Who can truly afford luxury cars?
"There's an aspect to this question that I really love. In general, it's a question about consumer behavior that can be expanded to inquire about the purchasing profile of any luxury good. Who buys $500 pocketbooks, $1000 wristwatches, etc? I can offer one observation regarding the car. Two close neighbors, both couples drive cars valued well above what my wife and I drive. Both families moved, and shared with us that they failed to save for their kid's college tuition. My response was to feel that this was a choice they made. As I commented to my daughter, ""We can afford anything, we just can't afford everything."" Our budget started with saving both for retirement and college. Very little eating out, and modest vacations, cars, and clothing. This story is getting more common for us as our peers have high school age children.  As others have mentioned, the millionaire next door does not drive a Ferrari or wear a Rolex. To some extent, if you were able to peek at the budgets of these car buyers, you'll find what members here would consider at best, an interesting set of priorities." "How can people afford luxury cars? The same way they can afford anything: by finding it cheaply, saving for it, or adjusting their priorities. Company cars - either paid for by the company, or as part of a bonus/compensation/salary sacrifice scheme. I have friends who drive luxury cars, but they pay £200/month - not much more than, for example, finance on a used Honda People who have paid off their mortgage. There are people who spend a decade pouring every cent they have into a mortgage. Once paid off, they have £500-1500 a month ""spare"" People who have different priorities to you. I'm not bothered about big houses and holidays, but I love cars: I'd rather spend an extra £100/month on my car and have a holiday every 2 years, not every year People who only run one car in the family: if you're running two cars at £200/month, then discover one of you can work from home, you could have one £400 car and still be saving money on running costs. People who don't have (or want) children. Children are expensive, if they aren't part of your plans then you can save a lot of money for luxuries." Keep in mind your household income is in the top 20%, which does not translate to wealth. Given a healthy income, and no debt, other then a small house payment, you probably have a decent amount of free cash flow.  This could easily be used to buy a car on time… which a lot of people do.  Congratulations on being different.   Having said that, living as you do, you will likely be wealthier than your income suggests. If you invested the amount you saved on car payments for an average car you can become a muli-millionaire. Doing that alone can put you in the top 10% of the wealthiest in this nation. Keep in mind 76% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, so there is a sizable portion of the population that make more than you do, yet one costly emergency can cause them to spiral into significant financial difficulty. News flash: Emergencies happen. If I am not being clear, you are living wisely! I would recommend reading The Millionaire Next Door and The Millionaire Mind. You will understand that not following the whims of advertisers is good for your bottom line and that it is good to be different from the general population. One of my favorite stories from the author is these yuppies hires the author to find them rich people to sell their products. The author gets the rich people by offering them cash, albeit a relatively small amount considering their wealth (about $200) and lunch. The yuppies complain that the guys don’t “look rich” as there are no fancy suits or Rolex watches. One of the rich guys likes the pitch so much in inquires on how he can buy the company. There are a lot of lessons in that short anecdote. "A while back I sold cars for a living.  Over the course of 4 years I worked for 3 different dealerships.  I sold new cars at 2 and used at the last one. When selling new cars I found that the majority of people buying the higher end cars honestly shouldn't have been - 80%+.  They almost always came in owing more on their trades then they were worth, put down very little cash and were close to being financially strapped.   From a financial perspective these deals were hard to close, not because the buyer was picky but rather because their finances were a mess.  Fully half, and probably more, we had to switch from the car they initially wanted down to a much cheaper version or try to convert to a lease because it was the only way the bank would loan the money.  We called them ""$30,000 millionaires"" because they didn't make a whole lot but tried to look like they did.  As a salesman you knew you were in serious trouble when they didn't even try to negotiate. Around 2% of the deals I did were actual cash deals - meaning honest cash, not those who came in with a pre-approved loan from a bank.  These were invariably for used cars about 3 to 4 years old and they never had a trade in.  The people doing this always looked comfortable but never dressed up, you wouldn't even look at them twice.  The negotiations were hard because they knew exactly how much that car should go for and wouldn't even pay that.   It was obvious they knew the value of money. That said, I've been in the top 3% of wage earners for about 20 years and at no point have I considered myself in a position to ""afford"" a new ""luxury"" car.  