public transport where possible? (Score:5, Insightful)
May I humbly submit that a bit of money invested in public transport infrastructure, could pay off handsomely in terms of quality of life? Less people would even need cars, which would save them money. And it would help to decongest the roads, so people would get to work faster.
The huge decrease of pollution and need for fossil fuels is just an added bonus.
I don't say this works everywhere in the US, but certainly it would work in many cities.
Re:Money for better public transport where possibl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Money for better public transport where possibl (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because Americans spend a lot more time and effort telling themselves that public transportation can not work and is frequented by people outside of my race & social status, when compared to Europeans.
For what it's worth: I am an American expat living in Europe.
Re:Money for better public transport where possibl (Score:5, Insightful)
I am an European expat living in California, and I can attest for that. I found it intriguing that my college roommates would refuse to ride the bus on the principle that buses are for losers. I know they were half joking, but there's a kernel of truth to it (that they believe what they joke around, not that it's actually true).
punishing the responsible people (Score:5, Insightful)
So those of us who already made a choice to purchase an efficient vehicle aren't getting any incentives.
I am barely scraping by with my mortgage, but because I am not in arrears, I get no assistance. This is so similar, why are we coddling the idiots of society?
I thought Idiocracy was a fictional movie, not a crystal ball into the future.
They pay more to scrap fuel efficient cars (Score:5, Insightful)
If this was about reducing emissions, they would pay more to get older, dirtier, and less fuel efficient cars off the road. The worse the mpg, the more they would pay. This is about encouraging people that proved they have the money to buy a newer car to cycle into another newer car a lot sooner than they would. It's proof this is about encouraging consumerism, not ecology.
Re:They pay more to scrap fuel efficient cars (Score:5, Interesting)
>>If this was about reducing emissions, they would pay more to get older, dirtier, and less fuel efficient cars off the road.
The sad fact is, older (10+ year old cars) are at least, if not more, fuel-efficient than modern cars. I drive a '98 Buick Regal. The equivalent 2009 model has 1MPG less efficiency than my model. Let alone cars like the early 90s Civic hatchbacks, which still have MPGs which are only reached, if at all, by hybrids nowadays. Do we really want to remove a 94 Civic from the road and replace it with a lower-MPG modern Civic?
Texas already has such a program (Score:3, Informative)
So, the program wouldn't really replace those fuel efficient cars with gas wasters. Additionally, emissions are a priority in this program. Although those old civics, etc. were super light and nimble, many of them have been poorly maintained over the years and the piston rings are worn, etc. which reduces fuel efficiency and increases their emissions footprint.
I agree, though, that I'd r
Re:They pay more to scrap fuel efficient cars (Score:5, Informative)
> The equivalent 2009 model has 1MPG less efficiency than my model.
You're not comparing the original sticker mileage of a '94 with a '09, are you? Remember that they changed the rules a few years back, and newer cars on paper tend to be less efficient than the original values of older cars.
c.
Is this bill really about the environment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Limited government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pick your battles. Speak to your audience. You're not going to convince a crowd "tilted way to the left" of the flaws in this measure by basing your argument on libertarian ideals.
In this case the measure is so obviously flawed that it won't even achieve its own stated goals. Showing how this measure won't live up to your audience's own ideals is much easier than asking them to abandon those ideals in order to agree with you.
Re:Limited government (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about a bill that gives people the option of getting a little extra money if they want to replace their cars with one that is more fuel-efficient.
How is government making a decision for people?
Furthermore, what is government for, if not to protect shared public assets, such as, I dunno, the entire earth, which, if my geography serves, includes the United States of America? And if by doing this, the cash flow to enemies of the US can be reduced, that's following another major charter of the federal government: defense.
And Slashdot tilts way to the right. If you think it's left, then... how the hell did you get internet access all the way out in that highly-fortified shack in the woods?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is government making a decision for people?
As usual, by spending other people's money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that true of everything government does? Local governments "make decisions" to save your house in the event of a fire by "spending other people's money" too, yet somehow the fire department is viewed as a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Government is there to govern.
Better traffic control systems would actually help (Score:5, Insightful)
Bozo Economics (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of a program the police had in California to reduce guns by offering several hundred bucks, no questions asked, for each firearm turned in by a citizen. People were going out to Walmart, buying all the cheapest rifles in stock, and exchanging them for bundles of cash. I think the program went bankrupt (having burned through all the taxpayer money available) without actually reducing the number of weapons owned.
Already works... (Score:3, Interesting)
For years in Portugal...
And it's a very good program.
Who pays? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or will we just continue to heap it onto the debt with promises of paying it off some nebulous day in the future?
Who is offering money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously people... The "Fed" is YOU AND ME.
The "Fed" has no money, it is our tax money. So some idiot elected official wants to take your money and pay someone for their old car.
Is this really Capitalism?
To repeat again, someone is going to take your money and give it to someone else for a reason that most of you don't want. This is why taxes must be cut. If these idiots don't have our money then they can't do idiotic stuff with it. If they have the money, they have the power. Simple as that.
Now this shouldn't be surprising given that the Democrats have controlled two branches of the government for a while, and are about to control everything. That and Bush hasn't acted at all like a conservative has put us in this mess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you as far as to think that this is a stupid idea, but I don't see the reason for Democrats bashing. One of the three proponents of the measure is Republican. Besides, the Republicans ran the two branches of the government long enough in recent years for everyone to see they don't know how to administrate the treasury any better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For a nine year old car I'd be happy to get US$2500. Granted, Americans drive more. I live in Los Angeles where most people drive 20+ mi each way to work every day--never mind running errands, shopping, taking kids to school, etc. My five year old car has 175,000 miles on it.
One sixth, not six times (Score:5, Informative)
The average is in the range of 10-15%, which is about one sixth the lifetime emissions of the vehicle. Perhaps you got your numbers mixed up.
Here's a good Google Answers article with lots of references:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=433981
Not environmental costs, think cost of lost lives (Score:3, Interesting)
The real cost is that many old vehicles aren't safe to drive. Steering, brakes, crash test ratings, restraints, airbags, etc are all much better today than they were 10, 15, 20 years ago. In addition to fatal accidents, there are many accidents with hospitalizations or permanent injuries, or even just property damage to other vehicles.
We're talking about on the order of $300 billion a year in economic losses from auto crashes. I don't know what percentage of that is due to old vehicles that would be trad
Re:Not environmental costs, think cost of lost liv (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you exaggerate a little. I doubt a car built in 2009 is likely to be much safer than a 1999 car. Going back another 10 or 20 years past that though and you've probably got a good point.
However, I think replacing older less safe cars is a very cost inefficient way of improving safety. To be honest once you're in a crash you've already lost. Much better to spend that money on preventing the crashes in the first place with improved road design, driver education and a greater willingness to prohibit dri
Re:The environmental cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The environmental cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
How silly. whoever told you that (citation needed) is comparing the total CO2 output of the factories that assemble the car and the raw material against simply what comes out of a car's exhaust pipe. This is forgetting how much energy is used extracting, transporting, refining and distributing the fuel that the car runs on. It also neglects that oil much rarer than the coke and coal burned to smelt steel and run the grid; whatever replaces it will likely be much less efficient to create than oil is to dig up. Rarity is also a factor with how much energy needs to be used invading countries for their oil.
If there was any validity to the claim at all, the places that make cars would be more notoriously polluted than the ones that use them. This is not the case, How many cars are made in Las Angeles for example.