My family and I have been shopping at our local Goodwill for years. We live in a very wealthy area. Fortunately for us, items donated at our local store are also sold at our local store. We routinely find high-end, name brand clothing for $2.00 or less. Case and point... I just purchased a pair of Abercrombie jeans (with the original tags still on them) for my son at a cost of only $1.50.
I get so jealous of people who find great things in thrift stores. I use to find great things, but it seems in the last few years the prices have soared to more than I want to pay.
I have seen kids clothes from Target for more than they cost new in the store. The ultimate high price I saw was a milk bottle in a thrift store. It had a $10 price ticket on it, however, it is the same milk bottle you can get from a nearby milk store. Yes they charge a deposit, but that deposit is nowhere near $10. To me it is a symbol of the high prices thrift stores are charging for everyday items. Maybe the high prices are because I live in a small college town, but the two schools in this town cost more for a years tuition than I make in a year. However, if i am willing to pay those higher prices I can get some trendy brand name clothes for my teenagers that would cost more if purchased from the stores.
E.T. Cook, you've spent a number of replies on explaining why you object to the general use of the word 'evil'. However, you have not gone on to explain why you believe the word 'evil' does not apply to the examples listed in this article.
Though I hesitate to encourage you to continue to vent in these replies, I think it would be much more interesting if you posted your specific defense of what most would consider at the least to be unethical business practices. If you spend such a great deal of time and energy on tearing apart the writer himself and the wording of the article, it makes it look more like you are just angry and vitriolic for the sake of being angry. After all, shouldn't it give a person pause to realize that they are defending exploitative, dangerous, or manipulative behaviors? I am curious to know how you justify this.
My mom, her sisters, and their mother swear by this thrift store in Portland, OR. I don;t know the name of it, but the sell everything by the pound. They've picked up furniture, gardening supplies, clothing, you name it.
In the past I've always tried to shop the thrift stores in expensive neighborhoods, though with the price of gas climbing I don't do this as often (prime areas are 20 miles or 40 miles away in opposite directions). I hadn't thought about the retirement center angle. Thanks for the tip!
Are you kidding? I'm not giving up my sources! I've found wayyy too many good things there!!
BUT, hands-down our best score so far came from an estate sale down the street. The woman's family was practically giving everything away, which was very depressing to me, but we got so much great stuff that would have cost hundreds, even at a thrift store.
First of all, you need to stop using the term evil. It is so sensationalistic that it degrades your post to that of hyperbole. I honestly see your post as pandering for remuneration, which would explain your writing style as well. You are like the crazy guy at the street corner preaching about the evils of the world, and the judgment that will soon follow.
Many might consider your own actions as "evil". Taking advantage of people who need your advice the most. So where do these differences in perspective get acknowledged? You apply your own bastardized sense of morality, and narcissistically apply it around you...and to what end? What did you hope to accomplish? The ironic part of this whole discussion is that the purpose of your post was a garner income. Proselytize for money, you sound like a televangelist.
Your post is rife with hubris. Stop applying your standards of ethics and morality, which you violate yourself, on others.
Instead, why don't you write another post. A post about how your life can be rich, even without being fiscally wealthy? Rich in friends. Rich in love. Rich in experiences. Rich in interests. You have categorically rendered the entire world's existence as being judged on monetary terms. Who is the one truly most evil?
Actually, in that very interview you link he says:
"BARTIROMO: A hundred million Americans own stocks today.
Sen. OBAMA: Absolutely.
BARTIROMO: So it's not just the rich.
Sen. OBAMA: No, no, no, absolutely. And that's why I think that it may be, for example, that you could structure something in which people with certain incomes were exempted from this increase and it would stay at 15. The broader principle that I'm interested in is just making sure that we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans."
(Incidentally, in that interview, he does NOT say he wants to raise taxes on people with $75,000 incomes, but that he wants to raise the top rate and that only those with incomes under $75K would get a *cut*: "Well, you know, what I've said is that we should go back to probably a top marginal rate of 39 percent what it was before the Bush tax cuts. So I would roll back those Bush tax cuts, I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less.")
And besides that particular interview, he has been more clear in other interviews and on his website about what he means by wealthy, ie $250K or more a year:
"OBAMA: So the general principle of raising taxes on higher-income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think, is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades." (CNBC, June 10th, cited at http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006)
On his website he quotes the above interview and also states "Barack Obama Will Only Raise Taxes for Those Earning Over $250,000 Per Year."
Yes, there is always the chance someone will flip-flop once they get into office, but it seems like he is not being at all ambiguous right now about what he is planning.
