Mustachian People Problems (just for fun)

[slipslop]

There is a place to make a donation so I think I will be sure to offset the costs for my child and one other.

I think this is a wonderful thing to do.

[SwordGuy]

There is a place to make a donation so I think I will be sure to offset the costs for my child and one other.

I think this is a wonderful thing to do.

Well done. 

[Alfred J Quack]

Had an accident last year and am recovering from TBI (albeit very, very slowly). Had a tip to do something with my hands to counterbalance my work which is mainly mentally chalanging. Took up watercoloring as my previous woodworking was too intense (and handling dangerous equipment while dizzy is not a good idea). Watched a few youtube videos, and have correspondence going with my aunt the caligraphy teacher (who also does some watercoloring) and have been happily doing my best for the last couple of months...
Total cost of all materials, around 100 for some decent paint, paper, couple of brushes and a few sketchbooks.

Result, if anyone's interested: https://imgur.com/a/DKqOWGM (enable your adblocker!)

The problem? I got a giftcard from the workers council at work (of which I was a member but had to quit because of the slow recovery). They heard I was watercoloring and got me a gift card for the local craft shop. Said craft shop is more targeted to kids (girls especially) and their stock of what I use is nearly non existent and very expensive to boot. Eventually I decided to get a set of clay for my son (for motor skill development) rather than use something because it had to be used rather than because I needed it.

[Imma]

@Alfred J Quack I would delete that link, it can be traced to you. Your art looks great though!

[Alfred J Quack]

@Alfred J Quack I would delete that link, it can be traced to you. Your art looks great though!

Thanks, I didn't realise that. Changed the link to a more less personal one :)

[jeninco]

There is a place to make a donation so I think I will be sure to offset the costs for my child and one other.

I think this is a wonderful thing to do.

Well done.

Brilliant! That was going to be my suggestion.

Also, if you have the time and you like the program, see if they need help with organizational stuff. Frequently (at least here) disadvantaged kids = overwhelmed or non-English-speaking parents, and these kinds of programs can use help keeping track of ... "stuff" (like making sure everyone has a signed physical form, or that uniforms have been passed out, or doing laundry afterwards, or making sure the coaches have a couple of boxes of snacks for kids who show up hungry. The things that need to happen so the coaches can focus on coaching.)

[frugalnacho]

Will you go in on monday? My freezer always has a bag with older bananas, peeled. They are used for low carb (n)ice cream, muffins, banana bread, smoothie.

Do you want a frozen banana?  No... but I do want a regular banana later so.. yeah

Solid Mitch reference. 

[zygote]

I noticed my gross pay was $10 lower than usual this pay period, so I asked payroll what happened.

Well, turns out it's because of Leap Day. We get paid biweekly, so they take our annual salary, divide by 365, and multiply by 14 for each paystub. Since this next fiscal year (4/1/19 to 3/31/19) includes a Leap Day, they divide by 366 instead.

I mean, mathematically this all works out and we do eventually get paid our entire annual salary. But since we still get the same 26 paychecks this fiscal year, it feels like a paycut in practice. Like, sure, I'm getting paid my full annual salary in the end, but it seems like an asinine way to do things. I honestly think it's a problem with biweekly pay in general. Even in a non-leap year, I only get 364/365 of my salary. It doesn't all even out until years where there happen to be 27 pay periods (which is only once every 11 years).

The extra $10 certainly doesn't make or break my budget. But it's the principle of it. I think about expenses and savings in terms of months and years, not fortnights. I'd like my entire annual salary to hit my bank account in one year so I can use it appropriately, thanks.

Paying salaried exempt employees bimonthly would make so much more sense.

ETA: This is a MPP to me because my coworkers didn't notice until I asked them if it bothered them too. I honestly think most people don't pay attention to their paychecks. I realized right away because I monitor all my retirement contributions, deductions, etc. and have a spreadsheet of exactly how I think my paystub will break down.

[dragoncar]

I noticed my gross pay was $10 lower than usual this pay period, so I asked payroll what happened.

Well, turns out it's because of Leap Day. We get paid biweekly, so they take our annual salary, divide by 365, and multiply by 14 for each paystub. Since this next fiscal year (4/1/19 to 3/31/19) includes a Leap Day, they divide by 366 instead.

I mean, mathematically this all works out and we do eventually get paid our entire annual salary. But since we still get the same 26 paychecks this fiscal year, it feels like a paycut in practice. Like, sure, I'm getting paid my full annual salary in the end, but it seems like an asinine way to do things. I honestly think it's a problem with biweekly pay in general. Even in a non-leap year, I only get 364/365 of my salary. It doesn't all even out until years where there happen to be 27 pay periods (which is only once every 11 years).

The extra $10 certainly doesn't make or break my budget. But it's the principle of it. I think about expenses and savings in terms of months and years, not fortnights. I'd like my entire annual salary to hit my bank account in one year so I can use it appropriately, thanks.

Paying salaried exempt employees bimonthly would make so much more sense.

ETA: This is a MPP to me because my coworkers didn't notice until I asked them if it bothered them too. I honestly think most people don't pay attention to their paychecks. I realized right away because I monitor all my retirement contributions, deductions, etc. and have a spreadsheet of exactly how I think my paystub will break down.

