re: If an employer pays full mileage rate, does leasing make sense?

So, the question is not anything that's yet been addressed. Not bashing, but the point is... in consideration of all factors, which, economically and tax wise, makes the most sense under these conditions? She's not worried about paying for the car. She's well compensated. She does the things listed above, the nails, the hair, the clothes, yaddy-yadda. Car goes with it.

So, in example A, if leasing the car, the cost for the cars she's considering seem to be somewhere around $57k-$62k. Leases are around $599, plus the $.25 a mile above the 10,000 mile threshold, so around $800 a month in total. Over 36 months that's $28,800. Over the same time frame she gets back around $33,300,which might cover the up-front costs she has (taxes, title, registration, etc..). Add in another $600 for disposition fee. In this example, total costs vs. reimbursement are almost a wash. No maintenance, insurance or fuel costs are included in this example.

In example B, on a purchase, same time frame, with $20k down, the payments at 36 months would be around $820 a month (48 months). So, not counting tax, title, registration, etc.., she's out $49,520.00 at three years (same term as lease)with another $9840 to go to pay off the car. After getting $33,000 from the company on mileage, she's out $16,520 over the same time, plus she's out (conservatively) $15,000 in expected investment earnings from the $20k she plans to put down. That's -($31,500) (conservative estimate) in the hole with another year to go on the loan, plus another year of lost investment earnings.

In Example A, after 3 years, not including the tax benefits from writing off the lease and expenses, a total of basically zero has been spent out-of-pocket. She is left with zero in value on the car, and has reasonable expectations of earning an extra $15k-$20k in investment income in the same time period from the $20k she doesn't put down. Conclusion: $15k to the good.

In example B, after 3 years of buying, not including tax benefits from investment tax benefits and depreciation, what she has left is a negative value of -($31,500) and a balance owed of -($9840) for a total negative balance (at 36 months) of -($41,300). This is offset by the value of the vehicle, which at that time should have a value of 55% of original purchase price, so around $31,500.00. I'm considering the high mileage hit (it'll be around 80,000 miles).

If I take my negative balance of -($41,300) and subtract the vehicle's value of $31,500 I'm left with a value of -($9,800).

This creates a delta between the two scenarios of almost $25k.

These are numbers that are easy to determine. What I want to know is, from a tax, investment or depreciation schedule, how does Example B somehow end up beating Example A? Every poster (including me) espouses buying (I have a 14 year old Lexus. They are great when paid off). In the long run, however, that $20k down payment is gone forever from investment growth, so it represents a huge hit over time. I've never believed in a lease before, but these numbers are making me think there may be a reason it might make sense.... if you are managing your investments.

Tell me what I'm not considering in these equations or why this is not a fair comparison? Where is this wrong?