With the House of Representatives flush with pride in their recent passage of the Cash for Clunkers bill, which provides tax breaks for up to $4,500 when you trade in your old vehicle on a new, higher gas mileage vehicle. It’s just a shame for them that they’re screwing over poor Americans just so they can win points with the environmental lobby.
A key part of this law is that apparently dealers who receive the trade in vehicles are directed to destroy the older cars and get them off the road. Sounds good, right?
Unfortunately, the downside is that those cars being destroyed are vehicles that usually resold as used cars. Now, take a guess what kind of cars poorer Americans buy? If you said “used” then you’re apparently swifter on the uptake than Congress is. Despite the $4,500 in tax breaks, poorer Americans will still be unable to buy new cars since they often require not only good credit but also high enough wages to afford the payments.
Let’s be honest for a second. Do you really think that the poorer members of our society can honestly afford new cars? Of course not. Instead, they tend towards newer used cars if possible. They are often reliable and are much more cost effective. However, if these cars are destroyed, then that makes them scarcer. Translation? The supply of reliable used cars dries up.
What happens when the supply of something dries up? Costs increase. This makes these cars far less affordable, forcing people to buy less reliable cars which can impact their potential earnings…the same things that would hopefully enable them to one day buy new cars.
I can already hear the argument now that driving isn’t a right, so what difference does it make. That is, quite frankly, funny to me. In this day and age, in most locales, driving is almost essential to making a living and taking care of personal business. The days of neighborhood grocery stores and neighborhood insurance agents are long gone. Things in most towns are more centralized and people need transportation to get to those places.
Sure, public transportation is a possibility, but it still greatly limits your ability to conduct business even with public transportation being available. In many smaller towns, it ain’t there. It’s even worse in rural areas like much of Georgia. You become at the mercy of those who actually do drive.
The Cash for Clunkers bill sounds like a good way to stimulate auto sales, but even if it does do that, it will hurt those who are struggling even more in this tough economic times.
Just another example of how liberal policies are against the poor. Maybe it is for the best though. With Cap and Trade, fuel will be too expensive for the poor too so it all works out.
Unfortunately, this is probably dead on right. Almost any type of cap and trade scheme is bound to screw those who are most vulnerable…our poor.
“Let’s be honest for a second. Do you really think that the poorer members of our society can honestly afford new cars? Of course not. Instead, they tend towards newer used cars if possible. They are often reliable and are much more cost effective. However, if these cars are destroyed, then that makes them scarcer. Translation? The supply of reliable used cars dries up.”
But the newer used cars aren’t the ones targeted, are they? It’s the really old clunkers they want to get off the roads.
But that’s not what’s going to happen. People who trade in on new cars are generally trading in newer used cars, not the old clunkers. Those who are driving the old clunkers are the ones who either (A)love their old clunkers for whatever reason, or (B)can’t afford something better. If you’re driving a 1970′s GMC Gremlin (for example) and it’s not for nostalgia or some other sentimental reason, then it’s probably because you couldn’t afford something better. This bill won’t do a thing for those folks, especially since it’s just for new cars.