Anonymous wrote:We own some pretty nice cars. It's a choice and doing so gives us pleasure and puts a little kick into what might otherwise be routine monotony. They're fast, stylish and the interior is sumptuous. Sound system also superb. Depreciation is equal to what others pay in leases because we always strategically time purchases and trade ins. I like the interior craftsmanship, handling, power and amenities of luxury cars. When I grab an airport rental, I'm surprised by the lack of quality and handling.

I think this really sums it up. I think for many Americans we consume to fill up something missing. Our consumption is our happiness and to an extent we display out consumption to prove our worth.

Im absolutely not being a jerk here. I myself have worked hard over the last few years to try to find happiness outside of consumption because ultimately if leaves you empty. It is temporary happiness. I feel like this is a disease that rots the soul.

Anonymous wrote:Why would you want to?

FWIW, I could easily afford a Range Rover (DH is biglaw equity partner). I drive a Sienna, which is a far more practical choice. I prefer to invest my money rather than engage in ostentatious consumption. A car is a depreciating asset.

We're of the same mindset andnhavr a HHI around 500k. We drive japaneae cars and keep each car for 8-10years. We save about 50% of our take home income with tbe goal of early retirement and use the remaining disposable income for travel. A range rover wont get us to retirement at 50.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What it says is that we as a nation are completely bankrupt, Fed salaries and benefits is all money we're all paying - or more accurately, money our children will be paying via their repayment to the long-term bondholders (Chinese and other sovereigns etc) who are advancing us this money today to pay our Feds their 2.8% raise. If you think about it, a Fed employee is feeding their child today with the child's own money that they will earn when they grow up.

The main way out of this mess is for the tax base to increase at a rate that outpaces the Fed expenditures, so that we can start to rebalance the balance sheet. If you want to extrapolate that to say that private sector comp should be better than public sector comp, I guess you could in a sense.

I would gladly trade my S series for a Honda, double my current vacation time, and a pension. But not by putting that bill at the feet of my children, so I drive a nice car instead.

LOL. "I would totally be a fed and make less, but I refuse to do that to society and my children!!!"

Last guy I knew with one was a commercial real estate broker.

trashy

Back to the original post, you can afford these cars if you don't get them new, like several have said.

I bought a used BMW 540 in good shape with about 120k on it for under $10k; done about $5k in maintenance on it over the last five years, will look to sell it for around $2500 this next summer. That'll be six years of use for $12-13k, which is practically the drive-it-off-the-lot depreciation on a new one.
To be fair, I do 95% of my own maintenance work, labor would add a fair amount to my expenses.
Another tip: German manufacturers have started saying certain things (like transmission fluid) are "lifetime fills." What they MEAN is "how long an average first owner will keep the vehicle before getting another one." You might be able to go 300k on the original tranny fluid, but I wouldn't recommend it.

I'll concur with PPs that say "if you want reliable forever, get an Accord." Japanese cars are great for that, but they don't have a lot of soul. So what's important to you?

I've never bought a new car. When I need a car, I look around for a model that excites me, study its pros and cons, then start shopping for a deal. I'm looking hard at a ~2012ish M5 after I sell this 540.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a small business on the side, lease and deduct.

Yeah, that makes is free! You have no idea what you are talking about.

Um, that's how it works. Offsets the cost of the car against the small business's income. Thanks for the MB, Uncle Sam!

OK, I own a business and have a leased car. This is how it works:

Car Lease - 12K/year
Gas, Insurance, Maintenance - about 4K/year.

I use the car for work about 50% of the time - the rest is personal.

Uncle Sam says that 50% of the car's cost is income since it's personal. So that's 8K in income to credited to me that I need to pay about $3200 in taxes on.

So my business pays 16K for the car and its expenses, and I get to pay about $3200 in taxes on the car's value to me personally of 8K.

I can only do this because I drive a lot for work - out of town trips, etc. If you use it for commuting, that is not considered a business expense. Your 20 mile trip each way to the office is not a deductible business expense. If you leased a car and only drove it to commute, you'd be paying taxes on close to 100% of the car's value.

