While rushing through my shopping, I noticed something odd at Sam's Club: I don't hate it any more. (See my post "Why I Dislike Warehouse Shopping" for reference)
I've noticed a DEFINITE improvement over the old days--carts are no longer filled to overflowing with village-sized portions of junk foods, and flatbeds loaded with cases of crap that would choke a dentist upon sight of it. Today, I saw around me carts that were only half-full or less (unusual being that everyone who gets paid on the 1st got paid yesterday), and these carts had mostly packaged salad greens and fresh produce. Here and there were cartons of eggs, packages of meat, gallons of milk, bags of nuts and dried fruit, and loaves of bread, but gone are the cases of candy, boxes of lunchbox-sized chips and cookies, cases of snack bars, and most heartening of all, not nearly as much bottled water adorned the cart bottom racks.
The only flatbeds I could see were loaded with electronics and stuff that otherwise wouldn't fit into a cart (cases of TP, packages of paper towels, etc.).
I don't know if this is because people are getting the "you are what you eat" message, or if this is due to the recession. I don't really care--just as long as they keep it up!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
An Interesting Day Today
This is why I haven't posted much for this date--I had the opportunity to go check out some houses that were part of a large foreclosure auction (a national place called REDC--United Foreclosures Inc.). We got up early, left early, got grocery shopping out of the way, and off we went hoping to find something other than what we've been drowning in on the MLS.
It turns out these houses were just more of the substandard tear-down fodder that exists currently on the MLS, but these particular homes were previously outside my price range--no WONDER I hadn't seen them before!
This is the real estate market equivalent to a "liquidation sale." I'm glad we took the time to check out these places NOW, before we could've gotten stuck with one of these lulus thinking it was a huge housing bargain.
These h0omes in particular were overpriced on the MLS (I looked them up), and they're still overpriced at the minimum $1000 bid in my opinion--sure, you can get them for $1000 or whatever the winning bid is, but these houses would take about $100k more to get them up to current liveability, building code, and for a bank to take a chance on financing. As it was, none of these houses was eligible for financing--they were cash & carry.
Let this be a tip for you out there looking to buy a house: NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BANK FINANCING should be a huge red flag that there is a whole lot more wrong with this house than meets the eye.
Well, after today's little jaunt, it turns out we're saving ourselves time and money by skipping this auction altogether (in Richmond, VA on March 12)and simply waiting for better houses to fall down into our price range.
It turns out these houses were just more of the substandard tear-down fodder that exists currently on the MLS, but these particular homes were previously outside my price range--no WONDER I hadn't seen them before!
This is the real estate market equivalent to a "liquidation sale." I'm glad we took the time to check out these places NOW, before we could've gotten stuck with one of these lulus thinking it was a huge housing bargain.
These h0omes in particular were overpriced on the MLS (I looked them up), and they're still overpriced at the minimum $1000 bid in my opinion--sure, you can get them for $1000 or whatever the winning bid is, but these houses would take about $100k more to get them up to current liveability, building code, and for a bank to take a chance on financing. As it was, none of these houses was eligible for financing--they were cash & carry.
Let this be a tip for you out there looking to buy a house: NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BANK FINANCING should be a huge red flag that there is a whole lot more wrong with this house than meets the eye.
Well, after today's little jaunt, it turns out we're saving ourselves time and money by skipping this auction altogether (in Richmond, VA on March 12)and simply waiting for better houses to fall down into our price range.
Friday, February 27, 2009
*Update* to "It Begins...Again"
From the original: A man names Walter Zimmerman of United I-Cap Analytics says the combined simultaneous collapsing markets (stock/bond, real estate, and commodities) have served to throw us into Depression territory. We have crossed the threshold, even if you won’t hear anything about it from the media or the powers that be. The stimulus and omnibus spending doesn't help matters here, and expansions of government spending is just getting started.
That was the first warning bell. The second was sounded on CNBC today when a Kevin Ferry of Cronus Futures Management (video link from CNBC doesn't have the "Flush Day" discussion-it has the TITLE, but not the actual discussion) spoke about Flush Day. To him, Flush Day is when the stock market, bond market, and commodities (except gold) all simultaneously sink into irretrievable territory (isn't that pretty much the same thing Walter Zimmerman said?). This is happening now.
One more strike and we're out, boys and girls. We're likely to stay that way for the remainder of Obama's term in office--especially the way he's organizing his community of have-not slaves for Uncle Sam's Plantation.
The e-mail someone recently sent to the White House showing a watermelon patch in the front lawn (on TV) with an announcement of a cancellation of the Easter Egg Hunt was more accurate than anybody knows, yet nobody seems to be able to get past the racial stereotype to see the deeper meaning.
That was the first warning bell. The second was sounded on CNBC today when a Kevin Ferry of Cronus Futures Management (video link from CNBC doesn't have the "Flush Day" discussion-it has the TITLE, but not the actual discussion) spoke about Flush Day. To him, Flush Day is when the stock market, bond market, and commodities (except gold) all simultaneously sink into irretrievable territory (isn't that pretty much the same thing Walter Zimmerman said?). This is happening now.
One more strike and we're out, boys and girls. We're likely to stay that way for the remainder of Obama's term in office--especially the way he's organizing his community of have-not slaves for Uncle Sam's Plantation.
The e-mail someone recently sent to the White House showing a watermelon patch in the front lawn (on TV) with an announcement of a cancellation of the Easter Egg Hunt was more accurate than anybody knows, yet nobody seems to be able to get past the racial stereotype to see the deeper meaning.
This Just In: Is Housing REALLY In a Downward Spiral?
I saw a shocking and educational video on Glenn Beck last night about the truth of the housing downturn--it ain't NEARLY as bad as peop0le would have you believe! Watch this video and see for yourself (pay close attention toward the end--you see just how much farther we have to fall before it becomes a "downward spiral").
This video makes the "downward spiral" more of an expectations problem on the part of everyone involved in making money from housing, rather than a societal problem.
This video makes the "downward spiral" more of an expectations problem on the part of everyone involved in making money from housing, rather than a societal problem.
Is Libertarianism a Sign of Mental Illness? Harvard Says YES
From the Cato Institute.
Apparently the uber-liberal bastion of knowledge thinks anyone who can do or think for themselves is mentally ill, and they're having a conference to discuss it.
Can you see who's REALLY mentally ill here? With all their brain power, this is the best they can come up with?
Why again is their institution held in such high regard among society?
Apparently the uber-liberal bastion of knowledge thinks anyone who can do or think for themselves is mentally ill, and they're having a conference to discuss it.
Can you see who's REALLY mentally ill here? With all their brain power, this is the best they can come up with?
Why again is their institution held in such high regard among society?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
And So It Begins…Again
My last article about “and so it begins” chapter 1.
Now we begin with Chapter 2—The Greatest Depression of Them All
Congressional Democrats have learned how to make an end-run around Obama, judging by the omnibus spending bill the House just passed. Now if only we could rely on the Senate to block it, or for him to NOT sign it…but I digress.
A man names Walter Zimmerman of United I-Cap Analytics says the combined simultaneous collapsing markets (stock/bond, real estate, and commodities) have served to throw us into Depression territory. We have crossed the threshold, even if you won’t hear anything about it from the media or the powers that be. The stimulus and omnibus spending doesn't help matters here, and expansions of government spending is just getting started.
Did you ever wonder how all of a sudden Big Leaguers are coming out of the woodwork to have Obama spew sunshine and daisies at the podium from now on every time he speaks publicly? It’s more wool-pulling over our eyes again, as usual.
We are there. We have hit the Big “D”. It’s all downhill from here, no matter what spending attempts are made to slow down or stop it. Walter has rung the bell. If you didn’t see it on Glenn Beck’s show, here it is.
It would seem Obama is using the knowledge and information from the last Depression as an instruction manual for this one, instead of learning what NOT to do to re-create one.
Do you feel like you’re in a Depression? Has anything changed for you since yesterday or the day before? For those of you doing just fine, the fun’s about to begin—deflation like there’s no tomorrow. Deflation will bring us much lower prices, because now nobody will buy until they feel prices can’t get any lower—like trying to catch a falling knife (only the stupid would try). We will all stand back and let someone else go first.
For more on how it begins again, see the latest spending bill and budget proposal—in them, you’ll find:
1. Intentions for our retirement plans.
2. Intentions for health care, whether we need it or not.
3. Intentions for industry and our environment, whether we need them or not.
4. Intention for education, for good or not.
Plus loads more.
You’re probably also getting wind of potential rollbacks on our Constitution-given and Amendments-given rights, starting with the First and Second. All this is in addition to the stimulus spending now under way.
You’ll be hearing more and more about a GLOBAL NEW DEAL (courtesy of global institutions like the U.N., the G-7, the IMF, etc.) where everybody on the planet will be subjected to the same crap we were back in the 30’s and 40’s, and again today. Worldwide wealth will be redistributed so nobody will be rich and nobody will be destitute (at the U.S.’s expense, mind you—yep, we’re expected to pay for all of it).
It’s amazing how nobody from poor countries has ever thought to ask how we so-called “rich” get rich—it isn’t through wages, or manufacturing, or spending. It’s through comparatively lax regulatory and tax systems that allows for entrepreneurship and business to thrive right up to corporate conglomerate level. If poor countries would simply revamp their laws and codes, they too could prosper just like us, but no—they prefer to keep clamp-tight power over their people instead.
We are rich because of our freedoms, plain and simple. Obama is helping to put the world on the Road to Serfdom, where California and other West Coast states have been for decades, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Red, White, and Blue changes as well—maybe to just black and blue, because we will be badly bruised and battered.
Our only hope for now is to pull back, and I mean that literally as well as figuratively—personally, financially, institutionally, and nationally—before our flag gets changed to black, white, and blue with a fat pig emblem to replace the blue square with stars, bearing the union label on it (of course). We will become The Socialist Republic of Pork--you couldn't get better than this if you gamed it out on Nation States.
Any artists out there? Please make me a flag: black, blue, and white stripes with a fat pink pig in the upper left corner. All comments go directly to my inbox, so just leave your "flag" comment.
We can change this by voting these monsters out of office with each and every election. The way things are now, the losers of society have the upper hand, and vengeance be theirs until Election Day. The rest of us will pay cash, buy cheaply, and bide our time until then, being sure to completely enjoy the deflation that rains down upon us.
Now we begin with Chapter 2—The Greatest Depression of Them All
Congressional Democrats have learned how to make an end-run around Obama, judging by the omnibus spending bill the House just passed. Now if only we could rely on the Senate to block it, or for him to NOT sign it…but I digress.
