Actual Cost at Dealer for 2010 vs 2009

DeadPhish, a couple of clarifications to your comments on my posts:

1. Car cost of 'buy' vs 'lease': As I said, the numbers do not *have* to be different, only that they often are because the consumer is given a package deal lease offer. The dealer does not say "Let's dicker over the car price, and then you can decide if you want the Toyota lease offer of 0.4% etc...". Instead it is offered as a lease offer of X dollar a month, meaning the car price is non-negotiable. I imagine savvy consumers are about who try to negotiate the car price separate from the financing and fee parts of leases, but they are far and few, and I'm willing to bet most dealerships will be very resistant to the idea. So with all due respect, I view your comment here as spin.

Second, you should review OP's post before assuming htat the sales tax on the entire car's value has been charged upfront. Simple arithmetic based on VT tax of 6% is that tax on a 23k US$ car is $1380. OP reported an acquisition fee of $600, and $239 first month's payment as part of upfront fees. This is already more than the $2000 she thinks is required OTD, and I have yet to include plate fees. So clearly charges that will have to be paid as part of lease + purchase of the end-of-lease car have not been accounted for yet.

Last, your entire premise regarding 'lowest price the dealer will agree to' is 1990's era tripe that salespeople have tried to snow consumers with. By now most of us know that 'invoice' price is a fiction, due to (typically) undisclosed additional monies the manufacturer passes on to the retailer such as end of month bonuses, inventory clearance bonuses, sales threshold bonuses, dealer hold-backs etc. Every consumer should also remember that dealers have costs associated with simply having hte car on the lot in the form of interest they pay to the auto manufacturer. So every day the car sits at the dealer, the dealer's costs go up and cannot be recouped by passing hte costs on to the consumer.

I have appreciated Jabber's comments in this thread, and accept most of them (car price a notable exception) as honest and straightforward. I cannot say the same for you.

 

Re: Actual Cost at Dealer for 2010 vs 2009 Pur

Back to the sales tax comparison for a second.

Straight purchase of a new automobile in 2009: State and local sales taxes are deductible on the 2009 1040 (even for those who do not itemize deductions).

Lease of a new automobile in 2009: I haven't gone back for the answer to this, but I don't know that any of the sales (or use taxes) would be deductible, because the law, as I recall it, required actual purchase. Perhaps you could, after actually completing the purchase, revise your 2009 tax return to claim the sales taxes paid -- but you could only claim those sales taxes as paid during calendar year 2009.

I brought this up simply to show that the straight purchase in 2009 would offer at least this one benefit not (fully) available through a leasing event. For this reason, it should be placed on the balance (if not the balance sheet).

 

Right now, the best buy out there is a used 06-08 Prius with low miles. Check out ebay. They can be had with 10K-30K miles for $13-16K. These cars are all virtually the same up to 09 and have outstanding reliability.

I wonder if there will ever be a better time to buy a Prius than now. Especially a used one.

 

Re: Actual Cost at Dealer for 2010 vs 2009 Pur

Very true. If you lease the vehicle, you do not get to write off taxes. If you pay them after the fact, I don't know how that will work. That would definitely be a question for a tax pro.

 

That is tempting. Puts in "I think" my price range to make it a plug in. Now I need to look at the Prius modification threads, and decide between a 2009, or a 2010, or a 20??. Thanks a lot.