Bad w/ Money: I just paid for a fat bitches Electric Cock Zapping Sex Toy in Kentucky

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Bad w/ Money: I just paid for a fat bitches Electric Cock Zapping Sex Toy in Kentucky

«‹›3 »

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Leroy Diplowski posted:

Isn't that how bitcoins work 'tho?

Bitcoins don't "work" as such - they're like any currency in that they're only as valuable as somebody (somewhere) is willing to acknowledge. The only interesting thing about bitcoin was the whole concept of a cryptocurrency/purely digital currency and that idiots thought it was an 'investment' opportunity.

I remember reading somewhere that Bitcoin was pretty much "nerds learning one step at a time why banking regulations exist," and I think that's a very true assessment. At least penny stocks are regulated, so you're at least somewhat protected.

And here's one for the pile - people who at the height of the GFC placed their superannuation funds into 'defensive' strategies because they no longer trusted the stock market, and just left it there. Despite the fact they've got many years until retirement and easily could have made it back had they just ignored it. I feel sorry for them because I can sort of see where they're coming from, but on the other hand they're jeopardising their retirement and may not have enough money.

# ¿ May 31, 2014 17:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 14:36

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

FrozenVent posted:

What Kate Spends Per Month:
On food: $15
On clothing: $0
On toiletries: $0.17 a month on toothpaste
On her $200,000
condo: $237
She puts into savings: $4,000
Into 401(k): $1,000
Goal: $250,000 in savings by next year or so

That is... quite something. I guess if it makes her happy? :confused:

I think I might spend my weekend watching this show and cringing.

My partner finds some of the things I do to save money a bit quaint, but he earns more than me so my love of spreadsheets, bringing sandwiches to work and buying in bulk is a bit alien to him.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 10:59

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Folly posted:

Dammit BFC, which forum do you think this is. Here I'll pick up the slack:

I can't believe she spends money on toothpaste. If you just watch the coupons you should be able to get it for free every month.

I think if you eat so sporadically you are at risk of developing scurvy like that lady, it makes you bad with money.

Speaking of which, I'm sure everyone has heard the urban legend of scurvy being a common ailment experienced by poor students who've been living off instant noodles. In a similar vein, one of my coworkers tells the story of one of his housemates who only ate instant noodles in an attempt to save money. He got sent to hospital after somebody found him a disturbing grey colour while shivering on the floor of his room. Turns out eating 2-minute noodles for weeks at a time is a good way to develop malnutrition, go figure.

# ¿ Jun 12, 2014 14:59

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Another thread in BFC reminded me of another very unique way to be bad with money - failing to (reasonably accurately) assess risk.

The loss of time and productivity from losing your internet link can range from minor inconvenience to major catastrophe depending on the type of work being done, deadlines, etc. It seems obvious that if your work will be seriously and negatively impacted from losing said connectivity you would make a sincere effort to mitigate the risk by having a backup internet connection, but apparently for some of my customers that isn't the case. Cue a catastrophic failure and they're on the line screaming at us because for them there's no Plan B.

The same also applies to backups - if you're going to lose significant amounts of time, energy and money if your computer crashes/dies/is stolen, you should make an effort to have things backed up. Seriously, don't be this guy, back your critical documents up.

To illustrate this point, here's a couple of gems heard from my time in a residential ISP:
"All my backups were on that computer!"
"I work from home, what am I supposed to do if the service isn't working?!"
"It's a Mac, it can't get viruses!"

# ¿ Jul 15, 2014 00:16

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Scapegoat posted:

I'm amazed these institutions exist (Australian), my father used to work at a private college which was simply a springboard to get into "proper" universities but at least those credits transferred (and he used to fail a whole bunch of students who literally had no clue what was going on).

The difference is, here in Australia we have the Australian Qualifications Framework. It's basically quality assurance for tertiary education, so qualifications can be easily transferred between states, employers have a good idea of what each qualification means in terms of skillset, etc.

Edit: I'm going to guess the US has nothing remotely approaching this, which is how crazy for-profit schools start. There are for-profit training providers in Australia, but the overwhelming majority of them conform to the AQF.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 00:04

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Nail Rat posted:

And people wonder why a number of states are making things like AirBnB illegal. If something like this happens there's pretty much nothing you can do.

Here in Australia I believe it's reasonably easy to kick somebody out of your house, providing it's a house you're now planning on using as your own personal residence. A family acquaintance found squatters in his home after an extended work trip and had to go to the courts. To get them out he had to prove that the squatters were depriving him of a place to live. So long as you can prove that you're now homeless because they're living in your house, you're golden.

