Stimulus Programs: Cash for Buyer’s Remorse?
Published on - November 19th, 2009 (Modified on - November 20th, 2009) (by Adam Baker) This post is from GRS staff writer Adam Baker. Baker, along with his wife and 20-month old daughter, will be spending the next couple of months exploring Thailand as they continue their recent backpacking journey.
Since the start of the economic slump started in 2008, the U.S. government has issued several incentive programs in an attempt to stimulate some positive movement in the economy.
First, came the popular $7500 tax credit for first time home buyers, which was to be paid back in $500 increments starting with the 2010 tax year. Next, they extended the homebuyer tax credit further into 2009, increasing the limit to $8000 and removed the burden of having to pay it back over time.
This past summer brought the controversial Cash for Clunkers program, which then spawned “Cash for Appliances.“ Most recently, the first-time home buyer tax credit has been extended, yet again, into 2010, and expanded to include some who hadn’t previously qualified since they weren’t officially first time homebuyers.
These incentive programs have drawn everything from wild praise to heated protests.
Did Cash for Clunkers bring success or regret?
Recently, the first few months of data has begun to come in from the now-closed Cash for Clunkers program. The homepage of the official Department of Transportation website for the program, CARS.gov, now reads:
The enormously successful CARS program helped consumers who turned in gas guzzlers buy nearly 700,000 more fuel efficient vehicles in fewer than 30 days. By late September the U.S. Department of Transportation paid all eligible and complete dealer transactions. “There can be no doubt that this program drummed up more business, for more people, in more places at a time when our economy needed help the most,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
But, not everyone is buying into the “enormously successful” label. A September article published by AOL Autos brings up some interesting facts about the CARS program:
- An August survey concludes that 17% of Cash for Clunker participates indicate they feel buyer’s remorse over their purchases. This is nearly double the traditional rate of 6-8%.
- While the average MPG of the vehicles in the program rose from 16.3 mpg to 24.8 mpg (a clear success), it’s estimated that individuals will be driving even more due to possessing a newer car. This could actually result in more fuel consumption overall.
- The program takes from over 300+ million taxpayers and rewards only a small group of 700,000.
And AOL Autos isn’t alone in the criticism of the program. Just a few weeks ago, Edmunds.com issued a press release stating that taxpayers actually ended up paying $24,000 per vehicle sold through the program.
If Edmunds’ reasoning seems a little too simplistic (I’ll admit it does for me), there’s a more-detailed study by University of Delaware, which concludes that the cost of the program exceeded the benefits by approximately $2000 per vehicle.
Studies, press releases, and government websites aside, I’m worried that these programs encourage people to buy larger ticket items during a time that may be very hazardous to their individual financial health.
The last thing most people need to be doing in a down economy is adding thousands of dollars in new consumer debt. And in the CARS example, the majority of this debt will be on a consistently depreciating asset!
The program is best suited for a financially responsible individual, who was already in the market for an upgraded automobile purchase. But it’s obvious that the majority of the transactions didn’t involve this type of situation. For that reason alone, I have a hard time considering the program a success.
If you think impulsively buying a car is a mistake…try a house!
I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the first-time homebuyer credit, as well.
Over the last three years, I participated in the real estate markets as an agent, property management, and investor. Unfortunately, most of my participation centered around the foreclosure and short-sale markets. I saw hundreds (if not thousands) of individual cases as the housing market went sour. Behind nearly every one of these foreclosures and short sales was a rushed and impulsive purchase several years before. There were only a couple exceptions.
Once again, this tax credit is perfect for those financially responsible individuals and families who are already in the market for a conservative home purchase. I just can’t envision that this is the case for the majority of the claimed credits.
Last year, many of my friends in their 20s and 30s scrambled to take advantage of the original $7,500 credit/loan. A few rearranged their plans or bought a little early to ensure they capitalized on the incentive. Months later, they watched as it was extended to $8,000 and changed to not have to be repaid over 15 years. The same people who were considered savvy for rushing to catch this opportunity, now had wished they had delayed it another six months.
That’s just the point. No one knows what our government or administration is going to do in the future. As a whole, we seem to be letting these programs be a leading factor in our decision instead of just a bonus. I don’t know many people who, looking back five years after a home purchase, would say to themselves, “That would have been a great purchase had we only gotten $8,000 up front.”
$8,000 is a lot of money — I’d love to have an extra eight grand right now — but a home purchase is one of the largest financial commitments you’ll ever make. Rushing into such a huge commitment can end up costing you exponentially more.
It’s about more than just the numbers…
Major financial purchases, including automobiles and houses, are about more than just the numbers.
Of course, we want to take all numerical benefits and costs into consideration. We shouldn’t ignore access to these government incentive programs, but letting them be the leading factor in our decision making process would be a huge mistake.
