By on December 23, 2008

Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) have introduced Senate Bill 3737. You can read the full text of the “Sell Fuel Efficient Cars Act of 2008” after the jump. Suffice it to say that the bill is designed to stimulate new car sales by giving low-income ($40k family income) car buyers $10k worth of “federal assistance” towards the purchase of a new vehicle. Of course, not just ANY vehicle. The car, truck, CUV or SUV (of course) must come from a carmaker “with operations in the United States, the failure of which would have a systemic adverse effect on the overall economy of the United States or a significant loss of United States jobs, as determined by the Secretary; and operated a manufacturing facility that produced automobiles or automobile components in the United States throughout the 20-year period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act.” Guess who? And now, the greenwashing…

To qualify, the new car must have fuel economy that “is not less than 25 miles per gallon… that is more than 4.9 miles per gallon greater than the fuel economy of such eligible old automobile.”

Twenty-five mpg is, it has to be said, a very low target– especially for a legislature that recently raised corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to 35mpg by 2020. You don’t think the language was specifically written to help truck-heavy manufacturers, do you? Man, you really got keep an eye on these guys.

[thanks to JT for the link]

A BILL

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to carry out a program to enable certain individuals to trade certain old automobiles for certain new automobiles, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Sell Fuel Efficient Cars Act of 2008′.

SEC. 2. PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE TRADE-IN PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions- In this section:

(1) AUTOMOBILE, FUEL, MANUFACTURER, PASSENGER AUTOMOBILE- The terms `automobile’, `fuel’, `manufacturer’, and `passenger automobile’ have the meaning given such terms in section 32901 of title 49, United States Code.

(2) ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL- The term `eligible individual’ means an individual–

(A) who does not have more than 3 passenger automobiles registered under his or her name;

(B) who filed a return of Federal income tax for a taxable year beginning in 2007, and, if married for such taxable year (as determined under section 7703 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), filed a joint return;

(C) who is not an individual with respect to whom a deduction under section 151 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual’s taxable year begins;

(D) whose adjusted gross income reported in such return was not more than $25,000 ($40,000 in the case of a joint tax return or a return filed by a head of household (as defined in section 2(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986));

(E) who has not acquired an automobile under the Program; and

(F) who did not file such return jointly with another individual who has acquired an automobile under the Program.

(3) ELIGIBLE NEW AUTOMOBILE-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term `eligible new automobile’, with respect to a trade of an eligible old automobile by an eligible individual under the Program, means a passenger automobile that–

(i) has never been registered in any jurisdiction;

(ii) was manufactured by an automobile manufacturer that has–

(I) operations in the United States, the failure of which would have a systemic adverse effect on the overall economy of the United States or a significant loss of United States jobs, as determined by the Secretary; and

(II) operated a manufacturing facility that produced automobiles or automobile components in the United States throughout the 20-year period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act;

(iii) was assembled in the United States; and

(iv) has a fuel economy that–

(I) is not less than 25 miles per gallon, as determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency using the 5-cycle fuel economy measurement methodology of such Agency; and

(II) has a fuel economy that is more than 4.9 miles per gallon greater than the fuel economy of such eligible old automobile, as determined by the Administrator using the 2-cycle fuel economy measurement methodology of such Agency for both automobiles.

(B) FUEL ECONOMY TESTING METHODOLOGIES- If a passenger automobile described in subclause (I) or (II) of subparagraph (A)(iv) has not been measured using the respective methodologies described such subclauses, the Administrator may estimate what such measurement would be if the Administrator were to use the respective methodology for purposes of determining the fuel economy under such subclauses.

(4) ELIGIBLE OLD AUTOMOBILE- The term `eligible old automobile’, with respect to a trade for an eligible new automobile by an eligible individual under the Program, means a passenger automobile that–

(A) is operable;

(B) was first registered in any jurisdiction by any person not less than 10 years before the date on which such trade is initiated;

(C) is registered under such eligible individual’s name on the date on which such trade is initiated; and

(D) was registered under such eligible individual’s name before December 1, 2008.

(5) FUEL ECONOMY- The term `fuel economy’ means the average number of miles traveled by an automobile for each gallon of gasoline (or equivalent amount of other fuel) used, as determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(6) PROGRAM- The term `Program’ means the Passenger Automobile Trade-In Program established under subsection (b).

