|
Luigi Thirty posted:I thought this was illegal somehow. Maybe I'm thinking of the time-tested investing with your federal student loan money tactic, which isn't illegal per se but is, uh, inadvisable. It falls under a category of fraud. If it turns to poo poo it may end up a criminal matter. quote:Credit card kiting refers to the use of one or more credit cards to obtain cash and purchasing power they do not have, or pay credit card balances with the proceeds of other cards. Unlike check kiting, which is illegal under nearly all circumstances, laws against credit card kiting are not completely prohibitive of the practice, thereby allowing it to be done to some degree. It is up to the banks to detect the practice and when necessary, stop it. Harder to prove than cheque kiting according to the wiki. 
Devian666 fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Apr 23, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:09 |
|
Devian666 posted:Nothing to stop an appeal to a higher court. I guess that's something. BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Nope, you are understanding perfectly; the bank didn't like the unforseen consequences of their contractual agreement with their customers and told them to gently caress off. Just remember this if you ever face an unforseen circumstance and it is in your best interest to walk away from a debt of some kind. Yeah, that's infuriating to me. I'm sure I'm not alone. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had about debt (especially regarding houses and credit cards) where the other person just keeps repeating, "Personal responsibility. Personal responsibility." It's always the woman who lost her job and is supporting two kids and trying to keep a roof over their heads who needs to learn a lesson about personal responsibility. It's never the multi-billion-dollar national banking concerns that make huge profits from predatory lending that need to be held responsible. Then, what appears (from the little I know) to be a clear-cut case where those banking concerns need to eat what they dish out, and the courts give them a get-out-of-your-obligations-free card.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Knyteguy posted:e: relevant (gbs beware) http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3715292 I've also compared prices for hygiene & beauty products. In my experience, there's generally not any price difference between comparable men's and women's products of the same brand, and the cheapest product overall will often be gender-neutral. There is poo poo like "store brand shaving cream" vs "store brand lavender-scented shaving gel for women, now with aloe & vitamin E". The woman-specific version is usually more expensive...but there's also no reason to buy it, because the generic shaving cream does the same damned thing. tl;dr The pink tax is half unavoidable bullshit, half self-inflicted bullshit. At least from my point of view. Haifisch fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:I guess that's something. In NZ we've had a code of conduct passed (it's only a guideline) but it states that lenders are to check that the people they lend to are able to repay the loan. There was a time when banks were a respected part of the community and provided a valuable service. Now they have an image of being no better than loan sharks. Socially unacceptable loans trump personal responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Re: pink tax: I finally found a pair of pants with pockets large enough to (mostly) fit my phone (iPhone, not one of those monster tablet/phone hybrids) and the pockets are cut at such an angle that my phone falls out every time I sit down. I'm now one of those people rocking a phone with a shattered screen because of those stupid pants. Choosing function over form still results in a lovely product when it comes to women's clothes unless you work on a farm and can wear carhartts or something every day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
This pink tax is fascinating, the tariff differences are really arbitrary. Personal choice between body wash aside, women's shoes being taxed more than men's is kind of hosed up. But Jesus I guess I haven't been over to GBS in a while because what the gently caress is going on in that thread, did GBS become fyad or something? Is fyad still a thing? I'm out of the loop over here with the adults.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
reddit posted:I want to be a home owner by the end of 2015. I need help getting there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Switchback posted:This pink tax is fascinating, the tariff differences are really arbitrary. Personal choice between body wash aside, women's shoes being taxed more than men's is kind of hosed up. It's not tax, it's markup. It's based on what the consumer is willing to spend. It's not too shocking that men and women have a few different priorities in the way they dress, especially in regards to shoes. In my experience, the clothes thing is exact opposite. Mens clothes cost more, but are noticeably higher quality from the stores that sell to both sexes. Also, I had roughly the same reaction on the GBS=FYAD thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Switchback posted:This pink tax is fascinating, the tariff differences are really arbitrary. Personal choice between body wash aside, women's shoes being taxed more than men's is kind of hosed up. Yes and yes. There's a weekly contest for best thread which is maybe helping a little.