A man names Walter Zimmerman of United I-Cap Analytics says the combined simultaneous collapsing markets (stock/bond, real estate, and commodities) have served to throw us into Depression territory. We have crossed the threshold, even if you won’t hear anything about it from the media or the powers that be. The stimulus and omnibus spending doesn't help matters here, and expansions of government spending is just getting started.
Did you ever wonder how all of a sudden Big Leaguers are coming out of the woodwork to have Obama spew sunshine and daisies at the podium from now on every time he speaks publicly? It’s more wool-pulling over our eyes again, as usual.
We are there. We have hit the Big “D”. It’s all downhill from here, no matter what spending attempts are made to slow down or stop it. Walter has rung the bell. If you didn’t see it on Glenn Beck’s show, here it is.
It would seem Obama is using the knowledge and information from the last Depression as an instruction manual for this one, instead of learning what NOT to do to re-create one.
Do you feel like you’re in a Depression? Has anything changed for you since yesterday or the day before? For those of you doing just fine, the fun’s about to begin—deflation like there’s no tomorrow. Deflation will bring us much lower prices, because now nobody will buy until they feel prices can’t get any lower—like trying to catch a falling knife (only the stupid would try). We will all stand back and let someone else go first.
For more on how it begins again, see the latest spending bill and budget proposal—in them, you’ll find:
1. Intentions for our retirement plans.
2. Intentions for health care, whether we need it or not.
3. Intentions for industry and our environment, whether we need them or not.
4. Intention for education, for good or not.
Plus loads more.
You’re probably also getting wind of potential rollbacks on our Constitution-given and Amendments-given rights, starting with the First and Second. All this is in addition to the stimulus spending now under way.
You’ll be hearing more and more about a GLOBAL NEW DEAL (courtesy of global institutions like the U.N., the G-7, the IMF, etc.) where everybody on the planet will be subjected to the same crap we were back in the 30’s and 40’s, and again today. Worldwide wealth will be redistributed so nobody will be rich and nobody will be destitute (at the U.S.’s expense, mind you—yep, we’re expected to pay for all of it).
It’s amazing how nobody from poor countries has ever thought to ask how we so-called “rich” get rich—it isn’t through wages, or manufacturing, or spending. It’s through comparatively lax regulatory and tax systems that allows for entrepreneurship and business to thrive right up to corporate conglomerate level. If poor countries would simply revamp their laws and codes, they too could prosper just like us, but no—they prefer to keep clamp-tight power over their people instead.
We are rich because of our freedoms, plain and simple. Obama is helping to put the world on the Road to Serfdom, where California and other West Coast states have been for decades, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Red, White, and Blue changes as well—maybe to just black and blue, because we will be badly bruised and battered.
Our only hope for now is to pull back, and I mean that literally as well as figuratively—personally, financially, institutionally, and nationally—before our flag gets changed to black, white, and blue with a fat pig emblem to replace the blue square with stars, bearing the union label on it (of course). We will become The Socialist Republic of Pork--you couldn't get better than this if you gamed it out on Nation States.
Any artists out there? Please make me a flag: black, blue, and white stripes with a fat pink pig in the upper left corner. All comments go directly to my inbox, so just leave your "flag" comment.
We can change this by voting these monsters out of office with each and every election. The way things are now, the losers of society have the upper hand, and vengeance be theirs until Election Day. The rest of us will pay cash, buy cheaply, and bide our time until then, being sure to completely enjoy the deflation that rains down upon us.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The Law of Unintended Consequences Part 4: Stimulus, Expediency, and a Faith-Based Nation (L-O-N-G)
This is a jump-off from the Law part 3: something for nothing.
_______________________________________________________
A word about the stimulus bill that recently passed (ERRA): entitlement parts of the program will serve to re-instill what Welfare Reform fought so hard to kill—generational dependency and faith that government will always be there to back people up. Extended unemployment benefits, money to states to encourage welfare enrollment, payments to homeowners who (after being bailed out of their mortgage contracts) to continue paying mortgages on time, and tax incentives for people to buy new cars all have downsides as well as upsides.
The downsides of welfare and unemployment should be obvious: to keep people out of the job market, and prevent them from seeking ways to better their economic standing through education or job training. Those same benefits also cost the rest of us who still have jobs (as if we don’t have enough to pay for ourselves). The upsides: the government defends you from hunger and harm, just as you believe it will.
People should feel shamed that they were bought off so easily.
The downsides of the stimulus bill (and some you may not be aware of): These new entitlements only last until the money allocated to them through ERRA runs out—this means there will be no new money to keep these programs alive, even though the economy has yet to recover. Also, those unemployment benefits are taxable as income.
Unintended consequence: dependent people will become welfare nomads to extend their benefits, moving from state to state, and enrolling in each new system until it runs dry for them. This happens now with the current system.
The downsides of rewarding people who couldn’t pay mortgages on their own (either before or after workouts): what’s to stop the rest of us from simply giving up and joining the failure crowd? Why shouldn’t the rest of us get paid for paying our bills on time too? After all, the loss of equity hit every homeowner, and like it or not, we’re pretty much all upside-down in our mortgages, judging by the 20-50% depreciation--we’d find out exactly how much we’re upside-down by having our homes reappraised.
As for the new cars, yep, there’s a credit for buying new cars, but there are unspoken catches:
1. Is the manufacturer going to be around to service your vehicle and honor any warranties that exist for it?
2. Is the instant depreciation that occurs when a new car is driven off the lot offset by this credit? Of course not—this is only an incentive to BUY, not keep. In case you didn’t know, every new car buyer is automatically upside-down when they drive off the lot—the difference in the purchase price and the NADA/Kelley Blue Book values of that same car differ drastically (sometimes by as much as 50%). You might want to check this out before buying a new vehicle.
3. In this day and age of fluctuating gas prices, and some predict we’ll return to the bad old days of $4.00/gallon, not to mention questionable oil supplies, would a Detroit gas-guzzler (comparatively speaking) make sense to buy in the long term?
4. Will this car automatically devalue itself into oblivion when it comes time to trade in or sell off just because the manufacturer went out of business or took bailout money?
5. What are the chances someone will become tremendously upside-down in the car just like they were with the house (and every other bill)? The credit to buy doesn’t account for loan risk or job security. Besides, is there anything out there worth buying right now?
This latest effort by the government to stem the losses on a steadily-spiraling economy is hailed by the Lord and Master himself (that would be Obama) as a DOWN PAYMENT, which suggests there is more to come. The only blessing I see from all this is the time limit—and some states’ governors are looking closely at the strings attached, and turning down this money. The governors know they cannot sustain entitlement programs beyond what money is provided, and when that money dries up, dependent people will be right back where they started, and civil unrest will likely break out. Obama may consider lathering, rinsing, and repeating the whole stimulus thing again at that time, and again it won’t help anybody. It will just prolong the pain.
Dependent people will use their political power to vote themselves more largesse over and over again, and this is what the current administration wants them to do so the Democrats may regain power and keep it through creation and re-creation of dependence--your economic freedom in exchange for their power.
Is this not slavery? Sure, no crops are being planted and harvested, but the seeds of dependence are sown and the political harvesters come along every two-four years to bale their contributions and votes, and haul them to market. Still, there are many who continue to have blind faith in the government to see them through, even though their hands are being tied at every step.
Tell me who’s going to turn down something for virtually nothing? All people have to do is vote in a certain way, and seemingly all their problems get solved.
It’s a vicious cycle. It’s also a surefire recipe for country collapse. THEN who will protect dependent people…zombies, if you will, from harm or hunger?
By then, they will have abdicated their minds, bodies, and souls to the something-for-nothing Democratic Party, so why not refer to them as zombies?
Don’t look at me or any other self-sufficient people—we have enough to do on our own trying to protect ourselves from the likes of those afflicted with blind faith in government. We’re also busy trying to protect ourselves form some other unintended consequences from the bank bailout and Equal Pay Act:
1. Now a pay ceiling has been established for corporate America (thanks to the bank bailouts), devaluing the true worth of executives, and not just in the banking sector. This is causing a brain-drain, meaning worthy talent will go elsewhere to make a worthy income, and we’ll be stuck with bureaucratic set-pay zombies—people who will only do the bare minimum to satisfy their job requirements, sacrificing performance, productivity and innovation opportunities for guaranteed pay (just like unions do).
2. The Equal Pay Act already has loopholes, and yet more unintended consequences—the ones I can think of are: employers can choose to hire an all-female staff, ensuring everyone is paid an equally-low salary (and saving labor costs), hire an all-ILLEGAL staff, hire no women at all, move more jobs offshore to avoid compliance with this act, shut down the business entirely (or conversely, make it an owner-operator internet business), or some combination of all of them. Another loophole is to keep necessary staff, but rewrite all job descriptions and give new titles so nobody technically has the same job, thus avoiding equal pay for equal work. No equal work will exist on paper, and this will stand up to an audit.
I’m not even a lawyer, and I spotted the gaping holes in this plan!
These things are already happening, as witnessed by the number of male layoffs vs. female layoffs in our country. Feminists everywhere blindly believed Obama could put an end to their plight with the stroke of a pen, but nobody saw the easy outs that came with the act. It was a PR win, but that’s all.
This should serve to give an idea of the dollar costs, freedom costs, and political costs of democracy inaction (not a typo) through the expediency of a faith-based nation. Already, the stimulus package creation as a whole has had one unintended consequence of its own: it served to reignite the Republican Party through the anger of self-reliant constituents who used the access to power for their own good.
Those of us who still have jobs or businesses and can keep up their monthly payments without help or incentives are the “new” rich—we who didn’t get ripped off by Bernie Madoff and/or Robert Alan Stanford in pursuit of large returns not found elsewhere, or lose our homes to sub-prime mortgages, our credit to out-of-control credit card fees and interest, our cars to the repossessor, or our jobs to offshoring, illegal aliens, robots/software, and H1-B workers, and those of us who DIDN’T keep the governmental faith. This is the payoff for living frugally and strategically, without blinders or handcuffs made of red tape, and by far the best unintended consequence of them all.
_______________________________________________________
A word about the stimulus bill that recently passed (ERRA): entitlement parts of the program will serve to re-instill what Welfare Reform fought so hard to kill—generational dependency and faith that government will always be there to back people up. Extended unemployment benefits, money to states to encourage welfare enrollment, payments to homeowners who (after being bailed out of their mortgage contracts) to continue paying mortgages on time, and tax incentives for people to buy new cars all have downsides as well as upsides.
The downsides of welfare and unemployment should be obvious: to keep people out of the job market, and prevent them from seeking ways to better their economic standing through education or job training. Those same benefits also cost the rest of us who still have jobs (as if we don’t have enough to pay for ourselves). The upsides: the government defends you from hunger and harm, just as you believe it will.
