Jump to content
IGNORED

The US Federal "Cash for Clunkers" Program


Ken H.

Recommended Posts

Old saw or not, it's generally a safe assumption.

 

+1

 

Well, it's an interesting general, safe assumption.

 

Is it a government agency that provides water to your house? That takes away what you flush? Do you think it would really work better if it was a private company, like Comcast?

 

How about the road leading to your house? Would it be better if you and your neighbors just had to get together and contract with a private company to build a road?

 

What about fire protection services? You contract with one private company, but your neighbors choose another or none at all. At least you'll have that private insurer to fall back on. (Unless, of course, lack of government oversight of them means that they don't have to provide coverage or can beg out in most any way they want.)

 

All those criminals you're so anxious to see go away? Would a bunch of Pinkertons really be better? (You'll probably say yes, of course.)

 

Pieces of paper can be delivered with just some handwritten scrawl across the country in a matter of days for 44 cents, attempts at global domination have been put down of kept in check, and developed some of the most advanced technologies the world has ever known, all with a government that "generally" gets "always gets it wrong."

 

That's a pretty myopic view.

Link to comment
Well, since everybody always hijacks my threads, I'm going to do the same to Kenny.

 

The guts of the healthcare proposal in its current form is modeled after what MA did in '07 (it's explicitly said to be the case). They are the only state with mandated health insurance requirements, all done specifically (their words, again) to lower healthcare costs.

 

So, what's happened? They're rising at 30%+, higher than any other state.

 

Old saw or not, it's generally a safe assumption.

 

Ah yes, the old "Government by Intention" rather than "Government by Results" group. Ain't they grand. It all ends up costing about the same. But with one group you get to say they actually DID something with our money. With the other group you get to feel good about what they TRIED to do with our money, usually about the time they're done TRYING to do the next thing.

Link to comment
I'm not sure if everyone knows, but the 'cash' is not in addition to your trade in...

Wrong. The trade-in value is in addition to the $3500/$4500. Not that I (nor the people who wrote the CARS regulations) expect many dealers to offer more than estimated scrappage value.

 

I'm not sure if everyone knows, but the 'cash' is not in addition to your trade in...

Wrong. The trade-in value is in addition to the $3500/$4500. Not that I (nor the people who wrote the CARS regulations) expect many dealers to offer more than estimated scrappage value.

 

 

 

From the official website....

 

In addition to this credit, will I get the full value of my trade-in vehicle?

 

No. The law requires your trade-in vehicle to be destroyed. Therefore, the value you negotiate with the dealer for your trade-in vehicle is not likely to exceed its scrap value. The law requires the dealer to disclose to you an estimate of the scrap value of your trade-in vehicle.

 

Different sources have said different things. Last night on the news, they said you will not get any other money (not even scrap value).

Link to comment
russell_bynum

Old saw or not, it's generally a safe assumption.

 

+1

 

Well, it's an interesting general, safe assumption.

 

Is it a government agency that provides water to your house? That takes away what you flush? Do you think it would really work better if it was a private company, like Comcast?

 

How about the road leading to your house? Would it be better if you and your neighbors just had to get together and contract with a private company to build a road?

 

What about fire protection services? You contract with one private company, but your neighbors choose another or none at all. At least you'll have that private insurer to fall back on. (Unless, of course, lack of government oversight of them means that they don't have to provide coverage or can beg out in most any way they want.)

 

All those criminals you're so anxious to see go away? Would a bunch of Pinkertons really be better? (You'll probably say yes, of course.)

 

Pieces of paper can be delivered with just some handwritten scrawl across the country in a matter of days for 44 cents, attempts at global domination have been put down of kept in check, and developed some of the most advanced technologies the world has ever known, all with a government that "generally" gets "always gets it wrong."

 

That's a pretty myopic view.

 

Certainly there are some things that are better and more efficiently done by one organization and a pure capitalist free-market setup would result in the consumer getting the shaft since there would be no competition to drive prices down.