IMHO, there are far more important things you can do with that kind of money." In addition to those who are wealthy (not the same as high income), there are also a certain number of people whose professional livelihood is enhanced by projecting wealth/income they may or may not have. For example, some consultants, lawyers, financial advisors or other salespeople. The same is true of luxury homes for industries where entertaining clients and associates is expected. These people are essentially making an educated bet that the additional sales they expect to make will outweigh the additional expense of the luxury items, similar to purchasing advertising. But in many cases, people are either living beyond their current income, or living beyond their long-term income by failing to save for when they are too old/sick to work. Additionally, many car brands that we traditionally associate with luxury have created mid-priced lines in the $30-40K range recently, so it is possible that some of the cars you are seeing are not as expensive as you might expect. "Partly I suspect this is selection bias. You say you see so many luxury cars go by. But if you're looking for them, you're going to notice them. Have you calculated the actual percentage? Do they make up 50% of the cars that pass a specific point in a specific period of time? Or just 10% if you really counted? You say you live in Baltimore county, Maryland. That's a relatively wealthy area, so I'd expect the percentage of luxury cars to be higher than the national average. You'd likely see considerably fewer in the backwoods of Mississippi. That said, some people who own luxury cars can't really afford them. I'm reminded of a wonderful TV commercial I saw recently where a man is showing off all his material goods, he talks about his big house, and his swimming pool, and his fancy car, with a big smile on his face, standing tall, and generally looking proud and happy. And then he says, ""How do I do it?"" And suddenly his expression changes to complete despair, he slumps down, and says, ""I'm in debt up to my eyeballs."" It turns out to be a commercial for a debt-counseling service. Some people put very high value on owning a fancy car and are willing to sacrifice on other things. If having a big fancy car is more important to you then, say, having a nice house or the latest computer or a big screen TV or dining out more often or going on more expensive vacations or whatever you have to give up to get the car, well, that's your decision. Personally I don't care much about a fancy car, I just want something that gets me where I want to go. And I've always figured that with an expensive car, you have to constantly worry about getting in an accident and damaging or destroying it. If you put your money into a big fancy house, at least houses rarely collide with each other. Personally, I make a nice income too. And I have a $500/month mortgage and zero car payment because I drive a 2003 pickup that I bought with cash. But I have two kids in college and I'm trying to get them through with no debt, that's where all my money is going." I'll read between the lines: you're (justifiably) feeling smart about how you manage your money: debt-free, smart about your spending, saving for retirement, etc. But you're looking at all those fancy cars and feeling a little left out. And Americans especially have a love for automobiles -- it's not just transportation, a car is a status symbol. Yes, some of those people afford their cars just fine. But a lot of people out there are AWFUL about saving and spend recklessly. Americans are notoriously bad at saving for retirement, for example.  So if they aren't saving, where does that money go? They buy stuff they don't need. They live paycheck-to-paycheck. They run up debt. They buy cars. Overspending on cars is so easy to do: leases have low payments, or you can get a 6 year loan. There are many financial tricks for people that think only in terms of monthly payments. So instead of lamenting that the grass is greener as all those BMWs whiz by, smile deeply and enjoy that feeling of sleeping well at night instead of stressing out about the next credit card bill and car payment waiting for you in the mailbox. (And at the same time, if you really want a luxury car and want that to be a priority, you can make it happen and not go broke. Get a late model year certified pre-owned vehicle just out of lease, for example. Saves a ton of money, is still under warranty, and satisfies the lust for luxury.) "It's all about what you value personally. I'm mid-30s and drive a $40K ""luxury"" sports car.  I also happen to wear a $6K wristwatch every day.  I purchased both of these items because I thought they were beautiful when I saw them. On the flip side, because I spent 6 years living below the poverty line, I instinctively spend almost nothing on a daily basis.  My food budget is less than $50 a week, and I never go out to eat.  I wear my clothes and shoes and coats until they have holes, and I drove my previous car (a Toyota) into the ground.  My cell phone is 5 years old.  The walls of my apartment are bare.  I don't have cable TV, I don't subscribe to newspapers or magazines, and I don't own a pet.  In all of these cases I don't feel like I'm ""sacrificing"" anything; food and clothes and cell phones and pets just don't matter to me. If you truly feel that you're missing something in your life by not having a luxury car -- that owning one would be more satisfying than owning the corresponding tens of thousands of dollars -- then go for it.  Just be sure to consider all the other things that money could buy before you do. Lastly, buy in cash.  