could you let me know where to get 8% on my money over 30 years.
I love when people make claims like this. You will end up spending the money not saving it. It will go into the general fund like everyone else. it comes to about $16 per month according to your calcs. will it help...yes by how much...very little. About as much as the stimulus plan....now that's a joke.
Hey! All I need to do is drop my income a bit to squeeze under the silly cutoff point and since I am current I can get my mortage redone at a sweet reduced rate.
I've heard of phantom power before, but didn't realize how big a chunk of my electric bill it could actually be. Thanks for the tips. I will definitely install some sort of control device so I can turn everything off at once.
- The paper shredder might be a good hiding place.
- A bag that's full of other bags might work.
- Mixed in with a pile of dirty laundry if it's tossed on the floor in a closet.
- Cash in a envelope can be taped to the upper wall of a small closet. The wall where the door(s) open is usually above someone's head and they won't bother to look up there unless it's a walk in closet and they actually walk in.
- Like someone else said, taped to the bottom of heavy furniture/appliances might work.
- Taped to the top of high cabinets if there's nothing else up there and no reason for a thief to be up there.
- If you have a bottom drawer on your stove that's for storage, tape an envelope to the back of it. Or maybe use an old dark crab pot that's stored in the drawer to hide small valuables. Then toss in a piece of dark fabric and cover with smaller pot or bowl lids.
- If you have a room for your furnace or hot water heater, it might be a good hiding place for an envelope or small valuables that are enclosed in a compact container.
For someone who lives in the Philippines, there are actually limited options we have regarding volunteer work. I hope you could also provide me additional info if you come across one. I also want to travel but have found it hard since i live on a budget. anyways, thanks again...
To pay out of pocket for my medications each month, would be over $600. Paying just copays on meds is less than $100. Is there a plan to cover perscriptions and catastrophic health needs? I pay $1,400 monthly for my fam of 3 insurance coversge (no dental or vision) through my small biz.
Doing the math: yearly we spend approx $400 for Dr visits and lab copays, $1,200 on copays for meds, $500 misc and the $16,000 premiums (am I missing anything).
Total with insurance: $19,100.
To pay out of pocket: $1,500 Dr/lab, $7,200 meds, $1,000 misc.
Total Without insurance: $9,700.
Can I get catastraphic insurance to cover any large medical costs foe less than $9,000--and just pay for the "normal medical" needs myself.
Is there any tax advantages paying through the company?
I guess that I am so desperate that I am begging for help. I have tried everything and I have not found any help at this time. I will not give up. I know that there is a kind hearted person that can step into my shoes and see themselves in this situation and think for the grace of God there goes I. One day you could find yourself in this situation and think how did this happen.This happened to us in 1994 my husband was in a terrible truck accident. He was on the very top of the load of his truck and the fork lift driver pushed one of the pallets and the pallet knocked my husband to the pavement below. He crushed his back and one foot. The doctor put steel screws and metal pins to hold his foot together and took bones from other parts of his body to replace the ones that were crushed.I am unable to work since 1986 when I found out that I have a severe illness called Fibromyalgia this disease attacks all my muscles,tentons and nerves though my whole body. I am in pain 24/7 all day and night. I also have no health insurance. So since 1994 we have been living off the funds from our saving account that is now is almost depleted.
This is happening to people every single day.I read many of these stories and my heart goes out to them. What can I do. If I should come into a large sum of money like winning the lottery I would help as many people as I could. I have alway's told my husband that I would like to help the homeless. I cannot believe in the richest country like ours that there are people sleeping in cardboard boxes. It is a shame and my heart breaks for them.
The car analogy doesn't correlate at all to the bailout. It is missing the main bone of contention which is: why did the car driver get in the accident in the first place? People are upset because, to extend Carrie's analogy, the driver of the vehicle was driving irresponsibly.
A better analogy would be to simply replace "mortgage bailout" with "luxury car" bailout. You have to ask yourself: "Would I tolerate a bailout for people who took out loans for a $75,000 luxury car last year?"
