What % of NET monthly salary do you spend on your car
Discussion
Audemars said:
Just look at all the new cars outside terrace houses.
This is a fair point. Is quite comical the number of people who have (what they think is, not sure the concept exists with the easy availability of finance any more) a "premium"car in a s
tty house and could have a decent house and car for less than their combined mortgage and car repayments if they hadn't been suckered into the last deal (which inevitably means they will get suckered into the next one ad infinitum). 85Carrera said:
Audemars said:
Just look at all the new cars outside terrace houses.
This is a fair point. Is quite comical the number of people who have (what they think is, not sure the concept exists with the easy availability of finance any more) a "premium"car in a stty house and could have a decent house and car for less than their combined mortgage and car repayments if they hadn't been suckered into the last deal (which inevitably means they will get suckered into the next one ad infinitum). Surely choosing a car over a house is the definition of a petrolhead?
This guy is a few roads over from me and I think he is a legend! And depending on where you live, a terrace can be worth a lot. The one below for example is only a bog standard semi and is prob £600k so far in excess of his say £150k of cars.
Edited by p1stonhead on Friday 20th May 07:53
85Carrera said:
This is a fair point. Is quite comical the number of people who have (what they think is, not sure the concept exists with the easy availability of finance any more) a "premium"car in a stty house and could have a decent house and car for less than their combined mortgage and car repayments if they hadn't been suckered into the last deal (which inevitably means they will get suckered into the next one ad infinitum).
Maybe they like their house...tty house and could have a decent house and car for less than their combined mortgage and car repayments if they hadn't been suckered into the last deal (which inevitably means they will get suckered into the next one ad infinitum). 85Carrera said:
This is a fair point. Is quite comical the number of people who have (what they think is, not sure the concept exists with the easy availability of finance any more) a "premium"car in a stty house and could have a decent house and car for less than their combined mortgage and car repayments if they hadn't been suckered into the last deal (which inevitably means they will get suckered into the next one ad infinitum).
I really do hope you're not the sad, sad little man this post paints you to be.tty house and could have a decent house and car for less than their combined mortgage and car repayments if they hadn't been suckered into the last deal (which inevitably means they will get suckered into the next one ad infinitum). Beggars belief.
85Carrera said:
This is a fair point. Is quite comical the number of people who have (what they think is, not sure the concept exists with the easy availability of finance any more) a "premium"car in a stty house and could have a decent house and car for less than their combined mortgage and car repayments if they hadn't been suckered into the last deal (which inevitably means they will get suckered into the next one ad infinitum).
what difference does it make if they CHOOSE to live in a terrace worth £120k or a big detached worth £750k ... its their choice?! How small minded to assume that because its a terrace or low value that its "stty house and could have a decent house and car for less than their combined mortgage and car repayments if they hadn't been suckered into the last deal (which inevitably means they will get suckered into the next one ad infinitum). tty" ... does it serve the purpose the household needs?? I would argue that over financing on a mortgage is way more dangerous than financing of any vehicles ... with greater risks of losing everything and not just your wheels
PorkInsider said:
jonah35 said:
If youre a single bloke why do you need more than a terrace?
If you're a family of 4 why do you need more than a (3-bed) terrace?Why does anyone need more than the most basic, cheap reliable car?
tty" house? Their money, their choice. Gad-Westy said:
PorkInsider said:
jonah35 said:
If youre a single bloke why do you need more than a terrace?
If you're a family of 4 why do you need more than a (3-bed) terrace?Why does anyone need more than the most basic, cheap reliable car?
tty" house? Their money, their choice. daemon said:
Granfondo said:
But but but daemon said nobody is borrowing to much,so which is it?
I think a very small percentage are borrowing more than they should.Thats bourne out when you look at what makes up the bulk of car sales - theres nothing terribly fancy in the top 10 biggest sellers.
And really, whats the worst can happen? They hand the car back early under a VT, or they trade it in for something cheaper or - very rarely - it gets repossessed. If thats the worst thing that happens someone over the course of their entire life, it would be a happy one wouldnt it?
You are absolutely right that the top ten most popular cars don't look that glamorous and would on their own give an impression of frugality but that is highly deceptive. Note that they are still not the cheapest cars that are on sale and note that your theory doesn't take into account unecassary turnover.
There is a reason why finance deals generally tie in with peak depreciation.
This is not saying that debt lending on cars is the core problem, it isn't. The real impact of the deregulation of debt has been the artificial boom in house prices. That is the real reason for the debt poverty in the UK but all the numerous monthly consumer charges such as media and transport.