(7) SECRETARY- The term `Secretary’ means the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s designee.

(b) Program Established- The Secretary shall establish the Passenger Automobile Trade-In Program to provide eligible individuals with subsidies to purchase eligible new automobiles in exchange for eligible old automobiles.

(c) Duration of Program- The Program shall commence on the date on which the Secretary prescribes regulations under subsection (g) and shall terminate on December 31, 2009.

(d) Trades-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if an eligible individual and a seller of an eligible new automobile initiate a trade as described in subsection (e) for such new automobile with an eligible old automobile of the eligible individual, the Secretary shall provide to the seller of such new automobile $10,000.

(2) LIMITATION ON PURCHASE PRICE OF ELIGIBLE NEW AUTOMOBILES- The Secretary may not make any payment under this subsection for a trade for an eligible new automobile under the Program if the purchase price of such new automobile exceeds the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for such new automobile.

(3) COMPENSATION FOR DELAYED PAYMENTS- In the case that a payment under this subsection to a seller for a trade under the Program is delayed, the Secretary shall provide to such seller the amount otherwise determined under this subsection plus interest at the overpayment rate established under section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

(e) Initiation of Trade- An eligible individual and the seller of an eligible new automobile initiate a trade under the Program for such eligible new automobile with an eligible old automobile of such individual if–

(1) the eligible individual, or the eligible individual’s designee, drives such old automobile to the location of such seller;

(2) the eligible individual provides to the seller–

(A) such old automobile; and

(B) an amount (if any) equal to the difference between–

(i) the purchase price of such new automobile; and

(ii) the amount the Secretary is required to provide to the seller under subsection (d); and

(3) the eligible individual and the seller notify the Secretary of such trade at such time and in such manner as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(f) Disposal of Eligible Old Automobiles-

(1) IN GENERAL- A seller who receives an eligible old automobile in exchange for an eligible new automobile under the Program shall deliver such old automobile to an appropriate location for proper destruction and disposal as determined by the Secretary.

(2) COMPENSATION- The Secretary shall compensate a seller described in paragraph (1) for costs incurred by such seller under such paragraph in such amounts or at such rates as the Secretary considers appropriate.

(g) Regulations-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe rules to carry out the Program.

(2) EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR RULEMAKING- The provisions of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, shall not apply to regulations prescribed under paragraph (1).

(h) Direct Spending Authority-

(1) IN GENERAL- There is authorized to be appropriated and is appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be necessary to carry out the Program.

(2) EMERGENCY DESIGNATION- Amounts appropriated pursuant to paragraph (1) are designated as an emergency requirement and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant to section 204(a) of S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress) and section 301(b)(2) of S. Con. Res. 70 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolutions on the budget for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

41 Comments on “Feds’ $10G Clunker Trade-In Bill: New Domestics Only...”


  • avatar
    Invisible

    So, the Detroit brands will become the vehicles for low income households. What a way to improve brand image there senators.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    Sure better than simply throwing cash directly at the companies!

  • avatar

    John Horner :

    I saw that same sentence in the aphorism dictionary under “damning with faint praise.”

  • avatar
    Lichtronamo

    Wouldn’t Honda and Nissan both qualify under the 20-year rule?

  • avatar
    mcs

    Hmm, I just skimmed the text and it looks like the NUMMI/Fremont CA Corollas would qualify. The Fusion wouldn’t qualify. By the way, how long has Cerberus operated plants in the US?

  • avatar
    Conslaw

    Ain’t gonna pass. There’s nothing to see here. Move along.

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    I am a little confused by the timing of this Bill. What good is introcuding a Bill right before the end of the 110th Congress, they are going to clear everything by the end of the year and it will have to be reintroduced next year. Was this some alternative to the bailout?

    I just don’t see this getting past next year, between southern Republican senators with transplants making cars and Democarats who will be pissed about the low mileage.

    This is also just what Detroit doesn’t need, it doesn’t force them to compete. Everytime that happens they get fat, lazy and stupid on easy profits they don’t have to work for.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    10 grand would be good, i’m liking this idea.

  • avatar
    RayH

    Coming soon to a dealer near you: the $26,000 Cobalt (base model).

  • avatar
    toxicroach

    Not to mention probably unconstitutional.

