Take it from the poor give it too the rich.

cloud_dog

Oh how I just love how you talk in absolute terms but, anyway………….

Blah99 wrote: »

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.

So, there’s absolutely no other way to run the scheme, no other alternatives; you’re absolute on that one are you????

Blah99 wrote: »

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.

Again, are you absolutely sure on this, is it at all possible your statement is making conflicting arguments?

For example, I have a car worth approx £1500 and cannot afford to buy a new(er) car. Why would my £1500 car have zero value? Now, lets just assume there are likely to be other people out there in a similar financial situation and who need a car, and lets suppose they could scrape together about £1500 to buy a car. Now where might they go and whom might they buy a car from????

Blah99 wrote: »

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

Not really sure what you are saying here. If the cars they have (over x years old) are more valuable than £2k then, well, nothing, they sell them as is. If they are valued less than £2k then… they remain valued at less than 2k.

Blah99 wrote: »

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

Disagreeing, people should be responsible for themselves, end of.

Blah99 wrote: »

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.

Again, you talk terms of such absolutes, i.e. you’ve focussed on an aspect of ever improving ecological improvements and the fact that the scheme doesn’t continue then it is a failure, or was a waste of money, or something else. I think a large slice of the decision on this scheme relates to the current credit crunch, keeping people spending money, keeping people employed; as a by-product they would assist themselves in lowering CO2 emissions ,etc, etc. Not sure where VED comes in to it, other than plans discussed / implemented before the credit <proverbial> hit the fan.

Again, why are the ramifications huge? There would be cost involved but would it be huge and, more importantly, if there is a cost involved in scrapping the scheme might it be a cost worth bearing if it had been successful in keeping people employed with suitable disposable income?

Blah99 wrote: »

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.

It wasn’t related to the logic of VED against a purchase cost, it related to the apparent inability to view the possible benefits of the scheme, over a wide range of areas, and its benefits weighed against costs and outcomes. AND, can I just say that ‘average Joe’ can absolutely not afford a £40k (assuming I’m an average Joe).

Blah99 wrote: »

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.

Regarding your question, well, as you ask, your above statement implies a political slant and the following snippet from your earlier post likewise gives a tangible stance… “a stupid policy from a stupid Government”.

I’m not interested in getting in to a political debate as my views on politics and political parties are that it/they get in the way of actually achieving things.

To finish I think our positions (ignoring politics) is ostensibly at odd on one point…. A car worth £2k (or less) to someone who cannot afford to buy a new(er) car is left with a car of zero value. I disagree with this and nothing you have stated provides me with any information to change that view.

Blah99

cloud_dog wrote: »

Oh how I just love how you talk in absolute terms but, anyway………….

I aim to please.

So, there’s absolutely no other way to run the scheme, no other alternatives; you’re absolute on that one are you????

The scheme:

"The government is considering giving credits of 2,000 pounds to new-car buyers who turn in their old cars, The Times reported on Saturday."

New car buyers. By definition this means dealership purchases, unless you know of some other way to buy a brand new car in the UK? If you have an alternative explanation I'd love to hear it. The mechanisms may be different - rebates, vouchers, whatever - but it has to run through dealers and require a new car purchase.

Again, are you absolutely sure on this, is it at all possible your statement is making conflicting arguments? For example, I have a car worth approx £1500 and cannot afford to buy a new(er) car. Why would my £1500 car have zero value?

I've stated the explanation for this several times - the scheme creates a two tier market. Read on.

Now, lets just assume there are likely to be other people out there in a similar financial situation and who need a car, and lets suppose they could scrape together about £1500 to buy a car. Now where might they go and whom might they buy a car from????

So you're saying the low value cars are just traded around and around the second tier of the market? You're exactly right. Now how does that circular process drive sales of new cars? These people in the second tier cannot afford to buy a new car.