It's kinda stingy on the part of the company, although I understand strict budgeting.  Like those years with 27 pay days.  My company just paid us normally, so we basically got a ~4% bonus that year.  But some companies will recalculate each paycheck.

[sherr]

Withdrawn. See:

Retraction.

[dragoncar]

I noticed my gross pay was $10 lower than usual this pay period, so I asked payroll what happened.

Well, turns out it's because of Leap Day. We get paid biweekly, so they take our annual salary, divide by 365, and multiply by 14 for each paystub. Since this next fiscal year (4/1/19 to 3/31/19) includes a Leap Day, they divide by 366 instead.

I mean, mathematically this all works out and we do eventually get paid our entire annual salary. But since we still get the same 26 paychecks this fiscal year, it feels like a paycut in practice. Like, sure, I'm getting paid my full annual salary in the end, but it seems like an asinine way to do things. I honestly think it's a problem with biweekly pay in general. Even in a non-leap year, I only get 364/365 of my salary. It doesn't all even out until years where there happen to be 27 pay periods (which is only once every 11 years).

The extra $10 certainly doesn't make or break my budget. But it's the principle of it. I think about expenses and savings in terms of months and years, not fortnights. I'd like my entire annual salary to hit my bank account in one year so I can use it appropriately, thanks.

Paying salaried exempt employees bimonthly would make so much more sense.

ETA: This is a MPP to me because my coworkers didn't notice until I asked them if it bothered them too. I honestly think most people don't pay attention to their paychecks. I realized right away because I monitor all my retirement contributions, deductions, etc. and have a spreadsheet of exactly how I think my paystub will break down.

It's kinda stingy on the part of the company, although I understand strict budgeting.  Like those years with 27 pay days.  My company just paid us normally, so we basically got a ~4% bonus that year.  But some companies will recalculate each paycheck.

No, it's not the same. Regardless of whether any given year happens to contain 26 or 27 paydays, in every case you're still being paid for 2 weeks of work. You're salary rate for 2 weeks of work has not changed in the 27 payday years, it just happens that in the 27-payday year you're also receiving a paycheck for work you did mostly in the previous year. If your company recalculated your rate for 27-payday years they'd be cheating you.

By contrast in a leap year your 2-week salary rate *has* actually changed, because the year is longer so your annual salary is divided by 26.14 instead of 26.07 two-week periods. I agree it's pretty stingy though. An extra $260 per employee per 4-year-period is not exactly going to break the bank.

You are framing it as a "2 week salary" but most people I know are paid at an annual rate.  Totally depends on the wording of your contract, but as an example if I'm paid $52k per year at $2k per paycheck, in 2016 I get $52k, 2017 has 27 paydays so I get $54k, then in 2018 I get $52k.  Therefore, the annual salary rate *has* actually changed.

If you're an hourly employee, you'd get paid more on a leap year because you will have worked an extra 8 hours.  I really doubt many people have a true biweekly salary agreement, but if they did then recalculating the amounts based on leap years wouldn't just by stingy, it would be illegal.

[Morning Glory]

I noticed my gross pay was $10 lower than usual this pay period, so I asked payroll what happened.

Well, turns out it's because of Leap Day. We get paid biweekly, so they take our annual salary, divide by 365, and multiply by 14 for each paystub. Since this next fiscal year (4/1/19 to 3/31/19) includes a Leap Day, they divide by 366 instead.

I mean, mathematically this all works out and we do eventually get paid our entire annual salary. But since we still get the same 26 paychecks this fiscal year, it feels like a paycut in practice. Like, sure, I'm getting paid my full annual salary in the end, but it seems like an asinine way to do things. I honestly think it's a problem with biweekly pay in general. Even in a non-leap year, I only get 364/365 of my salary. It doesn't all even out until years where there happen to be 27 pay periods (which is only once every 11 years).

The extra $10 certainly doesn't make or break my budget. But it's the principle of it. I think about expenses and savings in terms of months and years, not fortnights. I'd like my entire annual salary to hit my bank account in one year so I can use it appropriately, thanks.

Paying salaried exempt employees bimonthly would make so much more sense.

ETA: This is a MPP to me because my coworkers didn't notice until I asked them if it bothered them too. I honestly think most people don't pay attention to their paychecks. I realized right away because I monitor all my retirement contributions, deductions, etc. and have a spreadsheet of exactly how I think my paystub will break down.

It's kinda stingy on the part of the company, although I understand strict budgeting.  Like those years with 27 pay days.  My company just paid us normally, so we basically got a ~4% bonus that year.  But some companies will recalculate each paycheck.

No, it's not the same. Regardless of whether any given year happens to contain 26 or 27 paydays, in every case you're still being paid for 2 weeks of work. You're salary rate for 2 weeks of work has not changed in the 27 payday years, it just happens that in the 27-payday year you're also receiving a paycheck for work you did mostly in the previous year. If your company recalculated your rate for 27-payday years they'd be cheating you.

By contrast in a leap year your 2-week salary rate *has* actually changed, because the year is longer so your annual salary is divided by 26.14 instead of 26.07 two-week periods. I agree it's pretty stingy though. An extra $260 per employee per 4-year-period is not exactly going to break the bank.