  • avatar
    BuzzDog

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks this idea is absolutely horrible…but IF we MUST have such a boondoggle (note that “if” and “must” are in this statement), perhaps we should do like Japan and require that the old car be destroyed. If we don’t, I’m sure we’ll be seeing dealers who will “sell back your trade-in for what we pay you for it.” So we’ll end up with a bunch of inexpensive domestic cars parked next to the old one, further inflating the supply of domestics and driving down resale values.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    This is a really horribly written bill. It does not even specify that any of the $10,000 has to be passed along to the buyer; it just says that if the dealer sells the car at or below MSRP the dealer gets $10,000.

    Sure the buyer can negotiate with the dealer to try to get the full $10K, but since this bill deals with people making less than $25K and families making less than $40K I see a whole lot of scamming going on. Either the dealer will say “you get $5K and I get $5K”, and will make $5K above MSRP, or the dealer will make it up with fees and high financing rates.

    The “was assembled in the United States”, requirement itself creates a whole host of problems. It rules out the Aveo/G3, the Fusion/Milan/MKZ and a large number of other big-3 cars. Also, for some cars, amusingly, it will depend on the serial number. “That Chevy Silverado does not qualify, but that one over there does.”

    Even if this law was written properly it would be a horrible law, and infuriate the public. Often international agreements get in the way of good laws, but this is a case where, even if there is support for this in the next Congress, there is no way this is Kosher with NAFTA and other trade agreements.

    The Canadians, in particular, will not like it after dumping >$3billion down the big-3 drain.

  • avatar
    Geotpf

    Under this, Toyota, and possibly Honda and Nissan, might qualify (if Toyota failed (not going to happen, but if it did), it “would have a systemic adverse effect on the overall economy of the United States or a significant loss of United States jobs”, just as if GM or Chrysler failed).

    Decent, albeit expensive, bill, but the timing (releasing it at the end of this Congress and not the beginning of the next one) makes me think he brought it up merely to say he brought it up, not to actually pass it.

    The “must be made in the US” might be illegal under NAFTA, dunno.

    And, no, it’s not unconstitutional to provide people with tax rebates if they qualify under certain rules.

    The one thing I don’t like about it is it requires the trade in to be crushed. I imagine enviromentalists would have a problem with that (crushing perfectly good automobiles is bad for the enviroment if the could continue to be used).

    Another interesting thing is that while pickups and CUVs appear to be ok, they can not be four wheel drive, and they can also not have any “significant feature (except 4-wheel drive) designed for off-highway operation”. So, wanna-be CUVs are ok, if the manufacturer states that aren’t actually to be used for off-road use, but real SUVs aren’t allowed. In fact, four wheel drive cars would not be allowed, using the definition mentioned in the bill:

    § 32901. Definitions

    (3) except as provided in section 32908 of this title, “automobile” means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways (except a vehicle operated only on a rail line), and rated at—
    (A) not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; or
    (B) more than 6,000, but less than 10,000, pounds gross vehicle weight, if the Secretary decides by regulation that—
    (i) an average fuel economy standard under this chapter for the vehicle is feasible; and
    (ii) an average fuel economy standard under this chapter for the vehicle will result in significant energy conservation or the vehicle is substantially used for the same purposes as a vehicle rated at not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.

    (16) “passenger automobile” means an automobile that the Secretary decides by regulation is manufactured primarily for transporting not more than 10 individuals, but does not include an automobile capable of off-highway operation that the Secretary decides by regulation—
    (A) has a significant feature (except 4-wheel drive) designed for off-highway operation; and
    (B) is a 4-wheel drive automobile or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.

    § 32908. Fuel economy information

    (a) Definitions.— In this section—
    (1) “automobile” includes an automobile rated at not more than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight regardless of whether the Secretary of Transportation has applied this chapter to the automobile under section 32901 (a)(3)(B) of this title.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode49/usc_sec_49_00032901—-000-.html

  • avatar
    Redbarchetta

    toxicroach Do you mean the White House and Congressional wash room toilet paper.

    Constitution toilet paper

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    It is not unconstitutional, but it does violate GATT and the WTC will sanction the US for it. We are skating on thin ice with the bailouts.

  • avatar
    TaurusGT500

    OMG! No No No No Noooooo… This is so way bad on so many fronts …where to begin?

    So it’s a blatant redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots but we get to skirt the W word (welfare). Cool!

