Connect with us

Business

Should I Lease or Finance My New Car?

Published

3 minute read

Is it better to lease or finance a new car? There isn’t a clear-cut answer, because
each scenario has its own set of pros and cons and honestly, it really comes
down to your lifestyle and how you prefer to pay for things. Let’s compare
leasing with financing in a little more detail:

OWNERSHIP
Lease – The vehicle is titled in GM’s name, and at the end of term, you have the
option to purchase the vehicle or turn it in and lease a new one.
Finance – The vehicle is titled in your name, and you own the vehicle free and
clear after the terms of your purchase finance agreement are fulfilled.
DOWN PAYMENT
Lease – The down payment amount required for leasing varies based on the
lease transaction structure and monthly payment you desire, but in general,
is often lower than financing.
Finance – In some cases, the down payment amount needed for buying may be
higher when compared to leasing.
KILOMETER LIMITS
Lease – Kilometer limits (typically 20,000 or 24,000 yearly) apply as per your
lease agreement, and charges may be applied if these limits are exceeded.
Finance – No contractual limits on kilometers apply, however vehicle resale
values generally decrease as more kilometers are added.
MAINTENANCE/WEAR
Lease – You are required to service the vehicle as per GM’s maintenance
schedule and cannot make any changes to the vehicle’s appearance.
Finance – You can change the appearance of the vehicle, and select which
repairs to make, subject to the terms of the purchase finance agreement.
MONTHLY PAYMENTS
Lease – Monthly payments may be lower than financing the same vehicle, since
you only pay for the value of the vehicle during the term of the lease.
Finance – Monthly payments may be higher than leasing the same vehicle, as
the full value of the vehicle is paid over the term of the contract.
TAX SAVINGS FOR BUSINESS OWNERS
We have seen more and more businesses leasing vehicles to enjoy tax savings.
We recommend you speak to your accountant to see how you could benefit
from leasing your next vehicle.
In a nutshell, leasing makes it easier to get more car for less money, as you only
pay for the use of the vehicle for two or three years, instead of paying for the
vehicle itself. Financing, on the other hand, frees you from the restrictions
involved in leasing, such as mileage caps, and the vehicle is yours to do with as
you wish.
Have you ever wondered if you get more money by selling your car privately or
from trading it in at the dealership? Stay tuned for our next article.

Learn more about Kipp Scott.

Kipp Scott GMC Cadillac Buick is a family-owned business that has proudly served Red Deer, and all of Alberta, for over 50 Years since first opening our doors in 1968. Treating our customers with respect has always been our number-one priority, and we believe when it comes to selling vehicles, honesty is the best policy. Rest assured we’ll do everything we can to make sure you leave our dealership 100% satisfied.

Follow Author

Business

Climate Climbdown: Sacrificing the Canadian Economy for Net-Zero Goals Others Are Abandoning

Published on

By Gwyn Morgan

Canada has spent the past decade pursuing climate policies that promised environmental transformation but delivered economic decline. Ottawa’s fixation on net-zero targets – first under Justin Trudeau and now under Prime Minister Mark Carney – has meant staggering public expenditures, resource project cancellations and rising energy costs, all while failing to
reduce the country’s dependence on fossil fuels. Now, as key international actors reassess the net-zero doctrine, Canada stands increasingly alone in imposing heavy burdens for negligible gains.

The Trudeau government launched its agenda in 2015 by signing the Paris Climate Agreement aimed at limiting the forecast increase in global average temperature to 1.5°C by the end of the century. It followed the next year with the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change that imposed more than 50 measures on the economy, key among them a
carbon “pricing” regime – Liberal-speak for taxes on every Canadian citizen and industry. Then came the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, committing Canada to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and to achieve net-zero by 2050. And then the “On-Farm Climate Action Fund,” the “Green and Inclusive Community Buildings Program” and the “Green Municipal Fund.”

It’s a staggering list of nation-impoverishing subsidies, taxes and restrictions, made worse by regulatory measures that hammered the energy industry. The Trudeau government cancelled the fully-permitted Northern Gateway pipeline, killing more than $1 billion in private investment and stranding hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of crude oil in the ground. The
Energy East project collapsed after Ottawa declined to challenge Quebec’s political obstruction, cutting off a route that could have supplied Atlantic refineries and European markets. Natural gas developers fared no better: 11 of 12 proposed liquefied natural gas export terminals were abandoned amid federal regulatory delays and policy uncertainty. Only a single LNG project in Kitimat, B.C., survived.

None of this has had the desired effect. Between Trudeau’s election in 2015 and 2023, fossil fuels’ share of Canada’s energy supply actually increased from 75 to 77 percent. As for saving the world, or even making some contribution towards doing so, Canada contributes just 1.5 percent of global GHG emissions. If our emissions went to zero tomorrow, the emissions
growth from China and India would make that up in just a few weeks.

