Posted by SoCalMike on September 29, 2006, 12:20 pm
Vic Smith wrote:
> I would never do a 401k loan for a car.
i know people that have taken out 401k loans for engagement rings,
boats, 24" wheel/tire sets for their car...
yes, i know many retarded people. i laugh at them on the inside.
Posted by SoCalMike on September 29, 2006, 12:12 pm
SpammersDie wrote:
>>> Secondly, I'd only borrow for a (new) car using a home equity load (tax
>>> deductible interest). If you don't have access to a home equity loan,
>>> think twice about borrowing beyond the minimum amount need for a used
>>> vehicle. Interest will be a killer - it's NOT wise (Not frugal) paying
>>> non deductible interest on an asset that loses money. In that case, it's
>>> best to wait until finances are in better order.
>> Another option is if you have a 401K plan, you may be able to borrow
>> from it and in effect, pay yourself the interest.
>>
>> You'd have to evaluate whether you're better off letting the 401k
>> continue to earn at whatever rate it's earning now or pulling some out
>> and repaying yourself at a fixed rate.
>
> For the 401K borrowing plan, add in the cost of bribing or sleeping with
> whoever you have to to avoid getting fired/laidoff/outsourced from your job
> during the loan period, since most 401K loans come with the stipulation that
> if your job terminates, the entire balance of the loan is due immediately.
>
>
>
because theres an obvious conspiracy there!
regardless, its not wise to borrow from your 401k.
Posted by SpammersDie on September 28, 2006, 3:26 am
(intentionally top-posting to annoy self-appointed usenet police)
It's not frugal to pay any cash for an asset that loses money but then most
people don't buy cars as a way of storing wealth, they buy them so that they
don't have to walk. The ROI on a car for most people is not its FMV value on
trade-in, it's the mobility it gives you while you own it.
So any comparison between the interest paid for the car loan and the
depreciation on the car is beside the point. The OP wants the money to pay
for transportation and he doesn't have. The only meaningful comparison is
between the different options he has for renting that money.
> Interest will be a killer - it's NOT wise (Not frugal) paying non
> deductible interest on an asset that loses money. In that case, it's best
> to wait until finances are in better order.
Posted by SoCalMike on September 29, 2006, 12:18 pm
SpammersDie wrote:
> (intentionally top-posting to annoy self-appointed usenet police)
>
> It's not frugal to pay any cash for an asset that loses money but then most
WTF are YOU smoking? i paid cash for my last new car in july, and saved
at the minimum, $1100 by not financing for 5 years with excellent credit.
if id had shitty credit and could only get a 20% interest rate, id have
paid an additional $13,500 over 5 years... basically buying the car twice.
Posted by SpammersDie on September 29, 2006, 8:03 pm
> SpammersDie wrote:
>> (intentionally top-posting to annoy self-appointed usenet police)
>>
>> It's not frugal to pay any cash for an asset that loses money but then
>> most
>> people don't buy cars as a way of storing wealth, they buy them so that
>> they
>> don't have to walk. The ROI on a car for most people is not its FMV value
>> on
>> trade-in, it's the mobility it gives you while you own it.
>>
>> So any comparison between the interest paid for the car loan and the
>> depreciation on the car is beside the point. The OP wants the money to
>> pay
>> for transportation and he doesn't have. The only meaningful comparison is
>> between the different options he has for renting that money.
> WTF are YOU smoking? i paid cash for my last new car in july, and saved at
> the minimum, $1100 by not financing for 5 years with excellent credit.
Dude, have someone reread you my whole post - slowly this time and maybe
draw you a few pictures and then maybe you won't go half-cocked and make a
completely irrelevant reply based on a snippet.
XML site map