posted
If you are not aware the USA government is paying $4500 to people who trade in their old cars in hopes of getting low efficiency cars off the road while encouraging new car sales.
Just one problem, the people who will trade in their car on a new one, are not driving gas guzzling klunkers. They are driving older but still fuel efficient cars.
So, if you trade in a 2000 model year, it probably get decent gas mileage. But if you drive a 1975 Buick, which really is a gas guzzler, you probably can't afford to buy a new car, or you would already be driving something better than a 1975 Buick.
So, this isn't helping poor people who are stuck with gas guzzling cars. It is helping middle class people, who already drive reasonably nice cars, to buy even better cars.
Sure it is good for new car sales, but it does little or nothing for the purpose they claimed the money would go for.
I would love a new car, but even with $4500 off, I still can't afford it, so I'll keep driving my 1993 Ford which gets about 22mpg on the highway.
quote:So, this isn't helping poor people who are stuck with gas guzzling cars. It is helping middle class people, who already drive reasonably nice cars, to buy even better cars.
Are you ignoring the fact that there are mileage standards that have to be met, both for the cars turned in and the cars being bought?
Cars being turned in primarily consist of trucks and vans, and cars bought primarily consist of hybrids and high MPG sedans (of which the Ford Focus is the leading cash for clunkers seller).
So, while on the one hand, it might not be a giveaway to the super poor, it's not really a giveaway to the super rich either. Those 12 cylinder luxury cars don't get the kind of gas mileage necessary to qualify. In fact, the number of qualifying cars, relative to the total number available on the entire market, is fairly small.
quote:Sure it is good for new car sales, but it does little or nothing for the purpose they claimed the money would go for.
Actually it does precisely what it intended to do. It promoted car sales to a point where the cash assigned to the program is practically gone already, and the limits inherent to the program make sure that only very efficient cars are eligible, and only crappy low MPG cars are eligible to be turned in. Have you actually LOOKED at the program?
As a disclaimer, I'm not saying whether I like this thing one way or the other, but come on, if you're going to attack it, at least understand what it is, what it's goals are, and what has actually happened with it before you analyze it. Look up some facts then try again.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you ignoring the fact that there are mileage standards that have to be met, both for the cars turned in and the cars being bought?
---
. . .the limits inherent to the program make sure that only very efficient cars are eligible,
This isn't true, Lyrhawn. The rules are just on MPG improvement. The vehicle you're trading in has to get 18 MPG or less. If you're trading a car for a car, the minimum improvement for a rebate is 4 MPG better. If you're trading a car for a truck or SUV or a truck or SUV for a new truck or SUV, the minimum improvement is 2 MPG. If you're trading a truck with a wheelbase of 115 inches or more it's 1 gallon, and if you're trading in a truck with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 8,500 to 10,000 pounds it just has to be older than a 2001 model, there are no requirements for the new one at all. (Granted, that last one is probably a pretty small percentage of the program.)
So, there are plenty of light trucks out there that get 12 MPG that can be traded in for ones that get 14 MPG. Every little bit helps, I guess, but you still seem to be mischaracterizing the program, which makes your admonishment to BlueWizard a little harsh.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you ignoring the fact that there are mileage standards that have to be met, both for the cars turned in and the cars being bought?
---
. . .the limits inherent to the program make sure that only very efficient cars are eligible,
This isn't true, Lyrhawn. The rules are just on MPG improvement. The vehicle you're trading in has to get 18 MPG or less. If you're trading a car for a car, the minimum improvement for a rebate is 4 MPG better. If you're trading a car for a truck or SUV or a truck or SUV for a new truck or SUV, the minimum improvement is 2 MPG. If you're trading a truck with a wheelbase of 115 inches or more it's 1 gallon, and if you're trading in a truck with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 8,500 to 10,000 pounds it just has to be older than a 2001 model, there are no requirements for the new one at all. (Granted, that last one is probably a pretty small percentage of the program.)
So, there are plenty of light trucks out there that get 12 MPG that can be traded in for ones that get 14 MPG. Every little bit helps, I guess, but you still seem to be mischaracterizing the program, which makes your admonishment to BlueWizard a little harsh.