Here's the other option. Let's set a nominal value for a 1995 Fiesta in the second tier market - £500. The owner can try and sell this Fiesta for £500 to another person in the second tier, or he can sell it to me. I'm in the first tier, and I offer to buy his Fiesta for £1000. He's making an extra £500 for nothing, but still can't afford a new car. I get a Fiesta for £1000 that has a value to me of £2000, because I can afford a new car.

So if he can sell his car to me in the first tier and make an extra £500, why would he sell in the second tier? Of course he wouldn't.

If we assume £500 is a big enough incentive for first tier buyers to make, every second tier car becomes worth up to £1500. Cars that were previously worth between (say) £1500 and £3000 are now worthless, because

a) dealers won't part exchange them due to no market for them
b) they provide too small or no incentive at all for the second tier to first tier sale
c) any car worth over £2000 (rebate price) will make the owner an immediate loss
d) depreciation will take them straight down into the threshold.

What will happen is a market gap between £1500 and £3000 where cars can't be sold or scrapped.

Not really sure what you are saying here. If the cars they have (over x years old) are more valuable than £2k then, well, nothing, they sell them as is. If they are valued less than £2k then… they remain valued at less than 2k.

And who is going to buy them?

Disagreeing, people should be responsible for themselves, end of.

Then you misunderstood my point.

AND, can I just say that ‘average Joe’ can absolutely not afford a £40k (assuming I’m an average Joe).

Exactly. People who buy £40k cars are not Average Joe, and thus a VED hike doesn't bother them in the slightest. That was my exact point.

I’m not interested in getting in to a political debate as my views on politics and political parties are that it/they get in the way of actually achieving things.

Fair enough, but if you don't wish to debate the point you can't complain that my views are blinkered.

To finish I think our positions (ignoring politics) is ostensibly at odd on one point…. A car worth £2k (or less) to someone who cannot afford to buy a new(er) car is left with a car of zero value. I disagree with this and nothing you have stated provides me with any information to change that view.

Hopefully I've answered that. Happy to explain again if it's still not clear, perhaps with a role play and some props.

lynzpower

Robert_Sterling wrote: »

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.

Anyone remember Individual Learning accounts

cloud_dog

Blah99 wrote: »

The scheme:

"The government is considering giving credits of 2,000 pounds to new-car buyers who turn in their old cars, The Times reported on Saturday."

New car buyers. By definition this means dealership purchases, unless you know of some other way to buy a brand new car in the UK? If you have an alternative explanation I'd love to hear it. The mechanisms may be different - rebates, vouchers, whatever - but it has to run through dealers and require a new car purchase.

But, you are ignoring newer cars, not new cars. I am led to believe that these can also be bought from car (new) dealerships.

Whilst we do not have the specifics of the UK scheme other schemes often provide rebates for cars meeting specific criteria.

Blah99 wrote: »

I've stated the explanation for this several times - the scheme creates a two tier market. Read on.

So you're saying the low value cars are just traded around and around the second tier of the market? You're exactly right. Now how does that circular process drive sales of new cars? These people in the second tier cannot afford to buy a new car.

It doesn't, nobody has said it does (other than yourself).

Blah99 wrote: »

Here's the other option. Let's set a nominal value for a 1995 Fiesta in the second tier market - £500. The owner can try and sell this Fiesta for £500 to another person in the second tier, or he can sell it to me. I'm in the first tier, and I offer to buy his Fiesta for £1000. He's making an extra £500 for nothing, but still can't afford a new car. I get a Fiesta for £1000 that has a value to me of £2000, because I can afford a new car.

So if he can sell his car to me in the first tier and make an extra £500, why would he sell in the second tier? Of course he wouldn't.

If we assume £500 is a big enough incentive for first tier buyers to make, every second tier car becomes worth up to £1500. Cars that were previously worth between (say) £1500 and £3000 are now worthless, because

a) dealers won't part exchange them due to no market for them
b) they provide too small or no incentive at all for the second tier to first tier sale
c) any car worth over £2000 (rebate price) will make the owner an immediate loss
d) depreciation will take them straight down into the threshold.

What will happen is a market gap between £1500 and £3000 where cars can't be sold or scrapped.