You are framing it as a "2 week salary" but most people I know are paid at an annual rate.  Totally depends on the wording of your contract, but as an example if I'm paid $52k per year at $2k per paycheck, in 2016 I get $52k, 2017 has 27 paydays so I get $54k, then in 2018 I get $52k.  Therefore, the annual salary rate *has* actually changed.

If you're an hourly employee, you'd get paid more on a leap year because you will have worked an extra 8 hours.  I really doubt many people have a true biweekly salary agreement, but if they did then recalculating the amounts based on leap years wouldn't just by stingy, it would be illegal.

My company posts salaries for exempt workers as " x amount per 2 week pay period", not "x amount per year".  I thought this was normal.

[sherr]

Withdrawn. See:

Retraction.

[sherr]

My company posts salaries for exempt workers as " x amount per 2 week pay period", not "x amount per year".  I thought this was normal.

I'd never heard of that before, but situation is exactly the same as the "per day pay rate * number of days worked" situation, with the exception that you actually get a little more money on a leap year. So your company is slightly more generous than I think most others are.

[Loren Ver]

My MMP, now that I am retired I need to find a new day to grocery shop. I was a Saturday morning shopper, but NOT ANY MORE!

Last week, I tried Monday morning, the crowds were low, but it looks like they were still stocking from the weekend rush, so several of my on sale things were out of stock (no rain checks).  This could be because of the weekend before a holiday or just general post weekend restocking. 

This week I am trying for Wednesday morning. 

What a hard life I lead. :)

Loren

[Gerard]

I need to find a new day to grocery shop.

Oo! Try every different day until you find the one where they mark stuff down!

[Zaga]

On behalf of employed people everywhere, THANK YOU for not shopping on the weekend anymore!!!

[Taran Wanderer]

A 365 day year is 52 weeks and 1 day.
A 366 day year is 52 weeks and 2 days.

A 365 day year with a 5-day workweek can have 260 or 261 workdays.
A 366 day year with a 5-day workweek can have 261 or 262 workdays.

(Forgive me if that's not perfect.  I didn't build an Excel model on each of the 14 scenarios...)

We are on a two-week pay cycle.  Each Friday we are paid for the previous two calendar weeks.  My annual salary has been divided by a standard 2,080 work hours in a year to yield an hourly rate, and I'm basically paid for 80 hours each pay period.  In the 27 pay period year, I think this means I'm making out like a bandit...

[OtherJen]

We just paid off the last of a car loan. We have a low debt-income ratio and excellent credit scores. Therefore...

Literally 2 days after paying off the auto loan, I started receiving daily mailers from the credit union offering me ridiculous loans for a new car. Because of course once the car is paid off, it must be worthless and I will certainly want to replace it immediately. /s

[dragoncar]

No, this is still wrong.

Nothing I said was wrong.  If you still think so, I'm curious what specific thing I said you disagree with.

What it actually is is a per-day salary rate

No, it's really not.  Unless you are a day laborer.  As mentioned, most people have contracts on an hourly or annual basis.  Not everyone, but most.

In 27-payday years your first check is almost exclusively money that you earned in the previous year, it just hasn't shown up in your checking account yet. Your annual salary rate is still constant, even though the boundary conditions are weird and it looks like you made more money in the 27-payday year than you did in the 26-payday year.

I get what you are saying here, but the fact is that employers who pay annual salaries on a biweekly basis divide the annual salary by 26 in a typical year.  So if you have a constant $26k salary:

Year 1: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 2: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 3: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 4: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 5: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 6: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 7: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 8: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 9: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 10: 26 payments of $1k = $26k
Year 11: Oops, this one has 27 payments of $1k = $27k

Now, yes you can argue that in this case technically your annual salary is (26*10+27)/11 = $26,090.91 because that's the average amount you will receive over 11 years.  But that's frankly silly when you were offered a job at $26k annually.  If on the 11th year the employer chose to only pay you $26k, they would not run afoul of labor laws or contract law because, as mentioned, you were offered a job at $26k annually.

And hey, here's at leat one lawyer that agrees with me: https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id67cf880962811e498db8b09b4f043e0/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

If the employer stated that compensation would be based on an annual salary, the second option should not offend either the FLSA or any state wage payment statute. But if the employee was informed that they would be paid on a weekly or bi-weekly basis only, the employer may be stuck with the first option. However, typically, while employees may be told a weekly or bi-weekly amount to expect, that number is based on what they understand is their annual salary.

[Sugaree]

We just paid off the last of a car loan. We have a low debt-income ratio and excellent credit scores. Therefore...

Literally 2 days after paying off the auto loan, I started receiving daily mailers from the credit union offering me ridiculous loans for a new car. Because of course once the car is paid off, it must be worthless and I will certainly want to replace it immediately. /s

Ugh.  I hate that.  I got a letter from the dealership I bought mine from 5 years ago letting me know that I could "upgrade" to a 2018 or 2019 model.  The problem?  The car they want me to upgrade was totaled in a wreck in November.  They know this because I went back to them and asked if they knew how to find one exactly like it and they told me I was on my own looking for that unicorn (I found one a few weeks later.  The salesguy said I paid too much, which is probably true, but it only had 12k miles on it and it was exactly what I wanted.)