I think your use of "minimum improvement" is ambiguous here. For a new car to qualify for a rebate it must get at least 22 mpg so while the minimum improvement across all qualifying cars is 4 mpg (going from 18 mpg to 22 mpg) the minimum improvement for a car getting 16 mpg is 6 mpg. Just a nitpick but the way you phrased it made it sound like a car getting 16 mpg could be traded in for one getting 20 mpg.
posted
I don't like the fact that cars which are traded in have to be destroyed. Wouldn't it make some environmental sense for a car, once built, to be used or re-used until its useful life is gone, and THEN compacted and recycled. Sure, less gas is used because a higher mpg car is put into circulation, but where's the "break-even" point which says it's good to destroy a whole car.
Also, poorer people often never get new cars, they get the $3000 dollar and less old cars off used lots. $4Clunkers is designed to take these used cars out of the marketplace.
Still, I'll be interested in seeing how this works out in the long run.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The daughter of my carpool buddy, who I also happen to be friends with, tried to take her 1989 Cavalier in two days ago and was told her mileage was efficient enough that it was not considered a Klunker. 19 miles to the gallon, by the way.
Take that for what's it worth.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree Flying Fish. The energy used just to produce a new car I think far outweighs the benefit to the environment that the mpg improvement of these trade ins will provide.
Though I would like to see someone run the numbers on that, since my knowledge is second hand.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(edit: this is a general comment, not a response to Strider)
It's instructive to look at the requirements in terms of gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon (there was an old thread on this but I can't find it).
To qualify for a $3500 credit: Cars: going from 1/18 gpm to 1/22 gpm results in a 1-(1/22)/(1/18) * 100% = ~18.18% reduction in fuel usage. You can travel (1/18)/(1/22) = ~1.22 times as far on the same amount of gas. Category 1: going from 1/16 gpm to 1/18 gpm results in a 1-(1/18)/(1/16) * 100% = ~11.11% reduction in fuel usage. You can travel (1/16)/(1/18) = 1.125 times as far on the same amount of gas. Category 2: going from 1/14 gpm to 1/15 gpm results in a 1-(1/15)/(1/14)* 100% = ~6.67% reduction in fuel usage. You can travel (1/14)/(1/15) - ~1.07 times as far on the same amount of gas.
Summary: minimum possible reduction in fuel usage for each category Cars - 18.18% Category 1 - 11.11% Category 2 - 6.67%
To qualify for a $4500 credit: Cars: going from 1/18 gpm to 1/28 gpm results in a 1-(1/28)/(1/18) * 100% = ~35.7% reduction in fuel usage. You can travel (1/18)/(1/28) = ~1.56 times as far on the same amount of gas. Category 1: going from 1/16 gpm to 1/21 gpm results in a 1-(1/21)/(1/16) * 100% = ~23.8% reduction in fuel usage. You can travel (1/16)/(1/21) = ~1.3 times as far on the same amount of gas. Category 2: going from 1/14 gpm to 1/16 gpm results in a 1-(1/16)/(1/14)* 100% = ~12.5% reduction in fuel usage. You can travel (1/14)/(1/16) - ~1.14 times as far on the same amount of gas.
Summary: minimum possible reduction in fuel usage for each category Cars - 35.7% reduction in fuel usage Category 1 - 23.8% reduction in fuel usage Category 2 - 12.5% reduction in fuel usage
These are pretty significant cuts.
Hopefully I didn't mess anything up.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:For a new car to qualify for a rebate it must get at least 22 mpg so while the minimum improvement across all qualifying cars is 4 mpg (going from 18 mpg to 22 mpg) the minimum improvement for a car getting 16 mpg is 6 mpg. Just a nitpick but the way you phrased it made it sound like a car getting 16 mpg could be traded in for one getting 20 mpg.
Ah, missed that part in the summery I read. Thanks. But still, the 22 MPG minimum is for cars, not trucks. The minimum for trucks is 18, 15, or none, depending on the size of the truck. So you could still trade up from a car getting 16 MPG to a truck getting 18.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I felt it seemed to be a reasonable way to promote some stimulus while getting a bit of gas efficiency out of it.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: It's instructive to look at the requirements in terms of gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon (there was an old thread on this but I can't find it). ...
