sch911 wrote: The spirit behind Cash for Clunkers was not so much to save oil but rather to help jump start American manufacturing jobs. In that light it worked. Most american auto plants including the foreign transplant facilities are now back operating.....
But only for a very short time. The nmumber of new vehicles sold due to Culnkers. is only blip on the screen, 3 weeks work. We replaced them already. They were sold mostly to people who had a old car sitting around, that they didn't drive. After all. If all you could afford to own was a 15 years old car. A few thousand ain't gonna make enough difference to get you in a car. Might lower your payments $30.00 or so.
I plugged $4,500 into an online calculator at 5% for 4 years and get. $103.63 per month.
PS- the title is "check my math" so let's not hear any back talk.
Your math is a correct. The problem with all these calculations is the fact that the traded in vehicle was worth some money, so no one came out $4500.00 ahead. A vehicle that met the criteria had to be licensed and insured for the past year. True Junk Yard candidates usually are not, so most vehicles were not complete trash. If they were worth $2250.00 (1/2 the rebate value) the person only came out $2250 ahead, which in your example (which by the way is way off, because the average new car loan today averages a whopping 74 month term, yes, over 6 years. Ridiculous but true) amounts to $51.81 per month.
I live in an average size town in southern Kentucky and most all the local dealerships are practically out of new cars. The Chrysler/Jeep/Dodge, Ford, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai lots are almost without new models. Only the GM lot has a LOT of cars left. There do seem to be a lot of USED cars on most of these lots however.
You forgot something in your math....How much money is it going to cost the txpayers to bail out the auto finance companies when all the cars get reposessed? Adding to what someone said above.....Everyone DESERVES to drive a new car.
Another thing to take into account is the taxes paid on the new vehicle and the increased registration fees that will be received. I think the clunker reg would probably be under $50 while a new TV might be closer to $500. In addition, all the "extras" you would typically add to a new vehicle, radio, alarm, running boards, covers, floor mats, etc. You might think these things minor but they do contribute to the overall economy.
sch911 wrote: The spirit behind Cash for Clunkers was not so much to save oil but rather to help jump start American manufacturing jobs. In that light it worked. Most american auto plants including the foreign transplant facilities are now back operating.....
But only for a very short time. The nmumber of new vehicles sold due to Culnkers. is only blip on the screen, 3 weeks work. We replaced them already. They were sold mostly to people who had a old car sitting around, that they didn't drive. After all. If all you could afford to own was a 15 years old car. A few thousand ain't gonna make enough difference to get you in a car. Might lower your payments $30.00 or so.
I plugged $4,500 into an online calculator at 5% for 4 years and get. $103.63 per month.
PS- the title is "check my math" so let's not hear any back talk.
Your math is a correct. The problem with all these calculations is the fact that the traded in vehicle was worth some money, so no one came out $4500.00 ahead. A vehicle that met the criteria had to be licensed and insured for the past year. True Junk Yard candidates usually are not, so most vehicles were not complete trash. If they were worth $2250.00 (1/2 the rebate value) the person only came out $2250 ahead, which in your example (which by the way is way off, because the average new car loan today averages a whopping 74 month term, yes, over 6 years. Ridiculous but true) amounts to $51.81 per month.
All I'm saying is. If someone driving a clunker, Because they could not aford a new car. 4500 ain't gonna make enough difference to get them in one.
All this speculation about all the repossessions coming from the Clunker program are just that, speculation. By all analysis, the vast majority of the transactions were done by credit worthy people. Right now, the fast and loose new car financing has slowed down considerably. Buying a new car is no longer automatic and your credit needs be considerably better today than a year or so ago.
C4C wasnt for american manufacturers from where I stand. 75% of vehicles sold under program were from Japan and Korea. At least thats what was in the news.I cant see where that helped Ford GM or Chrysler much anyway.But dont pay much attention to me I just have this thing about foreign made cars I would never buy one. Thats just me
Mike and Alicia and Penny and Poppy the shelties
06 F350 CC Long bed 6.0
04 Laredo 29GS
Right now the issue is that the consumer isn't purchasing, NOT that the consumer doesn't have goods to purchase. The consumer needs money to spend, not the companies need money to hire employees that will create more goods to sell to no one.
C4C, did that. There needs to be more programs like this, and less bail-out money going straight to the companies who pay the execs multi-million dollar bonuses for running the company into the ground. Give the money to the consumer, and let them decide who succeeds and who fails with their purchasing power.
After all, isn't that what free-trade and capitalism is?
Offline
