Buying a new car with cash

[olds]

Nah, that would be stupid. I have bought two new cars in my life, one with cash and one with a gold mastercard. In both cases I negotiated them down to rock bottom before they got my money. There is always someone that wants to move a car, even if they are only making minimal profit on it.

They took a CC as payment? My wife has been in the business for 20 + years and they hate taking CC for a large part of the purchase price because of the % they have to kick back to the CC company.
I'd suspect that you didn't get as a rock bottom of a price as you think.

 

[Bignate603]

How are you planning on supporting yourself when you get to retirement age?

 

[PrinceofWands]

How are you planning on supporting yourself when you get to retirement age?

Very likely impossible. I'd like to buy in to the whole 'gonna work till retirement' thing, but it's not probable if my previous job history is any indication. I still have some hope that I'll finally find something I can stick with, but *shrug*.

Then again, the VAST majority of Americans don't invest or make other arrangements, yet they somehow manage.

I'll do the best I can. Have looked a bit into bearer bonds and physical commodities (esp metals), but since I needed all my savings to live last year I haven't been able to get going on it. That, and cash on hand, are about my only options as far as I can come up with.

I never even thought I'd live to 30, and here I am pushing 40. Still, can't imagine I'm destined for a very long life, which is just fine by me. It'll all either work out or it won't...sure as hell not going to obsess over it, or sacrifice my ideologies.

 

[alkemyst]

Gotcha. I don't have 'tenants', I often have 'roommates' (who are always friends or family, never strangers brought in). I generally don't get income from them, though they often pay some of the housing costs (like utilities) in exchange for room.

My side jobs are usually $15-45 here and there, with some occasionally higher. It's not like a full time job or anything, and since I only charge $15-25/hr it's impossible to make very much.

Taxes are barely a couple thousand a year. I have a moral objection to insurance in all forms, and so have none. Other costs are similarly minimal if you're careful. Most people really don't make much money (though granted, more than me), yet manage to live perfectly well. People make life far more expensive than it actually is.

This is the problem. You are harboring people and not insuring yourself.

I charge about $25/hr overall on sidejobs. At the end of the year I am making money on them. If I wasn't I wouldn't be doing them.

I think you are making money you are simply ignoring.

 

[alkemyst]

They took a CC as payment? My wife has been in the business for 20 + years and they hate taking CC for a large part of the purchase price because of the % they have to kick back to the CC company.
I'd suspect that you didn't get as a rock bottom of a price as you think.

+ deal with a chargeback.

 

[Jaiguru]

Figured I may as well update this. I finally got down to purchasing the car today and opted to go with financing it instead of paying cash. I was quoted the exact same price with financing as I was with cash. I even got them to go down $6k from the MSRP and got the $500 delivery fee knocked off which was pretty nice. 🙂 0.9% financing for 60 months on top of that.

I appreciate everyone's advice in here. It really did help. And if you're wondering I got a 2010 Acura TL SH-AWD. Can't wait until Monday when they get it in!

 

[PrinceofWands]

This is the problem. You are harboring people and not insuring yourself.

I charge about $25/hr overall on sidejobs. At the end of the year I am making money on them. If I wasn't I wouldn't be doing them.

I think you are making money you are simply ignoring.

Harboring? Providing shelter you mean? Being a good human being? Well, yeah, I'm trying. Of course I'm not 'insuring myself'...I already said I'm opposed on moral grounds to the very concept.

If you charge $1/hr you're still making money on them, just not as much. However if I made nothing I'd still do 80% of the jobs I get. Just being a good person/neighbor/friend/family member.

I'm sure there's money I don't claim, just like 99.99999999999999999% of people. I don't claim birthday money, I don't keep a ledger of when my friends buy me a beer or burger, etc. I would NEVER consider giving the time of day to anyone that ruled by money, which is an illusion and utterly meaningless anyway.

 

[Bignate603]

Harboring? Providing shelter you mean? Being a good human being? Well, yeah, I'm trying. Of course I'm not 'insuring myself'...I already said I'm opposed on moral grounds to the very concept.

Insurance is morally objectionable? 🙄

 

[PrinceofWands]

Insurance is morally objectionable? 🙄

Yup. Not only does it create an unsustainable economic system, it leverages action against risk which denies the inherent nobility of correct living. It encourages compromise of values to avoid personal risk, suggesting that one should not risk oneself, even to accomplish good. Therein lies the decline of civilization.