I know we use L/100 KM and I find MPG terribly difficult to mentally convert.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read an opinion in our local paper today. It wasn't the best argument against this program but it did bring up one point that I didn't think about... Insurance prices of a brand new car. Remember to add that to your upgrade.
Posts: 204 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you ignoring the fact that there are mileage standards that have to be met, both for the cars turned in and the cars being bought?
---
. . .the limits inherent to the program make sure that only very efficient cars are eligible,
This isn't true, Lyrhawn. The rules are just on MPG improvement. The vehicle you're trading in has to get 18 MPG or less. If you're trading a car for a car, the minimum improvement for a rebate is 4 MPG better. If you're trading a car for a truck or SUV or a truck or SUV for a new truck or SUV, the minimum improvement is 2 MPG. If you're trading a truck with a wheelbase of 115 inches or more it's 1 gallon, and if you're trading in a truck with Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of 8,500 to 10,000 pounds it just has to be older than a 2001 model, there are no requirements for the new one at all. (Granted, that last one is probably a pretty small percentage of the program.)
So, there are plenty of light trucks out there that get 12 MPG that can be traded in for ones that get 14 MPG. Every little bit helps, I guess, but you still seem to be mischaracterizing the program, which makes your admonishment to BlueWizard a little harsh.
Admittedly, I've only read three separate articles on the subject, and I've done some light browsing of the cash for clunkers website, but all of them have contrary information to what you just said.
Despite that, I can edit out the word "very" from my post and have it conform to your problem with it. BlueWizard's post, from what I can tell, has a more fundamental misunderstanding. That isn't to say that all his critiques are off the mark. Frankly I'm not a fan at all of the mileage standards imposed in the bill, and I think to qualify as "clunker" the standard should be lower, and to qualify as a more efficient vehicle, the standard should be higher. Part of me wonders if that wasn't a handout to GM and Chrysler. I'd say the Big Three in general, but Ford isn't having any problems with fuel economy with the Focus, Fusion, Fusion Hybrid, Escape Hybrid, the Mercury products, etc.
In any case: The goals of the program were two-fold: Stimulate car buying, and increase the efficiency of cars on the road. Obviously car buying has been tremendously stimulated. This isn't just people who were going to buy a car anyways cashing in. And efficiency gains, despite not being as high as I might personally like, are being made, and quite well too.
So the basic premise of BW's post, that the program isn't doing what it was designed to do, is wrong. He can argue what he'd like such a program to do, or that it could be done better, but to say that it isn't meeting its stated goals is wrong.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I vote we stimulate ice cream buying, next. Anyone who brings in a used ice cream carton to be recycled gets $2 off a gallon of ice cream. I predict a massive stimulus.
The goal of the program was to shore up political constituencies -- auto votes and environmental votes, especially. In order to do this, it brought about a marginal increase in fuel efficiency that would have happened over the next few years anyways as the "clunkers" expired (and of course, some of the cars probably weren't actually being driven in the first place), had a lot of people spend money on something they considered less valuable than what they would have spent money on without artificially changing prices, and sent a lot of people into debt that they weren't otherwise going to acquire at the moment, decimating the savings rate (that we need to increase).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, I'm not convinced that I necessarily want to see a higher American savings rate. I can certainly see the benefit for me, if I was an American, to save personally.
But for me right now, meh.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both Canada and China still run a trade surplus with the States last I checked. Hong Kong too probably.
Now my job isn't going to be directly affected by a higher savings rate, but many of my neighbours and relatives would. Now you could presumably make the argument that if Americans save more, they would be in a better position to spend later. But the recession is now, which means we need American consumers now and Chinese/Indian/developing world demand may ramp up later anyways.
So from my POV it doesn't seem all that great a dealt to transfer US money away from consumer spending and toward, well, repaying debt to US financial institutions (since AFAIK, we only have two banks with a substantial US presence and little exposure to US mortgages).