Don't make monthly payments unless you enjoy giving money away to the bank!" It very much depends on whether you want to drive around in an expensive car, or whether you want an expensive car parked on your driveway. And whether you want to buy a new car, or a used one. And whether you know a reliable garage that doesn't rip you off or not.  For example, if my wife who drives maybe 5,000 miles a year wanted a 5 series BMW, we could buy a five year old one with 120,000 miles, for about £120 per month purchase price if it lasts 6 years. 11 year old and 150,000 miles should be no problem for that kind of car. So that's quite affordable. For me, driving 25,000 miles a year, the numbers are quite different.  Fact is, if you drive around in my wider neighbourhood, you will sometimes see very expensive cars parked in front of very rundown houses. Some people find it more important to drive around in an expensive car than to live in a nice place. That's priorities. Many people can afford expensive cars if they rearrange their priorities (and I'm not saying it's a good thing).  PS. If you want to be seen in an expensive car (for example, you take your wife out), you can always rent a car for a day or two. Most of the people I know that own them are slightly older, and thus in their prime earning years, and many have paid off their homes. That can free up $1000 a month or more in monthly expenses, which would easily cover a nice luxury car payment.  If you've got it, and are into cars, why not? What's the point in having the biggest tombstone in the graveyard? "I don't think you're missing anything on the math side as far as the payments.  Likewise, it may seem everyone's driving a nicer car, but I'm going to predict that's based on area and a few other factors (for instance, my used car feels like riches in a college town).  The behavior of why people would pay money, especially with high interest debt, for something is a little different. To explain the behavior behind people who purchase luxury cars: for some people, a car is a purchase that they value, similar to a person valuing the clothes they wear, the house they live in, or the equipment they buy and either borrowing or paying full price on an expensive car is worth it to them.  We can call it a status symbol dismissively and criticize the financial waste without realizing, ""Wait, this is something they value"" like a rare book collector likes rare books (would a rare book collector pass on borrowing money if it meant a once-in-a-lifetime rare book purchase opportunity?). Have you ever felt, ""Wow this is cool/awesome/amazing"" with something?  Basically, that's how many of them feel toward these cars.  As much as I'd love to say they're only doing it for status (because I'm not a car person), that's actually somewhat de-humanizing and the more I've met people like this, the more I've realized this is their ""thing"" and to them it's totally worth it (even with all the debt).  I have no doubt that there's a percentage of them who truly may be misled - maybe they don't realize the full cost of borrowing money or leasing.  Still, for those who don't care the full cost, that's because it's their thing.  We can all agree that it's still not wise to do financially (borrow on a luxury vehicle), and it won't change that some people will do it." Each of us makes our own way in life, making choices based upon or own needs and desires. Some of us choose to live simple lives, others choose more complex lives where we earn and spend more. There are several points which one should examine and consider. Consider that the market for new cars is not the entire population, but only the fraction of the population that can afford to spend $20,000+ for a new car (at $400+/month payments). You quickly realize that most people making below median income cannot afford to purchase a new car. They buy used cars, from the pool of cars left after depreciation has reduced the price of the car by half (or more). One rule of thumb might be to spend < 10% of your income on transportation. Which might allow for a $400-500/month car payment for half of families. And when you keep a car for 10 years, that can mean two cars, one payment-free. Consider that a new Honda Accord or Toyota Camry is $20-30,000 which is 2/3 to 3/4 the price of a new luxury car. When I purchased my (used) Civic several years ago, the price was nearly 1/2 the price of a new luxury car. I recently purchased a (used) luxury car (7 year old, 70,000 miles) less than 1/3 the new price. The leather interior looks new, more amenities, better performance than my Civic, the car runs well, and with proper maintenance, I expect to drive it for 2-3 years and pass it along to one of my children. A used luxury car coming out of lease is usually very affordable. They are usually in good condition, still look relatively new, and are within the same price range as a newer Toyota or Honda. "It comes down to individual priorities.  Some people prefer to spend their money on a luxury car or SUV, rather than on computer gear, a bigger house, having three extra kids, eating in restaurants, or whatever. Some people are quite happy to take out a loan to get more expensive products, and service that loan over several years. There is also ""status"" attached to some makes (e.g. german marques).   That comes with a status premium, which some people are prepared to pay for, or take out debt to get - and some are not.    Compare (say) a base model Audi or BMW with a similarly priced non-luxury model from a Japanese competitor.   