The US Federal "Cash for Clunkers" Program

[Lets_Play_Two]

Discounts from MSRP on new cars often come in the form of rebates, dealer discounts and of course cash for clunkers.

Since a CARS buyer is already getting $4500 of the price of a new car, the dealer can afford to be stingy on the "dealer discount" side of the car deal.

Once the CARS program disappears, steep dealer discounts resumes. It a wash whether you bring your clunker in as a trade or not.

 

Can a dealer whose business is in the tank take the risk of overpricing at this time? Doesn't he have to make the best deal he is willing to make regardless of the clunker rebate? Is he looking to maximize profit or is he looking to move cars, keep the lights on and pay his staff?

 

However, you don't really know if you wait and take your clunker in later if you will get an equivalent discount. My guess is that you won't. The whole program was to stir demand and it seems to be working. Ford may be increasing production because of inventory reduction. Your discussion is no different than the ones that go on about timing a BMW motorcycle purchase to get the lowest price. Some incentive today, none tomorrow and a bigger one next month. If you wait to see them all, you never buy.

[Boone60]

$3 billion at $3000./car is a million cars. New cars sold and used ones taken off the road and put in salvage yards. Bound to have an effect on the value of cars from 10 to 25 years old.

 

Those videos are sickening. Don't let Calvin see that first one.

 

What hasn't been considered here is how much of this amount will be recatured through taxation and how many times each dollar will exchange hands. From the car salesman to his landlord, to the home appliance shop, and then the gas station, restaurant etc...

[steve.foote]

What hasn't been considered here is how much of this amount will be recatured through taxation and how many times each dollar will exchange hands. From the car salesman to his landlord, to the home appliance shop, and then the gas station, restaurant etc...

 

You are on to something to a certain extent. While it is true that the proceeds create revenue as they are passed from hand to hand, they never produce more than they cost, resulting in a net loss for the effort. Put another way, if revenue were enhanced by simply passing money around, we wouldn't need taxation.

 

But, what I haven't seen reported anywhere is how will the recipients of this gubbermint gimmie be taxed next year. A $3,500 or $4,500 windfall isn't likely to be overlooked by our good friends at the IRS.

[upflying]

I mentioned that earlier, each recipient of the subsidy will get a 1099 from the govmint.

Only people who can afford new cars are receiving the benefit of the clunker program. Such consumers normally are not receiving government assistance because they would not qualify for a new car loan. Kind of ironic, clunkers benefits the "rich"..kind of the opposite of where our country is heading.

[chrisolson]

... But, what I haven't seen reported anywhere is how will the recipients of this gubbermint gimmie be taxed next year. A $3,500 or $4,500 windfall isn't likely to be overlooked by our good friends at the IRS.

 

Interesting if it does show up as "income" to the buyer. The credit is for the clunker trade, paid to the Dealer not the buyer. Not much different than when the dealer shows you a $4500 trade value for your $100 POS except in this case the dealer isn't discounting his profit to do it.

[Selden]

Depreciation on a new car is, by far, the largest part of the cost of ownership of a vehicle. Add in the higher insurance costs on the newer/more valuable vehicle, too.... The people who have signed on for this program are most certainly experiencing much higher operating costs.

I bought a Honda Fit, for which depreciation is very low -- take a look at asking prices for used Fits. It made absolutely no sense to pay $14,000 for a used Fit when I could get a new one for less than $13,000 with the CARS credit. Higher insurance, yes, but exactly the same arguments can be made for BMW motorcycles. If nobody buys new ones, how many used ones will be available? Come to think of it, didn't you recently have a lot of oilhead parts for sale because you had purchased a new R1200RT?

 

I typically keep a car until annual repair expenses start to approach the value of the car. The Quest that was traded-in for a Fit was 13 years old, and had a leaking head gasket, oil pan, transmission, power steering, a compromised CV joint, and had a power vampire that we were never able to identify; if not kept on a charger, the battery would go flat in less than 48 hours. Even allowing for added insurance costs, operating costs for the Fit are going to be far lower than for the Quest, which was sucking up more than a thousand dollars a year just for repairs.

 

...and strategically, we can reduce energy consumption...