That said, I have very little sympathy for landlords because housing here in Australia is completed hosed and every dickhead with delusions of grandeur wants to have an investment property. Supply is limited to those happy few who are making well above the median or if you live with your parents until you're well into your twenties, the property market is perpetually hotting up due to a nasty case of NIMBY towards density (seriously, the Perth metropolitan area in Western Australia is about the same size as New York City with about one tenth of the density) and successive federal governments refusing to limit or revoke negative gearing.

Let's talk about how the Australian government is really loving terrible with money with the biggest rort around: Negative Gearing.

What is Negative Gearing?

Basically it's a way for rich fuckers to offset their income. Positive gearing is where the money you're getting exceeds the amount it's costing you. So if you have a house that costs you $500 a month in mortgage and you rent it out at $700, that's a positively geared property. Negative gearing is where the money you're taking in is less than your costs. So if you have a house that costs you $500 per month in mortgage and you rent it out for $300, you're making a loss of $200 per month.

This sounds bad because you're losing money, right?

This is where the Australian government policy allows the aforementioned rich fuckers to dodge tax. I had an explanation written out, but the internet can explain it better:

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/pfproperty/investing/8123730/negative-gearing-explained posted:

Here is how negative gearing works:

Lisa, a property investor, buys a unit for $300,000, putting in $50,000 of her own money and borrowing the remaining $250,000. The interest of 7% each year is $17,500 and the weekly rent is $300 or $15,600 a year.

Financial flexibility

Ongoing costs including rates, water, insurance, maintenance and depreciation allowance are $2600 each year. After expenses, income for the year will be $13,000 ($15,600 minus $2600), equivalent to a net rental yield of 4.3%. However, annual interest repayments are $17,500, so she has actually lost $4500 during the year ($17,500 minus $13,000 = $4500).

In this example, the investor can reduce the tax liability on her other assessable income by the investment property�s loss of $4500. If the investor is on the highest marginal tax rate of 46.5% (including the Medicare levy) this tax deduction would have the ultimate effect of reducing the real loss on the property from $4500 to $2408 ($4500 x 46.5% = $2092; $4500-$2092 = $2408). This is a good saving.

If an investor is on a lower rate of tax of 31.5% (including Medicare levy) the after-tax loss on the investment would be reduced from $4500 to $3083 ($4500 x 31.5% = $1417; $4500 - $1417 = $3083). The saving is still quite attractive.

Most people accept a loss in income because they believe it will be more than compensated for by a capital gain down the track. But you need the financial flexibility to fund a cash-flow deficit while the property�s gain accrues. You don�t want to get 18 months into a property investment to find the cash deficit is intolerable.

Basically people deliberately lose money on their property in the hopes the property value will increase and they will get rich when they finally sell. They are almost actively encouraged to do this by the Australian government because the government is giving them a small tax dodge in the process.

Why Negative Gearing is hosed

Encourages speculative investment - you know how in the property boom in the US there were all those ads for becoming a property tycoon? That's still a thing here in Australia.
Speculation decreases housing affordability. I'm not sure what our society really expects people who are performing low-wage but vital services to do. If I was a childcare worker, I'd quit and find a better paying job because it's just too difficult to survive because wages haven't really kept up with housing costs.
Speculation is also really bad for the economy since increased prices = bigger mortgages = bigger % of income is being used to service debt. This means less money overall is being ploughed into consumer spending (you know, that thing that keeps most developed nations economies propped up) or investment. Here in Australia people continually whinge about the public debt, when really the problem is the private debt - we have so much money tied in up housing that we're one recession away from a mass mortgage default.

tl;dr The Australian government has created an environment that encourages speculative investment which could topple our entire economy, which I think is pretty bad with money considering they're forgoing a bit of pain and political unpopularity now in exchange for unknown amounts of economic pain later.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 01:00

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Mantle posted:

You could be taking in $100/mo less rent than your mortgage payment and have the property appreciate by $100,000.
You also could be taking in $1000/mo rent on a $500 mortgage and losing your shirt in equity.

Both of these things are highly speculative. The value of the house shouldn't be a motivating factor because the gains or losses are only realised when the property is sold.

The bad with money bit isn't necessarily taking in less money than the mortgage costs because some money is better than none, it's the fact that the government has made speculating on property an attractive prospect for the wealthy.

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 01:34

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Jeffrey posted:

It's not shares paying dividends are much different if the share price drops according to the amount of dispensed cash. I don't really see the problem, it is a genuine loss. If they didn't inflate the price of housing they would inflate the price of something else that they invested in in its stead. NIMBY types creating arbitrary shortages in housing seems like the real problem.

Oh I agree it's not just negative gearing causing the problem, there's stuff like discounts on capital gains tax on residences which contribute. I'm just of the opinion that property speculation caused by negative gearing is particularly bad because it shelters significant sums of money that would normally be taxed and it diverts money away from economic activities that actually grow the economy (only 3% of negatively geared properties were bought new, the rest consists of existing housing stock).

