Car Leasing?

 I'd like to ask about one of the most notoriously unfrugal financial
practices -- car leasing.

Car leasing gets a bad rep in personal finance literature because of
the silly people who only look at monthly payments and see they could
lease a BMW for three years for the same payment they could buy a
Camry.  Of course, the lessors have nothing after three years while
the buyers have a Camry.  Solution: lease the same car you would buy.

Of course, the MOST frugal way to own a car is buy used and drive
until it rots.  That is, it's the most frugal way if the non-
automotive cost of a non-working car is low.  For me, it's high
because of where I live and work.

My prefered solution is own a car for the first three years of its
life and anticipate zero problems.  (I have missed one-half day of
work for car problems in the nine years I've own a car less than three
years old.)

Given that I'm going to hold a new car for three years, is there any
big difference between leasing and buying?

  dugolson@peoplepc.com wrote:

If you choose the car properly, you shouldnt get any problems in the
next 3 years after that either.


Much more frugal to choose the car well and keep it for much more than 3 years.


Big difference if you keep it for more than 3 years which is what you should be
doing.

 dugolson@peoplepc.com wrote:


Not exactly.   A GM vehicle will likely rot a whole lot faster than a
Honda or Toyota.



Depends on the deal.  I've seen some  leases that required too much to
buy the car after three years, but some that allowed one to buy the car
cheaper (marginally) than if  one was to buy a 3 yr old car.

If you can get a good upfront deal and can get a good price by selling
the car after three years (not via trade), you can be better off buying
/ selling vs. holding on to a car and much better than leasing. However,
there are too many variables to make a blanket statement - especially
the within make / model being considered.

Hondas & Toyotas tend to hold their value, so selling after three years
might be better than holding (or leasing).  On the other hand, GMs &
Fords tend to depreciate significantly within 3 years where their resell
value is generally poor.  Leasing in that case might be better
considering their typically poor return after three years.

I've always been under the impression that leasing makes sense for
businesses who get tax  write-offs  & don't want to  get involved with
the cost of  selling cars after three years, but  outright buying is
usually better for the individual - especially if they have a ready
market for their 3-yr old (or 5-7 years old) car, without relying on  a
trade value.

 On Tue, 29 May 2007 19:21:10 -0400, clams casino


Bullshit

 Ward Abbott wrote:


Still in denial?

You obviously have not owned both nor want to face the facts.