 

[Bignate603]

Yup. Not only does it create an unsustainable economic system, it leverages action against risk which denies the inherent nobility of correct living. It encourages compromise of values to avoid personal risk, suggesting that one should not risk oneself, even to accomplish good. Therein lies the decline of civilization.

Sorry, but that's crazy.

Insurance allows people to manage risk of low probability but high cost things that they cannot fully control. It lets multiple people pool their resources to share the risk. For example, if people couldn't get home owner's insurance many would chose not to put so much of their net worth into an asset that could be worth zero after something as uncontrollable as a lightning strike burns it to the ground. A single car accident could result in you losing all your assets and your home. A single sickness could result in your death because you are part of the vast majority that do not have enough money to pay for a very expensive illness. A freak accident could kill you and leave your family without a way to support itself.

There are still plenty of ways to be 'noble' as you claim and risk things for good, but there is nothing noble about risking the years it took to earn your home (or you life, or your family's ability to support itself if you die) because you are not risking it for some greater good. There is no compromise of values, you are not selling your freedom to make choices, you are just joining with other people in a similar situation to share the cost of something going catastrophically wrong that you can't control.

If you honestly are morally opposed to insurance you should probably make a point never to make use of subsidized medical care (medicaid, medicare, free clinics, etc), social security, unemployment, or any other programs where people pool their resources to share risk. Obviously that would taint character beyond repair.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Sorry, but that's crazy.

Insurance allows people to manage risk of low probability but high cost things that they cannot fully control. It lets multiple people pool their resources to share the risk. For example, if people couldn't get home owner's insurance many would chose not to put so much of their net worth into an asset that could be worth zero after something as uncontrollable as a lightning strike burns it to the ground. A single car accident could result in you losing all your assets and your home. A single sickness could result in your death because you are part of the vast majority that do not have enough money to pay for a very expensive illness. A freak accident could kill you and leave your family without a way to support itself.

There are still plenty of ways to be 'noble' as you claim and risk things for good, but there is nothing noble about risking the years it took to earn your home (or you life, or your family's ability to support itself if you die) because you are not risking it for some greater good. There is no compromise of values, you are not selling your freedom to make choices, you are just joining with other people in a similar situation to share the cost of something going catastrophically wrong that you can't control.

If you honestly are morally opposed to insurance you should probably make a point never to make use of subsidized medical care (medicaid, medicare, free clinics, etc), social security, unemployment, or any other programs where people pool their resources to share risk. Obviously that would taint character beyond repair.

There ARE inherent risks in everything. One way you can reduce individual risk is to share it across multiple persons one way or another. Unfortunately this is nothing more than a lottery ticket...rolling the dice for the 1 in a 1000 chance that you're the unlucky 'winner'. It makes 999 others pay for your misfortune. It's FAR worse than mere socialism (the idea that all citizens have an inherent right to certain necessities to be provided by the state), it's capitalized socialism (the idea that all citizens are required to pay others for things they could otherwise do for themselves). It also suggests that persons should somehow be immunized against life itself.

Leveraging risks makes people careless, unthankful, selfish, imperceptive, susceptible, and numerous other negatives.

Moreover, it destroys any hope of a balanced economy as it creates false potentiality of payoffs. For instance: medical companies charge so much because they're not charging individuals who have limited money, but insurance companies that have vast resources. The mere EXISTENCE of insurance destroys the entire concept of value. This then creates a situation where persons only choices are to pay a useless third party for others, or to go without any hope of life saving medical care. Was there NO insurance, medical companies would have NO CHOICE but to charge what average persons could afford. The alternative would be them failing as a business, only to be replaced by one that WOULD charge according to potential (since demand is the singular driver of economic transaction).

As for your suggestion, I already embrace it. I have NO forms of insurance, haven't for years, and absolutely NEVER will again. Period. I would rather go a different route than socialism, but if implemented I would accept it as an acceptable trade off, since it is NOTHING like private insurance despite your claims to the contrary.

 

[jackace]

Too many great finance deals far too often to pay with cash, IMO.

This^^

If you can get a good rate you could invest your cash and be ahead in the end.

 

[alkemyst]

Yup. Not only does it create an unsustainable economic system, it leverages action against risk which denies the inherent nobility of correct living. It encourages compromise of values to avoid personal risk, suggesting that one should not risk oneself, even to accomplish good. Therein lies the decline of civilization.