# ¿ Jul 24, 2014 07:22

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

FrozenVent posted:

Again, positive cashflow doesn't equal profit. You have to take into account maintenance, taxes, insurance and depreciation. Depreciation hasn't happened in real estate around here in a while, but it's still a thing.

The landlord also shoulders the risk of owning the property and operating it as a business venture, which does, in a way, have a cost.

Pretty much this. I can see why many see renting out shelter as a means of making money as repellent or predatory, but there will always be a place for landlords/leasing. My only issue with owning investment properties is when they're speculating the area will increase in value so they can sell at a profit. The speculation is what's bad, not leasing it out.

# ¿ Jul 25, 2014 15:15

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Butt Wizard posted:

1. Your house prices have been inflated for ages, there's a famous John Howard quote about no one ever complaining that their house rising in value making them richer. This is not a recent development.
2. One of your most popular TV exports is The Block which feeds into the 'buy a run down home and flash it up' ethos which contributes to almost all over the lower value housing stock disappearing.
3. I'm fairly sure that rising house prices in metropolitan areas are a thing all over the world.

Seriously, I get where your coming from as someone who is unlikely to be able to afford a house where I live, but don't confuse a Government that isn't doing much about a problem with one that has caused it.

I completely agree with all your points! It's definitely not a recent development (the real trouble started in the 90s when the 50% discount on capital gains was introduced), and rising house prices in metro areas isn't a new thing at all. However, I think your second point is a result of a regulatory environment that encourages that sort of behaviour - when all the older and wealthier people around you made money from property, you're probably going to assume it's the quickest and easiest method to riches too (thus spurring demand for shows like The Block). Here's a bonus graph for Melbourne median house prices vs median household income.

Bad at money - the idiots who broke into my car last night, had a good rummage around, and didn't bother taking anything. Bastards.

Jokes aside, I'm reading this thread on reddit and just cringing:

Parents are in debt about $15,000? Anyway I can help? posted:

First of all, please direct me to the correct subreddit if there is another one better suited for this type of question.

Okay so my parents make around $80,000 combined, my mom making up about $75,000 of that. They are horrible with finances. My dad doesn't really work and doesn't have very many skills to find work. I think what he does is somehow take out money from a loan shark and then pay it off with money that he takes out from a casino (maybe/probably illegal?). I don't know how this is necessary since they live in a small apartment and shouldn't have this kind of money problem. My father basically keeps his finances secret from everyone. He is obviously sick and has some type of thinking problem and maybe has a secret addiction. Well, they're horrible finances finally caught up to them and he reached a limit on the money he can borrow and has become very desperate. Now, their three children (including myself) are trying to find a way to help them get a new start and begin fresh. We have been talking about the three of us pitching in what we can, to help them clear all of their debt and start over. That includes taking out a lot of student loans, and maybe giving them a credit card that will be dealt by us.

Basically, I'm asking if there are any other options or anything we can do. I know there aren't a lot of things we can really do besides them bringing their expenses down and their income up but I'm thinking that maybe someone else has been in a similar situation and knows of better options. Any thing I can read up on or watch? I know the obvious answer is saying "oh well they're screwed" but we are trying to have an intervention with them so they can live frugally and we can help them live without that debt that is ruining their lives. Something has to be done asap because my father has maxed out every option.

Thank you for any help

Thankfully the comments are all some variation of 'no, don't do it.'

# ¿ Jul 27, 2014 04:42

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Here's one for the pile. I have a relative who is a musician. As far as I can tell she does pretty well of it, she teaches music during the week, plays gigs on her own and does backup for other musicians. Each on its own might not be enough to get by, but together she has a pretty busy schedule despite her city not having much of a music scene.

The problem is that she's perpetually broke for various reasons. Either it's a new instrument, or she's gotten herself into some vehicle trouble (fines, engine trouble, she's rather accident prone and has had several accidents), or the work has dried up.

The other day she broke the immobiliser in her car key. She calls my uncle who drives 40 minutes to help her out, then she turns around and admits she has no fuel so she'd probably be unable to get home. He fills up the car for her because he's not about to leave her stranded at 3am. Then the car won't start, possibly because it's been running off fumes for so long.

My uncle was pretty upset with her, he's recognising that she's taking advantage (or at least, not planning ahead because hey my uncle will bail her out).

# ¿ Jul 28, 2014 01:17

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Devian666 posted:

As the fellow kiwi goon above said the one who is bad with money is our respective Governments. Insane regulation is the problem in Japan. While it keeps a lot of people employed in the construction industry it's completely artificial, and the mortgage will destroy any wealth with the rapid decline in value of the house.