 

I see no purpose whatsoever in the USPS, though. That could go away tomorrow and I wouldn't miss it in the least.

 

Govt is a necessary evil. In that statement, "evil" is equally important as "necessary".

 

The govt must be limited to the bare minimum that we need and any attempted expansion should be reviewed with highly skeptical mindset.

Link to comment
Certainly there are some things that are better and more efficiently done by one organization and a pure capitalist free-market setup would result in the consumer getting the shaft since there would be no competition to drive prices down.

 

No competition in a free market?

 

Isn't the claimed inefficiency of government a product of the lack of competition?

 

The govt must be limited to the bare minimum that we need and any attempted expansion should be reviewed with highly skeptical mindset.

 

Now, that sounds more like ingrained dogma to me than any actual observation about the efficiency of government.

Link to comment

The govt ... any attempted expansion should be reviewed with highly skeptical mindset.

I understand that California is creating a commission to study that proposition....

Link to comment
Mark_Turner

OK, I just a bought a new car this past weekend, you either get a trade in or go with this CARS program if your car qualifies, you don't get both. The car dealer may offer other cash incentives on top which is why I bought new. They made me an offer I couldn't refuse on a 2009 Mazda 3 hatch-back.

Link to comment
russell_bynum

No competition in a free market?

 

Isn't the claimed inefficiency of government a product of the lack of competition?

 

In general, govt is inefficient because it is not designed to be efficient and there are few (if any) incentives for being efficient.

 

As for no competition in a free market....

OK...take sewage treatment, for example. Could you ever achieve the necessary economies of scale to make it feasible for multiple different companies to offer sewage services to the same market? I don't know, but I'm guessing not. If not, then you'd have one company running the whole show. Without competition, prices go up and services go down. If I'm unhappy with how the city is handling sewage treatment/disposal and/or I think they're charging too much, my only recourse is to spend lots and lots of my time/money trying to get the govt to order a change, and that order to filter down. If that doesn't work, my only option is to move. Certainly that's what some people/companies do when the local govt is not meeting their expectations but it's a big pain and something relatively small like sewage treatment isn't likely to be bad enough to cause me to move. Again...that's all "in general", but every company I've ever worked for has paid REALLY close attention to what their competition was doing so that we could find a way to differentiate ourselves to the customers. Without competition, what is my incentive to provide more value to my customer or to provide the same value at a lower cost? If I've essentially got a captive audience, then what's my incentive to be efficient?

 

 

The govt must be limited to the bare minimum that we need and any attempted expansion should be reviewed with highly skeptical mindset.

 

Now, that sounds more like ingrained dogma to me than any actual observation about the efficiency of government.

 

Is it any less relevant if it is ingrained dogma?

 

Is it unreasonable to critically review attempts from government to control more aspects of my life? Is the govt known for being an efficient and friendly organization?

Link to comment
russell_bynum
Is the govt known for being an efficient and friendly organization?

You just need to move back to Texas.

 

:thumbsup:

Link to comment

Tidewater Blue Honda Fit Sport AT, with wheel locks, $13,570 out the door. $150 credit for the clunker. No surprises, no attempt to upsell (other than extended warranty).

 

The entire sale took about 2.5 hours, including waiting for faxes from GEICO, since we didn't have the VIN for the new car before today. Walking in with your own copies of the CARS forms and regulations helps, as does having all your paperwork in order. Cash sale, so no credit/financing BS. This was probably the most straightforward new car purchase of my life.

Link to comment

Is it any less relevant if it is ingrained dogma?

 

Is it unreasonable to critically review attempts from government to control more aspects of my life?

 

Ingrained dogma inhibits critical review.

 

Is the govt known for being an efficient and friendly organization?

 

Efficient in what way? I rattled off a list of things our government has accomplished or tasks it has performed in relatively efficient ways.

 

As for friendliness, governments aren't any more or less friendly than companies.

 

As for no competition in a free market....