Home ownership is not guaranteed by the Constitution any more than car ownership. Foreclosure isn't the end of the world -- there is no shame in renting.
Reply to;
Actually, it is quite false
Submitted by Kathryn on January 31, 2008 - 05:04.
Actually, it is quite false that private schools, on average
I would really like to know where this person has recieved there information from ? I myself went to a Catholic private school up to 10th. grade when my parents swithed me to public school. I was so far ahead when I was in private school I had enough points to graduate in 10th grade public school?? Also 70% was passing in private school verses 60% passing in public school. Plus I had maybe 1 study hall in private school verses back to back study halls in public school. Plus Home schooled children tend to have HIGHER SAT scores than those in public school. I'm just talking from first hand knowledge.
Carrie, there is a difference in tax rates and how much money is actually paid. The "wealthy" already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes in this country in terms of dollar amount. So it is not totally truthful to say that they pay less than the middle class. There will be a lot of people who will get money back while paying no taxes under the Obama administration. Is that fair to the middle class who pay their taxes? Anyway, that's a totally different issue, but I think it is in line with what the Obama administration thinks is fair. Basically, those who are able to meet their financial obligations should contribute more to those who are less fortunate and or irresponsible.
I must say that I agree with helping those who are less fortunate to an extent, but to add so many spending programs that add to the nation's deficit to do it doesn't seem very wise. Also, I think a lot of people are just pissed off because this help for the delinquent is basically being shoved down their throats. If this were a proposition that was voted on by the general population I am pretty sure it would not pass.
Most of those in trouble are going to be a lot more than 5% underwater.
If your household has lost one income, it isn't going to matter that you can pay 2% for 5 years (or even 50 years) if your household relied on that income to service the mortgage.
I see people on the news reduced to nothing more than disability income thinking somehow they will be able to pay the mortgage on their 4 bedroom house.
Regardless of how hard they worked in the past, that simply is not going to happen.
I can imagine me desperately trying to apply first aid after a car accident and having my kids argue "No fair!" and "She got more than me!"
If you haven't noticed yet, the credit crisis is affecting all of us. The administration is trying to stem the bleeding. The banks don't WANT to foreclose on all these houses that are worth less than the loan money they were hoping to get back. The government is doing the BANKS a favor by trying to get more people to stay in their loans. To those who feel that the banks are losing money on this deal and will take it out on other customers, please remember that the banks are already losing money because they made a lot of foolish loans. This plan is trying to help them lose less, and even paying them to help themselves.
And Xin, I think it's very fair to return taxes on the wealthy back to the levels they were under the Clinton Administration. It was unfair for the Bush Admin to hand out tax breaks disproportionately to the wealthy. I especially welcome the change in capital gains tax. Because people in upper income brackets tend to get a large percentage of their income from capital gains, their tax rate is much lower than that of much poorer people. How is that fair? How is taxing middle and lower-income people more than rich people encouraging hard work?
Guest, I think it is not a bad thing to let values go down further. Here in San Mateo County the median home price is still nearly $500,000, but the median household income is a bit over $80,000. If you put 20% down on 500k your monthly mortgage + tax + insurance would still be around $3000 at the current low rates. It is unreasonable to pay nearly 50 to 80% of your income on shelter. If you are a renter now then it might be beneficial to you to let home values fall inline with your income. And if home values fall enough that it is cheaper than renting, then it is even better for you.
Why is it that "delinquent borrower" equates to irresponsibility? Like all stereotypes, this is an unfair characterization and oversimplification of the issue and people involved. I have been surprised and saddened by the stereotypes that have been perpetuated as a result of Obama's mortgage plan being released.
