|
Admiral101 posted:I'd be interested in reading more about this if you can provide some kind of source. Are you referring to the penalty? Because the only time a penalty doesn't come into play is if you make so little money that you don't even have to file a federal tax return (and you'd have to have enormous amounts of income to hit a 10k penalty). The issue isn't penalties, it's the subsidy phase-out. This is a good guide to the basic subsidy structure. The PPACA uses refundable, advanceable tax credits to cap premium costs for a decent health care plan at a percentage of your income, but only up to 400% of the federal poverty line. If you get a raise that pushes you up to 401%, all of a sudden you lose that 9.5% cap, and you're
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Harry posted:I was talking more along the lines of something like this: There is a goldmine of bad-with-money stuff in there, including people who are very proud of their financial acumen but fail to understand the concept of "insurance:" quote:I was concerned that this thread might turn into a discussion of the genius/stupidity of dropping health insurance. I'm not a person that will simply pay whatever they choose to charge me. In order to cimply BREAK EVEN, I would need to incur $20k in charges a year. I haven't paid more than $1k a year for the last decade. I'll take the risk. Remember, kids, the only thing that matters is your monthly and yearly balance sheets. Risk management is for suckers!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Harry posted:I think around $750 a month premium and 11k deductible you have to start seriously weighing risks. Sure, but "I haven't had a [medical emergency/house fire/at-fault auto accident] in the past few years" is a loving terrible way to seriously weigh risk. The whole point of insurance is to protect you against improbable catastrophes. If the past few years were a good way to evaluate the risk, then you wouldn't need to buy insurance, you could just budget for the expenses in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Anne Whateley posted:Yeah, I wouldn't be calling up begging you to take my money. People who did something else with the money are obviously dumb. But people who just didn't notice you hadn't taken it yet? I think that's not nearly as bad as the office not noticing they were missing INCOME for six months. After a few months, it's not even that stupid to do something else with the money. Yes, the customer is still responsible for the bill, but it's going to be well outside the transaction deadlines established by the credit card company. HelloIAmYourHeart is damned lucky that nobody issued a chargeback, because they'd probably be well within their rights to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
razz posted:Maybe they can afford nice poo poo because they shop at thrift stores. Who knows! No amount of thrift store shopping will let someone who makes a modest income afford high-end luxury goods. Frugality will make you more comfortable in your circumstances, but it won't make you rich. The idea of the frugal rich guy who got to where he is because of good old fashioned financial sense is a myth in service of the idea that wealth equals virtue. corkskroo posted:Joseph A Banks' entire business model is based on people not understanding this. That, and "wow, what a discount! Clearly this item that is never sold at 'full price' must be worth 'full price'!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
OneWhoKnows posted:Assuming this guy had a job, how do you not file for 13 years not come up as a blip on the audit radar? If he's really really loving lucky (and not good at W-4s, which we can probably take as close to a given) he might be owed a refund for most or all of those years with just the standard deduction. If that's what's going on, the IRS won't care much. If they have your money rather than vice versa, they're more than happy to just hang on to that money for you penalty-free until you can get around to filing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
baquerd posted:I'm not only in tech, I'm in high finance. The prevailing attitude around here is that if you're in a low-income job, you deserve it and need to deal with the consequences. I want to stay kind of liberal, but from where I'm sitting a retail worker or a social worker either made a choice to not have significant income, just wasn't good enough to compete in a capitalist economy, or was too stupid to see where their choices would lead. Let's face it, if you're an American born whitey, you already had way more advantages than any of the immigrants who are taking your job in retail, and social work was only ever the sinecure of people with more righteousness or idealism than sense. You're right, the person who takes meager wages to convince starving homeless people that stabbing bankers is a bad idea is really just an idiot with more righteousness and idealism than sense. They should have been a banker too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Spermy Smurf posted:That thing could be built from like 15-20 2x4 studs. Some screws, a drill, and a saw... That'd be decently cheap, even cheaper if you could borrow skillsaw and power drill with some bits. Asking someone to learn construction skills to save some money on a bed is kind of ridiculous. Even if the materials and tools are 100% free (not happening), and you assign a worth of $0 to your own labor, it's still a big time investment to learn to build something that will sit level, won't collapse when you lie down on it, and won't frighten others who come into your bedroom. Also, 2x4s are framing material. If you want to build furniture out of cheap wood there are less expensive and better looking options. The appropriate thing to do in this case would be to take a single one of those $200 monthly payments, and go to Ikea to buy a cheap but serviceable bed, just like every other college/just-out-of-college age person in the first world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
HelloIAmYourHeart posted:You can Life Flight a cat? If you pay for it. Most air ambulance services are run on a for-profit or at-cost basis. $30-35k sounds about right for a chartered medical flight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
100 HOGS AGREE posted:Yeah not really a diplomatic thing to say. People say that poo poo all the time after personal tragedy and loss - they just have the diplomatic sense to wrap it up in nice-sounding platitudes like "everything happens for a reason."
