|
Then penalty is surprisingly small, it's just a couple percent calculated as interest.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Renegret posted:Hey the bible tells me that pulling out is effective contraception. It is. http://phys.org/news164380393.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:My employer used to pay bonuses quarterly, twice a year, and annually. So you sometimes would get two or three of those bonuses to stack on the same pay cycle. Because of the way tax withholdings are calculated in payroll software, bonuses and windfalls are often have higher withholding rates compared to regular paychecks. This means that you'll get it all back at tax refund time anyway. It's the same way where I work and I just can't convince my coworkers that this is the case and not OBAMA TAXES OUR THEFT 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
I used to work with a bunch of guys who all had a different idea of what the overtime "Sweet spot" was. The sweet spot being that moment where working more OT ends up costing you money in taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:FYI for the "ugh! Why you have children! You bad with money!" crowd: sometimes even the best birth control can fail. Even IUDs have a 0.4% failure rate. Speaking from experience One kid maybe. But two? 6 in 1,000 chance for it to fail for the first kid. 36 in 1,000,000 chance for it to fail a second time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:31
|
|
Good odds, but some of us will be those 6 of 1000 couples.
|
FrozenVent posted:I used to work with a bunch of guys who all had a different idea of what the overtime "Sweet spot" was. The sweet spot being that moment where working more OT ends up costing you money in taxes. enraged_camel posted:6 in 1,000 chance for it to fail for the first kid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Old Fart posted:After it fails the first time, it's 6 in 1,000 for it to fail a second time. Yes, but 36 in 1,000,000 for it to fail for both first and second kid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Yes, but 36 in 1,000,000 for it to fail for both first and second kid. But what if failure is not evenly spread across the population? Then the occurrence of a second failure is much more likely after the first time proved that this couple will have kids no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Keetron posted:But what if failure is not evenly spread across the population? Then the occurrence of a second failure is much more likely after the first time proved that this couple will have kids no matter what. I think the number is more about the odds of accidentally having a child even with proper usage of birth control. 36 in 1,000,000 is the number you would expect if people *don't* gently caress it up. Or do you mean some people might have sex in a way that has a higher chance of birth control failing or something? Like rough condom-tearing sex?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
The idea being that if an IUD-the specific method with the cited failure rate-already demonstrated failure in a particular patient, then the rate of recurrence for that patient would be higher for her than for the general population.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
If you know an IUD failed once and you got pregnant and had a super-high-risk scary pregnancy, then after that was over, why would you be like "hot drat, IUD again please"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 14:57
|
|
i like nice words
|
Anne Whateley posted:If you know an IUD failed once and you got pregnant and had a super-high-risk scary pregnancy, then after that was over, why would you be like "hot drat, IUD again please"? Because the phrase "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Is no longer acceptable in society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:If you know an IUD failed once and you got pregnant and had a super-high-risk scary pregnancy, then after that was over, why would you be like "hot drat, IUD again please"? I added the "or two kids" part because I was feeling generous. I hearby revise it to "one kid." Fun fact: vasectomies and IUDs have a similar failure rate (a little higher for vasectomy, actually). I am leaning that way, cause lightning never strikes twice, right? RIGHT?! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:I am leaning that way, cause lightning never strikes twice, right? RIGHT?! He didn't even die from the lightning strikes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Here is a story of people bad with money: Once upon a time, my parents were connected to the government-run telephone service. Back then, it was a requirement that customers rent a phone from the company for each line they had. Everyone run their own extra jacks, but you'd have to have one or two on the official books. I don't know exactly when that requirement was discontinued, but it was probably around the same time as de-regulation, which happened sometime in the mid 90's. Apparently, my parents didn't look into or do anything about that; their phones worked fine so why not? But it turns out they were still getting charged the rental fee for those two handsets that the phone company owns to the tune of $7.05 each month for the pair over nearly 20 years. That's almost $1700 my parents have paid to rent telephones. Needless to say when I saw that on one of their bills, I ripped those phones from the wall and bought replacements that cost less than one year's rental fees would have been. And now a puzzling financial decision: A former co-worker (since retired) once called up the bank and told them to foreclose on his house. In the mid 90's he left Canada to work in Arizona for a while, then moved back. While he was there, he bought a house. When that job there ended, he moved back here to retire but kept making payments on the Phoenix property for a while after returning. At least he did for a while. He never used the place, nobody was renting it, and with housing prices tanking he just decided to stop paying the mortgage. He owns a house here, credit issues don't cross the border and with property taxes, he figures he came out way ahead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
I was pretty much doing the same thing for my cable modem up to a month or two ago. I was paying $8 a month to lease it and they cost like $50.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Yeah cable modem rental fees are a huuuuge scam. Comcast charges $7-8 per month for a rental modem that you can buy on Amazon for $50-80. The modem I bought years ago has paid for itself at least 10 times over now. Paying equipment rental fees is bad with money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Guinness posted:Yeah cable modem rental fees are a huuuuge scam. Comcast charges $7-8 per month for a rental modem that you can buy on Amazon for $50-80. The modem I bought years ago has paid for itself like 25 times over now. Last time I checked (like 1.5 years ago), Comcast renames the rental fee to a 'self-supplied equipment fee' if you don't use their modem. They get the fee whether you use their modem or not. I'd rather use my own modem anyway, but the expense is the same.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Nope, I don't pay anything for using my own modem with Comcast. I've been doing it for 4-5 years and there is no charge for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
What state are you in? There was no way not to pay that fee for me in Indianapolis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
WA. I even just checked my most recent bill online again. No additional charges or fees.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
