|
Cyrezar posted:I've heard this argument made frequently around here as far as just buying an older car using cash and driving it until the wheels fall off. As a counterpoint, I'd like to tell a story about a lady I work with. She makes over $100K per year and her husband retired from the same job she still has making over $100K a year, at which point he got his pension + social security. It would not be inconceivable to say that this couple was making in excess of $200K a year gross for at least 5 years immediately before the retired. Staggeringly unlikely events don't retroactively change good decision into a bad decision. It was still probably the right call, even if it didn't work out for him. Life is risk. And flailing your arms around about what could happen can justify any amount of poor financial decisions. Minimize the risks you take (in this case, by driving less), and insure against the reasonable risks you cannot mitigate. Edit: Also, your premise is pretty drat tenuous to begin with. You're reaching a conclusion using fairly considerable unknowns as blatant supposition as your evidence. That position doesn't hold water, with or without rebuttal. Folly fucked around with this message at 00:44 on May 5, 2014 |
#
?
May 5, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
Every vehicle up until a few years ago didn't have side-airbags, and I'm guessing 80% of vehicles on the road right now don't have them. It's like convincing my family to move out a rapidly-deteriorating neighborhood. It would make sense and improve their safety, but they're attached to the property.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Folly posted:Staggeringly unlikely events don't retroactively change good decision into a bad decision. Well keep driving a 15-year old Ford and may god have mercy on your soul
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Folly posted:Staggeringly unlikely events don't retroactively change good decision into a bad decision. Spending $8000 on a used 2004 Accord with 5-star safety ratings instead of $3000 on a 1999 Cavalier with 1-star side impact safety rating: a Bad Idea. Safety is one of those "pound wise, penny foolish" things if you're living comfortably.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Yeah. I mean, some people ride bikes to save money. Can you loving believe these loving retards? Don't they know people on bikes get hit by cars all the time? I only ride around town in an armored personnel carrier. 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
GAYS FOR DAYS posted:Yeah. I mean, some people ride bikes to save money. Can you loving believe these loving retards? Don't they know people on bikes get hit by cars all the time? I only ride around town in an armored personnel carrier. This but unironically. If you make 200k gross you can afford to spend a little more on safety. Might as well just drive shitboxes around with your kids in them because whatever, I'm saving 40 bucks on insurance!" The argument isn't "life is risk so do whatever," it's "use your brain and don't be a tightwad."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
GAYS FOR DAYS posted:Yeah. I mean, some people ride bikes to save money. Can you loving believe these loving retards? Don't they know people on bikes get hit by cars all the time? I only ride around town in an armored personnel carrier. I could live in a cave for real cheap and run to work but instead I live in a new house which has permits and inspections and drive my used, safe car to work. Should I build a fortress and buy a tank instead?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Your Dead Gay Son posted:This but unironically. Exactly. The argument cuts both ways. If you have to have a shitbox to get to work then that's one thing, you are are making at least 180,000 a year before taxes (I was being intentionally vague and conservative with my prior estimates) then at least treat yourself to a safe vehicle. Also this is in North Carolina so it's not like bikes or public transport are in the least bit viable for the majority of people no matter what their age or health. At least we have tons of churches
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Cyrezar posted:Well keep driving a 15-year old Ford and may god have mercy on your soul He probably died because it was a SUV, not because it was old. Being in a brand new Ford Explorer or whatever may have well had the exact same result. Saying any non-"safe" vehicle is a bad decision means that every single person buying a SUV is making a mistake, as they're the least safe vehicles.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
I live in fear of at least fourteen unlikely scenarios that result in my death. Please tell me there are ~things~ I can buy to make me feel safer! 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:He probably died because it was a SUV, not because it was old. Being in a brand new Ford Explorer or whatever may have well had the exact same result. The safety ratings I listed are accurate. A 15-year old Cavalier has 1-star side safety ratings.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:He probably died because it was a SUV, not because it was old. Being in a brand new Ford Explorer or whatever may have well had the exact same result. A Cavalier isn't an SUV, nor was he struck by one. But this is turning into a stupid derail instead of making my point that at a certain level of income, stop driving lovely cars because there is more at stake than adding up costs for depreciation, insurance, and maintenance. It's the equivalent of living in a lovely apartment your whole life because $450 a month in rent is cheaper than paying a $1,000 a month in mortgage payments. You are technically correct but there are a lot of un-enumerated benefits to some things. Diminishing returns. heated game moment fucked around with this message at 01:21 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
