A $15,000 difference on a $50,000 car (call it $10k with options (vs 340i)... Before insurance) is still a fairly substantial amount for most ~$50,000 customers. And since I imagine a large percentage of these people lease, you're probably not going to get the $299 320i lease special deals.
If you can afford to live in a neighborhood with $4-5m houses, then in reality you can probably afford to drive almost whatever you want. But the average 3-series owner doesn't have that kind of wealth.
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I wasn't suggesting an individual who chooses to lease a 320i to go for a 340i or the 330i, a large price difference, simply because... From what I've seen in younger crowds, which is also what I was talking about originally and not necessarily families, they'll typically have their parents (or if they've got a decent job) pick out a low end BMW of the 3 series, and option it out to the gills, to the point that it either meets the price of a 340i or exceeds it, and lease or finance that car. The payment is going to be roughly the same or more than the 340i and the insurance will roughly be the same. That's what I'm talking about. It makes little sense to me. You get more options standard when you pony up for higher trims. Lease specials through a dealership, from what I've noted in the last decade, are for a specific trim with specific options. Though BMW, as
@AutoUnion39 says, loves to throw out specials. One could grab a current M5 for "cheap" compared to other cars in its price range on a lease, because that's not a car you'd want to keep due to depreciation and the cost of maintaining it after warranty.
And yeah, I know what you mean. There's a slightly younger couple with 4 kids several blocks from us. I won't drop a name, but the husband and wife are notable, an according to Google have a combined net worth of mid-low eight figures. What do they drive? A minivan, the Odyssey (which is a fantastic value IMO) and a Prius with the snazzy solar roof. While we don't have quite their wealth (maybe by the time I'm an older sod), I value other stuff like investing my money. And yeah, I can buy an insane car most people would kill to have, but I don't fancy having to sleep on the couch or the fact that it draws attention and people would think I'm a dick. I can be a dick, only when needed. I hate to bring age up here, but when you get older, your priorities change. It's why you won't see wealthy households spend silly money on sports car unless the kids are older and off to college or soon going to. A luxury sedan is acceptable, as you pointed out.
There's a stark contrast between what I mean, what you interpreted and what the harsher reality is. I'm not sure what it's like in New England, but on the west coast, I see far too many people your or AU's age range where they make an alright salary, but spend a ridiculous amount of money financing or leasing a car that they shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Because their lifestyle outside of the car suffers. They can't save money, they have no means of investing it, they have trouble paying bills, etc. which I'm sure that John Oliver video is about (as I haven't seen it yet.).
Honestly, if MBZ offers a decent V6 engine with good power in their E Wagons, I'd probably get that instead of of the AMG. Apart from the lower price and more sound investment, the last time I spent nearly that much money I ended up with an SUV I can't quite sell without being lowballed, can't really do anything because it has a airbag recall, etc. And honestly, that Prius with the solar roof is the coolest thing I've seen in cars. AC when you're not around? That's amazing. You can either autostart the AC for a few minutes prior to entry or leave it turned on before you exit the car.
As we've spoken in private in detail, I'll simply say the car I'd buy in instant if it weren't for the previous details of sleeping on a couch and it being used (some assume used is used), would be a mint 930 slantnose. I've wanted one for a good 20 years. I'll probably buy one as my only splurge once my kids are much older. By then the $75K used price may well exceed double it, but it's still something I'd love to have. There's no other car that can get me as excited as those. I feel silly for admitting that, but really, there is nothing that comes close to it. Well, maybe a 50s Land Rover like the one my father owned in the old country.
[doublepost=1471392202][/doublepost]
Interesting John Oliver segment
Thanks for posting this. I watched most of it, but none of it really surprised me. When I was in school, your economics class would spend half the year teaching you about money and how to use it. What credit was, how loans worked, and much more. This was phased out a few years after I finished school, and I know it's not taught in schools now, even private ones. Maybe a teacher will get into it, but they won't. It's taught in college depending on major. The problem is, my generation knew a lot of this once we were done with school. We have the knowledge of how things worked and to read contracts carefully or seek a lawyer if we couldn't quite understand the legalize. In a flash, we know what's a good deal and what's pathetic. Later in time, when schools dropped the curriculum, people didn't know about money. You can grab people your folks' age and they'll know about these things to heart. Go for people 5-6 years younger, and they likely won't. These types of businesses or really any, pray for the individuals who don't know how to handle money or don't know the very basic financial skills. They seek those who made bad decisions; like having 4-5 children while working minimum wage, living on state funding and spending stupid money on stupid things. Creditors have always made more money on people who had terrible skills. They may miss many payments, but the ones they make, make them more money than those with pristine credit or don't pay much if any interest. Before the bubble in 08, it wasn't uncommon for the 10 years prior for people with ****** credit, like 665, get a loan for an $700K house. I'd estimate about 65% of those people lost their house a decade late in 08 or the few years following, lost what money they invested into the house and likely had to sell all their belongings, and now likely live in a ******** or they were given another ****** house loan.
The system was never rigged to start with, it's simply set to allow companies to do this. Lending for homes is stricter now, but not what it should be. California is a bit stricter than other states. When I bought my first house, I had what was considered excellent credit of that time period, something around 710. I put down a good sized DP but I still got stuck with restrictions, including a ridiculous prepayment penalty time period. Back then, at least from what I recall, the higher the purchase price of the home, the lower the total percentage of the loan you could pay off each month. If it was a small loan, you were allowed to pay more. This worked on two fronts; those who bought a small home didn't really have the income pay it off quicker, and those who did, couldn't pay it off quick enough. It was a messed up system. When my restriction period ended, I began sending in lump payments and
owned my house for good. To be incredibly crass, it was a ****ed up system.
Suffice to say, when we purchased our second house as investment, the restrictions were incredibly limited. A far cry from what I faced with the first house. I suspect when the market crashes again and I can get a third house, it'll be even stricter and without the current BS creditors/lenders are able to do.
TL;DR - Learning the value of money is an important life lesson otherwise you end up like the people in that video.
(though I've not had, nor am I having one so far ...)
