controversial opinion: money & finances edition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (other than business owners) who lease cars like to waste money

Not really. Or at all.

People who buy new cars outright pay the lease too. Only for them it's called depreciation and comes out of their net worth instead of their income. Leasers pay the depreciation too and have the benefit of tens of thousands of dollars being tied up in a depreciating, non productive asset.

There are a lot of people, here especially who really have no clue about finance (you included)

Your math falls apart once I own the vehicle outright and you're still paying for a car you'll never own.

Hint: your asset has lost half of it's value and will continue to lose value until its only value is as scrap metal. Not paying it as a lease so all right though

Strange place for an eyeroll, given that you don't even have an asset in this scenario. But sure, feel superior to PP because the depreciating asset that they own is losing value, while the depreciating asset that you rent is also losing value. Makes sense.

Nope, wrong again

I invested the price of pp's car. Worth 4 times that now.

So the cost of your lease is ... free? Yes, that's probably a good deal. It's also a lie, but okay. You're not just spending the money PP spend on his car, you continue to spend it when PP's loan is paid off and you're on to your next lease.

OK, I'll explain very slowly for you

PP has $50,000. PP brought a car with it. 10 years later it's worth $20,000 (a charitable amount). $30,000 loss
I had $50,000. I invested it. 10 years later it has grown to $103,052. Lease payments $65,000. I'm ahead $37,000.


I'll continue to be ahead of PP forever because I chose to take advantage of compounding and because I bothered to look at opportunity costs instead of parroting advice from a personal finance book from 30 year ago that was written for people with 1/10 of my income.

I’m not PP but safe to say I’ve never spent $50k on no damn car, my god

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (other than business owners) who lease cars like to waste money

Not really. Or at all.

People who buy new cars outright pay the lease too. Only for them it's called depreciation and comes out of their net worth instead of their income. Leasers pay the depreciation too and have the benefit of tens of thousands of dollars being tied up in a depreciating, non productive asset.

There are a lot of people, here especially who really have no clue about finance (you included)

Your math falls apart once I own the vehicle outright and you're still paying for a car you'll never own.

Hint: your asset has lost half of it's value and will continue to lose value until its only value is as scrap metal. Not paying it as a lease so all right though

Strange place for an eyeroll, given that you don't even have an asset in this scenario. But sure, feel superior to PP because the depreciating asset that they own is losing value, while the depreciating asset that you rent is also losing value. Makes sense.

Nope, wrong again

I invested the price of pp's car. Worth 4 times that now.

So the cost of your lease is ... free? Yes, that's probably a good deal. It's also a lie, but okay. You're not just spending the money PP spend on his car, you continue to spend it when PP's loan is paid off and you're on to your next lease.

OK, I'll explain very slowly for you

PP has $50,000. PP brought a car with it. 10 years later it's worth $20,000 (a charitable amount). $30,000 loss
I had $50,000. I invested it. 10 years later it has grown to $103,052. Lease payments $65,000. I'm ahead $37,000.


I'll continue to be ahead of PP forever because I chose to take advantage of compounding and because I bothered to look at opportunity costs instead of parroting advice from a personal finance book from 30 year ago that was written for people with 1/10 of my income.

You can't "take advantage of compounding" by putting $50k in the market and immediately, and monthly, drawing down from it. Also you don't get to credit yourself the value of ten years of compounding on $50k and then take imaginary lease payments out of the backend like you drove the car for free for a decade while compounding gains and can then pay out of capital gains after you've made 10 years of gains.

In the more traditional scenario, PP makes payments for 4 years, and then has 6 years to invest more than you're investing because their car payment has ended and *you're still making lease payments.* Meanwhile you have the option to invest the delta between a lease and car payment, which gives you more money for the market than PP in the first 4 years and significantly less money than PP to invest in the next 6 years.

I didn't draw from the investment I paid it out of my income. Maybe in your "traditional scenario" (no one I know takes it) may have a few thousand more dollars, would it realllly be worth it though? Especially if you are a high income earner the difference is academic anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (other than business owners) who lease cars like to waste money

Not really. Or at all.

