my point is flawed? if someone is debt free and plans to remain that way a reasonable person would assume that he has the money to pay for what ever he is about to purchase, short of stealing this car, that would be the only other way to get it and remain debt free. or am i missing the fourth option - you let me know?
You're missing quite a bit. Why exactly would a reasonable person "assume that a debt free person has the money to pay for whatever he is about to purchase?" Do you think this high school student we're talking about is debt free? I suspect he is but if your assumption were correct we wouldn't even be having this discussion. He would already have a large portion of that needed for flight training.
rather than cloud this "discussion" with the effects of captial gains taxes, lets assume that most people would rather there be a chance of getting a return on their money that losing the 14,000 or 15,000 right off the bat like you seem to suggest by not investing. that would be one hell of a capital gains tax.
Yes, let's not cloud the discussion with relevant facts which refute your position - which facts you clearly don't understand. I did not say or imply that a person would lose $14,000 to $15,000 dollars. I clearly said that the purchase of the vehicle would provide value in whatever form. That, my economically challenged friend is not a loss.
The point concerning the capital gains tax is relevant. If a person invests $20,000 and finances a vehicle the relevant issue is the difference between interest earned on the investment and interest paid on the financing. Because interest on capital investments are generally taxable at 20% that effectively decreases any savings the person may have. If the person is risk averse (such as a retired person who can not afford to lose any of his principle) investing funds in an instrument that would provide a return high enough to offset the interest paid on the auto financing would not be readily attainable in this market if at all. Hopefully, you can see that these issues are relevant to "us regular stiffs."
and his form of investment of his 20,000.00 is a CD at his local bank. High risk stuff there! he will still do better than if he spends stupidly pays cash for the car. his compounded interest even at a significantly lower rate than his loan rate will pay him more interest than he will pay on his loan.
I wonder if you think this response is intelligent? Donalds Trump is not the only person who pays capital gains taxes. If you invest and have positive returns you will also pay capital gains taxes.
CDs are currently getting no better than approximately 3% at the very best. An auto loan for a person with reasonably good credit at a credit union ranges from 4.5% to to 6%. When you add the tax effect to the 3% returns on the CD you're returns are even less than the interest rate on your auto loan. The simple fact is, assuming a $20,000 auto loan and a $20,000 investment, is that you are losing money even when you consider the time value of money (compounding).
You said to run the numbers. Here they are:
Total interest paid on an auto loan over 5 years = $2,6445.48 at 5% interest.
Total interest earned on a 2.5% CD, net of tax, over the same 5 year period = $2,170.01.
Hmmmm. Are you starting to get it? Financing the vehicle and investing the funds in the CD has in effect cost $475.47. If the person had simply paid cash for the car, he would have paid no interest at all. The CD interest did not completely off-set the loan interest which does mean a loss.
a person who thinks that they are as intelligent as you obviously do - must know how significant compounding interst is?
Impressive mind-reading!!
you do not need, nor will you ever get a higher pecentage rate on your savings than you will get on your loan. this would collapse our banking system.
And how exactly is relevant to our discussion?
the only person who is talking about a high risk investments.
Huh?
in my eyes, a high risk investment is still better than lighting 14 or 15 thousand dollars on fire - which is what you are doing if you plop it sown on an automobile.
You're still missing the point. Purchasing an automobile which provides utility (economic term for usefulness - don't want to let your beliefs concerning my intelligence waver) which means you're not "lighting" money on fire. You are receiving value for value. Perhaps you've not been wise in your automobile purchases and have received less than given. Even so, a purchase is an exchange of values.
you will certainly turn that 20,000.00 into 5 or 6,000. this is your advise for this person.
No, you turn the $20,000 into a vehicle which provides utility or value for 5 years. You also have the remaing value of the vehicle.
maybe at 17 years old he can save the money for flight training. how old will he be when he finally has the money? way older than he needs to be.
Well, we agree on this one. If he is unable to pay for flight training with current resources or if he is unable to earn the funds then I am all for financing.
talking a loan also gives him some protection from inflation - there has been some of that in aviation in case you haven't noticed.
Yep. It also exposes him to market risk. That is the risk that the cost of his financing will decrease over time and that he will be paying more for his money than another. Just in case you haven't noticed, money today is much cheaper than it was 2 years ago.
as far as guarentees of his 20,000, my friend there are few if any guarentees in life - you must know this. there are some though, and this is not a comprehensive list ...
That was a very nice list. I don't see its relevance but thanks all the same! Oh, by the way, you do remember that the person we're speaking of doesn't have $20,000, don't you?
your responce to my statement may seem intellegent at first glance but all of the "points" that you make are made totally out of context. each is true in some situation, unfortunately not in this one.
I'm glad to see that you think I'm intelligent!! I think I've demonstrated how my points are relevant. I've "run the numbers" as you sugested. Perhaps you would care to respond to each of my points and demonstrate how they are not relevant? That will be interesting indeed.