EKM

I heard a very wise person once say own property that appreciates and rent property that depreciates. I cannot pay cash for an LS460, as soon as my money comes in it is invested in a property or a private placemant or something. I guess if I cashed in a property I could buy a few, but that is not the point. I work with quite a few wealthy people. If they did not inherit it, it was earned with leverage. To say debt is bad is ignorant. I agree if you are buying a luxury car with $ carrying on your credit cards you are foolish. But I have never seen anyone pay for their first home with (their own) cash, nor their first rental property or flip. I've never seen a business started without borrowing (sometimes from credit cards), but in all these instances I've seen incredible wealth generated over a relatively small period of time.

I think a payment should fall within a percentage of income, whether it be a mortgage or car payment. You pick the percentage that fits your comfort level...

wchs125

Since when were rappers RICH and WEALTHY? Only a handful are near/at 9 figures.

daryll40

OK, that's the handful I'm talking about. And even at a "mere" seven figures, they are certainly wealthy (and rich!) compared to where most started from. Although at a "mere" seven figures, they'll probably blow thru the bucks fairly quickly like M.C. Hammer did. "You can't touch dis".

Johnny

I agree with your assertions. Further, some creative credit card debt can also be good. With low interest (2.99%) balance transfers of six month or more, it can take some pressure off already low (6%) interest fully secured lines of credit. There are many ways to work the system in your favor, by moving debt around to get the best overall yield. Especially if the debt is financing higher returns from investments, whatever form they may take. Credit grantors are screaming for business, and are offering excellent incentives that are very beneficial to the wise shopper.

EKM

I have used those offers too. Some banks give you a 2.99% for the life of the balance. I have used these offers to pay down my home equity line and I even bought a '70 Chevelle with one. They are the cheapest money you can get and they actually improve your credit rating if used wisely.

I think posers cannot be defined by income or means, but for the reason they bought the car (which sometimes do coincide). If someone buys a car soley because of the "prestige" or attention they will get they are defining themselves as posers. If you buy the vehicle because you love it and are more concerned with your satisfaction, that is a different story. You might make less $ than the target audience, but we all have our hobbies. If an expensive car is yours, it might even be a cheap one (when compared to equestrian costs etc).

I have been going back and forth between the LS460, S550, and CLS550. I wish the LS came out before the ES as I feel it looks similar to its little brother and not the other way around. I think they are all beautiful cars, the CLS being my top choice for looks alone (and unbelievable power!). The LS appeals to me because it is a little understated and as such more focused on the drivers comfort. I wish it was offered with the touring package on the non-L version.

woppenhe

I save up ahead for all my cars so I can pay and bargain cash prices, but I took the lease. It was a single pay lease, and with my trade I was into my new 460L for three years at 32K or so. The residual was about 44K so the money that I saved, I could put to work. The interest rate on the lease was 4.67% and the CD rate was 5.5%, meaning that this lease was essentially a wash. It was a single pay lease, so I don't make any payments; because it is paid up front the rate is low compared to say a convential lease payed on a monthly basis. After three years I can pay the residal and purchase or simply walk away. If I walk away, I have no car to trade, but I do have the residual that I would have payed as the next 'trade'. If I want the car, I pay the residual and I own it. Hence, I could buy the car but chose to lease. Depending on the prevailing interest rates, it may be a better deal than buying. Remember that a car is a depreciating assset, the sharpest drops occuring in the first three years. This is what make it worthwhile. Such thinking would never work for a house, for example, because you give up the market appreciation potential. If an asset is depreciating, why own it. Only if the residual is greater than the actual depreciation by the end of the lease. This is of course impossible to forcast to the penny, but Lexus has all the statisics in oder to make an informed guess, and you have the ultimate option to buy or walk away. Seems fair to me. Am I a poser, for leasing instead of buying. I used to think that folks who leased instead of bought were indeed trying to fool someone (mostly themselves), but obviously no longer feel that way. It is simply a business decision based on the prevailing deal at the time. Also, there may be other advantages to leasing. I paid tax on 1/2 the value (really the cost of the lease), not the full value of the vehicle. Here in LA, that tax of 8.25% is substantial, as is the resultant savings. I did not have to buy an extended warranty (over 3K) that I would have bought if I was going to have the car longer. If I decide to take the vehicle after three years, I still may have to do this, but it was an initial saving at worst.