Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
One other thing because I know I was originally dismissive of your point. It's true you can have the option to buy for less than the value of the vehicle. I lease a Tacoma through my work right now and I'm expecting the buy-out price to be lower than the value of the truck, in which case we will either buy it and keep it, or buy and sell it.
It can also happen the other way - before the Tacoma, our Ranger was off-lease in 2008 and the buy-out price was more than the value, so obviously we gave it back and weren't out anything.
What's strange about a pro-lease argument to me is the point you raise as being such a benefit is ultimately to buy used at the end of the term. So it seems like we agree on that point - buying a 2-4 year old car makes the most sense out of any of the options.
After this lease is up I don't think we're going to lease a truck again. I'd rather buy something used, forgo the tax write-off a lease provides, and I think we'll be ahead of the game.
|
I don't think we actually disagree. The only situation where leasing could make sense is if you want a new vehicle every 2-5 years. It's a big assumption, because it's a lot cheaper to buy used and/or keep your vehicles for a long time. In that specific situation, the main value you get is that someone else is taking the risk of resale value for you, but you probably pay a bit more on average to avoid that risk.
I actually liken it to fixed vs variable mortgage rates. Variable is cheaper on average, but a bit more risky. Leasing a car is probably more expensive on average, but someone else is taking the risk the vehicle will be worth less than expected at the end of the term.