People should feel shamed that they were bought off so easily.
The downsides of the stimulus bill (and some you may not be aware of): These new entitlements only last until the money allocated to them through ERRA runs out—this means there will be no new money to keep these programs alive, even though the economy has yet to recover. Also, those unemployment benefits are taxable as income.
Unintended consequence: dependent people will become welfare nomads to extend their benefits, moving from state to state, and enrolling in each new system until it runs dry for them. This happens now with the current system.
The downsides of rewarding people who couldn’t pay mortgages on their own (either before or after workouts): what’s to stop the rest of us from simply giving up and joining the failure crowd? Why shouldn’t the rest of us get paid for paying our bills on time too? After all, the loss of equity hit every homeowner, and like it or not, we’re pretty much all upside-down in our mortgages, judging by the 20-50% depreciation--we’d find out exactly how much we’re upside-down by having our homes reappraised.
As for the new cars, yep, there’s a credit for buying new cars, but there are unspoken catches:
1. Is the manufacturer going to be around to service your vehicle and honor any warranties that exist for it?
2. Is the instant depreciation that occurs when a new car is driven off the lot offset by this credit? Of course not—this is only an incentive to BUY, not keep. In case you didn’t know, every new car buyer is automatically upside-down when they drive off the lot—the difference in the purchase price and the NADA/Kelley Blue Book values of that same car differ drastically (sometimes by as much as 50%). You might want to check this out before buying a new vehicle.
3. In this day and age of fluctuating gas prices, and some predict we’ll return to the bad old days of $4.00/gallon, not to mention questionable oil supplies, would a Detroit gas-guzzler (comparatively speaking) make sense to buy in the long term?
4. Will this car automatically devalue itself into oblivion when it comes time to trade in or sell off just because the manufacturer went out of business or took bailout money?
5. What are the chances someone will become tremendously upside-down in the car just like they were with the house (and every other bill)? The credit to buy doesn’t account for loan risk or job security. Besides, is there anything out there worth buying right now?
This latest effort by the government to stem the losses on a steadily-spiraling economy is hailed by the Lord and Master himself (that would be Obama) as a DOWN PAYMENT, which suggests there is more to come. The only blessing I see from all this is the time limit—and some states’ governors are looking closely at the strings attached, and turning down this money. The governors know they cannot sustain entitlement programs beyond what money is provided, and when that money dries up, dependent people will be right back where they started, and civil unrest will likely break out. Obama may consider lathering, rinsing, and repeating the whole stimulus thing again at that time, and again it won’t help anybody. It will just prolong the pain.
Dependent people will use their political power to vote themselves more largesse over and over again, and this is what the current administration wants them to do so the Democrats may regain power and keep it through creation and re-creation of dependence--your economic freedom in exchange for their power.
Is this not slavery? Sure, no crops are being planted and harvested, but the seeds of dependence are sown and the political harvesters come along every two-four years to bale their contributions and votes, and haul them to market. Still, there are many who continue to have blind faith in the government to see them through, even though their hands are being tied at every step.
Tell me who’s going to turn down something for virtually nothing? All people have to do is vote in a certain way, and seemingly all their problems get solved.
It’s a vicious cycle. It’s also a surefire recipe for country collapse. THEN who will protect dependent people…zombies, if you will, from harm or hunger?
By then, they will have abdicated their minds, bodies, and souls to the something-for-nothing Democratic Party, so why not refer to them as zombies?
Don’t look at me or any other self-sufficient people—we have enough to do on our own trying to protect ourselves from the likes of those afflicted with blind faith in government. We’re also busy trying to protect ourselves form some other unintended consequences from the bank bailout and Equal Pay Act:
1. Now a pay ceiling has been established for corporate America (thanks to the bank bailouts), devaluing the true worth of executives, and not just in the banking sector. This is causing a brain-drain, meaning worthy talent will go elsewhere to make a worthy income, and we’ll be stuck with bureaucratic set-pay zombies—people who will only do the bare minimum to satisfy their job requirements, sacrificing performance, productivity and innovation opportunities for guaranteed pay (just like unions do).
2. The Equal Pay Act already has loopholes, and yet more unintended consequences—the ones I can think of are: employers can choose to hire an all-female staff, ensuring everyone is paid an equally-low salary (and saving labor costs), hire an all-ILLEGAL staff, hire no women at all, move more jobs offshore to avoid compliance with this act, shut down the business entirely (or conversely, make it an owner-operator internet business), or some combination of all of them. Another loophole is to keep necessary staff, but rewrite all job descriptions and give new titles so nobody technically has the same job, thus avoiding equal pay for equal work. No equal work will exist on paper, and this will stand up to an audit.
I’m not even a lawyer, and I spotted the gaping holes in this plan!
These things are already happening, as witnessed by the number of male layoffs vs. female layoffs in our country. Feminists everywhere blindly believed Obama could put an end to their plight with the stroke of a pen, but nobody saw the easy outs that came with the act. It was a PR win, but that’s all.
This should serve to give an idea of the dollar costs, freedom costs, and political costs of democracy inaction (not a typo) through the expediency of a faith-based nation. Already, the stimulus package creation as a whole has had one unintended consequence of its own: it served to reignite the Republican Party through the anger of self-reliant constituents who used the access to power for their own good.
Those of us who still have jobs or businesses and can keep up their monthly payments without help or incentives are the “new” rich—we who didn’t get ripped off by Bernie Madoff and/or Robert Alan Stanford in pursuit of large returns not found elsewhere, or lose our homes to sub-prime mortgages, our credit to out-of-control credit card fees and interest, our cars to the repossessor, or our jobs to offshoring, illegal aliens, robots/software, and H1-B workers, and those of us who DIDN’T keep the governmental faith. This is the payoff for living frugally and strategically, without blinders or handcuffs made of red tape, and by far the best unintended consequence of them all.
*Book Recommendation*
"Welcome to Obamaland" by James Delingpole. The subtitle is "I've seen your future, and it doesn't work"--because this man is a Brit, and LIVED it under Tony Blair's ushered-in socialism. If you'd like to know what the big O has in store for you, read this book...then join the nearest militia group you can find.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Quiz: What Kind of Survivor Are You?
Take the survivor IQ quiz. I saw this on Glenn Beck last night, and hope he reruns the "war games" show again.
Friday, February 20, 2009
A Faith-Based Nation (L-O-N-G)
No, this isn’t a religious rant. This has nothing to do with religion in the god sense—it DOES, however, have a lot to do with belief and doing something over and over again.
For decades, certain segments of our society have put blind faith in government in the same way that some put blind faith in a god. Like the so-called “miracles” of loaves and fishes, parting the Red Sea, walking on water, and so forth, our own government is expected to do similar things:
1. Provide for us in sickness and old age.
Much like the old church ways of providing a social safety net in exchange for regular contributions, the government is expected to provide for us in the same manner—we’ve completely given up on the idea of caring for ourselves or other family members through tight-knit family unity.
2. Provide us with access to money.
Not only is the government supposed to manage the country’s money through budgets and allocations, they’re supposed to grant YOU access to money that isn’t yours, through an elaborate set of income and debt requirements, as well as judge the propensity to pay back any monies borrowed. In order to equalize the system for greater access, the lending standards will be lowered with a blind eye to risk.
3. Provide us with access to power.
In order to receive our power so desperately sought after, the government has given us voting rights and enabled voters to contact their local, state, and federal representatives. This power can be wielded in many ways—from personal gain for the politician to personal gain for a particular voter or group of voters through the use of a middleman, or lobbyist.
4. Provide us with social programs designed to subsidize basic living needs.
For those who can’t or won’t seek out gainful employment or otherwise provide for themselves, certain programs have been created to assist in providing basic living needs (short-term or long-term) but stringent qualifications must be met. To ensure greater access to these programs, once again the qualification standards will be lowered.
5. Provide us with a means of carrying out economic transactions.
The standard and universally-recognized U.S. dollar and coins serve to aid us in conducting transactions, and is always accepted at face value at all times.
Many of us put our enduring faith in government to provide these things (and much more) just as we would a god. Just as there is nothing to back up what we may think a god can provide for us, there isn’t much to the government’s actions either—in fact, there are more unintended consequences and deleterious effects to them than many of us know about because they’re subtle.
For example, let’s take item #1—sure, the government provides for those who are sick and old, but it comes at a price to the rest of us through Social Security and Medicare taxes. When people reach the grand old age of 65 (Social Security has three different age levels for access), all of a sudden they’re deemed too old or too poor to fend for themselves, and qualify for these programs. For many who didn’t manage to save enough for retirement and future healthcare needs, or make adequate estate provisions, this boon turns out to be a shackle of dependence, limiting recipients from earning enough income on their own to survive. These taxes alone are enough to consider stopping working, and recessions mean less tax revenues for these programs (at a time when more and more will come to depend on it as the only source of income). Slower population growth also renders this system unsustainable, so why do so many turn to these programs as a sole means of support? If stringent requirements are in place for the opposite end of the dependence spectrum (young age and welfare), why not install them in THIS end too?
Item #2—As with almost every other kind of government-public provision (with the exception of Social Security and Medicare), stringent rules exist for qualifying for money through a credit scoring system, which means not everybody is going to qualify. When standards are lowered, more people come into the system, adding risk to borrowing, and eventually, too much risk and not enough cushion causes the system to topple (as witnessed in today’s credit crunch and mortgage debacle). This is the unintended consequence of allowing more people into the system—not everybody can win. As a result, the government has had to step in and subsidize the bad risk at great cost to the taxpayers, and now fewer people have access to the system…as it should have been all along.
Item #3—Through the voting booth, phone lines, and internet, we have access to government power, but what does it cost us? If we want something specific done, it takes money and votes, and we usually possess one or the other, but seldom sufficient quantities of both at once. For those who do, it’s their lucky day, and they wield great influence over swaying the power to their ends. The rest of us just vote, and this had led to the government buying our votes with various enticements, such as subsidy access, loophole creation, or regulation relaxation in exchange for continued support (through money and/or votes). The cycle continues until it alone consumes a politician’s business cycle: get elected, raise funds, get re-elected, and so on), and this is an unintended consequence of our power system.
Item #4—The subsidy programs developed in the 1930’s to help ward off the effects of the Depression only served to usher in a different kind of depression—economic and class blight. Eligibility was so relaxed for these programs that they became systemic for generations of many families, and they continued teaching their children how to work the system to it’s utmost expediency, ignoring the fact that the money had to come from somewhere—the rest of us taxpayers. The purpose of these programs was to pay individuals and families to stay out of the work force, yet make poverty so uncomfortable it would discourage use of the programs. The unintended consequence was that the tax code, lack of education, and lack of character breeding among recipient families made it more profitable to be expedient and avoid work at all costs, thus the elaborate ways formed to game the programs. Race relations were melding into more of a class relations problem, and have largely remained that way.
