Facebook CEO Drives an Acura TSX
10-18-2010 | 03:03 PM
#82
Registered but harmless
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,860
Likes: 1,151
From: Los Angeles, CA
Screw that, in a Powerball/lottery winner situation!I'd get myself a Ferrari mid-engine convertible week-end car and whatever my wife wants for herself, then a Bentley for a prospective hot-ass mistress on the side!
10-18-2010 | 03:38 PM
#85
You geniuses who are all pissing on the guy for renting realize it's 99.99% likely it's a business deduction... right? In that case it makes more sense to own b/c it's much easier to write off rent/lease payments then it is a mortgage. Completely different rules when dealing with a mortgage and business expenses. 
10-18-2010 | 03:40 PM
#86
Senior Moderator
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 45,641
Likes: 2,329
From: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
10-18-2010 | 03:47 PM
#87
Senior Moderator
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 167,734
Likes: 23,026
You geniuses who are all pissing on the guy for renting realize it's 99.99% likely it's a business deduction... right? In that case it makes more sense to own b/c it's much easier to write off rent/lease payments then it is a mortgage. Completely different rules when dealing with a mortgage and business expenses.
10-18-2010 | 05:02 PM
#89
I think you need to calm down...And nope, Anil was not coming to "my rescue". I don't need saving from you, thank-you. 
We can continue down this tangent forever and you'll probably get angrier and angrier anyhow. There are heaps of millionaires I know who refuse to buy cars and just go leasing high-end European cars (i.e. BMW, Porsche, Land Rover). They switch out every 2 years for something else...And based on your sentiments, it is terrible investment on their part too and they are idiots. Yes?
Keep in mind, do I agree with what they do with their $$$ in regards to cars? Not really...but, again, does make them stupid?
Let's put it this way: Agree to disagree.
We can continue down this tangent forever and you'll probably get angrier and angrier anyhow. There are heaps of millionaires I know who refuse to buy cars and just go leasing high-end European cars (i.e. BMW, Porsche, Land Rover). They switch out every 2 years for something else...And based on your sentiments, it is terrible investment on their part too and they are idiots. Yes?
Keep in mind, do I agree with what they do with their $$$ in regards to cars? Not really...but, again, does make them stupid?
Let's put it this way: Agree to disagree.
I think if I were in his position, instead of renting the house that he currently rents (which is not some lavish celebrity-like mansion), I would purchase said house.
it doesn't make any economical sense to rent the current house that he rents when he can afford to buy it.
I think that's the sentiment that I and a couple of people are getting at.
No one's stating that with all of his money, he should be fabulous.
it doesn't make any economical sense to rent the current house that he rents when he can afford to buy it.
I think that's the sentiment that I and a couple of people are getting at.
No one's stating that with all of his money, he should be fabulous.
I think people keep putting in their minds that he is renting out a 30k sq ft house that cost him $20k a month to rent, when that isn't the case at all. However, I have to agree with the fact we don't know the specific details of why is renting and until we do then everything is speculation.
10-18-2010 | 05:25 PM
#90
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,547
Likes: 196
........Secondly, leasing Exotic Sports cars does make sense because they have the liberties of switching them up at their leisure. Are they idiotic? No, because car buying is not an investment like buying property, so its actually smarter to lease vehicles of that stature. In addition, I bet those millionaires don't blink an eye when buying a daily driver that is much cheaper because leasing a car that can be easily bought doesn't make sense. Would you agree? Lastly, I definitely will agree to disagree...but you're wrong.
Out of curiosity, how many self-made millionaires do you personally know? And of them, how familiar are you with their financial arrangements?
Those who are financially secure (whatever the income) that are responsible for their own successes are generally very astute and careful with their funds. They realize the value of money and the work it takes to achieve financial independence. They rarely get to the point where they "don't blink an eye" when spending money. If anything, many of them become even more concerned with how money is spent.
Terry
10-18-2010 | 05:42 PM
#91
Out of curiosity, how many self-made millionaires do you personally know? And of them, how familiar are you with their financial arrangements?
Those who are financially secure (whatever the income) that are responsible for their own successes are generally very astute and careful with their funds. They realize the value of money and the work it takes to achieve financial independence. They rarely get to the point where they "don't blink an eye" when spending money. If anything, many of them become even more concerned with how money is spent.
Terry
Those who are financially secure (whatever the income) that are responsible for their own successes are generally very astute and careful with their funds. They realize the value of money and the work it takes to achieve financial independence. They rarely get to the point where they "don't blink an eye" when spending money. If anything, many of them become even more concerned with how money is spent.
