|
Cpaka posted:For reference, that's a mere 23,280$ paid out over the course of 48 months, on a car with a 16,700$ MSRP. Oh, and you don't even own it at the end.  indeed. How do you even get roped into a deal that bad? Do people just waltz into the dealership and say "I wan' thatta one" and let the salesman fill out all the paperwork?My mind is truly blown. Even if they didn't understand the residual value clause and all that, you would think that they would at least do $485 * 48 and look at the goddamn window sticker on the car and ask themselves why they are paying $6500 more than the listed price of the car! That's nearly 40 cents more on every dollar. I remember the guy a few months ago who bought that Sentra on a ridiculously high lease-to-not-own kind of deal, but I can't imagine that anyone but the absolute dumbest 0.1% of people fall for such things. Maybe those "workplace-level" math courses in high school that teach you how to write checks and make a budget aren't as big as waste of time as they appear to be.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Your Total of Payments is *always* significantly over stickerprice. Always. Presuming you pay cash for tax, title, license, etc. and don't have anything to reduce the initial $16700 loan amount, total of payments is $2420 more than sticker, and when you factor back in what you spent in cash on TT&L, you're still ~$4100 over 'sticker', and that's a *good* deal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 21:27
|
|
|
Jabs posted:Your Total of Payments is *always* significantly over stickerprice. Always. And then you can sell the car in four years for $10000 and come in, overall, at $10k, or ~7k below sticker. I don't see the point in buying a current-model-year car, but at least then you're getting a shiny new car with a warranty for $2500 a year. Leasing seems to be made for the very rich and superficial, or the very stupid. [e] just saw the previous page -- a 4 year old xB is worth $10k, not 7, so that's an even better deal. orange lime fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Nov 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 21:31
|
|
|
Jabs posted:Once you step outside thinking of a car as an asset (because it's not - it's a liability - c.f. paying $21,033 for something worth $10157), leasing begins to make sense, and has a few advantages over purchasing. You're really not making a good case here. You're saying "why would you pay $21k and end up with something worth $10k" but leasing "makes sense" if you pay $21k and end up with no property at all?  There are very few people for which leasing makes sense -- in that, leases are not unlike interest-only mortgages. 1- they make sense for the people leasing the car to a customer. It's a steady trickle of income over the next 36 to 48 months, and you get the car back. You usually also get to charge the customer all kinds of fees, including a big gently caress-off repair bill at the end where you charge the customer for repairs for everything that's been breathed on wrong during the life of the car. *And* you may be able to legally enforce the blue-book value of the car by charging the lessee the difference between what the car is nominally worth and what your salesman is able to sell the car for, depending on the lease contract (fine print, people!). Don't forget excess mileage fees too. 2- they make sense to people who own their own company and are getting the car for company purposes. Tax laws may give leasing a big advantage over buying in accounting terms -- it's an expense rather than an asset acquisition, you can fully reclaim the tax you paid on each lease payment whereas you can only reclaim the tax on the first $30k of a car purchase, etc. 3- they "make sense" to people who have no money, no assets and no sense of what things are worth, but have a vague idea of what they can afford to pay per month. That's how leases are usually sold to people. That's almost certainly how that Scion was "sold" to the guy now trying to get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 21:51
|
|
|
Actual gold loving AI http://calgary.kijiji.ca/c-cars-vehicles-ATVs-snowmobiles-snowmobiles-TURBO-SNOW-DIRT-BIKE-W0QQAdIdZ168100152 quote:TURBO CHARGED , 4 STROKE, 550 cc HUSABERG DIRTBIKE WITH 2-MOTO TRACK KIT & SKI. MANY EXTRAS INCLUDING TANK, STAND ALSO WHEELS TO CONVERT TO MOTORCYCLE IN 2 HOURS. VERY FAST & WILD RIDE IF YOUR UP TO IT. HAVE MORE THAN $24000 INVESTED.ONE OF THE FIRST TURBO'D IN WORLD. CALL NEIL KREBS 403-818-7474 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 22:36
|
|
|
Jabs posted:If you have no money/trade down, it's not that different a deal, really. If he had gotten a loan and purchased the car he would own the car at the end
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 23:30
|
|
|
slidebite posted:Actual gold loving AI While that looks cool and all...how stable would it be without a great big gyroscope on each end?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2009 23:36