If one is financially stable they can skip out on insurance with the proper bond. You keep your own money growing, the state bonds it to ensure it's there if you get hurt/hurt someone else.

The only people that don't believe in insurance and the ones with nothing to lose. IMHO those types should be removed from our country. I have a huge problem with the morals of the poor in today's society.

 

[Bignate603]

Moreover, it destroys any hope of a balanced economy as it creates false potentiality of payoffs. For instance: medical companies charge so much because they're not charging individuals who have limited money, but insurance companies that have vast resources. The mere EXISTENCE of insurance destroys the entire concept of value. This then creates a situation where persons only choices are to pay a useless third party for others, or to go without any hope of life saving medical care. Was there NO insurance, medical companies would have NO CHOICE but to charge what average persons could afford. The alternative would be them failing as a business, only to be replaced by one that WOULD charge according to potential (since demand is the singular driver of economic transaction).

This is the last time I'm going to comment on this because I don't want to further derail the thread. The section above is completely incorrect. Insurance companies typically pay far far less for medical services than you would as an individual because they act as a collective bargaining agent for their members. People that need expensive medical care are often not able to shop around because they need it immediately, the total costs of medical care is incredibly complex, and the process is difficult to navigate. Insurance companies act as an advocate, they can negotiate contracted rates long before you need care, they can gather information on what the true cost of care will be, and have people familiar with the process and how to make it work for you.

As a single consumer you have almost zero power to bargain with health care providers. Currently the only two viable solutions are to join a group to do collective bargaining (aka an insurance company) or to move towards socialized healthcare where the government controls and sets the prices.

 

[PrinceofWands]

This is the last time I'm going to comment on this because I don't want to further derail the thread. The section above is completely incorrect. Insurance companies typically pay far far less for medical services than you would as an individual because they act as a collective bargaining agent for their members. People that need expensive medical care are often not able to shop around because they need it immediately, the total costs of medical care is incredibly complex, and the process is difficult to navigate. Insurance companies act as an advocate, they can negotiate contracted rates long before you need care, they can gather information on what the true cost of care will be, and have people familiar with the process and how to make it work for you.

As a single consumer you have almost zero power to bargain with health care providers. Currently the only two viable solutions are to join a group to do collective bargaining (aka an insurance company) or to move towards socialized healthcare where the government controls and sets the prices.

I disagree with the first part. I believe the 'discounts' which insurance companies receive are effectively (if not intentionally) collusion in order to maintain a system which keeps medical profits so high. Again, if there was no insurance then prices would immediately adjust to an affordable level. There is absolutely no other alternative for providers in this case. Costs rise to the maximum level of payout in all things.

I do agree that there may be no workable alternative to insurance other than socialism now. While I find that sad (would prefer total single payer) it's a hell of a lot better than privatized, so I'd accept it.

 

[PrinceofWands]

If one is financially stable they can skip out on insurance with the proper bond. You keep your own money growing, the state bonds it to ensure it's there if you get hurt/hurt someone else.

The only people that don't believe in insurance and the ones with nothing to lose. IMHO those types should be removed from our country. I have a huge problem with the morals of the poor in today's society.

I almost agree. The problem is that the costs of bonding out are extreme compared to income potential currently. In WA it's a $60,000 certificate of deposit or bond. It's fairly difficult for people that make less than 30k a year (which fully half of America does) to post a 60k bond. Levels need to be set at the ability of the bulk to pay, not the desires of the few to collect. I would have no problem with bond requirements if they were on a sliding scale, or set to a reasonable level.

 

[Bignate603]

I disagree with the first part. I believe the 'discounts' which insurance companies receive are effectively (if not intentionally) collusion in order to maintain a system which keeps medical profits so high. Again, if there was no insurance then prices would immediately adjust to an affordable level. There is absolutely no other alternative for providers in this case. Costs rise to the maximum level of payout in all things.

I do agree that there may be no workable alternative to insurance other than socialism now. While I find that sad (would prefer total single payer) it's a hell of a lot better than privatized, so I'd accept it.

How about no. My mother works in medical billing and the hospitals go back and forth with insurance companies like you wouldn't believe, each trying to get the better side of the deal. There is no collusion because one side getting ahead comes at the expense of the other.

