Slashdot Mirror
Feds To Offer Cash For Your Clunker
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."
I don't see this helping the Big Three very much. Foreign makes have better fuel efficiency and more variety to choose from.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Regardless, encouraging sale of old vehicles to scrapyard means that people will buy new cars. A portion of this will go to the domestic manufacturers, who at this point are not as worried about selling more cars than their foreign competitors, but rather just selling more cars.
Frankly, I think the 'ism supported here is consumerism, not environmentalism. Let old cars die their natural death.
My '93 Corolla gets 34mpg. Not too many cars made today get better than that.
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.
By making it less and less efficient! Yay for progress!
I'm no eco weenie, but this is total madness... the manufacture of a car creates SIX TIMES the CO2 that the average car will emit in its lifetime... the government should be encouraging people to keep their cars for longer, not pointlessly bail out a few failed car makers...
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)
"Should the bill pass, the "Cash for Clunkers" program would reimburse drivers with 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."
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!
To encourage car owners to scrap cars before 10 years, we have
1. Road tax increases for cars > 10 years old
2. Rebates for cars unregistered before 10 years
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.
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?
So they're going to offer us our own tax dollars we've paid them, to get rid of the cars we have?
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.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
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.
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
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.
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 traded in, but if 1% of it is, that's enough to justify taking a million of these vehicles off the road.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
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.
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.
I'd be more than happy to give them mine, it just sits all the time.
Occasionally I push it around the parking lot so the front office doesn't harass me, but it really isn't worth keeping.
I'll take the Apple II out of its trunk, give it to them, and instead of a voucher I'd be happy to take cash.
With which I will buy one of those stackable Japanese pieces of shit that you can fit in a walkin closest that they call a car.
Seems like a good plan to me.
You can't take the sky from me.
This has nothing to do with the environment. It is simply a greenwashed incentive for boosting the ailing auto industry. Not that there's anything wrong with that given our economic woes, but it's kinda dishonest. Not only does the production of a new car produce more pollution (as another commenter pointed out), but many older cars are still fuel efficient, especially small ones that are well maintained, while new cars other than hybrids are no more fuel efficient than they were a decade ago. My aging stick-shifting Saturn, for example, still gets around 40 mpg on the highway even though it is now 11 years old. If they were really interested in environmental issues, they would instead propose an investment public transportation and give those who scrap their cars free train/bus passes. In most cities public transport is a joke. There's limited or no rail service and a network of depressing buses. Would I scrap my carbon belcher for a few years of free rides on an expanded and convenient public transit system? Maybe. But is this the point of this bill? Probably not.
Exchange them for something other than coal burning steam turbines.
Basically antiquated technology.
Reform the coal into hydrogen and build giant fuel cells.
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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
What the fuck happened to the concept of limited government? 50+ comments on here, and not one asking what business is it of government to make people's decisions for them? I understand that /. tilts way to the left, but a total lack of outrage or even acknowledgment of the underlying problem here is just depressing.
Let me use an example. The Chicago suburbs (one of which I live in). Public transportation from the 'burbs to downtown is easy. Anyone can do a hub and spoke light rail system (called Metra in our area). But how do you get around using public transportation from suburb to suburb? Bus? Doesn't happen. You can't cover hundreds of square miles with public transportation, becasue public transportation is built specifically for high density areas (for our purposes, I exclude things like Amtrak, the bullet train in Japan, and other long haul public transportation options).
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.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
One thing I've alwasy thought would help a lot would be better traffic control systems. Governments don't really have a big incentive to really optimize these systems and I think that great strides could be made in improving them. I always wind up spending several minutes every time I go to work sitting at lights when there is no traffic going the other way. That should never happen. Better and more intelligent systems would mean faster commutes, less idling at red lights, and fewer cars on the road at any one time since travel times would be shorter.
