Cash for clunkers/guzzlers poll

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
So maybe we should raise gas tax to pay for it?

We should raise gas taxes to subsidize people that can afford to buy new cars??
crazy2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
We should raise gas taxes to subsidize people that can afford to buy new cars??
crazy2.gif



I was being sarcastic. But if I were serious, what I meant was to raise tax on the savings of fuel for the individual who got this program. Since these program swap less efficient vehicles for more, there's the saving, and these savings over time will pay for the initial cost (back to the government via taxes).

Think of it more as a government sponsored loan rather than a tax. But like oilriser said, it is too ineffective in implementation, so forget about it.
 
It also assumes that you're intending to remain worshipers of the car as the core of your economy.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
I think this program will not crush efficient small cars that are old, but mostly the super well depreciated SUV and trucks that are still running fine but no one wants.

Guess which car will get crushed? a 96 Explorer? or a 94 Civic? Now guess what would happen to the market price of a 96 Explorer? therefore the market price of a 2006 Explorer, and 2006 Civic?

I think the fuel saving over 10 years between a small car and a large SUV should be more than 3.5k. So maybe we should raise gas tax to pay for it?

Maybe a better program is the government will pay you $3.5k to crush your old SUV and you pay it back in future gas tax comparable to how much you get from the government previously. Over 10 years you will get a new car while paying for the same for gas.



+1 PandaBear--

When I orginally posted the topic, I purposly left out the merits/downsides of gub'mint programs such as this. I am a libertarian at heart. It is clear that the US gov is intent on keeping US automakers going in some way, shape, or form. GM has been/is burning thru billions of your $$ already and they're still in the same or worse shape and nothing to show for it. If this type of program (or one even more incentive laden) would have been implemented before money was thrown at GM and Chrysler, how many vehicles could have been sold? The money GM and Chrysler is gone forever. It could have been spent retiring old, polluting, guzzling cars, and keeping GM, Chrysler, and Ford going until the economy turns around. My situation is exactly what the bill is targeting. A person that is willing and able to buy a new car if the price were lower, and replacing an old (16 yrs old) SUV that pumps out 8X and 10X the HC and NOX, respectively, of my 2005 Sienna, with a vehicle that will get better mileage and pollute far less, not to mention less CO2 as well. My S-10 SUV has been well maintained and I would have no problem in driving it another year or two. But to sell it---I would get $1500 max for it and it is rust free and has 118K on the odo. I don't have to have a new car. I am not inclined to buy a new car at this time. But I would if I could get $4500 off a new one. And it would be one made in the USA.

Again--I'm just sayin'---this bill would get me to buy a new car that I otherwise would not, and I suspect I would not be the only one.
 
Originally Posted By: Kestas
This bill should make the value of old big cars, like my 91 Grand Marquis, bottom out not too much lower than $3500. I can see people who that to buy a new car, buy somebody else's clunker just to trade it in.

Like any government program, it will result in a lot of unintended consequences. In this case it'll raise the value of my 91 Marquis and other cars like it.


But the vehicle has to get 18 MPG, max, and be owned, in use for a year prior to being elligible. This program is designed to only be a one-year thing (and hopefully it stays that way).
 
If you subsidize GM for "jobs", the money has to come from somewhere else. That somewhere else is jobs in other areas.

Programs like these squeeze out resources and jobs in areas that are not "most favored" by government. Government owned corporations will always be most favored.

As you state, Gov. has already thrown ~$30 billion at these companies, why are you in favor of throwing even more money down the drain?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Just did a few sample runs through the fueleconomy.gov calculator...

I think many/most are going to have a hard time making this work... I know the vehicles Id be interested in will not qualify, based upon how they were rated.

And the EPA "combined" thing is total garbage... 45% highway, 55% city is the example for determinging fuel economy, and they are off by at least 5 MPG, minimum, on every vehicle we own.


A couple years ago, the EPA revised the mileage ratings down on new cars to more accurate numbers, and then revised down the ratings backwards to 1990ish for the mileage ratings of all vehicles (HD trucks excepted). There is a retroactive combined rating for older vehicles as well, not just city and highway ratings. In my experience, the ratings are clearly more realistic, and are dead on for my three vehicles. So, you can compare an old vehicle to new vehicles more accurately on the combined rating. To get the full $4500, you have to improve 10 MPG on the combined rating from the old crushed car to the new. The [censored] part of the bill is that you could get a new suv that gets only 4 MPG better and get the max (if I remember correctly--no flames if I don't, please). IMO, the original intent of the bill was to stimulate the sales of higher MPG vehicles that pollute less and pump out less CO2, and keep North Americans gainfully employed.
 
The auto industry has been a jobs program for a very long time. It's the last hang around of industrial output that we expanded due to WWII.

The failing of auto-manufacturers has more to due with us being poorer people than they getting too expensive.

It was still a jobs program. One that we willingly embraced.

The dismantling of this giant jobs program will have unintended consequences. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you "just let it die" and all your anxieties and problems will be solved.

Please don't buy that line of reasoning. There is NO WAY GOOD out of this situation. There is NO SOLUTION WITHOUT PAIN.

Choose your pain wisely and don't just follow some pied piper ..no matter which tune you seem to favor at the moment.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
If you subsidize GM for "jobs", the money has to come from somewhere else. That somewhere else is jobs in other areas.

Programs like these squeeze out resources and jobs in areas that are not "most favored" by government. Government owned corporations will always be most favored.

As you state, Gov. has already thrown ~$30 billion at these companies, why are you in favor of throwing even more money down the drain?


Are you kidding me Tempest. We have a shortage of jobs and if that's the concern you have, you are either not looking hard enough or you are just joking.