 

Um, yeah. 1 billion dollars, doled out at $4500 per clunker, works out to 222,222 cars. In a nation that owns 250 million cars, that's 0.09 percent of the fleet. Yes, a fraction of a percent. The rules require that the fuel economy difference between the vehicle you trade in and the vehicle you buy be at least 2 (for an SUV/truck), with the dollar incentive maxed out when you hit an improvement of 10 miles per gallon. I don't know how the actual realized improvements are working out, but let's assume an average improvement of 6 miles per gallon over an original MPG of ~18. So less than a tenth of a percent of the US private vehicle fleet experiences an MPG improvement of ~50%, which means the fleet as a whole has experienced an improvement of...

Your figures don't add up. $4500 is for at least 10 mpg improvement; $3500 if less. Split the difference, and assume $4000 per car, or 250,000 vehicles, although early and incomplete reports suggest that people are going heavily for fuel efficient cars.

 

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the average mileage of new vehicles purchased through the program is 9.6 miles per gallon higher than for the vehicles traded in for scrap.

My first tank, driven almost entirely in stop and go traffic, and deliberately putting the engine through acceleration/deceleration cycles to help seat the rings (not to mention the fun of using the paddle shifters), came out at exactly 30 mpg. In normal driving, I expect more like 35 mpg, which is about double what the Quest was getting. And, this difference continues for every year the Fit is driven.

 

I'm not a fan of allocating more money to the program (although the original proposal was for $4 billion), but it's hard to figure out how not to without knowing how many vehicles are in the CARS pipeline. I would be completely comfortable with shutting it down and paying the dealers whatever amount is necessary for cars sold to date. Keep in mind that it's the dealers whose asses are on the line with this -- they are selling for the discounted price now, in expectation of getting $3500 or $4500 per vehicle at some future date.

 

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for those who missed out because they didn't plan ahead? Tough luck. Your TV stopped working on July 1 because you didn't get a converter box? Tough luck.

 

[Lets_Play_Two]

What hasn't been considered here is how much of this amount will be recatured through taxation and how many times each dollar will exchange hands. From the car salesman to his landlord, to the home appliance shop, and then the gas station, restaurant etc...

 

You are on to something to a certain extent. While it is true that the proceeds create revenue as they are passed from hand to hand, they never produce more than they cost, resulting in a net loss for the effort. Put another way, if revenue were enhanced by simply passing money around, we wouldn't need taxation.

 

But, what I haven't seen reported anywhere is how will the recipients of this gubbermint gimmie be taxed next year. A $3,500 or $4,500 windfall isn't likely to be overlooked by our good friends at the IRS.

 

I don't believe this is an issue. It is no different than the impact of any trade-in allowance and won't be taxed to the recipient. Presumably none of the buyers have taken a tax deduction for the cost of their clunkers. The dealer will be taxed based on the profit he makes on the sale which will include the money received from CARS.

 

The economic effect of the money and to some extent the tax revenue generated has to do with the velocity of money. The $4500 sent to the dealer could create revenue within the economy 1 to 2 times that depending on the velocity of the money (currently low). This turnover will create tax revenue as the money moves. I am not sure what you mean by a "net loss for the effort". There is a hope that this spending will boost the velocity thus increasing GDP on a real basis.

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for those who missed out because they didn't plan ahead? Tough luck. Your TV stopped working on July 1 because you didn't get a converter box? Tough luck.

 

Ahhh, my favorite gambit... The "I got mine and you can STFU.."

 

Big picture be damned!

[steve.foote]

What I mean is that if the government spends, excuse me, invests a billion dollars in the economy, the amount of activity generated by such activity won't return more than a billion dollars to the treasury. If that were the case, then our problems would be easily solvable by just printing a bunch of money, sprinkling it in the economy and then retire the faux cash when it returns in the form of increased revenue.

[tallman]

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for those who missed out because they didn't plan ahead? Tough luck. Your TV stopped working on July 1 because you didn't get a converter box? Tough luck.

 

Ahhh, my favorite gambit... The "I got mine and you can STFU.."

 

Big picture be damned!

 

If you really had planned ahead, you would've made the first shut off date, not July.

ISFA "clunkers for cash", who cares?

Got a new car, great.

No?

Go get one.

If took Uncle Sam's handout to push you off the fence...

 

Now when they come out w/a "Cash for motoclunkers" I might be interested.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I bought a Honda Fit, for which depreciation is very low -- take a look at asking prices for used Fits. It made absolutely no sense to pay $14,000 for a used Fit when I could get a new one for less than $13,000 with the CARS credit.