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:If he had gotten a loan and purchased the car he would own the car at the end And then he could sell it for $10k and buy another new car, and still have the warranty/never a used car/etc stuff, but he'd have recovered the 10k instead of throwing it away so the dealership can resell it. I really, really don't understand leasing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 00:11
|
|
|
orange lime posted:And then he could sell it for $10k and buy another new car, and still have the warranty/never a used car/etc stuff, but he'd have recovered the 10k instead of throwing it away so the dealership can resell it. Well, there are online resources to help you understand leasing, which is always superior to buying outright. To get to that monthly payment, the person in the ad is either leasing a $35k car, or a $20k car with a 20% interest rate. It is possible that this was a bad deal, but it would be a bad deal regardless of the method.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 00:53
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:While that looks cool and all...how stable would it be without a great big gyroscope on each end? As a sled? Well, there would be some minor gyroscopic effects but the width of the track would probably be the bulk of the help. quote:And then he could sell it for $10k and buy another new car, and still have the warranty/never a used car/etc stuff, but he'd have recovered the 10k instead of throwing it away so the dealership can resell it. It really depends on the lease and whats calculated for the residual and interest rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Well, there are online resources to help you understand leasing, which is always superior to buying outright. To get to that monthly payment, the person in the ad is either leasing a $35k car, or a $20k car with a 20% interest rate. It is possible that this was a bad deal, but it would be a bad deal regardless of the method. It's only superior to buying if you enjoy paying for a rental car for extended periods of time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 01:51
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Well, there are online resources to help you understand leasing, which is always superior to buying outright. To get to that monthly payment, the person in the ad is either leasing a $35k car, or a $20k car with a 20% interest rate. It is possible that this was a bad deal, but it would be a bad deal regardless of the method. Since you're the champion of leasing in this thread, please link some of these resources online that show that leasing "is always superior to buying outright".
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 02:21
|
|
|
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/1469242497.htmlLEVI posted:PEOPLE!!! PAY ATTENTION! IVE POSTED THIS CAR ON HERE 3 TIMES. IF YOU DONT WANT IT I UNDERSTAND JUST DONT SET UP A DAY TO COME LOOK AT IT AN THEN DONT EVEN SHOW OR CALL! JUST SAY I DONT WANT IT BUT I SHOULDNT HAFT TO WORRY CUS IMA TELL YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT IT AN IF U CALL AN ASK QUESTIONS AN SCHDULE A DATE IM HANGIN UP U BETTER CALL TO BUY IT I HATE BEING LIKE THIS IM USUALLY A NICE GUY BUT YALL TOOK IT FOR GRANTED. NOW THATS OFF MY CHEST DOWN TO BUISNESS. I HAVE A 77' TOYOTA CELICA FOR SALE. A RARE CAR. LOOK IF YOUR LOOKIN FOR A RUNNING CAR OR A EVERYDAY CAR AN DONT GIVE poo poo ABOUT WORKING ON IT.. OR AINT GOT THE MONEY TO HAVE SOMEONE DO IT. STOP READING. THE CAR IS NOT RUNNING DUE TO A COIL AN A STARTER THAT MY BROTHER IN LAW TOOK OFF TO PUT ON ANOTHER CELICA! BEFORE HE DID THAT THE CAR WAS RUNNING FINE. TALKIN THAT poo poo WAS WOULD SKIRP SECOND AN SWING LIKE A 5.0 JUST NOT AS MUCH SMOKE. SOO ALL YOU.. YES YOU!!!! NEED TO DO TO GET IT RUNNING IS BUY A COIL WHICH IS 40$ AT KRAGEN I HAVE A STARTER FOR THE CAR BUT I DONT KNOW poo poo ABOUT THIS CAR OR MY BROTHER. IT WAS JUST GIVING TO ME AN I WAS GOING TO WORK ON IT BUT THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS THROWING A LS1 ON A RB25 IN IT AN TURN IT INTO A DRIFT CAR. BUT I D RATHER HAVE A 240SX. AINT GOT THE TIME AN MONEY AT THE MOMENT AN I CANT HAVE IT SITTING HERE. SO NOW LETS DOWN TO BUISNESS THE CAR HAS A SR20 IN IT. 5SPD THE CAR HAS 77K MILES ON IT. IT WAS LAST REGERSTIRED BACK IN 2004. AS FOR PASSING SMOG IF YOU GET A COIL AN STARTER IT PROLLY WOULD PASS WITH FLYING COLORS. NOW THE CAR IS PRIMERED. THE INTERIOR 1-10 A 6OR7. THE RIGHT TAIL IS BUSTED CUS OBIVOUSLY SOMEONE SHOT IT WITH A BB GUN CUS THERES ALSO SIX BB HOLES ON THE DRIVER SIDE. SOMETHIN MINOR NOTHIN SERIOUS. RIGHT MIRROR IS BROKEN OFF BUT EASY TO REPAIR. THE CAR HAS RARE MAGNIUSEM WHEELS FOR WHAT I HEAR THEY ILLEGAL BUT HELL IF KNOW I HEARD THE WHEELS WERE WORTH 600 SO IF U WANT EM BUY THE WHOLE CAR UNLESS U PAYIN 600 FOR THE WHEELS THEN COME GET EM.! OK ANOTHER THING THATS REALLY FUCKIN ANNOYING IM TRYING TO SELL THIS CAR BUT PEOPLE WILL CALL AN ASK BOUT THE CUTLASS IN THE BACKGROUND. WELL THATS NOT MY CAR. ITS MY BROTHERS. 71 CUTLASS DOES NOT NEED TO BE SMOGGED! HEY! AN HE SAID HE WILL LET IT GO 3000$ FIRM NO NEGOATION. ITS RUNS GOT A BIG BLOCK. ONE OF THE SCARIEST THINGS IVE ROAD IN.. JUST 10K$ INVEST IT WILL BE A STREET MACHINE ONCE AGAIN. THERS NOTHING ELSE I HAFT TO SAY..WHAT U SEE IS WHAT U GET ALL IM ASKIN IS 600$ FOR THE CELICA. IT NEEDS TO BE TOWED WILLING TO DO IT FOR THE RIGHT PRICE! IF U AINT GOT IT.. THEN DONT BOTHER SAME FOR THE CUTLASS. BOTH CARS ARE RARE! JUST SOME TLC AN THEY WILL BE WORTH DOUGH. SOO IF YO POCKETS RIGHT AN THE LADIES CHOOSIN THEN HEY.. CALL ME. I GOTCHU 7073425015 NAMES LEVI! CASH ONLY. PLEASEE!!  Click here for the full 1133x682 image. Everyone should try to Ctrl+f "and" in that wall of text.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 02:23
