Overheard at Work

[fruitfly]

I just spent 30 minutes at work hiding from the Apple Event broadcast. Of course everyone was planning to trade in their phones (all the newest) for the NEW newest $1000 iphone. While bitching about the features they wanted/didn't want in the new phone. I need some new anarchist nerd friends.

[mustachepungoeshere]

This reminds me of a previous job.  It was about 2 blocks from the casino.  I did not have a second car, so I car pooled with another guy, and paid for parking every second day.  The casino would give free parking, if you spend $10 on the slots.  Parking was $10 for the day, so we would always play the slots.  There were a couple of times we won $20 or so.  But we always got parking for free.

The Red Cross blood donation centre in the Sydney CBD has free parking for donors.

Free snacks AND free parking? My husband thinks it's the best deal in town.

[dycker1978]

This reminds me of a previous job.  It was about 2 blocks from the casino.  I did not have a second car, so I car pooled with another guy, and paid for parking every second day.  The casino would give free parking, if you spend $10 on the slots.  Parking was $10 for the day, so we would always play the slots.  There were a couple of times we won $20 or so.  But we always got parking for free.

The Red Cross blood donation centre in the Sydney CBD has free parking for donors.

Free snacks AND free parking? My husband thinks it's the best deal in town.

And you may save a life. 

[cheapass]

This reminds me of a previous job.  It was about 2 blocks from the casino.  I did not have a second car, so I car pooled with another guy, and paid for parking every second day.  The casino would give free parking, if you spend $10 on the slots.  Parking was $10 for the day, so we would always play the slots.  There were a couple of times we won $20 or so.  But we always got parking for free.

The Red Cross blood donation centre in the Sydney CBD has free parking for donors.

Free snacks AND free parking? My husband thinks it's the best deal in town.

And you may save a life.

And apparently it's good for the immune system and your body in general to "thin the herd" and have to generate some new blood cells.

[moof]

We have a retroactive salary check coming up.  People are are cranking up their withholding allowances because they need the money now and don't want to pay "extra" in taxes!  I can understand making some calculations on what the taxes are actually going to be and adjusting accordingly but these people don't even know what a marginal tax bracket is.

:( This topic makes me depressed. I hear so much misinformed spew because people don't know this.

"I don't want to earn more money because my taxes will go up and I'll actually pocket less money!"

Right up there with:
"I don't want to adjust my W-4 because I count on my big tax return to pay for a vacation!"

[mustachepungoeshere]

A colleague paid $60 for two kilos of biscuits to feed my team. Of seven people.

More than half are trying to lose weight and I'm watching them get up from their desks five or six times a day to grab a biscuit.

I don't eat them, so six people are devouring two kilos of biscuits in less than a week.

And the colleague who bought them just told me she keeps borrowing money from her 10-year-old daughter's piggy bank to pay bills.

[RidetheRain]

And the colleague who bought them just told me she keeps borrowing money from her 10-year-old daughter's piggy bank to pay bills.

That's stealing. I don't care it's a 10-year-old or a family member or that she probably gave her the money anyway. That's stealing. What a wonderful lesson this little girl is going to learn.

[dragoncar]

And the colleague who bought them just told me she keeps borrowing money from her 10-year-old daughter's piggy bank to pay bills.

That's stealing. I don't care it's a 10-year-old or a family member or that she probably gave her the money anyway. That's stealing. What a wonderful lesson this little girl is going to learn.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/2ggg5e/bought_a_bart_simpson_piggy_bank_at_goodwill_this/

[mustachepungoeshere]

And the colleague who bought them just told me she keeps borrowing money from her 10-year-old daughter's piggy bank to pay bills.

That's stealing. I don't care it's a 10-year-old or a family member or that she probably gave her the money anyway. That's stealing. What a wonderful lesson this little girl is going to learn.

The kids don't get pocket money, so this is birthday money from grandparents, and the "loan" now runs to hundreds of dollars.

Apparently the daughter is quite smug about it.

Co-worker's daughter: I'm the only one in the family with money, Mum! You borrowed my money, Dad borrowed my money, [brother] borrowed my money.
Co-worker: Did Daddy borrow money too???

Co-worker said that when she get paid she doesn't have enough left to pay her daughter back.

Co-worker also "jokes" about how she and her husband are both paid fortnightly but on alternate weeks. "We live pay cheque to pay cheque, it's just every week."

[Debts_of_Despair]

We have a retroactive salary check coming up.  People are are cranking up their withholding allowances because they need the money now and don't want to pay "extra" in taxes!  I can understand making some calculations on what the taxes are actually going to be and adjusting accordingly but these people don't even know what a marginal tax bracket is.

:( This topic makes me depressed. I hear so much misinformed spew because people don't know this.

"I don't want to earn more money because my taxes will go up and I'll actually pocket less money!"

It actually becomes a problem when we can get people to work OT because "I have to pay more taxes."  I try to explain it but they don't want to listen.  The real problem is they can't plan 6 months into the future.

[kayvent]

We have a retroactive salary check coming up.  People are are cranking up their withholding allowances because they need the money now and don't want to pay "extra" in taxes!  I can understand making some calculations on what the taxes are actually going to be and adjusting accordingly but these people don't even know what a marginal tax bracket is.