(That said, certainly feel free to convince me otherwise since that way I'll feel better if the US savings rate does go up)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think of it this way, then: the money being redirected by this program got redirected to automobiles and related services (financing, for instance), which goes some to Canada, and hardly at all to China/HK. That money being spent is redirected away from spending on other things the person would want more absent the rebate (likely including a substantial number of things from China and Canada), and away from savings, which might eventually have been spent on stuff from China/Canada/HK (while in this case it was hardly spent at all on stuff from them).
So even if you're generally in favor of Americans not saving more, this program doesn't do it in a way that benefits you much Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I vote we stimulate ice cream buying, next. Anyone who brings in a used ice cream carton to be recycled gets $2 off a gallon of ice cream. I predict a massive stimulus.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QUOTE]Actually it does precisely what it intended to do. It promoted car sales to a point where the cash assigned to the program is practically gone already, and the limits inherent to the program make sure that only very efficient cars are eligible, and only crappy low MPG cars are eligible to be turned in.
I haven't read the whole thread yet, so maybe this has been addressed. I don't entirely agree with this statement, especially "the program make(s) sure that only very efficient cars are eligible".
The car being surrendered has to get less than 18 mpg. The new car has to get at least 22 mpg to qualify (trucks must get either 15 or 18 minimum depending on size).
Yet my 15 year old Civic gets 27 mpg, making it ineligible for the CARS program as well as being MORE efficient than the average of cars purchased under the program so far. I was very much looking forward to this program when I first heard about it as I figured it was about the only way I was going to be able to afford to replace said Civic, which really does desperately need it. Needless to say, 18 mpg dashed all those hopes. I would have liked to have seen a bill that also qualified vehicles over a certain age regardless of their gas usage so long as the replacement vehicle netted an improvement of XX mpg.
If the goal of the CARS program was to get less fuel-efficient vehicles off the road, I'll generally say that they seem to be succeeding, given that the average mileage rating for new purchases in the last month through this program is 25.6 mpg and every one of those cars is replacing something getting 18 or less. (I'm assuming for simplicity that the report I read in the Tribune covered cars alone and didn't mix in trucks as well) If the goal was to stimulate new-car sales, they've absolutely succeeded, as evidenced by the fact that they've almost completely run out of money within a week of the program officially going live.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
The upshot is that it the program costs carbon now (in terms of new car construction), but will save carbon a couple years from now. Two significantly limiting assumptions: (1) the new cars are assumed to be driven an exactly equal amount as the old cars (I imagine with better gas mileage, people will tend to drive more) and (2) it assumes old 'clunker' cars are equally likely to be operational for the next ten years as the new cars (obviously a bad assumption).
From an economic standpoint, according to the article, it's a clear loss. Even with the generous assumptions about driving patterns remaining fixed and the clunkers lasting as long as the new cars, the expected lifetime payoff is estimated at something less than 5.7 million tons of CO2. Given the $1,000,000,000 price tag, that equates to about $175/ton, which is a factor of 10 greater than what a ton of carbon goes for on pollution markets in the EU right now (although, from what I understand, the market price might be artificially deflated, due to all the free chits governments hand out each year).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, the program is definitely not cost effective (even with a conservative estimate of carbon costs; current EU carbon costs are probably low, but not by an order of magnitude).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13: On the subject of the rebate, maybe. Although as you touched upon, a disproportionate amount of the bailout goes to Canadian auto manufacturing and a dollar going to Canada gives much greater benefit to me than the other two.
I was more speaking overall, as in I'm not sure how a higher US savings rate in general would benefit me.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The one thing that really bothers me about this cash for clunkers program is that the cars have to be newer than 25 years old. The worst cars on the road are the ones that are older than 25 years, because the have fewer emission controls, and less efficient engines overall. My 1983 Chevy truck gets less than 10 mpg, and has no catalytic converter, and no evaporative emissions controls. Of course, I rarely use it, since the only reason I own it is for the occasion that I actually need a truck.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Glenn, even if it qualified, would you dispose of it through this program? It sounds like it's a utilitarian item for you, which makes me think you probably wouldn't. But I'd like to hear your side of the 'what if qualified?'