Getting rid of insurance would not cause rates to 'immediately go to reasonable levels'. Prices would rise because individuals would no longer have anyone to bargain on their behalf before they are in dire need of care. Prices would rise to all that the market could bear and when health is on the line you'd better believe that people would be forced to pay out.

I almost agree. The problem is that the costs of bonding out are extreme compared to income potential currently. In WA it's a $60,000 certificate of deposit or bond. It's fairly difficult for people that make less than 30k a year (which fully half of America does) to post a 60k bond. Levels need to be set at the ability of the bulk to pay, not the desires of the few to collect. I would have no problem with bond requirements if they were on a sliding scale, or set to a reasonable level.

A person earning $30k can cause just as much damage during an accident as someone that earns $200k. Setting money aside to offset liability cannot be based on how much the person earns, it needs to be based on how much it costs to pay for a reasonable amount of damage. Otherwise, somebody in a minimum wage job could be negligent, destroy my car, put me in the hospital, and not have nearly enough to pay for the damage that they did. Car insurance or that bond is all about taking responsibility for the risk that is inherent when you get behind the wheel. Suggesting that it would be ok for people set aside far less than the amount of cash needed for a reasonable accident is saying that it's ok to be completely irresponsible and cause damage to others around you without any way to pay them back.

 

[PrinceofWands]

How about no. My mother works in medical billing and the hospitals go back and forth with insurance companies like you wouldn't believe, each trying to get the better side of the deal. There is no collusion because one side getting ahead comes at the expense of the other.

Getting rid of insurance would not cause rates to 'immediately go to reasonable levels'. Prices would rise because individuals would no longer have anyone to bargain on their behalf before they are in dire need of care. Prices would rise to all that the market could bear and when health is on the line you'd better believe that people would be forced to pay out.

That's EXACTLY my point...the market can't even bear what it's at right now. That's why we've got so much tied up in medical debt. Loss of insurance would crumble the system, and what's left would be those willing to take what the ACTUAL market (aside from credit and collective finances) would bear. Ie things would cost what an AVERAGE American could pay (on $30-40k/yr). If you try to force blood from a stone it will only be your own.

A person earning $30k can cause just as much damage during an accident as someone that earns $200k. Setting money aside to offset liability cannot be based on how much the person earns, it needs to be based on how much it costs to pay for a reasonable amount of damage. Otherwise, somebody in a minimum wage job could be negligent, destroy my car, put me in the hospital, and not have nearly enough to pay for the damage that they did. Car insurance or that bond is all about taking responsibility for the risk that is inherent when you get behind the wheel. Suggesting that it would be ok for people set aside far less than the amount of cash needed for a reasonable accident is saying that it's ok to be completely irresponsible and cause damage to others around you without any way to pay them back.

How much 'damage' someone can cause is not at issue. I can do $50 million damage to an actors home, but that does NOT make every citizen liable for up to 50 million in damages. Costs need to be based on the bulk of the country. In this case, the bulk of the country makes less than 30k/yr and drives a car worth about $6000. If people don't like that they can stop taking on excess risk by investing in things beyond the ability of average citizens to cover.

 

[ebaycj]

I'd negotiate a price on the car, then I'd finance it through the dealership, for the longest term possible (this makes them think you can't pay it off), at the first rate they bring back (no negotiation on rate, as long as there is no pre-payment penalty). This lets them think they will be making big $$ on the loan over a long period of time. I'd then negotiate for some extra $$ off the car due to the loan. I'd then pay the car off on the first payment.

That's how to really screw 'em.

 

[alkemyst]

that is a good way to do it, but assuming trade in and other items not a complete answer.

Do the trade in last. Say no trade in until the bottom line...then ask about it. Hopefully until that point and after you didn't take on scotchgard, mats, stripes, flaps, etc outside the manufacturer's options.

 

[Jaiguru]

Bump for update.

 

[PricklyPete]

Figured I may as well update this. I finally got down to purchasing the car today and opted to go with financing it instead of paying cash. I was quoted the exact same price with financing as I was with cash. I even got them to go down $6k from the MSRP and got the $500 delivery fee knocked off which was pretty nice. 🙂 0.9% financing for 60 months on top of that.

I appreciate everyone's advice in here. It really did help. And if you're wondering I got a 2010 Acura TL SH-AWD. Can't wait until Monday when they get it in!

Congrats OP...sounds like you got a great deal. While I really don't like the look of the TL, it is a great car and you did very well on the price.