The real problem is that in less than 20 years of rampant retail borrowing and spending on consumables and over bidding on property practically the whole of UK society has no relevant pension provisions, insufficient savings to cope with any fiscal shock and shocking levels of debt.
When these debt discussions crop up on PH there are always those who dislike debt because of some hierarchy thing that it seems to disrupt. Those views can be ignored as much as the counter views that being able to find the cash to pay the monthly fee means it is affordable. Both are wrong. What some people think though is that the very visible consumption of cars through high turnover debt transactions is like a mushroom. The small, visible part of a massive, hidden fungus.
All societies have always regulated consumer debt as it is extremely dangerous. We humans have little self control when it comes to the shiny shiny so regulation has always been needed. Removing controls always leads to a hike in debt consumption and an asset bubble but most importantly it strips a society of its wealth. Insidiously and corruptly.
The important point to get across is that in the history of mankind there has never, ever been a case of a population self regulating debt consumption or of a society not becoming poorer as a result of elevated retail debt consumption or of a society not overspending. We are living in a deregulated debt environment and we have exactly the same symptoms that every society that has ever existed has suffered when it has not controlled consumption/debt.
The fact that we have all lived through 2007/8 and every day we see the impact on other countries but as a group we elect to ignore all of this and carry on consuming money that we don't have simply shows how dangerous debt is and how far in the hole we are.
Debt is an enormous problem in the UK and as per usual it will impact on the weakest the most. All it does is transfer what wealth there is from the lower echelons up to the few at the top. The more people borrow the poorer they become and the richer the few become.
It almost seems daft for me to be advocating earning less money but we have reached such an insane state of rampant consumption and wealth stripping that in 30 years time most people won't have any savings to live off and no income so unable to borrow to keep it going.
So, in short, society would be far wealthier, healthier and the divide far smaller if we reverted to not just pissing away tomorrow's income on today's pointless consumption. And almost all use of debt for consumption is a sign of poverty or over spending that leads to poverty. And the data for pension contributions and savings very clearly highlights that very few people can afford the monthly payment obligations that they are meeting. Meeting a monthly cost is catagorically not evidence that the consumption it is linked to is affordable.
Sorry for being a bit long winded.
I can't imagine the mindset of the kind of sad old bugger that gets worked up about what people spend their own money on.
Is is jealousy, or some desire to be seen as a special snowflake because they can afford a nice car?
"How dare that pleb finance a nice car! If everyone drives them, how will other people know how special am?!" - A powerfully built director on 6 figs.
Is is jealousy, or some desire to be seen as a special snowflake because they can afford a nice car?
"How dare that pleb finance a nice car! If everyone drives them, how will other people know how special am?!" - A powerfully built director on 6 figs.
Mirabeau said:
I can't imagine the mindset of the kind of sad old bugger that gets worked up about what people spend their own money on.
Is is jealousy, or some desire to be seen as a special snowflake because they can afford a nice car?
"How dare that pleb finance a nice car! If everyone drives them, how will other people know how special am?!" - A powerfully built director on 6 figs.
That does seem like the case in some views. It's the other side of the coin that sees some people crippling their future for a daft bit of metal for the purpose of impressing others. Is is jealousy, or some desire to be seen as a special snowflake because they can afford a nice car?
"How dare that pleb finance a nice car! If everyone drives them, how will other people know how special am?!" - A powerfully built director on 6 figs.
If both those sides can be stripped out and put to one side then sitting in the middle ground is an interesting and somewhat important discussion though.
DonkeyApple said:
May I just point out that deal frequency is being ignored in your view. You say that you think only a very small percentage of borrowers are borrowing more than they should but all the evidence points to the exact opposite. If you look at the UK data for wages, savings, debt and pension assets then from the moment Thatchef started removing retail debt regulation the numbers began to change. The big changes happening in the late 90s with a massive and deliberate deregulation to generate spending.
You are absolutely right that the top ten most popular cars don't look that glamorous and would on their own give an impression of frugality but that is highly deceptive. Note that they are still not the cheapest cars that are on sale and note that your theory doesn't take into account unecassary turnover.
There is a reason why finance deals generally tie in with peak depreciation.
This is not saying that debt lending on cars is the core problem, it isn't. The real impact of the deregulation of debt has been the artificial boom in house prices. That is the real reason for the debt poverty in the UK but all the numerous monthly consumer charges such as media and transport.