I was going to say, I drive a beater '97 volvo, probably 160,000 miles and that fucker is SAFE. I've had two people hit me in the last two years. There is not a dent in my car but their brand new plastic paneled cars (one was like, three days off the lot and I almost felt bad for her but I was completely stationary and she pulled across a parking space and the width of a median planter to hit my stationary car) both crumpled.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Your Dead Gay Son posted:If you make 200k gross you can afford to spend a little more on safety. Might as well just drive shitboxes around with your kids in them because whatever, I'm saving 40 bucks on insurance!" The argument isn't "life is risk so do whatever," it's "use your brain and don't be a tightwad." Almost this. After all, my position wasn't "life is risk, do whatever." It was "life is risk, so you mitigate it where appropriate, insure where you can't" and I should have finished it with: accept the risk that's left. So really, my argument is that you should manage your risk in the most cost effective way, but safety should not be your top priority. It should be weighed against cost. I find that a newer car is usually exponentially more expensive than the safety it adds. I also find that to be true when I'm choosing my insurance deductible. How do you mitigate the risk of driving? My opinion: First, don't drive or at least minimize your driving. Second, drive attentively and defensively. Third, drive a safe and reliable vehicle. Once you are at the point of needing to rely on the safety features of the vehicle, the situation is already out of control. And for the record, my car is a 15 year old soft top Jeep Wrangler. It has got to be one of the least safe vehicles on the road. But I'm not going to replace it because I generally only drive it the 2 miles to the bus stop.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
MAKE NO BABBYS posted:I was going to say, I drive a beater '97 volvo, probably 160,000 miles and that fucker is SAFE. I've had two people hit me in the last two years. There is not a dent in my car but their brand new plastic paneled cars (one was like, three days off the lot and I almost felt bad for her but I was completely stationary and she pulled across a parking space and the width of a median planter to hit my stationary car) both crumpled. Isn't that supposed to happen with newer designs? They're intended to crumple in ways that protect the passenger space, right?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
From time to time I like visiting the DOD clearance website that was brought up earlier in the thread. I've think I found a good one: http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/doha/industrial/13-00319.h1.pdfquote:The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. The SOR identified 12 delinquent debts totaling $1,414,874.  Seems high for a divorced person like him with no kids. I wonder how many houses he bought?quote:Applicant attributes his financial delinquencies to his decision to invest in three real estate properties and the subsequent decline in the real estate market. Applicant purchased his first investment property in 2004 for $400,000. He put 5% down, and financed the rest through two loans: a first mortgage of $322,000 and a second mortgage Well that's unfortunate, three houses bought during the housing bubble and financed with some interesting loans. At least he doesn't owe the government any mon..... quote:Appellant is alleged to be indebted on two Federal tax liens in the amounts of $19,081 and $51,513, respectively. Applicant testified that as his properties were foreclosed upon, he failed to adjust his federal tax with-holdings. This resulted in unpaid tax delinquencies for tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010. Oh. Hopefully he doesn't have any other debts... quote:In addition to Applicant’s tax debt and real estate debt, he has four other past due accounts identified on the SOR including: a utility debt of $100; a credit card debt I do wonder how he thought he could pay for all this debt. His houses alone were well over $1.3 million. At least he paid off the $100 utility debt according to the document.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Oh insurance chat! $360 a year is MEGA LOW for what you're doing. NC is unique in that they have super low rates by kicking the rear end of anyone that has a lapse in coverage or is a new driver. Longevity is a huge deal in NC. But yeah, $360 a year is the exception NOT the norm, even for someone with a good long driving record. The norm is probably closer to ~$75 a month or close to $1000 a year. So you're wrong on saying someone paying more for insurance is bad with money. BUT you're right with people buying the newest kewlist car and paying most of their premium in insuring the car and not themselves. I have posted it before, but it boggles the mind how many people pay more to insure their brand new 2014 car than they do for their house that has a bad roof. more friedman units posted:Isn't that supposed to happen with newer designs? They're intended to crumple in ways that protect the passenger space, right? Yes. Being all  about your car not crumpling is silly because the ones that crumple are often MORE safe then the boxes of death from the 80s.Also re: car chat, being bad with money is being able to afford something safer, and nicer, and intentionally not buying it so you can save a few bucks. I see this all the time with life insurance. "Bah, I don't need it, I'll save the ~$20 a month"...yeah everyone dies dude. Not protecting your family in SOME way shape or form (life insurance/investments/will/etc) is being bad with money. I see the guy driving a small beater the same way. Your Dead Gay Son posted:This but unironically. ^^^
