|
The height post was a honeypot getting people to admit they own cars itt 
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Trucks and SUVs are much worse ergonomically for tall people than most passenger cars. Generally, the driver sits upright and sits with bent knees, similar to sitting in a chair whereas in a car, your legs extend out in front of you. Also, even with an extended or double cab the distance to move the seats back is quite limited.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Update on the really stupid kid who passed out "souvenir" checks to his friends.quote:Thouhgt I should give an update. Thanks everyone for the advice. I still felt like I should try going to the cops, but everytime I wanted to, I kept getting nervous and chickened out. That lasted about a day, then it turns out my dad looked got a call from the bank and he went absolutely apesh*t.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
I'm not sure what's worse, that some idiot's best attempt to rebut a post they disagreed with was to dig through my previous posts and find one where I said I own a truck, or the fact that you're all still talking about how dumb tall people are for owning trucks instead of shitbox Corollas two days later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Cicero posted:If having lower capital gains taxes encourages investment, by the same logic doesn't having lower personal income taxes encourage working more? Which would imply that choosing to have capital gains taxes be lower is an expression of a preference for more investing over more working. One issue with the logic is that netting a higher proportion of your income with lower tax actually discourages working more. If you have a lifestyle that you can maintain with 40 hours of work per week versus 50 you'd work 40. If you earn less that encourages working more especially when you are struggling to survive financially. Have a look at Greece where real earning power has dropped a lot and is dropping more they are working 10-12 hours per day and 6 to 7 days a week to get by. Investments don't have the same workload attached to them as a job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
High Lord Elbow posted:I'm not sure what's worse, that some idiot's best attempt to rebut a post they disagreed with was to dig through my previous posts and find one where I said I own a truck, or the fact that you're all still talking about how dumb tall people are for owning trucks instead of shitbox Corollas two days later. Either way, we all lose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
High Lord Elbow posted:I'm not sure what's worse, that some idiot's best attempt to rebut a post they disagreed with was to dig through my previous posts and find one where I said I own a truck, or the fact that you're all still talking about how dumb tall people are for owning trucks instead of shitbox Corollas two days later. High Lord Elbow posted:So do blaming greedy banks while driving a shitbox Corolla your whole life because you made ill-informed decisions. High Lord Elbow posted:(That's not a humblebrag, I look down upon you Corolla-driving peasants with no humility whatsoever.) Did a Corolla hit and kill your parents
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Inept posted:Did a Corolla hit and kill your parents drat, the guy just opened up to us about his weight problem, can't you just leave him be?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Don't worry, bad with cars crowd, you're in good company! Reddit delivers a BWM trifecta.quote:Based on my budget is it OK to buy a new car every 3 years? I like to keep a little up to date on car tech. I think I'm buying new cars and not losing much with this strategy. Okay, maybe he's some sort of number wizard with experience who quote:Buy a $19k car every 3 years (pay in full), then sell it after 3 years for 13k...so basically always getting to drive a new car for a cost of $2k/yr (166/mo). Nope, just bad with math. Hope he's some sort of millionaire that ca- quote:Salary: 38k  Also he wants to churn Mazda 3s and is afraid of investing because he thinks stocks are due for a crash 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Haha that's a great post. In Oz Mazda is known for having a ridiculous service requirements. They charge and request a lot more inspections to keep up warranty. So that 20k Mazda is actually 25k over 3years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Who had the BFC thread about buying a car that was around his yearly salary and justified the terrible financial plan by saying he had developed an appreciation for nicer cars, the way you might with fine dining?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Guest2553 posted:Don't worry, bad with cars crowd, you're in good company! Reddit delivers a BWM trifecta. I don't want to pick on them too much, what they want to do is a bit wasteful, but they've also got ~$190k in 401k, Roth IRA and savings and contributing a fair chunk into all 3 each month too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
As a percentage of annual income, where is the BWM threshold when it comes to spending on a car?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
I've heard 50% of your income or less should be spent on fixed costs like rent, car payment, utilities, etc. so probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-15% of take-home pay per year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
app posted:As a percentage of annual income, where is the BWM threshold when it comes to spending on a car? Something like the 10-15% but there are other rules of thumb that can be applied. If you need a car for work and you current car is poo poo and unreliable/broken then up to a 3 year loan or paying for the car completely is fine. Five year loans seem common for underwater cars but there might be some exceptional circumstances where a five year loan is ok. However that ties in with the concept of being poor is expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
It's nonlinear with income and depends a lot on your values, sorry for the vague answer but that's what I got.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:Who had the BFC thread about buying a car that was around his yearly salary and justified the terrible financial plan by saying he had developed an appreciation for nicer cars, the way you might with fine dining? That'd be this one http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3713103
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
app posted:As a percentage of annual income, where is the BWM threshold when it comes to spending on a car? Generally speaking you want the minimum possible jalopy; ideally any significant repair should total the car and give you an excuse to make a detailed post about your retirement savings rate to r/personalfinance
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:Something like the 10-15% but there are other rules of thumb that can be applied. If you need a car for work and you current car is poo poo and unreliable/broken then up to a 3 year loan or paying for the car completely is fine. I've never really understood this threads obsession with not having loans ever, and especially not having long term loans. My car (which I have cash on hand to pay off if I need to) is at a 1.97% rate, over 5 years. In what world is that BWM? You would easily expect any investment to pay off significantly more than the cost of that loan. Same deal with a house. Why would I opt to not have a loan / have less of a loan when I can invest the money and make more, on average? Obviously I need to not turn around and spend that money on bad things, like bitcoins or drugs or a credit card. But it's that spending -- in light of the debt -- that makes you BWM. Not carrying the debt on a low rate to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
So do you have the money invested or do you have it in cash?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Because your not pricing in the risk of your investment not paying out, and losing both your investment and house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Because your not pricing in the risk of your investment not paying out, and losing both your investment and house. So the answer is 'because risk'. Except you make money by using leverage to have multiple investments such that any one investment going down doesn't tank the entirety of your investments (or you do things like index funds that have a similar purpose)? That's the entire point? And.... the investments tanking don't lose you both the investment and the house. You would need more than just that. And if you're okay with the risk... then you're okay with the risk. That's a question of risk tolerance, not a bad with money vs good with money. Otherwise keeping everything cash would be the best plan because then you can never risk losing your money. e:MrK - Enough to pay it off is in cash, because the emergency fund is sufficient to pay it off. The rest (i.e. distinct money saved for car) went into investments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Because your not pricing in the risk of your investment not paying out, and losing both your investment and house. If index funds fall to 0, you should be more worried about how many bullets you own than how you are going to pay off your car loan. Your logic only applies if the purchase is a significant portion of your wealth. It's one thing if you are talking about a mortgage that's the same magnitude as your net worth - you're absolutely right in that case. That doesn't mean it's true if you have a 6 figure net worth and are deciding whether or not to take a loan on a 2006 honda - doing so and investing the difference is probably the right call because there isn't really any disproportionate risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:Because your not pricing in the risk of your investment not paying out, and losing both your investment and house. My mortgage is 2.59%. My bank is offering 3% on Saving for the next 6 months. They are CDIC insured, so the risk is pretty minimal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
kidhash posted:My mortgage is 2.59%. My bank is offering 3% on Saving for the next 6 months. They are CDIC insured, so the risk is pretty minimal. What bank is offering 3% savings rates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Using a car instead of a motorcycle for personal transport is BWM.  Better fuel economy, lower acquisition cost, slower depreciation for many brands, cheaper insurance, and you can make significant amounts of money off cash settlements for accidents that you're almost never at fault in if you survive!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:What bank is offering 3% savings rates. Yeah please tell me what bank I can go to and get 3% on a six figure mortgage sized balance
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Dang, 3% that's amazing. I just checked mine (Chase) and it's 0.02%. Even if I opened a 10-year CD with 250k in it I'd only get 1.05%. poo poo, Chase sucks. Speaking about BWM, that reminds me I should probably drain everything non-emergency fund / checking account buffer and invest it somewhere. Do BFC people generally prefer Vanguard for that, or is that mostly just for the recommended IRA stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:Using a car instead of a motorcycle for personal transport is BWM. You misspelled bicycle
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:You misspelled bicycle I wish I could bike to work and not die 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Yeah please tell me what bank I can go to and get 3% on a six figure mortgage sized balance Tangerine posted:You've been diligently growing your savings, so we're offering you this special interest rate to help your savings grow faster. Just keep your July, August and September deposits in your Savings Account(s) growing, and up to $500,000 of that money will earn 3.00% interest until the end of November.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Canadian bank Tangerine, formerly ING Direct and now a subsidiary of Scotiabank, is full of poo poo. You sign up for this awesome interest rate on your regular or TFSA savings account, which they don't tell you is a promotional-only rate (although it's buried in the terms of service somewhere). Then two months later they drop it to market rate or lower and now you're with a bank that doesn't have any branches and you have call India to get service. They did it to me and I immediately moved back to my old bank. I guess it's good with money if you take advantage of their referral code thing and sign a bunch of your friends up at $50 a pop, but staying with them is bad with money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Canadians.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:Canadian bank Tangerine, formerly ING Direct and now a subsidiary of Scotiabank, is full of poo poo. You sign up for this awesome interest rate on your regular or TFSA savings account, which they don't tell you is a promotional-only rate (although it's buried in the terms of service somewhere). Then two months later they drop it to market rate or lower and now you're with a bank that doesn't have any branches and you have call India to get service. They did it to me and I immediately moved back to my old bank. I guess it's good with money if you take advantage of their referral code thing and sign a bunch of your friends up at $50 a pop, but staying with them is bad with money. It was extremely clear to me it was a promotional rate. 3% interest on up to $500000 until Dec 25th. I'm not saying it works for everyone, but it's definitely possible to make more interest on savings than you're paying on a low-interest loan with fairly minimal risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
/r/Wallstreetbets in its entirety qualifies for this thread, but here is some grade A material. https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/3cyc8r/on_monday_i_will_enter_a_true_real_and_final_yolo/ quote:At this point, I am in so much trouble my life would make the Greece look like a child's play. I haven't paid my mortgage in seven months, My credit cards are maxed and my electricity is about to be cut. Just the interest on my credit card is raking in the hundreds every months. I haven't eaten anything fresh or new in a month and I survive on some cans I found in the back of my cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
kidhash posted:It was extremely clear to me it was a promotional rate. 3% interest on up to $500000 until Dec 25th. I've never, ever heard of such a rate in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
kidhash posted:My mortgage is 2.59%. My bank is offering 3% on Saving for the next 6 months. They are CDIC insured, so the risk is pretty minimal. kidhash posted:It was extremely clear to me it was a promotional rate. 3% interest on up to $500000 until Dec 25th. So going by your numbers... If you have half a million to invest like that and a half million dollar mortgage then you too can live the high life and earn $170 in three months. Exclusive of that tax you'd owe on the $1250 gross. Not sure what a normal mortgage balance is like up there but if you've got 175k outstanding, and that much cash, you're looking at making less then $20 a month, for three promotional months...instead of having a fully paid off house.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
I think your math is wrong. Regardless of that, if you have the full principle value of your house in an (insured) savings account, the only (non-psychological) benefit to having "a paid off house" is no interest payments. It's not like you can't lose your house anyway if you can't pay property tax, hoa fees, etc, does that mean you just shouldn't ever invest at all? Your argument is fully general in a way that doesn't make sense. Jeffrey of YOSPOS fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
blugu64 posted:So going by your numbers... Again, you say that like having a mortgage is a bad thing. Let's assume that I have a 30/yr mortgage @ 2.5% for the sake of round numbers. My monthly payment is $1,976 and over the course of 30 years, I will pay $711,218. Let's assume that I've invested that 500k which gains an average of 7% per year. Let's assume that you invest an amount equal to my monthly payment into the same investment per monthly, while I invest nothing. At the end of 30 years, I have $3.8M (500k principle, 3.2M returned by investment). You have $2.4M (711k principle, 1.7M returned). Congratulations on your superior investment(?) I also get the tax breaks of mortgage interest, of course. It's very simplistic, but the model shows a simple truth: If you can outperform the interest rate on your loan (and can afford the monthly cashflow), it is better to invest money than pay more down. If the investment tanks to $0, then you still have the portion of the house you own, and you're out a fair bit of money. That's a risk, but historically over the long run, the market has grown at 7%, so it's a pretty acceptable risk. If you don't think you'd stay for a long time, it might be riskier because you could catch declining value on the home. On the flipside, if you are capable of willing to do work on the home that will increase its value, then being more leveraged generates a higher ROI on the house as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:22 |
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Regardless of that, if you have the full principle value of your house in an (insured) savings account, the only (non-psychological) benefit to having "a paid off house" is no interest payments. In a lot of states, the equity in your house is protected from lawsuits up to a certain point. For example, if I have a paid off house in Nevada, the money in my house can't be taken from me if I lose a lawsuit (up to $550k here).
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 17:53
|
|