    And…. we get the dealers involved in administering it. Well, that’s sure to end well. (Props to slushbox for nailing that one in detail).

    There are so many more problems with this ill-conceived bill but I’ll leave it where I am .. OK ..one more…

    At the risk of being politically incorrect, insensitive to my fellow man, and just an all-around bad guy, here’s a newsflash for policy makers …. perhaps families that make less than $40,000/year should not be purchasing NEW cars.

  • avatar
    Geotpf

    BuzzDog :
    December 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 am

    I’m sure I’m not the only one who thinks this idea is absolutely horrible…but IF we MUST have such a boondoggle (note that “if” and “must” are in this statement), perhaps we should do like Japan and require that the old car be destroyed.

    This bill requires that “A seller who receives an eligible old automobile in exchange for an eligible new automobile under the Program shall deliver such old automobile to an appropriate location for proper destruction and disposal as determined by the Secretary.” So, yeah, this bill does this, although I think it’s a bad idea for enviromental reasons (the enviromental costs in making a new auto are fairly high).

  • avatar
    toxicroach

    Well hold on, would this actually cut Toyota and all the rest off?

    (A) IN GENERAL- The term `eligible new automobile’, with respect to a trade of an eligible old automobile by an eligible individual under the Program, means a passenger automobile that–

    (i) has never been registered in any jurisdiction;

    (ii) was manufactured by an automobile manufacturer that has–

    (I) operations in the United States, the failure of which would have a systemic adverse effect on the overall economy of the United States or a significant loss of United States jobs, as determined by the Secretary; and

    (II) operated a manufacturing facility that produced automobiles or automobile components in the United States throughout the 20-year period ending on the date of the enactment of this Act;

    (iii) was assembled in the United States; and

    The way I’m reading it Toyota would had a facility in the US in 88; it doesn’t specify that the car has to have been built at a factory that is at least 20 years old, merely that the company had a factory making vehicles or components as of 1988.

  • avatar
    Airhen

    Sounds like more of an effort to buy votes. First not just of families under 40k a year, but also for the federal employees that will have to be hired to run and monitor this new program.

    This also stinks of the usual fraud and abuse that the taxpayers get to pay for.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    Airhen:
    Sounds like more of an effort to buy votes.

    Of course, people like me see this crap and would rather gargle battery acid than buy a Detroit product.

  • avatar
    ronin

    Ha ha.

    Classified ad:

    “My family income is less than $40,000. I will buy any qualifying new car of your choice for a $10,000 discount and then sell you the used car. We will discuss detailed cash arrangements in person.

    If I don’t respond right away, please be patient, as my phone is ringing off the hook.”

  • avatar
    davey49

    toxicroach likely has this correct- unconstitutional
    not likely to pass anyway
    It might be OK without the stipulations on “Americanism”. I think stupid people don’t realize that any car sale is a boon to the economy. Pure imports still have to be shipped, sold and serviced in the US. It isn’t like the German government is running the local BMW dealership.
    $10K for a car for lower income people would be great. My friend is driving a late 80s Plymouth Voyager now so he could trade up to a Cobalt. It would help him and get a crappy car off the road.

  • avatar
    davey49

    Taurus GT500- The big problem with saying that lower income people shouldn’t buy new cars is that banks and finance companies will only give financing to people with low credit scores for new cars. It’s easier to get financed for $15-$20K new car than for a $10K used one.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    Terrific. Now I’m buying people I don’t know a new car.

    What a country!

  • avatar
    Pch101

    If we are going to provide incentives for lower-income people to buy new cars, then we should at least be sure that the manufacturers of those cars can provide maintenance and warranty coverage that don’t bankrupt these people when things break.

    Any car sold under such a plan should require a 10-year/ 150,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty and a 5-year full service plan, that includes oil changes, tune ups and everything else. There’s no point in getting cars on the road if we can’t be sure that they’re going to work.

  • avatar
    jerseydevil

    I STILL think its a wonderful idea.

  • avatar
    menno

    How can folks who couldn’t ordinarily buy such cars, afford full comprehensive and collision auto insurance on these new cars?

    Many folks can’t even afford basic PL & PD for their used junkers, and are losing their homes now.

    As for the Constitution, well, what the hell? We haven’t paid any attention to that for decades; why start now?

