Take it from the poor give it too the rich.

Blah99

Awesome scheme.

I find some poor person on a council estate somewhere who only has £500 or £1000 to spend on their next car. I offer to buy their current car off them (worth neglible amount) for £500 more than they would have otherwise laid out for the next car (ie: they want to pay £500 for their next car, I offer them £1,000). They get a free £500 to put to their next car, and I get an old and useless car. I then take the car, crush it and get a £2000 voucher, which I then go and use to buy my next brand new BMW.

Net result: poor person is happy as they'd never be able to afford a new car to take advantage of the voucher, and have just made £500 out of thin air. I'm happy because I just got £500 to £1000 on the voucher margin against my brand new car.

Now, how long before some "smart" car dealer figures out how to do this on a major scale. It's not hard.

Awesome way to immediately generate a two tier market! Well done, Labour Government, you are indeed morons.

Robert_Sterling_3

The government are not complete fools.

..... Pause while waiting for counter claims of "oh yes they are" to subside. .....

When the regulations are published they will be designed to rule out the above sort of hanky panky.

Richard_Cocks

...and possibly in the process will invent yet more crimes for the statute books?...

sheslookinhot

manic_saver wrote: »

This thread is probably in the wrong forum.

Any way, i don't have a car, but it does seem ridiculous that the government are giving hand outs just for more people to get themselves in debt.

I think what the government are trying to do is jump start the car industry (see what i did there :rolleyes:), which would mean no job losses. Looks good for the people that work in the industry as they get to keep there jobs....looks good for the government as there figures will show no rise in unemployment.

But the losers in this game, will be the people that buy that new car.

and the UK taxpayer :mad:

evenasus

manic_saver wrote: »

But the losers in this game, will be the people that buy that new car.

sheslookinhot wrote: »

and the UK taxpayer :mad:

The people who lose money, so to speak, re devaluation as soon as they drive a new car off the forecourt (hubby guilty of this many times) make that choice.
But the taxpayer will NOT be given the choice. :mad:

cloud_dog

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

I have a car. It is 13 years old. After the budget it will be worth £2,000. Therefore I can't sell it for next to nothing to someone who is a bit hard up. Wot a Chiz.

For cars over nine years old you get a certificate of destruction and £2,000 at a special centre and then use the voucher towards buying a new or one year old car.

Work out for yourself some of the consequences of this scheme.

Cheap government car purchase loans are in the offing. This will allow more people to go deeper into debt before going bankrupt.

So what you are advocating is a nanny state whereby anyone wishing to purchase anything, and god forbid if they wish to buy it on credit need to take a civil servant with them to make a purchase? Aren't people responsible for their own actions??? :rolleyes:

If the scheme has value then it should be considered. The information I have read from the continent is that is does appear to achieve a certain objective of people buying new(er) cars.

This serves two purposes, one, keep the industry ticking over, keeps all those people in manufacturing and parts jobs employed, two will help lower CO2 emmissions.

The numbers I've heard it costing the government / taxpayer is around the £300m, in the sceme of things that may well be a price worth paying.

Blah99

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

When the regulations are published they will be designed to rule out the above sort of hanky panky.

I bet they don't, or at the least there will be an easy way around any restrictions for those with the mental acuity to find it.

So what you are advocating is a nanny state whereby anyone wishing to purchase anything, and god forbid if they wish to buy it on credit need to take a civil servant with them to make a purchase? Aren't people responsible for their own actions??? :rolleyes:

If the scheme has value then it should be considered. The information I have read from the continent is that is does appear to achieve a certain objective of people buying new(er) cars.

This scheme is pointless, and even more illogical when you consider the Government's stated drive to get us out of cars and onto public transport.

The scheme will knock the bottom out of the second hand market, because any car more than 5 - 7 years old but not old enough to meet the scheme criteria will have zero residual value. Therefore people will be incentivised to buy brand new cars and trade them in after 1 - 3 years, much like the current PCP plans. That will shift the depreciation curve even further.

Of course how all these people are going to be able to afford a new car is the interesting point. The vast majority of people driving 10 to 15 year old cars are doing so because they can't afford to buy a new car. So we're either going to encourage people down the unaffordable finance route (that's worked out well for us), or there will be yet another taxpayer funded subsidy so that Wayne and Waynetta can spend their benefit cash on drink and fags, but still afford a shiny new Vauxhall Chavtastic. The working family, though, on a £20k/year income, will of course be ignored.

The other problem with this scheme is that it doesn't take into account technology. If we look at cars manufactured 10 to 12 years ago they are not the best from an economy or emissions perspective. But in a few years time the 12 year time frame will start to catch high end cars manufactured from 2000 onwards that are very economical and good on emissions (eg: BMWs). So we'll be junking perfectly good cars because of a stupid policy.

As usual, a stupid policy from a stupid Government. It's the same thinking that increases road tax on luxury cars - if I can afford £40k on a new BMW, is £300 a year road tax really going to bother me? Of course not, but it will hammer Joe Average into the ground.

cloud_dog

Blah99 wrote: »

This scheme is pointless, and even more illogical when you consider the Government's stated drive to get us out of cars and onto public transport.

It might be one of their stated drives but as with everything in life its about balance. They also have a stated ambition to reduce CO2 emissions, and in the current climate anything which helps drive demand and possibly stave off unemployment should be considered.