 

:confused: I'm not sure what your point is. My argument was against a favorable cost comparison between a used vehicle with low MPG, and a brand-new vehicle with high MPG. You're comparing a slightly used Fit with a brand-new Fit, which is not at all the same thing.

 

Higher insurance, yes, but exactly the same arguments can be made for BMW motorcycles.

 

:confused: I never suggested I was trying to save money by buying a BMW bike.

 

Come to think of it, didn't you recently have a lot of oilhead parts for sale because you had purchased a new R1200RT?

 

:confused: Um, yeah, sort of. There were a couple of spare parts that had kept under the seat for roadside repairs that never happened, but most of what I sold were custom accessories that I pulled from the bike to sell separately. What's your point?

 

I typically keep a car until annual repair expenses start to approach the value of the car. The Quest that was traded-in for a Fit was 13 years old, and had a leaking head gasket, oil pan, transmission, power steering, a compromised CV joint, and had a power vampire that we were never able to identify; if not kept on a charger, the battery would go flat in less than 48 hours. Even allowing for added insurance costs, operating costs for the Fit are going to be far lower than for the Quest, which was sucking up more than a thousand dollars a year just for repairs.

 

Congrats to you for being more economical than most.

 

Your figures don't add up. $4500 is for at least 10 mpg improvement; $3500 if less. Split the difference, and assume $4000 per car, or 250,000 vehicles, although early and incomplete reports suggest that people are going heavily for fuel efficient cars.

 

OK, revise my number upwards to a whopping 0.1 percent of the fleet.

 

 

[upflying]

Another bumper sticker idea came to mind:

 

"I can't afford a new car, I just bought 250,000 of them"

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Another bumper sticker idea came to mind:

 

"I can't afford a new car, I just bought 250,000 of them"

 

[russell_bynum]

Another bumper sticker idea came to mind:

 

"I can't afford a new car, I just bought 250,000 of them"

 

[vizhip]

Another bumper sticker idea came to mind:

 

"I can't afford a new car, I just bought 250,000 of them"

 

That is a GREAT quote )))

 

Regards -

-Bob

 

oh... and to answer a previous question... they said they were out of money before all the cars were purchased, so I suspect there is a little of both... media misleading us and government hiding the true cost of dealing with the clunkers...

[BFish]

I mentioned that earlier, each recipient of the subsidy will get a 1099 from the govmint.

Only people who can afford new cars are receiving the benefit of the clunker program. Such consumers normally are not receiving government assistance because they would not qualify for a new car loan. Kind of ironic, clunkers benefits the "rich"..kind of the opposite of where our country is heading.

 

to address the 1099 issue see below. the dealers will be taxed on the sale of the car, but not the purchaser.

 

Conf Rept No. 111-151 (PL 111-32) p. 139 .

A voucher issued under the Program, and any electronic payment made by the Transportation Secretary to a dealer for a voucher under the Program, aren't treated as gross income of the purchaser of a vehicle for Internal Revenue Code purposes. 20

 

RIA observation: In other words, the taxpayer gets a tax-free benefit equal to the amount of the voucher. This is because the taxpayer's purchase or lease price for the new vehicle is reduced by the $3,500 or $4,500 voucher amount, and the taxpayer doesn't include that amount in gross income. The voucher is treated as a purchase price adjustment (see ¶ J-1391 ).

RIA observation: The purchaser/lessee doesn't actually receive the $3,500 or $4,500 voucher amount. As explained above, the voucher consists of an electronic transfer from the Transportation Secretary to the dealer, of the voucher amount. The amount of the purchase or lease price for the new vehicle is then reduced by that amount.

 

[steve.foote]

Brian, I had a feeling you or Dave would be able to clear that up. Thanks for the info.

[Lets_Play_Two]

What I mean is that if the government spends, excuse me, invests a billion dollars in the economy, the amount of activity generated by such activity won't return more than a billion dollars to the treasury. If that were the case, then our problems would be easily solvable by just printing a bunch of money, sprinkling it in the economy and then retire the faux cash when it returns in the form of increased revenue.