    Perhaps if my taxes simply go up up up to pay for BO’s (and cohorts) plans such as this one, to redistribute “wealth” (i.e. steal from thems that work and save to give to those who didn’t ever learn anything about prudence, good stewardship, not gambling, not drinking / taking ilicit drugs), then perhaps my wife or I should simply quit work, make sure we get down to the “hand-out” level of “income” and start taking bribes/handouts like “everyone else”.

    Trouble is, then…. who pays for all of this stupidity, foolishness and folly?

    I want my country back.

  • avatar
    CarPerson

    Well, those fun-loving politicians have their hand on the Sub-Prime Loan pump handle again, getting ready to pump like crazy.

    Trouble began when FannyMac and FannyMay changed the line on the loan application for a $750,000 zero-down home loan from “Yearly Income and Source” to “License Plate of the Car You are Living In”. That sure helped spike the housing and financial sectors, didn’t it?

    The government now wants to subsidize zero-out-of-pocket loans to these same people back living in their cars to put the spirs to the auto and financial sectors.

    There is a certain symmetry and benevolence to helping low income people to live in brand new cars after failing to get them into brand new top-of-market homes.

  • avatar
    Robstar

    menno> Well said!

    I think this is hilarious. If it does end up passing, I will ask my parents to buy a car at a discount & give them some in cash. Heck, can my parents get an aveo for free?

  • avatar
    Beelzebubba

    So, the Japanese transplants that have operated here for 20 years or more would qualify…at least the models that are assembled in the U.S.

    The “assembled in the U.S.” requirement would make some of the more desirable ‘domestic’ models ineligible, though- the Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan/Lincoln MKZ (Mexico), Pontiac G8 (Australia) and Saturn Astra (Belgium).

    Amusingly, it would also disqualify the horrid “Chevrolet Aveo”…a favor to the lower income families who would benefit from the $10k.

  • avatar
    Sanman111

    hmmm….I really love it when the gov’t is willing to bail out stupid people for bad personal decisions. You know, I qualify for the discount. However, having a car that is fairly fuel efficient in the first place (mid 20’s mpg), the only things I qualify to buy are a focus, vibe 1.8, aveo, or hybrid. Damn me and my stupidity for realizing that while supporting my self as a graduate student that I needed a low cost, fuel efficient car. If I had just bought an Escalade with rims, I would have more alternatives.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    So, the Japanese transplants that have operated here for 20 years or more would qualify…at least the models that are assembled in the U.S.

    No, it’s up to the Secretary of the Treasury to decide whether the company is in enough trouble to need the help.

    That language is highly discretionary. All of the help is going to Detroit. Since we can’t impose outright tariffs, this is the sort of thing that we can look forward to.

    I do have to wonder if the Canadians would sue over this. There has been a US-Canadian automotive trade zone for forty years, and these operations are fairly well integrated. It would be quite something if Detroit vehicles produced in Canada were exempted from the program.

  • avatar
    Selektaa

    This is a really awful bill, for many of the reasons listed above. I’m not even sure of the exact purpose of this bill. If the purpose is to help the automakers, remove the $40K cap. Open it up to everyone in the country, and you won’t be able to keep domestics on the lot.

    If this bill is to help the poor, just give them the $10K, don’t encourage them to get over their heads buying a brand new car that then needs comprehensive insurance, maintenance, and a host of other things these people may not consider. What happens when millions of these people default on their car loans, because that $10K that encouraged them to get the car in the first place doesn’t help them make their monthly payments?

    Didn’t we get into this whole economic mess because people were encouraged to buy more house than they could afford? And now we’re going to turn around and do the same thing with cars? Ridiculous. It seems this bill was designed to do two things, but won’t effectively do either.

  • avatar
    Cicero

    Much of this thread is devoted to comments as to how the proposal could be improved, what cars should qualify, etc. Where is the OUTRAGE toward the idea that the government is proposing to take money from people who earned it, to give it to people who didn’t earn it, so the people who didn’t earn it can buy a luxury item that they couldn’t otherwise afford?

    If we’re only debating the best way to do this, then I really fear for the future of this country. We’ve actually reached the point where we’ve accepted the socialist notion that the feds can and should redistribute your hard-earned money so others who didn’t work so hard can buy non-necessary goods in order to artificially prop up failed business models.

    Pardon me while I go throw up.

  • avatar

    Classified ad:

    “My family income is less than $40,000. I will buy any qualifying new car of your choice for a $10,000 discount and then sell you the used car. We will discuss detailed cash arrangements in person.