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Rick Rickshaw posted:My credit card offers free insurance when I rent a car with it. Yes and no. Those programs almost universally pay for damage to the rental car itself. For instance, my Amex will cover up to $50,000 worth of damage to a rental car - if I bring it back scratched, dented, or crushed into a cube, it's not my problem unless I rented a very expensive car. This replaces the damage waiver that rental car companies charge extra for. But, that's not "real" car insurance, because it doesn't cover liability in an accident. If you carry regular liability insurance on a personal vehicle, it will extend to a rental car. If you don't have your own liability insurance, though, you'll need to carry it through someone else. The only place you're going to get short-term liability coverage for a car rental is through the rental company. Your credit card company won't do it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:If you stopped your heart for a few minutes then were revived, maybe you could argue for a discharge The standard you have to meet to have your student loans discharged in many US jurisdictions is literally "certainty of hopelessness." Still breathing? Get to work paying those back, deadbeat. We don't care about interruptions. Oh, you're deaf, blind, and can't speak? Well Helen Keller did OK, so you're not totally helpless; time to suck it up and get to work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
xie posted:You could rent a full size SUV for $1,500 a month by walking into a car rental place in the US and paying the sticker price (~50/day)... How would it cost $150/day to rent a 4x4? Full size SUVs are specialty vehicles, and usually cost more like $150-200/day. And that's just for one that is supposed to stay on paved roads and haul cargo or a crowd. xie posted:I'm not saying you should rent an SUV, just that it was my frame of reference for pricing. If it's way off then it's way off When you rent a car, part of the understanding is that you'll bring it back in one piece, without major mechanical or structural damage. Then, the rental company can keep renting it, and sell it later. Their costs are lower, and they can offer you a lower rate. When you take a 4x4 vehicle down a trail, part of the challenge and fun is that you're pushing it to its limits, and need to be careful and skilled to avoid breaking the vehicle just getting from point a to point b. This is why almost nobody rents specialty off-road vehicles, and anybody that does charges an absurd amount of money for the inevitable broken parts, total losses, and huge insurance premiums. Regular rental cars all carry an agreement that says you won't use the vehicle in high-risk situations like off-roading, racing, demolition derbies, and so forth. Even if you buy the "zero liability" damage waiver, it will only cover damage from normal on-road use. Basically: off-roading (and racing) break cars, and rental companies know this. You can't do it cheaper by renting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Plus can't you get a decent deal at Costco on the K Cup thingies? No, not really. Even the cheapest Costco K-cups are around 40 cents a pop - we'll call it 40 cents to make the numbers easy. You can make pretty good drip coffee at 1 oz coffee to 4 ordinary cups of water - that translates to six 8 oz coffee cups (which is a pretty good comparison point, because if you make a 12 oz cup with the Keurig machine, it'll be incredibly watery and even worse than usual). So, six Keurig pods to an ounce of un-podded coffee means that you're paying the equivalent of $2.40/oz, or $28.80 for the amount of coffee you'd get in a standard 12 oz bag - and that's for the basic cheap stuff. Fancy expensive single-origin hipster-roasted coffee that comes with flavor notes runs about $20/12 oz at the high end, or $0.28/cup. Even if you add in five cents a cup for a new filter every time, you're still not at K-cup prices. The bottom line is that with a K-cup machine, you're paying more than ultra-premium prices for something comparable to Folgers. There's no question that it wins on convenience, but you're paying a lot for it. "Decent deals" don't exist in K-cup land.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
opus111 posted:This is like the goon cliche of leaving your dorm door open. All goons say this but it's not a truism by any means. "Neither a borrower nor a lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry." -some dumb goon
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Lol, there are a number of states without income tax (FL is one of them), ya'll must have just let too many Mormons into the legislature. The liquor tax laws were passed by popular vote. Up until the last election, the state controlled liquor sales. Costco and local grocery chains wrote and promoted a law to privatize retail booze. Because of our totally hosed-up no-income-tax-having budget, the new system basically had to be revenue-neutral. Idiots voting for the law assumed that buying liquor at the grocery store just had to be cheaper than buying it at the state-owned store, even though the state would get the same amount of money thanks to those gigantic taxes that replaced all previous revenue from liquor sales and taxes, and the grocery stores would turn a profit on top of that. Needless to say, they were wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:How can they finance more cars with a recent repo?  The rent-to-own model exists in the used car world, too. Sell a car to somebody who just tripped over or scraped together some cash (bad credit? no problem! they specialize in working with good people with bad credit!), repo it when they inevitably can't make the payments, and flip it to somebody else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Yeah, right in the middle of reading this: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/26/investment-riches-built-on-auto-loans-to-poor/ Believe it or not, those loans are a cut above the typical products from a buy-here-pay-here lot. The loans described in the article are nasty, but if they're securitized, there's at least some assumption that the borrower will hopefully pay back the loan. The really scummy BHPH lots - the ones that are only too happy to extend credit to people who have just had their last car repo'd - look at repossessions as just part of doing business. Instead of auctioning off a repo to recoup costs like a bank, they'll just take it back and sell it again. The LA Times did a good piece on the business practices of buy-here-pay-here lots a few years ago. California actually put some consumer protections into place as a response, but of course, they didn't pass anything like a cap on interest rates. Having to squeak by on 17% over prime would have been just too burdensome to these hard-working small businesses, I guess. LA Times posted:Because Buy Here Pay Here businesses are both auto dealers and consumer lenders, it's not always clear who has authority over them. As always, it's expensive to be poor.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Uhhhhh how does increasing the housing supply in a high-demand housing market raise prices? No matter how nice the neighborhood is, people eventually refuse to pay more than a couple grand a month for a place to live that's lacking features like "an intact roof" and "electrical outlets that don't catch fire." Tear it down and replace it with "luxury apartments," though, and the sky's the limit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Barry posted:But that's not what is (theoretically) happening in this case - replacing an old house with 36 units is very unlikely (in a vacuum, by itself) to cause rents to go up. That is exactly what's happening in a lot of Seattle neighborhoods, because it's not happening in a vacuum, by itself, with totally fungible Housing Units. Crappy, neglected, but cheap housing in a rapidly gentrifying and extremely high-demand area (where demand outstrips any reasonable pace of construction!) is being replaced by expensive luxury apartments. And, when the market should tumble back to earth, rents will remain high because the developers who threw up thousands of units during the boom will have to keep paying down their own debt. Ballard is an excellent example - there's good supply, and if you want to rent an apartment there, you won't have much trouble finding an open unit in a nice new building. Their vacancy rate is actually the highest in Seattle. But, rents remain high, because all those new buildings put a floor on what landlords can charge before they go into the red themselves. Landlords of older, paid-off buildings will keep rents slightly lower but still high, because hey, it's an expensive neighborhood.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Barry posted:Ok, but in this specific example (swapping out 1 unit for 36 units), how could that single event cause rent to go up? You now have 36x the units that you used to (give or take based upon sizes and all that, naturally). There are at least 36 Amazon employees who are not willing to pay $x to live in a ramshackle house on Capitol Hill (or whatever other popular neighborhood), but they are willing to pay $x+y to live in a luxury one-bedroom in the same neighborhood. The developer knows this. So, the developer removes the $x ramshackle house, and charges $x+y when the new apartment building goes up. Rent for the same location goes from $x to $x+y. Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Barry posted:I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make but it really seems like you're saying that by increasing supply you then increase demand. No - when you change what you are supplying then demand at that price point can change. Again, we're not working with hypothetical and totally fungible Housing Units. If I can stock and sell 30 2015 Honda Accords at $25,000 apiece, but I can't sell even one 1996 Kia Rio at $20,000, then I haven't magically increased demand for totally fungible Transportation Units by switching from old Kias to new Hondas. I've just started stocking and selling a specific product that more people want to buy. The problem is that rental housing takes massive capital investment, so it's not like cars - it takes a long time to pay off a new building, and the debt on the building sets a price floor on what rent can be in that building. When a neighborhood is full of new-ish buildings like this, because there was a boom 10 years ago, it distorts the whole housing market in the neighborhood. It can also lead to unpleasant follow-on effects like landlords not paying for maintenance and upkeep to keep their payments current. Cicero posted:When a city only lets so much development go on and there's a lot of pent-up demand, yeah, the buildings that go up tend to be luxury ones, because that's the logical thing to do if you can only 'sell' a fixed number of units. If you were a car manufacturer limited to selling 10,000 cars a year, you'd be crazy to go for anything but the high end. It appears we have dueling car analogies. But, if it's just a matter of supply, then what's happening in Ballard? They have the highest vacancy rates in Seattle, largely in desirable new high-density developments, but average rents are still quite high. Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:Thanks man. I get a credit report from capitol one, will getting one from annual credit report also affect my rating? No. When you check your own credit, it's a "soft pull," which doesn't change your rating. These are also used for background checks, "pre-screened" offers, and other situations where you aren't explicitly asking to borrow money or have a line of credit. When you apply for credit, they'll do a "hard pull," which does impact your credit score. The point isn't to ding your score for checking your credit; it's to keep track of the number of times you've asked someone to lend you money. If you run around asking a bunch of different lenders to borrow money, that's a sign that you might be taking on too many payments at once, or that you might be in serious trouble and trying to float through it on credit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
IAMKOREA posted:I could finance a 6 month international vacation with 8k. Five star vacations are a waste of money, you are right to feel bad. remember, kids, if someone carefully saves within their means to afford something expensive that you wouldn't buy, then they are bad with money and should feel bad for buying something totally worthless. (also, I'd be very interested to see your $8k six month international family vacation that doesn't involve a hostel in Thailand)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Engineer Lenk posted:Yeah, but the bachelor's doesn't matter as much for careers that need a graduate degree. Save your money for the prestige degree that matters. Getting the references and undergrad work necessary to get into a top graduate school is a whole lot easier if you have four years to do it rather than two. Nail Rat posted:I work at a consulting company and almost none of our recruiting is done at or due to schools period. Same with our competitors. So basically I don't see where you pulled degree prestige mattering from. Maybe a particular industry, rather than the fact it's "consulting?" Strategy consultants - Bain, McKinsey, and so forth. Image is absolutely everything in that business. Bigfabdaddy posted:I screwed up and started with Strayer and now I'm not sure if I have enough on my loans to start over, and they wont tell me what will transfer to the local community college until I enroll, problem with that is I need a transcript that Strayer wont give me as long as I'm attending classes. Bad With Money. If they won't even let you get a copy of an unofficial transcript (which should be enough to figure out what will transfer) then mention FERPA, ask them to explain their policy in light of the law, and watch them sweat. If they still won't give you the information, get the denial in writing, and file complaints with the Department of Education and the body that handles their accreditation. Space Gopher fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:That actually seems like it would have been a good idea. Drone enthusiasts still do poo poo like build their own radio control devices, and build 'copters from scratch and/or parts kits. Maybe Radio Shack should have gone entirely radio-controlled shack. They also get their advice and buy their drones and drone parts on the internet, not from sales guys in hobby shops. There are all kinds of cool, fairly profitable new hobby toys that Radio Shack could have sold - drones, 3D printers, Arduino/Raspberry Pi type hobbyist microcontrollers and tinycomputers, whatever. Every single one of them would have people coming into the store to play with the gadgets, then leaving to actually buy them online. The business model of being one of the few places in town that can get you specialty parts for your hobby, with reasonably knowledgable salespeople to help you with your purchase, is pretty much completely dead thanks to the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:How the heck does he have any sort of tax payments with 3 kids and a mortgage? My husband and I have 0 kids, a mortgage that is about the same before taxes and we pay nothing or get money back depending on our spending and deductions. We make more as well. When they say they're being "eaten alive by taxes," it's probably not the taxes due at filing time they're worried about. People who have a spending problem find it very easy to look at that withholding number on every paycheck, and think to themselves, "if only I had that money, I could pay off my debt and all my problems would be gone! Clearly it's the tax system at fault, thanks Obama." See also: the plight of HENRYs, "high earners not rich yet," who don't find much money left over once they pay for the mortgage on their big house in a fancy neighborhood, luxury car lease, kids' private school tuition, and all the other things they so richly deserve for their hard work. Not to mention those huge tax bills that are clearly designed to punish successful people like them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:But the point is that you have an investment portfolio that is much bigger than an emergency fund would be. So even if it halves, you can cover emergencies by selling off the portion of your assets that weathered the storm (probably Treasuries). Great - but if you've got enough money that you can weather a major downturn in the stock market (which is what Mantle's talking about with 7% returns), and still come out with six months of living expenses, you're seriously loving rich. At that point, great, you don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us, because you're rich. If you're not in the very-wealthy set, then you have to look at the actual downside of a personal emergency during a market plunge. It's not just "oh, I lost some money, boo hoo." In the very worst case, it's possible to end up totally destitute and homeless. Even if you set aside the fact that life sucks as a homeless person and view it in dispassionate dollar terms, that's hundreds of thousands or millions in missed earning potential. The more likely scenario is that you have to take the first job that comes along, regardless of the pay or career development opportunities - over your working lifetime, that's going to cost you a ton of money. At some point, the numbers do tilt towards just stuffing all your liquid assets into comparatively risky investments with lots of growth potential, because the amount of investments a person can own ends up much, much larger than the amount required to support them for six months (or a year, or a lifetime). But, that doesn't happen until the numbers get very large. For the vast, vast majority of people in this thread (probably, all of us!) it's not a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Can you explain this? I'm always confused when people talk about having their car totaled and buying it back from the insurance company, so this is obvs way beyond me. Wouldn't "replace with new model" mean that they...replace it...? Only if it costs too much to fix. Normally, when you get in an accident and have insurance to cover it, the insurance will pay to fix your car. Just to make up your numbers, say that you have a car worth $10,000, a $500 deductible, and you get in a fender bender that costs $2,000 to fix. Your insurance pays out $1,500, you pay your $500 deductible, the car is fixed, and everything's cool. Now, if you get in a really bad accident that would cost $12,000 to fix, the insurance company will declare the car a "total loss" - it costs more to fix than it's worth. Instead of fixing your car, they'll just cut you a check for $9,500 (the value of your car, minus your deductible). Normally, they keep the remains of your car, and try to sell it to a junkyard for salvage value of any remaining good parts, plus the scrap steel in the frame. Say that the market value of what's left of your car is $1,000. If you want, you can buy the wrecked car yourself for the same $1,000 that a junkyard would pay - instead of $9,500, you have $8,500 and what used to be your car. What Dillbag is saying is that because of the "new model replacement" policy, the insurance company was treating the value of the old, wrecked car as artificially inflated. So, to go back to our original example with the same made up numbers, let's say that the old car was still worth $10,000, a new replacement would be $20,000, and it was in a bad accident that caused $12,000 worth of damage. Normal insurance math would say that the thing was a total loss; it would cost more to fix than it would to just cut a check for the value of the car minus the deductible, so the cheapest way to make the problem go away is to cut that check. But, because the insurance company is on the hook for $19,500 instead of $9,500 in a total loss, they're going to spend up to $19,499 in repair money on a $10,000 car. Until they hit that $19,500 magic number, they're not going to replace the car, because it's still cheaper for them to fix it and call the problem solved.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Suspicious Lump posted:WTF is the deal with rent over there? I've got someone going over there as part of a scholarship and shes asking for 30k for 12 months for a furnished apartment. I knew Seattle was expensive but daaaaamnnn. That's pretty much it. Seattle is a desirable city with a lot of high-paying tech jobs in the area thanks to Microsoft, Amazon, and friends. Because of the local geography, a transportation system that was designed for a much smaller population, and anti-sprawl urban planning, the supply of housing near major employers is constrained, commuting is difficult, and prices in desirable neighborhoods like Capitol Hill have skyrocketed. Developers are building new housing, but they're focusing on expensive luxury apartments so they can make more money, which keeps the prices high. With all that said, ~$1,875 USD/month is pretty high, even for Seattle (assuming it's expected to cover just rent, and not all living expenses). If this is coordinated through a school, there's a good chance they can help you find lower-cost housing. If it's not, it might be time for the student to adjust their expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
pig slut lisa posted:Yeah, Seattle is so "anti-sprawl" that only 85% of the city is zoned for single family use, rather than 90% like most other cities It's 54%, but that's not even all that important. When it comes to sprawl, the city itself doesn't matter; it's King County and the urban growth boundary that make the difference. In most urban sprawl situations, the biggest offenders aren't in the city core itself - they're the bedroom communities outside the city, where people build McMansions on cheap land. Dallas-Fort Worth is a perfect example; they have cheap land on the edges of the metroplex, almost no restrictions on growth, and big fat Texas highways, so development moves to the edges, the edges move out, and the process repeats itself. King County has established fairly strict limits on development in rural areas, and that's made a major difference in both sprawl and housing supply. If the rules were looser, you can bet that North Bend and Snoqualmie would be jammed full of developments like that mega-"community" they keep trying to build out in Bonney Lake.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
saltylopez posted:What does he mean by saying he'll avoid the 10% tax? The traditional IRA is subject to the same 10% early withdrawal penalty as his 401k. He says its because he'll be using it to pay rent, but that's not a qualified exception as far as I know. You can withdraw from an IRA to cover qualified educational expenses without penalty, including the cost of living. The wrinkle he's missing is that rent is only covered under qualified educational expenses up to the amount specified by the school for room and board in their cost-of-attendance calculations. It's designed expressly so you can't use it as a "cash injection." baquerd posted:Sure, he'll fit right in with the other MBAs. It's entirely possible that he comes out of this MBA program and walks into a $150k a year job if he can come across as generally likeable and competent while networking. He thinks networking happens at "networking events." Do you really think he's going to come across as competent?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Renegret posted:It's a clever idea if you want to separate idiots from their money. Not really. Credit card companies will not let you give out cash for a credit transaction - that's their turf and they want to protect the sweet, sweet interest they get to start charging instantly on cash advances. In an amazing coincidence, the laundry quarters startup folded because of "issues" with payment processing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Antifreeze Head posted:I'm Canadian so I may have a drastic misunderstanding of the U.S. credit score system, but I had heard that always carrying a balance was a more effective method to build up credit on that side of the border. Is that not the case? It is definitely not the case, although it's a really common misconception that credit card companies have no interest in correcting. A US credit report does not show the balance carried month-to-month; it only shows the statement balance each month, credit limits, and payment timeliness. There's no way to tell the difference between new and old spending from a credit report, so it can't be a part of a credit score. Carrying a balance can't help, and will hurt by driving up utilization of available credit (although $10 will be lost in the noise).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
John Smith posted:I prefer they choose suicide. Some people are not meant for this world and we should not prolong their suffering any further.  Tell us more about how you just discovered Nietzsche and it, like, totally changed your life. Do you have any views on eugenics you'd like to share as well?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
High Lord Elbow posted:The real answer, i.e. the one frothing liberal goons hate, is that well-intended politicians tried to make college more affordable by providing an endless well of taxpayer-backed money. Colleges, not being as stupid as politicians, realized that this was a massive windfall waiting to happen. They raised their tuition as fast as they could to get the biggest possible slice of government cheese. And the most profitable way to do that is to push a bunch of starry-eyed idiots who have been told to "follow your dreams" through liberal arts programs that cost the school very little beyond a classroom and a failed writer to teach in it. Never mind the tax and service cuts that gutted public universities, or that many state schools' budgets remained flat as they went through years of double-digit percentage tuition increases. It must be the fault of an evil cadre of art history professors. No doubt they'll blow up their endowment, though. Even though there won't be anybody to donate money, they'll make it up on volume.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:drat, I covered the cost of my undergrad by working summers full time, during the year part time and co-ops. I got paid to do my PhD and came out with $50k in the bank. $100k is about average for an undergrad degree. For instance, take the cost of attendance at the University of Washington: https://admit.washington.edu/Paying/Cost#freshmen-transfer . $27,304/year for a student living away from their parents' home, for tuition and modest but sustainable living expenses. It's not really feasible to cover that by working through school; even at a mythical student-friendly 40 hours/week job paying $11/hour, with absolutely no time off for holidays, finals, or anything else, you're nearly $5k/year short in gross pay. Now, it's certainly possible to defray some of that cost, but you're talking about kids who are barely out of high school, who grew up in families that decided, "sure, I could set aside some money for my kids' college, but I think I'd like a boat. Also, state governments are bloated and I should vote for that guy who promises massive cuts."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Zo posted:I mean lol this isnt even up for debate, getting an arts degree or english degree over a STEM degree is bad with money, but lo and behold dipshits will inevitably butt in with "BUT I HAVE A JOB" as if they don't understand statistics, which I suppose they wouldn't If your model for lifetime earnings just has "STEM degree Y/N?" and a random factor, you probably got your stats education at DeVry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Yet another proof that goons don't understand statistics. Despite that, liberal arts and business degrees are well represented in high-level C-suites. Why, it's almost enough to suspect there might be other factors! If only we didn't have those dastardly statistics, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is Better With Money to skate through a "computer science" vocational degree at ITT than it is to network your rear end off at Harvard earning an English BA. After all, simplified statistics are destiny.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Not a Children posted:Ah yes, the secret to success is to be able to divine the future of a property's value, get it for below cost, and only hire good tenants. Jeez why didn't I think of that earlier? I can't believe what a rube I've been You're missing the secret sauce: 100:1 leverage in a bubble.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2015 18:23
|
|