[Zaga]

I bought my car in cash, so I was very confused when I got a call from the dealership a year or 2 later saying they could get me in a new car and keep my payment the same.  Um, did you not look at my file?  I don't have a payment, dumbass.

[LennStar]

I bought my car in cash, so I was very confused when I got a call from the dealership a year or 2 later saying they could get me in a new car and keep my payment the same.  Um, did you not look at my file?  I don't have a payment, dumbass.

I would have taken that deal. A new car for nothing? Sell the "old" one? Any time!


But more serious: Wow! How bad must the normal payments be that even with the depreciation fo the first 2 years, they still make a profit with that??

[RWD]

But more serious: Wow! How bad must the normal payments be that even with the depreciation fo the first 2 years, they still make a profit with that??

Because they only keep the payment amount the same. The number of payments will increase to cover the difference in cost between the two cars.

[penguintroopers]

We just paid off the last of a car loan. We have a low debt-income ratio and excellent credit scores. Therefore...

Literally 2 days after paying off the auto loan, I started receiving daily mailers from the credit union offering me ridiculous loans for a new car. Because of course once the car is paid off, it must be worthless and I will certainly want to replace it immediately. /s

Ugh.  I hate that.  I got a letter from the dealership I bought mine from 5 years ago letting me know that I could "upgrade" to a 2018 or 2019 model.  The problem?  The car they want me to upgrade was totaled in a wreck in November.  They know this because I went back to them and asked if they knew how to find one exactly like it and they told me I was on my own looking for that unicorn (I found one a few weeks later.  The salesguy said I paid too much, which is probably true, but it only had 12k miles on it and it was exactly what I wanted.)

Ditto. Totaled in September, best car we ever had. Flyer: Hey, you haven't gotten an oil change on [car] in a while... you want to buy a new 2019 [SUV]?!

Uhm, no. If I still had the car, I'd just take the oil change please. Thanks.

[Loren Ver]

On behalf of employed people everywhere, THANK YOU for not shopping on the weekend anymore!!!

That was my true reason for changing days, to help out the busy workers that have no choice :).

LV

[sherr]

Withdrawn. See:

Retraction.

[sherr]

And hey, here's at leat one lawyer that agrees with me: https://content.next.westlaw.com/Document/Id67cf880962811e498db8b09b4f043e0/View/FullText.html?contextData=(sc.Default)&transitionType=Default&firstPage=true&bhcp=1

If the employer stated that compensation would be based on an annual salary, the second option should not offend either the FLSA or any state wage payment statute. But if the employee was informed that they would be paid on a weekly or bi-weekly basis only, the employer may be stuck with the first option. However, typically, while employees may be told a weekly or bi-weekly amount to expect, that number is based on what they understand is their annual salary.

I will amend my previous response by pointing out that this guy is assuming that companies are doing what you claim they are doing; dividing annual salary by 26.

For salaried employees, their salary is ordinarily divided by either 52 or 26 paydays and W-2 income for employees for the year will be their stated salary.

If that is how you are getting paid, then yes it makes perfect sense to divide by 27 on 27-payday years and everything you said was correct.

My contention is that is not how it works anywhere I have seen. What I have seen is that your annual salary is divided by the number of days (or more accurately, the number of work-hours in a year assuming 40 hours per week) and then your paycheck is the number of days (or work-hours) that you have worked in the pay period. In that case they cannot reduce your paycheck in 27-payday years, as that would result in them never paying out the "extra days" from the previous year.

Edit:
Well I'll be darned. I just checked and my paycheck is my annual salary / 26. I must just be wrong. Okay, objection withdrawn. You are right and I'll go back and delete my other posts to avoid confusing people.

[RWD]

Your example is wrong because you didn't bother to calculate it. If your annual salary is exactly $26k, then each two-week paycheck would be for $997.26, not an even $1k.

I am paid biweekly and my employer pays exactly the annual salary divided by 26.

[zygote]

See? This is why biweekly salary is confusing and silly for workers with an annual salary.* The number if work hours is never going to be exactly the same due to weekends, Leap Years, etc, and the fact that there aren't an even number of weeks in a year means that the paycycle will be off sometimes. Different companies are going to deal with all these problems different ways and none of them make much sense, even if you do technically get all the pay you're owed eventually.

The whole point of being salaried and exempt from overtime is not have to worry about time worked down to this level of detail.

*I can definitely see the benefits of keeping the paycycle an even number of days for hourly workers, though.

[K-ice]

I try to be frugal and Mustachian but when things go to SHIT are you ever tempted to just throw money at it to solve it?

In the past month we have had a major home repair, our 9y old car may be dead (or at least the engine), and a few other unusual expenses.

This isn't really a set of "just for fun" problems but we could say "shut up and take my money" throw about 6-9 months of savings at this and be done with it. (OK maybe even more depending on how the car plays out.)

I feel this is a "problem" because we are tired of optimizing the best solution with the house and now the car thing hit us. If we didn't have savings and the ability to borrow good credit (HELOC) we'd be screwed &/or more incline to flex our frugal muscle. The problem is I have a good chunk money sitting there, & I'm so friggen frustrated I don't want to flex my muscle. 

