|
baquerd posted:OK, let's say your $6k loan is for 12 months at 2%. That's payments of $505 a month. Your "peanuts" of $65 a month is equivalent to the actual interest rate being 26%. Now, you do get insurance for that, but... Seems like you'd be trading a $65 a month boon for the risk of being out a car AND being on the hook for the loan. Not a good financial trade-off...
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
spwrozek posted:The insurance difference is maybe $30 a month, you have to have insurance you know. You would really take a 20% loan rates instead to 'save' $30 a month on insurance? Ah, I thought you meant the added cost was $65. But no, I wouldn't buy a car on a loan because either the required insurance makes the actual rate you're paying much higher, or you could be stuck sitting there with a loan and no car. Cash only, used only for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
RE: new car chat. I am planning to buy my first-ever brand new car in spring of 2016. My husband and I have a deal. Because I am the one who handles the money in our house, if I can manage to get us 100% out of debt (including the 30-year mortgage) in a time frame that will save us a large chunk of money, he does not mind if I get a brand new car. I have run the numbers a thousand times, and it looks like everything, including the mortgage, will be paid off in December of 2015. For reference, when we bought the house in December of 2006, our total debt load was $176,532, and we had $25 in savings. (Notice how close to 2008 it was? yeah.) Now, our total debt is $77,113, and we have almost $60,000 in various savings and investment accounts. If we stay on track, we are going to save over $150,000 on the mortgage alone. Right now, I am driving a 2006 Envoy that we bought with cash last August that has about 120k miles on it. I plan to give it to my daughter when/if I get a new one. I am looking at a small Nissan SUV, which I'll then drive till it dies. I should add - my husband is a BIG-TIME car guy who can fix just about anything, and has limped our used vehicles along for years past their expiration date. He is currently driving a 2005 Silverado with 220k miles on it, both of our cars run great. However, it does seem like we make a lot of repairs. So... if I plan to buy a brand-new vehicle (with cash or a <2% loan - our credit score is in the 800-ish range, and we will most likely pay it of within a year), and to keep it and lovingly maintain it for probably a decade or so, am I bad with money? My reasons aren't entirely the shiny paint or new car smell, but rather, a nice warranty, knowing how it's been driven and maintained, and to have a vehicle that I CAN keep for more than 5 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
^^^ Aren't there ways you can get a manufacturer's warranty on a used car if it is new enough? If that's true I still think you'd be strictly better off getting a one year old car. I don't think I'd personally celebrate getting out of debt by taking on a bunch more, but congrats on potentially getting your mortgage off your back! SPY earned more than 26% last year for the record. Obviously that can't be relied on but you'd have been strictly better off taking a 26% effect APR loan and investing the difference in upfront cost if you bought a car in 2012. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
April posted:RE: new car chat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Look, the optimal path for basically any financial decision is, "If need -> go as cheap as possible, If want -> avoid". But all work and no play makes Jane a dull girl, nobody avoids splurging on everything. If you have plenty of savings and a paid-off house (that's huge!) then dumping money on a luxury, even a big one, makes you far from bad with money. I mean, if you're aiming for early retirement or some other aggressive financial goal, then you should probably avoid it, but otherwise that sounds fine. Well, we are aiming to retire before 65 as well, but we make decent money, so we should be able to do both. Plus, I'm looking at it as one big purchase to cover 10 years or so, instead of buying another heavily-used vehicle every couple of years, and paying for repairs right off the bat. But I think that paying off a 30-year mortgage in 9 years is something worth celebrating in a big way as well 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Look, the optimal path for basically any financial decision is, "If need -> go as cheap as possible, If want -> avoid". But all work and no play makes Jane a dull girl, nobody avoids splurging on everything. If you have plenty of savings and a paid-off house (that's huge!) then dumping money on a luxury, even a big one, makes you far from bad with money. I mean, if you're aiming for early retirement or some other aggressive financial goal, then you should probably avoid it, but otherwise that sounds fine. Yeah, being good without money is all about getting the most utility (  ) for your dollar. We can give advice on how to, for a given thing you want, make it cost less dollars, but we can't decide what you get utility from. That last step is always going to involve personal reasoning. To me cars are a necessary evil when you live in certain places, and there's little utility that I gain outside the practical benefits offered. For you it sounds like a new car is something you'd treasure, you are more than welcome to factor that into your calculation. Some people really like cars and driving and having a nice car, I'm not one of them, so the only advice I can give is from my own perspective. I try to give that while respecting that other people have different values and they need to adjust for them accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
April posted:RE: new car chat. If you can fit it into your budget while still meeting your already healthy financial goals, it's not the worst idea ever. Getting a bit AI, but I would look elsewhere other than Nissan. They're cars are ok, but they are generally considered the "Chrysler of Japan", which is not a compliment. I assume you were talking about a rogue maybe? I rode in one a while ago and really didn't like the CVT transmission, it seemed to do weird things at weird times. I was pretty unimpressed. When buying new, Honda CRVs almost make sense since they hold their value so well. If you didn't want to spend that much, the Mazda CX-5 is highly regarded as the best all-arounder, offers a fun ride and good MPG. Don't pigeonhole yourself into a Nissan, if you're dropping the bucks I'd rather pay a little more to have it hold it's value better. On the other hand Mazdas also don't hold their value terribly well, but a CRV or Subaru would.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:If you can fit it into your budget while still meeting your already healthy financial goals, it's not the worst idea ever. Haha, close, I've actually been drooling over the Juke (SV model). It looks like they are changing the design next year though, and I don't like it as much, so still shopping around. Thanks for the info!