Why is it so easy to make assumptions and jump to hasty conclusions about the individuals and families that will be helped and receive relief as a result of the stimulus package? Surveys and statistics have consistently reflected the reality that most people are only a paycheck or two away from being homeless. Yes, in some cases, this is a result of fiscal irresponsibility, poor life choices and/or investment in maintaining material-based lifestyles. There are many more examples and cases of hardworking American people who have done the right things, been responsible and lived within their means, but are looking at losing their homes (or, have already lost them) due to layoffs/job eliminations, unexpected illness or life tragedies that have adversely impacted their ability to pay their bills, feed their families and make their mortgage payments.
For those people who have been no less responsible than those who have posted responses on this blog and elsewhere, Obama's plan will allow them to get back on their feet and continue to contribute to this country's economic and fiscal health. Obama's plan clearly stipulates that in order for delinquent borrowers to qualify for loan modifications or workout plans, they MUST be able to prove that they can start making their mortgage payments again. These people and their families should not be maligned or stereotyped - those that have worked hard, paid their bills on time and made double mortgage payments when possible, should not be penalized if their position of 20 years was eliminated, or they were unable to work for a period of time due to chronic illness or health conditions.
Bad things do happen to good people. Sometimes many bad things happen during a short period of time to good people - not all of these people purchased homes that were twice what they could afford. If there's a way for the significant population of people who have been responsible homeowners, but experienced unexpected adversity, to save their homes and their lives, should those solutions not be pursued? If you ask me, that doesn't make any sense.
Yes this plan does seem unfair for those who have actually been paying but still struggling. The fact of the matter is alot of these people got in over their heads, both the home owner and lender contributed to this. However, without the plan millions of more homes would go into foreclosure? What would be better, this bailout or letting all those homes go into foreclosure driving values down further? I rent as well right now but looking to buy my first place while prices and rates are low :)
@Jen: "You get what you pay for" depends on who you're specifically dealing with, so it isn't a useful generalization. There are cheap online glasses place which charge the same prices as other outlets but have markedly inferior quality. I once got $10 frames from Bangkok which were hideous-looking, but near-indestructible.
Thanks for the additional warning about anti-reflective coatings. The more firsthand experiences people share, the richer off we'll be.
Oh, no my family wouldn't receive any benefit. After all we bought a house in our price range with a mortgage we could easily afford. Why should our good behavior receive any recognition?
I don't think that the point is that Suze Orman and Oprah don't have to follow their own advice. What keeps the elite the elite is the fact that the rest of us are all in debt and paying massive amounts of interest.
How does Oprah benefit from me not being in debt? The answer to the question is: she doesn't. She doesn't make more money when I stop spending money. She doesn't sell magazines. Her corporate sponsors make less money and can't continue to pay high ad rates. So, ultimately, this advice is the opposite of self-serving.
What is self-serving is the constant barrage of banks sending indebted consumers pre-approved credit apps so that we will continue spending money that we don't have on crap we don't need so that we can pay them back with interest. That's self-serving.
2-4 unit buildings can qualify for owner occupied financing as long as the owner lives in one unit. That's how it always has been. Anything more than 4 units is a commercial property. I don't see a problem with helping responsible smalltime landlords refinance because renters need housing and a problem on the landlord's end could affect multiple families. However, I think that people should own up to their bad investment choice if they are unable to pay for their property. After all we are not getting a bailout for our stock market losses.
could you let me know where to get 8% on my money over 30 years.
I love when people make claims like this. You will end up spending the money not saving it. It will go into the general fund like everyone else. it comes to about $16 per month according to your calcs. will it help...yes by how much...very little. About as much as the stimulus plan....now that's a joke.
Hey! All I need to do is drop my income a bit to squeeze under the silly cutoff point and since I am current I can get my mortage redone at a sweet reduced rate.
Then I can simply bump up my income again.
I will just have to do a temp. John Galt!
Thanks suckers!
Kudos for this ingenius idea. It's a throwback to when things like the internet was something in science fiction novels.
It's bringing the community together, allowing creativity to flow, and you get to network with your neighbors.
I hope your experiment continues with success!