Don't burn the suburbs, just plan them better. Transit can work in suburbs, but the suburbs have to be designed with transit in mind. It's true, suburbs cannot usually support the comprehensive transit systems that cities have, such as grids, where you can get from ANY point A to ANY point B with relative ease. But suburbs can at least support commuter routes IF there are well defined job centers. In that case you can funnel people from the suburbs via buses into job/shopping centers on a limited schedule (buses in the city run every 15 minutes, buses in the suburbs run every hour, for example) - or perhaps run a light rail and provide generous parking at stations. However, many places are not planned very strategically, so there are no destinations, every person is headed from some random point A to another random point B.
I would also say that although it would not be practical or useful to "burn the suburbs," as you describe, we COULD stop subsidizing them. A lot of places grow outward instead of inward because government is more than happy to run brand new highways and civil services to rural areas.
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.
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 drivers who refuse to drive safely from driving.
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.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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 really enjoy a mint 1989 Civic hatchback.
The state of Texas has a similar voucher program that's been in place for a while now. Residents can get a $3,000 voucher for replacing a 10+ year-old car with a three-year-old or newer car. Perhaps I'd be able to double-up on the vouchers and get something like $7,000 for my 1988 Ford Ranger. Unfortunately, neither the proposed federal bill or the existing Texas program offer vouchers for automobiles that are replaced by motorcycles or scooters.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
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.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
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).
To do list for Windows
I guess that depends where you are. Most public busses here in Phoenix are LNG powered. Sure, they emit CO2, but take a look at the cars for even five independent riders and you've probably covered that, pretty much regardless of /which/ cars they are or what they run on (even electric is often ultimately coal).
The two biggest problems here are one, with summer days typically running 45C/113F in the shade, waiting even ten minutes for the bus in the heat is hard, and with them on 30 minute schedules, 15 minutes is going to be the average wait -- possibly several times if it's not a direct single-bus route -- and two, they only run ~ 5-22, which means leaving no later than 20:30 for anyone with a second bus to catch before 22:00. (Until the recent budget cuts they were running an hour longer at each end, ~ 4-23, which did help. Fortunately Phoenix is in better shape financially than many cities. The county OTOH...)
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman
Quote: "It's actually quite a smart move."
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, 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 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.
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. 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.
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".
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
For years in Portugal...
And it's a very good program.
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 dent is fine, but a gash with sharp edges is a fail), seat belts wipers etc.
While the car may be safe when sold (since you cannot sell a new car that is unsafe) beyond 3 years of age the car is safety tested and emissions tested and must pass to be road worthy.
If you don;t have a valid MOT in the UK you cannot tax your vehicle, and cannot drive it on the road.
Or will we just continue to heap it onto the debt with promises of paying it off some nebulous day in the future?
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.
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.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
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.
As someone who has followed the ideals brought forth by Ron Paul in the campaign, and as much as I corroborate in the knowledge that our elected politicians walk regularly over the Constitution, they are attempting and failing to operate appropriately with some liberties and unwritten obligations that may exist that you may have not considered.
I implore you to read this bit by Jefferson:
A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless *one* of the high duties of a good citizen, but not *the highest*. The laws of necessity, self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger are the highest obligation.
To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. ...
In all these cases, the unwritten laws of necessity, of self-preservation, and of the public safety, control the written laws of meum and tuum.
The insanity is that the country is always in a state of danger and needing to be saved from something; real or imagined. Their shared delusion is that the sky is falling, and when the sky falls it creates more government largess. We need to vote these bums out of office, because we cannot share in their delusions that we are always in a state of danger that requires more expensive self-preservation.
Round and round we go.
When the nation was born it was a great 'experiment' of freedom, liberty, and representation in a time which the majority of people living would be honored to serve their local militia and defend their ideals. This level of stewardship over time has been diluted to the point where more people want to let the government be their nursemaid than to take up for their own.
We've given them so much power that they have gotten carried away with it, and there is no easy way to put the genie back in the bottle.