Australia To Ban Cash Purchases Over $10,000 (theguardian.com) 273
Long-time Slashdot reader skegg writes: Last night was federal budget night in Australia, and one of the announcements means Australians will face a crackdown on cash-in-hand payments in an attempt by the government to reduce money laundering and tax evasion. The government has turned its attention to the "black economy" in an attempt to raise billions of extra dollars and intends to limit cash payments for purchase goods and services to $10,000.
The financial services minister argues that currently the status quo "gives some businesses an unfair competitive advantage."
The financial services minister argues that currently the status quo "gives some businesses an unfair competitive advantage."
Simple solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Transaction 1: $10,000 buy the car wheels and chassis; Transaction 2: $10,000 buy the engine; Transaction 3: $10,000 buy the rest of the car.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bet it's already happening.
Re:Simple solution: (Score:5, Informative)
Transaction 1: $10,000 buy the car wheels and chassis; Transaction 2: $10,000 buy the engine; Transaction 3: $10,000 buy the rest of the car.
Yeah, they know about that trick [wikipedia.org]; it's illegal [austrac.gov.au] too.
Re: Simple solution: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, criminals are known for their strict adherence to the law.
Money laundering and tax evasion laws just need to be enforced. Adding more laws when you are already slacking is just an excuse for more slacking. This doesn't help it just punishes normal people. The criminals have their own ways and already operate outside the law.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're willing to become a criminal, you're already out of the scope of this policy. Instead you're a client of the justice system and then penal one.
Re: (Score:2)
All fish, large and small, not just the criminal fish. This sort of law is incapable of discerning criminality.
Random real world example: Mom+pop store puts weekly revenue in the bank. Bank gets ornery when they make more than $10k/week, because "suspicious transaction reporting" paperwork. Mom+pop store doesn't know why, but obliges bank by splitting deposits. Gov't agent swoops in, "structuring", and liberates mom+pop from their hard-earned, prosecuting them besides for money laundring and mail fraud. Just one example.
Even if they drop the case --but curiously neglect to give back the money-- that's already easily enough to destroy years of hard honest work. Being a law-abiding citizen makes you much more vulnerable to that sort of thing, since it's so much harder to recover from. Even if you have "nothing to hide". It makes one wish to sit on a large stash of ill-gotten loot to make the pain go away.
It illustrates the problem: The government pretends to be able to discern whose money stinks worse.
Bullshit, any legitimate business would far rather deal in electronic money. Cash in large quantities is simply a security risk.
Of course, for the libertarians on slashdot, evading tax is counted as an act of heroism rather than a crime, hence the curious nostalgia for cash transactions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the article.
Check your assumptions.
It sounds heavy-handed, but anything over 10K needs to be done by cheque/check or electronic payments. When was the last time any legit small store had 10,000$ in the actual building in cash? Never.
Happens all the time. Legit outfits too. Just like civil forfeiture happens to innocents too, and they typically don't get their money back, n'mind reimbursed for the damage, or even an apology. A dropped charge and lingering stigma is usually the only thing you get for all the trouble.
That many criminals also prefer (or have to) keep large amounts of cash on hand does not change that.
And again, even a couple thousand a month can be labeled as "structuring", because who knows, maybe t
Re: Simple solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
When was the last time any legit small store had 10,000$ in the actual building in cash?
I see you've never worked in a city centre pub at a weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell do you evade taxes anyway? Do you wait until they're catching up to you on the highway and you suddenly veer off the next exit?
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell do you evade taxes anyway? Do you wait until they're catching up to you on the highway and you suddenly veer off the next exit?
Not the next exit... the next-next exit.
Once evasion is suspected, they're looking for you to assume departed status as soon as possible. You have to like the Kansas City Shuffle [youtube.com] at a time like this.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell do you evade taxes anyway?
If you're running a corporation you create an office in a country, typically a tropical island, with a government that allows loose, anonymous banking laws. Then, despite 99.9999999% of your corporation and it's operations being in a completely different country you claim that ALL of your profits were made in that tiny little offshore office. Then you pay for Congressmen or Senators to do their best to destroy the tax agency while you laugh and laugh.