I never would have thought of the wireless modem. Thanks. And Nora? LOVE the new haircut! Very chic.
I've heard of phantom power before, but didn't realize how big a chunk of my electric bill it could actually be. Thanks for the tips. I will definitely install some sort of control device so I can turn everything off at once.
- The paper shredder might be a good hiding place.
- A bag that's full of other bags might work.
- Mixed in with a pile of dirty laundry if it's tossed on the floor in a closet.
- Cash in a envelope can be taped to the upper wall of a small closet. The wall where the door(s) open is usually above someone's head and they won't bother to look up there unless it's a walk in closet and they actually walk in.
- Like someone else said, taped to the bottom of heavy furniture/appliances might work.
- Taped to the top of high cabinets if there's nothing else up there and no reason for a thief to be up there.
- If you have a bottom drawer on your stove that's for storage, tape an envelope to the back of it. Or maybe use an old dark crab pot that's stored in the drawer to hide small valuables. Then toss in a piece of dark fabric and cover with smaller pot or bowl lids.
- If you have a room for your furnace or hot water heater, it might be a good hiding place for an envelope or small valuables that are enclosed in a compact container.
Oh dear, I didn't know a tiny LED standby light actually represents such a costly waste. Thanks for the tip.
Hi David!
For someone who lives in the Philippines, there are actually limited options we have regarding volunteer work. I hope you could also provide me additional info if you come across one. I also want to travel but have found it hard since i live on a budget. anyways, thanks again...
I'm on dial-up. (Yeah, I said it. lol)
This worked like a charm.
Thanks for the info. :o)
To pay out of pocket for my medications each month, would be over $600. Paying just copays on meds is less than $100. Is there a plan to cover perscriptions and catastrophic health needs? I pay $1,400 monthly for my fam of 3 insurance coversge (no dental or vision) through my small biz.
Doing the math: yearly we spend approx $400 for Dr visits and lab copays, $1,200 on copays for meds, $500 misc and the $16,000 premiums (am I missing anything).
Total with insurance: $19,100.
To pay out of pocket: $1,500 Dr/lab, $7,200 meds, $1,000 misc.
Total Without insurance: $9,700.
Can I get catastraphic insurance to cover any large medical costs foe less than $9,000--and just pay for the "normal medical" needs myself.
Is there any tax advantages paying through the company?
I guess that I am so desperate that I am begging for help. I have tried everything and I have not found any help at this time. I will not give up. I know that there is a kind hearted person that can step into my shoes and see themselves in this situation and think for the grace of God there goes I. One day you could find yourself in this situation and think how did this happen.This happened to us in 1994 my husband was in a terrible truck accident. He was on the very top of the load of his truck and the fork lift driver pushed one of the pallets and the pallet knocked my husband to the pavement below. He crushed his back and one foot. The doctor put steel screws and metal pins to hold his foot together and took bones from other parts of his body to replace the ones that were crushed.I am unable to work since 1986 when I found out that I have a severe illness called Fibromyalgia this disease attacks all my muscles,tentons and nerves though my whole body. I am in pain 24/7 all day and night. I also have no health insurance. So since 1994 we have been living off the funds from our saving account that is now is almost depleted.
This is happening to people every single day.I read many of these stories and my heart goes out to them. What can I do. If I should come into a large sum of money like winning the lottery I would help as many people as I could. I have alway's told my husband that I would like to help the homeless. I cannot believe in the richest country like ours that there are people sleeping in cardboard boxes. It is a shame and my heart breaks for them.
A few more examples:
--Paying a $2 ATM service charge on a $20 withdrawl (10%) because you don't have enough money in your account to withdraw larger amounts at a time.
--Paying higher rates for an SRO or motel because you can't afford a security deposit on a real apartment.
--Getting a root canal because you put off simple dental work.
--Buying a single bus pass instead of a 10-ride or commuter pass.