:( This topic makes me depressed. I hear so much misinformed spew because people don't know this.

"I don't want to earn more money because my taxes will go up and I'll actually pocket less money!"

It actually becomes a problem when we can get people to work OT because "I have to pay more taxes."  I try to explain it but they don't want to listen.  The real problem is they can't plan 6 months into the future.

In Canada and my home province 12K is the basic deduction. A single parent like me has a deduction of 40K or more. The first tax bracket is 45K wide.

My mom recently started a new job and her to-be-manager suggested that 46-hours is the optimal time to work (six hours overtime) because any more and the tax clawback is too high. There was sooo many levels of misunderstanding. With no other deduction (no kids, no wife, etc...) the second tax bracket doesn't begin until 57K (this is a teen-dollar per hour job). If the person has a non-working dependent and another large deduction, the tax rate is zero for their job!

The absolute madness of this! How many people in the True North make a decision based on a misunderstanding of how income taxes work!? (It frustrates me. I love Trudeau but one of the reasons our Prime Minister was because he promised a "Middle Class Tax Cut". It is a minuscule amount. Someone making 102K, with only the basic deduction, would save 650$....... A dual-income household where each person makes 57K would save 0$. But everyone loved this 'Middle Class Tax Cut' because they wanted their taxes to go down. Even though it probably wouldn't. I now earn 4x my average peer's income. I still don't fucking make enough to enter the second bracket. /political rant)

[LennStar]

The absolute madness of this! How many people in the True North make a decision based on a misunderstanding of how income taxes work!? (It frustrates me. I love Trudeau but one of the reasons our Prime Minister was because he promised a "Middle Class Tax Cut". It is a minuscule amount. Someone making 102K, with only the basic deduction, would save 650$....... A dual-income household where each person makes 57K would save 0$. But everyone loved this 'Middle Class Tax Cut' because they wanted their taxes to go down. Even though it probably wouldn't. I now earn 4x my average peer's income. I still don't fucking make enough to enter the second bracket. /political rant)

O.o with a 6-figure income, even canadian dollar, I would not consider you middle class. More like high-income. It is certainly much higher then the (far higher taxed) average German income, which (as averages go) already is something only the top 30% get.

Anyway, I find it more strange that people always want tax cuts, but never service cuts. It is like most people are not able to make the connection "if the states builds something it has to pay for it", what everyone knows, and "I pay taxes so that the state has money".

[zolotiyeruki]

Anyway, I find it more strange that people always want tax cuts, but never service cuts. It is like most people are not able to make the connection "if the states builds something it has to pay for it", what everyone knows, and "I pay taxes so that the state has money".

(Raises hand)  I personally would love to see some service cuts.  However, such a position is politically tricky for a politician to make, because there's always someone who will get hurt by that cut, and such sob stories make for good TV segments, even if the cut is actually a good idea.  And it doesn't always have to be a cut in government services, either--there's lots and lots of waste, over-charging, inefficiencies, duplication of functions, etc that could be cut without negatively affecting services.  For example, I'm pretty miffed that our village recently started construction on a massive, $30 million police station (for a population of 30,000) that is ugly as sin.  Or that they're projecting a $50 million cost to widen 4.5 miles of an existing road.  Or that our school district, when facing a shortfall in funds, wants to increase class sizes rather than look at the top-heavy administration (seven assistant superintendents? really?).  Or that the pension system in our state is extraordinarily generous and easy to exploit.

[Roe]

Anyway, I find it more strange that people always want tax cuts, but never service cuts. It is like most people are not able to make the connection "if the states builds something it has to pay for it", what everyone knows, and "I pay taxes so that the state has money".

(Raises hand aswell)

I would want to see some serious cutting of costs, of which not all are services. The way my tax money is being spent has made me turn from happily paying and advocating higher taxes, to theoretically being willing to commit tax fraud and not feel guilty.

[RidetheRain]

Anyway, I find it more strange that people always want tax cuts, but never service cuts. It is like most people are not able to make the connection "if the states builds something it has to pay for it", what everyone knows, and "I pay taxes so that the state has money".

(Raises hand aswell)

I would want to see some serious cutting of costs, of which not all are services. The way my tax money is being spent has made me turn from happily paying and advocating higher taxes, to theoretically being willing to commit tax fraud and not feel guilty.

+1

My area has some of the highest gas costs in the US (not anywhere else though - I know we're spoiled). I am totally cool with that - we have lots of roads and highways. I know this also goes to things like bike paths and public parks. I'd pay more if they needed it. The problem is that the roads are full of potholes and roadkill that never gets cleaned up. They instead spend the money on new railways and brand new (not repairing) highways. Basic maintenance should come first. If they need more money for basic maintenance I'll pay it happily. If they want more for a new project, I'll consider it. This is why I'm angry at my taxes.

[LennStar]

Anyway, I find it more strange that people always want tax cuts, but never service cuts. It is like most people are not able to make the connection "if the states builds something it has to pay for it", what everyone knows, and "I pay taxes so that the state has money".

(Raises hand)  I personally would love to see some service cuts.  However, such a position is politically tricky for a politician to make, because there's always someone who will get hurt by that cut, and such sob stories make for good TV segments, even if the cut is actually a good idea.  And it doesn't always have to be a cut in government services, either--there's lots and lots of waste, over-charging, inefficiencies, duplication of functions, etc that could be cut without negatively affecting services.  For example, I'm pretty miffed that our village recently started construction on a massive, $30 million police station (for a population of 30,000) that is ugly as sin.  Or that they're projecting a $50 million cost to widen 4.5 miles of an existing road.  Or that our school district, when facing a shortfall in funds, wants to increase class sizes rather than look at the top-heavy administration (seven assistant superintendents? really?).  Or that the pension system in our state is extraordinarily generous and easy to exploit.

So, the devils question: What are you doing to change that?
For example the police station: Normally somehtign liek this is shown before. Have you been there, looked at the plans and voiced yourself? Have you talked with other people about the ugliness before it was build?

Or the school have you pointed out that holy seveness?
(btw. Here in Germany you have boss in the school, with maybe a half-time "typist". And sometimes that one boss is for three schools, or at least 3 buildings in the town that were once 3 schools and now are one administration-wise (as in my town).

[mm1970]

Anyway, I find it more strange that people always want tax cuts, but never service cuts. It is like most people are not able to make the connection "if the states builds something it has to pay for it", what everyone knows, and "I pay taxes so that the state has money".

(Raises hand)  I personally would love to see some service cuts.  However, such a position is politically tricky for a politician to make, because there's always someone who will get hurt by that cut, and such sob stories make for good TV segments, even if the cut is actually a good idea.  And it doesn't always have to be a cut in government services, either--there's lots and lots of waste, over-charging, inefficiencies, duplication of functions, etc that could be cut without negatively affecting services.  For example, I'm pretty miffed that our village recently started construction on a massive, $30 million police station (for a population of 30,000) that is ugly as sin.  Or that they're projecting a $50 million cost to widen 4.5 miles of an existing road.  Or that our school district, when facing a shortfall in funds, wants to increase class sizes rather than look at the top-heavy administration (seven assistant superintendents? really?).  Or that the pension system in our state is extraordinarily generous and easy to exploit.

Yep. I'm relatively liberal when it comes to taxes.  I consider myself fiscally conservative but I'm fairly liberal in what I think we should spend money on.  I just think we shouldn't waste it.

So, I'm a fan of the idea of single payer health care, for example. That makes me pretty liberal.

However, there's a ballot measure this fall to add 1% to our already 8.25% sales tax for infrastructure to fix our roads, etc.

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

[MrMoogle]

And the colleague who bought them just told me she keeps borrowing money from her 10-year-old daughter's piggy bank to pay bills.

That's stealing. I don't care it's a 10-year-old or a family member or that she probably gave her the money anyway. That's stealing. What a wonderful lesson this little girl is going to learn.

The kids don't get pocket money, so this is birthday money from grandparents, and the "loan" now runs to hundreds of dollars.

Apparently the daughter is quite smug about it.

Co-worker's daughter: I'm the only one in the family with money, Mum! You borrowed my money, Dad borrowed my money, [brother] borrowed my money.
Co-worker: Did Daddy borrow money too???

Co-worker said that when she get paid she doesn't have enough left to pay her daughter back.

Co-worker also "jokes" about how she and her husband are both paid fortnightly but on alternate weeks. "We live pay cheque to pay cheque, it's just every week."

When I was growing up I was my mom's bank.  My dad played games with the checkbook, so my mom never knew how much money was really in their accounts.  So if she needed to buy something, she'd borrow cash from me and next time she went to the bank she'd withdraw enough to pay me back. 

These were for needs, like gas to get to work, or groceries for the week.  It was pretty manipulative of my dad, but I think he was doing it to control his spending, not to manipulate my mom, but it had that effect.  They had a few fights over this.

[RidetheRain]

Just discovered it's a "thing" at my office to eat lunch in your car and then take a nap with the car running, a/c blasting, and windows open. People often take more than the hour lunch break to do this in 85-degree weather.

I have no words.

[fruitfly]

Just discovered it's a "thing" at my office to eat lunch in your car and then take a nap with the car running, a/c blasting, and windows open. People often take more than the hour lunch break to do this in 85-degree weather.

I have no words.

I used to work at a place (a medical manufacturing facility!) where this was a thing. Only you smoked a big joint in your car before lunching and napping. So that made more sense?

[dragoncar]

Just discovered it's a "thing" at my office to eat lunch in your car and then take a nap with the car running, a/c blasting, and windows open. People often take more than the hour lunch break to do this in 85-degree weather.

I have no words.

I used to do this in my garage after a long day at work

[Step37]

Just discovered it's a "thing" at my office to eat lunch in your car and then take a nap with the car running, a/c blasting, and windows open. People often take more than the hour lunch break to do this in 85-degree weather.

I have no words.

I have no nice words. Fuck, I hate people like this. They probably chug a nice, big bottled water afterwards, too...

[Rowellen]

Anyway, I find it more strange that people always want tax cuts, but never service cuts. It is like most people are not able to make the connection "if the states builds something it has to pay for it", what everyone knows, and "I pay taxes so that the state has money".

(Raises hand)  I personally would love to see some service cuts.  However, such a position is politically tricky for a politician to make, because there's always someone who will get hurt by that cut, and such sob stories make for good TV segments, even if the cut is actually a good idea.  And it doesn't always have to be a cut in government services, either--there's lots and lots of waste, over-charging, inefficiencies, duplication of functions, etc that could be cut without negatively affecting services.  For example, I'm pretty miffed that our village recently started construction on a massive, $30 million police station (for a population of 30,000) that is ugly as sin.  Or that they're projecting a $50 million cost to widen 4.5 miles of an existing road.  Or that our school district, when facing a shortfall in funds, wants to increase class sizes rather than look at the top-heavy administration (seven assistant superintendents? really?).  Or that the pension system in our state is extraordinarily generous and easy to exploit.

In qld, Australia, the former premier, Cambell Newman, was elected on the back of promises to cut government costs. He won a huge majority.  I just googled to check. His party won 78 of the 89 seats. Unheard of! But people didn't like it when their nice safe cushy government jobs started to get cut. The following election he lost. Went from 78 seats to 42. Newman himself lost his seat.  Committed political suicide. There was probably more to it than just that but that is the big thing I remember from that time.

[halftimer]

And the colleague who bought them just told me she keeps borrowing money from her 10-year-old daughter's piggy bank to pay bills.

That's stealing. I don't care it's a 10-year-old or a family member or that she probably gave her the money anyway. That's stealing. What a wonderful lesson this little girl is going to learn.

The kids don't get pocket money, so this is birthday money from grandparents, and the "loan" now runs to hundreds of dollars.

Apparently the daughter is quite smug about it.

Co-worker's daughter: I'm the only one in the family with money, Mum! You borrowed my money, Dad borrowed my money, [brother] borrowed my money.
Co-worker: Did Daddy borrow money too???

Co-worker said that when she get paid she doesn't have enough left to pay her daughter back.

Co-worker also "jokes" about how she and her husband are both paid fortnightly but on alternate weeks. "We live pay cheque to pay cheque, it's just every week."

That was my family dynamic when I was a kid. At 12 years old my parents had a stack of IOU's to me, for mostly little amounts, but also "$160 for pots and pans". I never had an allowance, I had paper routes or odd jobs or worked for them for a fair hourly wage from about age 10 up. I learned to budget and not borrow. They never did to this day.

[With This Herring]

*snip*
That was my family dynamic when I was a kid. At 12 years old my parents had a stack of IOU's to me, for mostly little amounts, but also "$160 for pots and pans". I never had an allowance, I had paper routes or odd jobs or worked for them for a fair hourly wage from about age 10 up. I learned to budget and not borrow. They never did to this day.

Did you get paid back?  If so, when?

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

And the colleague who bought them just told me she keeps borrowing money from her 10-year-old daughter's piggy bank to pay bills.

That's stealing. I don't care it's a 10-year-old or a family member or that she probably gave her the money anyway. That's stealing. What a wonderful lesson this little girl is going to learn.

The kids don't get pocket money, so this is birthday money from grandparents, and the "loan" now runs to hundreds of dollars.

Apparently the daughter is quite smug about it.

Co-worker's daughter: I'm the only one in the family with money, Mum! You borrowed my money, Dad borrowed my money, [brother] borrowed my money.
Co-worker: Did Daddy borrow money too???

Co-worker said that when she get paid she doesn't have enough left to pay her daughter back.

Co-worker also "jokes" about how she and her husband are both paid fortnightly but on alternate weeks. "We live pay cheque to pay cheque, it's just every week."

That was my family dynamic when I was a kid. At 12 years old my parents had a stack of IOU's to me, for mostly little amounts, but also "$160 for pots and pans". I never had an allowance, I had paper routes or odd jobs or worked for them for a fair hourly wage from about age 10 up. I learned to budget and not borrow. They never did to this day.

I borrow small amounts of cash from my nephew, like a buck or two. I do it so we have to have a written agreement and agree on terms and interest. Then I pay him back with interest a few weeks later. Now he knows how to both borrow and lend money. Not bad for a 6 year old.

[mustachepungoeshere]

I borrow small amounts of cash from my nephew, like a buck or two. I do it so we have to have a written agreement and agree on terms and interest. Then I pay him back with interest a few weeks later. Now he knows how to both borrow and lend money. Not bad for a 6 year old.

I should try that with my nephews.

The five-year-old is completely disinterested in money. When I visit I like to give them a few dollars each for their money box. He will very politely say, "No, thank you." (I put it in his money box anyway, because I like to be fair.)

The two-year-old hoards money. If he finds a stray coin laying around the house it goes straight to his money box. If he doesn't find any coins laying around, he's not above asking my dad for a donation, and he usually gets it, cheeky thing. This one is definitely my nephew, as my mum says. It's his birthday in a bit over a week. I could give him a ziplock bag of 5c coins and he would be delighted.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

I borrow small amounts of cash from my nephew, like a buck or two. I do it so we have to have a written agreement and agree on terms and interest. Then I pay him back with interest a few weeks later. Now he knows how to both borrow and lend money. Not bad for a 6 year old.

I should try that with my nephews.

The five-year-old is completely disinterested in money. When I visit I like to give them a few dollars each for their money box. He will very politely say, "No, thank you." (I put it in his money box anyway, because I like to be fair.)

The two-year-old hoards money. If he finds a stray coin laying around the house it goes straight to his money box. If he doesn't find any coins laying around, he's not above asking my dad for a donation, and he usually gets it, cheeky thing. This one is definitely my nephew, as my mum says. It's his birthday in a bit over a week. I could give him a ziplock bag of 5c coins and he would be delighted.

When my son was growing up, from say about 8 years old, we'd give him $100 in $5 notes for pocket money every week. He then had to hand most back for "rent", "power", "phone", "food" and savings, and would be left with $5 or so for spending. When he wanted something large there would serious attempts at negotiating a later payment of the basics but this was never allowed. He could use a portion of his savings if it was something parentally approved. He's learned that, whatever your income, you pay yourself and your bills first, non negotiable.

[rdaneel0]

Just had a conversation with a co-worker who is really excited about his new leased car :( we live in a city with excellent public transit. I asked if he's going to drive to work, nope, it's just for weekend trips.

Also, talked to a co-worker in the same job position as me who constantly complains about not having enough money. He's single, no kids, and lives with roommates. He was asking me about saving money into a 401(k) and I told him he should put away as much as he can, to which he replied that he can't because he's always broke. Then he told me a story about bar hopping, and then we stopped talking because he had to go out to buy lunch.

[AH013]

I seem to remember that I read somewhere (probably here in this forum...) that someone who always pays his credit card bill on time is actually the better customer (on a risk adjusted basis) for the credit card company. Because the company makes steady income from him and there is no risk that he may default on his debt (because, essentially, he has none). Or am I imagining that?

I think it depends on what the definition of a "good" customer is.  ;-) 

In the credit card industry, people who pay their balance in full every month are apparently called deadbeats, because they "use the lender's money but pay no interest on it." 

But I also see that customers who do this could be seen through a different lens as an asset rather than a liability, because they represent a low-risk, steady stream of income at the merchant fee rate on the money the cardholder is using as "float."  Not a bad way to make ~2-3% on your money, guaranteed, plus whatever fees you can manage to wrangle out of the cardholders who goof something up.

Edited to add this link:  http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/aba-study-revolvers-transactors-1701.php.  Apparently as of late 2014, "deadbeats" (also called "transactors") represent 29% of credit card users, while "revolvers" (people who don't pay in full every month) represent 41.2%.  The remaining 29.8% are "dormant" (i.e., inactive accounts).

I'm not sure where any negative frustration from CC merchant banks against cardholders who pay in full every month would come into play.  The "lender" in the case of a CC user who pays in full every month isn't really the CC merchant bank, it's the merchants themselves.  Typically merchants aren't paid for CC sales until 30-45 days after sale, by which time the CC user would have then already paid their CC company off in full.  So the CC merchant bank wouldn't be out anything.

I do remember watching an interview on TV of a CC exec, and the interviewer asked the exec if they hate people who pay off their card in full every month because then "you don't get any high-rate interest".  The exec briefly looked at the woman like she literally said the dumbest thing he ever heard (complete with eye popping), then informed her that the vast majority of revenues come from interchange fees from the merchants.  He followed up to politely inform her that the reason interest rates were so high was to offset losses from people who rack up a bunch of charges and then default, forcing them to spend money on collection efforts, legal fees, and eventual write-offs.  He chuckled, then finished with saying anybody that wants to earn them 3% of their purchases (the merchant interchange fee) and never default on their balance was an amazing customer and he wished all their customers could be like that.

American Express is one of the few CC companies who acts as both card issuer and lender.  Their latest annual report confirms this revenue split.
http://www.snl.com/Cache/c38117384.html#rom321397_28
$26.3 billion in merchant fees and other non-interest related income.  Only $7.2B earned on interest.  And it doesn't distinguish between interest earned from balance-carrying CC users paying interest on their cards to Amex, versus Amex earning interest from receiving payments from non-balance-carrying cardholders at the end of the month and then investing that money for a little longer before eventually paying the merchants back.  Amex also has to pay $600M to borrow the money they've lent to balance-carrying CC users, then take $2B in writeoffs for losses stemming from deadbeats.  Speaking of which, I'm surprised they'd call "transactors" deadbeats, since that would traditionally be the word for a legitimate deadbeat -- someone who refuses to make good on a debt.

[GnomeErcy]

Watched the Apple conference thing the other day with a coworker. He set his alarm clock right after the iPhone X for $999 starting was announced so that he could be among the first to pre-order it.

I have no idea how people justify spending that much on a phone.

[solon]

Watched the Apple conference thing the other day with a coworker. He set his alarm clock right after the iPhone X for $999 starting was announced so that he could be among the first to pre-order it.

I have no idea how people justify spending that much on a phone.

Love the user name!

[nouveauRiche]

We have a retroactive salary check coming up.  People are are cranking up their withholding allowances because they need the money now and don't want to pay "extra" in taxes!  I can understand making some calculations on what the taxes are actually going to be and adjusting accordingly but these people don't even know what a marginal tax bracket is.

:( This topic makes me depressed. I hear so much misinformed spew because people don't know this.

"I don't want to earn more money because my taxes will go up and I'll actually pocket less money!"

I actually had a co-worker say to me that she didn't want to invest in stocks (outside of retirement) because she didn't want to have to pay more taxes.  "By that logic, you should turn down all future pay raises."  (in my head - not out loud)

Another friend had a CPA tell her to buy a more expensive house because then she would have a bigger interest deduction & get a bigger tax break.  "By that logic, you should just donate $10,000 to charity to get the $3,000 reduction in your taxes."  (in my head - not out loud)

[kayvent]

Watched the Apple conference thing the other day with a coworker. He set his alarm clock right after the iPhone X for $999 starting was announced so that he could be among the first to pre-order it.

I have no idea how people justify spending that much on a phone.

I will defend a subset of those people. The physical camera on the iPhone X is better than a 2000$ camera from just a decade ago. The software that is coupled with that camera makes the comparison even more asinine.

Going beyond still images, video quality on that thing is a beast. What used to take a big, bulky camera with a skilled technician now takes a person with an iPhone. Except the quality is better. There are a few major entertainment companies that use iPhones, that's right iPhones, as their main cameras for video production.

For both content creators and hobbyists, I posit that the iPhone X is not an extremely outlandish choice. Another group of people I would put forward as legitimate users of such a device is those whose phones serve as their primary or only computer. Quite seriously, my iPad does more than enough to cover 100% of my personal computer use cases. If someone is similar to me but wants something that can fit in their pocket, I won't begrudge them.

Everyone else is a spendypants. lol

[Zaga]

*snip*
 The "lender" in the case of a CC user who pays in full every month isn't really the CC merchant bank, it's the merchants themselves.  Typically merchants aren't paid for CC sales until 30-45 days after sale, by which time the CC user would have then already paid their CC company off in full.  So the CC merchant bank wouldn't be out anything.
*snip*

This is simply not true.  Merchants are (or at least the one I work for is) paid by the CC processor daily for sales from the previous day.  I can't imagine the merchant I work for being able to stay afloat with income from sales not coming into the business for 30-45 days!

**I'm an accountant, I've actually seen the daily deposits corresponding to the previous day sales.

[mustachepungoeshere]

Watched the Apple conference thing the other day with a coworker. He set his alarm clock right after the iPhone X for $999 starting was announced so that he could be among the first to pre-order it.

I have no idea how people justify spending that much on a phone.

I will defend a subset of those people. The physical camera on the iPhone X is better than a 2000$ camera from just a decade ago. The software that is coupled with that camera makes the comparison even more asinine.

Going beyond still images, video quality on that thing is a beast. What used to take a big, bulky camera with a skilled technician now takes a person with an iPhone. Except the quality is better. There are a few major entertainment companies that use iPhones, that's right iPhones, as their main cameras for video production.

For both content creators and hobbyists, I posit that the iPhone X is not an extremely outlandish choice. Another group of people I would put forward as legitimate users of such a device is those whose phones serve as their primary or only computer. Quite seriously, my iPad does more than enough to cover 100% of my personal computer use cases. If someone is similar to me but wants something that can fit in their pocket, I won't begrudge them.

Everyone else is a spendypants. lol

I agree that pre-ordering is over the top and I agree that they are invaluable tools for those who need them.

My husband is overseas for work at the moment. He will meet up with a crew when he needs to, but the rest of the time he's a one-man band, iPhone 7+ and a gorilla pod, iPad Pro and a keyboard case.

[RyanAtTanagra]

Another friend had a CPA tell her to buy a more expensive house because then she would have a bigger interest deduction & get a bigger tax break.  "By that logic, you should just donate $10,000 to charity to get the $3,000 reduction in your taxes."  (in my head - not out loud)

I tell those people, 'if you think giving $10k to the bank to get $3k back from the government is a good deal, I think we can work something out.  You can give me as much money as you want, no limit, and I'll give you 30% back.  And you don't even have to wait until the end of the year to get it, I'll give it back to you right away!  And we can do this as many times over the course of the year as you want, not just once!'

[dycker1978]

So I had to come here and post.  Everyone at work is talking about a new investment plan that the company is promoting.  No match, but they will auto deduct off of your check and thus no charge you income tax on it.  (We have the option to stop source deductions for any investment me make, we just have to do some paperwork) 

Any way, I look into this fund, thinking it might be another place for me to invest.  I look up the fund facts on this one... get this

8.69% MER
0.5% deferred sales charge, that never lapses, but is cumulative for every dollar invested in the fund as long as you invest in it.
1.29% is the average annual return, which I guess isn't bad, with the almost 9% MER deducted.

Wow...

[Dollar Slice]

8.69% MER

I want to run away screaming from my computer right now. Holy cow.

[former player]

That's basically a tax scam.  The management company can get away with the 8.69% because it's most of what the employees would have paid in tax anyway, the employees are happy with the 1.29% because it has the benefit of being on untaxed income, and the big loser is the US Treasury.

I'd be tempted to report it to the IRS.

[LennStar]

That's basically a tax scam.  The management company can get away with the 8.69% because it's most of what the employees would have paid in tax anyway, the employees are happy with the 1.29% because it has the benefit of being on untaxed income, and the big loser is the US Treasury.

I'd be tempted to report it to the IRS.

I don't know if its a tax scam, but it definitly is a scam, so go forward reporting it.

[dragoncar]

That's basically a tax scam.  The management company can get away with the 8.69% because it's most of what the employees would have paid in tax anyway, the employees are happy with the 1.29% because it has the benefit of being on untaxed income, and the big loser is the US Treasury.

I'd be tempted to report it to the IRS.