People who buy new cars outright pay the lease too. Only for them it's called depreciation and comes out of their net worth instead of their income. Leasers pay the depreciation too and have the benefit of tens of thousands of dollars being tied up in a depreciating, non productive asset.

There are a lot of people, here especially who really have no clue about finance (you included)

Your math falls apart once I own the vehicle outright and you're still paying for a car you'll never own.

Hint: your asset has lost half of it's value and will continue to lose value until its only value is as scrap metal. Not paying it as a lease so all right though

Strange place for an eyeroll, given that you don't even have an asset in this scenario. But sure, feel superior to PP because the depreciating asset that they own is losing value, while the depreciating asset that you rent is also losing value. Makes sense.

Nope, wrong again

I invested the price of pp's car. Worth 4 times that now.

So the cost of your lease is ... free? Yes, that's probably a good deal. It's also a lie, but okay. You're not just spending the money PP spend on his car, you continue to spend it when PP's loan is paid off and you're on to your next lease.

OK, I'll explain very slowly for you

PP has $50,000. PP brought a car with it. 10 years later it's worth $20,000 (a charitable amount). $30,000 loss
I had $50,000. I invested it. 10 years later it has grown to $103,052. Lease payments $65,000. I'm ahead $37,000.


I'll continue to be ahead of PP forever because I chose to take advantage of compounding and because I bothered to look at opportunity costs instead of parroting advice from a personal finance book from 30 year ago that was written for people with 1/10 of my income.

You can't "take advantage of compounding" by putting $50k in the market and immediately, and monthly, drawing down from it. Also you don't get to credit yourself the value of ten years of compounding on $50k and then take imaginary lease payments out of the backend like you drove the car for free for a decade while compounding gains and can then pay out of capital gains after you've made 10 years of gains.

In the more traditional scenario, PP makes payments for 4 years, and then has 6 years to invest more than you're investing because their car payment has ended and *you're still making lease payments.* Meanwhile you have the option to invest the delta between a lease and car payment, which gives you more money for the market than PP in the first 4 years and significantly less money than PP to invest in the next 6 years.

I didn't draw from the investment I paid it out of my income. Maybe in your "traditional scenario" (no one I know takes it) may have a few thousand more dollars, would it realllly be worth it though? Especially if you are a high income earner the difference is academic anyway

in your original example you are counting gains on the 50k that the PP used to buy the car, but not accounting for the gains the PP would make if investing your monthly lease payment (which they do not have) for 10 years. So say you have 50k, you buy the car outright instead of leasing. Then you invest monthly the $500 that you now have as “extra” since you have no lease payment. This will also yield ~$100,000. And you have a car worth 20k as well.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

Ah another misinformed person who thinks they know everything.

Anyone who actually knows about opportunity cost, time value of money, weighted cost of capital, present value, future value etc etc etc


Why do you think the fortune 500 finance most of their operations with debt? (tech companies excluded of course)


~ moron with $15,000,000 of debt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (other than business owners) who lease cars like to waste money

Not really. Or at all.

People who buy new cars outright pay the lease too. Only for them it's called depreciation and comes out of their net worth instead of their income. Leasers pay the depreciation too and have the benefit of tens of thousands of dollars being tied up in a depreciating, non productive asset.

There are a lot of people, here especially who really have no clue about finance (you included)

Your math falls apart once I own the vehicle outright and you're still paying for a car you'll never own.

Hint: your asset has lost half of it's value and will continue to lose value until its only value is as scrap metal. Not paying it as a lease so all right though

Strange place for an eyeroll, given that you don't even have an asset in this scenario. But sure, feel superior to PP because the depreciating asset that they own is losing value, while the depreciating asset that you rent is also losing value. Makes sense.

Nope, wrong again

I invested the price of pp's car. Worth 4 times that now.

So the cost of your lease is ... free? Yes, that's probably a good deal. It's also a lie, but okay. You're not just spending the money PP spend on his car, you continue to spend it when PP's loan is paid off and you're on to your next lease.

OK, I'll explain very slowly for you

PP has $50,000. PP brought a car with it. 10 years later it's worth $20,000 (a charitable amount). $30,000 loss
I had $50,000. I invested it. 10 years later it has grown to $103,052. Lease payments $65,000. I'm ahead $37,000.