|
|
|
ab0z posted:Since you're the champion of leasing in this thread, please link some of these resources online that show that leasing "is always superior to buying outright". I admit that most online resources tend to frame the argument in a ridiculously stupid fashion that misleads a lot of people. 1) The comparison you need to make is between buying a car out right, driving it for x years, and then selling it, vs leasing the car for x years. You must accept this premise if you wish to make a valid comparison. If your objection is "well I really like this car and I'm going to keep it forever and ever", then it ceases to become a valid comparison because you can't lease a car forever and ever, or rather, since the value of the car eventually goes to 0, there is no difference, because.... 2) A car is worth A at year 0, and B at year 0+x, regardless of the mode of ownership. Leasing a car for x years is exactly the same as purchasing a car for x years and then selling it, except that with a lease, THE BUYER HAS THE OPTION, NOT THE OBLIGATION TO RETURN THE CAR TO THE SELLER AT A PRE-AGREED UPON PRICE. If you understand what an option is, you understand that it is worth money, since it reduces your risk. A car may be quite popular at year 0, but what if <x years down the road, something suddenly happens that radically reduces the value of the car at year x? For example, suppose you have a GM car with the 3.8l V6 engine that has been found later to have a defective intake manifold gasket? If you own the car outright, you suffer the decreased resale value. But if you had leased, you are protected from this downside risk to some extent, because you have the option of returning the car to the seller at a pre-agreed upon price. 3) Because the lease is an option, and not an obligation, you still reap the rewards of any sort of move in resale value in your favour. It doesn't happen often, but suppose you lease a G8 GXP and then GM discontinues the model forever, making it somewhat collectible. If the resale value is suddenly higher, you can sell the car before the lease is up and benefit from it. I know this was the case with the VW R32, because VW imported so few of them that demand far outstripped supply. There is no downside for the lessee at all. 4) The way a lease is typically presented confuses the buyer with the Time Value of Money calculations, which are somewhat different for leasing than for buying. The key thing you want to understand is that the TMV calculation has nothing to do with the mode of ownership. You want to pay a lower interest rate, regardless of whether you own it or lease it, and you obviously want the highest residual value at the end, which can be negotiated just like the purchase price. You can actually think of them as being the same thing - keep the same purchase price and negotiate a higher residual, or keep the same residual and negotiate for a lower purchase price, it makes no difference. If it is helpful, just go back to the last point and think of the lease as simply you purchasing the car outright at the beginning, and selling it back at the end of the lease. 5) Back in the days of subprime loans, manufacturers could actually offer significant incentives in the form of artificially higher end-of-lease residuals, over and above their usual purchase incentives, called "subvented leasing", because the leases could be packaged up into collateralize debt obligations and sold off the companies books. The German companies in particular have been profligate in this regard, and are now suffering massive losses in their lease portfolios, because they "lost" the bet on leasing. Of course, they weren't going to "win" that bet in any case, on an individual basis, for the reasons I've already explained. The car makers "win" by having another avenue to move units off the lot, since leasing cars, even at disadvantageous terms, is better than keeping unsold units on the lot. Carmaking is a capital intensive business in that respect. The domestic Big 3 have been hit so badly, with their lease portfolios heavy in gas guzzling SUVs whose values plummeted during the surge in gas prices, that they stopped all leasing during the last worst melt down period. Their loss has been the lessee's gain. If you leased a German SUV during the height of the subprime boom, you have reaped a windfall at the expense of the German car makers. If you leased a GM or Chrysler SUV, enjoy your windfall courtesy of the American taxpayers who's money bailed out GMAC. 6) To go back to point #1, what if you really, really want to keep a car for ever and ever? Well, in that