OK...take sewage treatment, for example. Could you ever achieve the necessary economies of scale to make it feasible for multiple different companies to offer sewage services to the same market? I don't know, but I'm guessing not.

 

I don't see why not, frankly, but the question really hinges on how free the market is if there's already the government regulation requiring sewage disposal.

 

But let's assume you don't like the way your sewage is treated. If all you have to do is have your sewage treated, I would expect an open, free market to provide means for you to treat sewage. (If they can do it on the ISS, they can do it in your backyard.) There's not such a market, however, so it's difficult to know.

 

What the current system does is it says that a household that produces less or less toxic sewage contributes the same amount as you, even if you use the most toxic chemicals permitted and produce sewage in bulk.

 

It's more efficient, because you don't have a bunch of backyard sewage treatment plants. It's less efficient, because there's less innovation in sewage treatment, there's less (no) consumer choice, and because heavier users don't contribute more than lighter users.

Link to comment
In general, govt is inefficient because it is not designed to be efficient and there are few (if any) incentives for being efficient.

 

ROFL

 

They vary Russell, just as companies vary. Some agencies are very efficient and friendly. I die laughing every time you post on Facebook that you are wasting time in meetings, and use that time for FB. Your co. is sooooooo inefficient (well perhaps not, but you seize on every example of government screw ups to support your view, without considering the larger picture). You are so anti-government, but you really have no idea why. As Greg says, it's just dogma to you.

 

There is nothing inherently inefficient about government, and nothing that says it can not be designed to be efficient. In fact, limited budget usually drives efficiency in government agencies. Moreover, many have adopted Total Quality Management (or similar) programs which inherently boost efficiency.

 

I have said it before, I'll say it again, I've worked private sector, government, and gov contracting. I've seen every side. Inefficiency and efficiency are hallmarks of good and poor management and not an inherent trait of certain types of organizations.

Link to comment

It's nice to see a rational, instead of kneejerk response. When I bought my used RT last year, the dealer didn't write the date on the title on which they purchased the bike. When I went to register it, the clerk caught this. I explained that most motorcycle dealers are closed on Mondays, and that this dealer was 25 miles away. She looked at me and said, "Well, if it had a date on it, I could process it." Then she looked away for a few seconds, while I wrote in a date.

 

On the other hand, I have never had a positive experience dealing with Comcast's so-called "customer service." The worst case took two weeks to resolve, and left my wife in tears at one point. Unfortunately, Comcast seems to be the least bad choice in my neighborhood.

Link to comment

Well KMA.:grin:

 

20 posts after my photo of the new ride in the driveway and no comments about my newest BMW product.

 

Oh well, the color matches my RT pretty well and I"m having a good time.

Link to comment
20 posts after my photo of the new ride in the driveway and no comments about my newest BMW product.

 

Oh well, the color matches my RT pretty well and I"m having a good time.

CONGATS ON THE NEW CAR BUD!

Link to comment
russell_bynum
You are so anti-government, but you really have no idea why.

 

Um. OK. I know EXACTLY why I'm anti-government. I could tell you, using specific examples all the way down to the local govt level why I'm anti-govt.

 

 

As Greg says, it's just dogma to you.

 

OK, I'll play...where do you suppose this dogma came from? Does it matter to you if I developed it through my own experiences rather than "because some talking head on TV said so?"

 

 

 

There is nothing inherently inefficient about government,

 

Our government is supposed to be representative and fair. Those are good things for govt to be, but they are inherently not efficient.

 

Are there efficient govt agencies? I'm sure there are and as you said, that's a factor of that group's management just as it is in the private sector. The difference is there's little incentive for govt to be efficient and that's usually not the case in the private sector.

 

How many successful companies operate by letting the employees elect execs and a CEO? Why not?

 

 

Inefficiency and efficiency are hallmarks of good and poor management and not an inherent trait of certain types of organizations.

