|
cowofwar posted:The US basically funds a lot of its police departments and federal agencies with illegally seized cash from minorities and other people who aren't privileged enough to deal with banks or defend themselves. That's all true, but I don't think someone withdrawing 20k from their retirement account and hopping on a flight to San Francisco to buy a Mustang is someone who isn't "privileged enough to deal with banks."
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
$20,000 in $100s is .86 inches thick. That's front pocket territory, not bag full of cash territory. That story sounds like bullshit in at least one of many ways.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Papa John Misty posted:$20,000 in $100s is .86 inches thick. That's front pocket territory, not bag full of cash territory. That story sounds like bullshit in at least one of many ways. Yeah how could they even tell he had that much money in his bag? And I also doubt they would pull him into a stairwell, lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Yeah how could they even tell he had that much money in his bag? And I also doubt they would pull him into a stairwell, lol Also, no mention of a property receipt. This sounds quite fictional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:The US basically funds a lot of its police departments and federal agencies with illegally seized cash from minorities and other people who aren't privileged enough to deal with banks or defend themselves. It's worse than that. It's legally-seized cash. Civil asset forfeiture is entirely legal, just horrifically immoral and prima facie unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It's worse than that. It's legally-seized cash. Civil asset forfeiture is entirely legal, just horrifically immoral and prima facie unconstitutional. Civil Asset Forfeiture is the one of the 3 scummiest things our government does.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
What are the other two?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:My friend's family is heavily involved with a MLM, to the point where he has worked for them as a consultant for several years. So he actually makes a salary (no benefits), but he basically doesn't think MLMs are bad since they helped his parents make money. That's the beauty of it, the people that are deep into it may well be making money off their recruited sellers. If you're not making money, it's not that there's a problem with the system/product/service, it's that you're not trying hard enough. For whole life insurance, isn't there an edge case where those policies are worthwhile for estate tax avoidance?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:What are the other two? Trump and whatever the hell kind of scum holds Trump's hair together
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Barry posted:Go post in AI about driving stick, holy crap If the mod thread had allowed me to before I left for work, I was going to move this thread to AI for a few hours to punish all Dwight Eisenhower posted:I love stories about Boomers and Whole Life Insurance, because my personal experience makes it highlight the collective ignorance of an entire generation. My parents made things a lot easier for me by not having a pot to piss in. Don't have to worry about any inheritance, any financial instruments, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Also, no mention of a property receipt. Is the way to deal with that not to just get evidence of where the money came from, ie. retirement account transaction proof, turn up at wherever took your money and get it back?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Is the way to deal with that not to just get evidence of where the money came from, ie. retirement account transaction proof, turn up at wherever took your money and get it back? If you want to get really angry at the government read up on civil asset forfeiture. It's enough to make rational people stroke out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
I found one! OP buys a predevelopment property at the top of the bubble. Now that the bubble is deflating, he can't sell his current house for what he once expected, and is looking to give up $75,000 in hopes of getting out of his current contract: https://np.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/72rr7l/overreached_bought_a_home_that_i_cant_afford_is/ quote:Overreached, bought a home that I can't afford .. is there any way to get out of the contract? Some choice responses by the op: quote:Thanks for the response. So my current house has about $350,000 in equity in it, the new home was for $1.1M and I have $110,000 set aside for the initial payments. That means, I have $990,000 remaining after the deposit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
"Hi yes I'm a young person and I'd like to have all of the potential upside and literally zero of the risk of a major financial decision? I feel considerably smarter than the average person, and so feel fully entitled to make this kind of request. For your records, please note that I spent almost 15 whole minutes considering likely ramifications before making this major financial decision. Thanks!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Cast_No_Shadow posted:Is the way to deal with that not to just get evidence of where the money came from, ie. retirement account transaction proof, turn up at wherever took your money and get it back? The nature of forfeiture also allows police to go after property or assets that are implicated in crime, even if their actual owners were not aware or participating. So for instance, if someone is selling drugs from a property, that property could be seized even if it wasn't owned by the person committing the crime, and the crime happened without their knowledge or participation. And, because of the lower bar, this can even happen in a situation where there isn't even a conviction for the crime underlying the forfeiture. Law enforcement is usually allowed to keep something between 50% - 100% of forfeiture, so you can imagine how motivated they are to both seize property and ensure they hold onto it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
To add to this and stir the pot, here are some choice civil asset forefiture cases: United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola United States v. One Book Called Ulysses United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs United States v. Vampire Nation United States v. 11 1/4 Dozen Packages of Articles Labeled in Part Mrs. Moffat's Shoo-Fly Powders for Drunkenness United States v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
There's United States v. RMS Titanic, too, if I recall correctly. Wasn't civil forfeiture, but the wreck got sued in rem at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Civil Forfeiture: Bad with Pessaries
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Yisssss. Thread title.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
I'm still proud of Bad w/ Money: I just paid for a fat bitches Electric Cock Zapping Sex Toy in Kentucky
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
To be entirely fair that was way better and one of my favorites. And all I did was present a menu.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
"Zybourne Financial Services" will get its day someday 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
