- quote -

This is the root of the issue - first off, buying a 5 yr old car is
not "slumming it out". Secondly, if it's value you're after, and you
want to drive a "nicer" car, buying one that is roughly 3 yrs old is
usually the best way to go. You get the best value for your money.

Secondly, one of the BIGGEST things to learn as early as possible
about your finances is how extremely important the concept of delayed
gratification is. The more you can practice this, the sooner you'll
be financially independent. If you had the choice of driving your
nice car right now or retiring 5 years early, which do you think you'd
rather do? Obviously it's not quite that simple, but the more you
save (and the earlier you start) the better off you'll be. I wish I
had started when I was just 2 years out of college - you can't ever
replace the value of time where money is concerned.

- quote -

You're saying that 40 is too old to enjoy a car? My parents are all
retired from their careers recently and they're enjoying life to the
fullest, especially since they planned well early on.

Try putting off your car purchase for a month or two. See if it's
still as important as it seems right now.

John A. Weeks III wrote:

- quote -

Well my only debt is the car. I have no other debt. I wouldn't buy a
house now because I move too often. Once I'm decided where I want to
stay I'll find a house.

- quote -

Well I have no intention of buying a house now because I know I will
move in under 3 years.

- quote -

I'm not financially 'well off' - I've just started off less than 2 years
ago in working life - but I save more than my car payments in a year. I
followed all the good advice - have 6 months expenses as cash, regularly
contibute to 403B, and will probably max out my 2004 IRA contibution.
Now if with the rest of the money I earn I can well afford my 'luxury'
car, which is nowhere near 'high end', why not?
BTW, I did not go through 16 years of education to finally end up
slumming it out and buying 5 yr old cars.

- quote -

You cut the rest of the sentence off. It read If I want to own this car
before 40, I have to buy it now! The other option is not have the car,
but then what does one earn for? So that I can have what I want when I'm
too old to enjoy it?

- quote -

You don't know anything about me or most people who post.

- quote -

In article <c7o6ar$igk$1[at]murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> , SD
<siddharthgdalal[at]COLDmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

First off, the original poster had ton of debt. Most folks that
I come across who have small incomes and large debt loads rarely
ever seem to have 3.9% loans. Most are around 10% on the car, and
18% to 21% on everything else.

At any rate, this $462.68 could be put towards a house, and after
5 years, assuming today's rate of appreciation, you might have
$25,000 to $40,000 of equity. Compare that to your car, which
will be worth just about $0 after 5 years, especially if you own it
up here in Minnesota.

Getting that kind of head start on your financial future would be
a major win. That is why I advocate that folks do not spend any
more than they have to on something that evaporates like a car.
It would be OK if you are already financially well off, but a
high end luxury car is not something that someone needs to buy
if they have to get a loan to do so.

- quote -

I like how this is worded..."I HAVE to buy this car". Says who?
Unless someone has a gun held to your head, you don't have to do
anything. This is just a rationalization to justify diving ten
times too deep into debt just so you can pretend to be someone
who you are not by driving an expensive luxury car around.

When people go around thinking that they have to have this or
have to have that, pretty soon they end up having so many payments
that they cannot make the minimums any more. Then they have to
have a bankruptcy.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

- quote -

Well if you are making whatever a year and buy a 30000 car, say with a
5000 down payment and 25000 financed for 5 years at 3.9%. You end up
paying 462.68/month for 5 years + 5000 = 32760$.

Now 32760/5 = 6552 which is easily affordable. Also since 5000 is
already paid, the annual payments are 5552, which is not at all bad.
Just assume your rent is higher for 5 yrs.

In my case I have to buy this car now if I want it before I am 40 (I'm
25 now) because in 5 years I'll have to think about kids and family and
a house and theres no way I'll be able to buy a 30k fun to drive car.