Item #5—Our dollars may be accepted at face value, but we no longer get our money’s worth in goods and services. Globalization and currency markets have helped see to the destruction of our money’s worth, and producers and retailers have jacked up prices to offset this devaluation. Government’s incessant printing and borrowing haven’t helped either, but they have to get money from somewhere—the taxpayer is almost tapped out, and will only get poorer and poorer through price increases and tax increases until he/she is bled dry. The shrinking overall population of our country means that the money presses will run night and day trying to cover all the obligations created ¾ of a century ago.
With all this going on, we still seem to have full faith and credit in our money, just like the dollar bills say. But do we really know what that means? It means “this paper is worth the number printed on it because I believe it is, and I willingly accept it at face value even though nothing backs it up.”
It’s obviously not the end of the faith-based administration you though it was going to be when Bush left office—only the type of faith has changed. We’ve been a faith-based nation in some form since we were founded, and it will never end.
For decades, certain segments of our society have put blind faith in government in the same way that some put blind faith in a god. Like the so-called “miracles” of loaves and fishes, parting the Red Sea, walking on water, and so forth, our own government is expected to do similar things:
1. Provide for us in sickness and old age.
Much like the old church ways of providing a social safety net in exchange for regular contributions, the government is expected to provide for us in the same manner—we’ve completely given up on the idea of caring for ourselves or other family members through tight-knit family unity.
2. Provide us with access to money.
Not only is the government supposed to manage the country’s money through budgets and allocations, they’re supposed to grant YOU access to money that isn’t yours, through an elaborate set of income and debt requirements, as well as judge the propensity to pay back any monies borrowed. In order to equalize the system for greater access, the lending standards will be lowered with a blind eye to risk.
3. Provide us with access to power.
In order to receive our power so desperately sought after, the government has given us voting rights and enabled voters to contact their local, state, and federal representatives. This power can be wielded in many ways—from personal gain for the politician to personal gain for a particular voter or group of voters through the use of a middleman, or lobbyist.
4. Provide us with social programs designed to subsidize basic living needs.
For those who can’t or won’t seek out gainful employment or otherwise provide for themselves, certain programs have been created to assist in providing basic living needs (short-term or long-term) but stringent qualifications must be met. To ensure greater access to these programs, once again the qualification standards will be lowered.
5. Provide us with a means of carrying out economic transactions.
The standard and universally-recognized U.S. dollar and coins serve to aid us in conducting transactions, and is always accepted at face value at all times.
Many of us put our enduring faith in government to provide these things (and much more) just as we would a god. Just as there is nothing to back up what we may think a god can provide for us, there isn’t much to the government’s actions either—in fact, there are more unintended consequences and deleterious effects to them than many of us know about because they’re subtle.
For example, let’s take item #1—sure, the government provides for those who are sick and old, but it comes at a price to the rest of us through Social Security and Medicare taxes. When people reach the grand old age of 65 (Social Security has three different age levels for access), all of a sudden they’re deemed too old or too poor to fend for themselves, and qualify for these programs. For many who didn’t manage to save enough for retirement and future healthcare needs, or make adequate estate provisions, this boon turns out to be a shackle of dependence, limiting recipients from earning enough income on their own to survive. These taxes alone are enough to consider stopping working, and recessions mean less tax revenues for these programs (at a time when more and more will come to depend on it as the only source of income). Slower population growth also renders this system unsustainable, so why do so many turn to these programs as a sole means of support? If stringent requirements are in place for the opposite end of the dependence spectrum (young age and welfare), why not install them in THIS end too?
Item #2—As with almost every other kind of government-public provision (with the exception of Social Security and Medicare), stringent rules exist for qualifying for money through a credit scoring system, which means not everybody is going to qualify. When standards are lowered, more people come into the system, adding risk to borrowing, and eventually, too much risk and not enough cushion causes the system to topple (as witnessed in today’s credit crunch and mortgage debacle). This is the unintended consequence of allowing more people into the system—not everybody can win. As a result, the government has had to step in and subsidize the bad risk at great cost to the taxpayers, and now fewer people have access to the system…as it should have been all along.
Item #3—Through the voting booth, phone lines, and internet, we have access to government power, but what does it cost us? If we want something specific done, it takes money and votes, and we usually possess one or the other, but seldom sufficient quantities of both at once. For those who do, it’s their lucky day, and they wield great influence over swaying the power to their ends. The rest of us just vote, and this had led to the government buying our votes with various enticements, such as subsidy access, loophole creation, or regulation relaxation in exchange for continued support (through money and/or votes). The cycle continues until it alone consumes a politician’s business cycle: get elected, raise funds, get re-elected, and so on), and this is an unintended consequence of our power system.
Item #4—The subsidy programs developed in the 1930’s to help ward off the effects of the Depression only served to usher in a different kind of depression—economic and class blight. Eligibility was so relaxed for these programs that they became systemic for generations of many families, and they continued teaching their children how to work the system to it’s utmost expediency, ignoring the fact that the money had to come from somewhere—the rest of us taxpayers. The purpose of these programs was to pay individuals and families to stay out of the work force, yet make poverty so uncomfortable it would discourage use of the programs. The unintended consequence was that the tax code, lack of education, and lack of character breeding among recipient families made it more profitable to be expedient and avoid work at all costs, thus the elaborate ways formed to game the programs. Race relations were melding into more of a class relations problem, and have largely remained that way.
Item #5—Our dollars may be accepted at face value, but we no longer get our money’s worth in goods and services. Globalization and currency markets have helped see to the destruction of our money’s worth, and producers and retailers have jacked up prices to offset this devaluation. Government’s incessant printing and borrowing haven’t helped either, but they have to get money from somewhere—the taxpayer is almost tapped out, and will only get poorer and poorer through price increases and tax increases until he/she is bled dry. The shrinking overall population of our country means that the money presses will run night and day trying to cover all the obligations created ¾ of a century ago.
With all this going on, we still seem to have full faith and credit in our money, just like the dollar bills say. But do we really know what that means? It means “this paper is worth the number printed on it because I believe it is, and I willingly accept it at face value even though nothing backs it up.”
It’s obviously not the end of the faith-based administration you though it was going to be when Bush left office—only the type of faith has changed. We’ve been a faith-based nation in some form since we were founded, and it will never end.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Pelosi-tariat and the Totalitarian Temptation
Even though Communism has proven to be an ultimate and dismal economic failure, some politicians and academics cling to the belief that they are superior to you, know more than you, are smarter than you, and can make better decisions for you than you yourself.
One politician in particular thinks she can make better decisions for the whole planet and everyone on it. That same politician thinks she knows what will make us all happy, and that’s complete and utter Britain-style dependence on government, because in theory, only government has the means to make the masses happy.
It isn’t sustainable. It didn’t last in the former Soviet Union and East Germany, and it’s crumbling in China, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. European countries are moving toward a capitalism/communism hybrid, and it looks like we are too.
But it isn’t for the common good—it’s merely to ensure a stable voting block.
With these government goodies come all kinds of strings, and some are more barbed wire than string—take universal healthcare for one. Sure, the poor may get health care, but what kind and how much? Count on the bare minimum to be sure—just enough to keep the voters who want it “happy” and coming back for more…along with their tax dollars. The same can be said for unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, and the current COBRA plan subsidization.
As the masses want more and more from their broke Uncle Sam, the higher the tax levels will go to pay for it—a modern-day Robin Hood scheme of robbing the so-called “rich” (those with jobs) to give to the poor (those without jobs). Oh yes indeed this is a GOOD time to be unemployed!!
Uncle Sam isn’t getting robbed here, but rather fellow taxpayers—your friends, neighbors, co-workers, family members, and acquaintances—you know, people who are lucky enough to still have a job of some sort--all in the name of making you happy. Uncle Sam is just the middleman here. Politicians make the policy into law.
In case you haven’t figured this out yet, Obama is just a figurehead—Nancy Pelosi actually runs the show.
What single thing would make EVERYONE happy everywhere? More serotonin, which can be bought in any health food or supplement store. If anything, the government should put this in the drinking water supply, but no—it wouldn’t achieve the goal of cementing a voting block through sheer dependence. Instead of supplements, they prefer to use drugs to get you hooked (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc.)—the equivalent of modern-day slavery, and haven’t we had enough of that in our history?
Instead of seeking serotonin through Uncle Sam and his minions, why not the Pelosi-tariat out of business by finding out what makes us happy, then doing something about it OURSELVES? If you don’t know what would make you happy, try some serotonin—either in pill form or by eating foods that boost serotonin production. It’s the cheapest way to make someone “happy” without burdening your fellow man.
The Pelosi-tariat promises to make us happy by giving us access to prescription-strength anti-depressants, which also increase serotonin levels at a much higher price (for both you and society at large).
There are two ways we can get what you want or need: by earning it or by taking it. The Pelosi-tariat aims to help us take it from others by creating government dependence. The only effective way to stop this is to make the burden so high as to deter many from attempting it (through taxes, price increases, punishment, and/or sufficient red tape), but they WANT your participation for those precious votes. Unfortunately, those votes come at too high a price for both you and the people around you (judging by the recently-passed stimulus bill).
Everything we do is aimed at creating our own happiness. Some consider this selfishness. It’s achieving our own happiness from the perspective of what gives us pleasure, alleviates our pain, and satisfies us--only we know what will fill the bill in these areas. Only we can make decisions regarding our lives and how we live them to achieve maximum happiness. The Pelosi-tariat can only whitewash over our life, for good or evil, and attach strings to keep us tied up in dependency.
The Pelosi-tariat aims to get us to act against our nature—to become expedient (getting something for little or nothing) in a way that hurts others. Another way to look at it is outright theft. By encouraging this over and over, it becomes habit and is hard to break, but easy to justify. Then it becomes all we know, and that leads to gaming the system to prolong your expedient dependency. We spread the word, and teach our children how to game the system, and whole generations begin living from this unsustainable trough.
Unless someone an absolute moron who can’t do anything for him or herself (including wiping your own ass), or have physical/mental problems that completely incapacitate them, there IS no justification for sitting back and letting the Pelosi-tariat make decisions for any of us—it’s stealing from the rest of us, and stealing is punishable by law (unfortunately, the punishment isn’t harsh enough to be taken seriously). It also ensures these clowns remain in office to punish the REST of us who can and will do for ourselves, because some of us have learned to vote ourselves largesse from the treasury—they will vote where the money is for them.
