Buy car vs lease vs long term rent for 10 years period
If you plan to keep this asset for ten years then you can take the deprecation of its cost over that time period. For simplicity lets treat that as 120 monthly payments. So at a purchase price of $60,000 you are committing around $500 per month not including vehicle maintenance. I typically allocate around 20 percent of the purchase price of my vehicles for future maintenance costs. Since you have the cash to purchase this outright you have an option not afforded to most people. This adds for additional consideration. Here is an example.  You purchase a $60,000 car and put $10,000 down. You finance $50,000 at 2.84% over 60 months. Your total finance cost is $53,693 if you do not miss any payments. The question here is can you make more than $3,693 on the $50,000 that you would retain in this situation over a five year period? I know that I most certainly can and is an excellent example of why I finance my vehicles. Obviously this all goes out the window if you do not have the credit for top rates.  I have also negotiated a vehicle maintenance plan with the dealership at the time of my vehicle purchases. Most dealerships offer this service, the key here is negotiating. On my last truck I was able to get an all inclusive maintenance policy for 72 months for 8% of the purchase price. Your mileage will vary with manufacturer and dealership. As described in the comments above it is never beneficial for an individual to lease. You end up paying more for the newer models. I consider that to be a lifestyle choice as it is most certainly not a sound financial decision. "This question has been asked and answered before. Financially, owning a car will be more economical than leasing one in most cases. The reason for this is that leasing arrangements are designed to make a profit for the leasing company over and above the value of the car. A leasing company that does not profit off their customers will not be in business for long. This is a zero-sum game and the leasing customer is the loser. The lion's share of the customer losses are in maintenance and in the event of an accident or other damage. In both cases, leasing arrangements are designed to make a large profit for the owner. The average customer assumes they will never get into an accident and they underestimate the losses they will take on the maintenance. For example, if both oxygen sensors need to be replaced and it would have cost you $800 to replace them yourself, but the leasing company charges you $1200, then BOOM! you just lost $400. If the car is totaled, the customer will lose many thousands of dollars. Leasing contracts are designed to make money for the owner, not the customer. Another way leasing agents make money is on ""required maintenance"". Most leasing contracts require the leasor to perform ""required"" maintenance, oil changes, tire rotations, etc. Also, with newer cars manufacturers recalls are common. Those are required as well. Nearly nobody does this maintenance correctly. This gives the agent the excuse to charge the customer thousands of dollars when the vehicle is returned. Bills of $4000 to $6000 on a 3 year lease for failure to perform required maintenance are common. Its items like this that allow the leasing agent to get a profit on what looks like a ""good deal"" when the customer walked in the door 3 years previously. The advantage of leasing is that it costs less up front and it is more convenient to switch to a different car because you don't have to sell the car."
Forex vs Day Trading: These can be one and the same, as most people who trade forex do it as day trading. Forex is the instrument you are trading and day trading is the time frame you are doing it in. If your meaning from your question was comparing trading forex vs stocks, then it depends on a number of things. Forex is more liquid so most professional traders prefer it as it can be easier to get in and out without being gapped. However, if you are not trading large amounts of money and you stay away from more volatile stocks, this should not matter too much. It may also depend on what you understand more and prefer to trade. You need to be comfortable with what you are trading. If on the other hand you are referring to day trading vs longer term trading and/or investing, then this can depend largely on the instrument you are trading and the time frame you are more comfortable with. Forex is used more for shorter term trading, from day trading to having a position open for a couple of days. Stocks on the other hand can be day traded to traded over days, weeks, months or years. It is much more common to have positions open for longer periods with stocks. Other instruments like commodities, can also be traded over different time frames. The shorter the time frame you trade the higher risk involved as you have to make quick decisions and be happy with making a lot of smaller gains with the potential to make a large loss if things go wrong. It is best once again to chose a time frame you are comfortable with. I tend to trade Australian stocks as I know them well and am comfortable with them. I usually trade in the medium to long term, however I let the market decide how long I am in a position and when I get out of it. I try to follow the trend and stay in a position as long as the trend continues. I put automatic stop losses on all my positions, so if the market turns against me I am automatically taken out. I can be in a position for as little as a day (can happen if I buy one day and the next day the stock falls by 15% or more) to over a year (as long as the trend continues). By doing this I avoid the daily market noise and let my profits run and keep my losses small. No matter what instrument you end up trading and the time frame you choose to trade in, you should always have a tested trading plan and a risk management strategy in place. These are the areas you should first gain knowledge in to further your pursuits in trading. These 'issues' don't exclusively relate to the 'sharing economy', the challenge of uncertainty would exist for any small business / independent contractor. It's not as if people didn't work as independent contractors in these industries before, it's just now the industries are being enhanced and overhead lowered, from technology.  For example:  Uber driver vs Medallion [Leasing] Taxi Driver  AirBNB landlord vs Apartment landlord, vacation rental landlord, or traditional bed &amp; breakfast owner.  PostMates messenger vs traditional bike messenger It wouldn't surprise me to see a country's return to show Inflation + 2-4%, on average. The members of this board are from all over the world, but those in a low inflation country, as the US,Canada, and Australia are right now, would be used to a long term return of 8-10%, with sub 2% inflation.  In your case, the 20% return is looking backwards, hindsight, and not a guarantee. Your country's 10 year bonds are just under 10%. The difference between the 10% gov bond and the 20% market return reflects the difference between a 'guaranteed' return vs a risky one.  Stocks and homes have different return profiles over the decades. A home tends to cost what some hour's pay per month can afford to finance.  (To explain - In the US, the median home cost will center around what the median earner can finance with about a week's pay per month. This is my own observation, and it tends to be correct in the long term. When median homes are too high or low compared to this, they must tend back toward equilibrium.)  Your home will grow in value according to my thesis, but an investment home has both value that can rise or fall, as well as the monthly rent. This provides total return as a stock had growth and dividends.  Regardless of country, I can't predict the future, only point out a potential flaw in your plan. "Time-Barred Debts and STATE STATUTES OF LIMITATION ON COLLECTING DEBTS are good places to start on the issues of what can be collected and for how long. What seems to be at issue is bankruptcy vs. time-barred debts vs. what creditors (original debt owners, not collection agencies or those who buy debt) can do. You should also check out The Fair Credit Reporting Act which governs some of the question.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act and the section on time-barred debts applies to collection agencies, etc. (so-called debt owners as pointed out by @littleadv, since they buy debt from the creditors) not actual creditors (those the debt is/was originally owed to). Creditors (those to whom the debt was originally owed) have different rules than debt collectors and can do things debt collectors can't. State law generally governs what creditors, as original owners of the debt, can do legally and for how long. Bankruptcy Bankruptcy is a legal action that frees someone from paying all or part of debt owed (they are crying ""Uncle!"" and stating they don't have enough money to pay their creditors). On a credit report, accounts will generally be updated to show “included in bankruptcy"" or similar. Debt that is determined to still be owed often will be reduced in amount/payments. Time-barred Debts Time-barred debts are debts that are still owed, but cannot be collected through direct legal action (suing). Each state has its own statute of limitations on how long different types of debt can be collected by suing after initial default before being considered time-barred. This period is typically 3-6 years but a few states such as Kentucky allow much longer time periods (up to 15 years). Being a time-barred debt does NOT prevent a collector from contacting someone about a debt. Collectors can still try to collect a debt forever -- and probably will -- but they can't normally sue and collect payment once the statute of limitations period has passed. There are gotchas with time-barred debts regarding collection, however, which can make them still legally actionable. Making any payment, no matter how small, making a verbal commitment to pay or even acknowledging the time-barred debt is often enough to make the debt legally collectable, even if it would normally be past the statute of limitations for collection. This is again state-dependent, but it is a pitfall for many people. The process of making a debt collectable again is often called ""re-aging"". Re-aging essentially means the clock starts anew on the statute of limitations, extending the time that a creditor may use the courts to collect that debt. If someone is taken to court over a time-barred debt that is legally noncollectable (has not been legally re-aged), nothing happens to them. However, being time-barred does not prevent legal action in the sense that you still have to prove the debt is time-barred and noncollectable in court if your sued over it.  