Re: Simple solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Money laundering is taking proceeds of crime and funnelling them through an otherwise legitimate business in order to disguise their origin.
That's everywhere except the US.
There it's become a thing that they just tag onto other offences to get a higher sentence and/or pressure the defendant into a plea bargain.
Re: (Score:2)
Transaction 1: Buyer's Westpac account to Seller's Commonwealth Bank account
Transaction 2: Buyer's Father's ANZ account to Seller's wife's NAB account
...etc
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. $10K each is illegal. $4555.25 here, $1540.10 there, $2758.27 there, and finally $1146.38.
Who would be the wiser? Keep it random. Keep it spaced out.
These regulations that say you cannot deal with more than $10K in cash at a time (and I'm talking about the USA now) is BS in my opinion, to say nothing of SARs (Suspicious Activity Reports) that banks use.
Did you know that there are no "rules" behind SARs? That the penalties are severe enough it entices tellers and financial institution emp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Transactions with financial institutions or consumer to consumer non-business transactions will not be affected.
..and if you were going to a car dealership to purchase a new vehicle outright (no financing) you'd be nuts to walk around with $30-40-50k (or more) in a suitcase. I can't imagine anyone would even accept that much cash. You'd get a certified check (or equiv. for Australia) to pay them with -- and they'd verify it with the bank before giving you the keys.
Really I see what you were concerned about: Australia comes off as rather authoritarian in the extreme.
Re: (Score:2)
Suitcase? $40k is a 2 inch stack, you'd keep that in your front jeans pocket where it's hard to steal, why would you carry it around in something a bag snatcher might go for?
Bank cheques are $10, and don't require a call to the bank to confirm, and hell they probably wouldn't. (source worked in one for 8 years; never got that call, never would have guaranteed anything over the phone since they have to be presented to be honoured.)
Last car I bought from a dealer for that kinda money I just made a direct bank
Re:Simple solution: (Score:5, Interesting)
I was just thinking the same thing. Only a couple of months ago I dropped $90K cash on a new car.
The government needs to decide whether cash is still a legal currency or not and then either stop trying to fuck with it or completely eliminate it from the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh they have done that. How do you remove cash from an economy? You make it inconvenient to use for large purchases, then small purchases. You make digital transactions the de facto standard. Pretty soon it is hard to find anywhere to use your cash. At this point is when they deal the final blow and get rid of cash completely.
Re: (Score:2)
Recently between bank bank transactions have started to go live, so you're no longer waiting overnight or a few days for them to complete.
There's now little reason to carry cash except for a few areas that don't take cards.
With these dwindling, less and less people are carrying cash, so it will eventually beco
Re: Simple solution: (Score:2)
Cause everyone is excited at the 1,2,3,4 % fee
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought Australia was at the forefront with this. .... Till I moved to Europe. I haven't had cash in my wallet in a good 4 months, and even then only because 4 months ago I was in Germany which is not very card friendly.
Re: (Score:2)
There's now little reason to carry cash except for a few areas that don't take cards.
Or 16- or 17-year-olds, who aren't old enough to have a bank account of their own.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
America sure is different than the rest of the world. In most developed places, if you even had 90,000 dollars cash on your person or in your house, it would be assumed to come from illegal means.
Hell i can't even take more than $2000 dollars out of the ATM per day.
rich people problems... Austrailia has a big problem with housing speculators, hot asian money, etc. So thats more likely the reason for this decision. Who the hell walks around with 90,000 dollars... where would you even get that much cash? If y
Re: (Score:2)
America sure is different than the rest of the world. In most developed places, if you even had 90,000 dollars cash on your person or in your house, it would be assumed to come from illegal means.
Hell i can't even take more than $2000 dollars out of the ATM per day.
rich people problems... Austrailia has a big problem with housing speculators, hot asian money, etc. So thats more likely the reason for this decision. Who the hell walks around with 90,000 dollars... where would you even get that much cash? If you are super rich can you just walk into the bank and say "give me a $100k in 20s, here's a suitcase" ??? man i simply cannot picture this world you live in... not sure if its because i'm super poor or not american or what this time.
