WASHINGTON — The Cash for Clunkers buzz is starting to wear off and it seems that some buyers are having serious second thoughts about getting on that government-funded bandwagon, according to a new survey. In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Transportation said that dealers by Tuesday's deadline had submitted a final total of 690,114 Cash for Clunkers deals for $2.88 billion in rebates.
The total is just under the revised $3-billion budget for the four-week program.
The new survey by CNW Purchase Path, of Bandon, Oregon, finds that of nearly 1,000 Cash for Clunkers participants, 17 percent say they have some or serious doubts that they should have made the new-vehicle acquisition.
"Primary reason: They are now facing a $275-$350-per-month car payment that didn't exist prior to acquiring the car or truck," said the report. "That amount, they say, could negatively impact the total family budget more than expected prior to buying the new vehicle."
In contrast, buyers' remorse hits about 6-8 percent of new-vehicle buyers within a month, said CNW Purchase Path.
Inside Line says: You might not feel so good after you remove that Cash for Clunkers party hat. — Anita Lienert, Correspondent
All people who waited may find deals at repo auctions in a few months...
ergenekon
Tired Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 4:25a
Now, they can trade in the new car for a clunker for a 4500$ loss. Double taxation goverment and the car makers win.Tax payers and the buyers with buyer's remorse lose
statistically i'd guess that most of the people who drove a qualifying clunker can not afford a decent enough of a car to have any resale when they have been repo'd.
You think jim-bob is going to afford to service the car like his beater which he drove the wheels off before trading in? Nah. no need to change the oil just drive it till they repo it.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 5:53a
Adding too many ingredients to the pot spoils the (economic) stew.
magika
Senior Member - 1K
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 5:56a
Next on CNN's Real American Heros: Cash for clunkers buyers who bought cars they could not afford.
"Primary reason: They are now facing a $275-$350-per-month car payment that didn't exist prior to acquiring the car or truck," said the report. "That amount, they say, could negatively impact the total family budget more than expected prior to buying the new vehicle."
The above snippet implies that the buyers were clueless and didn't understand that a monthly payment is... er, a monthly payment.
So the net effects of Cash for Clunkers were:
1. Drive up the deficit. 2. Give a stimulus to the carmakers in Japan. Oh, yeah, and some in the US. 3. Help people who cannot budget buy cars they cannot afford. 4. Trash the environment by converting usable cars into metal scrap.
You can't make this stuff up, folks.
chimeer
Cranky Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 6:11a
Any intelligent person could have seen this problem coming from a mile away. We're in our current economic mess because Americans in general have been spending more than they make for years now, so the obvious solution is to attempt to get people to spend more rather than allow the market to correct itself and put at least a temporary end to the absurd spending.
Xnarg
Senior Member - 5K
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 6:20a
The Cash for Clunkers program is an example of, "Ready, Fire, Aim!"
airblade
Handsome Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 6:25a
I really regret that they used my tax money for this, and i want it back !!
catanpirate
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 6:36a
What gets me about the Cash for Clunkers program is that is effectively a tax carried by the poorest in this country. Families that try to get a $500 or $1000 car now have to look for a decreasing commodity. Less supply, presumably means higher prices. Whenever you decrease a commodity, you have to at least wonder who depends on that commodity. This burns my butt. Congress, you fail.
WalStMonky
Happy Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 6:40a
Oh, please, they did not use your money for this. They used your great great grand children's money, so there's nothing to 'get back'.
catanpirate said: What gets me about the Cash for Clunkers program is that is effectively a tax carried by the poorest in this country. Families that try to get a $500 or $1000 car now have to look for a decreasing commodity. Less supply, presumably means higher prices. Whenever you decrease a commodity, you have to at least wonder who depends on that commodity. This burns my butt. Congress, you fail.
How can you hate the Polar Bears so much!? Dont you understand they would drown if we dont stop global warming now! Look at the Polar Bears having to swim to find fish!
EvilCapitalist said: catanpirate said: What gets me about the Cash for Clunkers program is that is effectively a tax carried by the poorest in this country. Families that try to get a $500 or $1000 car now have to look for a decreasing commodity. Less supply, presumably means higher prices. Whenever you decrease a commodity, you have to at least wonder who depends on that commodity. This burns my butt. Congress, you fail.
How can you hate the Polar Bears so much!? Dont you understand they would drown if we dont stop global warming now! Look at the Polar Bears having to swim to find fish!
dupontcobb said: "Primary reason: They are now facing a $275-$350-per-month car payment that didn't exist prior to acquiring the car or truck," said the report. "That amount, they say, could negatively impact the total family budget more than expected prior to buying the new vehicle."
Duh..... The fool and his money shall part. Nothing will prevent this.