Blah99 wrote: »

The scheme will knock the bottom out of the second hand market, because any car more than 5 - 7 years old but not old enough to meet the scheme criteria will have zero residual value. Therefore people will be incentivised to buy brand new cars and trade them in after 1 - 3 years, much like the current PCP plans. That will shift the depreciation curve even further.

I'm not sure this is a reasonable point. Most of the cars I've ever owned were worth more or about £2k after 5-7 years, obviously there will be exceptions but considered across the whole I don't think it stands up.

Couldn't you also reasonably argue that this may positively affect the residual values, i.e. any car, any condition, over 9 years old will be worth at least £2k?

Blah99 wrote: »

Of course how all these people are going to be able to afford a new car is the interesting point. The vast majority of people driving 10 to 15 year old cars are doing so because they can't afford to buy a new car. So we're either going to encourage people down the unaffordable finance route (that's worked out well for us), or there will be yet another taxpayer funded subsidy so that Wayne and Waynetta can spend their benefit cash on drink and fags, but still afford a shiny new Vauxhall Chavtastic. The working family, though, on a £20k/year income, will of course be ignored.

This bit always winds me up. As long as there are people around to point the finger at someone else there will be people who simply sit there and say "it wasn't my fault, they forced me to spend beyond my means...... wah, wah, wah"

Blah99 wrote: »

The other problem with this scheme is that it doesn't take into account technology. If we look at cars manufactured 10 to 12 years ago they are not the best from an economy or emissions perspective. But in a few years time the 12 year time frame will start to catch high end cars manufactured from 2000 onwards that are very economical and good on emissions (eg: BMWs). So we'll be junking perfectly good cars because of a stupid policy.

Gosh, well perhaps they could think about a solution before we get there.... ummm, let me think..... Oh, I know, perhaps the scheme would be stopped after a period of time. Wow, what an absolutely weird idea. I bet no one's thought of that. :rotfl:

Blah99 wrote: »

As usual, a stupid policy from a stupid Government. It's the same thinking that increases road tax on luxury cars - if I can afford £40k on a new BMW, is £300 a year road tax really going to bother me? Of course not, but it will hammer Joe Average into the ground.

And as usual political views blinker a possibly reasonable option.

amethystcash

PasturesNew wrote: »

In my opinion, people driving older cars aren't the sort of people who would ever buy a new car... they'd have been buying 4-6 year old cars and keeping them for 2-4 years before buying the next one.

I can't see this working for most people, it'd be used by people who WOULD have bought new cars to get one on the cheap. Simply buy a wreck out of the paper, cash it in, get the new car at a discount. Something the original owner of the wreck wouldn't have been in a position to do because they're not the "new car buying" sort.

I have a 9 year old car. I bought it new and prior to this one bought all cars new and replaced them every 3 years. I didn't replace this one as I loved it so much and as time's gone on that hasn't stopped so I've just not bothered to replace it.

Blah99

cloud_dog wrote: »

I'm not sure this is a reasonable point. Most of the cars I've ever owned were worth more or about £2k after 5-7 years, obviously there will be exceptions but considered across the whole I don't think it stands up.

Couldn't you also reasonably argue that this may positively affect the residual values, i.e. any car, any condition, over 9 years old will be worth at least £2k?

No, because that presupposes the people who own the 9year old car with low residual value actually have the cash to buy a new car. There's no way this scheme will apply to private sales, it will have to be run through authorised dealers. Consider the implications of that for a moment.

The value of the car is £2k only if the seller can afford to buy from a dealership. If they don't have the money to buy from a dealership they're left with a zero value asset that can only be sold privately to other people who don't have the money to buy from a dealership. This is the two tier market I was talking about.

Also, what happens to all the cars dealers have in their lots that are over x years old?

This bit always winds me up. As long as there are people around to point the finger at someone else there will be people who simply sit there and say "it wasn't my fault, they forced me to spend beyond my means...... wah, wah, wah"

Not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there.

Gosh, well perhaps they could think about a solution before we get there.... ummm, let me think..... Oh, I know, perhaps the scheme would be stopped after a period of time. Wow, what an absolutely weird idea. I bet no one's thought of that.

Okay, so they stop the 12 year age scheme when we get to 2012, which is a tacit admission that economy and ecology has improved past that point, which undermines the whole increased VED argument. Surely you've heard of the whole issue where the new Lexus and BMWs are more efficient and ecological than the 10 year old Nissan Micras, yet the Micra has the tiny VED. But by stopping it the Govt are then saying "well, year 2000 technology is good enough, no need to keep the scheme rolling". So, for example, the BMW EfficientDynamics system that only came in last year is a massive improvement over previous generations of engine. Yet the previous, comparably inefficient engines are considered "okay", because you've stopped the scheme in 2000.

You see the problem? Either the scheme runs forever, ensuring new technology is always used to minimise emissions and maximise efficiency, or it doesn't run at all. The ramifications of starting a scheme like that then scrapping it are huge.

And as usual political views blinker a possibly reasonable option.

Could you clarify that? Where is my faulty logic in the following statement, which you quoted - if I can afford £40k on a new BMW, £300 a year road tax is not going to impact my buying choice.

This government has been a massive failure in many respects, and its failings outweigh its successes. I'm happy to have a political discussion with you, if you like.