My car doesn't qualify. And I'm definitely buying a new one sometime in the next four months.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not so sure if that's true across the board. A lot of older cars, despite their inefficiencies, were actually comparable efficient because they didn't have all the doodads and gizmos that drive down fuel efficiency in modern cars. People like to wonder why efficiency gains haven't rapidly progressed in the last couple decades, but the truth is that they have, it's just that we keep putting newer, more energy draining devices in cars that suck up all the gains we make, leaving us with cars that appear to be just as inefficient as always. A lot of the gains in the last couple decades I think though are from the reduction of vehicle weight, but that's probably limited to sedans and cars in general, rather than trucks.
I've read that Ford's Model T had a fuel economy average of 17 miles per gallon. And my grandpa is constantly complaining that modern cars don't get the gas mileage that his brother's Model A got when they were young. I agree that the age shouldn't necessarily matter, though I suspect it was put in place to avoid an avalanche of 30 year old beaters that don't even run being turned in for a big pay day, but I'm not sure how true across the board is as far as the generalization that cars older than 25 years are the "worst" when compared to the generation that followed.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
While that article correctly points out the cost of manufacturing the new car; I also read an article somewhere that talks about how much energy is needed to crush/dispose of the old car (as mandated by the program)
Yeah, nothing about this program really makes fiscal or environmental sense, in regards to benefit. I mean, the normal pecking order of recycling a car (the car moving down the social-economic ladder of owners as it ages/becomes worn) is a type of recycling all by itself. I don't see how destroying these cars is helping anyone or anything.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is helping people who sell and manufacture new cars because these "clunkers" cannot go into the market and compete for consumer dollars against the new cars.
Singer used to buy up their old using sewing machines and destroy them because those big iron puppies were so well-built they lasted forever. They knew that when more and more used machines got into circulation, fewer and fewer new machines would sell.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think this program stinks of political stunt. The idea is that we're getting low MPG vehicles off the road. That's great. But it is, again, using a great deal of money in an attempt to boost a single part of the economy. With the money allotted, the environmental impact is minimal, and you still end up with junkyards full of old engines, drive-trains, and chassis that can never be used again. All this does is allow a few politicians the opportunity to say, "Look what I did!" at the next election. Lately, that's all our tax money seems to go to. The great American Political Pissing Contest. Honestly. Why don't they just expand the tax brackets so the entire middle class has to pay less rather than waving our own money in our faces like a carrot on a string? It's like the government is saying, "I've got your tax money here. You can have it back if you want it...buuuuut, you have to do this and this and this or you can't have it." What the hell?
I'm tired of pet projects and social programs that don't provide considerable benefit for the amount they cost. I'm tired of politicians spending my money so they can stay in office. Our government is a twisted, inefficient mess with half a million idiots trying to climb a single career ladder and each one will do whatever they can to trip everyone else up. It's pathetic, and I'm tired of watching it every day. [/Rant]
Posts: 38 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judging from what you just said, Badenov, if you don't like cash4clunkers, wait until you see Cap-And-Trade....
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, there is a piece of CARS that I like. The government is giving people their money back. I'd take advantage of it myself if I didn't have a sizable car loan already. I just wish they'd stop focusing on individual markets and cut out the middle man and the political stunting. And, to the government, for goodness sake, stop rewarding me with my own money if I do what you want me to. It's insulting.
Cap and trade is just an economic disaster waiting to happen.
Posts: 38 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, an individual tax deduction would be "giving people THEIR money back." For example, buy a new car, deduct $4500 from your tax liability that year.
CARS is giving someone who buys a car (who may not pay taxes) money taken from taxpayers (many of whom aren't buying new cars that year).
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the government went into debt even more to fund Cash for Clunkers, it very much wasn't giving anyone "their money back", and neither would it be that if they had given a tax deduction. It would just have been giving people a loan on very bad terms, since that debt will have to be paid off in the future.
And why on earth do you think cap and trade is an economic disaster waiting to happen? It was used quite successfully to reduce acid rain drastically, and it efficiently allocates the cost of pollution.
The current bill containing cap and trade is a huge problem, but almost none of the bill actually relates to cap and trade; they're handouts to political constituents.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't see how destroying these cars is helping anyone or anything."