The car analogy doesn't correlate at all to the bailout. It is missing the main bone of contention which is: why did the car driver get in the accident in the first place? People are upset because, to extend Carrie's analogy, the driver of the vehicle was driving irresponsibly.
A better analogy would be to simply replace "mortgage bailout" with "luxury car" bailout. You have to ask yourself: "Would I tolerate a bailout for people who took out loans for a $75,000 luxury car last year?"
Home ownership is not guaranteed by the Constitution any more than car ownership. Foreclosure isn't the end of the world -- there is no shame in renting.
http://lenpenzo.com/blog/id518-im-just-askin-why-bother-being-fiscally-r...
Easy one first: #47 -- you cannot deduct income you did not receive. If you report on the accrual basis, then maybe an unpaid invoice is deductible.
Keeping track: http://www.smallbizsurvival.com/2008/05/easiest-accounting-system.html At this site (Small Biz Survival), we continually write about all things small biz.
Check us out.
Reply to;
Actually, it is quite false
Submitted by Kathryn on January 31, 2008 - 05:04.
Actually, it is quite false that private schools, on average
I would really like to know where this person has recieved there information from ? I myself went to a Catholic private school up to 10th. grade when my parents swithed me to public school. I was so far ahead when I was in private school I had enough points to graduate in 10th grade public school?? Also 70% was passing in private school verses 60% passing in public school. Plus I had maybe 1 study hall in private school verses back to back study halls in public school. Plus Home schooled children tend to have HIGHER SAT scores than those in public school. I'm just talking from first hand knowledge.
Carrie, there is a difference in tax rates and how much money is actually paid. The "wealthy" already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes in this country in terms of dollar amount. So it is not totally truthful to say that they pay less than the middle class. There will be a lot of people who will get money back while paying no taxes under the Obama administration. Is that fair to the middle class who pay their taxes? Anyway, that's a totally different issue, but I think it is in line with what the Obama administration thinks is fair. Basically, those who are able to meet their financial obligations should contribute more to those who are less fortunate and or irresponsible.
I must say that I agree with helping those who are less fortunate to an extent, but to add so many spending programs that add to the nation's deficit to do it doesn't seem very wise. Also, I think a lot of people are just pissed off because this help for the delinquent is basically being shoved down their throats. If this were a proposition that was voted on by the general population I am pretty sure it would not pass.
Most of those in trouble are going to be a lot more than 5% underwater.
If your household has lost one income, it isn't going to matter that you can pay 2% for 5 years (or even 50 years) if your household relied on that income to service the mortgage.
I see people on the news reduced to nothing more than disability income thinking somehow they will be able to pay the mortgage on their 4 bedroom house.
Regardless of how hard they worked in the past, that simply is not going to happen.
I can imagine me desperately trying to apply first aid after a car accident and having my kids argue "No fair!" and "She got more than me!"
If you haven't noticed yet, the credit crisis is affecting all of us. The administration is trying to stem the bleeding. The banks don't WANT to foreclose on all these houses that are worth less than the loan money they were hoping to get back. The government is doing the BANKS a favor by trying to get more people to stay in their loans. To those who feel that the banks are losing money on this deal and will take it out on other customers, please remember that the banks are already losing money because they made a lot of foolish loans. This plan is trying to help them lose less, and even paying them to help themselves.
And Xin, I think it's very fair to return taxes on the wealthy back to the levels they were under the Clinton Administration. It was unfair for the Bush Admin to hand out tax breaks disproportionately to the wealthy. I especially welcome the change in capital gains tax. Because people in upper income brackets tend to get a large percentage of their income from capital gains, their tax rate is much lower than that of much poorer people. How is that fair? How is taxing middle and lower-income people more than rich people encouraging hard work?
I blog at www.shopliftingwithpermission.com.