We luckily (or unluckily) hadn't thrown a bunch of savings over the wall into tax advantaged account until we see what we owe in taxes. If the money was over the wall I probably wouldn't touch it & may need to find other solutions. (I especially wouldn't touch our RRSPs and maybe not even our TFSA).

When you have enough money do you want to say "F-it I can fix this."?

[SwordGuy]

I try to be frugal and Mustachian but when things go to SHIT are you ever tempted to just throw money at it to solve it?

In the past month we have had a major home repair, our 9y old car may be dead (or at least the engine), and a few other unusual expenses.

This isn't really a set of "just for fun" problems but we could say "shut up and take my money" throw about 6-9 months of savings at this and be done with it. (OK maybe even more depending on how the car plays out.)

I feel this is a "problem" because we are tired of optimizing the best solution with the house and now the car thing hit us. If we didn't have savings and the ability to borrow good credit (HELOC) we'd be screwed &/or more incline to flex our frugal muscle. The problem is I have a good chunk money sitting there, & I'm so friggen frustrated I don't want to flex my muscle. 

We luckily (or unluckily) hadn't thrown a bunch of savings over the wall into tax advantaged account until we see what we owe in taxes. If the money was over the wall I probably wouldn't touch it & may need to find other solutions. (I especially wouldn't touch our RRSPs and maybe not even our TFSA).

When you have enough money do you want to say "F-it I can fix this."?

Will this change your FIRE date?

By very much?


Assuming that by the time you get to the old FIRE date some years in the future and you are sick and tired of your job and profession, will you be able to stick it out to your new FIRE date?

The answers to these questions should help you find the right answer.

[Linea_Norway]

I try to be frugal and Mustachian but when things go to SHIT are you ever tempted to just throw money at it to solve it?

In the past month we have had a major home repair, our 9y old car may be dead (or at least the engine), and a few other unusual expenses.

This isn't really a set of "just for fun" problems but we could say "shut up and take my money" throw about 6-9 months of savings at this and be done with it. (OK maybe even more depending on how the car plays out.)

I feel this is a "problem" because we are tired of optimizing the best solution with the house and now the car thing hit us. If we didn't have savings and the ability to borrow good credit (HELOC) we'd be screwed &/or more incline to flex our frugal muscle. The problem is I have a good chunk money sitting there, & I'm so friggen frustrated I don't want to flex my muscle. 

We luckily (or unluckily) hadn't thrown a bunch of savings over the wall into tax advantaged account until we see what we owe in taxes. If the money was over the wall I probably wouldn't touch it & may need to find other solutions. (I especially wouldn't touch our RRSPs and maybe not even our TFSA).

When you have enough money do you want to say "F-it I can fix this."?

Yes, throwing money at it, can help many problems in your life. Solving your stress on daily cores by outsourcing and dining out. Replacing old appliances with brand new ones. Replacing an old car with a brand new one.

For us, I try to figure out whether the thing I want to do it based on pure laziness or not. Like hiring someone to clean our house. That would be based on  me being lazy, and therefore not worth it.

When replacing the refrigerator, we buy a new one. I want a big one, not used (unfresh), low energy and low noise. That costs. So it's not cheap. But the amount is still a lot less that what we save monthly, so on my salary, I save 50% less that month.

A new car on the other hand is different. We bought a brand new car twice. I think we could have lived for a year or more on the money that those new cars cost (Cars in Norway are ridiculously expensive). In retrospect, I would rather have retired earlier, than driving brand new car. On the other hand, our current car, that we bought brand new, is not 10 years old and still running well. Maybe it was a good choice for a car. Now that we are really approaching FIRE, I have become very reluctant to spend an equal amount on a new car. I think our next car will be one that is a few years old.

When you have an emergency in your life, throwing money at it can be very welcome. That will allow you to do things that other people cannot, it that would lead them into debt. But for each thing, you should decide whether it is really worth delaying your retirement for. And if you already are retired, is it worth going back to work for? Probably not. Maybe giving your time to the project is better than throwing money at it.

[Sugaree]

Your example is wrong because you didn't bother to calculate it. If your annual salary is exactly $26k, then each two-week paycheck would be for $997.26, not an even $1k.

I am paid biweekly and my employer pays exactly the annual salary divided by 26.

I'm biweekly and as close I can tell they divide my annual salary by the 2087 work hours in a year and calculate an hourly rate.  Then I'm paid at that rate times 80 hours per pay period. 

[Parizade]

I feel this is a "problem" because we are tired of optimizing the best solution with the house and now the car thing hit us. If we didn't have savings and the ability to borrow good credit (HELOC) we'd be screwed &/or more incline to flex our frugal muscle. The problem is I have a good chunk money sitting there, & I'm so friggen frustrated I don't want to flex my muscle. 

If you are "optimizing" to a point where you feel frustrated and deprived I think you need to take a hard look at your budget and lifestyle and make some tweaks. Those tweaks might include a bit more money in your "fun" bucket, OR you might just be in need a more free self-care (exercise, fresh air, good sleep, etc). I find the "cheap things that make you happy" thread to be good inspiration.

FI is a marathon, not a sprint. You need to set a pace for yourself that will get you to the finish line healthy enough to enjoy the victory. The pace you are running at now seems to be wearing you out, slow down and hydrate.