Anonymous wrote:What it says is that we as a nation are completely bankrupt, Fed salaries and benefits is all money we're all paying - or more accurately, money our children will be paying via their repayment to the long-term bondholders (Chinese and other sovereigns etc) who are advancing us this money today to pay our Feds their 2.8% raise. If you think about it, a Fed employee is feeding their child today with the child's own money that they will earn when they grow up.

The main way out of this mess is for the tax base to increase at a rate that outpaces the Fed expenditures, so that we can start to rebalance the balance sheet. If you want to extrapolate that to say that private sector comp should be better than public sector comp, I guess you could in a sense.

I would gladly trade my S series for a Honda, double my current vacation time, and a pension. But not by putting that bill at the feet of my children, so I drive a nice car instead.

House poor

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have a small business on the side, lease and deduct.

Yeah, that makes is free! You have no idea what you are talking about.

Um, that's how it works. Offsets the cost of the car against the small business's income. Thanks for the MB, Uncle Sam!

Anonymous wrote:Have a small business on the side, lease and deduct.

Yeah, that makes is free! You have no idea what you are talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What it says is that we as a nation are completely bankrupt, Fed salaries and benefits is all money we're all paying - or more accurately, money our children will be paying via their repayment to the long-term bondholders (Chinese and other sovereigns etc) who are advancing us this money today to pay our Feds their 2.8% raise. If you think about it, a Fed employee is feeding their child today with the child's own money that they will earn when they grow up.

The main way out of this mess is for the tax base to increase at a rate that outpaces the Fed expenditures, so that we can start to rebalance the balance sheet. If you want to extrapolate that to say that private sector comp should be better than public sector comp, I guess you could in a sense.

I would gladly trade my S series for a Honda, double my current vacation time, and a pension. But not by putting that bill at the feet of my children, so I drive a nice car instead.

Um, the people getting these expensive comped cars aren't Feds! These are the 1% from law and private industry.What the heck are you thinking?

You missed PPs point. He was saying that those Feds are overpaid and don't deserve even their sad little raise and the country isfunding itself on his children's back, while he is doing gods work in sales or what not driving his S class.

Anonymous wrote:What it says is that we as a nation are completely bankrupt, Fed salaries and benefits is all money we're all paying - or more accurately, money our children will be paying via their repayment to the long-term bondholders (Chinese and other sovereigns etc) who are advancing us this money today to pay our Feds their 2.8% raise. If you think about it, a Fed employee is feeding their child today with the child's own money that they will earn when they grow up.

The main way out of this mess is for the tax base to increase at a rate that outpaces the Fed expenditures, so that we can start to rebalance the balance sheet. If you want to extrapolate that to say that private sector comp should be better than public sector comp, I guess you could in a sense.

I would gladly trade my S series for a Honda, double my current vacation time, and a pension. But not by putting that bill at the feet of my children, so I drive a nice car instead.

Um, the people getting these expensive comped cars aren't Feds! These are the 1% from law and private industry.What the heck are you thinking?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are thousands of people in the DMV that get a $1000 monthly car allowance.

This. My buddy is a doc for big pharma and they pay for his Tesla on top of his ridiculous salary.

What about his soul

How much does he make?

What it says is that we as a nation are completely bankrupt, Fed salaries and benefits is all money we're all paying - or more accurately, money our children will be paying via their repayment to the long-term bondholders (Chinese and other sovereigns etc) who are advancing us this money today to pay our Feds their 2.8% raise. If you think about it, a Fed employee is feeding their child today with the child's own money that they will earn when they grow up.

The main way out of this mess is for the tax base to increase at a rate that outpaces the Fed expenditures, so that we can start to rebalance the balance sheet. If you want to extrapolate that to say that private sector comp should be better than public sector comp, I guess you could in a sense.

I would gladly trade my S series for a Honda, double my current vacation time, and a pension. But not by putting that bill at the feet of my children, so I drive a nice car instead.