This is another way of creating demand where no such demand exists. Let's have a look at how we got into this mess in the first place.
Right after the disaster on Sept 11, 2001, the nation took a body blow to it's national pride, but did we all come together, to tighten our belts, stay focused, and go after the real enemies of the country? NO, we were all asked to go shopping.
And so the first 0% financing scheme was hatched, and this brought droves of shoppers into the showrooms. We were already heading for some sort of a recession back in 2000, and 0.9% financing was available, but this scheme was like no other, pulling forward the buying cycle of many consumers.
When 0% financing started to fade, the large cash rebates were tried on the buying public, and they responded in a big way in 2003, pulling in further the normal buying cycle of those consumers. On top of huge cash promotions, there was a little known tax write off for trucks (and SUV's) purchased by businesses, in which they could write off 100% of the purchase toward their taxes. Land Rover produced a spiffy pamphlet showing how to take advantage of the tax loophole, even going so far as how to create your own LLC or LLP.
This too was starting to sow, so Voila, Employee Pricing was tried during the summer 2005 selling season, and once again, it pulled in buyers pre-maturely so that they can get "the deal". GM Started it, with Ford and Chrysler following, and they wiped out all of the 2005 inventory.
So what worked in the past isn't working now, and the big reason is that everyone who could but a car, has a reasonably new car now, and with the double whammy of last summers high fuel prices, and no credit, we are at a more reasonable 8 or 9 million vehicle production level, not an artificial 15 to 17 million level.
Now we have this bill, and quite frankly, it creates an artificial demand (again). I say let sleeping dogs lie, and it will work out (in about 3 years). We are just postponing the inevitable.
Does anyone know what's going on with the proposed voucher for motorcycles? Maybe they could have a voucher of, say, $10,000 for new vehicles with 20+mpg improvement. F*ck a Prius, I want a new Harley.
@Muscles Marinara: I happen to agree. I'd rather have more motorcycles on the road than more Prii - cyclists aren't usually (with the exception of some crotch-rocket pilots and occasional weekend H-D types) utter dipshits; they can park three or four to a space, no problem, depending on orientation of said space; they get equivalent (sometimes better) fuel economy, and they can't sneak up on pedestrians and run 'em over.
Also, I yield to motorcycles. Another advantage for you.
Does anyone know how the government will go about deciding which cars get 18 MPG and under and which do not? What if your car did 20 MPG say ten years ago and now it gets 15 MPG?
@Saboth: Yes, that is my understanding as well. If you have an older car, they have a magic formula that takes its mileage when new that used the old EPA tests and gives the mileage under the current test procedures.
In other word they could have just said: we will give back $4000 to the first 250'0000 people willing to trade in that show up at a dealership, starting now and it would have been just as random.
While I'm still not exactly opposed to this, I am opposed to the fact that it was wedged in, pork-style, to an unrelated bill. Seriously, any senator or representative who does that sort of thing, on either side of the aisle, should be led behind the barn and shot.
I view this bill like I view my "tax free" spending days in Georgia. Fools RUSH to the stores to save pennies and spend money on shit they don't need for the most part. I suspect this bill will cause a similiar rush, though prolly not on the same magnitude. A rational person would sell their clunker for whatever it gets and then go purchase a used car with cash that they can afford.
What I don't understand is that conservatives like tax cuts but never get around to the whole reducing size of government thing. Result is massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Frankly, the whole big/small government debate is a false debate; the real issue is good/bad government. I have more but let's get back to cars, shall we?
@Blue387: This, IMHO, is why the republican party is now in the crapper. Too much on the tax cuts, and too little on the reducing the size of the government thing. Well, that and the whole neo-con rush to invade every country full of brown people and black gold.
They need to hurry up and get this thing going. Lots of people have been waiting for this before buying a new car, so by introducing the legislation, they have actually hurt dealerships even more, as people that would normally be looking at new cars aren't buying them until this is passed.
Of course with 1 billion, it will probably only last 1-2 months.
@Dwegmull, preview free since March 2009.: Oops, clicked send too soon: 2.7% of 365 days is a little over 10. So let's say the money will last a couple of weeks...
Seems like a half-assed plan: too big to let the market right itself and too small to really start a turn-around.
At least, true socialists would have put in a mandatory 2-week stay in a community work-camp for all voucher beneficiaries. I should know, they ran my country for a while.
$1 billion? That's it? The way people rant about it here, you'd think that it was something that would actually affect our lives. I'm more interested in knowing what's in that $106 billion military bill...
@Hello Mister Walrus: $1 Billion would pay for all of the Epotin used by Medicare beneficiaries for one year. That is 40 million people who could benefit from this money rather than 250,000.
So the final bill is $1 billion...if everyone who partook got the full $4500, the deal will only fund 222,222 people...in other words, the entire population of Republicans.