[TVRodriguez]

I try to be frugal and Mustachian but when things go to SHIT are you ever tempted to just throw money at it to solve it?

In the past month we have had a major home repair, our 9y old car may be dead (or at least the engine), and a few other unusual expenses.

This isn't really a set of "just for fun" problems but we could say "shut up and take my money" throw about 6-9 months of savings at this and be done with it. (OK maybe even more depending on how the car plays out.)

I feel this is a "problem" because we are tired of optimizing the best solution with the house and now the car thing hit us. If we didn't have savings and the ability to borrow good credit (HELOC) we'd be screwed &/or more incline to flex our frugal muscle. The problem is I have a good chunk money sitting there, & I'm so friggen frustrated I don't want to flex my muscle. 

We luckily (or unluckily) hadn't thrown a bunch of savings over the wall into tax advantaged account until we see what we owe in taxes. If the money was over the wall I probably wouldn't touch it & may need to find other solutions. (I especially wouldn't touch our RRSPs and maybe not even our TFSA).

When you have enough money do you want to say "F-it I can fix this."?

Sometimes sh-t happens.  And sometimes it's okay to throw money at a problem (this is one reason I like to keep an emergency fund, so I can borrow from myself).  Other times it can be fun to see if we can find a workaround that costs less than the handfuls of money we might throw at it.

[penguintroopers]

See? This is why biweekly salary is confusing and silly for workers with an annual salary.* The number if work hours is never going to be exactly the same due to weekends, Leap Years, etc, and the fact that there aren't an even number of weeks in a year means that the paycycle will be off sometimes. Different companies are going to deal with all these problems different ways and none of them make much sense, even if you do technically get all the pay you're owed eventually.

The whole point of being salaried and exempt from overtime is not have to worry about time worked down to this level of detail.

*I can definitely see the benefits of keeping the paycycle an even number of days for hourly workers, though.

Hourly employee here. Believe it or not, I'd like monthly paychecks as well. Literally all of my obligations are paid on a monthly basis, and I'm tired of the headache of my paychecks moving to whatever flippin' day of the month they feel like being on. I'd rather just get all my money on one day, and blast the auto pay to everyone a couple days after and just be done with it.

(I would also accept being paid on two set days of the month like the 1st and 15th or whatever).

[LennStar]

Hourly employee here. Believe it or not, I'd like monthly paychecks as well. Literally all of my obligations are paid on a monthly basis, and I'm tired of the headache of my paychecks moving to whatever flippin' day of the month they feel like being on. I'd rather just get all my money on one day, and blast the auto pay to everyone a couple days after and just be done with it.

You know, I am 100% sure someone would say that is socialism. Or even communism. Just because it's standard procedure in "socialistic" Europe.

[penguintroopers]

Hourly employee here. Believe it or not, I'd like monthly paychecks as well. Literally all of my obligations are paid on a monthly basis, and I'm tired of the headache of my paychecks moving to whatever flippin' day of the month they feel like being on. I'd rather just get all my money on one day, and blast the auto pay to everyone a couple days after and just be done with it.

You know, I am 100% sure someone would say that is socialism. Or even communism. Just because it's standard procedure in "socialistic" Europe.

I listened to a podcast yesterday about how American taxes could be so much easier. A pilot program in California was done with "Ready Return" where all you had to do was review the FILLED out form the government sent you,  make any changes for additional income above your W2s and other streams of income the government was aware of, and mail it back. I'm all for this, as we're in the year 2019 and could have way better systems by now for taxes. But no, America, the land of the free, the country of "innovation", has less logic with taxes than most of Europe and Australia.

Call me a crazy liberal.

[merula]

I listened to a podcast yesterday about how American taxes could be so much easier. A pilot program in California was done with "Ready Return" where all you had to do was review the FILLED out form the government sent you,  make any changes for additional income above your W2s and other streams of income the government was aware of, and mail it back. I'm all for this, as we're in the year 2019 and could have way better systems by now for taxes. But no, America, the land of the free, the country of "innovation", has less logic with taxes than most of Europe and Australia.

Call me a crazy liberal.

Intuit (owner of TurboTax) and H&R Block spent millions lobbying against this exact idea. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-spend-millions-lobbying-us-keep-doing-n736386

[OtherJen]

I listened to a podcast yesterday about how American taxes could be so much easier. A pilot program in California was done with "Ready Return" where all you had to do was review the FILLED out form the government sent you,  make any changes for additional income above your W2s and other streams of income the government was aware of, and mail it back. I'm all for this, as we're in the year 2019 and could have way better systems by now for taxes. But no, America, the land of the free, the country of "innovation", has less logic with taxes than most of Europe and Australia.

Call me a crazy liberal.

Intuit (owner of TurboTax) and H&R Block spent millions lobbying against this exact idea. https://www.nbcnews.com/business/taxes/turbotax-h-r-block-spend-millions-lobbying-us-keep-doing-n736386

As with pretty much everything, the lobbyists get in the way of actual efficient governance.

[CoffeeAndDonuts]

Executive summary: We've optimized our home energy use such that I can no longer find ways to financially justify capital expenditures to further improve it. That competes against our desire to reduce carbon footprint. Decisions are becoming more difficult.