    Or buy one and resell on Ebay!

    John

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Or buy one and resell on Ebay!

    The bill as written requires that the low-income person should have owned the car for ten years.

    With that requirement, I doubt that many people will qualify. With these kinds of rules, retirees living on Social Security but who have money in the bank might be the ones who would get the most benefit.

  • avatar
    allen5h

    If the objective is to get people to purchase higher mileage cars (clearly, it is not) then the simple solution is a graduated tax escalating up to $10,000, depending on EPA mileage, kicking in at 35 mpg and ending at $10,000 for below 25 mpg.

    But since the objective is direct gobmint intervention to get people to purchase domestic vehicles (not that I agree with this), how about a direct $10k gift to the manufacturer for every (predetermined model) vehicle sold? (Meaning actual vehicles sold, not vehicles pushed out of the assembly line.)

    Again, not that I agree with this stupid policy. But this would be the most efficient way of implementing said stupid policy. The only reason they would want to do this the more convoluted way is because it creates loopholes. or unintended gains for the well connected few, and because the process of extracting these unintended gains generates billable hours for the lawyering elite. Just sayin’.

  • avatar
    davey49

    I think the objective is to get the old cars off the road. Paying to get rid of 100K plus miles/clogged converter/leaky exhaust/poorly running belch mobiles isn’t a bad idea.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    I think the objective is to get the old cars off the road. Paying to get rid of 100K plus miles/clogged converter/leaky exhaust/poorly running belch mobiles isn’t a bad idea.…

    You are right in that getting poorly maintained, heavily polluting cars off the road is a good idea. This is not the way to do it.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    The best way to get all those old clunkers off the road would be to stop the states from taxing the hell out of cars.

    I would love to see a study, but I would bet good money that the average age of a car in a given state is directly proportional to the taxes on new vehicles.

    If they keep up all this robinhood crap, I am going to take a few years off and live on the dole.

  • avatar
    CanQua

    incorrect comment above, vehicle has to have been registered 10 years before the trade in, just means it has to have been sold(not produced) at least 10 years prior. you must have been the owner since december 2008. to keep new guys from jumping on the bandwagon.

    Someone somewhere will always find a way to exploit this.

    Personally it sounds nice for my mother who should be retiring soon. Be nice for her to actually get something back out of the government she’s been making rich for the 50 years she’s been working. I don’t qualify because I’m apparently rich. (45 for joint….seriously?)

    The concept of giving 4.5k assistance to someone who could really use a car sounds nice. I really don’t even mind paying for it. I will hate paying for the “new” government jobs created to keep fraud down(which will be pointless) as we know dealers are completely honest.
    Buying american made cars is just stupid. Personally i’d want to buy a 45mpg diesel from VW and really help out my pocketbook.

    could get mom the new VW jetta diesel 2009 model with a $1,300 tax credit and $4,500 trade in, and she’d only have to finance $15,700 plus full coverage for a payment of around $700 a month. Should be able to afford that on social security (yes that’s sarcasm)

    People aren’t buying American cars because they aren’t the best anymore. The workers care, but the business has forgotten, and prove it with every gas guzzling minivan(suv) the sell.

    $8500 a year from someone who makes less than $25000 is asinine.
    $25,000income
    $8500 car /insurance payment
    $8500 taxes (between sales, fica, property, etc)
    leaves $8000 a year
    this means $666 dollars a month to pay for everything. Food, medical, gasoline, heating fuel, maintainence on that new car, housing.

    Without even getting into detail. You can see the numbers just don’t add up. That is assuming of course that the person would even qualify for a $15,700 loan. They don’t.

    Kinda like the tax credit system they put into place for diesels in 2005, that not a single manufacturer actually produced a car that met qualifications until 2009.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Daveo: Interesting to see some pretty new models like the Palisade, Telluride, Model 3, and 2-Series ending up on the...
  • DenverMike: Thank god we have them though. Ah, choices! If you prefer a slow death in Camry or something, we can do...
  • ajla: “I wonder why more manufacturers don’t do this.” Personally, control knob systems (including...
  • DenverMike: Do you know what a pacifier is? Ford can’t call it what it really is (in a statement). Mama Drama,...
  • kcflyer: our local taco joint has had a big sign out front for over a month begging people to interview for and...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber