|
Krispy Kareem posted:No because he'd probably get poo poo from his employer if a wage garnishment had gone through. Assuming it is 10k and 7 years, about $47k. That's even factoring in the cap on penalties. He might get it down to about half that with a good appeal, though 7 years of willfully not filing also opens him up to criminal tax evasion charges if the IRS is feeling spunky.
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
ebacho posted:It's one of those private forum type things so no direct links, but the rest is mostly people dogpiling him for being an idiot. Guy is every buttcoin stereotype rolled in to one. I'm trying to twist my mind to understand the process by where he thought "there's someone out there who, instead of easily buying anonymous Cryptocurrency on their own, really needs an anonymous forum poster to buy it for them and will split the profits as just compensation, or eat the entire loss if it comes to that". Then I remember there's just no accounting for stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
I've had this conversation many times with friends and family, and to be fair it's not the clearest thing in the world until you learn how it works. Then everyone has the same "aha" moment. Until then, plenty of people think that moving from, say, the 28% bracket to the 33% bracket means every dollar of their income is now taxed at 33%. It is a pretty easy mistake to make especially if their returns are complicated. A good accountant or tax program should list the effective tax rate you paid, which should make it pretty obvious how marginal rates work.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:This probably doesn't count as a humblebrag because holy poo poo I got a large raise at my last job and it killed us in taxes. As in, I already had zero deductions and I ended up with a 6 digit tax bill because we moved up brackets. Marginal tax rates, sure. But if you get caught off guard and don't withhold enough the IRS eats your loving rear end in extra fees. What kind of raise did you get where you ended up with a surprise *6 digit* tax bill in April? Not saying it didn't happen, but I only see that when some spectacular bonus/profit-share roles through, or RSUs vest or whatever. And even in those cases (especially RSUs) you can still plan for them. Even if you did some super-jump - like from the 15% to the 33% bracket (which, overall, would be an amazing problem to have) ...6 figures? Did you mean 5 figures?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Not really a derail in my opinion - since at the core, it is a BWM/BWL discussion - but I've never understood the survivalist mentality when it comes to precious metals/stones. In the Zombie apocalypse (or an epidemic right out of The Stand, or the Day of Judgement, or whatever collapse of the rule of law fantasy fuels their fevered dreams) where, exactly, does having a stash of gold/silver/whatever benefit you? You want to talk about that in terms of a normal, maybe slightly paranoid, diversification strategy for investments, ok, I can maybe see that, but when society collapses what makes these types think we're going to revert to pre-medieval bartering times where a gold coin has value? I don't get it. Probably a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
He's not completely off base with his wishes, hopes, and dreams, right up to the point where he thinks funding them with a $5k loan is a good idea. Take a summer off before "real life" starts? Sure, why the gently caress not...wait, you can't afford it? Well guess what, real life started early for you. My slow decline into cranky old-manhood is accelerating I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Whether it fucks him or not taking a loan to fund a summer of loving off is BWM regardless. Trying not to be too judgemental but you know, plenty of people work poo poo summer jobs earlier on specifically so they can fund a summer of fun later before they settle down. I realize I'm doing some virtual finger-wagging here but for christs sakes, the earlier you learn to own your problems and be in control of your life the happier you will be later. And the easier it will be on everyone else too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:How else will he learn to start running up the credit cards to take summer vacations if he doesn't start now? The depressing thing is how true that actually is. One more idiot in training we'll all be bailing out a fraction of a penny each later on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:At least we'll see big returns ITT. Reading the BWM thread is GWM.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Meanwhile, in BWM news... Article on underwater car loans: https://jalopnik.com/a-record-32-percent-of-car-buyers-are-underwater-on-the-1789425396 Edmunds did a study where they found almost 1/3 of all vehicles offered for trade in 2016 were underwater. The average amount underwater was over 5k. I knew it was bad, and we've seen plenty of anecdotal stories here, but I didn't realize how incredibly hosed it was. A third?! That many people are churning cars and piling on debt? It's an easy math problem to show why it's bad, so I can only imagine that greed/keeping up with the Jones's mentality is driving this. Or just plain vanilla stupid. Seems like a staggering house of cards being built.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Actuarial Fables posted:I don't see how it's so surprising. Underwater cars are cool, so it makes sense that there's so many loans for them. Submersibles, the new Horse in BWM.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Actuarial Fables posted:The joys of owning a car and a boat, all in one! All we need now is a carboat being pulled by a team of Clydesdales and we will have achieved peak BWM. Bonus if they are all financed by underwater loans of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:From the comments Well, see, house loans are 30+ so why can't cars go higher? It's easy to blame financiers behind the scenes for taking advantage of stupidity, even encouraging it, but we're talking willful stupidity in so many cases. I want this thing, I must have this thing. The only cost that matters is what I pay every month....someone is making bank on this. Same person getting an 84 or 96 month loan probably also bitches about "the 1%" ruining the country with greed. Cognitive dissonance, it's not just for academics anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6hu70b/would_it_be_wise_to_sell_my_car_for_a_cheaper_one/ Because they deserve it you dummy. Only a few years back they were probably only making $23k/year. Don't you believe in the American dream?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Weed, Biotech, and Lithium. Solid portfolio for any budding teenaged investor, HGH. I am surprised at the lack of Buttcoin. Has that fallen out of favor with the young & trendy already?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
With some exceptions I don't think the problem with buying cars in the US is one of obfuscation, but rather willful ignorance and a warped sense of what affordability means combined with entitlement. And a network of dealers, banks and car manufacturers willing and able to take full advantage of that, of course. Shady dealers, banks, etc. do exist but for the most case it boils down to the buyer making a major purchase combined with a long term financial commitment without bothering to calculate what the actual out of pocket cost will be. I've personally known people who will dicker more over the price of a used gas grill at a yard sale, even walk if it was $10 more than they wanted to pay (I am thinking of a specific example here) yet have a pickup truck they bought based solely on how affordable the monthly payment was. That's the mentality that leads to, "well I can get a new car and "get out" of my old one and my payments don't really change! I'll be making a car payment all the time anyway what's the big deal?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
If he did a transfer on death process like he said he likely didn't pay attention to what he was signing. Understandably enough. A decent tax attorney could probably get him out of this situation but it's going to take at least that much effort, the broker isn't going to drop it and if the transfer was done correctly they are, at face value, in the right. It's entirely possible there's a breach of fiduciary duty somewhere in this but that is what the lawyer is for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:If it's for real a "broker" and not an "investment advisor" and the account isn't a retirement account then the broker doesn't have any "fiduciary" responsibilities to it outside of getting the KYC info. He said he's in Nevada, so unless they have a state law I'm not familiar with, I don't know if fiduciary responsibilities are going to come up at all. poo poo like this still pisses me off though. That broker should have let the kid know what investments were in that account because he's a professional and thats some basic client care. Someone else in the estate planning/disposition may have had said duties. And if there was no estate process to speak of, or even a will, due to the suddenness of the death, that in itself may help him get out of this with a good attorney.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:I lease my cell phone, collecting some kind of pre order bonus and paying linear depreciation on a handset you intend to own for about 6 months is the least expensive way to always have the newest cell phone. Leasing under these circumstances may be GWM. Getting a new phone every 6 months on the other hand.....
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
I didn't mean to suggest getting a phone every 6 months was BWM. That was just bad wording on my part. If you want to switch phones that often then yes, good for you, who gives a poo poo, etc. What I can't wrap my head around is the leasing model. I get how it works, at least as far as T-Mobile does it anyway, but you're paying a price for that flexibility. Not through straight up interest charges but the fact that you never own the device (unless you lease it for a really long time with T-Mobile, which no one on that plan would do) and you're always paying essentially full price for a phone with no end. Is it BWM? Maybe not. I don't want to start that debate again either so I'll drop it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I know people who spend $500/month renting furniture from Rent-A-Center Renting furniture is (normally) true BWM because it doesn't matter if you are living paycheck to paycheck or like a king, it's just a bad use of a dollar no matter how many you having laying around. The leasing phone thing might be different, I don't know. There are, no question, people using it simply as a way to get phones they otherwise couldn't afford, or get them at a pace they couldn't, anyway. However all things being equal it comes down to more "this is how I choose to spend my dollars" and not "this is a bad use of dollars no matter what the circumstances". A debate this thread tends to slip in to more often than not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Photex posted:Single mom $70k in cc debt, $50k in student loans, $120k mortgage, <$40k income. Everything's on fire. I've known more than a few people like this. Including, unfortunately, family. Problems in life "happen" to them, not because of lovely decisions they make. I don't see where bankruptcy helps much at all, other than spread some of the cost among the general population. People who get themselves in binds like this really annoy the poo poo out of me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:People who get sick and can't pay for it annoy the poo poo out of you? 70k in credit card bills, "most" of it due to medical bills, as claimed. There is a big flat screen TV in there somewhere I guarantee it. For the sake of argument though let's assume she got canceraids through no fault of her own and fell through the cracks in the lovely US healthcare system. Take the 70k in CC off the table. Still leaves a trail of other bad decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Reddit re-post lists a litany of lovely decisions, some perhaps combined with bad circumstances, and we're bringing up eugenics. Tiny B. might as well be off probation. Any one or two of the circumstances that post outlined could easily be the result of just life throwing poo poo in the way. All of them together though?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Obviously we don't know all the circumstances behind the 70k being "mostly" medical debt - could be bullshit (medical debt being one of the few sympathetic types of debt) could be completely legit because someone got cancer, etc. However it's not all that common to have that much debt related to non-elective medical costs on a CC. Even with the US's jacked up healthcare system, which is even more jacked for poor people, that isn't easy to do. No emergency room will demand payment up front, in fact they are legally barred from doing so, and if you are making under 40k and/or have lovely/no health insurance the emergency room is where you go whether it is a true emergency or not when you are sick. I'm not saying that is a great state of affairs either but it means "I have 70k on my credit cards because I/someone I care for got really sick and there was no other way to pay for it" should be viewed with a grain of salt. Medical debt is no fun to deal with but it's a shitload easier than dealing with CC debt which is what this now is, if taken at face value. My main point was, and is, that there are a lot of people who let life happen to them who tend to pile up all kinds of different debt badly. People can get sick through no fault of their own, and relationships can go bad when kids enter the picture, and bets on schooling/loans can fail to pan out, and houses can end up underwater, etc. etc. but when they all spiral together then at some point you need to take a look at the person in the center of it and wonder if some better judgement is in order. Edit: It seems some emergency rooms do charge an upfront fee ($150+) if, after a federally mandated screening, it is determined to not be an emergency. Such as if you go the ER when you have the sniffles. 70k suggests something more serious than that but wanted to correct myself regardless. Still doesn't make sense - even for non-emergencies most hospitals and medical centers will allow you to set up a payment plan that is usually low and carries little to no interest, even more so when it's a real problem. There are exceptions (some Dentists, etc.) but it's not hard to do. Ixian fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Some for-profit hospitals - HCA being the largest, in the US - charge an upfront fee if after federally mandated screening it is determined to not be an emergency. It's usually $150-350. The bigger picture here remains that using a CC for medical bills is BWM, because even the least-well off patients can work out far better terms with medical providers. Would they be overjoyed if you just paid them off with a CC? No doubt, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Medical debt is bad enough to deal with but out of most types of debt it's also usually the easiest. Medical debt rolled to CC debt is fueling a fire.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Someone left a MLM brochure for a company called "Norwex" on the breakroom table at work. They apparently sell laundry detergent for $25 a lb, multipurpose household cleaner for $30 a bottle, and microfiber cloths for $30 each. They are an "eco-friendly" cleaning product company that has the same kind of MLM model as Tupperware, Pampered Chef, etc. - all about home parties and the like. They are slightly different from your regular, run of the mill "we're not a pyramid scheme, we just operate like one" MLM in that they focus on using new recruits as a way to get the products in front of friends and family outside of traditional marketing routes, rather than just solely stacking recruits for uplevel commissions. Doesn't make them better in my opinion but they don't have as bad a rep as your Amway, etc. does.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:$500 is for an absolute garbage plan, for a parent with children, not a family. The title said single mom. Parent with children is cheaper than family. That's also going to raise her above 200% of the poverty line. I might have underestimated the cost, too. It's obviously going to depend on where you are, and if you want actually useable coverage you're looking at at least $800. This is all interesting, and not bad information to have, but it still doesn't really explain, at all, why this person has 70k in "medical bills" on their CC. Unless they have a terminal or near-terminal disease - which I am guessing probably would have been mentioned - there are few reasons why that was the only route to take even with the poo poo state of healthcare for 40k/under people in the US. Granted, we don't have all the info. If it was a sick kid and the mom just wanted to make sure they had the best care possible without thinking through the consequences it's easy to be sympathetic (for that matter, bankruptcy will come in handy in that situation). If "medical" = I wanted invisalign braces and a large TV to help me tune out every time I get a new set and my teeth hurt" then...less so. We don't know. The whole thing just seems like a bunch of lovely decisions and bad circumstances rolled up in one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Senor Dog posted:You keep bringing up TVs. Do you know something we don't? Also large TVs are like a thousand bucks and clearly not the primary or even a large cause of a 70k cc debt you weirdo Substitute TV for Ubereats, furniture, vacations, or whatever else if you want. My point being that 70k for "I got really sick through no fault of my own and due to the hosed healthcare system in the US required me to rack up 70k in CC bills" seems suspect absent other information. But by all means debate it from the other end, doesn't matter either way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:There, there. You don't have to worry about debt or scary financial problems. Those bad things only happen to bad people who spend money on uber eats and fancy $500 flat screen TVs. If anybody is ever in debt, it must be because they spent money on stupid things you don't like, no matter what they say. If they say something else, they are just hiding their stupid spending habits. You are smart and good and only ever spend money on smart things. You don't ever have to worry about bad things in your own life. Good job for being so smart! Your response contrasted with the red title someone bought for you pretty much says it all. I meant none of the above but by all means pull out your sword and defend the innocent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Lucrece posted:My parents did well investing in the stock market in the past, but over the past couple of years, my dad's memory has been deteriorating. On top of buying shares under his self-managed Superannuation fund after he retired (a BIG no-no!), last financial year he didn't realise that he had to spend a certain amount of money out of the account that his dividends were being paid into, resulting in what will most likely be a $41,000 fine. If he hit an RMD penalty and it's the first time and/or first year RMD came in to effect for him he can get out of the penalty pretty easily. He'll still need to pay the income tax on the RMD amount of course. You may need to get a tax attorney involved in this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
Lucrece posted:Thank you for that, I'll definitely see if there's some way to get out of the penalty. I'm assuming he turned 70.5 before this past April 1? The IRS wants to make sure that they start getting all that tax-deferred income that was stashed away by retirees. Otherwise folks would play with tax brackets, mix in stuff like Roths and HSA, and basically maximize their income while minimizing taxes to an extent greater than they could pre-retirement. Required Minimum Distributions insure the IRS gets at least a base amount of taxes paid on deferred income. Even if your dad has a lot saved up it isn't a huge amount but it's not peanuts either. For example at 70.5 a 4m tax-deferred retirement balance has an RMD of $158k/year - which you pay regular income taxes on. It goes down as you get older (and draw down your retirement balance). First few years are usually the highest. The penalty is how they enforce this, otherwise they are just collecting taxes they should have got anyway. Like all IRS penalties it sucks because they don't want to dick around with people not paying. However unless he's made a habit of it it is pretty easy to get out of the first time. You can probably self-appeal it (the forms outlining the penalty also outline the appeal process) but if it's 44k in penalties alone probably worth paying a tax attorney $2500 or whatever to maximize your chances.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:That's all good and true but if it's a "superannuation" he's probably talking about Australia dude Whoops. "I'm in the US so everyone else is" strikes again sorry. Still, sounds like a very similar situation, with a possibly similar path to resolution.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
BWM thread: We're gonna argue prehistory cultures like we read Snow Crash for the first time to make a point. Substitute "Guns, Germs and Steel" for "Snow Crash" if you like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:That isn't even how bonding works. If you have a $5,000 bail you pay a bondsman usually 10% and they keep your $500 and put up $5,000. So he only needs $500. The court could have ordered a cash-only bail bond. Which usually means the defendant was particularly lovely - failed to show up for previous court appearances, failure to pay fines, out-of jurisdiction warrant, etc. It happens. In those cases it can still make sense to go through though a registered bond provider. If the friend/family posts the cash to the court directly they can hold it, sometimes even all of it, against unpaid fees, etc. A bondsman usually can avoid that. Not that it gets the defendant out of paying those, just shields whoever is putting up bail from getting stuck with it. However in that case you'll need to front the entire bail to the bondsman, who will charge you 8-10% (the amount is usually legally mandated) as usual on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Why buy a horse when you can buy a train car and have it towed around the state? You know, you spend enough time on the interwebs, you see enough poo poo to completely numb you to even offbeat, unusual or just plain bizzare dumbfuckery.... years go by and you think yeah, you've seen it all, you are jaded as gently caress, and then you read a story like this and realize that the surface isn't even scratched.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Couple buys a car, then has a "personal and financial crisis" that they solve by abandoning the car at the airport and leaving the country. They called the dealership on their way and told them where to pick it up, assuming that would solve everything and they wouldn't owe any more money. Entitlement, head-in-sand-syndrome, "it's not our fault", and gross stupidity: This is a winner all the way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Virtue posted:I think there's a Louis ck bit about doing something similar with a rental car. That was about when he was late for a flight and figured gently caress it, park at the curb and call the rental company which was 3 blocks over. Which is also stupid, but not nearly as dumb as the other story on any level, also it was a Louis CK joke so even if he actually did that (he didn't) he made a joke about it for an act he makes millions off so probably GWM in the end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Suspicious Lump posted:I assumed this was 4.5h return. No, no. This is 4.5h ONE WAY. Holy poo poo Or maybe they are just completely full of poo poo as to the real situation. I mean, what they actually posted was dumb enough. Odds are the reality is even dumber than that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:03 |
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Having listened to Louis CK for over 10 years I see no reason why he wouldn't do such a thing and no reason to make up a lie about it Fair enough, it was a funny story and I suspect if you worked <minutes to tell joke> into his overall compensation for the special he still came out way ahead. Not that this unfortunate and dead-stupid couple are in any way in the same situation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2017 05:45
|
|