 

Yes and no. Yes, management makes the difference. But surely you can understand that some organizations are either inherently more efficient, or encourage it more than others? If not, then we don't have enough common ground to continue this discussion.

Link to comment
russell_bynum

Ingrained dogma inhibits critical review.

 

Even if the the dogma requires critical review?

 

More govt will always be a hard sell for me, but I'm not an anarchist either. I'm just naturally skeptical. Given that we're talking about giving up money and/or rights every time the govt does more stuff, I don't see why that's a bad thing.

 

As for friendliness, governments aren't any more or less friendly than companies.

 

When I get sh*tty service from my cell phone company, I tell them to bugger off and I take my money elsewhere.

 

When I get sh*tty service from the DMV, I just get sh*tty service from the DMV. There's incentive for the cell phone company to give me what I want (service/price/etc). Where's the incentive for the DMV to be anything buy difficult to deal with and rude?

 

I don't see why not, frankly, but the question really hinges on how free the market is if there's already the government regulation requiring sewage disposal.

 

But let's assume you don't like the way your sewage is treated. If all you have to do is have your sewage treated, I would expect an open, free market to provide means for you to treat sewage. (If they can do it on the ISS, they can do it in your backyard.) There's not such a market, however, so it's difficult to know.

 

Yes and no. We had septic systems most of the places where I grew up. Govt regulates that, but you can choose your tank, and your service company and there IS competition.

 

But, as population gets more dense, some sort of centralized solution seems like a more efficient (cheaper) way to go. I dunno, though...could it be like the phone company where multiple companies are competing for your business? Multiple sewer lines under the street and when you switch companies, the new company just plugs you into their line?

 

 

 

What the current system does is it says that a household that produces less or less toxic sewage contributes the same amount as you, even if you use the most toxic chemicals permitted and produce sewage in bulk.

 

It's more efficient, because you don't have a bunch of backyard sewage treatment plants. It's less efficient, because there's less innovation in sewage treatment, there's less (no) consumer choice, and because heavier users don't contribute more than lighter users.

 

Agreed.

 

 

Link to comment
20 posts after my photo of the new ride in the driveway and no comments about my newest BMW product.

 

Oh well, the color matches my RT pretty well and I"m having a good time.

CONGATS ON THE NEW CAR BUD!

 

Thanks Ken! :wave:

Link to comment
20 posts after my photo of the new ride in the driveway and no comments about my newest BMW product.

 

Oh well, the color matches my RT pretty well and I"m having a good time.

CONGATS ON THE NEW CAR BUD!

 

Thanks Ken! :wave:

 

Yep, she's beautiful. BMW/Mini/whoever has really captured the essense of the driving spirit in the Mini.

Link to comment

Now, as for the efficiency of government, that may be a topic I know something about . . . I've worked for the federal government, either in the military or the DOJ, for the past 33 years. I'll preface this with my usual "loose cannon" disclaimer--anything I say here is my personal opinion and doesn't represent the opinion or position of any government agency.

 

My belief is that government functions best when it performs the basic functions of government--defending us from foreign enemies, law enforcement, building and maintaining public transportation infrastructure, and the like. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the private sector has done a piss poor job of those things when we've let them.

 

Nonetheless, there are many things that the government does poorly. It's not that government executives and workers are any less capable; it's that the inherent nature of government is ponderous and inefficient. Once an agency is created or a mission defined, the focus gradually shifts from accomplishing the mission to justifying the agency's existence and expansion. The bureaucrats within do everything they can to expand their budgets and staffing, and to convince others that their mission is essential to the public welfare. Of course, the root cause goes back to Congress and the President (not speaking necessarily of the current crowd, but of all of them, regardless of party)--they continualy add new programs and taskings with little regard for what they may accomplish, other than to what they think will earn them a few votes here or there. When you combine this with the fact that this self-serving attitude and lack of ability to achieve efficiency is repeated at the state, county, and local levels of government, you end up with an overall system of government that is shockingly inefficient.

