CARS program, can I buy another car?

[greylar]

I would like to suggest that you may not have to be the owner of the clunker to trade it in. If you look at the text of the bill it says it must be registered and insured for the prior 12 months, but I have read it very carefully and it doesn't say that the person trading it in must be the same as the one purchasing the new one.

We have something in Montana called an open title. If you sell a car and sign and notarize the title without specifying the purchasers name it is considered open (like signing the back of check) and could them be traded directly to the dealer. If you converted it into your name and then tried to clunker it I'm sure it wouldn't work but trading it directly just might.

Again nowhere does it say that the purchaser of the new car and the person trading in the new car have to be the same person. They may have intended that but that is not what the bill says.

A loophole???

G

[rld14]

First,

The program is not yet clarified, and this includes e-mails that I've gotten from my Toyota District Sales Rep, ones he forwarded us from Toyota USA and ones from NADA.

We will be signing up for the program, however until we receive COMPLETE clarification, we aren't taking any chances. The last thing I need to do is to end up owning a 92 Caprice for $4500.

[RodJo]

Originally Posted by greylar

I would like to suggest that you may not have to be the owner of the clunker to trade it in. If you look at the text of the bill it says it must be registered and insured for the prior 12 months, but I have read it very carefully and it doesn't say that the person trading it in must be the same as the one purchasing the new one.

We have something in Montana called an open title. If you sell a car and sign and notarize the title without specifying the purchasers name it is considered open (like signing the back of check) and could them be traded directly to the dealer. If you converted it into your name and then tried to clunker it I'm sure it wouldn't work but trading it directly just might.

Again nowhere does it say that the purchaser of the new car and the person trading in the new car have to be the same person. They may have intended that but that is not what the bill says.

A loophole???

G

It's possible that the feds do not care who has owned the clunker for the past year, as long as the clunker is taken off the street in exchange for a new car. For example, they may not be trying to exclude common trade-in practices like parents trading in an old car to buy a new one for their son.

You may have to wait for the final regulations, but you may very well be right.

[greylar]

Originally Posted by RodJo

It's possible that the feds do not care who has owned the clunker for the past year, as long as the clunker is taken off the street in exchange for a new car. For example, they may not be trying to exclude common trade-in practices like parents trading in an old car to buy a new one for their son.

You may have to wait for the final regulations, but you may very well be right.

You're right it might not be a loophole since the spirit of the law is not really being violated if a different person is doing the trade in than the one buying the car. Its just been widely reported and assumed that they had to be the same person.

G

[plow]

Originally Posted by greylar

You're right it might not be a loophole since the spirit of the law is not really being violated if a different person is doing the trade in than the one buying the car. Its just been widely reported and assumed that they had to be the same person.

G

Yesterday I put $ 500 down on a Gen III Prius II (hopefully) but the ones coming in have bluetooth and other add on's - shall see....

I'll be clunker crushing a 2001 Ford Escape V6 which is listed at 18 MPG. Terrible model (worth maybe $ 1000.)

Interestingly, regarding the clunker I was told by the dealer I had to provide title in my name (going back at least one full year) and insurance in my name (the same time period ).

[RodJo]

Originally Posted by plow

Interestingly, regarding the clunker I was told by the dealer I had to provide title in my name (going back at least one full year) and insurance in my name (the same time period ).

Here is what the goverment FAQ says:

What will I need to bring to the dealer in order to participate in the program?
You should bring documentation establishing the identity of the person who currently owns the vehicle, preferably the title of the vehicle, and documentary proof that the vehicle “has been continuously insured consistent with the applicable State law and registered to the same owner for a period of not less than 1 year immediately prior to the trade-in.” The final rule will specify what types of documentation would be acceptable.

Note that even the FAQ answers with "the identity of the person who currently owns the vehicle" not "your current ownership of the vehicle". That further supports Greylar's observation. BTW, you can submit the question directly via the website (CARS.gov - Car Allowance Rebate System - Home - Formerly Referred to as “Cash for Clunkers”).

[patsparks]

Stop crying.
I just paid a tax bill for almost $600 in addition to my normal tax because I forgot to renew my health insurance for a year and I earned $800 more than the threshold for the additional tax. Now think about this, to earn the $600 I had to pay after tax, I had to earn a little over the $800 before tax, that I was over the threshold by. I could have had 4 days off work without pay and have no less money in the bank. That really sucks!
No one likes paying extra tax!!
I'll add here also, that by earning more than that same threshold I couldn't claim an $8000 rebate for a grid connected solar array on my house! Last month I could have bought a compliant system for $8150 before the rebate.

[sshaw10]

Originally Posted by EJFB1029

So you are mad that the program is trying to limit itself to get the right kind of cars off the road, and to spur new car buying? And that some how shows how government programs are bad?

Exactly the opposite, think first!
I'm saying I want to get a clunker off the road, that's the whole point of the post. If I could buy someone's clunker and get it off the road isn't that better than that car staying on the road? What does it matter if I own the car or not, it's getting off the road. Without rebate I can't afford a car and the clunker stays.
Government programs are bad. When the people who vote on them don't even read the bills they pass they can't be good.

[Morgank6]

WOW... If this works I am sooooooooooooo hitting up craigslist for a running $500 mini-van. Cant get the gov website question function to work so I'll call them tomorrow and see what they say!

-Morgan

[cwerdna]

Originally Posted by Morgank6

WOW... If this works I am sooooooooooooo hitting up craigslist for a running $500 mini-van. Cant get the gov website question function to work so I'll call them tomorrow and see what they say!

Assuming the FAQ at Cash for Clunkers Car Buying Stimulus Bill is correct, the answer is no, you can't do that. The URLs below also basically say the same thing.

Car Allowance Rebate System
CARS.gov - Car Allowance Rebate System - Helpful Q&As for Consumers - Formerly Referred to as “Cash for Clunkers”