People, please. I think you're all missing the point.
dupontcobb said: In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Transportation said that dealers by Tuesday's deadline had submitted a final total of 690,114 Cash for Clunkers deals for $2.88 billion in rebates.
The total is just under the revised $3-billion budget for the four-week program. Congress came in under budget on something! When was the last time you heard that happen?
WalStMonky said: Oh, please, they did not use your money for this. They used your great great grand children's money, so there's nothing to 'get back'. Exactly. Your money was all spent up at some point in the 80s. We burned through your kids' and your grandkids' money in the 90s. If only we could find a 0% BT card with an $11 trillion limit.
Xnarg said: The Cash for Clunkers program is an example of, "Ready, Fire, Aim!" "Something must be done. This is something. It must be done." /embarrased the congressperson who thought this up got a glowing piece in the local paper.
ppatin
Focused.
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 8:25a
I'm still angry that I was penalized for driving a fuel-efficient clunker
jayK
Senior Member - JayK
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 8:29a
dupontcobb said: In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Transportation said that dealers by Tuesday's deadline had submitted a final total of 690,114 Cash for Clunkers deals for $2.88 billion in rebates.
The new survey by CNW Purchase Path, of Bandon, Oregon, finds that of nearly 1,000 Cash for Clunkers participants, 17 percent say they have some or serious doubts that they should have made the new-vehicle acquisition.CNW Market Research (the same company that concluded a Hummer is more efficient than a Prius) surveys less than 0.14% of the participants in the program (can anyone guess which way the questions were slanted?) and is still forced to admit that 83% were satisfied with the program.
catanpirate said: What gets me about the Cash for Clunkers program is that is effectively a tax carried by the poorest in this country. Families that try to get a $500 or $1000 car now have to look for a decreasing commodity. Less supply, presumably means higher prices. Whenever you decrease a commodity, you have to at least wonder who depends on that commodity. This burns my butt. Congress, you fail.
Exactly. I would have much rather the government just provided a tax credit for the purchase of an efficient car (much like hybrid buyers were able to claim in years past) than required a "clunker" to be traded in and destroyed. It's ridiculous that someone who had a 17 mpg car could get the credit by "upgrading" to a 21 mpg car, but someone with a 23 mpg car could not get the credit by "upgrading" to a 32 mpg car.
zzyzzx
Senior Member - 3K
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 9:52a
ppatin said: I'm still angry that I was penalized for driving a fuel-efficient clunker
I'm still driving my 1995 Escort as well. no reason to buy a new car when I'm already getting better gas mileage than almost every non-hybrid new car (and better gas mileage than most hybrids as well).
pennypicker
Thrifty Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 10:44a
zzyzzx said: ppatin said: I'm still angry that I was penalized for driving a fuel-efficient clunker
I'm still driving my 1995 Escort as well. no reason to buy a new car when I'm already getting better gas mileage than almost every non-hybrid new car (and better gas mileage than most hybrids as well).
i'll be driving my 93' civic til the wheels fall off, laughing all the way to the bank (at nearly 40 mpg on the highway!)
WalStMonky said: Oh, please, they did not use your money for this. They used your great great grand children's money, so there's nothing to 'get back'.
People who think that driving up the deficit means our children are paying for this and not us don't understand what money is.
ppatin
Focused.
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 11:19a
pennypicker said: i'll be driving my 93' civic til the wheels fall off, laughing all the way to the bank (at nearly 40 mpg on the highway!)
Heh, one of the wheels on my car was actually falling off a couple of months ago. Built Ford Tough
skagen
Happy Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 11:20a
jayK said: dupontcobb said: In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Transportation said that dealers by Tuesday's deadline had submitted a final total of 690,114 Cash for Clunkers deals for $2.88 billion in rebates.
The new survey by CNW Purchase Path, of Bandon, Oregon, finds that of nearly 1,000 Cash for Clunkers participants, 17 percent say they have some or serious doubts that they should have made the new-vehicle acquisition.CNW Market Research (the same company that concluded a Hummer is more efficient than a Prius) surveys less than 0.14% of the participants in the program (can anyone guess which way the questions were slanted?) and is still forced to admit that 83% were satisfied with the program.
You mean people who got bailout money are satisfied?
I hear CNW Purchase Path's next polling is on the color of the sky.
(Dealers were recipients of this program just as much as the car buyers were).
skagen said: jayK said: dupontcobb said: In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Transportation said that dealers by Tuesday's deadline had submitted a final total of 690,114 Cash for Clunkers deals for $2.88 billion in rebates.
The new survey by CNW Purchase Path, of Bandon, Oregon, finds that of nearly 1,000 Cash for Clunkers participants, 17 percent say they have some or serious doubts that they should have made the new-vehicle acquisition.CNW Market Research (the same company that concluded a Hummer is more efficient than a Prius) surveys less than 0.14% of the participants in the program (can anyone guess which way the questions were slanted?) and is still forced to admit that 83% were satisfied with the program.