 

Link to comment

I'd agree with all that Mike, although I haven't found it to be universally true. For instance, my wife works for a local city (approx. 200k population) government and they pinch a penny until Lincoln cries yet still maintain a pretty good (but less than gold-plated) service level. From what I know I wouldn't call the city government particularly wasteful or inefficient, in fact I don't know if even a private company would really do any better, and in fact I think the same of even the state government (this one at least, certainly not all of them.)

Link to comment
I'd agree with all that Mike, although I haven't found it to be universally true. For instance, my wife works for a local city (approx. 200k population) government and they pinch a penny until Lincoln cries yet still maintain a pretty good (but less than gold-plated) service level. From what I know I wouldn't call the city government particularly wasteful or inefficient, in fact I don't know if even a private company would really do any better, and in fact I think the same of even the state government (this one at least, certainly not all of them.)

 

 

Hey Seth

 

On some level I gotta agree with ya. SA went to term limits right after we moved here. The city has been in the black ever since. They seem to keep the road construction plans ahead of the developers. Our mass transit system always has money. The Alamo, though not directly under the cities control doesn't take need any money form the city state or feds. Our property taxes have stayed steady and I rarely here anyone complain.

 

It could be cause we only pay our mayor about $20 a week.....and our city council $15.

 

They only meet on Thursday......in a public forum.

 

:grin:

 

 

Link to comment
DavidEBSmith

Edited to make it apply to every large corporation I've worked at:

 

Once an [product] is created or a mission defined, the focus gradually shifts from accomplishing the mission to justifying the [product group]s existence and expansion. The [middle managers] within do everything they can to expand their budgets and staffing, and to convince others that their mission is essential to the [company's bottom line]. Of course, the root cause goes back to [upper management and marketing] --they continualy add new [products] and taskings with little regard for what they may accomplish, other than to what they think will earn them a few [dollars] here or there. When you combine this with the fact that this self-serving attitude and lack of ability to achieve efficiency is repeated at the [international, national, regional and local] levels of [the company], you end up with an overall system of [corporate governance] that is shockingly inefficient.

 

 

Link to comment
It could be cause we only pay our mayor about $20 a week.....and our city council $15.

And if the city were run by a private company the CEO would be receiving huge bonuses (because he's just the only one on the planet who could possibly do the job) as would the Board of Directors (because that's the only way we can retain the necessary talent.) Oh well, too bad you can't get that kind of efficiency. :grin:

Link to comment
russell_bynum

Well said, Mike.

 

Although...I will say that we've seen some good results contacting out the transportation bit (building roads) to the private sector. The Toll Roads here were built by the private sector (Lockheed, I believe) and were done ahead of schedule, under budget, and they're really nice roads.

 

I've often wondered if we'd be better off with that stuff if we let the govt set and enforce the rules for that sort of thing, but farm out the actual work to the private sector, with incentives to finish ahead of scheduled and under budget (and within spec).

Link to comment

This seems like a reasonable solution to a problem that came up on July 24:

 

July 30, 2009

Source: http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/07/some-clunker-deals-based-on-old-epa-numbers-will-be-honored-dot-rules.html

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation has ruled that deals involving cash for clunkers trade based on old mileage numbers and consummated before July 24 will be honored, but deals consummated after July 24 on vehicles that became ineligible as clunkers due to mileage ratings changes will not be honored.

Maybe we should start a pool for the date that the CARS program runs out of money. I'm going to guess August 24, although I sooner would not surprise me. So far, all of the top 10 clunkers are Detroit trucks and minivans.

Link to comment
This seems like a reasonable solution to a problem that came up on July 24:

 

July 30, 2009

Source: http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/07/some-clunker-deals-based-on-old-epa-numbers-will-be-honored-dot-rules.html

 

The U.S. Department of Transportation has ruled that deals involving cash for clunkers trade based on old mileage numbers and consummated before July 24 will be honored, but deals consummated after July 24 on vehicles that became ineligible as clunkers due to mileage ratings changes will not be honored.