California has been doing a better cash-for-clunkers for many years, without the requirement to purchase new vehicles. Nothing to do with oil imports or carbon emissions. The California AirQualityManagementDistrict is under constant pressure to (try to) meet US EnvironmentalProtectionAgency minimums, lest the state lose federal highway funding, etc. An old car spews an enormous amount of garbage into the air: often, far more in a day than a new vehicle does in a month. So it's VASTLY more cost effective to buy 'em and crush 'em than to impose yet-even-cleaner emission standards on businesses and new vehicles. And having air fit to breathe does help everyone.
Admittedly cleanup 'd be even more effective through requiring use of tugboats after banning engine operation for most foreign-register ships in California waters. They tend to run on the cheapest&dirtiest of fuel oil to make up for the extreme inefficiency of their powerplants. But due to the commerce clause and international "fair trade" treaties, that would require federal action.
Requiring replacement of two-stroke mowers, weed-whackers, and leaf-blowers (which make old cars seem clean by comparison) with electric versions would also be more cost effective. But that runs smack into the right of cheap couch potatoes to have their lawns inexpensively maintained by someone else.
posted
My parents just traded in a Nissan truck (16 mpg) for a Ford Escape (28 mpg). Since 2 of the top 5 cars bought thought this program are the Focus and the Escape I'd say it is pretty effective.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two points that need to be made in favor of this program.
One, the energy cost of building a new car is a red herring. It doesn't count as much as you are saying because these cars were not built for the program. A big part of this bill was to help the automotive industry that had a big backlog of cars. They had a large surplus, which they didn't need and couldn't sell. By removing the cars from the surplus the car makers can make new cars, order parts, and rehire people.
The cars that will be built to replace many of these sold, will likely be even more energy efficient.
The second part is the question of money back vs a tax credit. The problem with a $4,500 Tax Credit is that you need to have a tax bill of $4,500 for it to be effective. Then you have to wait a full year before you apply it, without spending it elsewhere and actually boosting the economy.
The original complaint was that this does little to help the truly poor, but only helps the middle class. That pretty well defines a tax credit.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The second part is the question of money back vs a tax credit. The problem with a $4,500 Tax Credit is that you need to have a tax bill of $4,500 for it to be effective. Then you have to wait a full year before you apply it, without spending it elsewhere and actually boosting the economy.
The original complaint was that this does little to help the truly poor, but only helps the middle class. That pretty well defines a tax credit.
Just a note here, this depends entirely on whether or not the tax credit is refundable. A refundable tax credit results in the full amount being paid to the tax payer regardless of their original tax bill. This is how the "Buy a new house, get an 8000 dollar tax credit" system currently in operation works.
Fugu: Out of curiosity, where exactly did the cap and trade system have that affect? Additionally, just a little quick research shows that acid rain in the US has been dropping significantly over the past decade.
Posts: 38 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The US. That major drop in acid rain is because of the US cap and trade program on sulfur dioxide. It had significantly lower than expected costs, and caused a dramatic decrease in emissions at a far greater rate than the gradual decline that had been going on. The program was instituted in 1994, as you could have also found by a little quick research Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Complete aside: I'm now working on the team that provides all of the power market modeling for the EPA's Clean Air Markets division's policy decisions - i.e. the group that allowed the EPA to make the program that fugu is discussing.
We've had our hands full with Waxman-Markey lately.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"poorer people often never get new cars, they get the $3000 dollar and less old cars off used lots."
Facing a future of ever scarcer fossil fuel reserves, any poorer person who buys a gas guzzler is merely guaranteeing continued poverty.
"The goal of the program was to shore up political constituencies..."
Your point? The goal of all laws and government programs is to please political constituancies. Admittedly, cash-for-clunkers is guilty of being more egalitarian than most.
"I vote we stimulate ice cream buying, next. Anyone who brings in a used ice cream carton to be recycled gets $2 off a gallon of ice cream. I predict a massive stimulus."
The dairy industry is already receiving larger direct subsidies than auto execs could realisticly hope to gain for their products. All of the programs which received the GoldenFleece and similar awards combined coulda easily been paid for by cutting off such subsidies to Proxmire's home state alone.