If you happened to vote for Obama, you’d be regretting that vote now if you cared anything for the people around you. If not now, you’ll definitely be regretting it in 2010, when al those lovely Bush tax cuts expire. If you are one of the many who insist on turning your entire lives over to the government, I suggest you move to Venezuela—Chavez has just been elected Dictator-for-Life, and he can provide for you until you die. Let the rest of us get on with our lives—you’re holding us back.
One politician in particular thinks she can make better decisions for the whole planet and everyone on it. That same politician thinks she knows what will make us all happy, and that’s complete and utter Britain-style dependence on government, because in theory, only government has the means to make the masses happy.
It isn’t sustainable. It didn’t last in the former Soviet Union and East Germany, and it’s crumbling in China, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea. European countries are moving toward a capitalism/communism hybrid, and it looks like we are too.
But it isn’t for the common good—it’s merely to ensure a stable voting block.
With these government goodies come all kinds of strings, and some are more barbed wire than string—take universal healthcare for one. Sure, the poor may get health care, but what kind and how much? Count on the bare minimum to be sure—just enough to keep the voters who want it “happy” and coming back for more…along with their tax dollars. The same can be said for unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, and the current COBRA plan subsidization.
As the masses want more and more from their broke Uncle Sam, the higher the tax levels will go to pay for it—a modern-day Robin Hood scheme of robbing the so-called “rich” (those with jobs) to give to the poor (those without jobs). Oh yes indeed this is a GOOD time to be unemployed!!
Uncle Sam isn’t getting robbed here, but rather fellow taxpayers—your friends, neighbors, co-workers, family members, and acquaintances—you know, people who are lucky enough to still have a job of some sort--all in the name of making you happy. Uncle Sam is just the middleman here. Politicians make the policy into law.
In case you haven’t figured this out yet, Obama is just a figurehead—Nancy Pelosi actually runs the show.
What single thing would make EVERYONE happy everywhere? More serotonin, which can be bought in any health food or supplement store. If anything, the government should put this in the drinking water supply, but no—it wouldn’t achieve the goal of cementing a voting block through sheer dependence. Instead of supplements, they prefer to use drugs to get you hooked (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc.)—the equivalent of modern-day slavery, and haven’t we had enough of that in our history?
Instead of seeking serotonin through Uncle Sam and his minions, why not the Pelosi-tariat out of business by finding out what makes us happy, then doing something about it OURSELVES? If you don’t know what would make you happy, try some serotonin—either in pill form or by eating foods that boost serotonin production. It’s the cheapest way to make someone “happy” without burdening your fellow man.
The Pelosi-tariat promises to make us happy by giving us access to prescription-strength anti-depressants, which also increase serotonin levels at a much higher price (for both you and society at large).
There are two ways we can get what you want or need: by earning it or by taking it. The Pelosi-tariat aims to help us take it from others by creating government dependence. The only effective way to stop this is to make the burden so high as to deter many from attempting it (through taxes, price increases, punishment, and/or sufficient red tape), but they WANT your participation for those precious votes. Unfortunately, those votes come at too high a price for both you and the people around you (judging by the recently-passed stimulus bill).
Everything we do is aimed at creating our own happiness. Some consider this selfishness. It’s achieving our own happiness from the perspective of what gives us pleasure, alleviates our pain, and satisfies us--only we know what will fill the bill in these areas. Only we can make decisions regarding our lives and how we live them to achieve maximum happiness. The Pelosi-tariat can only whitewash over our life, for good or evil, and attach strings to keep us tied up in dependency.
The Pelosi-tariat aims to get us to act against our nature—to become expedient (getting something for little or nothing) in a way that hurts others. Another way to look at it is outright theft. By encouraging this over and over, it becomes habit and is hard to break, but easy to justify. Then it becomes all we know, and that leads to gaming the system to prolong your expedient dependency. We spread the word, and teach our children how to game the system, and whole generations begin living from this unsustainable trough.
Unless someone an absolute moron who can’t do anything for him or herself (including wiping your own ass), or have physical/mental problems that completely incapacitate them, there IS no justification for sitting back and letting the Pelosi-tariat make decisions for any of us—it’s stealing from the rest of us, and stealing is punishable by law (unfortunately, the punishment isn’t harsh enough to be taken seriously). It also ensures these clowns remain in office to punish the REST of us who can and will do for ourselves, because some of us have learned to vote ourselves largesse from the treasury—they will vote where the money is for them.
If you happened to vote for Obama, you’d be regretting that vote now if you cared anything for the people around you. If not now, you’ll definitely be regretting it in 2010, when al those lovely Bush tax cuts expire. If you are one of the many who insist on turning your entire lives over to the government, I suggest you move to Venezuela—Chavez has just been elected Dictator-for-Life, and he can provide for you until you die. Let the rest of us get on with our lives—you’re holding us back.
Timely Rerun: The Amish--Their Past and Present May Hold Our Future
Original article. This is in case you were wondering how simpler people made it through tough times, and are doing so every day.
Look to them for recession inspiration, as well as anything from the Depression era.
Look to them for recession inspiration, as well as anything from the Depression era.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
No Joy in THIS Cooking--Recipes Can Make You Fat
From Yahoo Health. Not only is portion control out of control, but recipe ingredient updates with more and more processed foods and more heavily-caloried foods (such as meats for beans) have caused homemade favorites to grow out of proportion with recipes that started in 1930's cookbook editions, even though the rest of the recipe hasn't changed since then.
It looks like Depression-era cooking using Depression-era recipes is the way to go at home.
It looks like Depression-era cooking using Depression-era recipes is the way to go at home.
Using the 80/50 Rule Instead of Your Credit Card
From the Dollar Stretcher. I wonder if the author is aware of the 80/20 rule as well...
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Updated for 2009: the Right Kind of Government Handouts
Original article here.
• Retirement contributions lifted to $5k and $15.5k, then indexed to inflation
• Business taxes lowered and write-offs expanded
• Business depreciation accelerated
• Saver’s credit lifted to include slightly more income each year (possibly indexed)
• Indexed exemptions and credits
We already have three of the five listed above.
The proposed extension of the unemployment benefits, handouts to seniors and retirees, and those who paid payroll taxes but not federal taxes is worthless as an economic stimulator. Allowing us to keep more of our money is a worthwhile endeavor—we’re going to spend what we’re going to spend, and not much more. We just don’t need or have room for much else. We’ve already shopped ‘til we dropped, and that’s what caused the economic meltdown.
Handouts such as unemployment benefits, welfare and food stamps, and Medicare only serve to keep you out of certain markets—the government (whether state or federal) is paying you to stay home and out of the work force (or in the case of Medicare, payment to avoid taking control of your own health care matters). You’re being paid to stay home because you aren’t needed any more in any meaningful way. Soon, your kids will be paid to study if a certain Chicago pilot program is enacted nationwide—payment for keeping them off the streets and out of the menial labor market.
Isn’t that what education is for anyway? Why bring money into it? Because the federal minimum wage (the amount paid in this pilot program) is more than the average drug trafficker clears—most drug runners still live at home because they net so little.
Bet you didn’t know that about handouts, did you? This is when benefits are really deterrents. You have a set time limit to get the message: two years for welfare, and so many weeks for unemployment. Food stamps keep you from endeavoring to earn more, because they serve as a fallback to the income you could be making but aren’t. Thank God there’s an income limit for those, but it seems to be enough to deter lots of folks from working harder on their own. They don’t see the incentive to avoid handouts, and it’s freedom.
Instead of cushioning us from personal economic pain, the government should be increasing opportunity for us to work and profit more, hence opening up the spigot on the business side of things. More money (through more tax breaks) to businesses means more hiring, pay increases, more and/or better benefits, investment in newer and better equipment to get those jobs done, and room to lower prices on final goods and services. More money to them means more money or less work burden to you. It also means lower prices for the consumer—the reason why you have a job.
The better you get at your job the more potential you have for future raises—this all depends on how you handle your job. It’s not just the job description, but what’s not put in writing, that’s most important: your job is to help the boss make HIS or HER job easier. Your real job is to balance his/her priorities with your individual job duties—you learn to do that well enough, and it’s a sure ticket to job security and future raises. You’ve learned to make yourself indispensable, and now the boss absolutely cannot do without you (unless someone more skilled at this comes along)—he’ll pay more to keep you around.
This is why tax credits and deductions to BUSINESS are worth more to you than a check in the mail. What’s a mere $500, $800, or whatever number Congress eventually comes up with in the stimulus bill, when you alone have the potential to make that much and more without Congress’s handout? Besides, any check that comes as a result of this stimulus package is just a one-time rebate on your 2009 taxes—it’s not new money, but rather next year’s refund (or part of it) in advance.
If you work right, take the right amount of deductions and exemptions, live frugally, and save like there’s no tomorrow, you earn yourself more than that pittance of a check, because your monthly pay will reflect it.
Whatever check number comes out of Congress should be looked upon as an insult to you. Tell them to keep it—you can make that amount on your own without breaking a sweat! Tell them you’d rather have that handout through your employer instead. Besides, employer benefits are non-taxable. Cash direct to you is 100% taxable, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS instructed us to claim rebate checks as unearned income.
So much of our lives is already subsidized, and we don’t even think about it: us as individuals, our marital status, the dependents exemption, the earned income credit, the child care credit, being blind or over 65, credit for the elderly and disabled, educator expenses, student loan interest, tuition and fees, even our retirement savings,—it’s all right there on your federal tax forms. Tell me what an additional $500, $800, or whatever the final number turns out to be, is going to do for you compared to what we already receive every year. Don’t we already receive adequate handouts from Uncle Sam? He already gives you $3,500 just for being alive and having an income, and that’s only the start. The more involved your 1040 form is, the more loopholes (credits and deductions) become available to you, and the more Uncle Sam supports you.
Pop quiz—which would you rather have?
A) the one-time stimulus offer to families that may end up being taxable
B) the $3,500 deduction that’s available each and every year you file taxes as an individual, or even the $5,450 annual standard deduction for singles
I thought so. I bet you never thought of taxes this way until I brought it to your attention—they can be a real money-maker. Take this time to really scrutinize your tax forms, because there’s money in them. They pay you for just being alive, having an income, having a spouse and maybe some kids (er, I mean future workers), an elderly parent living with you, and so much more. Can you imagine where you’d be WITHOUT all these credits and deductions? None of us could afford to exist, and this would serve to show you what the REAL tax level would be in this country if Uncle Sam wasn’t so generous!
I just did some math, and found a SAHW with no kids to care for would have to earn $8.33/hour, working 40 hours per week, for 51 weeks per year, with a 15% total tax burden (state and federal) to net the same amount of money that the personal exemption and standard deduction would earn her as an individual. She’s worth $8850 (one personal exemption + half the married standard deduction) just to be alive—this is what Uncle Sam pays her (through tax deductions and credits) to stay married and out of the job market. She (and every other SAH individual) is worth this much to make room in the job market for someone else—then they get married, learn this trick, and stay home themselves (making room for another worker), and so on.
