I will make a point to post back tonite when I get home. It is enjoyable and educational to read what most of you post. Continue on.
Printable View
I will make a point to post back tonite when I get home. It is enjoyable and educational to read what most of you post. Continue on.
One thing I'd like to clear up, when banks start talking about making account charges they imply that, by looking after your money for you, they are providing you with a service that you should pay them for. This is a smoke screen. You are, in fact, providing them with a service. You are giving them large sums of money which they can invest in order to make more money. Only when you borrow money from them are they providing a service to you. That's the model the banking industry started out with (you have to go back to medievel times to find it's roots) and the suggestion that they are in any way doing you a favour by allowing you to open an account is a lie.
It's the same mentality that is currently being used to justify charging you to withdraw your money at a cash point. "Hey, we need to maintain these things so we can provide you with a better service", they say while failing to mention the fact that CashPoints were originally a way for them to save money because they could hire less tellers.
Chip and Pin is another lie. It's sold as a way of making your payments more secure - but not for you. If a fraudulent transaction was made against your acount due to a faked signiature it was the vendor's liability. Any other kind of fraud was the bank's liability. Now all the bank has to do is prove that you didn't take proper care of your pin, and the mere fact that someone else used it can be considered sufficient, and the liability is now yours. C&P has nothing to do with making the transaction more secure but has everything to do with shifting the liability from them to you.
I hate bankers. They lie constantly and I find their rhyming slang equivalent to bo wholly apt.
So....let me get this straight. Are you saying that when my bank told me that they were going to get all medieval on me, what they meant was, "we're going to stop charging you fees"?
I guess I should thank them.
In relation to the current "stock crash", I've recently heard an interesting theory.
The theory is that the crash was planned so that the Boomers wouldn't be able to retire. So I get to thinking about it, and there might be something to this. If every Boomer retired today, there is not nearly enough people around to replace them. You also have to think about the business and technical knowledge the Boomers have that has not been passed on to younger generations. Most companies can't afford for the Boomers to retire.
And then there's Social Security. If every Boomer started drawing that check, there is no way there are enough working people to pay the necessary taxes it would take. I remember when I got my first job years ago, I always thought the SS I was paying was for me when I got to retirement. When I got older though, I figured out that I was actually paying for people ALREADY retired. Huh? I came to realize that SS is probably the biggest Ponzi scheme the government has ever come up with. SS makes the Madoff case look like child's play.
On the issue of banks, I am in agreement that WE are doing the service by putting our money in there for them to loan to others and make money. And what do we get, 2% (if you're lucky) interest rates. Especially right now, since they are basically borrowing from the gov for 0%, they have the nerve to have such low interest rates on savings accounts. What a crock.
However, there is a service that can only be had by putting your money in a bank (or similar financial institution), and that is FDIC insurance. I'm not sure if you people have this across the pond, but the gov insures all deposit accounts up to $100k USD (the $250k limit expires Dec. 31) and all eligible retirement accounts (IRA's and such) are insured up to $250k. Of course this insurance is somewhat paltry if you have millions in a bank, but if you have that much money it should be spread out anyway.
It's also a lot safer to have your money in a bank than walking around with a wad of cash all the time. Just make sure your money is in a bank that's solvent, which readily eliminates most of the "big boys" like BoA & Citi.
Older workers tend to be paid more. Many companies prefer to offer early retirement to shuffle off the older workers. I don't think they are smart enough to make the calculations that you were expecting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blakk_Majik
This wouldn't be true if the SS actually functioned the way it had been set up. You aren't supposed to be paying directly into outfalls, but paying into a trust fund. The interest on the trust is supposed to pay SS. Had this been the way things worked, all would be well. Naturally, however, congress couldn't leave the trust fund alone, and has been swapping that money for IOUs pretty much since it began. Therefore, the capital of the trust fund, which should have allowed the fund to weather the rises and falls of population, isn't there. Nothing but a stack of IOUs. Congress is likely to honor those IOUs, since older people tend to vote at very high rates, and they strongly support SS, but the payments will come out of general funds (taxes) rather than the dedicated funds that should have handled the payouts.Quote:
I came to realize that SS is probably the biggest Ponzi scheme the government has ever come up with.
Most children out of wedlock are 'accidents'. I think there's a stigma already associated with that ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
Most of the divorced couples I know were all married in high school or directly after. All made the immediate decision (without much though) to have kids once married. So the best part of their life was spent dealing with the complications of marriage and the unexpected work of having children. Needless to say, they quickly found out that marriage and kids aren't a walk in the park and not something they were ready for. They also found out that the high school dating game is totally different than having to pay bills with someone. All found out very soon in their marriage they never had true love for their significant other. Then came divorce... Now the kids of these parents are practically raised by grandparents because both the mother and father want to go out, have fun, travel, and hang out with friends - something they should have been doing during the best part of their life.Quote:
Why is the idea of a happy family crumbling?
People just need to think things through and stop making life altering decisions so quick. I can't imagine being married that young let alone having kids immediately without much though. I would think you should live with someone for a couple of years before having kids so you can experience life, get things in order, advance your career, etc. Of course, there are couples who made it just fine doing the opposite, so my personal opinion is just that - a personal opinion. If people choose to get married and have kids early on in their life, then that's their choice. I just don't think it's a wise one.
And some children that were had IN wedlock are "accidents" too....Quote:
Most children out of wedlock are 'accidents'.
-tg