buying a new car as a middle to lower class citizen is a fool's errand. It's a suckers bet.

Except you don't even know what we grow.

Is it ganja?

Ah, Lemonparty, the 8th sacrament.

seriously, buying new is almost as bad of a financial decision as leasing. Let some sucker take the depreciation and buy a 2-3 year old used car with ~45,000 miles on it and then drive that car until the wheels fall off.

I could afford new car payments, but I will never buy a new car because I'm losing 50% in those first few years. I'm not sinking large sums of money into a depreciating asset.

seriously, buying new is almost as bad of a financial decision as leasing. Let some sucker take the depreciation and buy a 2-3 year old used car with ~45,000 miles on it and then drive that car until the wheels fall off.

I could afford new car payments, but I will never buy a new car because I'm losing 50% in those first few years. I'm not sinking large sums of money into a depreciating asset.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I'm wrassling (not very much) with that decision myself. I'm definitely not going newer but what would be considered too old for a new car? Or does age not matter as long as the mileage is low? I can't see myself going past 4 years but the car I want at the price I want it is set at 5 years. Can't get it at anything less than 5 but the mileage and price are about right.

Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?

I'm wrassling (not very much) with that decision myself. I'm definitely not going brand new but what would be considered too old for a newer car? Or does age not matter as long as the mileage is low? I can't see myself going past 4 years but the car I want at the price I want it is set at 5 years. Can't get it at anything less than 5 but the mileage and price are about right.

I thinks a good strategy is to buy a pre-owned car with at least a year left on the bumper-to-bumper warranty (so maybe 3 years old with 30-40k miles if it has a 4-yr, 50k warranty). That way you pay a fraction of the new car price (let's say $30k for a $70k vehicle), but have a year to get any defects fixed at no cost.

The big problem is that everyone figured out the 2 year car trick so it raised those prices too.

Buy a new car at the end of the model year, get the full warranty, know exactly how it was driven for the lifetime of the car, and keep the car the extra two years and you are probably looking at paying a few hundred dollars more a year for it.

I'm wrassling (not very much) with that decision myself. I'm definitely not going brand new but what would be considered too old for a newer car? Or does age not matter as long as the mileage is low? I can't see myself going past 4 years but the car I want at the price I want it is set at 5 years. Can't get it at anything less than 5 but the mileage and price are about right.

I thinks a good strategy is to buy a pre-owned car with at least a year left on the bumper-to-bumper warranty (so maybe 3 years old with 30-40k miles if it has a 4-yr, 50k warranty). That way you pay a fraction of the new car price (let's say $30k for a $70k vehicle), but have a year to get any defects fixed at no cost.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

President Donald Trump added a new sweetener to his sales pitch for tax reform Wednesday, saying average Americans would benefit greatly if U.S. corporations bring money home from abroad under a special low tax rate.

That move, combined with lower corporate tax rates, would pump an additional $4,000 into the average annual income of American households, he said at a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Trump called it a "pay raise," and added it "could be a lot more than that too.

“About a $4,000 amount of money for the American family to spend, very exciting," he said.

"And you're gonna spend that money and jobs are going to be produced," he told the crowd.

...

But full details of the tax reform bill remain a work in progress, a fact that the administration itself acknowledged could lead to a different impact for the average American than the $4,000 Trump cited. That figure came from a new analysis by the Council of Economic Advisers, which is expected to release more information about the analysis on Thursday.

“The number is based on other research that modeled tax variation, and we applied those estimates to the corporate side of the Unified Framework,” DJ Nordquist, chief of staff for the CEA, wrote to POLITICO in an email. “Our research suggests the flow of wages would be $4,000 per year once the full adjustment occurs. But we need to see the final language of the bill for more precise estimates of the timing.”

The A2 article in today's WSJ talks about the impact on the middle class. A 2007 study by Harvard and U. of Michigan economists said that between 45-75% of a corporate tax cuts benefits go to workers.

I would have figured more would flow to investors. If true about the benefit to workers, that is a very good sign. In any case, the article talks about the value to long term growth, which will ultimately help everyone.

I bought a three year old car with 19,000 miles.

That number is surprising. I would've figured investors would be the main beneficiary through dividends or share re-purchases.

If the repatriation break is implemented that's a ton of extra capital that's flooding back into the US. With money already ridiculously cheap it's going to be interesting to see how/where firms employ the repatriated money.

But it's the unresolved issues that caused Ways and Means members the most heartburn this week — and ultimately led to the delay. Those include: how to win over GOP lawmakers from high-tax states that are balking over curbing the state and local tax deduction, which their constituents rely on. There are also question about how to ensure that wealthy individuals don’t take advantage of the lower 25 percent small business or “pass-through” rate.

Many of the unresolved items are hot-button issues, including what to do with 401(k) retirement plans.

Trump asked Brady in a phone conversation last week to drop his plans to curb such tax preferred savings. And some senior House Republicans who believe that doing so would incite severe pushback have been urging Brady to leave the matter alone.

But Brady has refused to ditch the idea of imposing some limitation on the popular retirement plans. The reason comes down to basic math: Republicans want to lower the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, and collapse and lower individual rates into four brackets — and targeting 401(k) plans could help pay for those cuts.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

The 401k thing is baffling. You would think that would piss off a lot of the middle class. And the fact that they're doing it to offset a reduction of the estate tax? Come on.

Trump is actually the one sane Republican here.