That's BS. I've personally seen someone count out over a half a million in cash for a house purchase in the US. The government has yet to really act on the huge wave of Chinese purchase of property in the US and most of it was in cash, often for millions a dollars per transaction (US govt made some statements then did nothing). As a side note, getting rid of cash is an incredibly bad idea for a variety of reasons including privacy, unnecessary cost to most people, and the tendency of most people to spend
Re: (Score:2)
Only a couple of months ago I dropped $90K cash on a new car.
Why the hell were you walking around with that much cash? Did you just finalise a drug deal or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Literal cash, as in a suitcase with bundles of $100s?
One of my post-Powerball winning fantasies was to walk into a Bentley dealership in shorts and t-shirt and tell them I wanted a car and was willing to pay cash. When they blew me off or treated me like a problem, pop open my duffle of cash and start burning $10k bundles in their face, and then walk out and climb into a Rolls Royce.
Re: (Score:2)
Literal cash, as in a suitcase with bundles of $100s?
One of my post-Powerball winning fantasies was to walk into a Bentley dealership in shorts and t-shirt and tell them I wanted a car and was willing to pay cash. When they blew me off or treated me like a problem, pop open my duffle of cash and start burning $10k bundles in their face, and then walk out and climb into a Rolls Royce.
Though I am sure you would still have many other post-Powerball fantasies to act out, that particular one is likely to disappoint you. Rich people frequently don't look rich, and no car salesman is going to risk blowing the deal by assuming that someone who dresses in shorts and t-shirts can't afford a nice car.
Re: Simple solution: (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution: (Score:4, Insightful)
Your local Lamborghini dealer is probably not going to get involved in that. What the criminals will do is find some homeless person, set them up with a bank account, and work through them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
THAT'S how you get arrested in the US for money laundering (even if you're not laundering money).
Re: (Score:2)
It's called “structuring”.
Re: Simple solution: (Score:2)
No. Capital controls inconvenience the nobility. That's not going to happen.
The point of a cashless economy is greater control and oppression of commoners. There's no need to look deeper for an answer - it's right there.
Totalitarian Financialism is the goal. Slow creeping tyranny is the technique to get us there.
How can this curb illegal activity? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're already engaging in an illegal transaction, money laundering, etc... why would you let the fact that paying over $10K in cash is illegal stop you?
Re:How can this curb illegal activity? (Score:4, Informative)
The black economy is usually someone paying a car mechanic, builder or joiner to do some work, while not declaring the transaction and pocketing the VAT/income tax for themselves. In rural areas, they also exchange or barter services instead of transferring cash. Sometimes payment is acceptable as bottles of wine, firewood, scrap metal, old appliances or anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
In rural areas
Errr. Try in the middle of a city of 5 million people too. Items considered valuable by a party are easily exchanged regardless of where you are.
Re: (Score:2)
The black economy is usually someone paying a car mechanic, builder or joiner to do some work, while not declaring the transaction and pocketing the VAT/income tax for themselves. In rural areas, they also exchange or barter services instead of transferring cash. Sometimes payment is acceptable as bottles of wine, firewood, scrap metal, old appliances or anything else.
That is the grey economy in Australia (AKA the cash or beer economy).
The black economy is illicit trade, (drugs, firearms and other controlled items).
This move is just another "do something" from Fizzer's incompetent government on their slow, inevitable march out of office (Australia's current PM, Malcolm Turnbull is called "Fizzer" as an ex-PM described him as "A lot of fizz, but no bang").
Re: (Score:3)
If you're already engaging in an illegal transaction, money laundering, etc... why would you let the fact that paying over $10K in cash is illegal stop you?
You won't, this will just keep honest people honest. Criminals will still do what they want.
Next step will be to convert all the paper currency into new script, requiring all cash to be exchanged (and identities recorded) for new (with daily limits) or deposited into a bank account (again with limits of new script withdrawal). That's what they did in India to curb this "off book" cash transaction thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada just removed legal tender status from any denominations that are no longer printed. The idea being to demonetize any $1000 bills still out there but it also means that the couple of $1 and $2 bills I still have are no longer legal tender.