Besides, in a nation in which the obese outnumber the merely overweight who in turn outnumber the "normal"weight plus the underweight combined, the biggest by far stimulus would be to the medical industry. Somehow assisting folks in their quest to become less healthy doesn't seem to be a worthy goal. Or are you merely stating that financial/insurance execs are grossly underpaid?
"Yep, the program is definitely not cost effective..."
As always, as compared to what? The auto industry has spent many billions conning folks into thinking that they need gas guzzlers. Since such advertising is considered to be an operating expense for tax purposes, the amount being spent by cash-for-clunkers to encourage the use of somewhat sane transportation is minor compared to the taxes-not-paid to encourage the purchase of dangerous fuel hogs. It'd be pretty easy to pay for an expanded cash-for-clunkers program by disallowing tax write-offs for advertisements on all personal vehicles (including light trucks, vans, and SUVs) with less than fleet-average mileage.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "poorer people often never get new cars, they get the $3000 dollar and less old cars off used lots."
Facing a future of ever scarcer fossil fuel reserves, any poorer person who buys a gas guzzler is merely guaranteeing continued poverty.
Aside from the implied assumption that all cars on used-cars lots are gas guzzlers....
Do you have a better suggestion for those of us not making enough money to be able to add a $250+/month auto loan to our budget? Or for people whose credit is bad enough that they can't get approved?
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: "poorer people often never get new cars, they get the $3000 dollar and less old cars off used lots."
Facing a future of ever scarcer fossil fuel reserves, any poorer person who buys a gas guzzler is merely guaranteeing continued poverty.
Aside from the implied assumption that all cars on used-cars lots are gas guzzlers....
Do you have a better suggestion for those of us not making enough money to be able to add a $250+/month auto loan to our budget? Or for people whose credit is bad enough that they can't get approved?
Sure, we can all eat cake.
As an aside, the Mercedes 300D I've had my eye on just barely doesn't make guzzler grade. 19 city MPG. WHEW! He's aksing $2,500 for it, but it's been sitting there so long, he's got to be getting desperate by now.
I want it so bad!
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, Glenn, even if it qualified, would you dispose of it through this program? It sounds like it's a utilitarian item for you, which makes me think you probably wouldn't. But I'd like to hear your side of the 'what if qualified?'
When you look at my truck, you can't help but think "clunker." Raymond calls it the AntiChrist.
My wife's car is a 1997 Lumina. It doesn't qualify for the cash for clunkers, because it's EPA estimate is too high. Of course, it's got 130,000 miles on it, and doesn't get the mileage it did when it was new. That's another problem with cash for clunkers; you can keep driving a car with low compression, a worn camshaft, and a worn out carburetor that gets 12 mpg. Whatever. A car like that should be off the road, but the book says it gets 24mpg, so it doesn't qualify.
But anyway, the truck gets maybe 10 mpg, and my wife's car gets about 18-20 mpg most of the time, and every once in awhile the car decides to cost us a thousand or two, usually in groups of $500 repairs. So when cash for clunkers came out, it seemed like it would be good to trade in the truck on a new Silverado, which would get the same mileage as the car did. Sell the car, and pare down to only two vehicles, plus the motorcycle. As it is, my wife drives the prius everyday that I ride in to work, which is almost any day that it's dry and the temperature is above 35 degrees or it's 60 or above and there's no threat of thunderstorms. And it the winter I carpool with 2 other guys.
Does that answer your question?
quote:I'm not so sure if that's true across the board.
I'm sure it's not. But then, a 1975 Civic wouldn't qualify by virtue of it's fuel mileage. I'm just saying that if you have an old clunker it's probably worse for the environment than a late-model "clunker." My truck is an excellent example of that. There are lots of clunker trucks that would be a helluva step up from the antichrist.
quote:A lot of the gains in the last couple decades I think though are from the reduction of vehicle weight, but that's probably limited to sedans and cars in general, rather than trucks.
Yes and no. Cars haven't gotten lighter, their components have. But as you point out, they have added more components, especially as regards safety. Bumpers are lighter than they were 40 years ago, but not lighter than they were 20 years ago. Passenger cages are sturdier, hence heavier. Add to that more dashboard and door panel padding and sound deadener, and you've got at least as much weight as you started with. Then add the SUV shift, and the average passenger vehicles are actually much heavier than they were 20 or even 30 years ago.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Aside from the implied assumption that all cars on used-cars lots are gas guzzlers...."
By law, only gas guzzlers are eligible for rebates under the cash-for-clunkers program. And that is only if they were gas guzzlers even when they were brand new. Cars have a very strong tendency to get worse gas mileage as they age. The other vehicles on the used car lot remain unaffected... ...so "Do you have a better suggestion for those of us not making enough money to be able to add a $250+/month auto loan to our budget? Or for people whose credit is bad enough that they can't get approved?" is simply about inequitable wealth distribution, a problem which cash-for-clunkers was not designed to address.
"A lot of the gains in the last couple decades I think though are from the reduction of vehicle weight, but that's probably limited to sedans and cars in general, rather than trucks."
Nope. Fleet averages peaked ~20years ago; even excluding light trucks, vans, and SUVs. Not only have cars gotten heavier for the safety requirements touched upon by Glen Arnold, they've also gotten heavier because the models have gradually gotten bigger with ever more what-useta-be luxury features becoming standard.
The reason mileage hasn't gotten terribly worse is mostly because of truly great improvements in engine efficiency. Unfortunately, nearly every improvement has been followed by building a larger car around that engine.
posted
Flying Fish seems to have gotten my point -
Also, poorer people often never get new cars, they get the $3000 dollar and less old cars off used lots...
The people who need to upgrade their gas guzzlers are the very people who can't afford to buy new cars. If they could afford a new car, they wouldn't be driving an old Buick.
If the goal was really to get inefficient cars off the road, you would be able to get the rebate or some rebate, but trading up in a used car.
To the comment that poor people who drive these old cars are making an economically poor choice that will cost them more in the long run.
Well...that's exactly what it means to be poor.
You have to make short term decisions that satisfy the moment, even though it is counter productive in the long run.
Example, you buy cheap sox now because they are cheap and money is short. But if you bought good sox they would last longer, and in the long run you would save money.
But when the choices are good sox or enough food, cheap sox start to look pretty attractive.
Long term money doesn't exist for poor people, it is just what money I have now and what I need now. And usually the money is never enough to cover the need, so life is a constant string of necessary compromises.
So, again, it is the old cheap cars that are sucking down the gas. If you can get the old cheap cars off the road you can make an improvement. But the people driving the 'old cheap cars' are not the people who can afford to buy or drive a new car.
So, the old cheap gas sucking cars stay on the road until they are completely and totally crapped out.
And those already driving reasonable cars, are the people who can afford to upgrade to a new car.
posted
I just had an idea. There are surely people who would love to buy a new car and are kicking themselves because they already drive a Corolla. To get the cash, they need a clunker. I have a clunker, but not the funds to do anything about it. We trade, I get an awesome used car for free, they get their clunker and 3,000+ dollars off a new car. Awesome has happened.
I'm off to Craigslist.
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love your idea, Jamio -- I wonder if the program could allow people to bring in a car they found from a friend or neighbor, and split the cash-back with them. I'm not quite sure the program as written allows that. Also, the cash isn't dollars back, it's dollars off. The dealer is taking it off your invoice and relying on the government to reimburse them somewhere down the road. (Which may be months or even years, I betcha.)
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Nope. Fleet averages peaked ~20years ago; even excluding light trucks, vans, and SUVs. Not only have cars gotten heavier for the safety requirements touched upon by Glen Arnold, they've also gotten heavier because the models have gradually gotten bigger with ever more what-useta-be luxury features becoming standard.
It's not just that cars (on average) are getting heavier; a lot of the lost efficiency gains have gone into making much more powerful engines, even in hatchbacks and sedans, where all the added weight is in the engine itself. 0-60 times have decreased by about half over the past 20 years; mid-80s model Civics took about 15 s, while the most recent models all do it in under 10. Similarly with the Accord, Corolla and Camry. The SUV-craze and electronics proliferation are certainly problems, but I would say a bigger problem (because it is more pervasive) is the use of bigger and stronger engines.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