- quote -

"John A. Weeks III" <john[at]johnweeks.com> wrote in message
news:070520041247128413%john[at]johnweeks.com...
- quote -

Our household income is none of your business and how I choose to spend my
money should be neither acceptable nor unacceptable to you, which was the
crux of my message. Each of us has choices about how our money is spent. We
simply must recognize what are the various costs, which may include that we
choose NOT to make other purchases. A person whose income is $25k annually
may not have housing expenses, for all you know. Such a person may have a
handicap which requires a van with a lift, a vehicle which costs
considerably more than $25k. We must all be careful not to judge capital
expenditures of another.

Advice regarding the mishandling of debt is another issue entirely. People
need to see how one choice affects other choices. I don't know anyone who
lives with only what they need. The few single people I know, for instance,
live in accommodations which have 2-4 bedrooms. How many bedrooms does a
single person require? Yet they choose to live in more commodious living
quarters than they actually need. These people likely drive smaller, less
costly vehicles, having chosen rooms over wheels. That is their choice.

Elizabeth Richardson
(And to the person who suggested a 2x2 pickup would have been a better
choice over the van has never lived where it rains over 160 inches per year,
conditions where one would try to protect valuable cargo from the elements.)

"John A. Weeks III" <john[at]johnweeks.com> writes:

- quote -

Definitely not a Segway. They're thousands of dollars and, for
the most part, toys, not transportation.

A bicycle might work for some small subset of folks in relatively
urban or maybe suburban situations.

But your idea is generally the right one. Someone making 50k,
sitting on debt, etc. and in need of a vehicle should probably
be looking at a used Accord or Civic or Corolla or something.
A '98 Neon or Escort is around $4k and a '98 Civic is in the
mid $6k range. '98 Mazda protege is also in the $4-$5k range
and might be the most bang for the buck there.

Such a car, owned outright, with no collision insurance (just
the normal liability insurance and such) would cost almost nothing
to operate and own.

It's unfortunate, but true, that in most of this country, one
just can't get by without a car. I'm lucky - I live such that
I can take public transportation to work - and do so, in fact,
more easily than drive. Of course, I do pay for that - there's
very high demand for homes in my area, and real estate (and
rents) are outrageous as a consequence.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

In article <PcNmc.51972$Xj6.876864[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> ,
Elizabeth Richardson <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote:

- quote -

What you haven't told us is your income. If you are making $250K a
year, then a $30,000 car is acceptable. But if you are making $25K
a year, then a $25K car is absurd. In the example that we were working
with, a guy with a $50K income and a ton of debt, he should have been
looking at a bicycle or Segway scooter, not a luxury car. He simply
had too much car for his income and financial situation.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
- quote -

A small 2x2 pickup truck would have been quite a but cheaper, and would
have had even more room in the back for hauling crates.

John Cowart


======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Request everyone's help to avoid drifting off-topic.

Seems this might be worth a thread on its own.

I purchase a car for its comfort, usefulness and drivability. I don't want a
car that I have to fold myself into. I want a car that feels solid when I
close the door. One of our "cars" is a 1999 Ford Windstar which we bought
new in fall 2000. I did not purchase anyone else's bad driving that broke it
in poorly. We purchased it primarily for its room as my husband occasionally
needs to transport fairly substantial crates and this was the only vehicle
with a large enough cargo area. It is also quite comfortable to ride in and
plan on using it to drive across the country in 2006. We use this vehicle on
weekends. It currently has 7200 miles on it. We also have a 2000 Taurus
which we bought used in 2002, when it had only 10,000 miles (now 17000), We
knew the former owner, a guy in his 70s. I drive this car to work everyday.
It has a V-6, so lots of power, and it's fun to drive. Neither of these cars
is paid for, but will be by the end of this year. Our payments are much
higher than John's $250/month and we pay extra principal anyway.

If you want to minimize your transportation costs and spend your money on
something else, that's your business. One of our vehicles is definitely more
than transportation. Those of you who want smaller, more efficient vehicles
are just getting to and from. The rest of us have other agendas.

Elizabeth Richardson