Longer Story: I'm working from the premise that whenever we can financially justify an investment in reducing our carbon footprint, we will. After all, we're ideally situated to and if we won't, who will.

We're also doing a small renovation that presents a rare opportunity to make smart investments our HVAC and water heater systems.

No matter how hard I try to justify the additional spending's return, I run into the same problem. Our use & thus cost is so low due to behavior changes and rate optimizations, that I can't justify any meaningful upfront capital cost.

Latest case in point, I got all excited about a heat pump water heater to replace our nat. gas water heater. We have cheap electric costs ($.07-$.10 with taxes and fees per kwh) and it's greener so I should be able to make the ~$1000 extra up-front work.

... Except I can't. Our natural gas bill for water heating and cooking is approximately $65/year. Even if I cut that in half, I'd save a mere $320 over a decade (ignoring time value of money).

The same problems, at a larger scale, occur when I dig into alternative heating solutions. Heating is ~$720/year which is pretty low in Minnesota (even with the polar vortex, we hit just $175 that mo) and I can't get a reasonable solution using heat pumps powered by electric put together.

I've been successful justifying EV and solar investments operating at a profit. I was hoping to find more easy to justify wins here. Looks instead like I need to make hard decisions about how much we're willing to pay to reduce carbon footprint.

Glad we've got the means to but optimizing thus stuff is mentally taxing.

[Imma]

Hourly employee here. Believe it or not, I'd like monthly paychecks as well. Literally all of my obligations are paid on a monthly basis, and I'm tired of the headache of my paychecks moving to whatever flippin' day of the month they feel like being on. I'd rather just get all my money on one day, and blast the auto pay to everyone a couple days after and just be done with it.

You know, I am 100% sure someone would say that is socialism. Or even communism. Just because it's standard procedure in "socialistic" Europe.

I listened to a podcast yesterday about how American taxes could be so much easier. A pilot program in California was done with "Ready Return" where all you had to do was review the FILLED out form the government sent you,  make any changes for additional income above your W2s and other streams of income the government was aware of, and mail it back. I'm all for this, as we're in the year 2019 and could have way better systems by now for taxes. But no, America, the land of the free, the country of "innovation", has less logic with taxes than most of Europe and Australia.

Call me a crazy liberal.

We've had this for a couple of years now in my country. Works perfectly. You just add any income the government isn't already aware of and add your deductibles.

I'm paid weekly as well and I dislike it too. I used to get paid monthly and almost all my bills were automatically withdrawn from my bank account in the same week. I would leave a set amount of spending money in my account and transfer everything else to savings/investments. Now I leave 1/4 of my spending money in my account every week and transfer money back from savings every time a bill needs to get paid. Well, it's still better than paying bills manually.

[ixtap]

Hourly employee here. Believe it or not, I'd like monthly paychecks as well. Literally all of my obligations are paid on a monthly basis, and I'm tired of the headache of my paychecks moving to whatever flippin' day of the month they feel like being on. I'd rather just get all my money on one day, and blast the auto pay to everyone a couple days after and just be done with it.

You know, I am 100% sure someone would say that is socialism. Or even communism. Just because it's standard procedure in "socialistic" Europe.

I listened to a podcast yesterday about how American taxes could be so much easier. A pilot program in California was done with "Ready Return" where all you had to do was review the FILLED out form the government sent you,  make any changes for additional income above your W2s and other streams of income the government was aware of, and mail it back. I'm all for this, as we're in the year 2019 and could have way better systems by now for taxes. But no, America, the land of the free, the country of "innovation", has less logic with taxes than most of Europe and Australia.

Call me a crazy liberal.

We've had this for a couple of years now in my country. Works perfectly. You just add any income the government isn't already aware of and add your deductibles.

I'm paid weekly as well and I dislike it too. I used to get paid monthly and almost all my bills were automatically withdrawn from my bank account in the same week. I would leave a set amount of spending money in my account and transfer everything else to savings/investments. Now I leave 1/4 of my spending money in my account every week and transfer money back from savings every time a bill needs to get paid. Well, it's still better than paying bills manually.

How is investment income handled? RSUs ESPPs, income generated in the HSA, etc are the time sucks in doing my taxes in the US.

[gaja]

Hourly employee here. Believe it or not, I'd like monthly paychecks as well. Literally all of my obligations are paid on a monthly basis, and I'm tired of the headache of my paychecks moving to whatever flippin' day of the month they feel like being on. I'd rather just get all my money on one day, and blast the auto pay to everyone a couple days after and just be done with it.

You know, I am 100% sure someone would say that is socialism. Or even communism. Just because it's standard procedure in "socialistic" Europe.

I listened to a podcast yesterday about how American taxes could be so much easier. A pilot program in California was done with "Ready Return" where all you had to do was review the FILLED out form the government sent you,  make any changes for additional income above your W2s and other streams of income the government was aware of, and mail it back. I'm all for this, as we're in the year 2019 and could have way better systems by now for taxes. But no, America, the land of the free, the country of "innovation", has less logic with taxes than most of Europe and Australia.

Call me a crazy liberal.

We've had this for a couple of years now in my country. Works perfectly. You just add any income the government isn't already aware of and add your deductibles.