Obama know's that in this country you really have to be careful when messing around with the income of folks in the 150,000 to 300,000 bracket. Lot's of these people are true believers in the "meritocracy," and they actually think they are part of the middle class (even though they make up a tiny percentage of total households in the U.S.), and scream bloody murder if you go after their income. Why do you think his proposed Social Security payroll tax increase only kicks in above 250,000? This leaves a nice donut hole in the 100,000 to 250,000 range where peaple can max out their S contributions and get a pay bump heading towards Christmas. My wife is a doctor and we always get a 600$ bump or so a month starting about September thanks to the current contribution cap.
I think he's gambling that the majority of people in this pay range also won't scream about the (in my opinion) much needed capital gains increase, which will affect this income group far less.
He also said he will raise the ordinary income taxes for people making more than $75k a year in this particular interview. I hear his definition of upper class change all the time from interview to interview.
He doesn't have to be a liar to change his proposal. In some of the interviews I heard he said that he is still hammering things out. So I don't think I am confused to expect tax hikes for the middle class, just cautious.
Additionally, you are ignoring the market effect this tax hike will have on everyday people's 401ks and IRAS. If the big guys suddenly sell a bunch of stuff because they no longer want to be invested in the stock market, then a lot of people will see their investments fall. So sure, you can easily believe that it's only a tax on the rich, but the impact of the move on millions of retirement portfolios would be more hurtful than just a tax hike.
That is, I agree that people can get rich without being evil (as I think I said several times in my article).
I'd be really interested in a proper study that looks at how much wealth depends on the production of negative externalities. My own experiences are obviously skewed by who I know and where I've lived, which means that the don't amount to a proper study. Still, my own experiences (and what I've read) are what I have to go by--and my experience and reading suggest that although it's pretty easy to become moderately wealthy--terms like "financially secure" or "quite well-off" come to mind--it's hard to become really rich any other way.
I'm not saying you can't get really rich without being evil; I just don't know anyone who's done so. And I know that you can become "millionaire next-door" rich simply by working hard and being frugal--but it takes decades (unless you're either very well paid indeed or else extraordinarily frugal), and you'll never be really rich, unless you live a long time and stay frugal right to the end.
You obviously don't understand how numbers can be massaged and manipulated to say whatever you want to say. Because they can, there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
You may be a smart guy. But stick to stuff you know. And be honest. I am still irked that you posted political mongering under the guise of personal finance.
Madison, WI has a fantastic St. Vincent De Paul thrift store. You can find almost-new clothing that's still in style, quirky vintage stuff, furniture and sometimes bicycles in good condition, and barely-used small appliances. (We got a fantastic waffle iron there for all of $3.) It's not a great place to go looking for home decor, but it more than makes up for this in other ways.
I think that a local ethic committed to recycling and reusing, as well as a combination of a large proportion of well-off academic types and financially strapped graduate students, contributes to making the Willy Street St. Vinnie's what it is. It probably helps that it's in the "hippie neighborhood", down the street from the Co-op grocery store and a bunch of quirky restaurants and coffee shops.
Your conclusion demonstrates a very limiting belief.
Many, many, many people get rich financial by doing good. They do so by contributing to others rather than taking from them.
In economics terms the thrust of your argument focuses on externatlies. You speak primarily of external costs. There are also external benefits.
The economic pie is not a stagnant size. By doing business in ways that contribute to others and the environment, you enlarge the size of the pie. In the end, everyone gets more.
"The taxes on $100k of gains would be $28k as long as the retiree falls within the 28% capital gains bracket. It's simple math really. Additionally I'd like to make it clear that you don't need a lot of income to fall into the highest capital gains tax bracket. In fact, your top income tax bracket only has to be 25%."
I think you're getting things confused. Currently, today, if you're in the 25% income tax bracket or above then you pay the highest capital gains tax, 15% (or to say it a different way, people in the top four income tax brackets all pay the same capital gains tax of 15%.) But what on earth does that have to do with who would pay 28% under proposed tax changes?
The only reason to expect that Obama would raise the capital gains tax rate on people earning $32000 a year is if you're flat-out calling him a liar-- he's clearly said he wants it to apply to just the wealthiest people and not the middle class.
I have been getting expensive work clothes at a suburban Goodwill for years. I pickup $70.00 wool dress pants from $1.00 - $5.00. They cool thing is a dry cleaner is across the street from this Goodwill and they make "donations" if someone does not pick up their dry cleaning after a certain amount of time.
Thank you for the great tips! I thought as a 30yrplus veteran I knew it all - nope. Retirement homes:brilliant. There is one nearby my Goodwill shop,IMHO, a good shop. As a regular with my husband, I can ask 'Can you do a little better? And once in a while they will go down slightly. Another idea is to shop in wealthy areas. I have gotten clothes brand new, or worn gently, and with dry cleaner tags, at a fraction of the price.