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:Isn't that supposed to happen with newer designs? They're intended to crumple in ways that protect the passenger space, right? That's my understanding, which seems great in a catastrophic wreck or serious crash but in these cases it was a few grand in body work for what would have been a minor ding on my car. I understand a lot of engineering goes into the new crumple zones to make things safer but I feel incredibly safe in my steel tank of a car (rear-ended fairly hard and fast in my previous old one, was still fine to drive and no damage at all to me or the passenger area of the car) and don't have to worry about a few grand in damages and panels falling off because I rear end a pole or something. Different stroked and all that, though.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
John Kelly posted:From time to time I like visiting the DOD clearance website that was brought up earlier in the thread. Just to open a  here, can you get denied security clearance for being massively overweight?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Yes. Aside from speaking to dependability (bailing out on commitments) being hugely underwater is an in for spies and poo poo if they can pay you off for secrets.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
baquerd posted:
It's more like if you are dependable. I've read situations where someone had some debts but were given clearance because they acknowledged them and took significant steps to reduce it (paid them off, go to a financial adviser). It didn't help this guy's case that the debt was massive and he didn't take any steps to pay off the 2nd mortgages for each of the three properties he owned. John Kelly fucked around with this message at 02:47 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:Yes. Aside from speaking to dependability (bailing out on commitments) being hugely underwater is an in for spies and poo poo if they can pay you off for secrets. That's not the question he was asking...
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:That's not the question he was asking... Whoops. At least I'm not the only one who missed it  I've known some fat motherfuckers with clearances (and used to be one myself  ) so as far as I know it isn't a criterion.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:But yeah, $360 a year is the exception NOT the norm, even for someone with a good long driving record. The norm is probably closer to ~$75 a month or close to $1000 a year. So you're wrong on saying someone paying more for insurance is bad with money.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Folly posted:Almost this. After all, my position wasn't "life is risk, do whatever." It was "life is risk, so you mitigate it where appropriate, insure where you can't" and I should have finished it with: accept the risk that's left. So really, my argument is that you should manage your risk in the most cost effective way, but safety should not be your top priority. It should be weighed against cost. I find that a newer car is usually exponentially more expensive than the safety it adds. I also find that to be true when I'm choosing my insurance deductible. This, basically. I have you beat in that I only have a motorbike! I don't ride it for the cost savings (although they're really significant, basically everything is halved or more vs the cheapest possible car I could buy), more for the enjoyment, and retroactively justify it with how much money it saves I also have more money in protective gear than I paid for the bike.Protip for cars: Good tires can make a huge difference in getting in an accident vs not. Another of Pompous Rhombus' Dad's lifehacks: You can get some great deals on tires by searching eBay in your area for stuff marked "local pickup only" (will have very little competition), often someone buys a new car with great tires out of the factory, upgrades the rims to a different size, and posts the barely used tires for sale.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Just to open a Yes as a matter of fact but it doesn't happen often. It all started back in the 90's when a guy traded telecommunications secrets to Argentina in return for some top grade Argentinian steaks. These days they're unlikely to use the F.A.T. clause to deny security clearance due to a couple of pending lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
laxbro posted:Yes as a matter of fact but it doesn't happen often. It all started back in the 90's when a guy traded telecommunications secrets to Argentina in return for some top grade Argentinian steaks. These days they're unlikely to use the F.A.T. clause to deny security clearance due to a couple of pending lawsuits. That's a pretty awesome espionage story. It's kind of like the soccer player in Africa who was traded for like 22 lbs of sausage.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