I don't know if its a tax scam, but it definitly is a scam, so go forward reporting it.

Not sure how interested the IRS will be in a presumably Canadian company

[TomTX]

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

We can talk about pensions. Where I work, if you want to retire at 50 (under the old system) - you would need to work there for 30 years. That's a pretty long damn run at a single employer.

Pension would be 69% of the highest 3 years' service. Less if you want the pension to continue for your spouse if you die first.

Pension would NOT be inflation-adjusted/COLA. Get paid $3k/month at 50? That's what you're still getting at 90.

Employee would contribute 9.5% of their salary every year to the pension. If they don't wait for the pension and take a lump sum, they get all of 2% per year accrued interest on that money.

Employee is typically paid considerably less than an equivalent private sector job

Frankly, the pension isn't the huge benefit many people make it out to be. Is it a benefit? Yes. But I would have been better off with equivalent 401k matching, and it would be a damn sight more portable. If I just walked away, most of the value would be eaten by inflation before I could draw it.

The new pension system is significantly worse for employees, unless they come to work for the State after a career elsewhere.

[StacheyStache]

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

We can talk about pensions. Where I work, if you want to retire at 50 (under the old system) - you would need to work there for 30 years. That's a pretty long damn run at a single employer.

Pension would be 69% of the highest 3 years' service. Less if you want the pension to continue for your spouse if you die first.

Pension would NOT be inflation-adjusted/COLA. Get paid $3k/month at 50? That's what you're still getting at 90.

Employee would contribute 9.5% of their salary every year to the pension. If they don't wait for the pension and take a lump sum, they get all of 2% per year accrued interest on that money.

Employee is typically paid considerably less than an equivalent private sector job

Frankly, the pension isn't the huge benefit many people make it out to be. Is it a benefit? Yes. But I would have been better off with equivalent 401k matching, and it would be a damn sight more portable. If I just walked away, most of the value would be eaten by inflation before I could draw it.

The new pension system is significantly worse for employees, unless they come to work for the State after a career elsewhere.

My state has something called "Rule of 90:"  Age plus years of experience must equal 90 or higher before you can retire.  I started a few months after I graduated law school at 25; the earliest I can retire and receive a pension is 58:  33 years of experience plus age 58= 91.  And that's 33 years of making way less than I would in the private sector (50k for a lawyer with three years of experience!!!). 

Definitely not a screaming deal.  You're better off working in the private sector and saving in a traditional 401k in almost every circumstance (and then our state pays 300k of taxpayer money for a study to ask "gwarsh, why we can't hang on to any state workers?!?"  SERIOUSLY.)

[Goldielocks]

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

We can talk about pensions. Where I work, if you want to retire at 50 (under the old system) - you would need to work there for 30 years. That's a pretty long damn run at a single employer.

Pension would be 69% of the highest 3 years' service. Less if you want the pension to continue for your spouse if you die first.

Pension would NOT be inflation-adjusted/COLA. Get paid $3k/month at 50? That's what you're still getting at 90.

Employee would contribute 9.5% of their salary every year to the pension. If they don't wait for the pension and take a lump sum, they get all of 2% per year accrued interest on that money.

Employee is typically paid considerably less than an equivalent private sector job

Frankly, the pension isn't the huge benefit many people make it out to be. Is it a benefit? Yes. But I would have been better off with equivalent 401k matching, and it would be a damn sight more portable. If I just walked away, most of the value would be eaten by inflation before I could draw it.

The new pension system is significantly worse for employees, unless they come to work for the State after a career elsewhere.

My state has something called "Rule of 90:"  Age plus years of experience must equal 90 or higher before you can retire.  I started a few months after I graduated law school at 25; the earliest I can retire and receive a pension is 58:  33 years of experience plus age 58= 91.  And that's 33 years of making way less than I would in the private sector (50k for a lawyer with three years of experience!!!). 

Definitely not a screaming deal.  You're better off working in the private sector and saving in a traditional 401k in almost every circumstance (and then our state pays 300k of taxpayer money for a study to ask "gwarsh, why we can't hang on to any state workers?!?"  SERIOUSLY.)

Stacey -- I am curious,  How much are you required to contribute to it, and what is the formula for the amount that you get?  I want to compare it to the government pension (medical / healthcare standard) here..  I was offered a job with a generous pension, but I found that that it did not work for me, because the mandatory personal contribution was too large for what I needed for retirement (I would have ended up taking home 30% more in retirement, due to funding retirement funds early in life, prior to this job).  I needed the present day cashflow to fund a mortgage and teenagers at home more than money later..

I am assuming that rule of 90 is to retire with a full pension...e.g at age 58, you don't take a reduced pension if the 90 rule is obtained.  Please correct if wrong.

[StacheyStache]

Um...until we start talking about pensions...the answer is no.  When someone can retire at 50 with anywhere from 50% to 100% of their highest income (depending on the job), the answer is no.  I don't get to retire at 50.  (I mean, I totally could retire off my investments - we are talking about retiring off of taxpayer money here).

That's the elephant in the room.
- No more retiring at 50.  I don't care if you are a cop.
- If you want to retire at 50, you still have to wait until aged 60-67 to draw a full pension.
- If that's a no-go, then fine, retire at 50, with a paycheck of 25% of the average of your last 10 years.

