Am I a sucker for leasing all of our family cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leasing is a horrible deal for the consumer and a great deal for the dealership. Just looked up the Tahoe and even if you pay sticker price, that's 950/month if you qualify for 0% interest.

SO lets do some simple math, 600*120=$72,000 for a decade of leasing Tahoe's. Meanwhile the cost of buying (at sticker) is only $57,000.

Did you calculate the time value of money for the $57,000 up front? (I don't lease, always pay cash, but I just wondered if this was truly apples to apples).

It isn't. I ran the numbers.

OP could invest $72k at the start of the decade at 7% and end up with $141,635 at the end. Interest of $69,635 lets him be only $2,500 out of pocket. While the PP paid $57,000 at the start of the decade and by the end of is out $57,000 and is stuck with a 10 year old Tahoe.

I realize that most families don't have tens of thousands of dollar lying around, but if they do, leasing makes more sense.

I did the complicated math again. Assuming pp had brought their Tahoe for cash and invested the $15k difference adding $600each month, they would have $128,986, interest of $41,986.


Time Value of Money

[Anonymous]

Not if you're wealthy, OP. Loaning is a rich people concept.

We stick to reliable Japanese cars, it's cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Fools rent, owners buy.

It’s not always that simple regarding vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leasing is a horrible deal for the consumer and a great deal for the dealership. Just looked up the Tahoe and even if you pay sticker price, that's 950/month if you qualify for 0% interest.

SO lets do some simple math, 600*120=$72,000 for a decade of leasing Tahoe's. Meanwhile the cost of buying (at sticker) is only $57,000.

Did you calculate the time value of money for the $57,000 up front? (I don't lease, always pay cash, but I just wondered if this was truly apples to apples).

It isn't. I ran the numbers.

OP could invest $72k at the start of the decade at 7% and end up with $141,635 at the end. Interest of $69,635 lets him be only $2,500 out of pocket. While the PP paid $57,000 at the start of the decade and by the end of is out $57,000 and is stuck with a 10 year old Tahoe.

I realize that most families don't have tens of thousands of dollar lying around, but if they do, leasing makes more sense.

There are a lot of things wrong with your math. First, a 10 year old Tahoe still has residual value. Second of all, people who lease don’t have $72k to invest up front. They make the payments over time. So your interest calculations are wrong too.

Dealerships wouldn’t push leasing so hard if it weren’t the best deal...for THEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leasing is a horrible deal for the consumer and a great deal for the dealership. Just looked up the Tahoe and even if you pay sticker price, that's 950/month if you qualify for 0% interest.

SO lets do some simple math, 600*120=$72,000 for a decade of leasing Tahoe's. Meanwhile the cost of buying (at sticker) is only $57,000.

Did you calculate the time value of money for the $57,000 up front? (I don't lease, always pay cash, but I just wondered if this was truly apples to apples).

It isn't. I ran the numbers.

OP could invest $72k at the start of the decade at 7% and end up with $141,635 at the end. Interest of $69,635 lets him be only $2,500 out of pocket. While the PP paid $57,000 at the start of the decade and by the end of is out $57,000 and is stuck with a 10 year old Tahoe.

I realize that most families don't have tens of thousands of dollar lying around, but if they do, leasing makes more sense.

Your investments have made 7 percent regularly all decade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leasing is a horrible deal for the consumer and a great deal for the dealership. Just looked up the Tahoe and even if you pay sticker price, that's 950/month if you qualify for 0% interest.

SO lets do some simple math, 600*120=$72,000 for a decade of leasing Tahoe's. Meanwhile the cost of buying (at sticker) is only $57,000.

Did you calculate the time value of money for the $57,000 up front? (I don't lease, always pay cash, but I just wondered if this was truly apples to apples).

It isn't. I ran the numbers.

OP could invest $72k at the start of the decade at 7% and end up with $141,635 at the end. Interest of $69,635 lets him be only $2,500 out of pocket. While the PP paid $57,000 at the start of the decade and by the end of is out $57,000 and is stuck with a 10 year old Tahoe.

I realize that most families don't have tens of thousands of dollar lying around, but if they do, leasing makes more sense.

There are a lot of things wrong with your math. First, a 10 year old Tahoe still has residual value. Second of all, people who lease don’t have $72k to invest up front. They make the payments over time. So your interest calculations are wrong too.

Dealerships wouldn’t push leasing so hard if it weren’t the best deal...for THEM.

There's nothing wrong with the math, you just don't want to accept it.


The fact is, using my scheme you can lease a car for what amounts to less than $1 a day.


Most of you "buying outright is the morally superior choice" people don't seem to be acquainted with basic economic concepts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leasing is a horrible deal for the consumer and a great deal for the dealership. Just looked up the Tahoe and even if you pay sticker price, that's 950/month if you qualify for 0% interest.

SO lets do some simple math, 600*120=$72,000 for a decade of leasing Tahoe's. Meanwhile the cost of buying (at sticker) is only $57,000.

Did you calculate the time value of money for the $57,000 up front? (I don't lease, always pay cash, but I just wondered if this was truly apples to apples).

It isn't. I ran the numbers.

OP could invest $72k at the start of the decade at 7% and end up with $141,635 at the end. Interest of $69,635 lets him be only $2,500 out of pocket. While the PP paid $57,000 at the start of the decade and by the end of is out $57,000 and is stuck with a 10 year old Tahoe.

I realize that most families don't have tens of thousands of dollar lying around, but if they do, leasing makes more sense.

Your investments have made 7 percent regularly all decade?

around that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leasing is a horrible deal for the consumer and a great deal for the dealership. Just looked up the Tahoe and even if you pay sticker price, that's 950/month if you qualify for 0% interest.