In terms of people bad with money half of my family is a disaster. I have an auntie who bought a small townhouse and had a mortgage when she hit retirement. Living from government pension payment to the next. It's difficult to know what she or my cousins are doing given we severed contact completely. The only contact was via my grandmother who my auntie constantly asked for money thinking half of my grandmother's money was hers. My auntie just hung around like a vulture and didn't care for my grandmother at all.

Then I have a number of friends who are just turning 30. Some finally have jobs that they can start improving their financial situations. In response some have increased debts with little to show for the loans and others don't accumulate debt but spend all their money on drinking. It's bad to think that someone drinking all their money is better than those working to go backwards financially.

Just yesterday it got better - South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon proposed allowing first home buyers to use their superannuation to help them gather that first deposit!

It's a bad idea because a.) his proposal was based around a similar Canadian scheme where people have to pay the money back within 15 years (and if the average first home buyer is scraping for that deposit already, are they really going to be able to pay it back?) and b.) it does nothing to improve the supply of housing in Australia, so all it will do is inflate costs as more money chases after the same amount of housing stock.

# ¿ Aug 1, 2014 14:12

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Cast_No_Shadow posted:

An unscrupulous person might flee the country. Not suggesting you actually do this (don't) but hypothetically what recourse would thr bank have?

Something remarkably similar to this has happened before. A couple who ran a service station in New Zealand discovered $8 million in their account and fled the country. I believe they have been apprehended, but just goes to show - this can and does happen, although most people are too sensible/honest to take the money and run.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2014 15:39

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Anne Whateley posted:

I don't know about the implants, but skin removal can actually be really medically necessary.

That said, I'm pretty appalled that Australia is apparently like "go gently caress yourself, you're on your own" about it. I thought it was the land of magic free healthcare. In comparison, in the US, my insurance would cover it (except for a copay) if it were medically necessary.

The Australian health system doesn't necessarily go "gently caress you you're on your own". If you don't want to wait you can go private and get care quicker, but I was able to see a dietician and exercise physiologist for free after getting a referral from my GP.

I'm going to guess if she qualified for bariatric surgery she was looking at a wait of a few months/years and used her super to get the surgery privately.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2014 06:26

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

bartlebyshop posted:

This is the thing I really don't get. I'm 23 and I sure as hell don't know enough to handle an estate. Maybe there are 23 year olds out there who could. Why would you ever put someone with very little life/financial experience in charge of something like this?

Parents probably don't consider the possibility that unexpected large sums of money might have a psychological impact. When I was sixteen my parents took me aside and told me that they had recently written up their will, and should anything happen to them they wanted me to look after my eight year old brother. As in, they had written something specifically into their will so that I could adequately look after myself and my brother should anything happen to them. This is despite the fact I have two other siblings who in all honesty are probably more responsible than me. I still have no idea what was going through their heads when they did that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm weirdly flattered, but had the worst happened and some time between then and now I was given the responsibility of looking after my kid brother, I'm not sure I would have been able to do it - eighteen year old me would probably have taken whatever money was inherited and done something stupid with it. I've mentioned this to my parents, and they brushed it off by saying they were confident I'd just step up to the plate and not screw up too much. You'd think this issue would go away since my younger brother will be turning eighteen in a year or so, but nope, they have specifically said this bizarre expectation of theirs will continue well into adulthood. :psyduck:

Anyways, here's one from Whirlpool:

quote:

Morning,

Thought I would have a bit of fun with this..

Have a friend of a family member I was speaking to the other day... They mentioned their accountant had set up an SMSF for them. I asked what they used the funds to invest into....

They withdrew the funds and paid off their personal mortgage.... No they have not met preservation age and thought this was ok as "You can use an SMSF to invest into property these days"....

Obviously I explained to them they cannot do that and will need to rectify it asap (they used over 90% of their balance to do this so there is no remote argument of thinking it could be done through 'in house asset' etc).

Come audit time what do we think the repercussions will be? They genuinely think they can plead ignorance and it will be fine...

For those who aren't Australian, basically this guys friends withdrew money from their retirement accounts to pay off their mortgage. They were able to do this because they were trustees of their own superannuation scheme. However, because of the way it's set up it's considered embezzlement because the funds aren't being used for investments intended to fund these peoples retirements. The penalties are actually pretty severe - fines and a 47% tax on the sum withdrawn.

The superannuation forum of whirlpool has a surprising number of questions that go along the lines of this:
OP: Can I created a self-managed super fund and buy myself a house to live in?
Chorus of posters: NO
OP: How about this investment that will directly benefit me now?
Chorus of posters NO.
OP: How about...
Chorus of posters: :fuckoff:

# ¿ Feb 4, 2015 15:37

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Senf posted:

Roommates are almost a necessity here, but she's convinced she doesn't need them.

Your friend sounds a bit like a lady I knew. She was a bit sheltered from reality by her parents and had been instilled with this idea that having housemates is for losers/people who want to get murdered. There was quite a shock to her system when she finally moved out and realized that there was a very good reason why so many live with housemates.

# ¿ Feb 20, 2015 16:32

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

You should all read the Frugal Jerk Subreddit and be ashamed of your fat cat lifestyles. Lentils for life!

Speaking of television shows - I was watching an American show about people preparing for the end of the world. At one point the wife of a "prepper" asked her husband if they would ever stop prepping and put money away for retirement because they were in their 50s and had health issues. He said no. :smith:

I had to stop watching after that.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2015 04:42

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Not a Children posted:

Either it's a nerd social fallacies thing or a desperately trying to get laid thing

Either way this group of people is super dumb

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a nerd social fallacies thing. While I don't think I was ever this dumb, I did have a friend who quite often was 'too broke' to go out. She seemed pretty sincere and regretful she couldn't make it due to her financial situation, so sometimes I'd just cover the cost because, ya know, that's what friends do. It's not like she was mooching off me every weekend, just every once in a while she'd have no money and I'd just pay for the cinema tickets or whatever. I can definitely see that stacking up across the years, though it sounds like that persons friends went a step further and directly funded her lifestyle.

For reference, the aforementioned friendship sort of petered out on it's own. The 'I'm broke' act wore a bit thin when it became apparent she wasn't broke, she just had different priorities to the rest of the group.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2015 17:47

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Devian666 posted:

It's also an economic disaster. If 47% of households can't muster up $400 for an expense and 27% of the under $40k year households are spending more than they earn where is a recovery going to come from? The low income households will have less to spend in the future and the rest are kind of hosed. The recovery won't come from households in the top 50% as they have money to spend but are unlikely to spend it. I suspect until a lot of the households have finished heavily paying down debts nothing is going to change.

Stephen Keen, an Australian economist, did a talk about this subject. His argument was that it wasn't the government debt that was the main problem, instead the private debts (student loans, mortgages, credit cards, etc) were. He put forward a solution that was basically "give everyone a large sum of money (his suggestion was something like $50,000) and mandate that they put it towards their debts". That way people who were in debt would be less indebted, people who would normally cry that it was a moral hazard were given the large sum of money free and clear, and ultimately the economy would be better off because it would end with increased spending in the economy since less money was required to service debt.

Obviously this wouldn't happen in a million years because it would be extremely unpopular with most of the lobby groups and people have this weird thing about the government providing something for nothing, even when it would ultimately benefit everyone.

Fun fact, the Australian government did this on a smaller scale during the GFC. Almost everyone in Australia got a one-time payment of $900 to spend on whatever they liked, the idea being it would stimulate the economy. While I personally didn't qualify for "Rudd bucks", from what I saw it worked - sure, a few of my friends saved it, but lots went out and bought new laptops or kitchen appliances.

# ¿ May 30, 2015 04:18

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

nickutz posted:

And what would stop everyone from just leveraging up again after their handout money is gone?

In theory it wouldn't happen again because the banks would be prohibited from loaning out more money than the borrower could be reasonably expected to pay back. Also a lot of the big debts people would be forced to pay off are things like education debt, which I don't see too many running up again once it's paid off.

# ¿ May 30, 2015 05:01

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

darkwasthenight posted:

Speaking as someone who works in libraries and information management, albeit as an unqualified member of staff, STAY THE gently caress AWAY.

It's a dead man's boots industry and rapidly sinking under the weight of cutbacks in a lot of places. Also in the middle of a long transitional period wherein everyone tries to work out what will happen when the core of elderly readers finally dies off, and then what services we will need to be providing to remain on top of the ensuing pile of rubble. I've moved over into corporate records management thanks to an old manager poaching me, it's a bit more stable but gently caress me is it boring.

A friend of mine who works in a library admits that most of their customers are there to borrow DVDs or use the (free) internet. I didn't even know they had DVDs until he told me.

That said, the services the library has these days are pretty impressive, though perhaps less tangible or noticeable than foot traffic. For example, I last visited the library a month ago, but last week I borrowed an eBook. I think library services will still be needed for a long time to come, but the services provided will change in focus and importance.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2015 16:38

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Cockmaster posted:

The local newspaper here just had an interesting advice column. Some guy wrote in complaining about his girlfriend routinely asking him for help paying for things like groceries and car repairs after spending all her money on fancy pants beauty services (hair extensions and the like).

The columnist talked about how many women, in response to falling on hard times, will have their primal "find a mate" urges go into overdrive - in this case, ironically straining her relationship with the mate she already has.

Is "door to door sales by people with little to no training" even a viable marketing strategy for an honest business in this day and age?

I've had a few friends who don't realise how much it costs to maintain a particular look. Individually the items may be inexpensive, but over time they really add up, especially if you are expected to do it every day or as a part of your job. It is an almost impossible battle to win - either you're wasting too much time and money on makeup and clothes, or you have "let yourself go". Not to mention female cosmetic products can be ruinously expensive, especially if you have sensitive skin or allergies.

A couple of weeks ago there was a thread on reddit where the OP was told she spent too much money on cosmetic products, and that she would have to stop. She stopped and he started making comments about her appearance after her makeup ran out. While I have no idea how they went after that, it soon came to light that instead of saving the money she no longer spent on makeup, instead he used it all at the Steam sale.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2015 05:55

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

I was in London last week and on the tube was an ad for a payday loan company. The ad stated it was very affordable, but I presume there is some sort of rule stating they have to disclose the total interest rate with a worked example. The interest rate was in the realm of 300% per annum. :wtc:

# ¿ Jul 20, 2015 12:57

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Haha, I've mentioned this before, truly we have come full circle:

froglet posted:

Somebody told me I was bad with money for still buying CD's when I can just torrent it or get a streaming subscription. On the one hand, I do listen to a lot of music and paying for a streaming service might be a net saving on the entertainment item on my budget. On the other, I still use CD's in my car and my mobile phone bill would probably end up more expensive just from the increased data usage. I think it's one of those things that's really context dependent.

And I won't even touch the torrenting thing, it's one of those discussions that pretty much always ends in a massive argument.

I read a book a few years ago about this - called Freeloading: How our insatiable appetite for free content starves creativity. In fact, it (and the rest of the publishers catalogue) is on sale this week for USD$1! While I don't agree wholesale with everything he has to say, it is very interesting.

A few years back there was a Video Game Tycoon type game where if you pirated the game you weren't able to win... because people kept pirating your games in the game itself.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 16:30

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Subjunctive posted:

Could you elaborate on how it's bad with money? Using it to alleviate suffering seems like one of the best things one can do with money.

I can think of a few scenarios. For example, if an extremely altruistic person is diagnosed with a serious illness that requires expensive medicines or surgery, they may lack the funds for prompt treatment, which could leave them out of work (which means they cannot continue giving). Or you could argue that investing some or all of their donation money and using the proceeds to fund the charitable giving would be more effective in the long run because while money today is worth more than money tomorrow, it would allow for continuing donations long after the donors stopped working.

How "bad with money" these scenarios are is entirely dependent on your perception, though.

# ¿ Dec 27, 2015 18:12

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

pig slut lisa posted:

This is far from most ruinous BWM story this thread has seen, but it's a unique example of how the chance of a huge windfall can skew the decision-making process of an otherwise sound individual. I present: Aunt's Turtle Scheme

This is just... what?! Oh my god. :psyduck:

# ¿ Jan 1, 2016 17:47

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

My partner linked me to this this morning.

Help me expose a company that scammed me out of thousands, and probably hundreds of others out of worse. posted:

I apologize for the GIF possibly being very large and thus loading slow. TL;DR -- After I won $17,000 this company very illegally and very visibly jacked my charts so that I would lose money. I lost $7000 because of it. The video shows it more clearly. I want to get this exposed. NON-TL;DRL: I joined Boss Capital around February of 2015. After losing a few deposits to learning how to actually trade, with only $40 left in my account, I took it all the way up to what was $17,000 (give or take a few hundred). I was still trading it and wanted to reach a little bit higher of a goal so that I could take it and work with it other places effectively. The day after I won one of my biggest trades, ($5100 in profit from a $6000 trade), I noticed that whenever I would click my buttons to choose if the market would go up or down, the price that I would enter in at would change DRASTICALLY. It was through further investigation (shown in the video I will link at the bottom) that it was only my account doing so. They refused to fix it and said they had no idea what was going on. AKA you made too much money and now we are going to make it so you can't make any more. Imgur, this is absolutely not okay and they shrugged me off because they didn't think that I had a voice. I absolutely want to prove them wrong. I know that this has absolutely nothing to do with you guys, but the more people that put pressure on these thieves, the quicker regulating agencies like the FCA can shut them down. To this day my account still does the same thing. If I log out, use another account that I make freshly, or anything other than being logged in to MY ACCOUNT, everything is fine. If you would like to e-mail them and help me get my money back + show these jackasses whats up: support@bosscapital.com and here is the FCA contact information. consumer.queries@fca.org.uk Here is my YouTube video if there is any question / doubt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66s93dqZAB4 FINAL WORDS: Thank you sincerely for any and all help. That $7000 could be used for a lot of things, and I don't believe it's right for a company that handles millions and millions of dollars to be illegally tampering with charts. TL;DR -- After I won $17,000 this company very illegally and very visibly jacked my charts so that I would lose money. I lost $7000 because of it. The video shows it more clearly. I want to get this exposed.

