Come on guys...
The Studio is an investment. It's no more "spending" than purchasing stocks or buying the new house is "spending." He built a 50k shed for 30k by DIY-ing a lot of it. Whether it was a financially good investment or not remains to be seen (I think it probably was), but there is no denying that it is an appreciating asset that increases the over all value of his property. He sold one asset (his larger house), bought, renovated and enhanced another like-kind asset (his new house + studio) and still came out ahead. How is there any confusion on whether this represents $30k of additional spending in his 2016 budget?
The car was spending. Sure, he can deduct is as a business expense on his taxes if he wants to. But it replaced his personal car. We can argue that it's anti-mustatchian all we want but, we'd only be half right. There's zero way that buying a brand new Leaf is the most cost effective vehicle for his family. But finding the cheapest way to do something has never been the entire MMM philosophy. The equation balances living the good life, with finding the most cost effective short cuts. He wanted a leaf and he mustache'd the hell out of the transaction to bring the cost of the car down as low as possible. So he spent $9000 somewhat unnecessary dollars, to replace a car that was still good. It's a depreciating asset that, if past habits hold true, should probably be amortized over 12 years, increasing his spending by roughly $750 a year. That's not even counting what it will be worth when he does eventually sell it, or any income the Leaf generates in his new Uber hobby.
I feel like the 2016 budget is leaving a lot of people with a sense of betrayal. That maybe you can't cut your spending down to the bare bones, making no provisions for future purchases, leave yourself no safety margin and expect the 4% rule to take care of you. But when has that ever been the MMM message? Does anyone here really think that his ability to replace a 12 year old car with one costing under 10k, or sell his old house for a profit that was more than enough to covers the cost of buying a new one (and building a studio) is because he's a celebrity blogger? Does 2006 Pete get no credit for building a safety margin into his calculations, long before the blog was a factor? Sure he gets invited to speak at various places now, and travels to Ecuador sometimes. Those are perks of writing a one in a million blog. I guess I missed the part where the blog ever suggested we could/should be just like him with all of the exact proficiencies and opportunities. Is there a post someone can link me to that says "you can retire early, live comfortably on 25k per year, AND fly around the world speaking at events because of your hugely popular blog, if you just get your savings rate up to 50%." It's never been part of the deal. It won't be a part of most of our lives. And I, personally, don't see any reason why that should be disheartening to anyone here.