\n<\/p>\n
I<\/span>\u2018ve read many personal finance articles that claim you can save big by ditching your car and jet-packing, hover-boarding, or *shudder* walking everywhere instead.<\/p>\n Monevator<\/em> published a good one<\/a> recently, which prompted car-swerving frugalista The Investor <\/em>to claim<\/a> he could have spun his savings into \u00a3300,000 to \u00a3450,000, just by ploughing them into a global equities tracker these past 30 years.<\/p>\n If that\u2019s right, then hopefully he\u2019s gonna cut us in because The Accumulators<\/em> regularly ferried TI<\/em> and his glow-sticks around sundry West Country amenities during the 1990s. If you\u2019re thinking bear-baiting and badger hassling, well, I can neither confirm nor deny.<\/p>\n So how big a payout did I forgo by keeping my pedal to the metal instead? Can you really rake in nearly half a mil in exchange for 30 years of hanging about for buses?<\/p>\n Put another way: can you buy yourself a nice house by investing your car money instead?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s do the sums. Except this time, let\u2019s use some proper hardcore FIRE<\/a> numbers. We\u2019ll skip the silly money that most finance bloggers claim Joe Average throws at their transport problems.<\/p>\n Monty Mercedes<\/em> or whoever does not read FIRE blogs. Only aspiring money mavens are into FIRE, and they\u2019re unlikely to be subsidising the car industry in the first place.<\/p>\n Instead, those pursuing financial independence<\/a> on wheels will do savvier stuff:<\/p>\n All of which keeps costs down to a degree that can surprise hand-waving automobile avoidants.<\/p>\n So with the stage set, what can you really save if you don\u2019t own a car when two budget ninjas Introducing the West Country Wonga Worrier: The Accumulator-tor-tor!<\/em><\/p>\n \u2026Weighing in with annual car costs of 3,312 pounds.<\/p>\n Vital statistics: <\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s the lift-cadging, thrift-meister himself: The Invest-oooooor!<\/em><\/p>\n \u2026Weighing in at 1000 to 1500 pounds per annum.<\/p>\n Vital statistics: <\/strong><\/p>\n The Accumulator\u2019s<\/em> annual poundage is a fully itemised, all-in figure. It\u2019s the average of the last three years of car-related expenses, rebased to 2026 prices. <\/p>\n The Investor\u2019s<\/em> costs, meanwhile, are as impenetrable as the mask he wears. <\/p>\n A fully-qualified member of the finger-in-the-air school of expenses-tracking, we\u2019ll just have to rely on TI<\/em>\u2018s best recollections. He assures me he has an excellent memory. <\/p>\n Sounds reasonable. Ahem.<\/p>\n What I\u2019ll do then is calculate the match-up as a range of outcomes and leave it to the reader to decide which is closest to the truth.<\/p>\n Fight!<\/em><\/p>\n TI\u2019s<\/em> car-free costs are deducted from TA\u2019s<\/em> motoring bill:<\/p>\n (I\u2019ll do the top-end of TI\u2019s<\/em> range first, then come back.)<\/p>\n Calculate the saving in 1996 prices. Or rather outsource the task to the Bank of England via its excellent inflation calculator<\/a>.<\/p>\n Okay, so horseless carriage hater TI<\/em> would have trousered \u00a3877.46 some 30 years ago with his strap-hanging ways.<\/p>\n How much then would TI<\/em> be sitting on now if he\u2019d committed the inflation-adjusted equivalent of \u00a3877.46 per year for 30 years into a global tracker fund<\/a>?<\/p>\n That number comes from dividing the annual saving by 12 to get a monthly contribution of \u00a373.12.<\/p>\n Compound that<\/a> by 6.06% for 30 years.<\/p>\n 6.06% is the 30-year real annualised return of the MSCI World GBP. Now we have to pump up \u00a374,298.77 to 2026 prices to goggle at the size of TI\u2019s<\/em> treasure chest in today\u2019s money. Or, if TI\u2019s<\/em> low-ball \u00a31,000 annual costs are accurate: \u00a3195,774.30.