I didn't believe it until I saw it on the web. One shop I went to
recently had changed its name, The new owner said it had been called
rent-a-rim.

What, people are renting rims?

http://www.rentawheel.com/Home
http://www.rimtyme.com/wheels/rent-t...-own/home.html

Yes, it's true. It's not enough that people rent furniture, when they
could buy it at Goodwill Industries for much much less, or that they
rent TV's when at least before digital, they could buy a new 14" color
for $60. But they are also renting rims, for 40, 50, 56 dollars a week
for four. That's almost 2100 to over 2900 a year,

Although some or all of it is rent-to-own, which is also verryyy
expensive. "My job is my credit."

And btw, the bigger rims rent for more when bigger rims give a a worse
ride. Yes indeed, bigger rims with the same radius tires have a
shorter sidewall, and it's the sidewall that soaks up most of the bumps.

On 10/25/2014 9:11 PM, micky wrote:
I didn't believe it until I saw it on the web. One shop I went to
recently had changed its name, The new owner said it had been called
rent-a-rim.

What, people are renting rims?

http://www.rentawheel.com/Home
http://www.rimtyme.com/wheels/rent-t...-own/home.html

Yes, it's true. It's not enough that people rent furniture, when they
could buy it at Goodwill Industries for much much less, or that they
rent TV's when at least before digital, they could buy a new 14" color
for $60. But they are also renting rims, for 40, 50, 56 dollars a week
for four. That's almost 2100 to over 2900 a year,

Although some or all of it is rent-to-own, which is also verryyy
expensive. "My job is my credit."

And btw, the bigger rims rent for more when bigger rims give a a worse
ride. Yes indeed, bigger rims with the same radius tires have a
shorter sidewall, and it's the sidewall that soaks up most of the bumps.


They exist for people that don't qualify for a 29% interest credit card.
The low income people will never get out of debt with places like that.

You can rent tires too! no need for that cash and saving for anything.

Oh, the people buying 22" rims are more concerned about looks that
ride.ya gotta be cool.

Micky:

"Low aspect ratio tires" aren't about a softer ride. They're for the performance buff who wants more responsive steering and cornering. That is "better handling".

You see, sports cars generally have a lower center of gravity so that they can take corners at higher speeds than a sedan. Normal tires are a weak link when it comes to hard cornering because the sidewalls flex a lot so that you don't feel the road through the steering wheel nearly as well in a corner. The low aspect ratio tires don't flex nearly as much, so you have a better "feel" for the road in a corner and, presumably with experience, can better judge how far you are from going into a skid. That's an important consideration to a race car driver, but how many of us drive like that on our daily commute to work?

But, it's like everything else. The vast majority of us don't drive like we're racing against whomever is in front of us, so we'd never really appreciate the difference the tires make. A guy who uses a hammer once every few years to drive a nail to hang a picture would do well with a $5 claw hammer from Wal-Mart. A professional carpenter who's driving nails all day long is able to discern the subtle differences between different hammers, and is willing to pay $60 for an Estwing hammer because those subtle differences in how it feels in his hands and how well it performs are worth the additional cost. It's the same story with tires. A professional race car driver would appreciate the difference in handling, but most of us wouldn't. But, of course, selling only to professional race car drivers is a very small market, so the vast majority of these tires are sold to "wannabe" race car drivers that figure they've got a fast car and are willing to dish out a lot of money on whatever they think will make it perform better.

I fully agree that for the average person, these tires aren't necessarily desireable, and they'd do better by buying normal tires that last longer and cost less. But, that's not the people these tires and rims are marketed to.

In Winnipeg at least, low aspect ratio rims are much more likely to be damaged by our magnificent potholes.

Still, you have to agree that there is a small business opportunity in renting rims and low aspect ratio tires for those who want to try these kinds of tires out before buying them.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

You can rent tires too! no need for that cash and saving for anything.

Why screw around with half measures? Leasing a BMW is essentially renting
the whole damn car. Of course, in an era of $50,000 pickups, many people are
renting it from the bank. The only difference is the size of the vig.