I'm paid weekly as well and I dislike it too. I used to get paid monthly and almost all my bills were automatically withdrawn from my bank account in the same week. I would leave a set amount of spending money in my account and transfer everything else to savings/investments. Now I leave 1/4 of my spending money in my account every week and transfer money back from savings every time a bill needs to get paid. Well, it's still better than paying bills manually.

How is investment income handled? RSUs ESPPs, income generated in the HSA, etc are the time sucks in doing my taxes in the US.

In Norway, the banks report all that stuff automatically. We can choose to ignore the tax form completely; if you don't make any changes before the deadline, the state will consider the automated version as correct. I like playing around with rules and regulations, and we have had some income and deductions related to selling stock photos that we need to report manually, so I do spend a few hours every end of April on our taxes. But more than half the population just ignore it, and the number is growing.

[DaMa]

A friend of mine is an admin assistant in a public school district.  Her annual salary $x is usually paid biweekly at $x/26.  This year there are 27 payments, and she is being paid $x/27.  So it does happen.

[Imma]

Hourly employee here. Believe it or not, I'd like monthly paychecks as well. Literally all of my obligations are paid on a monthly basis, and I'm tired of the headache of my paychecks moving to whatever flippin' day of the month they feel like being on. I'd rather just get all my money on one day, and blast the auto pay to everyone a couple days after and just be done with it.

You know, I am 100% sure someone would say that is socialism. Or even communism. Just because it's standard procedure in "socialistic" Europe.

I listened to a podcast yesterday about how American taxes could be so much easier. A pilot program in California was done with "Ready Return" where all you had to do was review the FILLED out form the government sent you,  make any changes for additional income above your W2s and other streams of income the government was aware of, and mail it back. I'm all for this, as we're in the year 2019 and could have way better systems by now for taxes. But no, America, the land of the free, the country of "innovation", has less logic with taxes than most of Europe and Australia.

Call me a crazy liberal.

We've had this for a couple of years now in my country. Works perfectly. You just add any income the government isn't already aware of and add your deductibles.

I'm paid weekly as well and I dislike it too. I used to get paid monthly and almost all my bills were automatically withdrawn from my bank account in the same week. I would leave a set amount of spending money in my account and transfer everything else to savings/investments. Now I leave 1/4 of my spending money in my account every week and transfer money back from savings every time a bill needs to get paid. Well, it's still better than paying bills manually.

How is investment income handled? RSUs ESPPs, income generated in the HSA, etc are the time sucks in doing my taxes in the US.

Investment income isn't taxed as such. Instead we have a wealth tax - although I don't think anything tax with that name would ever work in the US, it's a pretty convenient system.

Total wealth is calculated by adding up all investment income, savings accounts, all property except for the one you live in, minus any debt (and pre-tax accounts are obviously not included). Then you pay a small amount of tax over the total wealth and that percentage goes up the more money you have: 0 over the first 25k per person, 0,5% over the next 75k to 1,6% over the part that's over 1 million. Dividends are taxed as well but domestic brokers pay them out net of taxes. You only need to keep track of dividends paid out through foreign brokers.

The percentages assume a stock market growth of 4-5% each year, so if you make more you're lucky, and some years you have bad luck.

This is true for all investments except when you own more than 5% of the shares in one company, you are then taxed as a company owner.

[Linea_Norway]

In Norway, the banks report all that stuff automatically. We can choose to ignore the tax form completely; if you don't make any changes before the deadline, the state will consider the automated version as correct. I like playing around with rules and regulations, and we have had some income and deductions related to selling stock photos that we need to report manually, so I do spend a few hours every end of April on our taxes. But more than half the population just ignore it, and the number is growing.

One of my credit card banks did not report my debt (the little debt at the end of the year that I put on the card the weeks before). The bank did inform the customers by mail. So I had to make a little change and add some more debt to my assets. Otherwise, unfortunately, I had nothing to change in my advantage, as it is often very correct.

[PMG]

I reserved an economy rental car for a (long drive) business trip.

When I went to pick up the car, all they had was an SUV so they "did me a favor" and I "got upgraded like 3 levels" to the SUV for free.

All I can think about is the 8 extra galloons of gas this beast will waste versus the nice 40mpg economy I wanted.  It also drove like a tank. I feel like I was supposed to be appreciative of the extra headroom or whatever it is that people casually rent SUVs for in the middle of a week in the summer.

When that happened to me I complained and they gave me a free tank of gas.

[GreenSheep]

I reserved an economy rental car for a (long drive) business trip.

When I went to pick up the car, all they had was an SUV so they "did me a favor" and I "got upgraded like 3 levels" to the SUV for free.

All I can think about is the 8 extra galloons of gas this beast will waste versus the nice 40mpg economy I wanted.  It also drove like a tank. I feel like I was supposed to be appreciative of the extra headroom or whatever it is that people casually rent SUVs for in the middle of a week in the summer.

When that happened to me I complained and they gave me a free tank of gas.

I'm going to have to try this! Not that a free tank of gas makes up for everything, but at least it's something. I get "upgraded" from an economy car fairly regularly... either to an SUV (it's just me and my carry-on in this thing, people!) or to some ridiculous sports car that I'm embarrassed to be seen in. I wish free flight upgrades were so frequent!