The Japanese model will probably have more features (leather, large rims, safety aids, etc) than the European at the same price point - and it will be necessary to tick several options (and pay extra for them - which can amount to 30-40% extra cost) to get the luxury car with a comparable set of features.    For some people, the luxury brand is worth the difference.  For some it is not." Not a direct answer, but... a friend pointed out to me that z proper luxury limo, if loaded with four sales reps going to the same meeting, is cheaper than airfares would be and lets them hold a planning meeting en route. Yeah, most of it is conspicuous consumption.  But some of the road yachts have legitimate uses. "I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence.   I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society.  Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence.  What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence?  It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility?  Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. ""Because my parents want me to succeed"" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? ""Why yes, I guess they do."" Why? ""Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life."" Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education.  But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations.  With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story.  My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer:  Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education).  If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less.  Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less.  Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later.  Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours.  You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck!" In many (most?) cases, luxury cars are leased rather than purchased, so the payments on even an expensive car might not be as high as you'd expect. For simplicity, take a $100,000 car. If you were to buy that in cash or do a standard five-year auto loan, that would be incredibly expensive for all but the wealthiest of people. But a lease is different. When you lease a car, you are financing the car's depreciation over the lease term. So, let's suppose that you're signing up for a three-year lease. The car manufacturer will make an estimate of what that car will be worth when you bring it back in three years (this is called the residual value). If this number is $80,000, that means the lessee is only financing the $20,000 difference between the car's price and its residual value after three years - rather than the full $100,000 MSRP. At the end of the lease, he or she just turns the car back in. Luxury cars are actually especially amenable to leasing because they have excellent brand power - just because of the name on the hood, there are many people who would be happy to pay a lot for a three-year-old Mercedes or BMW. With a mid- or low-range car, the brand is not as powerful and used cars consequentially have a lower residual value (as a percentage of the MSRP) than luxury cars. So, don't look at an $80,000 luxury car and assume that the owner has paying for the entire $80,000. Approximately 25% of all cars sold last year were leased, which is the highest on record. When you are leasing you don't own the car, instead you are basically renting it for a fixed term, and turning it back to the dealership.  It is very cost effective, because the manufacturers have a keen interest in making lots of cars. They are often subsidizing the lease by giving incentives to the dealer. They are gambling on the future value of their cars. They can lose on that gamble. The car business has turned into a financial nightmare for the car companies; they have huge development costs as the cars become more like mobile computing platforms loaded with sensors, and software that is constantly changing.  They can't hold a model for 20 years like Mercedes was able to do in the past. Now they have to constantly update their products. The only way to survive as a car maker is to pump out volume, and the leasing programs, which are quietly being underwritten by the manufacturers help them increase the production quantities, which helps lower the fixed development costs. If only the defense contractors could do this! they are stuck spending billions to build 20 planes, and so each one has a staggering price tag.  In the future, the car companies that will survive are those that have terrific credit, and low borrowing costs. That means Japanese and Germans will own the car business entirely in the end, and countries with higher borrowing costs (like America and Brasil) will not be competitive. Luckily Ford is so frugal, due to the lingering spirit of  its founder, that they can hold out. One thing strongly in favor of leasing is that you have zero maintenance costs typically. The repair risk is significant in luxury cars.  When you buy a 10 year old BMW, and when the tranny goes, it costs a fortune. Having a superb car for 30 months for a few hundred bucks a month is something a lot of people enjoy doing. Who can blame them? you spend an hour or 2 a day in your car, and why not live in a nice place? I want to add that in my country, Israel, the tax on cars is extraordinarily high. Cars in Israel cost in average twice or more then in the US (for example, a new VW golf with the cheapest configuration costs around 25kUSD). Israel's average salary is lower then US's average salary and the fuel in Israel costs twice. Therefore, having a regular car in Israel costs the same as having a luxury car in the US. Most households have a car. It's all about priorities. I must say, I can't completely agree with the tone of most of these answers.  