MAKE NO BABBYS posted:That's my understanding, which seems great in a catastrophic wreck or serious crash but in these cases it was a few grand in body work for what would have been a minor ding on my car. I understand a lot of engineering goes into the new crumple zones to make things safer but I feel incredibly safe in my steel tank of a car (rear-ended fairly hard and fast in my previous old one, was still fine to drive and no damage at all to me or the passenger area of the car) and don't have to worry about a few grand in damages and panels falling off because I rear end a pole or something. You're correct in that a lot of the damage "modern" cars get in low-speed accidents is entirely cosmetic. A lot of times the actual structure of the car isn't compromised, but your 5mph fender bender cracked a $1000 plastic bumper cover.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
A fairly close cousin of mine, who used to be big into music and after high school made her living as a nurse of some sort, now wants to major Music Therapy at a private school. She posted in Facebook something along the lines of "thoughts on good idea or bad idea?" And everyone is just saying every stereotype on how education trumps any financial consideration. My favorite quote: "Yay student debt!! I feel ya girl. The way I see it, everyone has it unless you're rich or got a drat good scholarship." Dear god. The price this country sets on what's ok to spend on education (especially compared to what you get out if if) is just drat criminal at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
I have a couple friends who are music therapists, and they all have jobs and are making pretty good money. Mostly they work at nursing homes playing songs for ancient people with dementia, who still respond well to music from when they were young. And it's not like the senior population will be shrinking. There are more lucrative careers, but if you want to do something with music, it's not a bad call.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 05:18
|
|
i like nice words
|
Duckman2008 posted:A fairly close cousin of mine, who used to be big into music and after high school made her living as a nurse of some sort, now wants to major Music Therapy at a private school. She posted in Facebook something along the lines of "thoughts on good idea or bad idea?" And everyone is just saying every stereotype on how education trumps any financial consideration. My favorite quote: I went to school with a girl who left a big-shot high dollar marketing job in NYC for an international sourcing firm that she landed right out of undergraduate to go be a dance instructor for a summer at a Caribbean beach resort. The difference is that her uncle owns the company she left (and can go back anytime), and she comes from a family of literal billionaires. So following your dreams and not worrying about money is a great move if you're from the kind of family that will never have to worry about money.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Two stories. Just heard about an acquaintance's career/home buying plans through a mutual friend. She just got married. They are relocating from Los Angeles (living with roommates) and want to buy a house in a decently sized city in another western state. He has been unemployed for over a year. She has been working multiple jobs at restaurants, hotels, reception work, but all of them part time. They just spent something over $30k on their wedding. A third of that was the venue rental only. They didn't have a meal served or open bar (snack foods and a cash bar). I know it's a BFC tradition to argue about the reasonableness of wedding costs, but really, how did they manage to spend $30k without food or drink? Now they want to move to a new city and buy a house there, and were asking about how to qualify for a mortgage. They have highly transient jobs, long periods of unemployment, and low income reliability. Also, she wants to get her old job back here, working as a dealer in a casino. She makes a good income there, but I really doubt she's was claiming all of her tips for tax purposes, which she'll have to do if she wants to use that income to qualify for a mortgage. Second story: My wife's stepsister is a horrible person and a mooch. Short background on the family dynamics: Her father (wife's stepfather) is so rad, and a great dad and awesome guy. But she hates him, because she blames him for her mother's depression and their divorce. The real story is that her mom spiraled into a long depressive period after the skydiving instructor she was banging (they were both married) died in a skydiving accident, which eventually led to discovering the infidelity and marital problems ending in divorce. The daughter still doesn't know this happened, because her mother has been telling her all along it was because her dad was a jerk. Whatever. She's very manipulative, and convinced her father and stepmother to cosign for her student loans to go to culinary school in New York City @ $15k/semester plus living expenses. She has graduated, and of course, she's dead broke and making zero payments on the student loans. She just married her culinary school boyfriend, and her father made her an offer. He would either help pay for their wedding, or keep paying on her student loans after she got married. She chose "pay for the wedding."  PS it's going to be in NYC at a mega expensive venueI should note also that at the wedding, she didn't invite her father sit at the "family" table (where her mom and mom's boyfriend were sitting). She also barely took any photos with him, he was just another guest. She had her brother escort her down the aisle, and did the "daddy dance" with her mom's boyfriend (who she has been dating for less than a year and lives in a different city). So now she's married, and dad no longer has to pay for her student loans, according to their agreement. Within a week, she calls and informs him "Well, I can't pay for these loans. And you're cosigned on them, so you're on the hook for them no matter what. So unless you keep paying them, nobody pays them". He's paying for the loans again.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Second story Oh my god dude, that's absolutely infuriating. I feel so bad for the father, I don't know how I'd act if I had a daughter like that but it would probably devastate me. As an outsider though, I can't believe her and wish her the worst.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