In your financial life, make sure you are the one calling the shots, not Uncle Sam. And if the timing is right for you…don’t leave any money on the table. Milk him for everything he’s got!
SEARCH FOR RECENT ARTICLES




Is there ever a government program that doesn’t cost significantly more than the derived benefits, especially one that is rushed?
The government incentivized a massive amount of debt with the two programs. The same issue that we had that got us into this mess. The two single largest times you incur debt are when you buy a car and when you buy a house, so for a rather small sum, the federal government was able to get consumers to take on another $20 billion of auto debt and likely another $500 billion in mortgage debt. Now realistically, there were many people that were going to buy that house or that car anyway, but it likely pushed a number of people over the fence that were on it.
When you buy a home however, there is a massive amount of revenue generated that ripples through the economy. Everyone is lined up when you buy a house to profit: real estate brokers, mortgage brokers, banks, insurance, appraisers, title companies, furniture companies, painters, appliance stores, etc. So a house is slightly more justifiable because of the massive impact just a single purchase has on the economy. But I fear that the government is still far too reliant on using debt to keep the economy going. 12 Trillion dollars of their own money (really ours) and 18 trillion of consumer’s money all to keep this unsustainable circus going.
LiveCheap.com
loading....
Claiming that cash for clunkers ‘cost’ $24000 per car is odd reasoning to me. They base that number on the assumption that most of the cars would have been sold anyway.
Maybe we should figure out how much other tax credits ‘cost’ the government?? There is a $1000 tax credit per child on federal income taxes, but wouldn’t almost all of those children be born without government tax credits? If we assume 99% of children would have been born anyway then we could apply similar logic to declare that the government spends $100,000 /annually or $1,800,000 per child total via its “massively wasteful” child tax credit program.
loading....
I think there are a few people forgetting that WE are the ones funding the incentive programs, not some pie-in-the-sky entity named “the government”. Our government does not produce wealth; it only redistributes it.
So, regardless of the circumstances involved of those who participate in it (and, yes, the 3-person sample contradicts my experience), it’s a make-everyone-else-poor-quickly scheme. The money is coming from ME — and you, and your neighbors, and people you’ve never met. Theft by government is still theft.
loading....
My in-laws took advantage of the Cash for Clunkers program because they had been saving up for a new car for a few years, their current cars were very inefficient and unreliable, any time they wanted to take a road trip they rented a car because 1) the milage was better and 2) they wouldn’t have to worry about the van breaking down (which happened often with both vans). It worked out very well for them but didn’t rush them in their decision, it just was a great bonus and saved them some money.
loading....
The moons aligned for me. I have landed a great secure job about 2 years ago. I will have raises for the next 4 years amounting to my house payments as of now. I was able to save about $800 a month or more prior. And could put down 10% on a house. I have a room mate who pays rent at 500 and I was throwing $500 into rent. I just bought a house and of course the normal jitters but I’m able to pay extra each month because the only negative I have found is I have to pay PMI for another 3 or so years. Also to mention I was paying $6000 plus into federal taxes. It will be nice to have something to claim on my taxes and not to mention an investment… I felt rushed but not blind to this commitment.
loading....
IF you were planning to buy a house or car anyway, and IF you were not placing undue strain on your finances, why not take the money? It’s like a temporary reduction in your tax rate. That’s not to say that the rebate should be the primary reason for making the purchase – it’s more like icing on the cake.
@Tyler K (love your house BTW) – while it’s true that housing prices in some areas of the country may continue to drop, this should not necessarily deter someone from buying a house. Notwithstanding the current declines brought on by some very specific factors, housing prices do tend to go up over time, especially in desirable areas. The recent correction may actually have made buying more affordable, and at near-generational lows in interest rates. Also, you only lose money on your house if you actually have to sell.
JS
loading....
the $8000 was definitely an incentive for us to buy a house this year instead of next, but it is a nightmare for us trying to get the money, we closed in late june and immediately re-filed out taxes, everytime we call we get a different date of when we are to recieve the money, just called again yesterday (because the last person told us the end of november)and she said it has basically been flagged for fraud and there are several “steps” to go through and if it passes this step it could be as soon as 45 days, if not then she has no idea!!! It has been 5 months already!!! It was kind of odd, because the woman asked if we were having trouble financially, and im thinking well if I say yes will that get us our money faster, but I didnt, we were just going to use the money to pay off our student debt anyways
loading....
Uncle Sam has no money but what he stole from you and all the other taxpayers.
On one hand it’s okay to take back a bit of what he took form you, but on the other hand you really aren’t taking anything back as much as your are taking other peoples’ money and increasing the already extremely high national debt.
loading....
Everyone is subject to their opinion that’s why post comments right?
Anyway, I see alot of people here saying it’s not the right time or it’s the wrong decision to take advantage of these programs. How do you know?
The only analogy I can make is it’s similar to someone trying to “time the market”. You think you know but you don’t have a crystal ball.
loading....
I disagree. I believe these incentive programs appeal most to those people who are borderline about making one of these purchases in the first place. The whole point of stimulus is to get people to buy and spend now, because right now is when the economy needs the boost. If people are dictating their lives around free handouts… then they have other problems, and must be going nearly 20 years between purchases as well…
loading....
The stimulus programs are all about pulling demand forward and getting people to consume more now and go further into debt now in order to keep the Ponzi scheme economy propped up long enough for the Democrats to survive another election cycle.
If you’re not a fish, don’t take the bait.
loading....
*applauds*
Thank you, Baker, for a wonderfully written and informative article. So many people are sticking their fingers in their ears while these programs are going on, and just repeating to themselves “Free gov. money, free gov. money” without THINKING about the consequences to themselves and their families.
Money from the government is never free. Someone always has to pay the piper in the end. And unfortunately, as long as the government taxes us, and has its hands in OUR money, and in our market, you can’t keep politics entirely out of a money blog. You can keep MUDSLINGING out of a money blog, and I think Baker has managed to do that quite nicely by just reporting the facts and the financial consequences of certain government programs that dabbled in the free market, and not getting sensationalist about it or picking sides.
loading....
Adam hit the nail right on the head with this.
Encouraging people to go into debt buying things they wouldn’t have otherwise is never good policy.
This article wasn’t really a call to political action, but if people don’t stand up for their financial freedom, the information they learn on blogs like this will be useless.
loading....
The 11/13 NPR Planet Money podcast “Did the Cash Bring the Clunkers?” looks at the outcomes of the Cash for Clunkers stimulus program. They spoke with people who’ve analyzed it using different strategies. It’s still not clear whether or not the program was a success, but interestingly an economist who thinks it’s a great idea to give consumers an incentive to trade in old, low mpg cars said that it wasn’t nearly long enough to make the program work right. His argument is that with only 1 month the program didn’t give people enough time to decide to trade in cars – that really most people who took advantage of the incentive were already planning to trade in cars then or shortly after. I also read in a newspaper article last week that many of the pickup trucks traded-in were replaced with new pickups – without much better gas mileage.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/11/podcast_did_the_cash_bring_the.html
loading....
So much for keeping the politics out.
loading....
I don’t think this program did much of anything. Many older, gas guzzling cars are driven by lower income folks who cannot afford a new car (especially in this economy).
loading....
The value of Cash for clunkers is understated, and in my view was one of the best government programs ever. First, its encouraged the purchase of much more energy efficient vehicles. I had a 2002 gas guzzling Explorer. My intent was to run it into the ground at 17 and less miles per gallon. Cash for Clunkers motivated me to trade it in. I am now driving a newer Ford vehicle that gets 10 miles per gallon better then the old one did. To say people will drive their newer vehicles more may be true, but I suspect the thrill wears off in a few weeks. Accordingly, that assumption seems weak at best. I actually drive less because I want to keep the milage down to preserve the warranty.
Second, the program gave the automotive industry a boost when it really needed it most. This allowed Americans to work. By trade I am a Bankruptcy attorney in Michigan. I know many families were called back to work because of Cash for Clunkers.
Third, the Cash for Clunkers program was a good way to bring to light the problem of Global warming and our reliance on oil.
Fourth, what other government program do you know where people get tangible results? My tax dollars go to tons of programs I see no benefit. In fact, I can’t think of on government program where I benefited from. I pay taxes. As such, I hardly think other’s are subsidizing my trade in.
Fifth, I think more programs of this sort should be tried. The focus should be encouraging the purchase of American made goods. The reality is our tax dollars have benefited Corporations moving operations overseas to Countries that have essentially a slave work force. This probably is one of the main reasons our economy is in the tank. Americans can’t compete with an enslaved labor force and we should not be forced to try. Henry Ford a long time ago understood your customers need to be employed to be able to buy your product.
loading....
@ Tyler: You talk about being locked into a 30-year price for a house vs the rent rate like it’s a bad thing. Even if my house payments were slightly higher than rent (my house payment, taxes and insurance included, is actually several hundred dollars lower then the rent most of my friends are paying), everyone who rents know that they tend to go up.
I rented for 5 years, 3 different places, and my rent went up each year at each place…every.single.year. Even after I moved out friends that rented in the same place rented at much higher rate than I was renting just the previous year.
Yes I’m “locked into” my mortgage…I’m also locked into paying 2009 living expenses while rent in my area will likely be twice that in 5-10 years…and thirty years later? phhhssa. fuggitaboutit. You can’t tell me that ANYTHING was more expensive in the 70′s/80′s than it is today, recession or no. Maybe drugs, but that’s about it.
loading....
These stimulus programs don’t do much except prolong the agony. Now that the new home buyer credit has expired we’ll se how far this market can fall.
loading....