I think there may be a good reason to buy a new car, or a luxurious used car. For years I drove old, second hand cars that were really cheap. and unreliable.  I can't count the number of times I was left stranded because my car didn't start, or the alternator burned out.  I could have bought more recent models, but I was trying to save money. But in 2010 I found a very low mileage 2008 Smart Car for small money.  It was a good deal at the time.  It was almost new, having very low mileage, and about 60% of the price of a new, less well appointed Smart.  I found out that I really like driving cars that won't break down and leave me stranded in sleet or ice storms.  When my wife's Mazda hatchback finally rusted to the point that it wouldn't pass the safety inspection and couldn't be repaired, we bought a new 2013 Toyota Rav4.  We are really happy with it.  It's probably not a luxury car to you, but having reliable heat and air conditioning seems like luxury to us, and we are happy with our decision.  I get the Smart serviced at the Mercedes shop.  They have very nice coffee and pastries, and very fast free wifi. Bravo to A.O's analysis, even with it's resentful tone.... I did not have any help from my parents and still can't afford a luxury car. I have two college degrees, raised three children, and have always worked at least a 40 hour work week. The only reason I can give is not wanting it badly enough... It all boils down to what each of us wants out of life and our perspective. If your perspective is to compete with others in appearances, you will end up empty. However, if you want a quality, enriched life, there is nothing wrong with what you drive. It all boils down to how you feel about what you drive....
So 2015 is still well before the Model 3 is coming out, so they will still be dealing solely in Model S and Model X, which both carry an average transaction price approaching six figures.  Mercedes and BMW both produce around 60,000 of their similarly priced level vehicles (S class and 7 series respectively) per year. Audi produces around 35,000 8 series vehicles.   The point here is that if Tesla is planning on selling 100,000 vehicles in a market that is around 200k cars per year, that would represent a HUGE chunk out of the near-six-figure luxury vehicle market, and would require a non-insubstantial percentage of people to switch away from long-entrenched marques. It will be highly impressive if they pull it off. "First and foremost, being ""cool"" stops being a thing you have to worry about once you graduate from secondary school. Nobody's really going to care what car you drive; the ones that do care aren't worth maintaining personal friendships or relationships with. The notable exception would be a sales job, requiring you to look successful to be successful, and in that case you'll need to either have a nice-looking car or buy one very quickly. Also, consider what you're buying. An E46 (which for the U.S. crowd was the previous generation of 3-series coupes and sedans) will be, at best, a 6-year-old car, and they made these as long ago as '98 which would make it 15 years old. The standard in the U.S. is to put about 10k miles (which would be about 17k km) per year on it, so you would expect even the newest E46s to have at least 100 000 km on them. At this point, even the best cars start needing increasing amounts of maintenance, and on a BMW that maintenance doesn't come cheap.  Consider why a BMW would be sold. It sounds cliche, but in the U.S. at least there are three ""tiers"" of used car in the luxury class; there are the one- and two-year-olds, used by the dealer as a loaner or owned by the type of guy who buys a new car every year; they're practically new, for 30-50% off sticker, and a great deal when you find them. There are the 15-year-old (or older) cars which were used up and traded in; the majority of these end up auctioned off and cannibalized for parts with the remaining hulk sold for salvage. Then there are the in-betweens; between three and ten years old, you get a wide variety. This car could have been garaged all its life and driven to and from work and around town before its owner got a raise and decided to splurge, or its previous owner could have driven the wheels off all over the continent for work or travel. It could have a major problem that developed or was discovered after the warranty expired (and there isn't an E46 on the road that's still under warranty) which caused the owner to sell. Overall, I would wait until you have your first real job to spend real money on a car like this; the one that will actually pay the bills with enough left over for fun. When you're making 35k a year with only your own personal expenses, as long as you manage your debt well and don't get in trouble with credit, you should have no trouble buying a car like this (or even a newer one). If you are going to buy used even then, I recommend you do your homework on required maintenance for the brand and in general, what each milestone will cost you, and (based on mileage) how soon, and I would find a reputable used car dealer (which is stereotypically a contradiction in terms, but there are guys out there who aren't out to completely screw you over)." I'm referring to yachts in my link.  