Acura TSX Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter #1
I am definitetly looking into leasing a TSX in a few months. My question is if i put a bigger down payment will my monthly payments go down. I know your really not supposed to put a big down payment for a lease but my credit is not good but not bad either. So will a bigger down payment increase my chance of getting the car while reducing my monthly payments? I have to have this car. Please Help Fellow TSXers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
the biggest issue is whether or not you get
approved for a lease if you have semi-bad
credit.

More money will increase the chances of a bank
lending you the money to buy/lease the car,
but for some reason banks look at leasing much
differently than they do a purchase.

I guess it all boils down to talking with the finance
manager at your local dealer and asking him to help
you out.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Increasing the down payment DEFINITELY reduces the payments -- why wouldn't someone be sure about that? It's just arithmetic -- you can pay them now, or you can pay them later. But you have to pay them.

But there are other aspects of leasing that are more complicated than that. The main thing that strikes me about leasing is that most of the things mentioned in favor of it aren't true -- like, that the monthly payments are lower than with purchasing (they don't have to be), or that it's better from a tax-deduction standpoint (it's not, at least not that I've ever seen). Indeed there are advantages of leasing, but those ain't it. And of course there are disadvantages.

And, as luck would have it, even when people who like to lease hear the facts clarified, they almost always still lease. So everybody is doing what's probably best for them anyway, even if they have some of the reasons not quite right.

Fortunately, it's probably like that with most things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
The tax deduction benefits of leasing apply to business owners in general...

Sales tax benefits are clear, too

Payments ARE lower if you are comparing apples to apples rates (APR versus MF).

And let's not even get into GAP, or advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
After my 2 month research about leases and their advantages/dissadvantages it still works out better for me to lease the car than finance it, plus i after i negotiated the MF and selling price my monthly payments are 250 a month including tax and 800 down payment.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
Would you believe, a FRONT PAGE article in today's NY Times about the problems of leasing in New York State:


Getting Auto Lease Harder as Carmakers Fear Risks

By MARC SANTORA

Two years ago, shopping for a sporty Chevrolet Cavalier, Jessica Coutsonikas took the route of many a first-time car-buyer short on cash but long on desire: she decided to lease. But when she went to DePaula Chevrolet here on Thursday to lease a new car, she discovered that in New York, leasing the Cavalier was no longer an option.

General Motors, which makes the car, is among nearly a dozen automobile makers, including Ford and DaimlerChrysler, and roughly 40 financial institutions that have decided that the financial risks of leasing cars in the state are too high. The reason is a 1924 law that holds the owners of vehicles responsible for any accidents, even if the car is in not their possession.

That law, cited last year in a widely noted personal-injury case, has been invoked ever since in an increasing number of lawsuits against carmakers whose leased vehicles are involved in accidents.

The automakers began to stop leasing in New York State last spring, offering alternative plans that look like leases but are actually purchases and typically cost the buyer more upfront. A few other manufacturers are still leasing cars, but many have added a fee to help offset the risks.

The automotive industry has implored lawmakers in Albany to amend or repeal the law. But it has been met head on with resistance from trial lawyers, who say the problem is not the law, but the automakers' exaggeration of the risks they face.

The battle highlights the way pressing business in Albany can stagnate, even when most major players agree there is a problem. In the meantime, small leasing companies are decamping, thousands of car buyers are paying the price, and lobbyists are raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees as they fight in the wings.

"It's a total absurdity," said the State Senate majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno. "We are the only state in the United States who is socking it to consumers."

Car dealers, in lieu of leasing, have developed alternative plans. But, unlike traditional leasing deals, the new plans require a customer to pay sales tax for the full value of the car. The tax, which varies by county, averages about 8 percent of the car's value; for a car costing $20,000, the buyer would have to pay about $1,600 in taxes upfront.

"It's all way over my head," said Ms. Coutsonikas, sitting in the DePaula showroom. After the alternative Smart Buy plan was explained to her, she decided to take the simple route: she bought the new Cavalier outright.

The 1924 law establishing "vicarious liability" was intended to hold livery owners responsible when their penniless drivers caused damage they could not pay for. In recent years, however, lawyers have figured out how to use the statute in cases involving leased cars.

In 1999, Mark Chilberg of Youngstown, N.Y., ran over and severely injured his 15-year-old daughter, Amber, while she was sunbathing in the driveway. Last year a jury awarded Amber $1 million in damages and, on the principle of vicarious liability, decided that most of that sum had to be paid by the company that had leased Mr. Chilberg his car, the Ford Motor Credit Corporation.

With roughly 200 other cases in the state seeking to invoke vicarious liability, many in the automotive industry have decided they do not want to cope with the risks of leasing a car in New York.

All of the other states have similar laws that hold vehicle owners responsible, but have amended them to protect the automobile manufacturers and leasing companies. Rhode Island and Connecticut were the last to do so, amending their statutes last year. (In some New York cases, carmakers that have leased vehicles to out-of-state drivers have been found liable, but in other cases they have not, according to the New York State Trial Lawyers Association.)

In Albany, legislation to change the law has stalled. While the Republican-controlled State Senate passed a bill last year, the Assembly, controlled by Democrats, did not bring the measure up for a vote.

Mr. Bruno said that the inaction was a "great injustice" and that the source of resistance was the trial lawyers. "They look for the deepest pockets, just pure and simple," he said.

Gov. George E. Pataki has not taken a public position on the issue, but would like New Yorkers to be able to lease cars, said a spokesman......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
<i>In 1999, Mark Chilberg of Youngstown, N.Y., ran over and severely injured his 15-year-old daughter, Amber, while she was sunbathing in the driveway. Last year a jury awarded Amber $1 million in damages and, on the principle of vicarious liability, decided that most of that sum had to be paid by the company that had leased Mr. Chilberg his car, the Ford Motor Credit Corporation. </i>
I think Ford should turn and sue the guy for the loss. HE RAN OVER HIS OWN DAUGHTER!!!!!!!. I think the state child protective services should come in take the child away from the father, who can not even live up to his own responsibility. He could have pleaded guilty instead of having Ford pay.
 

·
, Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,086 Posts
blueiedgod said:
<i>In 1999, Mark Chilberg of Youngstown, N.Y., ran over and severely injured his 15-year-old daughter, Amber, while she was sunbathing in the driveway. Last year a jury awarded Amber $1 million in damages and, on the principle of vicarious liability, decided that most of that sum had to be paid by the company that had leased Mr. Chilberg his car, the Ford Motor Credit Corporation. </i>
I think Ford should turn and sue the guy for the loss. HE RAN OVER HIS OWN DAUGHTER!!!!!!!. I think the state child protective services should come in take the child away from the father, who can not even live up to his own responsibility. He could have pleaded guilty instead of having Ford pay.
Sounds right to me.
Except that I guess they'd have to challenge the basic law or principle, or show why this case is an exception.

The root thing is, I think we'd all agree that unless there's something to that law or principle way beyond what meets the eye, it's ridiculous.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top