If they had kids, each qualifying kid would be worth $3500 just to be alive, and worth more for going to daycare (see EIC, or Earned Income Credit rules). If Grandma moved in and qualified as a dependent, she too would be worth $3500 just to be alive.
Instead of cursing the tax man every April 15th, and clamoring for more handouts, think of these credits and deductions instead—your rich “uncle” is giving you money in ways you never knew before.
If you’re feeling more than slightly guilty over just how much subsidization you get from Dear Uncle, you can send money back to him via check or money order payable to the IRS. Just put the word “contribution” in the memo line. But I wouldn’t worry about it—nobody has done this for a number of years, not even our richest citizens (some of whom ballyhoo about the opportunity to avoid estate taxes).
• Retirement contributions lifted to $5k and $15.5k, then indexed to inflation
• Business taxes lowered and write-offs expanded
• Business depreciation accelerated
• Saver’s credit lifted to include slightly more income each year (possibly indexed)
• Indexed exemptions and credits
We already have three of the five listed above.
The proposed extension of the unemployment benefits, handouts to seniors and retirees, and those who paid payroll taxes but not federal taxes is worthless as an economic stimulator. Allowing us to keep more of our money is a worthwhile endeavor—we’re going to spend what we’re going to spend, and not much more. We just don’t need or have room for much else. We’ve already shopped ‘til we dropped, and that’s what caused the economic meltdown.
Handouts such as unemployment benefits, welfare and food stamps, and Medicare only serve to keep you out of certain markets—the government (whether state or federal) is paying you to stay home and out of the work force (or in the case of Medicare, payment to avoid taking control of your own health care matters). You’re being paid to stay home because you aren’t needed any more in any meaningful way. Soon, your kids will be paid to study if a certain Chicago pilot program is enacted nationwide—payment for keeping them off the streets and out of the menial labor market.
Isn’t that what education is for anyway? Why bring money into it? Because the federal minimum wage (the amount paid in this pilot program) is more than the average drug trafficker clears—most drug runners still live at home because they net so little.
Bet you didn’t know that about handouts, did you? This is when benefits are really deterrents. You have a set time limit to get the message: two years for welfare, and so many weeks for unemployment. Food stamps keep you from endeavoring to earn more, because they serve as a fallback to the income you could be making but aren’t. Thank God there’s an income limit for those, but it seems to be enough to deter lots of folks from working harder on their own. They don’t see the incentive to avoid handouts, and it’s freedom.
Instead of cushioning us from personal economic pain, the government should be increasing opportunity for us to work and profit more, hence opening up the spigot on the business side of things. More money (through more tax breaks) to businesses means more hiring, pay increases, more and/or better benefits, investment in newer and better equipment to get those jobs done, and room to lower prices on final goods and services. More money to them means more money or less work burden to you. It also means lower prices for the consumer—the reason why you have a job.
The better you get at your job the more potential you have for future raises—this all depends on how you handle your job. It’s not just the job description, but what’s not put in writing, that’s most important: your job is to help the boss make HIS or HER job easier. Your real job is to balance his/her priorities with your individual job duties—you learn to do that well enough, and it’s a sure ticket to job security and future raises. You’ve learned to make yourself indispensable, and now the boss absolutely cannot do without you (unless someone more skilled at this comes along)—he’ll pay more to keep you around.
This is why tax credits and deductions to BUSINESS are worth more to you than a check in the mail. What’s a mere $500, $800, or whatever number Congress eventually comes up with in the stimulus bill, when you alone have the potential to make that much and more without Congress’s handout? Besides, any check that comes as a result of this stimulus package is just a one-time rebate on your 2009 taxes—it’s not new money, but rather next year’s refund (or part of it) in advance.
If you work right, take the right amount of deductions and exemptions, live frugally, and save like there’s no tomorrow, you earn yourself more than that pittance of a check, because your monthly pay will reflect it.
Whatever check number comes out of Congress should be looked upon as an insult to you. Tell them to keep it—you can make that amount on your own without breaking a sweat! Tell them you’d rather have that handout through your employer instead. Besides, employer benefits are non-taxable. Cash direct to you is 100% taxable, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the IRS instructed us to claim rebate checks as unearned income.
So much of our lives is already subsidized, and we don’t even think about it: us as individuals, our marital status, the dependents exemption, the earned income credit, the child care credit, being blind or over 65, credit for the elderly and disabled, educator expenses, student loan interest, tuition and fees, even our retirement savings,—it’s all right there on your federal tax forms. Tell me what an additional $500, $800, or whatever the final number turns out to be, is going to do for you compared to what we already receive every year. Don’t we already receive adequate handouts from Uncle Sam? He already gives you $3,500 just for being alive and having an income, and that’s only the start. The more involved your 1040 form is, the more loopholes (credits and deductions) become available to you, and the more Uncle Sam supports you.
Pop quiz—which would you rather have?
A) the one-time stimulus offer to families that may end up being taxable
B) the $3,500 deduction that’s available each and every year you file taxes as an individual, or even the $5,450 annual standard deduction for singles
I thought so. I bet you never thought of taxes this way until I brought it to your attention—they can be a real money-maker. Take this time to really scrutinize your tax forms, because there’s money in them. They pay you for just being alive, having an income, having a spouse and maybe some kids (er, I mean future workers), an elderly parent living with you, and so much more. Can you imagine where you’d be WITHOUT all these credits and deductions? None of us could afford to exist, and this would serve to show you what the REAL tax level would be in this country if Uncle Sam wasn’t so generous!
I just did some math, and found a SAHW with no kids to care for would have to earn $8.33/hour, working 40 hours per week, for 51 weeks per year, with a 15% total tax burden (state and federal) to net the same amount of money that the personal exemption and standard deduction would earn her as an individual. She’s worth $8850 (one personal exemption + half the married standard deduction) just to be alive—this is what Uncle Sam pays her (through tax deductions and credits) to stay married and out of the job market. She (and every other SAH individual) is worth this much to make room in the job market for someone else—then they get married, learn this trick, and stay home themselves (making room for another worker), and so on.
If they had kids, each qualifying kid would be worth $3500 just to be alive, and worth more for going to daycare (see EIC, or Earned Income Credit rules). If Grandma moved in and qualified as a dependent, she too would be worth $3500 just to be alive.
Instead of cursing the tax man every April 15th, and clamoring for more handouts, think of these credits and deductions instead—your rich “uncle” is giving you money in ways you never knew before.
If you’re feeling more than slightly guilty over just how much subsidization you get from Dear Uncle, you can send money back to him via check or money order payable to the IRS. Just put the word “contribution” in the memo line. But I wouldn’t worry about it—nobody has done this for a number of years, not even our richest citizens (some of whom ballyhoo about the opportunity to avoid estate taxes).
Updated for 2008 Taxes: Turning a $57,000 Salary into a Zero Tax Liability
Originally was "Turning a $55,000 Salary into a Zero Tax Liability."
__________________________________________________________
This is all perfectly legal—just use the government’s own tax code against them, as you can learn to do for yourself.
Here’s what Joe Taxpayer did:
• Got married and stayed that way—this earns him $19,500.
• Contributed the max to a 401k plan—this earns him $15,500.
• Contributed the max to two IRAs (his & his wife’s)—this earns him $8,000.
• Because he contributed so much to savings, he got the saver’s credit—this covered what little he did owe after all deductions and other credits. This could’ve earned him up to $2,000, but only earned him $1,148.
• He contributes to his employer’s pension plan and opted for a PPO plan—this earns him $2,550 in pre-tax dollars.
• He used a commercial tax preparer for his return—they cost him $159 to use, but got him over ten times that amount for a refund. They do this consistently.
These are completely legal tax shelters, folks. These are also the most obvious ones.
He has a non-working spouse and no kids. If he had kids, he’d have even more deductions and credits. What he and his wife do have, and will always have, is the ability to live a frugal enough lifestyle to make it on half his salary. They could do even better if it weren't for recent large rent raises, food inflation, and high gas prices.
After his taxes were done, he visited the IRS’s W-4 withholding calculator (as he does every year) to re-balance his exemptions—he should owe zero taxes and should receive zero refund, so his 2008 refund told him that he wasn’t using enough exemptions. The IRS calculator told him he should double his exemptions to avoid that refund—this would get him his own money back during the year (when he needs it) instead of at the end. Now, he’ll owe a very small amount to the IRS, but the saver’s credit should wipe that out for him. If not, he can easily afford to pay whatever he owes.
In the meantime, re-balancing his federal withholding exemptions earns him a $175 monthly increase completely tax-free. He now has a raise and doesn’t have to work any more or harder for it. He didn’t even have to negotiate with his boss for it.
By the example shown above, Joe is technically not a “taxpayer”—this means if the economic stimulus package currently being bandied about ever came into existence, and followed the Bush plan for distribution, Joe and his wife could expect to receive nothing because of their careful and diligent tax planning. They didn’t owe taxes, so they didn’t “pay” taxes, regardless of what was taken out of his paychecks in the form of payroll deductions. Anybody who’s entitled to a refund also falls into this category of non-taxpayers, as well as people who didn’t earn an income and didn’t file, and those not making enough money to pay federal income taxes at all. What this “taxpayer” term actually refers to is EXCESS taxes owed beyond what you have deducted in the form of federal income and payroll taxes. You can think of AMT payers, and anybody who still owes each year after diligent tax planning, as the real taxpayers.
Joe wonders how high his annual salary can go before he runs out of government-given deductions and credits—it seems that every time he starts to get into owing-the-IRS territory, some new credit or deduction comes out, making him even more relieved he uses a paid tax preparer (just to keep track). He knows that if he gets involved with itemized deductions or business deductions, his rising salary could go on being tax-free for a very long time (until he hits the AMT threshold), but he thinks this is just too much hassle. He figures that when he starts to owe the same amount in taxes that his tax preparer charges each year, then he’ll begin working a little harder at creating deductions and qualifying for credits.
If you would like to re-balance your own W-4 withholding allowances, see the IRS calculator. See instructions and Form 8880 for the saver's credit.
__________________________________________________________
This is all perfectly legal—just use the government’s own tax code against them, as you can learn to do for yourself.
Here’s what Joe Taxpayer did:
• Got married and stayed that way—this earns him $19,500.
• Contributed the max to a 401k plan—this earns him $15,500.
• Contributed the max to two IRAs (his & his wife’s)—this earns him $8,000.