Or something like that.  I seriously have a friend doing a go fund me to pay for her last semester of school as a pastry chef.  She retired at 50.  Now, she's not a cop or anything, so her pension is around the $40k mark. But that was 10-15 years ago.  She's worked since - teaching ESL, working at grocery stores, etc.  You are in your 60s, save up the $6k, geez.

We can talk about pensions. Where I work, if you want to retire at 50 (under the old system) - you would need to work there for 30 years. That's a pretty long damn run at a single employer.

Pension would be 69% of the highest 3 years' service. Less if you want the pension to continue for your spouse if you die first.

Pension would NOT be inflation-adjusted/COLA. Get paid $3k/month at 50? That's what you're still getting at 90.

Employee would contribute 9.5% of their salary every year to the pension. If they don't wait for the pension and take a lump sum, they get all of 2% per year accrued interest on that money.

Employee is typically paid considerably less than an equivalent private sector job

Frankly, the pension isn't the huge benefit many people make it out to be. Is it a benefit? Yes. But I would have been better off with equivalent 401k matching, and it would be a damn sight more portable. If I just walked away, most of the value would be eaten by inflation before I could draw it.

The new pension system is significantly worse for employees, unless they come to work for the State after a career elsewhere.

My state has something called "Rule of 90:"  Age plus years of experience must equal 90 or higher before you can retire.  I started a few months after I graduated law school at 25; the earliest I can retire and receive a pension is 58:  33 years of experience plus age 58= 91.  And that's 33 years of making way less than I would in the private sector (50k for a lawyer with three years of experience!!!). 

Definitely not a screaming deal.  You're better off working in the private sector and saving in a traditional 401k in almost every circumstance (and then our state pays 300k of taxpayer money for a study to ask "gwarsh, why we can't hang on to any state workers?!?"  SERIOUSLY.)

Stacey -- I am curious,  How much are you required to contribute to it, and what is the formula for the amount that you get?  I want to compare it to the government pension (medical / healthcare standard) here..  I was offered a job with a generous pension, but I found that that it did not work for me, because the mandatory personal contribution was too large for what I needed for retirement (I would have ended up taking home 30% more in retirement, due to funding retirement funds early in life, prior to this job).  I needed the present day cashflow to fund a mortgage and teenagers at home more than money later..

I am assuming that rule of 90 is to retire with a full pension...e.g at age 58, you don't take a reduced pension if the 90 rule is obtained.  Please correct if wrong.

That's correct.  There is no early retirement before 55 and that's with a substantially reduced payout and still requiremes many years of earned service credit (not sure of the exact amount but I know it's more than 20).  We contribute 9 percent.  It used to be less but has risen every year for awhile now.  We don't have control over the contribution amount.

The formula comes out to a little more than half your salary at retirement at full payout.  Since most state workers make less than 50k...again, better off in the private sector in almost every circumstance.

Edit:  The pension used to be a lot better and still is for anyone who got in about five years ago who were grandfathered in.  The old system was too good to be sustainable, I agree, but the benefits were slashed so much for the new workers that now the state is having the opposite problem:  they can't hold onto anyone because they still want to pay the same low wages with a much crappier pension.

[TOgirl]

Get into work this morning, brew my coffee and fill up my water bottle...

Spendy pants colleague "ooohhh ok, if you aren't buying coffee, how about we both don't spend anything this week?"

Me "ummmm ok, I never really buy coffee, so that's easy - should we have a no spend week challenge?"

SPC "OK! sounds like fun! Let's ask spendy pants colleague #2 to join us"

SPC2 "yeah I'm in, my husband said I need to cut down the spending, I spent too much in the last couple of months, but it's partly his fault, he TOLD me to buy the Prada sunglasses"

Me "ok, so it's a challenge - no spending for the rest of the week. I"m going to do it here and at home"

SPC "ok, but I didn't bring breakfast or lunch for today, so I just need to buy some food, then I can start the not spending"

SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"

Me "........."

[I'm a red panda]

SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"

Well, I mean, that's just necessary. Her nails have grown out, they NEED to be filled.

(Also, how is that not tangible? You are buying acrylic.)

[RidetheRain]

SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"

Well, I mean, that's just necessary. Her nails have grown out, they NEED to be filled.

(Also, how is that not tangible? You are buying acrylic.)

I'll be honest, I never really understood acrylic nails. What's wrong with your own nails?

[marielle]

SPC2 "I'm going out at lunch to get my nails re-done, my shellac is growing out. But that's not something tangible, so it counts right? I'm not BUYING something"

Well, I mean, that's just necessary. Her nails have grown out, they NEED to be filled.

(Also, how is that not tangible? You are buying acrylic.)

I'll be honest, I never really understood acrylic nails. What's wrong with your own nails?

I can see the appeal, but not something I'd do regularly considering the cost. I did get fake nails twice for prom in highschool. Considering a lot of pictures were taken and I bite my nails, it wasn't the worst idea ever. I would probably do it again for a special occasion but that might never happen again. Bleeding cuticles and super rough bitten nails probably isn't something I'd want on a framed picture forever. Fake nails are also much much stronger which is nice for scratching yourself and such.

I guess I only have an answer to this question because I'm an idiot and my nails suck. One of these days I'll stop...