@krische: Yupp. Amazes me how few people understand this. When you cut taxes on the upper 1%, you are spreading the wealth, you are just taking from the middle class and giving to the upper.
@clinto: Amazes me that people like you buy into the misnomer that "tax breaks for the rich" are a bad thing. You don't take SHIT from the middle class with them.
@clinto: How do you spread the wealth when you let someone keep their own money?
And don't start with fair share crap. Fair would be equal contributions for equal return. "The rich" are the ones most likely to not use government programs, yet they pay for most of it. The ones who don't pay are the more likely to use the programs.
@LoganSix: I wouldn't start with the "fair share crap", as you put it.
The only way for any sort taxation system to be fair would be a flat dollar rate. Everyone pays, say $10K a year.
Of course, the needs ($) of govt. are such that every person would have to pay such a high figure that a huge # of people would be required to pay more than they earn in a year (or multiple years).
So a tiered system is the only way to fly. The question is who should the tiers help, those who need no help or those who can barely afford to eat?
Oh, on the serious side, I think the most terrifying part of this "plan" is that it's mixing car selling with an agenda about energy and trying to weld the two together.
But wait, Mr. Obama--what if cars that sell aren't small eco-misers? In fact, that's almost never been true. So you going to force us to buy them? Or let GM die because of your idealistic energy agenda?
I think you guys are just looking at this as glass half-empy, y'know?
Now that we own this dawg, we can crank out El Caminos, Vettes, old Vettes, '63 Impalas, hot Chevelles and anything else we want, including some pick em ups. We own the joint, right?
06/19/09
Right after the disaster on Sept 11, 2001, the nation took a body blow to it's national pride, but did we all come together, to tighten our belts, stay focused, and go after the real enemies of the country? NO, we were all asked to go shopping.
And so the first 0% financing scheme was hatched, and this brought droves of shoppers into the showrooms. We were already heading for some sort of a recession back in 2000, and 0.9% financing was available, but this scheme was like no other, pulling forward the buying cycle of many consumers.
When 0% financing started to fade, the large cash rebates were tried on the buying public, and they responded in a big way in 2003, pulling in further the normal buying cycle of those consumers. On top of huge cash promotions, there was a little known tax write off for trucks (and SUV's) purchased by businesses, in which they could write off 100% of the purchase toward their taxes. Land Rover produced a spiffy pamphlet showing how to take advantage of the tax loophole, even going so far as how to create your own LLC or LLP.
This too was starting to sow, so Voila, Employee Pricing was tried during the summer 2005 selling season, and once again, it pulled in buyers pre-maturely so that they can get "the deal". GM Started it, with Ford and Chrysler following, and they wiped out all of the 2005 inventory.
So what worked in the past isn't working now, and the big reason is that everyone who could but a car, has a reasonably new car now, and with the double whammy of last summers high fuel prices, and no credit, we are at a more reasonable 8 or 9 million vehicle production level, not an artificial 15 to 17 million level.
Now we have this bill, and quite frankly, it creates an artificial demand (again). I say let sleeping dogs lie, and it will work out (in about 3 years). We are just postponing the inevitable.
06/19/09
06/19/09
Also, I yield to motorcycles. Another advantage for you.
06/19/09
06/19/09
There is an official gov site that lists EPA gas mileage. I'd assume they are using the new EPA estimates.
[www.fueleconomy.gov]
06/19/09
In other word they could have just said: we will give back $4000 to the first 250'0000 people willing to trade in that show up at a dealership, starting now and it would have been just as random.
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
Of course with 1 billion, it will probably only last 1-2 months.
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
At least, true socialists would have put in a mandatory 2-week stay in a community work-camp for all voucher beneficiaries. I should know, they ran my country for a while.
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
And don't start with fair share crap. Fair would be equal contributions for equal return. "The rich" are the ones most likely to not use government programs, yet they pay for most of it. The ones who don't pay are the more likely to use the programs.
06/19/09
06/19/09
The only way for any sort taxation system to be fair would be a flat dollar rate. Everyone pays, say $10K a year.
Of course, the needs ($) of govt. are such that every person would have to pay such a high figure that a huge # of people would be required to pay more than they earn in a year (or multiple years).
So a tiered system is the only way to fly. The question is who should the tiers help, those who need no help or those who can barely afford to eat?
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
Gold star.
06/19/09
Flat Tax FTW!
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/19/09
06/01/09
But wait, Mr. Obama--what if cars that sell aren't small eco-misers? In fact, that's almost never been true. So you going to force us to buy them? Or let GM die because of your idealistic energy agenda?
06/01/09
Now that we own this dawg, we can crank out El Caminos, Vettes, old Vettes, '63 Impalas, hot Chevelles and anything else we want, including some pick em ups. We own the joint, right?