<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s not quite the jackpot The Investor <\/em>imagined. On the other hand, who would say no to an extra \u00a3150,000 to \u00a3200,000 in their account?<\/p>\n Driving is the norm in the UK so few people are likely to consider designing a lifestyle that squeezes it out. <\/p>\n But what if a wizened savings sensei told your younger self that a tidy six-figure sum was at stake?<\/p>\n Maybe they could make it work?<\/p>\n Take it steady,<\/p>\n The Accumulator<\/em><\/p>\n The Accumulators\u2019<\/em> costs are shared between two. In theory that means TI\u2019s<\/em> savings are only worth half as much per person in a two-person, single-car household. <\/p>\n Then again, if TI<\/em> diverted the dosh into his pension pot he\u2019d earn tax relief unavailable to the rubber-burning Accumulators<\/em>.<\/p>\n TI\u2019s<\/em> commuting costs were low to minimal for most of his life but so were The Accumulator\u2019s<\/em>. Let\u2019s say that balances out.<\/p>\n There surely is a premium to pay for living in an area well served by public transport. (On the other hand, if you own your home then TI<\/em> would argue<\/a> it\u2019s an investment.)<\/p>\n But you may be able to offset that outlay some other way. Perhaps you can dispense with having a garden, or living near great schools, or some other \u2018must-have\u2019 lifestyle choice that, for you<\/a>, just isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n TI <\/em>would also likely claim a health benefit over most drivers \u2013 because his favoured mode of transport is his own fine pins.<\/p>\n The compounded number is much less impressive if you\u2019re dashing for FIRE in ten years. However, the money will continue to compound for so long as you\u2019re saving. <\/p>\n One way to look at it in those circumstances is to divide the saving by your sustainable withdrawal rate<\/a>, then subtract that amount from your target figure. <\/p>\n For example, car savings of \u00a31,500 per year enable you to reduce your FIRE number by:<\/p>\n Inflation-adjusted equity returns can vary a great deal \u2013 even over 30 years.<\/p>\n The current 30-year real annualised range is 2.4% to 9.9% (1900-2025). The mean average is 5.7%.<\/p>\n Finally, my full list of car-related expenses includes:<\/p>\n The Investor <\/em>here\u2026<\/p>\n Okay, I hope we\u2019ve all had our fun, but I\u2019m commandeering the reins \u2013 perks of the publishing button\u00a0\u2013 to add a final bit.<\/p>\n When we discussed this piece, I asked gas-guzzling petrolhead The Accumulator<\/em> to include a nod to typical car ownership costs in his attempt to Looking back, it was a poor sign that he shouted something back down the line about not being able to hear me as Mrs TA <\/em>had the hairdryer on and by the way he was \u201coff on a mini-break, starting now, bon voyage!\u201d<\/em> before terminating the call.<\/p>\n So for the record, the latest Pension Living Standard\u2019s<\/a> report puts \u2018motoring\u2019 costs<\/a> in the range of \u00a34,000 to \u00a35,000 a year. <\/p>\n That\u2019s for typical retirees, remember, not for wannabe Jeremy Clarksons.<\/p>\nReal numbers<\/h2>\n
\n
In the red corner <\/h2>\n
\n
In the blue corner <\/h2>\n
\n
Judge\u2019s ruling <\/h2>\n
Round One <\/h2>\n
\n
Round two<\/h2>\n
\n
Round three<\/h2>\n
\n
The final round<\/h2>\n
\n
Post-match analysis<\/h2>\n
Bonus caveats <\/h2>\n
FIRE in the whole<\/h4>\n
\n
How dependable is the investing route?<\/h4>\n
For the record<\/h4>\n
\n
Right to reply by TI<\/em><\/h2>\n
ridicule<\/s> substantiate my six-figure savings claims.<\/p>\n