Yes, but there's an important difference here.

People that lease cars will almost always be able to claim the cost as a deduction against their income. A real estate agent, for example, will use his car to drive prospective home buyers around to the different houses he's commissioned to sell, and he doesn't want to be doing that in a old jalopy. Much of the trust he tries to instill in his clients relies on their perception that he is "successful" in what he does, and he can't do that if it appears he can't afford a second pair of shoes. He wants them to believe that he makes a very good living selling houses so that his clients figure that he knows what he's doing and that they would do well to follow his advice. So, he'll lease a brand new car every year to make it look like he can easily afford a nice car. But, the cost is a business expense and is deducted against his income, if he has enough income to cover it.

Companies will lease cars for their sales people. My sister used to be a sales representative for Nordic Pharmaceuticals. She'd have to drive up to Flin Flon and Thompson in Northern Manitoba every so often, and you can be a good 20 or 30 miles from the nearest phone on some stretches of that road. So, the company would provide her with a new car every 2 years, and she would also use it for her own personal use. The company would claim that as a business expense on their corporate return because their sales people need reliable cars to make visits to the doctors in remote communities.

I don't think anyone actually leases cars just to be able to drive a new car every year. Or, at least I expect it would be a rarity.

On 10/25/2014 06:11 PM, micky wrote:
I didn't believe it until I saw it on the web. One shop I went to
recently had changed its name, The new owner said it had been called
rent-a-rim.

What, people are renting rims?

http://www.rentawheel.com/Home
http://www.rimtyme.com/wheels/rent-t...-own/home.html

Yes, it's true. It's not enough that people rent furniture, when they
could buy it at Goodwill Industries for much much less, or that they
rent TV's when at least before digital, they could buy a new 14" color
for $60. But they are also renting rims, for 40, 50, 56 dollars a week
for four. That's almost 2100 to over 2900 a year,

Although some or all of it is rent-to-own, which is also verryyy
expensive. "My job is my credit."

And btw, the bigger rims rent for more when bigger rims give a a worse
ride. Yes indeed, bigger rims with the same radius tires have a
shorter sidewall, and it's the sidewall that soaks up most of the bumps.


One wonders if you don't pay your rent, do you wake up to
find your car on blocks?

On 10/26/2014 1:43 AM, nestork wrote:


I don't think anyone actually leases cars just to be able to drive a new
car all the time.

You'd be surprised at how many do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/bu...gust.html?_r=0

From the NY times
In 2013, leasing has accounted for 26 percent of new-vehicle purchases,
according to Edmunds.com. In the years before the recession, leasing
accounted for 16 percent to 20 percent, with activity focused on
high-end cars and trucks.
The average monthly lease payment was $408, down from $416 last year,
according to Experian Automotive, which analyzes automotive data.

At Sunnyside, leases make up one out of three vehicles sold at the
dealership’s Chevrolet, Toyota, Honda and Mitsubishi marquees, Mr. Frye
said. That rate is up from one out of five vehicles sold 18 months ago.

The dealership’s luxury Audi brand continues to sell about 60 percent of
its vehicles through leases, which is in line with the high-end
automaker’s usual business. But the real growth in leasing has come from
the $199 monthly payments offered regionally this summer on the
Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord and Toyota Camry midsize sedans, Mr. Frye
said.

On 10/26/2014 3:58 AM, Todd wrote:

mps.


One wonders if you don't pay your rent, do you wake up to
find your car on blocks?

Yes, according to an article in the paper a few months back.

micky wrote:

Yes, it's true. It's not enough that people rent furniture, when they
could buy it at Goodwill Industries for much much less, or that they
rent TV's when at least before digital, they could buy a new 14" color
for $60. But they are also renting rims, for 40, 50, 56 dollars a week
for four. That's almost 2100 to over 2900 a year,

Rims are a fashion statement, and they go in and out of fashion, which
is why these guys get customers who absolutely have to have the latest
dubs, but who will want to trade to a different shape in a month or so.