Re:How can this curb illegal activity? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're already engaging in an illegal transaction, money laundering, etc... why would you let the fact that paying over $10K in cash is illegal stop you?
Not only that, I actually fail to see how this measure solves anything.
The people who are the *real* problem when comes to tax evasion and tax avoidance - the super-rich who keep their money in offshore tax havens and the global mega-corporations doing double dutch sandwiches and whatever - don't do cash transactions over $10K. They have their lawyers wire the money from the Cayman Islands to Macau, or whatever.
Ordinary folks that pay the car mechanic or the painter in cash to avoid paying taxes don't pay over $10K in those transactions, that's usually a few hundred or a few thousand dollars.
So this might only catch criminals that seek to buy things at a legitimate establishment, say a drug dealer who goes into a department store or a car dealership. Probably not a very large demographics.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in BC, it seems a favorite way to launder money is at the casinos and they'll be laundering more like a $100,000 in cash at a time.
I've also heard there's quite a black market for winning lottery tickets.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in BC, it seems a favorite way to launder money is at the casinos and they'll be laundering more like a $100,000 in cash at a time.
I've also heard there's quite a black market for winning lottery tickets.
Its a terrible way to launder money no matter what. Much easier to run it through a series of legitimate fronts $5 at a time.
This is just an incompetent government trying to make it sound like they're "tough on crime" whilst a Royal Commission into the banking industry is turning up some really ugly skeletons that they're desperately trying to ignore. A case of "look over there and pay no attention to the cluster-fuck behind the curtain".
Re: (Score:2)
Civil asset forfeiture (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The people who are the *real* problem
Interesting defining the "real" problem in terms of people rather than in terms of amounts.
If 10000 people avoid paying $1000 is that a real problem compared to 18000000 avoiding paying $1?
The whole Cayman Islands thing is a complete red herring. The rich don't pay taxes not because their funds are stashed in some Cayman fund, that applies to maybe a handful of people only. They simply use the tax laws to their advantage locking up their money in assets which they depreciate in exchange for tax cuts among m
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting defining the "real" problem in terms of people rather than in terms of amounts.
If 10000 people avoid paying $1000 is that a real problem compared to 18000000 avoiding paying $1?
The whole Cayman Islands thing is a complete red herring. The rich don't pay taxes not because their funds are stashed in some Cayman fund, that applies to maybe a handful of people only. They simply use the tax laws to their advantage locking up their money in assets which they depreciate in exchange for tax cuts among many other rules. You can avoid paying tax quite happily within Australia.
It's also a matter of enforcement. Say everyone in the country is avoid paying $1-2 of taxes. That adds up to a lot. However, can you enforce it? Without some Orwellian scheme, I mean. Now assume a few thousand people are avoiding paying a few tens/hundreds of thousands (and maybe millions) of tax? Easier to enforce, as you are chasing less people, and the payoff will be bigger, since each person caught nets a bigger amount.
Is offshoring limited to "maybe a handful of people only"? I doubt, since estimates
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, I actually fail to see how this measure solves anything.
It solves the question of how politicians can look busy
Re: (Score:2)
It's about the extra tools provided to relevant state enforcement bureaus. If you need an example of how this works, remind yourself what Al Capone was nailed for.
Re: (Score:3)
First, this was never intended to stop criminal-criminal transactions, but those where cash is used with a legitimate business (criminal-citizen), either to launder cash or just buy something without having a citizen's normal paper trail. Think cars, houses, even businesses.
Does that help you understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Next some professions will have to support 100% electronic payments.
The main idea is to make structuring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I was going to say. In the near future $10,000 will be hailed (rightly, wrongly, or exaggeratedly) as a huge success in reducing tax evasion, with a new limit of $5,000 or less being proposed.
Meanwhile, if the politicians really wanted to limit tax evasion (err, avoidance) they'd ban money coming into/going out to tax havens. After all, they implement bans for other things [dfat.gov.au]. Of course then they'd be punishing themselves and their wealthy friends.