The real problem is that in less than 20 years of rampant retail borrowing and spending on consumables and over bidding on property practically the whole of UK society has no relevant pension provisions, insufficient savings to cope with any fiscal shock and shocking levels of debt.
When these debt discussions crop up on PH there are always those who dislike debt because of some hierarchy thing that it seems to disrupt. Those views can be ignored as much as the counter views that being able to find the cash to pay the monthly fee means it is affordable. Both are wrong. What some people think though is that the very visible consumption of cars through high turnover debt transactions is like a mushroom. The small, visible part of a massive, hidden fungus.
All societies have always regulated consumer debt as it is extremely dangerous. We humans have little self control when it comes to the shiny shiny so regulation has always been needed. Removing controls always leads to a hike in debt consumption and an asset bubble but most importantly it strips a society of its wealth. Insidiously and corruptly.
The important point to get across is that in the history of mankind there has never, ever been a case of a population self regulating debt consumption or of a society not becoming poorer as a result of elevated retail debt consumption or of a society not overspending. We are living in a deregulated debt environment and we have exactly the same symptoms that every society that has ever existed has suffered when it has not controlled consumption/debt.
The fact that we have all lived through 2007/8 and every day we see the impact on other countries but as a group we elect to ignore all of this and carry on consuming money that we don't have simply shows how dangerous debt is and how far in the hole we are.
Debt is an enormous problem in the UK and as per usual it will impact on the weakest the most. All it does is transfer what wealth there is from the lower echelons up to the few at the top. The more people borrow the poorer they become and the richer the few become.
It almost seems daft for me to be advocating earning less money but we have reached such an insane state of rampant consumption and wealth stripping that in 30 years time most people won't have any savings to live off and no income so unable to borrow to keep it going.
So, in short, society would be far wealthier, healthier and the divide far smaller if we reverted to not just pissing away tomorrow's income on today's pointless consumption. And almost all use of debt for consumption is a sign of poverty or over spending that leads to poverty. And the data for pension contributions and savings very clearly highlights that very few people can afford the monthly payment obligations that they are meeting. Meeting a monthly cost is catagorically not evidence that the consumption it is linked to is affordable.
Sorry for being a bit long winded.
Yes, debt levels are high, but youre assuming that its those people who are buying / leasing brand new premium cars they cant afford that are causing those high debt levels.You are absolutely right that the top ten most popular cars don't look that glamorous and would on their own give an impression of frugality but that is highly deceptive. Note that they are still not the cheapest cars that are on sale and note that your theory doesn't take into account unecassary turnover.
There is a reason why finance deals generally tie in with peak depreciation.
This is not saying that debt lending on cars is the core problem, it isn't. The real impact of the deregulation of debt has been the artificial boom in house prices. That is the real reason for the debt poverty in the UK but all the numerous monthly consumer charges such as media and transport.
The real problem is that in less than 20 years of rampant retail borrowing and spending on consumables and over bidding on property practically the whole of UK society has no relevant pension provisions, insufficient savings to cope with any fiscal shock and shocking levels of debt.
When these debt discussions crop up on PH there are always those who dislike debt because of some hierarchy thing that it seems to disrupt. Those views can be ignored as much as the counter views that being able to find the cash to pay the monthly fee means it is affordable. Both are wrong. What some people think though is that the very visible consumption of cars through high turnover debt transactions is like a mushroom. The small, visible part of a massive, hidden fungus.
All societies have always regulated consumer debt as it is extremely dangerous. We humans have little self control when it comes to the shiny shiny so regulation has always been needed. Removing controls always leads to a hike in debt consumption and an asset bubble but most importantly it strips a society of its wealth. Insidiously and corruptly.
The important point to get across is that in the history of mankind there has never, ever been a case of a population self regulating debt consumption or of a society not becoming poorer as a result of elevated retail debt consumption or of a society not overspending. We are living in a deregulated debt environment and we have exactly the same symptoms that every society that has ever existed has suffered when it has not controlled consumption/debt.
The fact that we have all lived through 2007/8 and every day we see the impact on other countries but as a group we elect to ignore all of this and carry on consuming money that we don't have simply shows how dangerous debt is and how far in the hole we are.
Debt is an enormous problem in the UK and as per usual it will impact on the weakest the most. All it does is transfer what wealth there is from the lower echelons up to the few at the top. The more people borrow the poorer they become and the richer the few become.
It almost seems daft for me to be advocating earning less money but we have reached such an insane state of rampant consumption and wealth stripping that in 30 years time most people won't have any savings to live off and no income so unable to borrow to keep it going.