I think it's silly, but then I've been driving the same car with the same
rims for twenty years and clearly I don't keep up with the latest thing.
I did at one point have to change rims when they stopped making TRX tires.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:58:00 -0700, Todd wrote:

One wonders if you don't pay your rent, do you wake up to
find your car on blocks?

Ya gotta have renter's insurance :-)

On 10/26/2014 11:24 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:


I think it's silly, but then I've been driving the same car with the same
rims for twenty years and clearly I don't keep up with the latest thing.
I did at one point have to change rims when they stopped making TRX tires.
--scott


You are on the list for the next Cash for Clunkers campaign. Do your
art for the economy!

On 10/26/2014 09:03 AM, Oren wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:58:00 -0700, Todd wrote:

One wonders if you don't pay your rent, do you wake up to
find your car on blocks?

Ya gotta have renter's insurance :-)



I also occurred to me that they would tow your whole
car. Then you would have to take your own rims to
an impound lot and pay an impound fine to get your
car back, after you had installed your own rims.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 06:43:00 +0100, nestork
wrote:


rbowman;3300762 Wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
-
You can rent tires too! no need for that cash and saving for
anything.-

Why screw around with half measures? Leasing a BMW is essentially
renting
the whole damn car. Of course, in an era of $50,000 pickups, many people
are
renting it from the bank. The only difference is the size of the vig.

Yes, but there's an important difference here.

People that lease cars will almost always be able to claim the cost as a
deduction against their income. A real estate agent, for example, will
use his car to drive prospective home buyers around to the different
houses he's commissioned to sell, and he doesn't want to be doing that
in a old jalopy. Much of the trust he tries to instill in his clients
relies on their perception that he is "successful" in what he does, and
he can't do that if it appears he can't afford a second pair of shoes.
He wants them to believe that he makes a very good living selling houses
so that his clients figure that he knows what he's doing and that they
would do well to follow his advice. So, he'll lease a brand new car
every year to make it look like he can easily afford a nice car. But,
the cost is a business expense and is deducted against his income, if he
has enough income to cover it.

Companies will lease cars for their sales people. My sister used to be
a sales representative for Nordic Pharmaceuticals. She'd have to drive
up to Flin Flon and Thompson in Northern Manitoba every so often, and
you can be a good 20 or 30 miles from the nearest phone on some
stretches of that road. So, the company would provide her with a new
car every 2 years, and she would also use it for her own personal use.

BY LAW in Canada if she uses the car for personal use she needs to
keep track of all miles driven and claim the vehicle use as a taxable
benefit.
The company would claim that as a business expense on their corporate
return because their sales people need reliable cars to make visits to
the doctors in remote communities.

I don't think anyone actually leases cars just to be able to drive a new
car all the time.
The VAST majority of leased vehicles are leased to normal people who
get no tax advantage from leasing. It is advertized and pushed as a
way to budget because you always know what your vehicle costs are,, as
well as a way to keep your capital unincumbered, and to avoid having
to "borrow" money.
The one exception might be Justin Bieber who rents a
Lamborghini every now and then to drive around Hollywood like a maniac.
From what I heard, one of the players on the Los Angeles Rams saw Bieber
racing through his neighborhood and figured he'd chase him down because
he was endangering the kids in the area. He chased Bieber down, pulled
him out of his car and gave him a few good smacks, but Bieber's "people"
said it was someone else Bieber had lent the Lamborghini to that was
driving like that. Bieber's people also insist it was someone else that
threw eggs at Bieber's neighbor's house, too.

There is a BIG difference between "renting" a car for a short term and
"leasing" a car. A lease is a long term contract with large penalties
for breaking the lease. They are generally for periods of 3 years or
more - but MANY people "roll over" the lease after 18 months or 2
years to get a new car.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 05:21:36 +0100, nestork
wrote:


micky;3300730 Wrote:

What, people are renting rims?

Yes, it's true.

And btw, the bigger rims rent for more when bigger rims give a a worse
ride. Yes indeed, bigger rims with the same radius tires have a
shorter sidewall, and it's the sidewall that soaks up most of the bumps.