Most of the yachts listed in my link are significantly more valuable than the yacht in the article. Also, just because a $70mm yacht is listed for $40mm, doesn't decrease its running costs by a similar amount.  Also, the borrower listed in the article is no longer a billionaire, not by a long shot so my point still stands even at the number you mention. "Yeah, exactly. The difference is that Ferrari is making money.  EDIT: to clarify...  - Ferrari sells a niche product to a boutique customer-base willing to pay a premium in terms of both price and purchasing difficulty for exclusive, super-premium cars that are manufactured to artisan standards with little or no regard for cost-efficiency or price-to-value ratio, etc. People buying Ferrari are not looking for a ""sensible deal"", they are people who can afford to pay for something special, rare, and uncompromising. Tesla is in a similar market-position.   - Ferrari actually makes money selling their cars. They do a low-volume boutique business, and charge prices that reflect a low volume of artisan-made specialty product. I am sure that certain special-order customers have to wait some time for delivery, but I drive by a Ferrari dealership every day on my way to work that has maybe 50 Ferraris sitting in a lot, that you can drive off with same-day, if you want. You can literally drive up, test-drive, and buy one tomorrow (if you have the scratch).   OTOH...  - Teslas are cheaper than Ferraris, but they are still deep into the super-premium price category. They are well outside the ""value-proposition"" customer-base. They are also (perhaps even more than Ferrari), in a market segment without meaningful competition. There are several super-premium 2-seaters in the $100-200k price range, but I suspect most Tesla shoppers are not mostly comparing them against Porsches or Vipers or Benzes. The all-electric supercar market is not a highly competitive one.   - There is massive demand for Teslas, as is evidenced by the extremely thin used market, the year-plus-long wait list, and all that in the face of extremely customer-unfriendly sales/distribution and almost zero marketing... That is, people are waiting up in 18-month long lines to buy cars that they can't inspect at a local dealership, have no way to test-drive, and often have never even seen in person, and they are putting down cash deposits to do so, in amounts that could buy some pretty nice sports cars for the deposit alone. Moreover, it's not like Tesla buyers are going to change their minds and get a Chevy Volt or Honda Insight instead (although they might get both).   This is any startups wet-dream:  - You have a product that is not only already in production, but that you have been shipping for several years-- you *know* the tooling, manufacturing, support, and delivery costs, because you have actually been *doing it* for *years.*  - You not only have no issues whatsoever with regards to building a customer-base, you already have paying customers and genuine orders *already booked* through 2014, more than you can keep up with.  - You have a product with massive demand and almost non-existent price-pressure. You've got orders booked over a year out at asking price with virtually zero marketing or advertising, most customers buying site-unseen purely based on concept and reputation, and your customers are paying super-premium prices with no direct competitor alternative.   This is a goldmine. This is the kind of thing that business-school textbooks tell you never happens. Rational-market theory says it's impossible to have a big-ticket product offering with essentially unlimited demand and zero meaningful competition.   Moreover, this is happening in an environment where the business is not only receiving direct gov't subsidies, but where borrowing costs are close to negative in real dollars. A going concern with booked orders and guaranteed revenue through 2014 should, if anything, be *borrowing from banks to buy back equity*, not selling equity to raise capital.   If Tesla needs to raise capital, then something is seriously wrong with the underlying business. As in, wrong enough that its current sales are not only un-profitable, but that currently-booked future sales will continue to be un-profitable for the foreseeable future (otherwise they could just borrow).   You can plead ""startup"" when you have a small customer base but a great concept. You can plead ""startup"" when you first start shipping product in small quantities at low prices. But you can't plead ""startup"" when you have been shipping a product for years, and when you have customer-orders booked years out, at full asking price, with no meaningful price or product-competition." Once wealth accumulates in the hands of a few, they're less likely to spend it, as opposed to when there's smaller amounts of wealth in the hands of many. That's one of the primary arguments for more economic equality.  You then also have the case of that wealth being used to generate more wealth without really adding anything of value. Employing hedge fund managers, bankers, lawyers, and accountants to manage large amounts of that wealth in order to use it to generate more wealth, sometimes in ways that doesn't benefit society at all, and sometimes even to its detriment (toxic assets, tax evasion, etc).   