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Switchback posted:This pink tax is fascinating, the tariff differences are really arbitrary. Personal choice between body wash aside, women's shoes being taxed more than men's is kind of hosed up. Yeah, at some point last year, or the year before, GBS became whatever the gently caress it is now. Its a shame too, because GBS used to have some really interesting and funny threads for things that didn't quite belong in D&D or one of the special interest forums. Now it may as well be FYAD or /b/. I have no idea why it became what it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Folly posted:It's not tax, it's markup. It's based on what the consumer is willing to spend. It's not too shocking that men and women have a few different priorities in the way they dress, especially in regards to shoes. In my experience, the clothes thing is exact opposite. Mens clothes cost more, but are noticeably higher quality from the stores that sell to both sexes. I thought the source was saying there is literally a higher import tariff on women's shoes versus men's shoes. Like Nike sneakers cost more to import just because its a woman's size rather than a mans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
oh, I missed that one. I didn't catch the second link. Ya, that one makes no sense. I'm really curious about the history of that. The allotment looks so random it seems like they just didn't check what the other tariff was before they passed the new one. Better article on that issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/business/28gender.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
Knyteguy posted:https://www.facebook.com/MicMedia/videos/922511064438351/ I love going to get my hair cut with my mother so I can rub the price in her face. $8 cheaper and I have longer/more difficult hair to cut than she does. (yeah I'm a dude who goes to a hair salon. Price is the same as a barber, better end result because of the kind of hair I have)
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
turevidar posted:
Doesn't seem too awful. Yea home ownership seems to be some kind of evil thing here, but at least he's looking at things in a reasonable price range. Student loans at 1k and only making 35k a year sucks, to call back the whole discussion earlier. Hopefully that's starting, no-experience pay and not what he's going to be making 5-10 years from now, but he didn't say what he got his degree in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
It's not that home ownership is evil, but it's not something to be rushed into, and it's not like you've "made it" when you "buy" a property with a huge mortgage. That's only the start of the whole process that has a lot of headaches and financial pitfalls. There's no need to hurry to be a homeowner by a certain date, it's retarded. Home inflation will not outpace the S&P 500 for an extended period, and if it does, and you don't sell in time, the crash will be enormous. Plus, you're paying lots of maintenance etc. in the meantime, and big closing cost fees on both sides of the transaction. I rushed into home ownership at 26 and it was a bad, bad, bad move. I'm going to end up losing 50k plus closing costs on both sides, nearly another 20k. That's after waiting five years for the market to actually improve quite a bit in the area. But hey at least I got an 8k credit for the home purchase, thanks to Obama.
Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
The real question is, where can you buy a habitable home with more than 1 job in a 100 mile radius for $50k?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The real question is, where can you buy a habitable home with more than 1 job in a 100 mile radius for $50k? In Detroit that might buy you a mansion, and there are definitely jobs around. But you will probably be shot dead, or killed when your neighbor's meth lab explodes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The real question is, where can you buy a habitable home with more than 1 job in a 100 mile radius for $50k? A lot of places in Michigan and Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
ChipNDip posted:A lot of places in Michigan and Ohio. I was just going to say, "In my hometown in Ohio." You could get a really nice place in town for less than $100k, but you're still living in Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The real question is, where can you buy a habitable home with more than 1 job in a 100 mile radius for $50k? Where I live is considered rural/Midwest/Bumfuck, but I am only 45 minutes from a major city. You can get a pretty decent place for 60-70k here, and still have the advantages (good jobs, entertainment, etc.) if you're willing to drive a little bit for it. But this is probably going to be another rural/city debate, so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
I mentally added a zero to that guy's post. Looking at houses for 50-80K? And that's not just the downpayment??