Maybe we should start a pool for the date that the CARS program runs out of money. I'm going to guess August 24, although I sooner would not surprise me. So far, all of the top 10 clunkers are Detroit trucks and minivans.

 

 

What vehicles did the "Japanesse 4" sell in large volumes that could even be defined as a "clunker"??? They never made full size pick-ups, vans, and most minivans or other vehiles they made, probably have too good of mileage to qualify. None sold SUV's in large volumes until recently.

 

Now if you could trade in something like a '92 Toyota Camry or Accord for a new model and get $3500 cash... the program would have run out of money overnight. But those cars got almost equal or in some cases better mileage. Their high volume vehicles or course were compact and midsized cars with good economy, good relibility and quality records... and many of them are on the road, and a few might are probably still worth $4000+ anyway.

 

 

I haven't seen the list, but I'd guess the top trade-ins are Ford Explorers, Full size Trucks, Jeep Cherokees, Dodge Durangos, Chevy Blazers, Dodge Intrepid, Pontiac Grand Prix. Just trying to think of what piles of junk I see most often on the road that liekly get poor mileage.

Link to comment

I didn't do too bad in my guess... found the list:

 

1. Ford F-Series

2. Ford Explorer

3. Chevrolet C/K/Silverado

4. Jeep Grand Cherokee

5. Dodge Ram

6. Chevrolet Blazer

7. Jeep Cherokee

8. Dodge Grand Caravan

9. Dodge Dakota

10. Ford Ranger

 

I was going to guess caravan. Thsi list isn't suprising, because it represents the top selling list from 10-12 years ago... minum the Ford Taurus, Honda Accord Civic, Toyota Corolla, Camry. Those would not qualify.

 

 

It's not suprising that Ford is at the top of the list because those were the 2 top vehcules in sales in that period.

Link to comment
I didn't do too bad in my guess... found the list:

 

1. Ford F-Series

2. Ford Explorer

3. Chevrolet C/K/Silverado

4. Jeep Grand Cherokee

5. Dodge Ram

6. Chevrolet Blazer

7. Jeep Cherokee

8. Dodge Grand Caravan

9. Dodge Dakota

10. Ford Ranger

 

I was going to guess caravan. Thsi list isn't suprising, because it represents the top selling list from 10-12 years ago... minum the Ford Taurus, Honda Accord Civic, Toyota Corolla, Camry. Those would not qualify.

 

 

It's not suprising that Ford is at the top of the list because those were the 2 top vehcules in sales in that period.

 

So I only made #9 on the top ten list? :grin: Didn't matter, still got the $4,500. :clap:

Link to comment
Paul Mihalka

Our '94 Isuzu Trooper qualifies but it's worth more than $4.500 to us and we don't want a new car. Our '97 Infiniti I30 does not qualify.

Link to comment
steve.foote

I wonder if it would be as popular if they called it, "Your money for your neighbors clunker?"

Link to comment
I wonder if it would be as popular if they called it, "Your money for your neighbors clunker?"

 

Let's see, if we just gave the big three a tax break we could'a called it Reaganomics and talked about the "trickle-down economy" helping everyone. Since money is fungible, woulda' amounted to the same thing... your money going to the big three. But since we decided to:

 

1. See that some folks got new cars out of the deal.

2. Dealers got cut some action.

3. Clean up the air and reduce energy security issues

 

in addition to giving the automakers a boost, this is somehow wrong?

 

 

Actually, I sorta agree, I don't like anything that perpetuates the auto economy and forestalls the conversion of transportation to efficient and non-fossil fuel based modes. So, I was against it too. I also agree that it is an affront to fairness in some regard. Both approaches would have resulted in some degree of general economic stimulus, which after all was the ultimate driving (no pun intended) goal here, but I gotta think we're getting more bang for our buck with this program than we would have by doing it with tax cuts.