 

That is precisely what the fed does. It releases money into the economy via a couple of means, which then creates the gnp of which the velocity of money is a component. When the money has fueled the growth and demand exceeds supply, the fed withdraws the money from the economy to avoid inflation woes....all an interesting dance. So yes, a billion into the economy should create about 2 billion in gnp and the consequent tax revenues. You need real goods and services or the extra money just creates inflation. The return to the treasury is increased tax revenue not the "investment". The fed adjusts that regularly through discount window activity, reserve requirements and purchases or sales of treasury securities.

[tallman]

Yes, but it only applies to tax payers.

What about all the rest of 'em?

[BFish]

this thread has gotten off track IMO. my comments have pretty much been stated already, but the "trickledown" from this program is tremendous. forget the bailouts. if the automakers had controlled inventory and sold more vehicles life would be good. the damage is done. the clunker program has been a shot in the arm to not only the automakers, but state and local tax coffers, local auto related industries, finance industries, dealership employees, as well as having a yet to be felt impact on petroleum consumption, pollution, etc.

 

yes it is temporary and like a sugar buzz high may be followed by a deep valley. yes it's our $$$, but it's peanuts compared to TARP. yes, not everyone benefits, but if one needed a new vehicle it certainly was the impetus.

 

i don't hear any bitching about the first time homebuyer credit. yes credit and it's refundable. same freakin deal as this. same theory. same $$$'s.

 

let's work together to get out of this hole and move on. hey, you think this is pricey...hold on tight for health care reform.

 

 

PS...Nice to see back Steve.

[upflying]

Ok, I am confused. Yesterday an Associated Press reporter said 250,000 new cars had been sold under the Cash for Clunkers deal. Now in today's newspaper, it says 80,500 clunker transactions had occurred at the dealers. If the one billion dollars is all used up that means each clunker really cost around $12,000. Are we getting scammed or something?

[BFish]

could it be a paperwor/timing issue? apparantly the process takes some time to file the app's.

[steve.foote]

Yes, but it only applies to tax payers.

What about all the rest of 'em?

 

Can you expand on that, Tim, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.

[Selden]

could it be a paperwor/timing issue? apparantly the process takes some time to file the app's.

Processing of CARS program transactions was contracted out by DOT to Citigroup, on the theory that a bank would be able to handle financial transactions more efficiently than a government agency.

 

Because the law permitted sales from July 1, but CARS regulations weren't finalized until July 24, there were more transactions in the pipeline than occurred between July 2 and July 30.

[motoguy128]

could it be a paperwor/timing issue? apparantly the process takes some time to file the app's.

Processing of CARS program transactions was contracted out by DOT to Citigroup, on the theory that a bank would be able to handle financial transactions more efficiently than a government agency.

 

Right...becasue they have such and excellent track record of handling customer accounts and high customer service levels.

 

I guess that's better than contrating it to one of those companies that handles the rebates for Best Buy purchases or contact lenses. My wife has resubmitted the rebate for her contact lenses 4 times now, each time the reciept for hte eye doctor isn't adequate or they need some other piece of info.

[tallman]

Yes, but it only applies to tax payers.

What about all the rest of 'em?

 

Can you expand on that, Tim, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.

 

 

IRS revenues down to 1932 levels.

Somebody had to give the gov'na mint the money, right?

Just feel like I'm subsidizing everyone else's new house and car because tax collections are down.

So print more money, expand the debt, and let those of us who always pay our fair share keep the raft afloat.

 

 

Brian,

Let's expand the home buyers, said it before, just like the clunkers, give anyone the tax credit for buying a house.

Seems like that would stimulate sumptin'.

I'd buy two or 3.

[Selden]

How many people here have home mortgages? Since I don't have a mortgage, I'm subsidizing every one of you with the mortgage interest deduction.

[Whip]

How many people here have home mortgages? Since I don't have a mortgage, I'm subsidizing every one of you with the mortgage interest deduction.

 

I'll trade ya....

[smiller]

How many people here have home mortgages? Since I don't have a mortgage, I'm subsidizing every one of you with the mortgage interest deduction.

Me too. I have a bumper sticker that says 'Honk if I'm helping pay your mortgage.'

[Matts_12GS]

How many people here have home mortgages? Since I don't have a mortgage, I'm subsidizing every one of you with the mortgage interest deduction.

 

Heck, I'll even go one more about how we pay for groceries for the lazy, and subsidize their housing...