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I mentally added a zero to that guy's post. Looking at houses for 50-80K? And that's not just the downpayment?? Funny, my wife was talking about a house that some relative got, for 30k and now it's at 60k and he's super excited! I looked at her so loving confused until I made her clarify "OH poo poo I was thinking in Man (chinese for 10k) and said 30 thousand when I meant 30 man so it was 300k whoops"
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
I don't intend to demonize buying a home, but that person is comically unready, even for the modest home prices mentioned. They are currently paying half of their take home pay to student loans, they have another 14.5k of consumer debt, and they don't pay any of their own utilities, so they probably have no idea what living expenses actually are. But they HAVE to be in their own house this year!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
turevidar posted:I don't intend to demonize buying a home, but that person is comically unready, even for the modest home prices mentioned. They are currently paying half of their take home pay to student loans, they have another 14.5k of consumer debt, and they don't pay any of their own utilities, so they probably have no idea what living expenses actually are. But they HAVE to be in their own house this year! I bet his parents are kicking him out by 1/1/2016.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 21:25
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:I bet his parents are kicking him out by 1/1/2016. Maybe it's one of those situations where an extremely wealthy relative has willed a huge chunk of money to the first relative to meet some arbitrary set of conditions, such as having a child and owning a home before the start of 2016. That poo poo happens all the time.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Maybe it's one of those situations where an extremely wealthy relative has willed a huge chunk of money to the first relative to meet some arbitrary set of conditions, such as having a child and owning a home before the start of 2016. That poo poo happens all the time. Brewster's Thousands
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Dangit Ronpaul posted:Brewster's Thousands You have to spend your money on a deposit for a lovely house plunging you into debt you are unlikely to be able to repay. Of course this is to learn how to hate your family and love unnecessary debt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:Maybe it's one of those situations where an extremely wealthy relative has willed a huge chunk of money to the first relative to meet some arbitrary set of conditions, such as having a child and owning a home before the start of 2016. That poo poo happens all the time. I had to be 24 and possess a 4-year degree in order for my trust to be released. Ironically, it just covered my remaining student loan balance 
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
potee posted:I had to be 24 and possess a 4-year degree in order for my trust to be released. I hope it was worth 4 years of your life to get a degree literature. :iamafag: I had some money to be released when I turned 21. Instead it was taken out early to go towards my education. Using it up front was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I get my none life insurance trust thingy at 32 or was it 34... gently caress I don't know. Attaching a trust to home ownership strikes me as really strange. 4 year degree also seems like bullshit to me.
Duck and Cover fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Duck and Cover posted:I get my none life insurance trust thingy at 32 or was it 34... gently caress I don't know. Attaching a trust to home ownership strikes me as really strange. 4 year degree also seems like bullshit to me. My dad put the 4 year degree requirement in his life insurance policy because he's 100% convinced that without it my brother and I wouldn't have a good life. Yeah. :|
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Tea.EarlGrey.Hot. posted:My dad put the 4 year degree requirement in his life insurance policy because he's 100% convinced that without it my brother and I wouldn't have a good life. Yeah. :| All my degrees add up to is that I have a lot of work to do. Being busy and stressed out does not necessarily equate to a good life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
For my college roommate, he had to achieve the age of 20 to receive his $300,000 trust. He was not my college roommate the next semester.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Bad with money: I have a roughly zero net worth at age 30 with a degree, while the dude above makes $200k/yr in IT. We're on what I like to think is parity though because he likes Pappy Van Winkle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Smart trusts say you have to read and understand several books after age X and be reasonably debt free. Eg 4 pillars of investing. There is also a test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:Bad with money: I have a roughly zero net worth at age 30 with a degree, while the dude above makes $200k/yr in IT. We're on what I like to think is parity though because he likes Pappy Van Winkle. Don't get too worried about only zero net worth I hit 30 and had paid off my student loan. My main asset was a really expensive computer which has long since been thrown away because I used it to destruction. At least you can improve from this point on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:Don't get too worried about only zero net worth I hit 30 and had paid off my student loan. My main asset was a really expensive computer which has long since been thrown away because I used it to destruction. At least you can improve from this point on. Yeah I'm 29 and if I keep up my pace right now I'll be Worthless a bit before my birthday in December.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
I think this poor gullible bastard fits in neatly with the theme of this thread. Basically he gets taken for a ride by a really scammy-sounding loan company and just keeps giving them more loving money and doesn't realize what's happening till he's pretty deep in the hole.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
Noyemi K posted:I think this poor gullible bastard fits in neatly with the theme of this thread. LoanZ? Man, it's like the scammers aren't even trying to sound legitimate. "Yo, you've reached CrackerJaX Financial, where every loan has a prize inside, how can I help you?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
A loan company asking for a PayPal cash cards and money to repay Western Union fees yes that sounds legit and totally a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2015 15:44
|
|