Being time-barred does not mean the debt ""dissolves"". A debt is always owed unless the debt has been forgiven or discharged in bankruptcy court. This means that, combined with the ability of debt collectors to contact someone about out of statute debt and the pitfalls of re-aging, it is entirely possible for a debt collector to get a 20 year old debt actionable again. Also note that while someone is trying to dodge a debt to make it time-barred (e.g. by not paying anything), creditors and debt collectors can still take legal action to sue over the debt, and if they get a judgment against someone, this can extend the debt indefinitely. Judgements will eventually lapse, but often only after 10 years or more, and many states allow dormant judgements to be ""revived"" within that time period. Credit Reports  Regarding credit reports, whether someone owes a debt and whether it appears on a credit report are two separate things. As previously stated, no debt ""dissolves"" or goes away unless some sort of legal action makes it so.  As far as reporting is concerned, however, most ""bad"" credit stops being reported after seven years (by federal law). That is, accounts on a credit report will be deleted seven years from the original delinquency dates of the accounts regardless of being included in bankruptcy or as time-barred debt. This assumes no legal process allows the account to continue being reported (as is often the case with re-aging). As an FYI, a bankruptcy discharge date has nothing to do with when account information will be removed from your credit report.  Note that some debts, such as tax liens, can be reported indefinitely. Should bankruptcy be considered? The decision to do bankruptcy is mostly a matter of how severe the debt is. If it is an extremely large amount and assets are very small, bankruptcy is a good route in so far as it will legally take care of a lot of loose ends and likely relieve most or all of the burden of actually owing the money. Credit-wise, 10 years is the maximum a bankruptcy (specifically) will appear on a credit report. Accounts may drop off a credit report before bankruptcy because they are past the seven years they can be legally reported. Debts owed to the state such as child support, student loans, income tax, etc. generally cannot be written off and aren't subject normal debt statute of limitations on collection.  Finally, bad credit is bad credit -- there is likely to be little difference in terms of ability to get loans between bankruptcy and attempting to dodge legal action to make debts time-barred. If the debt is significant, bankruptcy may be the only sensible option." While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed.  Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible.  While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled.  These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation.   Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience.  But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider. "There are two reasons leases are generally a worse deal than buying. First, inherent in the lease is the concept of trading in the car at the end of the lease term. As we all know, cars depreciate the most in the first year or two. By repeatedly leasing cars on short time frames, you own the vehicles during those most expensive years. Of course there's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing when buying (be it via cash or loan), but leasing builds in a schedule and encourages you to stick to it. Second, it is easier for the dealer salesperson to hide things from the consumer in a lease contract. Most salespeople will try to get a car purchaser to focus on the monthly payment, or they'll four-box the purchaser, but even then there's only 4 numbers, and most consumers have a rough idea what they are and what they mean. But in a lease the numbers in question are renamed and obscured. ""Price"" becomes ""capitalized cost"". ""Interest rate"" becomes ""money factor"" and is divided by 2400, making it look really small and not easily translatable without a calculator or pencil and paper. ""Down payment"" becomes a capitalized cost reduction. There's a new concept ""residual value."" Neither of those reasons change when interest rate is lower." "The mix how how you present this feels contradictory. You would pull a 'major' portion from the emergency fund (EF), but at the same time, you'll replace it in a month.  The first bit scares me, this is not the purpose of that fund, and the issue is the aspect of money that's psychological. Money is a habit, if you justify this use of the EF now, it gets progressively easier for this purchase or that, and the fund loses its intended purpose. If the second half is accurate, that your income would replace that money in a month, i'd say the fund wasn't fully funded to its proper level, 6-9 months of all expenses to get you though issues as bad as a job loss.  The great thing I see in your question is what's missing. You're not looking to buy a car with a loan. That puts you in a good situation, and should push those answering to cut you some slack on the one month ""bridge loan"" from your own savings.  