Link to comment
It was fun while it lasted.....

 

Govt to suspend "cash for cars"

Less than a week ago (July 24, if I remember correctly), I read a column by Michelle Singletary in the Washington Post, in which she wrote that the CARS program was a failure, because the people who own clunkers didn't have enough money to buy new cars. I replied to the article, suggesting that she was jumping the gun for a program in passing judgement on a program that hadn't even started yet. As far as I can see, the article has been removed from the Washington Post web site. Here's a quote from another piece, by Aaron Turpan, dated June 17, that was typical of the predictive capabilities of many political columnists this spring and summer:

 

Overall, no one who was not in the market to purchase a car inside the next 12 months seemed to be enticed into doing so because of the bill. At least not in any numbers of note.

(italics mine)

 

Link to comment

I'd venture a guess that the majority "bought" a car largely on credit, which means the columnist was right.

Link to comment
I'd venture a guess that the majority "bought" a car largely on credit, which means the columnist was right.

I mis-remembered the date of the article, which appeared on July 19:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071703867.html

 

I'm not so sure that her assumption of purchase on credit was correct; I suspect there were many, many people like me who paid cash. I haven't financed a car since 1970, when I bought a Honda N600 for $1600. Getting Bank of America to agree to make a loan of only $600 took some arguing; I paid it back in 6 months.

Link to comment

Tell me about it. For my entire life, I have avoided debt like the plague. Without a mortgage, credit card debt, or car loan, I just don't know what to do in this terrible economic situation. :dopeslap:

Link to comment

You understand the time value of money.

 

At 0.9% interest rate being charged for an auto loan, does it make sense to pay cash for the car?

Link to comment
I'm not so sure that her assumption of purchase on credit was correct; I suspect there were many, many people like me who paid cash. I haven't financed a car since 1970, when I bought a Honda N600 for $1600.

 

Admirable, but I'm not to sure you're a representative sample. In the five years I sold vehicles in Arizona in the late 80s and early 90s, I could count on one hand (and have fingers left over :Cool:) the number of people who paid cash. I don't think its changed.

Link to comment

Don't underestimate the power of a bargain to lure cheap bastards like me out of hiding. :grin:

 

I once submitted a business travel expense report to my former employer for just under $300 for 4 days at a conference in Chicago. $150 for a bargain round trip air fare, something like $20 a night to stay in a dorm room at U. of Chicago, $2.50 to take the train to and from O'hare, and almost nothing for meals because I was noshing at vendor receptions.

Link to comment
You understand the time value of money.

 

At 0.9% interest rate being charged for an auto loan, does it make sense to pay cash for the car?

 

It ALWAYS makes sense to pay cash for a depreciating asset.

Link to comment
bakerzdosen
It ALWAYS makes sense to pay cash for a depreciating asset.
Well, I bought my Saab at a time that they were offering 0% interest for 60 months. There was no cash incentive to NOT finance. They changed it the next month (offering a cash or finance option), but at the time, even if I'd had the cash, I would say it didn't make sense to pay in cash.

 

But that's definitely the exception, not the rule... 99% of the time, I'd agree with you.

Link to comment

I understand that 0% isn't really a free lunch; if you pay cash, you should be able to negotiate a better price. But despite having lived in the Middle East for 7 years, I suck at bargaining (I'd rather have a root canal than bargain). When I had a chance to buy a Subaru Forester in 2003 at 0% for 3 years, I jumped at it. Also free oil changes for life (the life of the dealership, anyway, as they went out of business last year).

 

Link to comment

5 years ago we were looking for a van (grandkids).

 

Wanted a Chrysler Town and Country because of the Stow and Go seats.

 

Made the deal. Then they asked how were we going to pay.

 

What do you have to offer for financing I ask.

 

0% and and additional $1,000 back from Chrysler Financial which I would NOT get if I didn't finance with Chrysler.

 

Still makes sense to pay cash?

 

If so, explain how.

 

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...