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:^^^ Aren't there ways you can get a manufacturer's warranty on a used car if it is new enough? If that's true I still think you'd be strictly better off getting a one year old car. I don't think I'd personally celebrate getting out of debt by taking on a bunch more, but congrats on potentially getting your mortgage off your back! Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner. We've kicked it around, and our general thought is that you never can REALLY know how a used car was treated, and just once, it would be nice to not have to deal with whatever the previous owner did to it. And like I said, we might pay cash for it, or get a loan as close to 0% as possible for whatever we don't pay up front, and pay it off as fast as we can. And my intention is to keep whatever we get until it falls apart around me, not to get into the "I need a new car every X years" mindset. If I keep the husband around, we can conceivably get 200k+ miles out of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Business, Finance, and Careers ›
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Look, the optimal path for basically any financial decision is, "If need -> go as cheap as possible, If want -> avoid". But all work and no play makes Jane a dull girl, nobody avoids splurging on everything. If you have plenty of savings and a paid-off house (that's huge!) then dumping money on a luxury, even a big one, makes you far from bad with money. I mean, if you're aiming for early retirement or some other aggressive financial goal, then you should probably avoid it, but otherwise that sounds fine. Yeah, that's the problem with so many dispensers of financial advice. They speak as though the only sensible financial plan is to live a minimalist lifestyle and stick every possible penny into one's retirement fund, as if they've never heard the expression "you can't take it with you".
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Yeah, that's the problem with so many dispensers of financial advice. They speak as though the only sensible financial plan is to live a minimalist lifestyle and stick every possible penny into one's retirement fund, as if they've never heard the expression "you can't take it with you". Well if you live a minimalist lifestyle and are fortunate enough in your career, then that retirement can come at 35 instead of 65. Then you can focus on raising kids, or doing work you actually care about regardless of the money, or whatever sort of life goals outside your career you want. It's not taking it with you but its taking back your 40-60 hours a week for thirty years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Coworker stories. The older guys that work with me are obsessed with backup generators. How big is your generator? Can it fit in a truck bed? How much juice does it put out? Which new one are you going to buy this season? (!??!) How often do you test it? How many tv's can it run at once? Can I come see yours sometime after work? (Why don't all of you just read a drat book when the power goes out?) The worst part is that this was happening before Hurricane Sandy, so their one week of generator use has absolutely validated the obsession. It has snowed a ton this year and before the first flake falls on a given day, it's generatorchat for an hour. I do not understand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
Bad financial car decisions: this whole island of Singapore. It costs $100k for any lovely car, and we have some of the best (and cheapest!) public transport in the world. Parking sucks, traffic sucks, and there isn't anywhere you can open up and go fast. There are literally taxis everywhere if you don't want to use the clean and on-time MRT or busses. I love to drive, I love cars, but owning one here is the dumbest unnecessary financial decision. Yet I think we have more supercars per capita than anywhere in the world. My heart breaks for those multimillion dollar superbabies. They want to go so fast and be so fun, but here cannot. Maseratis and Ferraris that have never gone over 50mph. Tragic. Switchback fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Switchback posted:Bad financial car decisions: this whole island of Singapore. It costs $100k for any lovely car, and we have some of the best (and cheapest!) public transport in the world. Parking sucks, traffic sucks, and there isn't anywhere you can open up and go fast. There are literally taxis everywhere if you don't want to use the clean and on-time MRT or busses. I love to drive, I love cars, but owning one here is the dumbest unnecessary financial decision. Yet I think we have more supercars per capita than anywhere in the world. Nah, they'll just drive over to Malaysia and speed there. It's pretty common.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Switchback posted:Bad financial car decisions: this whole island of Singapore. It costs $100k for any lovely car, and we have some of the best (and cheapest!) public transport in the world. Parking sucks, traffic sucks, and there isn't anywhere you can open up and go fast. There are literally taxis everywhere if you don't want to use the clean and on-time MRT or busses. I love to drive, I love cars, but owning one here is the dumbest unnecessary financial decision. Yet I think we have more supercars per capita than anywhere in the world. From what I remember seeing in Hong Kong, all cars were either a taxi or a 80k+ car (in the US. no idea what it cost there). I'm sure the people driving cars made more than enough to not car about the cost. I have also never seen so many Lamborghinis and Ferraris.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:Well if you live a minimalist lifestyle and are fortunate enough in your career, then that retirement can come at 35 instead of 65. Or you get cancer and die at 23 or 52. gently caress
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
The most financially savvy practice is to disconnect your emotions from material things. Figure out what makes you happy (actually happy, not briefly satisfied with your hedonism), design your life around that thing, and take advantage of wealth to achieve freedom to pursue the things that bring you happiness. "You can't take it with you" is usually used to justify a life on the hedonic treadmill. It presents people who care about their net worth as some Scrooge McDuck caricature enjoying a swimming pool of gold coins for no reason other than the experience of having wealth. That's not what we tend to talk about here. The BFC hive mind would absolutely agree with "you can't take it with you" in the sense that you could die at any moment so you ought to free yourself from obligations so that you can focus on living meaningfully. You can't take your net worth with you, but you can't take your ipad or new Nissan or nice tv with you either. When you die, you have to imagine that you could look back on the days and moments of your life and regard them with pride and contentment rather than regret at not buying that next nice thing or lovely resort vacation. Healthy finances and aggressive goals allow you to hop off the hedonic treadmill and take that meaning into your own hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
