Pencil-Necked Finance Dweebs Suggest Anyone Making Six-Figures Should Only Buy a $15,000 Car

Matthew Guy
by Matthew Guy

Look, we’re all for a pinch or two of financial prudence around here. Springing for luxury items just isn’t in the cards for most of us, despite the lavish recompense* deigned upon us by our corporate overlords in Downtown Canada. (*note: the recompense isn’t actually lavish at all).


But even we feel comfortable calling out moronic fiscal advice when we see it. Case in point – a post on a website called Investopedia suggests that anyone making $100,000 per year should spend no more than roughly $15,000 on a car.


And, yes, the post seems to have been recently updated, with a dating of December 2023 and interest rates grounded in the current (horrible) reality we find ourselves. In order to reach this out-of-touch conclusion, the killjoys at Investopedia start with an assumption that one should limit their transportation expenses to 10 percent of an annual salary, including insurance, fuel, maintenance, and the car payment itself. Beyond that, they suggest making a down payment of at least 20 percent and financing the thing for no more than four years.


At the gross income of $100,000 annually, this shakes out to $10,000 per year or about $833 per month. Setting some variables in this equation, they propose a monthly insurance rate of $147, fuel costs of $260 per month, and maintenance pegged at $95.50 per month (about 10 cents per mile). Simple math leaves is with $330.50 for a car payment. To slide in at that figure over 48 months at 8.3 percent interest with 20 percent down, Investopedia suggests a total purchase price for your shiny new car – including taxes and whatever other fees a dealer feels like charging that day – at just $16,687.


Sixteen thousand, six hundred and eighty-seven dollars. On a car. In this economy whilst making a hundred grand. We’ll let that recommendation sink in for a second. To be fair, Investopedia does recognize the current state of the car industry elsewhere in the post, pointing out the unfortunate reality that the average transaction price of a new vehicle in America is nearly 50 grand whilst the average used set of wheels is in the $26,500 ballpark.


In fact, I feel my headline figure of $15,000 is actually generous, since the $16,687 estimate includes dealer fees and taxes. The latter generally ranges between 4 and 8 percent depending on location in this county, while anyone who’s been inside a dealership in their life knows the propensity of the business office to try and pad purchase prices with various and sundry items of questionable value. Don’t take the TruCoat.


Moseying over to AutoTrader, we find a rogue’s gallery of cars on offer for that sum. A ’17 Jag XF with 88K looks nice but is sure to cost far more than 10 cents a mile in maintenance. Same goes for the myriad of decade-old BMW X5s and Merc C-Class sedans. A fifteen-year-old Ram 1500 with 131k in near-base trim is a depressing thought to have in the driveway whilst making $100,000 per year, as is the two-wheel drive Tundra with 149k from Obama’s first term. The newest option is a Mitsubishi Mirage, of course – though you do have a choice of sedan or hatchback.


So – how about it, B&B? Am I being too snobby? Should I be resetting my sights to fiscal prudence and reality instead of thinking that anyone making six-figures shouldn’t be poked into an econobox or knackered old pickup truck? Perhaps my thinking is a root of the problem that’s caused note terms to regularly crest 84 months and debt loads to skyrocket.


Nah. Who am I kidding? If I made $100,000 per year, I sure wouldn’t be tooling around in a 2016 Equinox.


[Image: Jonathon Weiss via Shutterstock]


Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Matthew Guy
Matthew Guy

Matthew buys, sells, fixes, & races cars. As a human index of auto & auction knowledge, he is fond of making money and offering loud opinions.

More by Matthew Guy

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 197 comments
  • ToolGuy ToolGuy on Jan 19, 2024

    Update: The Rules Have Changed

    So it turns out that (contrary to the advice of old farts like me) you should actually listen to the Helpful Guidance handed out at Your Local Bank and Borrow Borrow Borrow for that Questionable Degree but just be sure you are Playing For The Right Team and you shall be handed $75,000.

    Long live Free Enterprise.

  • ToolGuy ToolGuy on Feb 01, 2024

    So close to 200 comments... 😉

  • Arthur Dailey Agree with @Jeff, if you needed a cheap vehicle that was relatively robust and last a long time and you did not care about driving dynamics you could do worse than a J-Car. They as the saying go, drove badly, for a long time. They were less rust prone than many Japanese imports, and either more reliable or more robust than many (most) European or Korean autos. And parts were cheap and repairs relatively simple. As he writes, we complain about the lack of inexpensive, basic autos but then criticize autos that were inexpensive and basic. As the saying goes 'you can get cheap, fast or good, but you cannot get all 3 in the same product'.
  • Bd2 Overpriced food, awful home furnishings, endless assortments of sugary candy and drinks which are mostly garbage and childish gimmicks galore. Indeed, the most "American" of traditions.
  • SCE to AUX Some pretty big strikes:[list][*]Drivetrain - how can a straight-6 be thrashy? Shame on you, Mazda.[/*][*]Poor fuel economy.[/*][*]Tire noise.[/*][*]Poor user interface.[/*][*]That colored dash is a bit garish for me.[/*][*]High price.[/*][*]Indistinct look in the Mazda lineup. Their SUVs are Russian nesting dolls.[/*][*]Nothing compelling to lure a buyer away from the bigger brands.[/*][/list]I don't see this moving the needle for Mazda in the US market.
  • Ash78 Dear unions, thank you for your service and for expressing interest in our automotive factories. Due to your many decades of pressuring employers to do better, the more adept companies have gotten your message and have implemented most of your demands preemptively in order to maintain a better employer-employee relationship than the manufacturing industry as a whole.We truly appreciate your feedback and interest, and all it has done to improve employer relations since the industrial revolution. We take your concerns seriously and will be glad to reach back out if our situation changes.We will keep your resume on file for three years, per company policy.Sincerely,Everyone
  • Theflyersfan I'm having a tough time figuring out Mazda's recent lineup decisions. I've mentioned before how having the CX-5 and CX-50 makes no sense as it seems like they would steal each other's sales instead of conquest sales from other brands. And now here comes the CX-70 vs 90 decision. If Mazda wanted to position the 70 above the 90 with pricing, I think they should have gone the Audi Q7 vs Q8 route. The Q8 costs more, has one fewer row, and is smaller on the inside, but has the more aggressive styling and tries to position itself as the sportier alternative large CUV in their lineup. With Mazda, the 70 and 90 seem to be in the position, like the 5 vs 50, to steal each other's sales. There isn't anything compelling me to get a 70 if I get more for my money with a 90, except 100,000 miles down the road, I won't have a folded up third row seat rattling around loosely. Mazda should have brought over the CX-60 and position that where they wanted the 70. I understand it's a touch larger than the X3, Q5, and GLC CUVs, which is a sweet spot in that market. Make the CX-70 a sportier alternative 2-row instead of such a blatant cynical move of just ripping a seat out of the 90, calling it an all new model and price it in the same ballpark. I want Mazda to succeed and continue to be independent, but decisions like these make me wonder what their future plans are.
Next