Apparently he was trading in something he didn't properly understand and lost.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2016 06:37

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

pig slut lisa posted:

This explains a lot about his financial decisionmaking process if you think about it

Well I suppose his attitude extends to emotional cripples, given how he refuses to help himself.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2016 04:20

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Cockmaster posted:

Really now, I can't imagine how one could make a handbag look like something worth thousands of dollars without making it gaudy as hell. None of the designer handbags I've seen looked like they'd impress anyone not familiar with the brand.

Was at a friends house a few weeks ago and she showed me a picture of a handbag and asked me how much I thought it was. I said something like $150-$200 because it looked like it was leather.

Nope. More like $2000. Her friend had bought it that day. I can appreciate a nice handbag, but I think after the $300 mark the quality isn't going to be that much better.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2016 04:42

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Apparently everybodys favourite cryptocurrency experiment, bitcoin has failed for reals this time. The article is a bit too long to repost here, but the tl;dr is that the problem is now within bitcoin itself, not just the services/companies that sprung up to cash in on it (e.g. Mt Gox).

I admit I'm feeling a bit schadenfreude-y about it, because I was at uni studying computer science when bitcoin first came out and there were a lot of nerds who thought they were going to be internet millionaires or something.

Also since we can now embed tweets:
https://twitter.com/dril/status/384408932061417472
https://twitter.com/dril/status/384411458794057728

# ¿ Jan 17, 2016 16:05

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

SYSV Fanfic posted:

The worst condo management disaster I have ever heard of was in a townhouse type place. The siding was recalled, the board got a notice with instructions on how to have it all replaced at the original manufacturer's expense and - well they did nothing, missed the recall deadline, and now the members of the complex are having the maximum hike without a vote every year till the siding is replaced.

There's a group of apartments near me that I see being sold on a deep discount... Because the strata spent so long bickering about maintenance on the building and nothing getting done the foundation now has concrete cancer.

Last I heard it will cost $40,000 per unit to fix, maybe more depending on how extensive the damage is. No wonder those apartments are so cheap!

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 04:30

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Gold Coast?

Nah, Western Australia.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 08:19

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

I know a kiwi lady who keeps getting harrassed by the NZ government over her student loans despite having 0 capacity to pay it back. They keep telling her she needs to get on it, but you can't budget what you don't have.

I knew someone who tried to argue that if you don't graduate you shouldn't have to pay off your HECS debt (Aussie government issued student loans). If this was the case, the requirements to get into uni and get HECS would be purely based on how likely you were to graduate and pay it back, which is less than ideal.

Edit: comedy answer is to block people from leaving the country if they have student loans. You can afford a holiday? You can afford to pay off your debt!

froglet fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jan 22, 2016

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 04:06

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Subjunctive posted:

No, the solution is to abolish tuition and stop making education a commercial transaction.

Commie.

(I completely agree with you)

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 04:50

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Devian666 posted:

Well that explains how they hosed that up.

What is it with people buying into harebrained wealth schemes and that book? They're obviously capable of reading, why do they so rarely pick up another and go "hrm maybe this guy doesn't know everything".

# ¿ Feb 10, 2016 10:23

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

NancyPants posted:

Wow and here I am refusing to spend $7 on a plants vs zombies plant. Welp, now I don't feel so bad spending 4 bucks every couple months.

My boyfriend got AUD$100 in Google Play credit for his birthday/Christmas a while back. He still hasn't used it because he claims he 'just doesn't have anything to spend it on'.

He will quite happily fork out $10 for a pint on a night out, but won't spend even $5 of the gift voucher his sister gave him on software that he uses all the time because ??? :iiam:

Perhaps it just hasn't occurred to him to get paid for versions of his free to play games so he doesn't have ads anymore?

# ¿ Feb 20, 2016 12:06

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

And today in 'It Came From Reddit' - Boyfriend of two years is in over $350,000.00 debt, maxed out five credit card, and has -$500.00 in his bank account...

quote:

I've been with my boyfriend for two years now. He just bought a foreclosure to flip in a nice neighborhood. It's going to be worth a lot more than he bought it for when he's done, but plans on living in it for about five years. He has over $100,000.00 to pay in student loans, seven maxed out credit cards, and the debts go on. His car was provided by his parents and he has a regular desk job that makes about $45,000 a year. I am 25 and he's 27.