 

How much farther you want this to devolve?

[smiller]

Heck, I'll even go one more about how we pay for groceries for the lazy, and subsidize their housing...

If you have a mortgage Seldon and I are already subsidizing your housing. But you're on your own for the groceries.

[vizhip]

If you have a mortgage Seldon and I are already subsidizing your housing. But you're on your own for the groceries.

 

Yeah... but I am paying for your schooling with all the property taxes that they keep piling on...

 

Oh yeah... housing isn't worth what it used to be... but in my recent appraisal, they said it was worth about $150 less than last year...

 

It is interesting when you try to balance the write-offs via the taxes... They only grant you a portion of the write-offs, but expect you to pay the full value of the taxes...

 

In the long run, I don't think you are really subsidizing that much... but that is based upon what I see in my neighborhood... where the county is trying to get us to sell so that they can get denser housing in this area and they can collect MORE taxes...

 

Sigh...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[David]

Oh yeah... housing isn't worth what it used to be... but in my recent appraisal, they said it was worth about $150 less than last year...

 

What a whiner you are! Most people lost a lot more in property value than $150!

[vizhip]

Oh yeah... housing isn't worth what it used to be... but in my recent appraisal, they said it was worth about $150 less than last year...

 

What a whiner you are! Most people lost a lot more in property value than $150!

 

Guess I should have mentioned that was the COUNTY appraisal... not the standard real estate appraisal... I am afraid to have one of those done... I might find that I am upside down on my mortgage again and I have most of it paid off... sigh...

 

but... let's see... whiner... yep... got any American Cheese that I can spread on my crackers to go with the whine ??? )))

 

Regards -

-Bob

[David]

I just thought you meant to write $150k.

[vizhip]

I just thought you meant to write $150k.

 

Nopers... the County decided it still needed tax money... and the State has suggested that they not raise our taxes while suggesting that they lower the appraisals to fit with the declining values... so... $150...

 

I think someone was playing Monopoly and landed on a utility owned by another player and ended up paying $150 to the other player and my deed was up for adjustment and thus I got the $150 lowered... A couple of my neighbors saw $250... but one saw an increase...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[steve.foote]

Yes, but it only applies to tax payers.

What about all the rest of 'em?

 

Can you expand on that, Tim, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.

 

 

IRS revenues down to 1932 levels.

Somebody had to give the gov'na mint the money, right?

Just feel like I'm subsidizing everyone else's new house and car because tax collections are down.

So print more money, expand the debt, and let those of us who always pay our fair share keep the raft afloat.

 

A-ha, now I'm with ya. And, in total agreement.

[steve.foote]

How many people here have home mortgages? Since I don't have a mortgage, I'm subsidizing every one of you with the mortgage interest deduction.

 

So, does that feel fair to you?

[steve.foote]

That is precisely what the fed does. It releases money into the economy via a couple of means, which then creates the gnp of which the velocity of money is a component. When the money has fueled the growth and demand exceeds supply, the fed withdraws the money from the economy to avoid inflation woes....all an interesting dance. So yes, a billion into the economy should create about 2 billion in gnp and the consequent tax revenues. You need real goods and services or the extra money just creates inflation. The return to the treasury is increased tax revenue not the "investment". The fed adjusts that regularly through discount window activity, reserve requirements and purchases or sales of treasury securities.

 

You do realize how much your explaination above sounds like a Ponzi scheme, don't you?

[Selden]

How many people here have home mortgages? Since I don't have a mortgage, I'm subsidizing every one of you with the mortgage interest deduction.

 

So, does that feel fair to you?

Irony is so difficult to convey online.

[vizhip]

Irony is so difficult to convey online.

 

So very true...

 

Hope your county isn't cash strapped like Cherokee seems to be... or wants people to think they are...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[Lets_Play_Two]

"You need real goods and services"

 

This is the part that saves it, but that is the way money works in the economy. Of course, you have fiscal, monetary, social and economic policy ideas getting in the way of each other. Providing money for new businesses to create and sell new products is a lot different than doling out cash to create artificial demand for an old product!!! Or doling out cash to save somebody from their own mistakes.

[John Ranalletta]

If you have a mortgage Seldon and I are already subsidizing your housing.

...but, you're not subsidizing him to burn down his old house.