Terry
I've known a few millionaires, but nobody within the realm of MZ.
You're telling me that a multi-millionaire (Just to be clear, I'm referring to someone that has hundreds of millions, not just a few) wouldn't blink an eye if he was buying a TSX or any car within $25k-$50k range? I highly doubt it. However, I wouldn't doubt that they would be more concerned with price and spending when making bigger purchases ie. houses, businesses, etc., that makes perfect sense and I agree with you, but that wasn't my argument.
10-18-2010 | 06:05 PM
#92
Banned
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 933
Likes: 6
You geniuses who are all pissing on the guy for renting realize it's 99.99% likely it's a business deduction... right? In that case it makes more sense to own b/c it's much easier to write off rent/lease payments then it is a mortgage. Completely different rules when dealing with a mortgage and business expenses.
Business deductions are allowed if the leased/rented property are actually used for business, otherwise its not deductible.
Besides, if you buy, you can still deduct mortgage interest and property tax (though in his case probably just tax).
10-18-2010 | 06:34 PM
#93
But does he use the whole house to run facebook? Or just one room?
Business deductions are allowed if the leased/rented property are actually used for business, otherwise its not deductible.
Besides, if you buy, you can still deduct mortgage interest and property tax (though in his case probably just tax).
Business deductions are allowed if the leased/rented property are actually used for business, otherwise its not deductible.
Besides, if you buy, you can still deduct mortgage interest and property tax (though in his case probably just tax).
With a mortgage, you have to prove much more and only the interest and taxes are deductible. If you're paying $2k/mo in a mortgage, you may be able to deduct ~$800-$1k/mo, plus a portion of the expenses. If you're renting/leasing a place for $2k a month, you can deduct $2k plus expenses, pretty much no questions asked.
10-18-2010 | 06:36 PM
#94
10-18-2010 | 07:20 PM
#95
Banned
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 933
Likes: 6
Trust me, I know how it works. And I know plenty of people who rent properties and write off the whole thing. I also know quite a few who really do not do much business on the property, but deduct the whole thing. All you need is a little piece of business (in his case a laptop or printer or router, etc) in each room and the whole thing is deductible... and that's only if an auditor shows up. Plus, people who know anything about business know any and every loophole, so trust me... the odds are almost 100% he is deducting those expenses. Why do you think people lease cars like a Ferrari or a Lambo? It's listed under the business as marketing and they're deducting the whole thing...
With a mortgage, you have to prove much more and only the interest and taxes are deductible. If you're paying $2k/mo in a mortgage, you may be able to deduct ~$800-$1k/mo, plus a portion of the expenses. If you're renting/leasing a place for $2k a month, you can deduct $2k plus expenses, pretty much no questions asked.
With a mortgage, you have to prove much more and only the interest and taxes are deductible. If you're paying $2k/mo in a mortgage, you may be able to deduct ~$800-$1k/mo, plus a portion of the expenses. If you're renting/leasing a place for $2k a month, you can deduct $2k plus expenses, pretty much no questions asked.
People that lease and deduct non-business related items are basically intentionally entering what I call the "audit lottery" Chances are, you won't get audited, but if you do, it will be difficult to prove a business purpose.
Auditors have the right to inspect your property and allow or disallow expenses. People that deduct non-business related items are taking a chance and hoping they don't get audited. If they do, there's a whole lot of taxes, penalties, and interest they will need to pay.
That's not a "loophole" btw, it's more like speeding (when you're driving) all the time and hoping there's no cop around to catch you. Guess what happens when they do?
10-18-2010 | 07:46 PM
#96
Pinky all stinky
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 20,665
Likes: 191
You geniuses who are all pissing on the guy for renting realize it's 99.99% likely it's a business deduction... right? In that case it makes more sense to own b/c it's much easier to write off rent/lease payments then it is a mortgage. Completely different rules when dealing with a mortgage and business expenses.
We're just talking in general...I'm not sure why people are up in arms about this.
I mean we're talking about a relatively modest home (for someone of his income - I personally would be in heaven in said "modest" home) that he's renting.
If it's a business decision, how much money would he be saving considering he's a billionaire?
And if we go down the rich-guy-doing-weird-things-because-he-can route, wouldn't you expect him to spend money on a lavish chateau rather than rent a modest home?