I'll continue to be ahead of PP forever because I chose to take advantage of compounding and because I bothered to look at opportunity costs instead of parroting advice from a personal finance book from 30 year ago that was written for people with 1/10 of my income.

I’m not PP but safe to say I’ve never spent $50k on no damn car, my god

Neither have I, I kept 50K for comparability, my actual number is around $120

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

You must not know very many rich people, because they all use leverage. It's how they got there, and it's how they keep getting even richer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most people shouldn’t buy houses.

Nailed it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care about having an “emergency fund.” I’m insuranced up the wazoo and have a govt job. Theres nothing I can think of that can’t go on a credit card and then be taken from investments to pay it off.

Sure, let compound interest kick your ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

Curious PP, what is your income?

[Anonymous]

If you can afford to live on this area, you probably have enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People (other than business owners) who lease cars like to waste money

Not really. Or at all.

People who buy new cars outright pay the lease too. Only for them it's called depreciation and comes out of their net worth instead of their income. Leasers pay the depreciation too and have the benefit of tens of thousands of dollars being tied up in a depreciating, non productive asset.

There are a lot of people, here especially who really have no clue about finance (you included)

Your math falls apart once I own the vehicle outright and you're still paying for a car you'll never own.

Hint: your asset has lost half of it's value and will continue to lose value until its only value is as scrap metal. Not paying it as a lease so all right though

Strange place for an eyeroll, given that you don't even have an asset in this scenario. But sure, feel superior to PP because the depreciating asset that they own is losing value, while the depreciating asset that you rent is also losing value. Makes sense.

Nope, wrong again

I invested the price of pp's car. Worth 4 times that now.

So the cost of your lease is ... free? Yes, that's probably a good deal. It's also a lie, but okay. You're not just spending the money PP spend on his car, you continue to spend it when PP's loan is paid off and you're on to your next lease.

OK, I'll explain very slowly for you

PP has $50,000. PP brought a car with it. 10 years later it's worth $20,000 (a charitable amount). $30,000 loss
I had $50,000. I invested it. 10 years later it has grown to $103,052. Lease payments $65,000. I'm ahead $37,000.


I'll continue to be ahead of PP forever because I chose to take advantage of compounding and because I bothered to look at opportunity costs instead of parroting advice from a personal finance book from 30 year ago that was written for people with 1/10 of my income.

You can't "take advantage of compounding" by putting $50k in the market and immediately, and monthly, drawing down from it. Also you don't get to credit yourself the value of ten years of compounding on $50k and then take imaginary lease payments out of the backend like you drove the car for free for a decade while compounding gains and can then pay out of capital gains after you've made 10 years of gains.

In the more traditional scenario, PP makes payments for 4 years, and then has 6 years to invest more than you're investing because their car payment has ended and *you're still making lease payments.* Meanwhile you have the option to invest the delta between a lease and car payment, which gives you more money for the market than PP in the first 4 years and significantly less money than PP to invest in the next 6 years.

I didn't draw from the investment I paid it out of my income. Maybe in your "traditional scenario" (no one I know takes it) may have a few thousand more dollars, would it realllly be worth it though? Especially if you are a high income earner the difference is academic anyway

The point just sailed way over your head and the funny part is you stent even aware that you have been left in the dust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

You must not know very many rich people, because they all use leverage. It's how they got there, and it's how they keep getting even richer.

Meh...my schedule D gains now exceed my w2 income and I'd never finance a car and I definitely would never finance more than 1M for a home, however I do own my home outright.

You make assumptions you know nothing about. I carry absolutely zero consumer debt

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

Curious PP, what is your income?

Zero debt. 300k HHI. Net worth 7.5 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who is not a moron knows that if you can pay in cash you do. A house, a car, whatever.

Those who argue otherwise are still trying to make it rich. Those who have know otherwise.

Curious PP, what is your income?

Zero debt. 300k HHI. Net worth 7.5 million.

How impressive


~ 3.8M HHI , 38 M net worth 15 M debt

Looks like you're a bit of your league