Guest, I think it is not a bad thing to let values go down further. Here in San Mateo County the median home price is still nearly $500,000, but the median household income is a bit over $80,000. If you put 20% down on 500k your monthly mortgage + tax + insurance would still be around $3000 at the current low rates. It is unreasonable to pay nearly 50 to 80% of your income on shelter. If you are a renter now then it might be beneficial to you to let home values fall inline with your income. And if home values fall enough that it is cheaper than renting, then it is even better for you.
Why is it that "delinquent borrower" equates to irresponsibility? Like all stereotypes, this is an unfair characterization and oversimplification of the issue and people involved. I have been surprised and saddened by the stereotypes that have been perpetuated as a result of Obama's mortgage plan being released.
Why is it so easy to make assumptions and jump to hasty conclusions about the individuals and families that will be helped and receive relief as a result of the stimulus package? Surveys and statistics have consistently reflected the reality that most people are only a paycheck or two away from being homeless. Yes, in some cases, this is a result of fiscal irresponsibility, poor life choices and/or investment in maintaining material-based lifestyles. There are many more examples and cases of hardworking American people who have done the right things, been responsible and lived within their means, but are looking at losing their homes (or, have already lost them) due to layoffs/job eliminations, unexpected illness or life tragedies that have adversely impacted their ability to pay their bills, feed their families and make their mortgage payments.
For those people who have been no less responsible than those who have posted responses on this blog and elsewhere, Obama's plan will allow them to get back on their feet and continue to contribute to this country's economic and fiscal health. Obama's plan clearly stipulates that in order for delinquent borrowers to qualify for loan modifications or workout plans, they MUST be able to prove that they can start making their mortgage payments again. These people and their families should not be maligned or stereotyped - those that have worked hard, paid their bills on time and made double mortgage payments when possible, should not be penalized if their position of 20 years was eliminated, or they were unable to work for a period of time due to chronic illness or health conditions.
Bad things do happen to good people. Sometimes many bad things happen during a short period of time to good people - not all of these people purchased homes that were twice what they could afford. If there's a way for the significant population of people who have been responsible homeowners, but experienced unexpected adversity, to save their homes and their lives, should those solutions not be pursued? If you ask me, that doesn't make any sense.
Yes this plan does seem unfair for those who have actually been paying but still struggling. The fact of the matter is alot of these people got in over their heads, both the home owner and lender contributed to this. However, without the plan millions of more homes would go into foreclosure? What would be better, this bailout or letting all those homes go into foreclosure driving values down further? I rent as well right now but looking to buy my first place while prices and rates are low :)
@Jen: "You get what you pay for" depends on who you're specifically dealing with, so it isn't a useful generalization. There are cheap online glasses place which charge the same prices as other outlets but have markedly inferior quality. I once got $10 frames from Bangkok which were hideous-looking, but near-indestructible.
Thanks for the additional warning about anti-reflective coatings. The more firsthand experiences people share, the richer off we'll be.
Oh, no my family wouldn't receive any benefit. After all we bought a house in our price range with a mortgage we could easily afford. Why should our good behavior receive any recognition?
I don't think that the point is that Suze Orman and Oprah don't have to follow their own advice. What keeps the elite the elite is the fact that the rest of us are all in debt and paying massive amounts of interest.
How does Oprah benefit from me not being in debt? The answer to the question is: she doesn't. She doesn't make more money when I stop spending money. She doesn't sell magazines. Her corporate sponsors make less money and can't continue to pay high ad rates. So, ultimately, this advice is the opposite of self-serving.
What is self-serving is the constant barrage of banks sending indebted consumers pre-approved credit apps so that we will continue spending money that we don't have on crap we don't need so that we can pay them back with interest. That's self-serving.
FrugalZen,
2-4 unit buildings can qualify for owner occupied financing as long as the owner lives in one unit. That's how it always has been. Anything more than 4 units is a commercial property. I don't see a problem with helping responsible smalltime landlords refinance because renters need housing and a problem on the landlord's end could affect multiple families. However, I think that people should own up to their bad investment choice if they are unable to pay for their property. After all we are not getting a bailout for our stock market losses.