There's one in Burbank and Culver City. I don't think you can negotiate too much, but the finds are superb! All the clothes are from movies or TV shows, so the sizes tend to run from small to extra small, but some very cool stuff.
I haven't found really good thrift stores in my area and am pretty much limited to Salvation Army. But at a tag sale a few years ago I got a beautiful black leather coat in perfect condition for 50 cents!
You can use your freezer for jacking--it's just not free, the way it is if you wait for overnight freezing temperatures.
As I described, though, it's not really the same thing as distilling:
First, you can't get the alcohol content nearly as high as you can by distilling.
Second, distilling has the effect of separating the alcohol from whatever might be left behind (unused sugar, etc.), whereas jacking has the effect of concentrating those things. Depending on the effect you're going for, that may be good or bad.
As you say, though, jacking is easier--no still to build, nothing that might blow up if you do it wrong. Plus, it's legal.
My 5 year old daughter was given last week the bought moon sand for her birthday (the animalia one) and she was very frustrated in that what ever she made just fell apart within seconds. She used the molding tools and I helped her, but as we tried to stand the molded sand up just as they show in the picture on the packet it fell apart.
The packet says not to add water. But after reading all the above suggestions I am inclined to add 1 tablespoon at a time till it sticks more proberly. Any suggestions anyone.
I am just very hesitant addding water as the packet says not to. Karen
My family and I have been shopping at our local Goodwill for years. We live in a very wealthy area. Fortunately for us, items donated at our local store are also sold at our local store. We routinely find high-end, name brand clothing for $2.00 or less. Case and point... I just purchased a pair of Abercrombie jeans (with the original tags still on them) for my son at a cost of only $1.50.
I get so jealous of people who find great things in thrift stores. I use to find great things, but it seems in the last few years the prices have soared to more than I want to pay.
I have seen kids clothes from Target for more than they cost new in the store. The ultimate high price I saw was a milk bottle in a thrift store. It had a $10 price ticket on it, however, it is the same milk bottle you can get from a nearby milk store. Yes they charge a deposit, but that deposit is nowhere near $10. To me it is a symbol of the high prices thrift stores are charging for everyday items. Maybe the high prices are because I live in a small college town, but the two schools in this town cost more for a years tuition than I make in a year. However, if i am willing to pay those higher prices I can get some trendy brand name clothes for my teenagers that would cost more if purchased from the stores.
@E.T.Cook:
Thanks for your thoughts on possible topics for future posts! I've actually written a couple of posts on pretty closely related topics.
On the subject of a life rich in friends (and other connections), you might be interested in:
http://www.wisebread.com/how-to-be-happy
On the topic of a life rich in experiences (rather than stuff), you might be interested in:
http://www.wisebread.com/how-much-are-memories-worth
Thanks, too, for all your comments--it's a richer comment thread with your comments in it.
E.T. Cook, you've spent a number of replies on explaining why you object to the general use of the word 'evil'. However, you have not gone on to explain why you believe the word 'evil' does not apply to the examples listed in this article.
Though I hesitate to encourage you to continue to vent in these replies, I think it would be much more interesting if you posted your specific defense of what most would consider at the least to be unethical business practices. If you spend such a great deal of time and energy on tearing apart the writer himself and the wording of the article, it makes it look more like you are just angry and vitriolic for the sake of being angry. After all, shouldn't it give a person pause to realize that they are defending exploitative, dangerous, or manipulative behaviors? I am curious to know how you justify this.
My mom, her sisters, and their mother swear by this thrift store in Portland, OR. I don;t know the name of it, but the sell everything by the pound. They've picked up furniture, gardening supplies, clothing, you name it.
In the past I've always tried to shop the thrift stores in expensive neighborhoods, though with the price of gas climbing I don't do this as often (prime areas are 20 miles or 40 miles away in opposite directions). I hadn't thought about the retirement center angle. Thanks for the tip!
Are you kidding? I'm not giving up my sources! I've found wayyy too many good things there!!
BUT, hands-down our best score so far came from an estate sale down the street. The woman's family was practically giving everything away, which was very depressing to me, but we got so much great stuff that would have cost hundreds, even at a thrift store.
We're pretty much set for a while now. ;)
First of all, you need to stop using the term evil. It is so sensationalistic that it degrades your post to that of hyperbole. I honestly see your post as pandering for remuneration, which would explain your writing style as well. You are like the crazy guy at the street corner preaching about the evils of the world, and the judgment that will soon follow.