How do I donate to the impounded cats defense? I am BWM. I feel like I can beat some first year SD St law school grad with a shady internet lawyer. Elephanthead fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:What? No, use the handbrake. Drunk Tomato posted:My friend's family is heavily involved with a MLM, to the point where he has worked for them as a consultant for several years. So he actually makes a salary (no benefits), but he basically doesn't think MLMs are bad since they helped his parents make money. The only reason to buy life insurance as a retirement vehicle is if you have no better options because you are not offered a 401k or other retirement account, or you have maxed out your 401k and put a other retirement accounts
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
C.H.O.M.E posted:The only reason to buy life insurance as a retirement vehicle is if you have no better options because you are not offered a 401k or other retirement account, or you have maxed out your 401k and put a other retirement accounts The good old LIRP. I used to run into 20 something year olds with those because their dad heard Sean Hannity talk about a way to "be your own bank and save for retirement." 90% of the time they weren't even contributing to a regular retirement account.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Staryberry posted:I found one! OP buys a predevelopment property at the top of the bubble. Now that the bubble is deflating, he can't sell his current house for what he once expected, and is looking to give up $75,000 in hopes of getting out of his current contract: This is apparently happening all over Toronto. Like the housing market went from berserk to like, less berserk, overnight. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/non-buyer-s-remorse-toronto-sellers-frustrated-as-home-buyers-tack-on-demands-1.3541706 Seller Rudy Ionides was busy packing boxes for his move this weekend when he received a letter from a lawyer saying the buyers of his home want to adjust their offer. They want to reduce the sale price by $50,000, extend the closing date to Sept. 7 and have Ionides loan them $500,000 in a vendor takeback mortgage. apologies if that's been posted before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
C.H.O.M.E posted:The only reason to buy life insurance as a retirement vehicle is if you have no better options because you are not offered a 401k or other retirement account, or you have maxed out your 401k and put a other retirement accounts How is it any better than a regular Vanguard brokerage account?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
olylifter posted:This is apparently happening all over Toronto. Like the housing market went from berserk to like, less berserk, overnight. BWM. http://www.whichmortgage.ca/article/the-return-of-the-vendor-takeback-mortgage-221647.aspx Buyer offers $1,000,000 on property. Puts down $100,000 (10%), needs another 10% to qualify for the first mortgage so gets a $100,000 VTB loan from the seller and then gets a $800,000 loan from a bank. Borrower defaults, bank forecloses on home. Borrower now owes bank whatever difference between mortgage and value of house, borrower also owes private seller VTB balance. Borrower declares bankruptcy, loans discharged, bank now has house while seller has nothing. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:How is it any better than a regular Vanguard brokerage account? Tax free income, but probably won't get the same performance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:From what I understand, a vendor take-back mortgage is basically a second mortgage that is offered by the seller, rather than a bank or other lender. I believe in a default the second mortgage comes after the first mortgage so if the buyer defaults and the house isn't actually worth the value of the two mortgages together then the seller who offered the VTB loan is basically hosed as the primary mortgage lender gets the house. Uhh doesn't the seller have 900k?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:Uhh doesn't the seller have 900k? If I'm reading it right, no. The seller makes the loan independent of the bank, and is owed after the initial mortgage. Meaning, essentially, that this is a financial instrument for a person somewhat desperate to sell their property. e: I guess you might get some interest out of it? But an individual seller doesn't have the same economy of scale as a bank does, so that 4% is likely overwhelmingly not worth the risk of default Not a Children fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Sep 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
I would think the vendor would not do the loan at the same rate as the bank...
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Tax free income, but probably won't get the same performance. Yeah it is diversification from the stock market and bonds when you already have a 401k and a traditional ira with a lot of stocks and bonds in them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:No. In Civil Asset Forfeiture, the state is technically proceeding directly against the property, not the person possessing it. So, for example, the police are technically not taking your money because you were dealing drugs, they are technically enforcing directly against your bag of money for its role in criminal enterprise. This means that when you want your money back, you aren't actually the defendant in any actions - you're a third party petitioning the court for action. Also, because the police are acting against property and not a person, they are not held to the same levels of proof and cause that they would be if they tried to arrest you. In some places, that standard is as low as 'probable cause' - meaning that the police need no more basis to take someone's money or car than they do to initiate a search or arrest someone. My wife's aunt had a renter in her house who was selling cocaine. Police got tipped off, and I guess they got a search warrant to search the whole house, not just coke dealer's room. Her family is Latino, and they do a lot of stuff primarily in cash- like paying the rent. Aunt had $3,500 taken by the police under civil forfeiture , which was the rent money she had gathered from everybody living in the house intended to pay the mortgage each month. Which at the time was extremely critical for her because she was living paycheck-paycheck since her husband had been deported several months prior and she was on a single income with a 10 year old son to care for. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
yeah I'm sure she had no idea that one of her renters was selling cocaine lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
It's alright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Hey Hey, it's our scammer blogger with survived brain cancer: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/disgraced-wellness-blogger-belle-gibson-fined/8995500 quote:Fake wellness blogger Belle Gibson has been ordered to pay a fine of $410,000 after being found guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct earlier this year.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Suspicious Lump posted:Hey Hey, it's our scammer blogger with survived brain cancer: Yeah, but she still turned a profit, (I think I read that she "earned" $1.1 million).
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Guess it's GWM being a lying sack of poo poo and using a dying kid for profit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 01:53 |
|
|
https://www.quora.com/At-what-net-worth-would-you-start-considering-someone-wealthy Local favorites Quora with the always-enlightening perspective about what constitutes wealth. Some good answers, mostly bad answers. Turns out it's pretty clear that a salary of $95,000 USD/year leaves you an impoverished dirt farmer and a salary of $105,000 USD/year makes you literally Bill Gates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2017 12:58
|
|