Comments on: Cash for Clunkers becomes Handouts for Hummers

By: DC

DC — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:39:47 +0000

Seth, you’re right. And those of us with low-MPG vehicles that are a few MPG over the weirdly low 18MPG barrier might be SOL. And we have no vanity or any local mountain range to constantly drive over either.

It also takes two to tango: It’s like other people who say “We tried affordable housing”, but as wages stagnate or decline (which certainly does NOT help the economy), credit is the only thing left. Maybe not entirely relevant to this discussion, but I can no longer blame the consumer for having high debt levels. The cost of education, health insurance, you name it — it’s not been keeping up with wages for decades. (the dollar had much more buying – and saving – power in 1986 compared to now…)

By: Marcus

Marcus — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:46:17 +0000

“Pretty obvious. 10 to 15% is a 50% increase and 30 to 35 is a 17% increase.”

Actually, it is even more than that. Going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg saves you more than going from 30 mpg to 60 mpg. The key is to convert to “gallons per mile”. Or 0.1 to 0.05 (saving 0.05 gallons per mile) compared to 1/30 to 1/60 (saving .016 gallons per mile).

Indeed, going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg is the same as going from 20 mpg to a zero-emission car. (Assuming the same number of miles driven).

By: karen

karen — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:23:37 +0000

60% the cars that are currently donated to charity will now be eligible for a $3500 or $4500 voucher under the cash for clunkers program. Since the tax deduction for donating a car is only $500 or what the car sells charities won’t be able to compete with the program and charitable car donation will end. A better idea is to just change the amount a person can deduct for donating their car back to the book value. That way every car is eligible, the government doesn’t have to spend $4 million of our dollars giving away vouchers and trying to administer a program that is way too convoluted!

By: Rick Covert

Rick Covert — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:06:14 +0000

All we’ll see is more later models then we would ordinarily see in ditches, ravines, rivers, at the bottom of steap cliffs when gasoline prices make driving these monsters more unbearable.

By: Seth Masia

Seth Masia — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:46:56 +0000

These bills contain the same kind of moral hazard as the carbon-permit giveaways: They reward past bad behavior. The folks who get the cash credit are the folks who bought, owned and drove gas guzzlers for year. No cash credit for those of us who’ve been driving efficient vehicles all our lives.

By: MikeN

MikeN — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:40:01 +0000

Pretty obvious. 10 to 15% is a 50% increase and 30 to 35 is a 17% increase.

By: David

David — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:30:43 +0000

“you actually save more CO2 by trading a 10 mpg for a 15 mpg vehicle than the more eco aware 30 mpg for a 35 mpg vehicle”

That’s definitely possible. Say you have two drivers, each averaging 30,000 miles per year. Driver 1’s vehicle gets 10 mpg. Driver 2’s vehicle gets 30 mpg. You have a choice. You can use your money to encourage driver 1 to buy a new vehicle that gets 15 mpg, or you can encourage driver 2 to buy a new vehicle that gets 35 mpg. In the first scenario, you would reduce total fuel consumption from 4000 gallons a year to 3000 gallons. In the second scenario, you would reduce total fuel consumption from 4000 gallons a year to 3857 gallons a year.

By: Hal

Hal — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:50:38 +0000

Cash for clunkers is really just a bad idea in general. Over time people will buy more fuel efficient cars when the cost of gasoline goes higher. And it will go higher.

By: anyoneoutthere

anyoneoutthere — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:47:13 +0000

I have been reading about the pro s and cons of this proposal for months and have come to the conclusion that the owners of the real guzzlers could not take advantage of this program because they would trade in vehicles worth more than they would get. show me a hummer that you can buy for forty-five hundred dollars, even as scrape its worth more than that.This program is a middle class incentive to use that third car sitting on their driveway and getting a hell of a deal for it. the people it should have been for,the ones who should have been helped have been left out.The ones who drive clunkers because of circumstances are losing twice, they can not afford to take advantage of this and they will be paying more for the clunkers that are left. WAY TO GO GUYS!!!!

By: Susan Kraemer

Susan Kraemer — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:40:40 +0000

I remember reading a few years ago a surprising study by the UCS showing that you actually save more CO2 by trading a 10 mpg for a 15 mpg vehicle than the more eco aware 30 mpg for a 35 mpg vehicle.

I think they may have based this legislation on that study.