Many might consider your own actions as "evil". Taking advantage of people who need your advice the most. So where do these differences in perspective get acknowledged? You apply your own bastardized sense of morality, and narcissistically apply it around you...and to what end? What did you hope to accomplish? The ironic part of this whole discussion is that the purpose of your post was a garner income. Proselytize for money, you sound like a televangelist.
Your post is rife with hubris. Stop applying your standards of ethics and morality, which you violate yourself, on others.
Instead, why don't you write another post. A post about how your life can be rich, even without being fiscally wealthy? Rich in friends. Rich in love. Rich in experiences. Rich in interests. You have categorically rendered the entire world's existence as being judged on monetary terms. Who is the one truly most evil?
But hey...whatever makes you a dollar right?
Oh, wretched God, you have bestowed upon me someone that dares mock my presence. Whatever shall I do?
I'll live. Trust me. Good contribution though!
Actually, in that very interview you link he says:
"BARTIROMO: A hundred million Americans own stocks today.
Sen. OBAMA: Absolutely.
BARTIROMO: So it's not just the rich.
Sen. OBAMA: No, no, no, absolutely. And that's why I think that it may be, for example, that you could structure something in which people with certain incomes were exempted from this increase and it would stay at 15. The broader principle that I'm interested in is just making sure that we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans."
(Incidentally, in that interview, he does NOT say he wants to raise taxes on people with $75,000 incomes, but that he wants to raise the top rate and that only those with incomes under $75K would get a *cut*: "Well, you know, what I've said is that we should go back to probably a top marginal rate of 39 percent what it was before the Bush tax cuts. So I would roll back those Bush tax cuts, I would not increase taxes for middle class Americans and in fact I want to provide a tax cut for people who are making $75,000 a year or less.")
And besides that particular interview, he has been more clear in other interviews and on his website about what he means by wealthy, ie $250K or more a year:
"OBAMA: So the general principle of raising taxes on higher-income Americans like myself, and providing relief to those who haven't benefited as much from this new global economy, I think, is a sound one. And keep in mind on all of these proposals, what I have said is, let's make sure that we define the well-off so that we're not hitting the middle class. I generally define well-off as people who are making $250,000 a year or more, and that means, for example, if we raise the capital gains tax, I would exempt people who are essentially small investors, and really capture the -- those who have done very, very well over the last two decades." (CNBC, June 10th, cited at http://mediamatters.org/items/200806120006)
On his website he quotes the above interview and also states "Barack Obama Will Only Raise Taxes for Those Earning Over $250,000 Per Year."
Yes, there is always the chance someone will flip-flop once they get into office, but it seems like he is not being at all ambiguous right now about what he is planning.
Obama know's that in this country you really have to be careful when messing around with the income of folks in the 150,000 to 300,000 bracket. Lot's of these people are true believers in the "meritocracy," and they actually think they are part of the middle class (even though they make up a tiny percentage of total households in the U.S.), and scream bloody murder if you go after their income. Why do you think his proposed Social Security payroll tax increase only kicks in above 250,000? This leaves a nice donut hole in the 100,000 to 250,000 range where peaple can max out their S contributions and get a pay bump heading towards Christmas. My wife is a doctor and we always get a 600$ bump or so a month starting about September thanks to the current contribution cap.
I think he's gambling that the majority of people in this pay range also won't scream about the (in my opinion) much needed capital gains increase, which will affect this income group far less.
Actually I don't think he was very clear about only raising the capital gains taxes on the rich. For example, in this interview he doesn't really mention it: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Obama_talks_capgains_rate_wi...
He also said he will raise the ordinary income taxes for people making more than $75k a year in this particular interview. I hear his definition of upper class change all the time from interview to interview.
He doesn't have to be a liar to change his proposal. In some of the interviews I heard he said that he is still hammering things out. So I don't think I am confused to expect tax hikes for the middle class, just cautious.
Additionally, you are ignoring the market effect this tax hike will have on everyday people's 401ks and IRAS. If the big guys suddenly sell a bunch of stuff because they no longer want to be invested in the stock market, then a lot of people will see their investments fall. So sure, you can easily believe that it's only a tax on the rich, but the impact of the move on millions of retirement portfolios would be more hurtful than just a tax hike.
Are you stupid? Why should a company be responsible for their customers throwing away trash inappropriately?
That is, I agree that people can get rich without being evil (as I think I said several times in my article).
I'd be really interested in a proper study that looks at how much wealth depends on the production of negative externalities. My own experiences are obviously skewed by who I know and where I've lived, which means that the don't amount to a proper study. Still, my own experiences (and what I've read) are what I have to go by--and my experience and reading suggest that although it's pretty easy to become moderately wealthy--terms like "financially secure" or "quite well-off" come to mind--it's hard to become really rich any other way.