NO, No, No, No. Where is your evidence of this. Its all well and good raming home your thoughts and feelings on the subject but please provide the evidence. There is no supporting evidence of this occuring in Germany.

Blah99 wrote: »

And who is going to buy them?

Someone who has between £1500 and £3000, cannot afford a new car, but wants another car (for said amount).

Blah99 wrote: »

Then you misunderstood my point.

Blah99 wrote: »

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.

I think I understood your point well enough.

Blah99 wrote: »

Fair enough, but if you don't wish to debate the point you can't complain that my views are blinkered.

I think deep down inside even you understand there is a difference between debating politics and my comments which highlighted the point that your words implied a view which may be 'blinkered' due to politics, or a political view. Please do not try to twist my words again, life's too short.

Blah99 wrote: »

Hopefully I've answered that. Happy to explain again if it's still not clear, perhaps with a role play and some props.

No, bring on the role play and props, and some evidence would be nice.

One last thing...... You seem to have toally ignored the fact that in the act of someone buying a new car and scraping their 9+ year old car they will actually help used car prices by removing older / second hand cars from the market place which in turn will help residual values. And, lets not forget the jobs and environment thing.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/25858/vw-plant-closure-prevented-by-scrappage-incentive/

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/german-clunker-culling-with-hidden-gotchas/

bagsacash

This government is all over the shop - whatever happend to the envoronment, surley its more costly to the environment building new cars than it is running old cars

Blah99

cloud_dog wrote: »

But, you are ignoring newer cars, not new cars. I am led to believe that these can also be bought from car (new) dealerships.

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond fully to your post, so 2 quick points. First, the publicity regarding this scheme has been for "new" cars, not "newer".

Second, if you give a £2000 value to all cars over 9 years old, the end result is simple. People with enough money to buy a new car buy up all the old cars for less than £2000, and immediately gain the difference.

You have a Fiesta worth £500. I buy it from you for £1000. I use the Fiesta against my new BMW purchase and get a £2000 rebate. You've made an extra £500, I've saved myself an additional £1000.

cloud_dog

Blah99 wrote: »

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond fully to your post, so 2 quick points. First, the publicity regarding this scheme has been for "new" cars, not "newer".

With all due respect, we cannot go making specific arguments without the details of the scheme. Other schemes have allowed for newer cars to be included as long as they met specific criteria; normally environmental and age related. I suppose my main issue (for want of a word) with your original post was that it was dismissing the 'idea' without knowing the detail.

Blah99 wrote: »

Second, if you give a £2000 value to all cars over 9 years old, the end result is simple. People with enough money to buy a new car buy up all the old cars for less than £2000, and immediately gain the difference.

You have a Fiesta worth £500. I buy it from you for £1000. I use the Fiesta against my new BMW purchase and get a £2000 rebate. You've made an extra £500, I've saved myself an additional £1000.

I agree, in theory you are correct but, the evidence does not back this up.

Indeed the evidence is that this type of scheme may encourage those who were going to buy or might consider a new purchase to either bring their purchase forward or to commit to doing so.

Secondly, the evidence suggests that those who tend to drive older cars tend not to buy new cars but would replace it with an old(ish) car. Please note the use of the term 'tends', very little in life is absolute.

Thirdly, these scheme's tend to help maintain new car prices which in turn helps maintain residual values.

Fourthly (and hopefully finally), there are not many new cars that will not lose £2k as soon as you drive it off the forecourt, therefore the buy up lots of old cars, trade them in for £2k and buy new cars is unlikely, in the main, to be feasible (unless you have big pockets).

cloud_dog

Edit: because my spelling or typing was atrocious

cloud_dog

WOW Used cars apprciate in value - who would have thought

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8251920.stm

(Sorry Blah, couldn't resist)

looby-loo_2

cloud_dog wrote: »

WOW Used cars apprciate in value - who would have thought

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8251920.stm

(Sorry Blah, couldn't resist)

Yep, I bought my Micra for £730 two years ago and sold it last night for £735 using only an add in the side window.:j:j:j