SO lets do some simple math, 600*120=$72,000 for a decade of leasing Tahoe's. Meanwhile the cost of buying (at sticker) is only $57,000.

Did you calculate the time value of money for the $57,000 up front? (I don't lease, always pay cash, but I just wondered if this was truly apples to apples).

It isn't. I ran the numbers.

OP could invest $72k at the start of the decade at 7% and end up with $141,635 at the end. Interest of $69,635 lets him be only $2,500 out of pocket. While the PP paid $57,000 at the start of the decade and by the end of is out $57,000 and is stuck with a 10 year old Tahoe.

I realize that most families don't have tens of thousands of dollar lying around, but if they do, leasing makes more sense.

I did the complicated math again. Assuming pp had brought their Tahoe for cash and invested the $15k difference adding $600each month, they would have $128,986, interest of $41,986.


Time Value of Money

+1

We did these calculations when we were searching for a new suv 4 years ago. We ended up leasing.

[Anonymous]

Interesting math in this thread. The CPAs in fantasy land are assuming a 10 year old Chevy Tahoe with 140,000 miles didn't break down once?

What's the quality of life / peace of mind loss driving an ancient SUV instead of a worry-free new one? Are clients going to think you're going broke pulling up to lunch or the country club in that beaten old Tahoe? Doesn't the old one get inferior gas milage? Does the old one cost more to insure as it has no modern safety features? Doesn't it cost to get loaner cars when it's in the shop?

7% every year for 10 years is a bit optimistic as well...

idk why make money if you can't spend it. Why doesn't everyone drive beaters and live in crummy "value" neighborhoods....

[Anonymous]

Trading in or selling a new-ish car you own is a PITA and it's easy to get taken. Gave me serious anxiety and wasted a lot of time last time I had to go through that process. If the dealer is making a couple grand off me on a lease, so be it, worth it to avoid the headache. Knock on wood we've had only good lease trade-in experiences, no surprises, and I do good research to get solid deals.

That said, I've seen some people lease and get SERIOUSLY ripped off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Fools rent, owners buy.

It’s not always that simple regarding vehicles.

+1. My parents tended to lease at least one of their two cars. Partly because my dad worked at a car dealership and could get a slightly better deal. Partly because they never had a good chunk of $$ laying around for a down payment. Partly because with leasing there were no unexpected maintenance costs. They thought it was better to pay a bit more each month than get stuck with an unexpected $2k bill. So no, it’s not just rich people that lease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trading in or selling a new-ish car you own is a PITA and it's easy to get taken. Gave me serious anxiety and wasted a lot of time last time I had to go through that process. If the dealer is making a couple grand off me on a lease, so be it, worth it to avoid the headache. Knock on wood we've had only good lease trade-in experiences, no surprises, and I do good research to get solid deals.

That said, I've seen some people lease and get SERIOUSLY ripped off.

+1

we are busy professionals with young families. I am glad we're never doing the whole trade in thing again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leasing is a horrible deal for the consumer and a great deal for the dealership. Just looked up the Tahoe and even if you pay sticker price, that's 950/month if you qualify for 0% interest.

SO lets do some simple math, 600*120=$72,000 for a decade of leasing Tahoe's. Meanwhile the cost of buying (at sticker) is only $57,000.

Did you calculate the time value of money for the $57,000 up front? (I don't lease, always pay cash, but I just wondered if this was truly apples to apples).

It isn't. I ran the numbers.

OP could invest $72k at the start of the decade at 7% and end up with $141,635 at the end. Interest of $69,635 lets him be only $2,500 out of pocket. While the PP paid $57,000 at the start of the decade and by the end of is out $57,000 and is stuck with a 10 year old Tahoe.

I realize that most families don't have tens of thousands of dollar lying around, but if they do, leasing makes more sense.

There are a lot of things wrong with your math. First, a 10 year old Tahoe still has residual value. Second of all, people who lease don’t have $72k to invest up front. They make the payments over time. So your interest calculations are wrong too.

Dealerships wouldn’t push leasing so hard if it weren’t the best deal...for THEM.

Why can't they have 72k? you had 52

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you could buy a new car and then just have a rental delivered to your house or the shop whenever you need to leave it for repairs (which is unlikely in the first 3 yrs anyway).

I think you just like knowing that someone else is responsible for the car -- like having a personal car butler. But, don't fool yourself. You are paying a lot to have the latest and greatest.

I'm happily driving my 2004 camry! I don't have any ego tied up in having an impressive car. It's comfortable and gets me where I need to go. My friend is looking to sell her 2012 camry. I test drove it and it was great! I want to buy it (for $9000). To me, it is like a new car. So smooth and responsive and quiet.

I think you have acclimated yourself to "new with all the bells and whistles" and now you are trying to justify it.

If you are going to throw money away by getting a new car every 3 years, then you might as well do the lease. But, don't kid yourself. Cars are quite nice after three years too... and they are a lot cheaper if you buy them rather than rent them.

You could probably hire a personal concierge to bring you a rental car and then take your (purchased) vehicle to the shop for you at a lower cost than you are paying to lease it.

I don't think I could ever describe a 2012 camry as "great"

[Anonymous]

I’ve posted this several times in other posts but the lease worshippers always skip over it and ignore it because it doesn’t fit their narrative. My friend and I bought new Honda Odyssey’s within a month of each other. Same packages. We paid cash in full. They leased for $500/month. 3 years later we both swapped them out for new vans. DH and I had to pay $10k + our old van for the new van. So our old van depreciated $10k in 36 months, or $277/month.

Apples to apples and I paid almost half what my friend did.

Again, lease if you want. No one cares. But stop insisting it’s cheaper. It isn’t, not even close.