When we first met, he had his life together and money in his account. I'm NOT dating him for the money. I have a great job and bring in about $87,000 a year with no credit cards, or no student loans (scholarship). I budget my money and save everything after bills. I have about $80,000 in my savings and do not want to touch that other than investing.

Lately, he's been asking me to pay for things and he'll "pay me back." I ended up putting an entire new heating and air system in the flipped house, I've been buying all his groceries, whenever we go out, I front the bill, we went on a vacation that was planned a year ago and I had to pay for the entire trip because he "left his wallet at home"...He told me he was going to take me out for my birthday at a wine bar and I was so excited. He racked the bill up to $165.00 and handed me the check. Happy birthday to me, right?

I'm starting to feel "used" and almost like the man in the relationship. To be honest, he's just not nice anymore and expects way to much from me. I feel like I've invested so much money and time into our relationship. Somedays I feel like he's going to just go back to how he used to be, when he was nice, and enjoyed doing the little things with me. I don't like feeling used and he's pushed a lot of weird religion questions on me lately. He can't even do little things that I like such as going for a walk or watching a movie. I'm huge into fitness and love to run, but he'd rather drink beer and order pizza. It's all about him now...and what he can get from me.

Do you think I'm wasting my time with him. Should I call it quits and move on with my life? or stay with him but stop paying for stuff and focus more on my life? I know I'll see zero of the money I've invested in him, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. I'm really just confused as to what to do. All of my friends see him treat me this way think I'm wasting my time and can do a lot better. I could go on all day about the details, but I'm trying to keep it short.

What do you guys think? I'd like to get some outside opinions.

TL;DR; boyfriend is in severe debt and I think he's using me for money. Should I stay or should I go?

# ¿ Feb 26, 2016 15:33

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Subjunctive posted:

I raised an eyebrow at that. A bunch of people in the thread have already honed in on that comment, haha.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2016 15:51

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Monaghan posted:

I really don't understand why people can't get over the cultural stigma of bankruptcy and just declare it in this situation. It's the only logical choice, even it doesn't discharge the student loans.

This guy is completely convinced he's a financial wizard. He won't declare bankruptcy until he realises he's drowning and he's alienated everyone he could mooch off.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2016 03:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 14:36

froglet: Nov 12, 2009; You see, the best way to Stop the Boats is a massive swarm of autonomous armed dogs. Strafing a few boats will stop the rest and save many lives in the long term.

You can't make an Omelet without breaking a few eggs. Vote Greens.

Reddit is truly a goldmine.

Was I [23f] wrong to secretly save money? My husband [24] of 5 years is upset and feels used

quote:

Upto about 6 months ago I was a stay at home wife with no kids. This is something that my husband and I both prefered. We have been planning to move out to a different state this spring/summer.

I thought we were fine, financially. My husband had gotten a bonus from work last year and made a decent amount. However, about 6 months ago he told me that we were blowing threw money and he only had 500 dollars in his account.

I was floored. I realize that it was stupid of me to not keep an eye on his account with him and to be so oblivious. The overspending is both of our faults. Most money was being spent on dates and dinners. Some of it was spent on car repairs.

After he told me this, I got a job immediately. However, a week after getting my paycheck I noticed that all the money was almost gone. No problem, I thought. That means we spent less of his money. I asked him, and that turned out to be not the case. We had just spent twice as much money. He started grabbing expensive coffee for breakfast and had bought a couple of luxery items such as a new wireless controller and headphones.

I did not want to go on at this rate and got an idea: I would take out half of my paycheck in cash, and store it upstairs in my closet from now on. I would not touch this, and I would not tell anyone because the less people that are tempted to get into our secret savings, the better.

In the months to come, I spent all of the money I didn't store in cash, paying for groceries and other necessities. His money was still draining away, but I was less concerned now. I admit that I bought some luxery things like 1 ebook a month and a new dress twice.

Anyway, yesterday he told me we couldn't move out this summer because he wasstill broke and we had pissed away our money. I got the savings box from upstairs and showed it to him, thinking that he'd be relieved. Ithad nearly 6000 dollars in it; enough for plane tickets and a deposit for a new place.

However, he got angry and told me it was ridiculous that I was secretly saving up while we were spending his money freely and that I used him. I told him that the savings are his as much as they are mine, and that they are for us to start a new life together.

He was still very angry and wouldn't hear what I had to say. I offered that we go see a financial counselor to help us save up from both of our paychecks and budget more, so that we both saved money, but he said no. He is now not talking to me.

I did apologize of course, but it didn't help. What should I do?

TL;DR; I secretly saved money. Husband is angry.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2016 17:30

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Bad w/ Money: I just paid for a fat bitches Electric Cock Zapping Sex Toy in Kentucky

«‹›3 »