> But a person making say $10,000 with $9,000 of expenses is not better off than a person making $20,000 with $15,000 of expenses. The article doesn't suggest

> But a person making say $10,000 with $9,000 of expenses is not better off than a person making $20,000 with $15,000 of expenses. The article doesn't suggest that. The article is in MarketWatch, most people in their target audience are able to make ends meet and are looking towards their future. The idea here is if the reader is earning $100k/ year, drives a paid off Honda Civic for 10 years, they are going to be significantly better off in 10 years than if they buy a $40,000 Camry every 5 years. > The author also misses the major point that buying a car is not lighting money on fire. Yes, it does depreciate, but you also get value of out it in the form of transportation, pleasure, and other utility. It's not just about depreciation, you are also paying a ton of interest, increased insurance, and increased taxes/ fees in most states. Yes, there is a ton of utility, but you can get that same utility for 1/8th as much buying a solid used car or just keeping your existing car nice for another 5 years. The example of the guy making millions driving a beater is extreme, but the number of people needlessly paying 10-20% of their income on car payments is quite high and that's the people this article is targeting.