So basically, Steve got a new Mercedes more often than I get new shoes. Now that's what I expect out of a multibillionaire. Good to see he at least kept himself in new-car smell on a regular basis, and certainly kept a local dealer quite happy.
I suppose it makes up for him not living in a gated fortress.
Cars are a very particular expression of that. So Larry Ellison has a custom all-aluminum roadster, Steve had his German sedans, and ESRI's Jack Dangermond is noted for driving a Taurus wagon.
But just having a Mercedes AMG isn't the same as leasing a new one every six months. But as has mentioned, he may have simply leased the same vehicle on successive six-month terms. That's a very good point and I'd suspect that was in fact the case. It's an even cleverer maneuver and simply sounds more like what Steve would do.
It's not what I'd do, but hey, I'm not (yet) rich enough to be eccentric.
On top of the self-expression of never having license plates, he got one of the finest cars in the world delivered to his driveway, brand new, twice a year. I'm guessing not only did he never have car trouble, he never needed to take it in for maintenance either.
That's hard to beat as far as perks of being a really rich guy go. Not my personal taste, but I can't deny its appeal.
It's a nice car, but far from one of the finest cars in the world.
And lastly, I'd bet that he didn't actually get a brand new one every six months -- leasing companies generally don't do that without requiring a massive chunk of money up front (i.e. $20k each time), and given the restraint he showed with the car selection, I doubt he'd be so, well, inefficient.
It's MUCH more likely, as another commenter suggested, that the actual loophole they used was for him to "sell" the car back to the leasing company and immediately re-lease it every six months.
Are you out of your fucking mind? $100,000 is a fairly modest car? That's as much as a lot of us make in two years.
> That's as much as a lot of us make in two years.
It should be inspiration to hustle, if anything. I hustled for many years, and I was able to buy my first Mercedes last year.
Boy oh boy!
Maybe if I work my little fingers hard enough, someday I can be on that level!
/sorry for the snark, maybe it's the weather, or maybe it's the condescending tone of your post -- I sincerely hope that I never look at hacking as a form of "hustling"
Most of my hustle has been in the form of serious hacking/side projects.
My version of affluence is being in the top 1% that the 99% hates. I'm not quite there yet. :)
The "maybe you should learn to hustle and someday you can be like me!" thing comes from lack of self-confidence; the term for this has historically been "nouveau riche".
I've linked this many times, but read it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/154/why_real_men_wear_pink/
If you're talking about automobiles as a social signaling mechanism, "real men drive Audis."
Not to be an outright prick here, but "learn to hustle like me, [plebian]" definitely doesn't come across as affluent.
And if we're talking about automobiles, the two wealthiest people I know drive cars that cost them less than $20,000. One is a founder of a company that you use every day but might not have heard of, the other is the CEO of a company you definitely use every day, and have definitely heard of.
My suggestion was that outrage is not the correct response to affluence; admiration is. Driving a $100,000 car is not unreasonable.
I don't lack self confidence, I simply like to encourage people to hustle. I do this with my friends and family constantly. I'm not rich, but I will be some day because I have the attitude and the hustle.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. If I wanted to be condescending initially, I would have replied with a more 4chan-esque "cry more, poorfag" or something along those lines.
Have you ever asked them if they think this comes across as condescending of you?
As far as you lacking self confidence. Maybe not, but to "affluent" people, that's how it looks.
You don't have to apologize, you didn't hurt my feelings or anything, I'm just pointing this out to you so that I can help you work past it. Keep at it, and eventually you'll get the self-confidence you need to not make stupid remarks about cars.
(See how that sounds? Condescending, eh?)
> I'm just pointing this out to you so that I can help you work past it
This implies inferiority or defectiveness and could be considered condescending.
>This implies inferiority or defectiveness and could be considered condescending.
That's the point.
I'm not trolling and this is a sincere question. Which car would you consider among the finest in the world?
Edit: Thanks for the replies.
(Personal dream cars that cost more than this):
Ascari A10
Koenigsegg CCX
Ariel Atom V8
That first range is generally for the rich professionals who do care, to some extent, about price. I would say the "I don't care what it costs" territory starts at around 400K
For example, I think that the bugatti veyron is one of the finest cars in the world.
As for price, the hermes-modified veyron is about 10 times more expensive than the SL65.
It doesn't look all that different to a $45,000 SLK, though, which makes it the insanely fast borderline-supercar of choice for the billionaire who wants to remain relatively inconspicuous.
I don't know if one needs an AMG for that, but I can't quite picture Steve Jobs in a Miata.
For all we know though there's some loophole that lets the dealer resell the exact same car to Jobs every 6 months which somehow keeps it under the no-plate period.
Dealers will certainly (try to) use that fact in their marketing, but the cars are such commodities anyway (particularly the SL55, of which there are TONS out there) that nobody, in the end, really cares who owned the car as long as it looks and runs like it's supposed to.
Exactly. The way the law was written, the exact wording, it would never be expected that someone would not want to do something like put on a license plate and go to the added expense that Jobs did.
The law probably reads "x" time period from the date of title.
Even if that time period was only 30 days there is nothing to prevent someone from selling the car to their wife, buying it back, and re-titling. And a transfer to a family member in many states including California is exempt from sales/use tax:
tl;dr: you're a douche; your internet access should probably be revoked
There's unlikely to be any ozone left after 12 hours anyway, but cars aren't air tight so volatile or not within the weeks it takes to get to you the level should be down to zero.
In other words, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k.