Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

WINNERS


LOSERS

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aL64iMpt6dks

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

WINNERS:

People who essentially got an awesome return on cars that were worth shit.

LOSERS:

Charities expecting to get those cars as donations:

http://app1.kuhf.org/houston_public_..._id=1251759163

$100,000 in 3 weeks. And that's just one charity in Houston. Why oh WHY did the gov't have to make the cars undriveable??? Why not just immediately donate them to charities?

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

I wonder how much debt Cash for Clunkers created. $4000 is at least $6000 from any new base model car.

Edit: Charities are big losers. Government programs such as this one often have unintended consequences that harm private charities and low-income persons... quite unfortunate.

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

Not to get partisan, but ask Pres. Obama's environmental advisors. Half of the goal of this program was to get gas guzzlers off the road, so they opted to destroy many perfectly good cars rather than have them go to charity or even sell some in bulk to developing nations to help defer some of the costs of the program.

Economically, while this has been a temporary boon to car sales, this is also hurting used car dealers, repair shops and many believe even retail as many people have opted for the large purchase, reducing their available funds for smaller ones.

The funniest part is, the companies this was supposed to help, (GM and Chrysler) still took a bath on the deal...

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

If that truly was the reasoning (I haven't read or heard or anything from someone official that confirms it, is all I'm saying) it was a dumb and misguided decision. I think you can promote the environmental benefits of high mileage cars without making the old cars undriveable.

First, this is not the way to fight climate change, if that was their intention. And secondly, just the fact that you will get a bunch of people who now have high mileage cars and can see firsthand the benefit of the money being saved, I think very few will go back and demand lower mileage cars in the future. Basically, you get the same benefit without destroying cars.

Finally, I want to be fair and point out that much of the car can still be sold for parts, with some minor and major exceptions (I can't remember what off the top of my head). So, economically, I think they were able to recoup some costs and at least not all old parts businesses and mechanics were fucked over by the program.

EDIT: And to comment specifically on your numbers, that does surprise me that Chrysler and GM would still see sliding sales. I guess no one has any trust in them at this point, though maybe a big part of it is that there are few cars to choose from their lineups that meet the program's rules?

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

That's what I think, if the numbers are in fact true. Though Chrystler 300 is admitedly a very popular car around these parts.. that's probably the only car I can think of from those companies that would sell over Toyota's, Hondas, and Fords.

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

Sort of humorous fact: the $4500 rebate for your "clunker" is taxable.

A lot of people didn't realize this until they made the deal and got the money.

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

This is retarded. Canada's "Scrapit" program only gave $2250 for a while and now only gives $1250.

However, I did scrap my 1994 Dodge Intrepid and decreased my emissions a hell of a lot. The downside? Fucking paperwork. I bought my car on June 21st and it's September now. We finished all the paperwork/scrapping at the beginning of August and now we have to wait 6-8 weeks for the money. The scrapit program DOES offer $250 at point of purchase, though.

....And I guess I got $1000 for being a recent post-secondary graduate. $3250 savings isn't that bad. :D Especially when it's not taxable.

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

I think thats part of it for Chrysler (I love the 300 Touring soooo much, and I will have one someday), but GM should have done much better considering their fleet of trucks and SUV's that qualified (truck and SUV standards for the program were much lower than cars).

Re: Cash for Clunkers: Winners and Losers
 

The only problem with trucks is that they're kinda expensive, and not as appealing.

But yeah, Chrystler 300 is a nice car. I'm hoping to get one or get a Mustang come next summer. For now I'm just gonna have fun with having no car note and low insurance lol.