I don't know, the moral I got out of that one was a) Don't ever co-sign anything and b) Don't pay for weddings. But then again I'm against spending more than a car's worth on a wedding, and apparently that puts me in the minority. As to how you rack up a 30k bill for a wedding... Have you ever seen a recent wedding budget? poo poo adds up fast, especially if you add the honeymoon.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:They just spent something over $30k on their wedding. A third of that was the venue rental only. They didn't have a meal served or open bar (snack foods and a cash bar). I know it's a BFC tradition to argue about the reasonableness of wedding costs, but really, how did they manage to spend $30k without food or drink? Flowers. Shittons and shittons of flowers and crazy centerpieces that can be brought home. That's my guess. 10k isn't too out of line for a decent venue in an expensive city(maybe 2-3k high), but yeah, you should fit a great meal and a nice open bar into 20k.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
I sympathize with your wife's father. But how did he not see that coming? So, like, is he mad? At the very least you hope he figures it out by now and just severs.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
If I ever had a 30k wedding it would have to be an absolute rager of a destination wedding. For that amount of money it had better be the best drat party I've ever attended.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
'round these parts 25k gets you a nice sit down meal for about a hundred guest, ceremony space with little decoration, DJ and a cash bar. Open bars are apparently very expensive. Keep in mind that as soon as the word "wedding" appears anywhere, prices double or triple because a) Brides are emotional and will pay anything for the perfect whatever and b) If you're gonna be stuck dealing with a bride you might as well make it worth your while. Sucks for the large percentage of people who don't turn into psycho monsters when they're planning a wedding.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
^^ This "Wedding Premium" poo poo is the worst part ^^FrozenVent posted:I don't know, the moral I got out of that one was a) Don't ever co-sign anything and b) Don't pay for weddings. 30k is our budget right now.. and we're struggling to stay within it for our 150 guests. We both come from sizable families and our parents are kicking in about 15k between them, so I can't cut down the guest list. Venue is $9k, but we'll be holding the rehearsal dinner, ceremony and after party on-site, for which it's a "house party" so we can bring our own food and alcohol. State laws prevent us from using unlicensed sources for food and drink for the actual reception. We also have the entire place for the whole weekend, rehearsal Friday night, bride/bridesmaids stay over on Friday night (it's a B&B in addition to a venue), ceremony and reception on Saturday, after party if we like, entire bridal party can stay on Saturday night, and breakfast for up to 21 people on Sunday included. First caterer we spoke to wanted $17k (with just an hour open bar) and we both nearly poo poo ourselves. We're finding much more reasonable prices going to restaurants that happen to have catering options. It seems the tiers are: Courthouse wedding -> Venue with low stained drop ceilings where you only get 5 hours total -> $30k wedding It's an outrageous rip-off.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:54 |
|
|
I've actually found the open bar isn't as expensive as you might think, and food costs and venue costs are more than you might. My upcoming wedding budget(Chicago) for 170 people: Venue - 7k(1k damage refund) Decorations - 2k Paper costs - 1.5k (menus, invitations, save the dates, programs, that poo poo adds up) Officiant - 100(family friend doing it) Catering - 12000(70 a head x 170 people, includes a nice open bar - the bar package is 11 a head for us but would be 15 a head for others because my fiancee is the sister in law of the company owner. He's also giving us a 40/head discount on the food). DJ - 1k Photographer - 1k (good friend doing it for a huge discount, he charges 2500 usually and most photographers worth a drat in Chicago charge 3+) Total: 24.7k, doesn't include the rehearsal dinner, which my parents are going to cover, or the honeymoon which I will. I also priced out instead getting more beer, wine, and liquor than would be drank delivered by the local liquor store chain with refunds on returns, that would have been 2800 with tax included. A drop in the bucket compared to the food especially if you're not getting the discount we are. Really it's food that's the big one...so if you're not offering food and drink I can't see how you get to 30k without a complete bridezilla running the show. Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2014 17:51
|
|