Re: (Score:2)
And then they move on to seizing unused bank accounts.
California already seizes bank accounts that are idle for more than three years. This messed up the tradition of parents/grandparents opening a large savings account for their grandchildren and letting the account mature for 16 years.
The UK has followed this lead and is now seizing bank accounts that are idle for more than 15 years.
https://www.theguardian.com/mo... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you're already engaging in an illegal transaction, money laundering, etc...
This has nothing to do with stopping illegal activity and everything to do with stopping undeclared tax free jobs. It's just tax avoidance, nothing more.
Re:How can this curb illegal activity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aussies have a very long history of losing their freedom. In fact, it might be one of the defining characteristics of their country.
Re:How can this curb illegal activity? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's hysterical though to watch Americans talk about freedom while having civil forfeiture laws that lets cops steal money and put it literally in their own pockets as wages.
Re: (Score:2)
That's freedom, the freedom to infringe on other peoples rights.
Re: (Score:3)
I have some bad news for you [sbs.com.au]. At least here the government has to follow a process prior to confiscating your property, but they never need to charge you with a crime and you're the one who has to prove your property's innocence.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, as I said later (but before this post) the state seizing property and it going into general funds is a LOT different to Johnny Law seizing whatever he likes for no reason and it going DIRECTLY into his local funding.
You need to find a better counter-example than "growing a commercial quantity of cannabis for personal use". While I think it should be legal, that doesn't mean this is anything like the extensively documented abuse of power that is happening for personal enrichment in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It's even funnier that in response to the obvious joke you call out American cops as being the criminals when in fact ours:
http://www.nationalgeographic.... [nationalge...hic.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
> It's hysterical though to watch Americans talk about freedom while having civil forfeiture laws that lets cops steal money and put it literally in their own pockets as wages.
Says butt hurt weenie whose ancestors were deported to a giant penal colony.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure dickhead, but more English prisoners were sent to the USA than Australia.Besides, I'm a wog, we came from Italy of our own volition.
Re: (Score:2)
I was joking. But, parent is not wrong.
civil forfeiture is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a conviction associated with it, then it is criminal forfeiture and not civil forfeiture
Re: How can this curb illegal activity? (Score:2)
If the money went into "general revenue" with no earmarking, it /might/ be reasonable for cases where people can't explain how they got the money. But neither of those clauses are required currently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you left out the most delicious part -- you as the owner of that property have ZERO standing in the court case. Basically the case is 'people vs john doe's belongings'.
Re: How can this curb illegal activity? (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'blacks count as a fraction of a person' law that you mention was actually a rule forced on the slave states by the non-slave states. The northern states didn't want blacks to be counted as a whole person because that meant more representatives would be apportioned to the states with lots of blacks in them. The southern states wanted blacks counted as a whole (non-voting) human.
Re: (Score:2)
Plot hole: if the North was capable of forcing such a stipulation on the South, it also would have been capable of forcing the census to ignore slaves - or banning slavery entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Plot hole: if the North was capable of forcing such a stipulation on the South, it also would have been capable of forcing the census to ignore slaves - or banning slavery entirely.
Its actually part of the US Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
> But Australia has a higher quality of life
Disraeli would be proud of you.
Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to get through the day.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the US and I cannot name too many businesses that would be okay accepting greater than $10K in a single transaction in literal cash (as opposed to a bank transfer or cashier's check).
Casino's
Well, good luck attracting drug kingpins then (Score:5, Funny)
They're all moving back to Miami, where you can buy a mansion with a suitcase full cash still. The real estate agent will even agree to clean the coke dust off for free.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Kingpin is trying to avoid financial scrutiny then paying in cash isn't enough. You may pay the owner in cash, but somebody will have to make a bank deposit eventually. Any Banking transaction in excess of $10K is reported, cash or otherwise in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you heard of a safe. If you are operating in cash what is the bank for?