10-18-2010 | 08:04 PM
#97
Racer
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 417
Likes: 31
From: Los Angeles
Wow, another anti-Infiniti posts for you. Just confirms what I thought earlier. Have you ever considered how much more powerful the G37 is compared to the TSX and TL? The HP and torque is much more and 19/27 is not that bad for 330HP and almost 270lbs of torque. Look at the mpg of the TL with 280HP and 305HP engine, it is no better than the G's.
Acura needs to add a 6spd auto not just for mpg reasons b/c of the image and ridiculous it makes them have. You go on touting how sporty the TSX and Acura is yet you can't even get a 6spd auto which comes standard in a Toyota Camry. Looks ridiculous that a non-luxury family sedan with absolutely no sporty pretensions what so ever can have a 6spd auto yet a Acura TSX can not.
While your at it, why don't you blast BMW for its poor mpg performance like Infiniti's? Oh wait, maybe its b/c you have one!
The TSX is based on the Europe Accord so lets not play the Acura fanboy semantics game that, "oh there really not the same b/c of this, b/c of that" but this Infiniti or Lexus is this in another country. The TSX is a rebadged Honda Accord, accept it.
A 370z is the same thing as a G37 so why pay more? I don't know, maybe b/c the G37 has much higher quality, more refinement, better dealership experience, and is offered in a sedan forum besides coupe, to name a few. This really tells me you don't know what your talking about. I could say the same thing about the TSX then. Why pay more for that when you can get the same thing for less by getting a Accord or Civic. It is not a one way street man.
Acura needs to add a 6spd auto not just for mpg reasons b/c of the image and ridiculous it makes them have. You go on touting how sporty the TSX and Acura is yet you can't even get a 6spd auto which comes standard in a Toyota Camry. Looks ridiculous that a non-luxury family sedan with absolutely no sporty pretensions what so ever can have a 6spd auto yet a Acura TSX can not.
While your at it, why don't you blast BMW for its poor mpg performance like Infiniti's? Oh wait, maybe its b/c you have one!
The TSX is based on the Europe Accord so lets not play the Acura fanboy semantics game that, "oh there really not the same b/c of this, b/c of that" but this Infiniti or Lexus is this in another country. The TSX is a rebadged Honda Accord, accept it.
A 370z is the same thing as a G37 so why pay more? I don't know, maybe b/c the G37 has much higher quality, more refinement, better dealership experience, and is offered in a sedan forum besides coupe, to name a few. This really tells me you don't know what your talking about. I could say the same thing about the TSX then. Why pay more for that when you can get the same thing for less by getting a Accord or Civic. It is not a one way street man.
10-18-2010 | 10:12 PM
#100
We don't know what his situation really is.
We're just talking in general...I'm not sure why people are up in arms about this.
I mean we're talking about a relatively modest home (for someone of his income - I personally would be in heaven in said "modest" home) that he's renting.
If it's a business decision, how much money would he be saving considering he's a billionaire?
And if we go down the rich-guy-doing-weird-things-because-he-can route, wouldn't you expect him to spend money on a lavish chateau rather than rent a modest home?
We're just talking in general...I'm not sure why people are up in arms about this.
I mean we're talking about a relatively modest home (for someone of his income - I personally would be in heaven in said "modest" home) that he's renting.
If it's a business decision, how much money would he be saving considering he's a billionaire?
And if we go down the rich-guy-doing-weird-things-because-he-can route, wouldn't you expect him to spend money on a lavish chateau rather than rent a modest home?
What I don't get is how you were bashing billionaire A for building a $2B skyscraper and in here bashing billionaire B for renting. Doesn't make much sense.
If you own property you have to pay for the property taxes, the repairs, etc. Renting you don't.
10-18-2010 | 10:29 PM
#101
But who cares when you're a billionaire living in a little, modest house?
10-18-2010 | 10:31 PM
#102
Senior Moderator
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 167,734
Likes: 23,026
10-18-2010 | 11:09 PM
#107
10-18-2010 | 11:10 PM
#108
10-18-2010 | 11:13 PM
#110
Buying property is spending money frivolously?
If anything, paying rent is spending money frivolously. Please exit this thread, stage left.
Last edited by madcaps; 10-18-2010 at 11:21 PM.
10-18-2010 | 11:45 PM
#112
Maybe he doesn't want to pay somebody to take care of his home, pay for repairs, pay property taxes, pay a gardner, etc.
Maybe he's saving all his capital for his next business venture.
Who knows.
One thing I know for sure, he doesn't need investment advice from you.
