Cash for Clunkers! $24,000 each...

[OoberBoober]

Originally Posted by OoberBoober

Ummm...



No.

Yes, general welfare does count as trying to stabilize a turbulent economy.

Oh and incase you were wondering, this counts for health care as well!

[waupaca]

Surprise, surprise,surprise,
Cash for clunkers vouchers will be taxable in some states. MD is one of them





Government (And Car Dealers) Hose You Again - The Market Ticker

Originally Posted by Danzig

The vouchers are not treated as taxable income. Think of the voucher value as taking the place of your trade-in value.

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by waupaca

Surprise, surprise,surprise,
Cash for clunkers vouchers will be taxable in some states. MD is one of them





Government (And Car Dealers) Hose You Again - The Market Ticker

You pay sales tax on the value of the car, not the value after rebate. That means that since the program is over, all sales taxes have been paid. There is no more "will be taxable."

The rebate is still not taxable INCOME, which is exactly what Danzig stated.

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by OoberBoober

Ummm...



No.

Yes, general welfare does count as trying to stabilize a turbulent economy.

Im just guessing here - but, I think Larry's description of the policy as 'unconstitutional' was in the context of what the Constitution was most likely originally intended to mean - not in the context of how it has been interpreted and what it effectively legally means now (particularly with regard to those Roosevelt era Supreme Court findings that form the basis of your (accurate) assertion with regard to the current legal implications of the Tax and Spend Clause).

In the context I suspect he was speaking within, he's right - to the extent that there is any 'right', as it's one of those 'this is what I think' things.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

Im just guessing here - but, I think Larry's description of the policy as 'unconstitutional' was in the context of what the Constitution was most likely originally intended to mean - not in the context of how it has been interpreted and what it effectively legally means now (particularly with regard to those Roosevelt era Supreme Court findings that form the basis of your (accurate) assertion with regard to the current legal implications of the Tax and Spend Clause).

In the context I suspect he was speaking within, he's right - to the extent that there is any 'right', as it's one of those 'this is what I think' things.

If the government has a role in directly owning corporations, operating and marketing and selling product, we are now socialist and I'm thinking that's pretty much against every last word of "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" let alone all the rest of it.

We're becoming numb to this, aren't we?

[Tilted]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

If the government has a role in directly owning corporations, operating and marketing and selling product, we are now socialist and I'm thinking that's pretty much against every last word of "Government of the people, by the people and for the people" let alone all the rest of it.

We're becoming numb to this, aren't we?

I'm not. I may use feigned glibness sometimes to insulate myself from the pain. But, it still stings somewhere inside each time I realize what all is going on.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tilted

I'm not. I may use feigned glibness sometimes to insulate myself from the pain. But, it still stings somewhere inside each time I realize what all is going on.

Yeah but, look at where we are;

Bail out union thereby guaranteeing continuation of FAILURE of car companies.

Buy into car companies.

Shred contract law.

Promote car companies.

Give (give!!!!) ourselves one another's money to buy cars from our car company.

We are not rioting in the streets at the shear madness of this.

[BadGirl (Premo)]

Originally Posted by awpitt

I saw that this morning. They were also talking about how Edmunds' conclusions were based on a lot of assumptions that are in dispute so that $24K per car figure may or may not be accurate.

But if they gave the consumer 4k per car, the administration cost of the program was probably an additonal 25%, and what do they pay the dealers to handle the clunkers, who do they pay to destroy the cars, and who gets paid to ensure the cars get destroyed per the regulation/ instructions?

In the end the cost of the program per car, had to far exceed the amount the consumer was paid, but that's what the liberals want.

25k sounds high, but 10 12k sounds VERY feasible. Costs the government probably didn't account for.. They probably did the Math, X amount of cars at $4000 = Y the cost to the goverment.. where it really should have been (X * 4000) + (X * the cost of disposal) + (X *admin costs) + (X * handling cost per car) + (X * Acorn commission Payments)

[kwillia]

Originally Posted by BadGirl

But if they gave the consumer 4k per car, the administration cost of the program was probably an additonal 25%, and what do they pay the dealers to handle the clunkers, who do they pay to destroy the cars, and who gets paid to ensure the cars get destroyed per the regulation/ instructions?

In the end the cost of the program per car, had to far exceed the amount the consumer was paid, but that's what the liberals want.

25k sounds high, but 10 12k sounds VERY feasible. Costs the government probably didn't account for.. They probably did the Math, X amount of cars at $4000 = Y the cost to the goverment.. where it really should have been (X * 4000) + (X * the cost of disposal) + (X *admin costs) + (X * handling cost per car) + (X * Acorn commission Payments)

Bob... use your own id!