Usually, a bank (or some company subject to the reporting laws) is involved in a real estate transaction in some way. Unless the real estate being purchased has no leans (unlikely) you are going to trigger a report when the bank gets paid and the lean released. If the title is free and clear, the seller will be required to report the sale on their taxes, even if no capital gains are involved. Also, if the property value exceeds just under $170K the realtor will be getting paid in excess of the reporting
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto Currency (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for the recommendation to move to Crypto Currency for all transactions over $10K. - Australian Unintended Consequences Department.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Crypto Currency (Score:4, Interesting)
Australians put up with that crap?
Re:Crypto Currency (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, just like in the United States, for example, Form 8300 and Reporting Cash Payments of Over $10,000 [irs.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
Go for it (Score:2)
Has anyone told Orwell? (Score:3)
I don't know about Australia (Score:3)
But one of the things that as an American gets me about our government is the same people who would propose this will suddenly say "it's not arming terrorists when we discover that they're really misunderstood freedom fighters." Money laundering laws exist in no small part to prevent terrorist groups from self-financing and yet there has not been a single elected official arrested, let alone prosecuted and convicted, for activity that helps violent political groups.
Prelude to interrogation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 11 years I drew precisely two cheques. It was like autographing a dinosaur. 99.9% of my financial activity was direct debit, automated credit, or pay wave.
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases there's nothing to pay off. My savings account was linked to a Mastercard number and I never paid anything ever above the purchase cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but the cash price and the debit price at checkout are the same. The banks have to make a living too, and it's faster to paywave than to fumble around with notes and coins.
Only for businesses. (Score:2)
Can't police person-to-person transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that still wont work. There's no official oversight of the transaction itself.
Even if bills had RFID in them you would have to keep record of who has possession of every bill, and track every single change in ownership of each bill, which is impossible if people can just hand them to each other like... pieces of paper.
I can buy a car for $12,000 from you, and then you can fill out a bill of sale saying I only paid $9,000. I'm under the limit and now how does the government prove I paid more? How do they
knew this day would come (Score:2)
Common knowledge in AU (Score:2)
I was there for 11 years so I'm not blowing smoke. Any home project, after you get quoted, you ask what's the cash price. It comes down about 40%. 10 grand can pay for virtually every home improvement imaginable.
Very good solution (Score:2)
However, cash must remain possible for smaller amounts. The government does not need to know what I eat, drink or smoke (legal or not...).
Easy circumvention (Score:2)
1) Buy $9999 worth of gold. ...
2) Repeat.
3) Repeat.
4)
Use gold to buy house or car.
What the hell happened to Australia? (Score:3)
10 year olds flying planes
9 year olds driving around in 'utes'
Anything less than 10,000 acres is a hobby farm
Everyone carrying a rifle or two
Everyone too relaxed and chilled out to bother worrying about anything
Then I had someone visit from Aussie land and it turns out you need a fcuking license to drive a jetski. In the open ocean where it's an absolute torture to even find someone to crash into. Everything is gone health and safety like in the UK and the cops are hiding behind every corner to hand out fines. What the hell happened to this once-carefree country?
Re:First they ban guns, then they ban money (Score:5, Informative)
What next? Free speech?
No need to take free speech... They don't have that now.. https://www.lifehacker.com.au/... [lifehacker.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
No, next is cash payments of $5000, then $1000, then they force people to a cashless economy for any purchase over $100.
"Cash for Clunkers" raised used car prices (Score:2)
Obama's "Cash-For-Clunkers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] program took an entire generation of affordable older cars oout of circulation. As per "supply and demand", artificially reducing the supply raised prices. What else did anyone expect?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's "Cash-For-Clunkers" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... program took an entire generation of affordable older cars oout of circulation.
No, it really didn't. All the top trade-ins were POSes.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know what an affordable older car *is*, do you?
I've owned some 30 cars, all of them affordable older cars. You're out of your element, Donny.
By definition, old and affordable generally means it's shitty.
No, that's horse shit. Cars get affordable when they get old whether they're good or not, just because they're old. Sure, there's a handful of outliers, but most people don't want old cars even if they are good.
If you actually look at the cash for clunkers page, the top ten vehicles turned in are actually vehicles that got shit mileage and were horribly unreliable. Why don't you try this now?