tuyop posted:The most financially savvy practice is to disconnect your emotions from material things. Louis CK said it best on the current state of our materialistic ways: "You never feel completely sad or completely happy. You just feel kinda satisfied with your products......and then you die." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HbYScltf1c&t=275s
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Maybe the reason AMERICA is bad with money is because car companies release commercials like this telling you to keep working hard to buy their products. PS this car's MSRP is $75,000... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGJSI48gkFc
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:Maybe the reason AMERICA is bad with money is because car companies release commercials like this telling you to keep working hard to buy their products. I hate every single cadillac commercial going right now, they're all so, so awful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:Maybe the reason AMERICA is bad with money is because car companies release commercials like this telling you to keep working hard to buy their products. This is so awesome. I'm going to spam the poo poo out of this to basically everyone. It's the best fuel for the overworked, miserable 20-something professional on the cusp of loathing consumerism and the monsters that it makes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I hate every single cadillac commercial going right now, they're all so, so awful. GM belongs in this thread though. They're the worst with money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:Maybe the reason AMERICA is bad with money is because car companies release commercials like this telling you to keep working hard to buy their products. Where do I have to move to get the month of August off?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:Maybe the reason AMERICA is bad with money is because car companies release commercials like this telling you to keep working hard to buy their products. What I love most about this commercial is that actor played a sociopathic businessman on the third season of Justified who beat teenaged prostitutes to death to take the edge off when the job got stressful. Maybe he should have taken August off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Dragyn posted:Where do I have to move to get the month of August off? France generally has 5 weeks mandated vacation, though the Frenchies I know don't take it off in August. And the funny part is their workers tend to be more productive than US workers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Eurozone countries have like mandated 20 days off or something. I remember I got as much when I worked in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:And the funny part is their workers tend to be more productive than US workers. I'd love to see you back this statement up with something, anything. My understanding is that unless you work in the public sector in France your pretty much on the dole. ***My source: Friends who are French.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Dragyn posted:Where do I have to move to get the month of August off?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:Sweden has a minimum of 5 weeks of vacation, and if you wish you have a legal right to take four continuous weeks of vacation during June-August.  God drat I want to move to Sweden now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
I live in the uk and I took all December off. How many holidays do you get in the land of the free?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Laterbase posted:I live in the uk and I took all December off. How many holidays do you get in the land of the free? 10 if you are lucky. I get any day the stock exchange is closed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Laterbase posted:I live in the uk and I took all December off. How many holidays do you get in the land of the free? 10 holidays plus 15 vacation days here. I can carry some of those over, so I could in theory take a month-long vacation, but generally only people traveling home to India or the Philippines do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Excuse my ignorance but what's the difference between a holiday and a vacation day?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Laterbase posted:Excuse my ignorance but what's the difference between a holiday and a vacation day? Holidays are set in stone (e.g. Christmas) whereas vacation days are taken at your discretion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Laterbase posted:Excuse my ignorance but what's the difference between a holiday and a vacation day? There are "official" nationally recognized holidays that some people get off (i.e. President's day, Labor day, etc.) and then vacations days that are usually part of compensation given by the employer. In my case, I get 23 days a year of what they call PTO, basically time I can take for any reason, and I also get 10 holidays a year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Holiday: a day everyone gets off, like Christmas. Usually federal holidays, can include some lesser holidays if you work for a bank or the court. Vacation: days you get to take off whenever. For instance, I get 4 vacation days a year. I can put those with Christmas Eve and Christmas and get a whole week off. Any other days I take off are unpaid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
[US] I get 13 holidays and 15 vacation days, and an indefinite number of sick days. This is turning into that thread about how much vacation you get, except people are actually posting the useful information (how much they get per year) instead of how many they have banked at this particular moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
fruition posted:I'd love to see you back this statement up with something, anything. My understanding is that unless you work in the public sector in France your pretty much on the dole. It depends what source you use. Looking at GDP per hours worked, France is not as productive as the US (67.32 vs. 59.24) but France is more productive than Germany, the UK, Japan, and South Korea (all countries that are generally thought of as hard working). If you use "real GDP" instead of Nominal GDP, then France is more productive than the US (53.99 vs. 49.52), but not as productive as Greece, another country known for being lazy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_hour_worked
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:22
|
|