Overall, this has the effect of weakening the economy, at the very least inhibiting its growth, and I don't possibly see how you could argue that a weaker economy benefits *anyone*, especially those in the best position to take advantage of the goods produced by a stronger economy (the wealthy). A stronger economy means more and better goods on the market, that the rich can then benefit from. I don't think the luxury goods market would go anywhere either, and may even allow it to grow because of the people who are just under the wealthiest would get richer with more equality (remember it's only the top 10% who benefit from the current massive inequality). "Ok, since you asked, I'll explain. If you are middle class in the US, that means you make more money than 90% of the world's population (maybe even more than 90%). You just have to save more than what you spend and invest instead of spending on credit. In 30 years you will have enough money to live very comfortably. You just have to have the commitment and the focus to do it. When you reach 50 you'll have enough money to be considered rich, ie. your house paid for, a nice savings account, investments, retirement accounts and no debt. I've been ""preaching"" this for a long time and none of my friends/family wanted to listen. Read ""[The Wealthy Barber](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealthy_Barber)"" for more if you are curious.  ***Edit, provided a link." I believe one of the main reasons cars -- luxury or otherwise -- depreciate so quickly is that many auto accidents can cause serious engine/frame damage but are easily cosmetically repaired.  If you smash up the car but get the body fixed, and you don't go through insurance, it will be indistinguishable from the same car that hasn't been in a crash. This isn't the case with everyone.  Now if you want to talk about BMW and Mercedes hybrids, the prices are so much higher it doesn't make sense financially, even if you consider the amount of money you'll save on gas. So we just need to increase revenue.  There's plenty of cash in the USA.  High line condos and Ferrari sports cars are flying off the shelf where I live.  People can't get their fill of them.   Somehow that does not jibe with the notion that the USA can't afford to take care of its elderly, does it? "I'm quite certain that the people buying ""High line condos and Ferrari sports cars"" are taking care of their eldery relatives and probably a few dozen other elderly people at a minimum.  Why do you want them to care for even more people that should have been preparing for a time when they are unwilling or unable to work any more, rather than caring for them yourself?" "We just got in an argument in another thread, and I don't necessarily want to continue it, but was browsing your comments and saw this. I can say from personal experience (I have several high net worth clients) that this isn't true. The rich do the opposite of leave their money laying around. They invest it to make more money. They buy office buildings, fund new companies, buy up stocks, and drive investment in general. Someone has to do these things. Office buildings can't just be owned by ""the people"". Someone with a ton of money has to come along and fund them.   For example, one of my friends knows Elon Musk (founder of Pay-Pal, Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X). He is *worth* $2 billion, but was living on other people's couches (including my friend's) after he sold Pay-Pal because he had just poured all of his cash into starting Tesla Motors. He was a billionaire without a penny to his name (well I'm sure he had a little cash lying around, but was essentially asset rich, cash broke).   THAT is what most ultra rich people are like. They invest their money, they don't just horde it away in a savings account. The things people like Musk do create jobs and sometimes entire industries (or three entire industries in his case). I'm by no means arguing that this is right or wrong, but to say rich people just have money lying around is absurd. You don't get rich by saving money in the bank, you get rich by spending it.  I'm in my early 20's, but already own multiple apartment buildings. I'm not rich yet and am in the same boat as Musk was. I have tons of assets, but almost no cash I can spend. However, you bet my efforts are creating jobs. I'm employing people to renovate and people to repair and maintain these buildings. I'm helping stop the bleeding in the real estate market, but, according to the narrative, I'm evil because my ""income"" is six figures." How is the current mortgage payment broken out? I have a mortgage on a rental property with a payment of $775, but $600 is principal. If I were at breakeven on a sale or a bit underwater, I'd be better off just holding still, the tenant paying the loan down over $7000/year.  You question is a good one, but a good answer would require more details. A bank may not agree to a short sale on an investment property, especially since there's a second property to go after. I'm not making a judgement, just saying, it's not a slam-dunk to just short sell it. "the easiest thing would be to go to walmart and stock up on 1000$ money orders paying a 70 cents fee for each. your landlord would almost certainly accept money orders, but double check first just in case. i say stock up because you can't get a money order for more than 1000$ and they usually won't let you buy more than 3 per day. alternatively, you can probably open a bank account using your ssn and your passport.  look for any bank offering ""free"" checking, and they should be able to give you a few ""starter"" checks on the spot when you open the account. in any case, they can certainly get you a cashier's check for free or a small fee.  side note: if you want to shop around for a checking account, look for a bank or credit union offering a ""kasasa"" account."