I am concern about cost, and the borrowing of demand from the future. Remember those 0% interest a few years ago? Well most people who wanted a new car got one already, and let's see what happens when the 0% stops.
 
Quote:
There is NO WAY GOOD out of this situation. There is NO SOLUTION WITHOUT PAIN.

I don't believe anyone has stated otherwise.
 
Quote:
Are you kidding me Tempest. We have a shortage of jobs and if that's the concern you have, you are either not looking hard enough or you are just joking.

So we should just keep funding bad jobs that don't provide good economic return?
The gov. could keep paying these people to make cars that no one is buying, but is that really a good use of resources?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
There is NO WAY GOOD out of this situation. There is NO SOLUTION WITHOUT PAIN.

I don't believe anyone has stated otherwise.


Then describe who endures what pain in your projections. I somehow feel assured that more rabble will be created for them to endure the brunt of the pain.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
If you subsidize GM for "jobs", the money has to come from somewhere else. That somewhere else is jobs in other areas.

Programs like these squeeze out resources and jobs in areas that are not "most favored" by government. Government owned corporations will always be most favored.

As you state, Gov. has already thrown ~$30 billion at these companies, why are you in favor of throwing even more money down the drain?


Tempest--true dat--everything you say. Great point in throwing more money at the problem. One point: If they were going to throw $$ at GM and Chrysler anyway, they should have done this program the first time--is what I'm trying to say. Once you commit to saving something, it's hard to shut it off. Like when someone puts $4000 into fixing his old car's engine and body and then the trans goes out 2 weeks later. Do you junk it now? Or do you fix the trans for an extra 2K? That's sort of the quandry the gubmint is in now.
I am actually not for the gubmint doing anything more to save GM and Chrysler (and most likely Ford at some point). The whole idea of taking money from one place and putting it toward some other place does what you say--it punishes someone else.
 
Quote:
That's sort of the quandry the gubmint is in now.

I agree, and it's a good reason why government shouldn't get involved in corporations. The money being spent on these companies is being driven by political expediency, not logic.

After spending all of this money and things still fail, it's very embarrassing to the politicians in charge. So they will tend to spend even more money on a losing proposition so it doesn't "fail".
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
So we should just keep funding bad jobs that don't provide good economic return?
The gov. could keep paying these people to make cars that no one is buying, but is that really a good use of resources?


We are not funding jobs, we are funding underfunded retirement accounts and fixing a company that can provide the right jobs and good economic return in the future.

Subsidizing the replacement of cars with more efficient models, by the amount that is less than the fuel saving in the long run, is a good economic return.

Just that it doesn't benefit you, Mr. Tempest.

The problem with this program before bailing out Chrysler and GM is that it will benefit foreign makes, rather than US auto companies, if Chrysler and GM goes out of business.

I don't think we have the best solution in place, but I can't think of a better one that will have a shot at keeping everyone happy.
 
Quote:
Subsidizing the replacement of cars with more efficient models, by the amount that is less than the fuel saving in the long run, is a good economic return.


Really? $30 billion can buy ~15 billion gallons of gas...at retail. That's about 11% of consumption for one year.
http://www.americanfuels.info/2009/03/2008-gasoline-consumption.html
That investment had better pay back really well, and really fast. Will this provide more benefit than simply buying gas for people?

Median income for households is ~50K. $30 billion / $50k = 600,000. Will we get that many jobs out of this? And that is ONLY from government money.

The idea that these companies will be viable is pure speculation. Chrysler took money in the 80's, and now look where they are. And that was with great economic expansion, which we will not have for some time.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
That's sort of the quandry the gubmint is in now.

I agree, and it's a good reason why government shouldn't get involved in corporations. The money being spent on these companies is being driven by political expediency, not logic.



Logic would also state that we should not subsidize any food or housing for the old/infirm/disabled, because it costs everyone else money. We do it anyway because WE have chosen as a group to do so. And we do it by who we elect as our leaders who enact the necessary legislation. The direction we are heading in is clear--and you and I and everyone better get used to it or try to change it.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Really? $30 billion can buy ~15 billion gallons of gas...at retail. That's about 11% of consumption for one year.
That investment had better pay back really well, and really fast. Will this provide more benefit than simply buying gas for people?


$3500 per car / 10 years = 350 per car per year
$350 / $3 per gallon (assumption, reasonable) = 116.67 gallon per year.

$30B can buy 10 bill gallon of gas (use the same cost as equation above, since they cancel out each other, don't matter)

$30B / 3500 per car = 8571428 cars

8571428 * 116.67 gallon per year saving * 10 year = 10000285047.6 = 10 billion gallon of gas.

Seems like the politicians are smarter than you when they crunch the numbers.
 
10 billion gallons x your assumed $3 = $30 billion. Where is your saving? We put in $30 billion. PLUS, we (the tax payer)have to finance that $30 billion over your assumed 10 years.

I am not following your reasoning.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
10 billion gallons x your assumed $3 = $30 billion. Where is your saving? We put in $30 billion. PLUS, we (the tax payer)have to finance that $30 billion over your assumed 10 years.

I am not following your reasoning.


It is a break even.

Now anything additional are debatable, like new car's taxes, reduce emission, employment, reduced trade deficit (a big if, depends on how much of that $30B is staying in the country vs how much fuel is saved), safety enhancement (also a big if depends on whether the new cars are safer than the old cars), keeping the car for more than 10 years, reduction of government bail out in other sectors (i.e. bailing out chrysler and GM), reduction of import (also a big if).

Since you are so good with numbers, why don't you crunch the number and say that there is no saving as a whole to the society.

As it stand right now, the government is footing the bill, I don't like that either, but as a society as a whole there is saving.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top