case, leasing is no worse than buying - just keep the car at the end of the lease. If the buyout price is higher than the market value for the same car, return it and buy on the used market. If the buyout price is lower, then congrats, you've won. This is overall a stupid idea in any case. Cars 5 years from now are likely going to have more features, more power, be safer and more fuel efficient than they are now, and furthermore, the key question I always ask is if you are willing to drive a 5 year old car 5 years from now, why aren't you willing to drive a 5 year old car RIGHT NOW? It would definitely be cheaper than either leasing or buying a new car right now, and normal people generally want to have better things as they get older and progress in life, I don't know anyone who comes out and says "I really want to spend the money on a brand new car RIGHT NOW, but 5 years down the road? Meh. I've probably given up on life at that point so I'll just keep driving a 5 year old beater.". It's not really an argument for or against leasing, but it's certainly a strange way to go through life. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Nov 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 03:04
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Either you don't understand what leasing a car is, or you're very bad at expressing your understanding of it. In a typical lease your monthly payment is less than it would be if you were buying the car, and at the end of the lease you can either return the car, or pay the dealer the residual value and make it yours. You seem to think that a typical lease is some sort of buy-back agreement. It is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 03:14
|
|
|
Additionally a lease will come with a certain mileage that you can drive per year. If you go over you'll have to pay extra, there's a per-mile/km fee. You have to have comprehensive insurance, and legally the car does not belong to you. Depending on where you live your car may need to have a "fleet plate" if it's leased.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 03:20
|
|
|
quote:In a typical lease your monthly payment is less than it would be if you were buying the car, and at the end of the lease you can either return the car, or pay the dealer the residual value and make it yours. Do you really understand how the monthly lease payment is calculated? It's on the website of any car maker that offers an online lease calculator, if you want to find out. I admit that this really does confuse a lot of people, because the TMV calculation used for a typical lease is not very intuitive. Again, the TMV calculation is irrelevant to the buy vs lease argument. You are paying the interest rate you are paying, regardless of whether you lease or finance. quote:Additionally a lease will come with a certain mileage that you can drive per year. If you go over you'll have to pay extra, there's a per-mile/km fee. This is irrelevant. Of course, as part of your agreement, there needs to be a limit on how far you can drive the car. Mostly the limits are within what a typical person drives the car within the period. If they are not, again, see my point 3. Your car with mileage y is worth x at the end of the lease term, regardless of the mode of ownership. If you feel that the total amout of depreciation you are paying at the end (i.e. all your payments plus the mileage cost) is greater than the actual depreciation, then simply buy the car out and sell it on the used market. Remember, it's an OPTION, NOT AN OBLIGATION. quote:You have to have comprehensive insurance, and legally the car does not belong to you. Comprehensive insurance on a new car is generally a good idea for most people. But you are correct in that respect. If you really want to purchase a new car outright with cash and then not insure it, then yes, your only option is to buy it outright with cash. As for whether the car "legally belongs to you", I don't see how that's relevent either. For all intents and purposes, you have full use and enjoyment of the vehicle. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Nov 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 03:34
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:some points When you explain those points, it sounds a little more sane. You're still wrong about it ALWAYS being superior to buying outright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 03:38
|
|
|
ab0z posted:You're still wrong about it ALWAYS being superior to buying outright. Show me a scenario where this is the case, aside from the one where you want to drive a car without insurance on it. It is true that no one will lease you a car without insurance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 03:40