I'm not saying you can't get really rich without being evil; I just don't know anyone who's done so. And I know that you can become "millionaire next-door" rich simply by working hard and being frugal--but it takes decades (unless you're either very well paid indeed or else extraordinarily frugal), and you'll never be really rich, unless you live a long time and stay frugal right to the end.
You obviously don't understand how numbers can be massaged and manipulated to say whatever you want to say. Because they can, there is no grounds for a lawsuit.
You may be a smart guy. But stick to stuff you know. And be honest. I am still irked that you posted political mongering under the guise of personal finance.
Madison, WI has a fantastic St. Vincent De Paul thrift store. You can find almost-new clothing that's still in style, quirky vintage stuff, furniture and sometimes bicycles in good condition, and barely-used small appliances. (We got a fantastic waffle iron there for all of $3.) It's not a great place to go looking for home decor, but it more than makes up for this in other ways.
I think that a local ethic committed to recycling and reusing, as well as a combination of a large proportion of well-off academic types and financially strapped graduate students, contributes to making the Willy Street St. Vinnie's what it is. It probably helps that it's in the "hippie neighborhood", down the street from the Co-op grocery store and a bunch of quirky restaurants and coffee shops.
Your conclusion demonstrates a very limiting belief.
Many, many, many people get rich financial by doing good. They do so by contributing to others rather than taking from them.
In economics terms the thrust of your argument focuses on externatlies. You speak primarily of external costs. There are also external benefits.
The economic pie is not a stagnant size. By doing business in ways that contribute to others and the environment, you enlarge the size of the pie. In the end, everyone gets more.
"The taxes on $100k of gains would be $28k as long as the retiree falls within the 28% capital gains bracket. It's simple math really. Additionally I'd like to make it clear that you don't need a lot of income to fall into the highest capital gains tax bracket. In fact, your top income tax bracket only has to be 25%."
I think you're getting things confused. Currently, today, if you're in the 25% income tax bracket or above then you pay the highest capital gains tax, 15% (or to say it a different way, people in the top four income tax brackets all pay the same capital gains tax of 15%.) But what on earth does that have to do with who would pay 28% under proposed tax changes?
The only reason to expect that Obama would raise the capital gains tax rate on people earning $32000 a year is if you're flat-out calling him a liar-- he's clearly said he wants it to apply to just the wealthiest people and not the middle class.
I have been getting expensive work clothes at a suburban Goodwill for years. I pickup $70.00 wool dress pants from $1.00 - $5.00. They cool thing is a dry cleaner is across the street from this Goodwill and they make "donations" if someone does not pick up their dry cleaning after a certain amount of time.
Thank you for the great tips! I thought as a 30yrplus veteran I knew it all - nope. Retirement homes:brilliant. There is one nearby my Goodwill shop,IMHO, a good shop. As a regular with my husband, I can ask 'Can you do a little better? And once in a while they will go down slightly. Another idea is to shop in wealthy areas. I have gotten clothes brand new, or worn gently, and with dry cleaner tags, at a fraction of the price.
happy shopping!
There's one in Burbank and Culver City. I don't think you can negotiate too much, but the finds are superb! All the clothes are from movies or TV shows, so the sizes tend to run from small to extra small, but some very cool stuff.
I haven't found really good thrift stores in my area and am pretty much limited to Salvation Army. But at a tag sale a few years ago I got a beautiful black leather coat in perfect condition for 50 cents!
@ET: I'm laughing at you, not with you.
Good to have you back
You can use your freezer for jacking--it's just not free, the way it is if you wait for overnight freezing temperatures.
As I described, though, it's not really the same thing as distilling:
First, you can't get the alcohol content nearly as high as you can by distilling.
Second, distilling has the effect of separating the alcohol from whatever might be left behind (unused sugar, etc.), whereas jacking has the effect of concentrating those things. Depending on the effect you're going for, that may be good or bad.
As you say, though, jacking is easier--no still to build, nothing that might blow up if you do it wrong. Plus, it's legal.
My 5 year old daughter was given last week the bought moon sand for her birthday (the animalia one) and she was very frustrated in that what ever she made just fell apart within seconds. She used the molding tools and I helped her, but as we tried to stand the molded sand up just as they show in the picture on the packet it fell apart.
The packet says not to add water. But after reading all the above suggestions I am inclined to add 1 tablespoon at a time till it sticks more proberly. Any suggestions anyone.
I am just very hesitant addding water as the packet says not to. Karen