10-19-2010 | 12:06 AM
#113
Great logic. Yea, he's a billionaire, he should own that little house, good job detective! Not so sure about that analogy, but I'll roll with it. Have you seen the house he is renting? Probably not. I don't think purchasing this house would affect his capital much. That's the million dollar question that nobody has an answer to except MZ.
Last edited by madcaps; 10-19-2010 at 12:08 AM.
10-19-2010 | 12:15 AM
#114
Suzuka Master
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 8,620
Likes: 7
From: Charlotte
Your arguing over the tax benefits and appreciation of owning home vs. renting to someone worth billions of dollars. Granted most of his money is tied up in his ownership of face book so he doesn't have the liquid assets that some wealthy people do but even still, any monetary benefit to owning a home vs renting will not have even the slightest impact on his wealth.
10-19-2010 | 12:29 AM
#115
How do you know what he needs or wants? You don't and neither do I. So people that travel for work shouldn't own a home? Great logic. Yea, he's a billionaire, he should own that little house, good job detective! Not so sure about that analogy, but I'll roll with it.
Who knows what he wants? But he could easily afford any cost in the upkeep of the home.
Have you seen the house he is renting? Probably not. I don't think purchasing this house would affect his capital much.
That's the million dollar question that nobody has an answer to except MZ.
I wasn't aware that MZ was a member of A'zine and apart of this discussion, on that note, welcome MZ!!
Great logic. Yea, he's a billionaire, he should own that little house, good job detective! Not so sure about that analogy, but I'll roll with it.Who knows what he wants? But he could easily afford any cost in the upkeep of the home.
Have you seen the house he is renting? Probably not. I don't think purchasing this house would affect his capital much. That's the million dollar question that nobody has an answer to except MZ.
I wasn't aware that MZ was a member of A'zine and apart of this discussion, on that note, welcome MZ!!
A whole lot of deflecting and repeating what I said. Maybe != I know.
It seems now you are being deliberately obtuse.
You still haven't made any logical case for him to buy a house, other than "he can afford it" or "he's a billionaire".
Tell me, how would buying this house that he is renting affect his investment portfolio? If it's just the modest house you describe, why would he bother?
10-19-2010 | 01:15 AM
#116
Ya think? Man, you're really good at this detective work.
I had more to say than that, but i'm not going to reiterate my point of why I think owning property is better than renting, especially if you have the means to do so.Why wouldn't he bother? You don't think having equity in a home or possessing assets is good? From an investment perspective, you think paying someone else to live in a house is a much better decision than buying? Sure this little modest house may not have much of an affect on any of his investments or on any of his wealth for that matter. But if you can buy something and make a little money off it, why the hell not? Its like finding a dollar on the ground. Sure that one dollar won't make or break your bank account, but its always nice to get free money.
Last edited by madcaps; 10-19-2010 at 01:19 AM.
10-19-2010 | 08:52 AM
#118
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,372
Likes: 5
From: NJ
That was someone's else's flawed comparison. I never said it was a competitor to the M series nor is it. I do believe that is why Infiniti is creating the IPL. In time, I think they are going to develop products to compete with the M line, S line, and F lines, despite that they say they aren't. I think its just a bunch of BS since they are starting off small with it and see how it sells and progresses.
10-19-2010 | 09:22 AM
#119
Drifting
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,761
Likes: 86
From: Boston Metro
I love the fact that you think this guy is sitting on all this cash and can easily buy whatever he wants. More likely he's sitting on restricted stock options (controlled by the VC's who've paid capital into the company to support it's massive growth.) Since no one here has seen any of the term sheets, we don't know what he has, or what he can do with his equity.
He's probably renting and living modestly because he doesn't have money in the bank. Why spend money to buy a house now for a year or two, when you can take your company public and start selling your stock and buy something more permanent?
He's probably renting and living modestly because he doesn't have money in the bank. Why spend money to buy a house now for a year or two, when you can take your company public and start selling your stock and buy something more permanent?
10-19-2010 | 09:42 AM
#120
Why wouldn't he bother? You don't think having equity in a home or possessing assets is good? From an investment perspective, you think paying someone else to live in a house is a much better decision than buying? Sure this little modest house may not have much of an affect on any of his investments or on any of his wealth for that matter. But if you can buy something and make a little money off it, why the hell not? Its like finding a dollar on the ground. Sure that one dollar won't make or break your bank account, but its always nice to get free money.
I never said having assets is a bad thing. You are acting as if he doesn't already have billions in assets. And now you are comparing finding a $1 on the street to buying a house.
A house is not free money. It is clear you are just arguing to argue.