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Show me a scenario where this is the case, aside from the one where you want to drive a car without insurance on it. It is true that no one will lease you a car without insurance. If you want to drive a lot. If you live in an area where the residuals calculations don't match actual market conditions. If your plans change halfway through the time period in question. And I'm guessing you'll backpedal now and say "by buying outright I meant just buying in general" but "buying outright" seems like it would mean "writing a check for the price of the car". If you "buy outright" a car, you don't pay interest, so it's cheaper. While I personally would never lease a car, I understand that there are situations where someone might be persuaded to. Just don't be surprised when you make sweeping general statements about things like this in a forum comprised of people who know a lot about the topic and people who THINK they know a lot about the topic, and someone calls you out on it. p.s. do you work at a car dealer? ab0z fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Nov 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 04:25
|
|
|
quote vs edit, finally did it
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 04:27
|
|
|
My parents lease because they don't want to worry about maintenance and are trying their damnedest to put 4 kids through college and can't afford to buy a car up front.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 04:36
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Yep. Even down here in Phoenix, where half the population is Mexican, the rotary mechanics are Puerto Rican. To change the subject, when I was at test and tune at Moroso(now PBIR), there were always at least three different groups of a dozen or so Puerto Ricans or so with a rotary-Starlet. They'd get it to the line, try to spin it up for a launch, and it would either kick an apex seal or make a monster 9 second run. Funny bit is, no matter what snapped in the motor, they'd always be tearing it down in the lane and have it up for the next run 45 mins later. We called them Puerto Rican Top Fuel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 04:36
|
|
|
ab0z posted:If you want to drive a lot. I have already rebutted all of your points comprehensively in my first and second post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 04:46
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I have already rebutted all of your points comprehensively in my first and second post. You've convinced me. I've just woken up the manager of the nearest dealer and am going over there right now to lease a car. Thank you for your pearls of wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 04:51
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I have already rebutted all of your points comprehensively in my first and second post. I'm not arguing for or against you, but I thought you might be interested in this thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3213538
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 04:53
|
|
|
I was driving to work one day and saw a tacky as poo poo Fiero driving by. I love Fieros and I DD an 85 I4 so it's pretty cool for me to see another one driving around riced out or not. I pull into a gas station to get something inside and when I come back out I see the Fiero I saw earlier parked beside me with an older man and 16 year old kid looking at mine. I just kind of stand there when the old guy says "this yours?". I tell him yes as they stand there examining my car. The old guy points out differences to his son like the front fascia and how the 2M6 that he has looks better. I get a peek inside theirs and they painted some interior parts red, they have worn out red leather seats, a chromed steering wheel, and chrome shift. I love the original Fiero interiors so it was bit of a slap in the face. The kid pops the decklid without me asking and tells me about the mods like his K&N filter and fart cans. He then points out that he's getting a turbocharger because a forum told him it was "good for 8 psi". I told him that he'd be better off with a 3800 swap. We said our goodbyes and I drove off laughing while they both gave me a wtf look. I like to scrounge craigslist for fieros now and then oh look what I found:  Click here for the full 1024x768 image.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 05:37
|
|
|
I'll freely admit to spending money on stupid poo poo, but I can safely claim I have never dropped $2500 on racing lawnmowers. Click here for the full 1120x1019 image.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 06:31
|
|
|
The Third Man posted:My parents lease because they don't want to worry about maintenance and are trying their damnedest to put 4 kids through college and can't afford to buy a car up front. wow, your parents are stupid. Its way cheaper to maintain a car than to constantly lease one. Your parents are using college as an excuse to have a new car ever 3 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 06:59
|
|
|
The Third Man posted:My parents lease because they don't want to worry about maintenance and are trying their damnedest to put 4 kids through college and can't afford to buy a car up front. So a leased car is maintenance free? Also, you can take out a loan, then buy a car for the money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 12:13
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:
