Ferrari Argument

A fallacious argument that, briefly, presumes that if a smoker hadn't smoked, then they'd be rich.

This usually takes the form of an anti-smoker postulating that if a smoker had saved up what they had spend on cigarettes, then they'd be able to afford some expensive thing.

When presented as a joke, it is usually subverted by the imaginary smoker replying at the end asking the anti-smoker where *their* version of the expensive thing is, with the assumption that the anti-smoker doesn't have one, and couldn't afford it, even though they didn't smoke:

Lady : Do you smoke ?

Man : Yes

Lady : How many packs a day ?

Man : 3 packs

Lady : How much per pack

Man : $10.00

Lady : And how long have you been smoking ?

Man : 15 years

Lady : So 1 pack cost $10.00 and you have 3 packs a day which puts your spending each month at $900. In one year, it would be$10,800 correct ?

Man : Correct

Lady : If in 1 year you spend $10,800 not accounting for inflation, the past 15 years puts your spending at $162,000 correct ?

Man : Correct

Lady : Do you know that if you hadn't smoked, that money could have been put in a step-up interest savings account and after accounting for compound interest for the past 15 years, you could have now bought a Ferrari ?

Man : Do you smoke ?

Lady : No

Man : Where's your Ferrari then ?