Edit - OP add 2 key points, His EF is 3 years expenses (wow, kudos to him!), but he's living like a student (i.e. with parents, which keeps his costs low). If this latter observation seems judgmental, I'll re-edit. The finances of everyone would be far better off if we adopted multigenerational living. The young could save as Fahad is doing, and when parents retire, they can know they are cared for. In the US, I'd say ""when you move out, your expenses will go up drastically,"" but in this case, that may not happen, or not soon. This is my observation the world is a big place and our answers need to fit the OP's situation, not assume our own standards apply to all.  Buy the better car. You saved. You earned it." "Welcome to Personal Finance and Money. This answer will depend a lot on what is most important to the buyer, for example, whether it is important to always be in a newer car, to save money, or strike a balance between the two. There are trade-offs and I don't think there is one right answer for all circumstances. Leasing Leasing does make financial sense for at least two types of people I'm aware of: The company I work for provides company cars to sales executives, which we lease. We lease because it wouldn't be appropriate for a salesperson to meet a client in a car that clearly appears used. Similarly, I know people who value being in a newer car all the time, and for them, leasing makes more financial sense then buying a new car every 2-3 years, and selling their old car which is now 2-3 years old and has depreciated significantly. They understand that they are paying more to always be able to be in a newer car. I used to work with a manager who, every time the new model of the car he owned came out, would see the car and buy it on the spot, even though he already owned last year's model, and he didn't need two cars. He just couldn't help himself; he felt he had to have the new model. It's no use sermonizing about how he ""should"" learn to save money by just being content with what he had. In reality, if he is going to buy the new model every year no matter what, he should lease rather than buy. From my experience, I would only recommend leasing if you would otherwise be buying a new car on a regular basis, and the lease would be less expensive. This is probably the most cost effective way to maintain the highest possible quality, but would cost much more than buying and holding a new car or buying a value used car. I don't see reliability as much of a factor here since the seller will have a very good idea of how much maintenance will cost, but you will pay a premium to be able to pay a fixed cost for maintenance instead of risking a worse-than-average experience. Buying New According to Edmunds and BIGResearch, only a relatively small number of people are ever in the market for a new car at a given point in time. While you do pay quite a bit more to own a brand new car instead of the same car that is 2-3 years old, there are several reasons I'm aware of why people buy new cars: Number 4 is probably the biggest reason, and many people are willing to pay for the certainty of knowing that the miles are correct, the parts are new, the car is in good working condition, etc. Additionally, some makes of cars have much higher resale values than others (such as Hondas), meaning that there isn't as large of a drop in price between a new car and a used car. Many people consider buying a new car the best way to ensure they get the best reliability since they know the initial condition of the car and can care for it meticulously from that point on. This can especially make sense when the buyer intends to keep the car for the like of the car as the buyer will then benefit from having no car payments once it is paid off. Buying Used Buying a used car is the most affordable option, but for a given quality of car the reliability can be a significant potential pitfall. It can be very difficult for a non-professional to tell whether they are getting a good value. Additionally, it is hard for an owner who wants to sell a used car in excellent condition to get the true value of the car, and much easier for an unscrupulous seller to to get the market price by selling to an unaware buyer (the ""lemons"" problem in economics). You could buy an inspected car with a limited warranty from a retail seller like CarMax or a dealership, but you often pay a significant premium that cancels out much of the biggest reason to buy used - saving money. However, there is an opportunity to save money when buying used if you're willing to compromise on the condition of the car (if you don't care whether a car has hail damage, for example), or if you are able to wait until you find a motivated/distressed seller who needs to sell quickly and is willing to sell at a discount. If cost is your primary priority, buying a used car is likely the best option, but I would recommend the following in all circumstances: If the seller isn't willing to offer both of these, I would walk away. When buying used, you will also need to consider maintenance, which will vary significantly based on the make and model of the car as well as the condition, which is another risk you need to be willing to take on if you choose to buy used."