So, in short, society would be far wealthier, healthier and the divide far smaller if we reverted to not just pissing away tomorrow's income on today's pointless consumption. And almost all use of debt for consumption is a sign of poverty or over spending that leads to poverty. And the data for pension contributions and savings very clearly highlights that very few people can afford the monthly payment obligations that they are meeting. Meeting a monthly cost is catagorically not evidence that the consumption it is linked to is affordable.
Sorry for being a bit long winded.
What about negative equity mortgage debt? Credit card debt? Overdraft debt? Debt because of unemployment? Simply not making ends meet?
Are we really saying its those people who are then in turn going out and leasing a brand new A4?
Maybe its different where you live, but if you drive around the big council estates around towns near me - and where employment is low and debt levels high - i dont see too many brand new Audis or Mercs at the door?
Yes we live in a consumer driven society - and we're all guilty of it to some extent - however i think its adding two and two together and getting five by saying people who are in debt lease cars.
As i said, maybe you're seeing in differently in other areas, but typically here the last thing people who are truly in debt / struggling to make ends meet / minimum wage / struggling with young families are likely to do is go out and lease a new car.
Edited by daemon on Friday 20th May 09:45
DonkeyApple said:
That does seem like the case in some views. It's the other side of the coin that sees some people crippling their future for a daft bit of metal for the purpose of impressing others.
But who does?Could it not be they like driving a really nice car, however have got - in other peoples view - their priorities wrong?
If i see a really nice top end car i dont think "oh hes only bought that to impress others" i think "wow, nice car".
And likewise, when i have spent big money on a car its because it impresses me. If it happens to f
k other people off, its just an added bonus.daemon said:
Yes, debt levels are high, but youre assuming that its those people who are buying / leasing brand new premium cars they cant afford that are causing those high debt levels.
What about negative equity mortgage debt? Credit card debt? Overdraft debt? Debt because of unemployment? Simply not making ends meet?
Are we really saying its those people who are then in turn going out and leasing a brand new A4?
Maybe its different where you live, but if you drive around the big council estates around towns near me - and where employment is low and debt levels high - i dont see too many brand new Audis or Mercs at the door?
Yes we live in a consumer driven society - and we're all guilty of it to some extent - however i think its adding two and two together and getting five by saying people who are in debt lease cars.
As i said, maybe you're seeing in differently in other areas, but typically here the last thing people who are truly in debt / struggling to make ends meet / minimum wage / struggling with young families are likely to do is go out and lease a new car.
You are misleading yourself in your argument by assuming excessive debt expenditure is linked to premium brands. That's just a subsection. That's the joy of finance, you can use it to increase per customer turnover and up selling within non premium products. I think that is where you are getting caught up. That's also why you are inverting the geographical issue. It is the lowest income earners who are caught the most until you reach the lowest point where cradle to grave income and housing is 100% state funded. What about negative equity mortgage debt? Credit card debt? Overdraft debt? Debt because of unemployment? Simply not making ends meet?
Are we really saying its those people who are then in turn going out and leasing a brand new A4?
Maybe its different where you live, but if you drive around the big council estates around towns near me - and where employment is low and debt levels high - i dont see too many brand new Audis or Mercs at the door?
Yes we live in a consumer driven society - and we're all guilty of it to some extent - however i think its adding two and two together and getting five by saying people who are in debt lease cars.
As i said, maybe you're seeing in differently in other areas, but typically here the last thing people who are truly in debt / struggling to make ends meet / minimum wage / struggling with young families are likely to do is go out and lease a new car.
Edited by daemon on Friday 20th May 09:45
Plus, you would be very hard pressed to strip out the over consumption of debt from the second largest consumer debt spend in the UK.
daemon said:
DonkeyApple said:
That does seem like the case in some views. It's the other side of the coin that sees some people crippling their future for a daft bit of metal for the purpose of impressing others.
But who does?Could it not be they like driving a really nice car, however have got - in other peoples view - their priorities wrong?
If i see a really nice top end car i dont think "oh hes only bought that to impress others" i think "wow, nice car".
And likewise, when i have spent big money on a car its because it impresses me. If it happens to f
k other people off, its just an added bonus.You can't deny basic competitive human nature. It's why we are all here and it is why debt has historically always been regulated.
And on the subject of general debt, it is pretty hard to argue that wealth divides are good for a society and debt is what fuels such divides as debt consumers always become poorer and debt facilitators wealthier.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff