|
It's possible, but it's not that much money for a lot of downside, imo. Apart from the massive credit hit, you wouldn't be able to be working at a high paying job - they'll just dock your pay to pay the creditors. So you'd have to commit to working lovely minimum wage jobs at the outset of your career right when it's most important to get a jump into a good job that actually uses your degree.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:It has nothing to do with bankruptcy - it's an incentive system designed to convince people to work in public service and nonprofit positions that they otherwise wouldn't be willing to work in. After 10 years of (income-based) payments, they forgive your loans if you work in one of the qualifying places. These places largely pay less than equivalent positions in for-profit companies, and many people would pass them up if they weren't also rewarded in forgiveness of student-loan debt. They disappear with private sector work too, just takes longer
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
If you declare chapter 7 before you get the high paying job, your post petition earnings aren't subject to the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee could, however, find that you fraudulently did something, and make things difficult. It's possible to get away with it, but it could go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
*drumroll* https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/3mofb8/credit_card_or_loan/ Credit Card or Loan? posted:Should I take a loan out of £1000 or get a credit card? It's for going on holiday (spending money) in November
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
jaymeekae posted:*drumroll* The same guy 2 weeks ago: Unexpected bill screwed over holiday savings posted:Hey guys, I'm going to Israel in November and had £500 saved but now I've £200. I'm paid approx £200 weekly but spend £400 monthly. Any advice on what options I have e.g. credit cards or loans? Thanks for your help guys
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
I want to post in there to offer help sometimes but I feel like it is just throwing my time into a black hole so I abstain. Some of the responses in those threads make me want to stab myself in the eye.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
Virigoth posted:I want to post in there to offer help sometimes but I feel like it is just throwing my time into a black hole so I abstain. Some of the responses in those threads make me want to stab myself in the eye. Time = money, so posting on Reddit is Bad with Money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Is it BWM to withdraw index stock funds from tax-advantaged Canadian savings accounts if the plan is to move back to the U.S. next year? I'm an American living in Canada and have nearly maxed out my RRSP and TFSA with Canadian Vanguard funds, but if I move out of Canada and lose residency I'm afraid I won't be able to access these tax free funds. Of course I'll be contributing to a Roth and all that, but I was wondering if it's better to keep the funds where they are or take them out to help fund a house in America.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:The same guy 2 weeks ago: *has a 50% saving rate* *has no savings*
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Olive Branch posted:Is it BWM to withdraw index stock funds from tax-advantaged Canadian savings accounts if the plan is to move back to the U.S. next year? I'm an American living in Canada and have nearly maxed out my RRSP and TFSA with Canadian Vanguard funds, but if I move out of Canada and lose residency I'm afraid I won't be able to access these tax free funds. Better to talk with a tax professional but the US doesn't recognize TFSAs while it's fine with RRSPs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Olive Branch posted:Is it BWM to withdraw index stock funds from tax-advantaged Canadian savings accounts if the plan is to move back to the U.S. next year? I'm an American living in Canada and have nearly maxed out my RRSP and TFSA with Canadian Vanguard funds, but if I move out of Canada and lose residency I'm afraid I won't be able to access these tax free funds. Sorry to tell you this, but it's already bad with money because T.F.S.A.s are not recognized at all by U.S. at all and do not fall under the existing tax treaty, so you are already on the hook for taxes on any income you're making from those investments. Better square yourself with the I.R.S... http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/taxes/when-a-tax-free-savings-account-isnt-tax-free http://www.skltax.com/tfsa-us-tax-classification/ Dillbag fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:Sorry to tell you this, but it's already bad with money because T.F.S.A. are not recognized at all by U.S. at all and do not fall under the existing tax treaty, so you are already on the hook for taxes on any income you're making from those investments. Better square yourself with the I.R.S... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Olive Branch posted:I already have because of exactly that. Americans moving to Canada are bad with money. Being Canadian is BWM. 74¢ to the dollar, baby!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
I'm totally fine with people defaulting on their student loans as long as I get a check back from my lender when their debt is forgiven.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Dillbag posted:Being Canadian is BWM. 74¢ to the dollar, baby! So living in Canada is the equivalent to being a woman in the workforce?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:So living in Canada is the equivalent to being a woman in the workforce? BWM is making $.74 on the dollar, saying sorry way too much and being cold all the time
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
What's wrong with this infographic: http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Hashtag Banterzone posted:BWM is making $.74 on the dollar, saying sorry way too much and being cold all the time Good with money: find a job that pays so much more relative to its US equivalent that you still come out ahead. You're right about the cold part though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:What's wrong with this infographic: http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap If only they didn't make up all of the numbers they might have communicated something. The typical 48 year old male earns 95,000?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If only they didn't make up all of the numbers they might have communicated something. The typical 48 year old male earns 95,000? Where did they say anything about the typical 48 year old male? The data is clear that women earn less than men not because of a conspiracy against the vagina, but because they gravitate towards jobs that American society doesn't value. Forcing jobs to give real, paid maternity leave (with a strong employer tribunal to defend against retribution) and increasing pay in jobs women work in (teaching) will elevate women's pay far more than any bullshit push to force girls into STEM or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Where did they say anything about the typical 48 year old male?  Hey, I agree the wage gap is not as simple as 'pay women more money'. But saying the typical 48 year old man makes 95k when the median household income is something like 50k is about as realistic as this sad single mother:  Then again, maybe it's 95k in Canadian dollars. That'd be like 40k US, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Where did they say anything about the typical 48 year old male? The data is clear that women earn less than men not because of a conspiracy against the vagina, but because they gravitate towards jobs that American society doesn't value. Forcing jobs to give real, paid maternity leave (with a strong employer tribunal to defend against retribution) and increasing pay in jobs women work in (teaching) will elevate women's pay far more than any bullshit push to force girls into STEM or whatever. "On average for men, their pay stops growing at age 48. The typical wage at this point is $95,000 per year." They say the same for women but it's age 39 and $60,000 per year. Those numbers are wholly fabricated - they aren't in the ballpark for good faith estimates. I'm disinclined to trust any other information they provide based on that alone. (I agree with you but geez, that's a bad infographic, cheeky images filled with lying graphs are all over the place now and are widely accepted and discussed as fact.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Where did they say anything about the typical 48 year old male? The data is clear that women earn less than men not because of a conspiracy against the vagina, but because they gravitate towards jobs that American society doesn't value. Forcing jobs to give real, paid maternity leave (with a strong employer tribunal to defend against retribution) and increasing pay in jobs women work in (teaching) will elevate women's pay far more than any bullshit push to force girls into STEM or whatever. Women gravitate towards different jobs than men because of the "conspiracy against the vagina." If you work to make teaching jobs pay better, that'll naturally make them more prestigious, and ta da, suddenly the new generation of boys is raised to get Good Jobs as teachers. Just like how women were everywhere in software development until it got too prestigious
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:
I'm pretty sure they're talking about the jobs that are being depicted in that graph. Series DD Funding posted:Women gravitate towards different jobs than men because of the "conspiracy against the vagina." If you work to make teaching jobs pay better, that'll naturally make them more prestigious, and ta da, suddenly the new generation of boys is raised to get Good Jobs as teachers. Just like how women were everywhere in software development until it got too prestigious So ignoring my proposed solutions, what are yours? Just push women into jobs that are currently prestigious, then become shocked when they earn far less because we haven't addressed any of the structural issues (maternity leave with tribunal opportunity, primarily)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Also talking about a gender wage gap is way too easy, you don't get any derail points for this one. You can make that post in any thread, from mario maker to ak-47 discussion, and derail it every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Where did they say anything about the typical 48 year old male? The data is clear that women earn less than men not because of a conspiracy against the vagina, but because they gravitate towards jobs that American society doesn't value. Forcing jobs to give real, paid maternity leave (with a strong employer tribunal to defend against retribution) and increasing pay in jobs women work in (teaching) will elevate women's pay far more than any bullshit push to force girls into STEM or whatever. Another problem is that one of their common jobs there is Software Developer for men. Software Developers tend to make a lot of money in the Bay Area, New York, Boston, etc where the cost of living is higher. Nurse jobs on the other hand are everywhere. To make this information relevant, it seems like there should be a cost of living adjustment there. RNs making $65,000 is a lot of money in some places.  vs  vs  It also doesn't take into account unemployment rate, the number of jobs available, job stability, quality of life/average weekly hours and etc. When the economy crashed, construction project managers (one of their examples) probably felt the crash much more than say an RN did. These studies often seem to simplify the situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm pretty sure they're talking about the jobs that are being depicted in that graph. Yes, given that female software developers don't have a significant pay gap: http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/tech-salaries-glassdoor-diversity-hiring-survey/
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Pretty jealous of the apparently sizable contingent of software developers on Oahu.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If only they didn't make up all of the numbers they might have communicated something. The typical 48 year old male earns 95,000? Krispy Kareem posted:Hey, I agree the wage gap is not as simple as 'pay women more money'. But saying the typical 48 year old man makes 95k when the median household income is something like 50k is about as realistic as this sad single mother: quote:(FOR THOSE WITH COLLEGE DEGREES OR HIGHER) edit: this indicates that the average annual earnings of full-time men over 25 with a bachelor's degree or higher is 72k: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.t05.htm So it doesn't sound preposterous that it would be 95k for men in their prime earning years. Cicero fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Yes, given that female software developers don't have a significant pay gap: http://www.glassdoor.com/blog/tech-salaries-glassdoor-diversity-hiring-survey/ Which is exactly what the infographic I posted showed. Thanks for the alternate source.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I think you guys missed the part where it says on the chart Ahh, yep, I did miss that. I still want a source but that is more believable. It still seems quite high to me but fair enough. (Maybe student loans aren't such a bad plan if they still, on average, double your income 20 years out?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Which is exactly what the infographic I posted showed. Thanks for the alternate source. So you agree that mandatory maternity leave and working to increase pay in female-dominated occupations would not meaningfully close the gap?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:So you agree that mandatory maternity leave and working to increase pay in female-dominated occupations would not meaningfully close the gap? That's exactly the opposite of what I posted, but go hog wild!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Radbot posted:That's exactly the opposite of what I posted, but go hog wild! I feel the theme of the last page is that no one actually knows what you were trying to say. root of all eval fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Sep 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
BossRighteous posted:I feel the theme of the last page is that no one actually knows what you were trying to say. I think women deserve more money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
BossRighteous posted:I feel the theme of the last page is that no one actually knows what you were trying to say. That's normal, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Women gravitate towards different jobs than men because of the "conspiracy against the vagina." If you work to make teaching jobs pay better, that'll naturally make them more prestigious, and ta da, suddenly the new generation of boys is raised to get Good Jobs as teachers. Just like how women were everywhere in software development until it got too prestigious Yeah, notice how everyone is starting to steer away from Serious Academia now it's no longer a boys club, and how the universities are suddenly more comfortable with paying less well. And "Church of England Vicar" used to be a cushy, genteel job, and now with so many lady Vicars, it's starting to make them as poor as church mice... If women suddenly plunged into software engineering, it'd suddenly become an "easy job for mums to do while looking after toddlers at home."
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:"easy job for mums to do while looking after toddlers at home." see: Wordpress Developer
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
BossRighteous posted:I feel the theme of the last page is that no one actually knows what you were trying to say. I agree, far too many people don't want to grant maternity leave and increase pay for women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:45 |
|
|
Radbot posted:I agree, far too many people don't want to grant maternity leave and increase pay for women.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2015 22:34
|
|