Micky:

"Low aspect ratio tires" aren't about a softer ride. They're for the
performance buff who wants more responsive steering and cornering. That
is "better handling". You see, sports cars generally have a lower
center of gravity so that they can take corners at higher speeds than a
sedan. Normal tires are a weak link when it comes to hard cornering
because the sidewalls flex a lot so that you don't really feel the road
through the steering wheel in a corner. The low aspect ratio tires
don't flex nearly as much, so you have a better "feel" for the road in a
corner and, presumably with experience, can better judge how far you are
from going into a skid. That's an important consideration to a race car
driver, but how many of us drive like that on our daily commute to work?
How many of us could afford to drive like that on our daily commute to
work with all the traffic tickets we'd get.

Not to mention the fast tire wear when you drive a "performance" tire
close to the edge.
But, it's like everything else. The vast majority of us don't drive
like we're racing against whomever is in front of us, so we'd never
really appreciate the difference the tires make. A guy who uses a
hammer once every few years to drive a nail to hang a picture would do
well with a $3 claw hammer from Wal-Mart. A professional carpenter
who's driving nails all day long is able to discern the subtle
differences between different hammers, and is willing to pay $60 for an
Estwing hammer because of those subtle differences in how it feels in
his hands and how well it performs. It's the same story with tires. A
professional race car driver would appreciate the difference in
handling, but most of us wouldn't. But, of course, selling only to
professional race car drivers is a very small market, so the vast
majority of these tires are sold to "wannabe" race car drivers that
figure they've got a fast car and are willing to dish out a lot of money
on it because they think it's going to make it perform better.

Most of the young guys who buy ultra low profile tires or oversize
rims buy them to "make a statement" If it became stylish to run on
narrow bicycle tires, or 95 aspect ratio tires on tiny rims, that's
what they would pay stupidly high prices for.

I fully agree that for the average person, these tires aren't
necessarily desireable, and they'd do better by buying normal tires that
last longer and cost less. But, that's not the people these tires and
rims are marketed to.

In Winnipeg at least, low aspect ratio rims are much more likely to be
damaged by our magnificent potholes.

Still, you have to agree that there is a small business opportunity in
renting rims and low aspect ratio tires for those who want to try these
kinds of tires out before buying them. How else would one make a well
informed decision on whether to spend $2000 or more on something like
this? It would make sense to spend $200 renting them for a few months
before making the commitment to spend $2000 buying them.

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 00:58:00 -0700, Todd wrote:

On 10/25/2014 06:11 PM, micky wrote:
I didn't believe it until I saw it on the web. One shop I went to
recently had changed its name, The new owner said it had been called
rent-a-rim.

What, people are renting rims?

http://www.rentawheel.com/Home
http://www.rimtyme.com/wheels/rent-t...-own/home.html

Yes, it's true. It's not enough that people rent furniture, when they
could buy it at Goodwill Industries for much much less, or that they
rent TV's when at least before digital, they could buy a new 14" color
for $60. But they are also renting rims, for 40, 50, 56 dollars a week
for four. That's almost 2100 to over 2900 a year,

Although some or all of it is rent-to-own, which is also verryyy
expensive. "My job is my credit."

And btw, the bigger rims rent for more when bigger rims give a a worse
ride. Yes indeed, bigger rims with the same radius tires have a
shorter sidewall, and it's the sidewall that soaks up most of the bumps.


One wonders if you don't pay your rent, do you wake up to
find your car on blocks?
When you sign the contract to rent the tires a lien is registered
against your vehicle, so if you don't pay the rent you don't wake up
to find your car without rims, you wake up to an empty parking space
because your whole car has been reclaimed.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 21:11:05 -0400, micky
wrote:

I didn't believe it until I saw it on the web. One shop I went to
recently had changed its name, The new owner said it had been called
rent-a-rim.