• Because he contributed so much to savings, he got the saver’s credit—this covered what little he did owe after all deductions and other credits. This could’ve earned him up to $2,000, but only earned him $1,148.
• He contributes to his employer’s pension plan and opted for a PPO plan—this earns him $2,550 in pre-tax dollars.
• He used a commercial tax preparer for his return—they cost him $159 to use, but got him over ten times that amount for a refund. They do this consistently.
These are completely legal tax shelters, folks. These are also the most obvious ones.
He has a non-working spouse and no kids. If he had kids, he’d have even more deductions and credits. What he and his wife do have, and will always have, is the ability to live a frugal enough lifestyle to make it on half his salary. They could do even better if it weren't for recent large rent raises, food inflation, and high gas prices.
After his taxes were done, he visited the IRS’s W-4 withholding calculator (as he does every year) to re-balance his exemptions—he should owe zero taxes and should receive zero refund, so his 2008 refund told him that he wasn’t using enough exemptions. The IRS calculator told him he should double his exemptions to avoid that refund—this would get him his own money back during the year (when he needs it) instead of at the end. Now, he’ll owe a very small amount to the IRS, but the saver’s credit should wipe that out for him. If not, he can easily afford to pay whatever he owes.
In the meantime, re-balancing his federal withholding exemptions earns him a $175 monthly increase completely tax-free. He now has a raise and doesn’t have to work any more or harder for it. He didn’t even have to negotiate with his boss for it.
By the example shown above, Joe is technically not a “taxpayer”—this means if the economic stimulus package currently being bandied about ever came into existence, and followed the Bush plan for distribution, Joe and his wife could expect to receive nothing because of their careful and diligent tax planning. They didn’t owe taxes, so they didn’t “pay” taxes, regardless of what was taken out of his paychecks in the form of payroll deductions. Anybody who’s entitled to a refund also falls into this category of non-taxpayers, as well as people who didn’t earn an income and didn’t file, and those not making enough money to pay federal income taxes at all. What this “taxpayer” term actually refers to is EXCESS taxes owed beyond what you have deducted in the form of federal income and payroll taxes. You can think of AMT payers, and anybody who still owes each year after diligent tax planning, as the real taxpayers.
Joe wonders how high his annual salary can go before he runs out of government-given deductions and credits—it seems that every time he starts to get into owing-the-IRS territory, some new credit or deduction comes out, making him even more relieved he uses a paid tax preparer (just to keep track). He knows that if he gets involved with itemized deductions or business deductions, his rising salary could go on being tax-free for a very long time (until he hits the AMT threshold), but he thinks this is just too much hassle. He figures that when he starts to owe the same amount in taxes that his tax preparer charges each year, then he’ll begin working a little harder at creating deductions and qualifying for credits.
If you would like to re-balance your own W-4 withholding allowances, see the IRS calculator. See instructions and Form 8880 for the saver's credit.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Rerun: Out of the Mouths of Babes--A Mortgage Lesson
...and a current economic lesson, too!
____________________________________________________
From a reader: “At dinner last night we got into a discussion about mortgages and homes.
Not sure how we got to who owns the house, but I explained to them that the bank actually owns our house and we pay $1000 a month to live here. ‘Wow! That's a lot of money dad!’ they exclaimed.
Then, they asked me why we moved and what we paid to live in the old house. I told them we paid $400 a month and the house was too small.
‘$400 a month! What the heck! Why didn't we stay at the old house? We could use the extra money to go on vacations, buy bikes, and eat out all the time!’
You know, for being 6 and 8, they made a pretty good point.” :)
______________________________________________________
Not that eating out all the time is necessarily good for you...
Had EVERYONE thought like this, we wouldn't be in the economic situation we're in now--we'd be safely in homes we could afford, and we'd have money to spend to prop up our own economy with.
WE ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CURRENT MESS, AND ONLY WE CAN GET OURSELVES OUT OF IT.
____________________________________________________
From a reader: “At dinner last night we got into a discussion about mortgages and homes.
Not sure how we got to who owns the house, but I explained to them that the bank actually owns our house and we pay $1000 a month to live here. ‘Wow! That's a lot of money dad!’ they exclaimed.
Then, they asked me why we moved and what we paid to live in the old house. I told them we paid $400 a month and the house was too small.
‘$400 a month! What the heck! Why didn't we stay at the old house? We could use the extra money to go on vacations, buy bikes, and eat out all the time!’
You know, for being 6 and 8, they made a pretty good point.” :)
______________________________________________________
Not that eating out all the time is necessarily good for you...
Had EVERYONE thought like this, we wouldn't be in the economic situation we're in now--we'd be safely in homes we could afford, and we'd have money to spend to prop up our own economy with.
WE ARE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CURRENT MESS, AND ONLY WE CAN GET OURSELVES OUT OF IT.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
Word of the Day: Nimiety (nim-EYE-et-ee)
It is the opposite of frugality; an over-abundance. The Joneses were afflicted with nimiety until the housing market flopped, and now it's an epidemic.
Now the Joneses are struggling to keep DOWN with us!
Now the Joneses are struggling to keep DOWN with us!
Friday, February 06, 2009
A Blast From the Past: "Luxury" Sacrifices
Originally written back in 2005.
_____________________________________________________
Let’s take a spin in the way-back machine…to the time before you knew and understood the concepts of thrift and frugality, and what they could do for you in the long run.
Remember those things you thought you couldn’t live without, and didn’t bother trying to? You know—those things that now seem so absurd and wasteful...those things that used to part you from your money quickly month after month, without ever attracting unwanted fiscal attention?
The luxuries. The treats. The frivolous. The over-the-top. The Jones Badges of Consumption Honor.
How many of those things do you live without now, and gladly so? What did you consider wasteful spending, and how did you handle it?
Many women just “have” to have their hair and nails done every week or so, just “have” to own and use the latest and greatest potions and ointments for skin, and just “have” to have a certain scent to be what they consider “normal.” Men have their own must-have rituals too, like certain power tools, the latest razor, a designer scent, and the “right” wardrobe from foreign manufacturers….oh, and let’s not forget the biggest, “screaminest” 4X4 truck that traverses Mount Everest in low gear (or conversely, the ultra-sleek Euro sportscar with all the bells and whistles).
There are other luxuries, but not enough space and time to name them all—and besides, they’d be open to wide interpretation anyway. One person’s luxury is another person’s subsistence level.
Fast forward to today—now you have more time, energy, and money in the bank. This is the reward for giving up some “luxuries” and sacrificing the once-must-haves.
Some of the things I painlessly gave up in order to get here:
*shopping to make myself feel better (retail therapy doesn’t work—trust me!)
*microwave cooking (the effects on my health and electric bill weren’t good)
*working outside the home (the effects on my taxes weren’t good)
*owning a home (a lot more work and money than fellow owners and the media will have you believe)
*a second car (why did I really need one again?)
*lots of furniture (we were moving to a two-bedroom apartment anyway)
*my price book and over-stocked pantry (I have since discovered a new way to save money on groceries)
I never really had the “beauty bug” in the first place, so giving up bubble baths, hair goop, and nail stuff was never an issue. I’m not a real big appearance maven (what you see is what you get), so clothes, makeup, and jewelry went out the window along with the job.
These things aren’t really luxuries, per se, but they were what constituted luxuries in my life. Paris Hilton would laugh out loud if she heard that! Sorry, Paris—no fur-covered, diamond-encrusted, ritzy-labeled, over-hyped stuff for me.
What have I replaced them with? Well, let’s see:
*absolutely no debt of any kind
*a well-funded herd of IRA and Roth accounts (hubby and I both have one of each)
*a swollen savings account (compared to previous balances)
*a well-maintained and well-insured car we both share
*a small apartment that’s economical and efficient
*less furniture to care for and move from location to location
*home cooking that has boosted my health considerably (I haven’t been sick in years)
*more effective shopping from wholesale sources and second-hand (sticking to necessities, of course)
Funny what a shift in the frame of mind can do, huh? Tell us, dear readers, what did YOU give up to get here, and did it hurt at all?
For those new to frugal living, what ARE you giving up to get here, and is it hurting?
__________________________________________________________
UPDATES: We are back to 2 cars, but mine seldom gets driven. I'm in the market for a small house (whose final mortgage payment would be less than our rent), and intend to remedy the 2-car situation when we finally get a house.
As for the "new" shopping method, that has changed again too--I'm back to the price book, but only as reference. The bulk of my shopping is now in health food stores as opposed to farmer's markets, since my local farmer's market here went out of business--I stick primarily to the Wenchypoo Magic 8 foods, keeping the shopping list short: red peppers, carrots, broccoli, plums, navel oranges, and berries (black-, blue-, and straw-)--the only ones required to be organic are the red peppers and strawberries due to pesticide levels. To this, I add salad greens: romaine, chard, kale, and collards (all organic due to pesticide levels). I also buy organic meat EVERYONE in the family can eat (including the cats), and organic wild rice and red potatoes. I also get organic eggs for the cat's food, and we drink decaf tea as our main beverage. Canned tuna, salmon, jarred salsa, and canned beans (canned cost the same as dry per lb. here) come from the organic store (by the case), but are NOT organic--they are extremely low-sodium, however, and I couldn't find them cheaper anywhere else...NOT EVEN ONLINE.
I still buy odds and ends in quantity at low prices--things like sugar, mustard, nuts, etc. that don't need to be organic, as well as bathroom supplies, cleaning products (alcohol, baking soda, vinegar, peroxide), and all the various soaps of life (dish, bath, hair, dishwasher, etc.).
I spend more for food than the ordinary family, but I spend less time and money at the doctor's and vet's offices.
When it comes to groceries, I have sacrificed quantity for quality even in these tough times.
_____________________________________________________
Let’s take a spin in the way-back machine…to the time before you knew and understood the concepts of thrift and frugality, and what they could do for you in the long run.
Remember those things you thought you couldn’t live without, and didn’t bother trying to? You know—those things that now seem so absurd and wasteful...those things that used to part you from your money quickly month after month, without ever attracting unwanted fiscal attention?
The luxuries. The treats. The frivolous. The over-the-top. The Jones Badges of Consumption Honor.
How many of those things do you live without now, and gladly so? What did you consider wasteful spending, and how did you handle it?
Many women just “have” to have their hair and nails done every week or so, just “have” to own and use the latest and greatest potions and ointments for skin, and just “have” to have a certain scent to be what they consider “normal.” Men have their own must-have rituals too, like certain power tools, the latest razor, a designer scent, and the “right” wardrobe from foreign manufacturers….oh, and let’s not forget the biggest, “screaminest” 4X4 truck that traverses Mount Everest in low gear (or conversely, the ultra-sleek Euro sportscar with all the bells and whistles).