They try and pull the same thing if you install your equipment yourself. Gotta love them trying to sneak on a $100+ "Self Installation Fee". I told them to credit my account or come pick up their equipment, whichever was more convenient for them. It's hard if you don't have any viable alternatives though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Last time I checked (like 1.5 years ago), Comcast renames the rental fee to a 'self-supplied equipment fee' if you don't use their modem. They get the fee whether you use their modem or not. I'd rather use my own modem anyway, but the expense is the same. I don't pay anything to use my own modem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
Literally the only way to get a good price on cable internet now is to sign up, then call in to say you're going to cancel so they give you a normal price - but cable companies are trying to get around that now by doing long-term contracts. Eventually cable as we know it will die a horrible, gasping death; but unfortunately it's being kept artificially alive at the moment mostly by completely unrealistic sports contracts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
This line of conversation is amusing because I work for an ISP and we just had our second quarter press release a few hours ago. One of the numbers on there is "Revenue Per Customer". As an employee, it's good to see such a high number. My company is doing well and it's only natural to want your company to make lots of money. It's job security, after all. Then in a moment of sheer stupidity, I thought of that number as a human being, as if I was a paying subscriber, and holy poo poo someone help me I think my heart stopped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Renegret posted:This line of conversation is amusing because I work for an ISP and we just had our second quarter press release a few hours ago. One of the numbers on there is "Revenue Per Customer". What's better is when you work for a company that releases numbers like that or even discusses profitability going up. While simultaneously telling it's employees that there was "no money for raises or bonuses this year". So glad I got out of there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
I work in higher ed and the school pulled all of those awful anti-employee tricks during our last hostile round of contract negotiations. The 3rd party mediators that were brought in were utterly confused how they could be crying poor, citing the recession, etc while investing billions in capital infrastructure. America has just become a very anti labor place, it's very disheartening as someone who has 20+ years left in the workforce.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Can somebody link to that guy who bought a house and his inspector didn't catch the $250,000 worth of horrible renovations and repairs? e: The one that this post is referring to. I feel like an idiot but I can't find it.  Jastiger posted:Whoa with that house in Minnesota that was a lemon and stuff..I notice that he keeps having inspectors come out and check his work and OK it with the city. pig slut lisa fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Antifreeze Head posted:Here is a story of people bad with money: When taking care of my relative's estate this summer, we found he was still renting his phone from the company. I think it was only like 50 cents a month, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Can somebody link to that guy who bought a house and his inspector didn't catch the $250,000 worth of horrible renovations and repairs? http://www.hoodwinkedhouse.com/#sthash.SddTdye7.FJLVKAmT.dpbs
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Appreciate it! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
xie posted:I work in higher ed and the school pulled all of those awful anti-employee tricks during our last hostile round of contract negotiations. The corporate anti-union thing has really, really taken hold. Canada as well. I was getting an ECG done the other day. The technician doing it asked me what I wanted to do after I finished law school, and I told her that I wanted to go into union-side labour law. She starts ranting about how unions never did anything and always destroy corporations, forcing them to close or move (there's been a bunch of companies here that cried poor when the union wouldn't take a 50% pay cut, and then pulled up stakes and hosed off to some right to work shithole in the south). I pointed out that this was a corporate thing, attempting to cry poor while saving profits, and that we have weekends and 8 hour workdays because union men and women died for them. Her response: "oh, I have those things and I'm not in a union". I had no idea what to respond to that. I just suggested she focus on what she was doing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
I've met plenty of unionized people who'd bitch about their union dues, then turn around and bitch that the new contract was poo poo, and that was the union's fault. For some reason, they also thought the contract would have been better if the union hadn't been involved 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Last time I checked (like 1.5 years ago), Comcast renames the rental fee to a 'self-supplied equipment fee' if you don't use their modem. They get the fee whether you use their modem or not. I'd rather use my own modem anyway, but the expense is the same. Bugamol posted:They try and pull the same thing if you install your equipment yourself. Gotta love them trying to sneak on a $100+ "Self Installation Fee". I told them to credit my account or come pick up their equipment, whichever was more convenient for them. It's hard if you don't have any viable alternatives though. FrozenVent posted:I've met plenty of unionized people who'd bitch about their union dues, then turn around and bitch that the new contract was poo poo, and that was the union's fault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
SiGmA_X posted:They probably read Let me stop you right there...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Let me stop you right there...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
e: You know what, nevermind. I thought this was a different thread and the last thing I want to do is turn this thread into a union "discussion".
Renegret fucked around with this message at 12:51 on Aug 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:I used to work with a bunch of guys who all had a different idea of what the overtime "Sweet spot" was. The sweet spot being that moment where working more OT ends up costing you money in taxes. While obviously it gets misinterpreted, overtime does end up getting taxed at the earner's top marginal rate. So as you work more overtime, your hourly compensation goes down due to taxation. Of course, it will never go negative, which is what some people think. "I got kicked into a higher tax bracket!  But when you get paid time and a half for overtime, your take home pay won't always be 150% of your normal wage. This is even more important to keep in mind when you get paid straight-time overtime. In that case you can easily end up with less pay per hour worked. So there is a grain of truth to the idea of an OT "sweet spot".
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:While obviously it gets misinterpreted, overtime does end up getting taxed at the earner's top marginal rate. So as you work more overtime, your hourly compensation goes down due to taxation. Of course, it will never go negative, which is what some people think. "I got kicked into a higher tax bracket! We all got withheld at (Current paycheck) * 24, but only worked, at most, 15 pay periods. While your check wouldn't go up as fast after about 40 hours of OT... Goddamn I miss those 10k tax returns though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Goddamn I miss those 10k tax returns though. Then have I got a deal for you! Mail me $833.33 every month, and I'll send you $10k every year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 21:15
|
|
