Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Who's paying the rest?
I understand why someone needs a car to get to a job...but who is going to pay for the insurance? Gas isn't cheap, either.
What happens when the insurance isn't paid and the car is left to dry rot?
Marty
some numbers to think about
Part of the program is that insurance and AAA are paid. However, the program has an 80% success rate - 80% of the recipients get off welfare and stay off welfare - so it sounds like those expenses are minimal.
Why does the program work? Well, if it keeps people working, consider some simple math:
Cost of minimal car insurance for one year in an urbanized neighborhood:$800-$1500 at most (possibly less) for one beater car without comprehensive coverage. This is likely less in rural areas of Western MA where there are pockets of non-urban poverty.
Compare this to the cost of a basic T pass each month for one year: $59 * 12 = $708 This is even more if there are two adults to transport.
That doesn't even factor in the cost of spending hours and hours on the T when you are likely to be earning wages on an hourly basis. It also doesn't factor in the T considering kids 12 and older as adults as far as passes go. If you have a family, having a car saves a lot of fare money.
Then there are areas where there is no transit service, as mentioned above. Furthermore, having a car means being able to get food in larger quantities at larger stores at substantial savings.
If all these additional savings help people get to work and hold a job long enough to break out of the system, it is a bargain. I don't know if people are allowed to sell their cars when they are able to buy new ones or turn them back in, but they likely go to another low income person either way.
The real question is: Why
The real question is: Why should government do this? Why should the government give people cars? Is this something private charities can't do?
More simple math
Cost of a junker car available through a public-private program (including insurance, etc.): $1,000 to $2,000 (assuming the vehicle was overhauled at no cost to the state).
Cost of welfare benefits, food stamps, housing costs and health care etc. for a family for one year: tens of thousands of dollars (depending on family size)
If a car is what it takes to bust someone loose from the dole, then give them a damn car! If 80% break loose because they get this one benefit, it saves us all money. I don't care if it makes certain people uncomfortable - it gets results!
I suppose people like you would rather see people stay dependent just because they must be lower than dirt to become dependent and deserve nothing more than what little they get. Easier to look down on them that way, eh - even if it costs us all way more in the long run.
Once you drive a car, your
Once you drive a car, your are responsible for everything it happens to it, so those people benefiting from donated cars should at least get a cheap car insurance to cover the risk of accident. It's one thing drive a donated car, you don't pay for it, you only pay for keeping it. I think this is how things should work.
color me stupid, but isn't
color me stupid, but isn't having the government pay for your car insurance still a type of welfare? does the government continue to pay insurance even when the drivers get off other types of assistance? and i'm not against the program, necessarily, but i do wish money could go toward creating viable public transportation solutions (admittedly, that's probably WAY more expensive than subsidizing insurance) instead of continuing to prop up a car-based society.
classic case of MA politics and clashing world views.
People are starting with their conclusions instead of ending up with them, cherry picking whatever facts support their opinion.
E.g., 1.)everyone is quick to say this is a highly productive program when in fact it is THEORETICALLY productive.
2.) If those donated cars are like every other car donation program in MA, (and there are a surprising number of them), channeling the donation through a 501-C-3 creates a lot of tax shelter for the donor. IRS changed valuation regs a couple years ago but never budgeted for enforcement, (and that was BEFORE the current meltdown). Values of the donated cars are, shall we say, "aggressive"? How hilarious is it that David is doing the same thing that he is accusing Scott Brown et al of doing?