What, people are renting rims?

http://www.rentawheel.com/Home
http://www.rimtyme.com/wheels/rent-t...-own/home.html

Yes, it's true. It's not enough that people rent furniture, when they
could buy it at Goodwill Industries for much much less, or that they
rent TV's when at least before digital, they could buy a new 14" color
for $60. But they are also renting rims, for 40, 50, 56 dollars a week
for four. That's almost 2100 to over 2900 a year,

Although some or all of it is rent-to-own, which is also verryyy
expensive. "My job is my credit."

And btw, the bigger rims rent for more when bigger rims give a a worse
ride. Yes indeed, bigger rims with the same radius tires have a
shorter sidewall, and it's the sidewall that soaks up most of the bumps.


The west side of Phoenix has had rent-a-wheel/tire places for at least
5 and maybe 10 years.

On 10/26/2014 8:00 PM, wrote:

People that lease cars will almost always be able to claim the cost as a
deduction against their income.

BY LAW in Canada if she uses the car for personal use she needs to
keep track of all miles driven and claim the vehicle use as a taxable
benefit.

Same in the US since about the mid 80's when the IRS started to crack
down. I let my leased company car go and took a car allowance instead.
It was a nice benefit up to then.

No, that's not true.

By law, a benefit bestowed by a company on:
a) an employee of the company,
b) an officer of the company, or
c) someone to whom an officer of the company wished to bestow a benefit on,

has to claim the value of any benefit received from that company as income on their tax return.

So, you are partially correct. The value of the personal use of a company car by an employee would be a taxable benefit.

However, no where in the Income Tax Act is there a requirement that someone driving a company car for personal use keep a log of miles traveled for personal use and miles traveled on business. The Income Tax Act merely requires that the value of the benefit received by the taxpayer be included in income, but leaves it wide open as to how the value of that benefit is to be determined. The CRA would like everyone to keep such a log, but there is no legal requirement to do so imposed on us by the Income Tax Act or any other legislation.

Here, prove it to yourself.
Go to https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/
to see Federal Legislation and click on the "Income Tax Act" link in the Frequently Consulted Documents section. That will download the Income Tax Act onto your computer.

Then, go to the Tax Court of Canada website at:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca...-cci_Eng/Index
Click on the "Judgements" link, and then type "taxable benefit company vehicle" into the search engine and any of the resulting cases you get will cite the section of the Act that requires that personal use of a company vehicle be included in income as a taxable benefit. You will see that the act requires that this benefit be included in income, but doesn't require the taxpayer to keep any sort of log book regarding the personal miles driven.

rbowman wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

You can rent tires too! no need for that cash and saving for
anything.

Why screw around with half measures? Leasing a BMW is essentially
renting the whole damn car. Of course, in an era of $50,000 pickups,
many people are renting it from the bank. The only difference is the
size of the vig.

**** the bankers , every vehicle on my place is paid for - as my place and
everything on it . The only thing we owe on is the place in Memphis .
--
Snag

On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 03:00:22 +0100, nestork
wrote:


;3301016 Wrote:

BY LAW in Canada if she uses the car for personal use she needs to
keep track of all miles driven and claim the vehicle use as a taxable
benefit.

No, that's not true.

By law, a benefit bestowed by a company on:
a) an employee,
b) an officer of the company, or
c) someone to whom an officer of the company wanted to bestow a benefit
on,

has to claim the value of any benefit received from that company as
income on their tax return.

So, you are correct. The value of the personal use of a company car by
an employee would be a taxable benefit.

However, no where in the Income Tax Act is there a requirement that
someone driving a company car for personal use keep a log of miles
traveled for personal use and miles traveled on business.

The CRA undoubtedly recommends people keep such a log, but that's to
make the CRA's job easier. No where does the Income Tax Act require
such a log book be kept.

I expect that without such a log, the onus would be on the taxpayer to
refute the CRA's estimate of the value of the benefit received by the
employee. Still given the small liklihood that a person will be
audited, few people keep such a log.
The probability of being audited varies considerably between
businesses and seems to also vary inversely to the amount of
documentation a taxpayer can produce - - -