 

 

[russell_bynum]

If you have a mortgage Seldon and I are already subsidizing your housing.

...but, you're not subsidizing him to burn down his old house.

 

[tallman]

If you have a mortgage Seldon and I are already subsidizing your housing.

...but, you're not subsidizing him to burn down his old house.

 

 

They wouldn't burn it.

Instead they would fill it with concrete, then demolish it, and then turn it into an OAR.

[motoguy128]

 

You do realize how much your explaination above sounds like a Ponzi scheme, don't you?

 

 

Not really much different than conventional investing wher you loan a company $10 and in the future you can sell your share for perhaps $12 as they grow in value and real revenues increase.

 

 

There is an arguments that there's no need to ever pay down the national debt. With inflation and growth in GDP, over time, the value of the debt will become proportionally smaller to GDP. This was the case for a while.... unitl things got out of hand the last decade or so. Historically, anytimes we've gottne close to managing our deficit and debt, we go off and fight another war. I think Jackson was the only president to have no debt during his term. But the Civil War started not long after. We got clsoe to paying things off...then WWI, the the depression, WWII, Korean, Cold War, Vietnam, further expension of the Cold War (finally bankrupting the Soviet Union), Desert Storm, Afganistan, Desert Storm Round II (Iraq).

 

 

 

I'll ask this... how does the rest of the world manage to control it's spending ap orvide a descent standard of living, healthcare, basic defense, arguable better education, etc.... and the US struggles??? Are we subsidizing them by fighting theri wars??? Are we living is excess, that's paid for by national debt (ie our taxes are too low for the services we demand)???

 

Are Americans really more productive??? or is the GDP per capita skewed by low taxes keeping more resources in circulation??? Should the federal, state and local deficits be subtracted from the GDP??? Otherwise, isn't that the same as taking home $50k/year, but racking up another $20k in credit card debt, but saying that yuo "made" $70k that year???

[Lets_Play_Two]

"I'll ask this... how does the rest of the world manage to control it's spending ap orvide a descent standard of living, healthcare, basic defense, arguable better education, etc.... and the US struggles???"

 

A very large and mostly incorrect assumption. What do you suppose health care is like in most of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe? How do you define standard of living? Better education for whom? The masses or the elite? Control spending? Britain's deficit is at a record, Germany deficit at 4% of GDP, Canada C$51 billion deficit expected to increase to over C$150 billion, Sweden almost $15 billion deficit, Iran $44 billion deficit, China's deficit is 280 billion yuan ($35 billion). You do need to compare these to the size of the related economies.

 

I just don't understand you basic premise that the US struggles while the rest of the world is rosy and has it better than we do!!

[John Ranalletta]

If you have a mortgage Seldon and I are already subsidizing your housing.

...but, you're not subsidizing him to burn down his old house.

 

 

They wouldn't burn it.

Instead they would fill it with concrete, then demolish it, and then turn it into an OAR.

Here is the 136 page rule set dealers must understand and follow.

 

Hmmm...If it take 136 pages of rules to cover trading a car, the proposed government health plan enrollee manual will have more pages than the LA phone book.

 

 

[Selden]

I read the entire document before purchasing a car last week. By going into the dealership prepared, the actual purchase process was straightforward, and the least unpleasant (normally, I would prefer a root canal to buying a car -- at least with the RC you get drugs) deal since my first car purchase in 1970.

 

I was positively impressed with the amount of thought that went into preventing both fraud and consumer abuse. As is typical with documents drafted by lawyers, there is a lot of redundancy and boiler plate; the basic rules were boiled down to a 6-page summary in the Federal Register, 74:1216 (Thursday, July 2), pp 3812-31816. The last page of the Federal Register submission summarizes all the requirements in a single page.

 

There isn't much extra paperwork involved (three 1-page forms, if I remember correctly). The buyer has to prove that the car has been registered and insured for the previous 12 months, and has a clear title. Either the dealer or the buyer has to check the CARS web site to confirm that the trade-in vehicle qualifies. After the sale, the dealer has to confirm that the engine has been disabled. That's all there is to it.

[Matts_12GS]

That's all there is to it.

 

That's what those clowns inside the beltway seem to keep thinking...

That's all there is to it, a billion here a billion there... Hell, we lose that much in just rounding up the numbers to talk about it. Nobody will ever notice, and we'll look like GODS to "those people."