And this green fixation has been massively expensive. Two newly released studies by the Fraser Institute found that Ottawa and the four biggest provinces have either spent or foregone a mind-numbing $158 billion to create just 68,000 “clean” jobs – an eye-watering cost of over $2.3 million per job “created”. At that, the green economy’s share of GDP crept up only 0.3
percentage points.

The rest of the world is waking up to this folly. A decade after the Paris Agreement, over 81 percent of the world’s energy still comes from fossil fuels. Environmental statistician and author Bjorn Lomborg points out that achieving global net-zero by 2050 would require removing the equivalent of the combined emissions of China and the United States in each of the next five
years. “This puts us in the realm of science fiction,” he wrote recently.

In July, the U.S. Department of Energy released a major assessment assembled by a team of highly credible climate scientists which asserted that “CO 2 -induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” and that aggressive mitigation policies might be “more detrimental than beneficial.” The report found no evidence of rising frequency or severity of hurricanes, floods, droughts or tornadoes in U.S. historical data, while noting that U.S. emissions reductions would have “undetectably small impacts” on global temperatures in any case.

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright welcomed the findings, noting that improving living standards depends on reliable, affordable energy. The same day, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rescinding the 2009 “endangerment finding” that had designated CO₂ and other GHGs as “pollutants.” It had led to sweeping restrictions on oil and gas development and fuelled policies that the current administration estimates cost the U.S. economy at least US$1 trillion in lost growth.

Even long-time climate alarmists are backtracking. Ted Nordhaus, a prominent American critic, recently acknowledged that the dire global warming scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rely on implausible combinations of rapid population growth, strong economic expansion and stagnant technology. Economic growth typically reduces population increases and accelerates technological improvement, he pointed out, meaning emissions trends will likely be lower than predicted. Even Bill Gates has tempered his outlook, writing that climate change will not be “cataclysmic,” and that although it will hurt the poor, “it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare.” Poverty and disease pose far greater threats and resources, he wrote, should be focused where they can do the most good now.

Yet Ottawa remains unmoved. Prime Minister Carney’s latest budget raises industrial carbon taxes to as much as $170 per tonne by 2030, increasing the competitive disadvantage of Canadian industries in a time of weak productivity and declining investment. These taxes will not measurably alter global emissions, but they will deepen Canada’s economic malaise and
push production – and emissions – toward jurisdictions with more lax standards. As others retreat from net-zero delusions, Canada moves further offside global energy policy trends – extending our country’s sad decline.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who has been a director of five global corporations.

Continue Reading

Business

Cost of bureaucracy balloons 80 per cent in 10 years: Public Accounts

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano 

The cost of the bureaucracy increased by $6 billion last year, according to newly released numbers in Public Accounts disclosures. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on Prime Minister Mark Carney to immediately shrink the bureaucracy.

“The Public Accounts show the cost of the federal bureaucracy is out of control,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Tinkering around the edges won’t cut it, Carney needs to take urgent action to shrink the bloated federal bureaucracy.”

The federal bureaucracy cost taxpayers $71.4 billion in 2024-25, according to the Public Accounts. The cost of the federal bureaucracy increased by $6 billion, or more than nine per cent, over the last year.

The federal bureaucracy cost taxpayers $39.6 billion in 2015-16, according to the Public Accounts. That means the cost of the federal bureaucracy increased 80 per cent over the last 10 years. The government added 99,000 extra bureaucrats between 2015-16 and 2024-25.

Half of Canadians say federal services have gotten worse since 2016, despite the massive increase in the federal bureaucracy, according to a Leger poll.

Not only has the size of the bureaucracy increased, the cost of consultants, contractors and outsourcing has increased as well. The government spent $23.1 billion on “professional and special services” last year, according to the Public Accounts. That’s an 11 per cent increase over the previous year. The government’s spending on professional and special services more than doubled since 2015-16.

“Taxpayers should not be paying way more for in-house government bureaucrats and way more for outside help,” Terrazzano said. “Mere promises to find minor savings in the federal bureaucracy won’t fix Canada’s finances.

“Taxpayers need Carney to take urgent action and significantly cut the number of bureaucrats now.”

Table: Cost of bureaucracy and professional and special services, Public Accounts

Year Bureaucracy Professional and special services

2024-25

$71,369,677,000

$23,145,218,000

2023-24

$65,326,643,000

$20,771,477,000

2022-23

$56,467,851,000

$18,591,373,000

2021-22

$60,676,243,000

$17,511,078,000

2020-21

$52,984,272,000

$14,720,455,000

2019-20

$46,349,166,000

$13,334,341,000

2018-19

$46,131,628,000

$12,940,395,000

2017-18

$45,262,821,000

$12,950,619,000

2016-17

$38,909,594,000

$11,910,257,000

2015-16

$39,616,656,000

$11,082,974,000

Continue Reading

Trending

X