This is retarded because you're discounting one of the major points of buying a car - owning the thing. It's yours, you do with it as you please. Ownership is a big deal in American society, it's the ability to point to something as yours and no one else's. Throatwarbler posted:blah blah more dumb words In this case you're treating a car like a forwards/futures contract, something with an agreed upon price in the future. This is not the case. You don't get money back at the end of a lease. You have the option to BUY the car at the end of the lease for a predetermined price. If you want to buy the car at the end, you have to pay residual value, which is essentially ALL THE MONEY YOU SAVED BY LEASING EACH MONTH. And if you don't want to pay that, you have to take out another lease, which leads to the perpetual-lease cycle. I want to spend more time attacking this, but I honestly just don't care enough. My main issue is leasing is advantageous in the short term, while purchasing is long term. Stringing multiple leases together means continual payments for something you don't own, much like renting a car forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 12:33
|
|
|
quote:This is retarded because you're discounting one of the major points of buying a car - owning the thing. It's yours, you do with it as you please. Ownership is a big deal in American society, it's the ability to point to something as yours and no one else's. This is a trick that any good salesman uses - assigning value to something that has no value. How much money is your "major point" worth? How much money am I willing to pay to say that I am buying something versus I am leasing something, even though I am driving exactly the same car and doing with it exactly as I please in either case? Don't feel too bad about this. A large portion of the American economy in recenty years has revolved entirely around fooling people who are bad at capital budgeting with this little platitude ("renting is just throwing money down the drain, you don't own anything at the end, so you should alwasy buy it"). quote:In this case you're treating a car like a forwards/futures contract, something with an agreed upon price in the future. This is not the case. You don't get money back at the end of a lease. You have the option to BUY the car at the end of the lease for a predetermined price. If you want to buy the car at the end, you have to pay residual value, which is essentially ALL THE MONEY YOU SAVED BY LEASING EACH MONTH. And if you don't want to pay that, you have to take out another lease, which leads to the perpetual-lease cycle. See my points #1 and #5. You are being confused by the same thing that ab0z is being confused by - the differing TMV calculation used in a lease versus a financing contract. You also don't understand what a forward/future is. I urge you to read up on a lease calculator or something. Once you know how to calculate a lease payment by hand, you will understand exactly why you are wrong. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 14:31 on Nov 20, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 14:16
|
|
|
Cpaka posted:Hurry up guys and get on this kick-rear end deal! Throatwarbler posted:This is a trick that any good salesman uses - assigning value to something that has no value. How much money is your "major point" worth? How much money am I willing to pay to say that I am buying something versus I am leasing something, even though I am driving exactly the same car and doing with it exactly as I please in either case? Throatwarbler, is that your scion?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 15:20
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:wow, your parents are stupid. Its way cheaper to maintain a car than to constantly lease one. No, they really aren't, but thanks for assuming that your opinion is the correct one in any and all circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 15:35
|
|
|
ab0z posted:Throatwarbler, is that your scion? You need to drive this 4 door with a 4 cyl come see it in person, you won?t be disappointed. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 15:35
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:You need to drive this 4 door with a 4 cyl I knew that my clever ad hominem attack would sway the argument in my favor 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 15:37
|
|
|
BMW 850ci: $3000 or trade for guns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 16:06
|
|
|
The Third Man posted:No, they really aren't, but thanks for assuming that your opinion is the correct one in any and all circumstances. they can barely afford to put their kids through college so they are guaranteeing a car paying every month to help them afford it? This does not fit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 16:08
|
|
|
This derail is lovely enough without trying to explain my parents' finances and life decisions, so let's just drop it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Bolkovr posted:BMW 850ci: $3000 or trade for guns. Here I'll trade some guns without proper papers for your car without proper papers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2009 16:14
|
|