You mean people who got bailout money are satisfied?
I hear CNW Purchase Path's next polling is on the color of the sky.
(Dealers were recipients of this program just as much as the car buyers were).
Haha. A few years ago on these forums, someone discussing public education argued that most people with school age children support increased spending on public education. No shoot. People on the receiving end of wealth transfers usually support them.
The new survey by CNW Purchase Path, of Bandon, Oregon, finds that of nearly 1,000 Cash for Clunkers participants, 17 percent say they have some or serious doubts that they should have made the new-vehicle acquisition.
So, 17% for CFC buyers have doubts vs. 8% for regular new-car buyers? That doesn't seem like such a big difference, especially when you consider that the CFC buyers got a much better deal than regular buyers. They might feel like they have doubts, but they're better equipped to handle those doubts in comparison to non-CFC buyers who are spending $75-100 more per month for a car payment.
The real test will be the repo rate for the CFC cars vs. non-CFC cars.
StevenColorado said: The above snippet implies that the buyers were clueless and didn't understand that a monthly payment is... er, a monthly payment.
So the net effects of Cash for Clunkers were:
1. Drive up the deficit. 2. Give a stimulus to the carmakers in Japan. Oh, yeah, and some in the US. 3. Help people who cannot budget buy cars they cannot afford. 4. Trash the environment by converting usable cars into metal scrap.
ppatin said: I'm still angry that I was penalized for driving a fuel-efficient clunker
penalized how? didn't you save money every time you pumped gas over the years vs the cars that were inefficient?
jayK
Senior Member - JayK
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 12:25p
swandown said: So, 17% for CFC buyers have doubts vs. 8% for regular new-car buyers? That doesn't seem like such a big difference, especially when you consider that the CFC buyers got a much better deal than regular buyers. They might feel like they have doubts, but they're better equipped to handle those doubts in comparison to non-CFC buyers who are spending $75-100 more per month for a car payment.I wonder where they got that 8% benchmark figure from? If it's a historical average figure, the fact that we're in a recession could be increasing that the number of people who "have doubts" about large purchases, regardless of CFC incentives. Of course, "having doubts" tells you very little about whether or not someone can afford a large purchase: the person having doubts could be a worrier who can easily absorb the cost, and a person without doubts could be broke and overconfident.
ceobeaver
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 12:29p
swandown said: The new survey by CNW Purchase Path, of Bandon, Oregon, finds that of nearly 1,000 Cash for Clunkers participants, 17 percent say they have some or serious doubts that they should have made the new-vehicle acquisition.
So, 17% for CFC buyers have doubts vs. 8% for regular new-car buyers? That doesn't seem like such a big difference, especially when you consider that the CFC buyers got a much better deal than regular buyers. They might feel like they have doubts, but they're better equipped to handle those doubts in comparison to non-CFC buyers who are spending $75-100 more per month for a car payment.
The real test will be the repo rate for the CFC cars vs. non-CFC cars.
100% increase doesn't seem like that much? I would argue that the 8% people are more content because they were planning on buying a car anway. The CFC people decided to buy a car because of the "Great Deal" they were getting; impact on their monthly budget be damned.
jayK
Senior Member - JayK
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 12:34p
dpid said: ppatin said: I'm still angry that I was penalized for driving a fuel-efficient clunker
penalized how? didn't you save money every time you pumped gas over the years vs the cars that were inefficient?The $3B cost of CFC will eventually be paid for by the ~150M taxpayers in the US, which works out to roughly $20 per taxpayer. This is roughly one-third of one percent of the cost of the last bank bailout.
jayK
Senior Member - JayK
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 12:35p
ceobeaver said: I would argue that the 8% people are more content because they were planning on buying a car anway. The CFC people decided to buy a car because of the "Great Deal" they were getting; impact on their monthly budget be damned.Where's your source on the percentage of CFC participants who weren't planning on buying a car anyway?
ceobeaver
Senior Member
posted: Sep. 8, 2009 @ 12:42p
jayK said: ceobeaver said: I would argue that the 8% people are more content because they were planning on buying a car anway. The CFC people decided to buy a car because of the "Great Deal" they were getting; impact on their monthly budget be damned.Where's your source on the percentage of CFC participants who weren't planning on buying a car anyway?
Its an assumption based on the 100% increase in people who were having second thoughts. I was just offering my opinion of what might be driving the increase.
Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.
Members of our community may attach files to a post in accordance with the User Agreement. FatWallet is not responsible for the content, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information contained in any attached file. Files have *not* been scanned for viruses. Be especially wary of Excel files which may contain malicious content.