There are other luxuries, but not enough space and time to name them all—and besides, they’d be open to wide interpretation anyway. One person’s luxury is another person’s subsistence level.
Fast forward to today—now you have more time, energy, and money in the bank. This is the reward for giving up some “luxuries” and sacrificing the once-must-haves.
Some of the things I painlessly gave up in order to get here:
*shopping to make myself feel better (retail therapy doesn’t work—trust me!)
*microwave cooking (the effects on my health and electric bill weren’t good)
*working outside the home (the effects on my taxes weren’t good)
*owning a home (a lot more work and money than fellow owners and the media will have you believe)
*a second car (why did I really need one again?)
*lots of furniture (we were moving to a two-bedroom apartment anyway)
*my price book and over-stocked pantry (I have since discovered a new way to save money on groceries)
I never really had the “beauty bug” in the first place, so giving up bubble baths, hair goop, and nail stuff was never an issue. I’m not a real big appearance maven (what you see is what you get), so clothes, makeup, and jewelry went out the window along with the job.
These things aren’t really luxuries, per se, but they were what constituted luxuries in my life. Paris Hilton would laugh out loud if she heard that! Sorry, Paris—no fur-covered, diamond-encrusted, ritzy-labeled, over-hyped stuff for me.
What have I replaced them with? Well, let’s see:
*absolutely no debt of any kind
*a well-funded herd of IRA and Roth accounts (hubby and I both have one of each)
*a swollen savings account (compared to previous balances)
*a well-maintained and well-insured car we both share
*a small apartment that’s economical and efficient
*less furniture to care for and move from location to location
*home cooking that has boosted my health considerably (I haven’t been sick in years)
*more effective shopping from wholesale sources and second-hand (sticking to necessities, of course)
Funny what a shift in the frame of mind can do, huh? Tell us, dear readers, what did YOU give up to get here, and did it hurt at all?
For those new to frugal living, what ARE you giving up to get here, and is it hurting?
__________________________________________________________
UPDATES: We are back to 2 cars, but mine seldom gets driven. I'm in the market for a small house (whose final mortgage payment would be less than our rent), and intend to remedy the 2-car situation when we finally get a house.
As for the "new" shopping method, that has changed again too--I'm back to the price book, but only as reference. The bulk of my shopping is now in health food stores as opposed to farmer's markets, since my local farmer's market here went out of business--I stick primarily to the Wenchypoo Magic 8 foods, keeping the shopping list short: red peppers, carrots, broccoli, plums, navel oranges, and berries (black-, blue-, and straw-)--the only ones required to be organic are the red peppers and strawberries due to pesticide levels. To this, I add salad greens: romaine, chard, kale, and collards (all organic due to pesticide levels). I also buy organic meat EVERYONE in the family can eat (including the cats), and organic wild rice and red potatoes. I also get organic eggs for the cat's food, and we drink decaf tea as our main beverage. Canned tuna, salmon, jarred salsa, and canned beans (canned cost the same as dry per lb. here) come from the organic store (by the case), but are NOT organic--they are extremely low-sodium, however, and I couldn't find them cheaper anywhere else...NOT EVEN ONLINE.
I still buy odds and ends in quantity at low prices--things like sugar, mustard, nuts, etc. that don't need to be organic, as well as bathroom supplies, cleaning products (alcohol, baking soda, vinegar, peroxide), and all the various soaps of life (dish, bath, hair, dishwasher, etc.).
I spend more for food than the ordinary family, but I spend less time and money at the doctor's and vet's offices.
When it comes to groceries, I have sacrificed quantity for quality even in these tough times.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Further Update/Bonus: The "Con" in Lexicon--for the Person Who Asked to Advertise on My Blog
First part originally written back in 2006. For newest update, see dictionary below.
____________________________________________________________
You’ve heard it before, and you hear it everyday: language used in the goal to part us from our money (or other things).
“Save the rainforest” and “save the wetlands” gets people to send in money when they really mean “save the jungle” and “save the swamps.” They’re elaborate fundraising schemes—nobody in his or her right mind would pay to save a jungle or swamp, and from what? From someone else turning it into something more useful and profitable, that’s what.
“It’s not a purchase, it’s an investment” really means an investment in the salesman’s future job outlook.
Language, specifically crafted words, really do a number on us—when used effectively, they manipulate us into doing all kinds of things, but mostly part with some money. They soothe us, they conjure us, they try to paint a picture of a better way, or a better life. Utopia is a concept, not an actual place—otherwise we’d all already be there.
Politicians are clever wordsmiths (or at least their speechwriters are). Key words are thought to get votes: “environment”, “veterans”, “farmers”, “unions”, “pro-life”, “death tax”, or even attempting to speak Spanish. Whatever it takes to appeal to certain groups of voters gets loaded into a speech.
Marketers are another class of clever wordsmith: words like “fair trade”, “organic”, “natural”, or “sale”, or “grande triple mochaccino light whip”—all terms meant to appeal to buyers AND separate buyers into classes of susceptibility. Their art is to play on your emotions and render you helpless. None of it is verifiable on the spot, and you don’t know whether or not you really NEED it.
A classic: “a little old lady used to own this car, and she only drove it to church.” Yeah, sure she did—probably doing 70 mph, two states away. No, wait—that was her grandson during the week. Funny how we never hear of the grandson’s use between church visits, or how the car is really a casualty of Hurricane Katrina that got fixed up and auctioned off.
Persuasion is the language of the “con” artist—the lexi-“con” artist. All of it looks and sounds tempting, but none of it is verifiable. This is where detective work in the form of comparison comes in. The amount of detective work done will reveal another class of patron: one who cares about his money.
Case in point: a Starbuck’s menu board—the great separator without a single word spoken. The menu offers hot chocolate, cappuccino, café mocha, white chocolate mocha, and a 20 oz. cappuccino. Translated into “con speak”, this means “plain old hot chocolate”, “plain old cappuccino”, “mix hot chocolate with the cappuccino”, “use different powder for this one”, and “make mine larger.” See how much can be done with just three ingredients and a multitude of prices for each new combination? The customer is taken from $2.20 all the way to $3.40 (D.C. prices) for a beverage he has been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking is somehow special, and he can’t get it anywhere else or make it for himself at home. Even the paper cup has become a status symbol among commuters—it means “I had money and time to stand in line for this.” To me, it means, “I’m an idiot who wouldn’t know good coffee if it bit me on the leg, and Starbuck’s reeled me in good.” A simple transaction speaks volumes about both buyer and seller. Think about this next time you go to a Mexican restaurant—most of the menu items consist of the same handful of ingredients in a manipulated tortilla (either flat, rolled, or folded over). After scanning the menu, you see that all the items start blurring together in the same combination of ingredients served in a different configuration, yet the prices vary wildly for essentially the same item.
Are we the ultimate suckers or what?
A recent advertising campaign really brought the unspoken “con” home: the car ad that had drivers in expensive cars pulled over and shouting through megaphones such sayings as “because my daddy never hugged me”, and “the more men like me, the more I like myself” over and over. The ad dubbed these “ego emissions”, and they were dead on—so much of what people tend to buy are unspoken ego emissions. Anybody who can objectively look at purchases from a consumer standpoint can see this for themselves.
Psychology has gone from helper to enemy in the consumer world. At any time, anybody can make you believe anything—just look at Hitler and Stalin, media in general—television documentaries, the History Channel (which is riddled with inaccuracies, BTW), various activist groups, Lou Dobbs and CNN, invented film critics, inventful journalists like Jason Blair, Fox News, and book authors—any church, any community leader (or perceived leader), any teacher or professor, any ad with testimonials and before-and-after photos, any salesman worth his salt, PhotoShop software, and even bloggers. Anybody with any amount of influence and something to sell, whether it’s merchandise, a service, or an idea, will employ a lexi-“con” to lure you into doing something in their favor—parting with money or mind. There is even a whole science devoted to selling called “marketing”—just ask Donny Deutsch, host of the Big Idea.
Another good source for lexi-“cons” comes from George Carlin, who recently wrote the book, “When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?” In it, he describes how words are twisted and allowed to evolve into emotional events, depending on who the desired recipient is: “inheritance tax” becomes “death tax” and “shellshock” becomes “post-traumatic stress disorder.” These paint-by-number outlooks are engineered to maximize emotional response, especially near election time. Emotions are most needed at the polls and the malls.
Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to separate fact from fiction, and don’t let the fiction bite you in the wallet. Go forth, consumers, and watch out for the lexi-“con” artists. Beware the power of persuasion and the science of selling in all its forms.
Now for the bonus: here’s a little ditty I’ve been working on for the last three years, and still can’t manage to get it filled in—it’s my very own Lexi-“con”-to-English dictionary.
The Marketer-to-Consumer Dictionary or How to Decipher a Lexi-“Con”
This is my attempt to put together a guide to help you translate the emotional bunk into something you can understand and avoid. Obviously I need help—if you can fill in some of the blanks, please leave a comment for your entry to be added.
A
“Awareness” campaigns: a way to collect money for PR purposes rather than the disease itself.
Antiwar: another word for “peace.”
Auction: a place where people who largely have no idea of worth and value go and bid up prices beyond market value for someone else’s stuff, serving to keep out competition.
B
Barista: overpaid, single-function waitress who pours disgusting coffee into prestigious paper cups, then disguises the taste with flavored syrups and whipped cream.
Black Friday: supposedly means the day when retailers finally get into the black for the year, but really refers to the mourning of consumer common sense.
C
Certified pre-owned: a piece of paper that certifies that yes, this car was pre-owned—a marketing gimmick supposedly to make the consumer less leery about buying a used vehicle.
Coupon: a piece of paper offering money off the price of a particular item that is nearly always the highest-priced-per-unit in it’s category. The piece of paper is enticement to get you to buy an otherwise over-priced, unnecessary item when perfectly good substitutes and cheaper alternatives are often right next to it on the shelf.
D
Door-to-door salesmen: beware these people, because chances are very good their wares aren’t fit for standard retail sale due to age or inferiority, legal reasons (banned or recalled by someone), legitimacy reasons (someone else’s cheap copy), or it may be a plain old-fashioned stolen item.
Deal: you have to ask, “for whom?” before partaking—what is advertised as a deal may really turn out to be a deal for the retailer and not you. Prices for that same item may have been lower in the past, or may be lower in the near future, but certainly aren’t right now. In fact, markups usually preceded any so-called “sale” or “deal.”
E
Environmentalist: someone who tries to play on your emotional heartstrings to get money or attention from you for a cause, whether it’s a legitimate one or not.
Ego emission: buying an expensive and prestigious, or wholly unnecessary item for the sake of ego.
F
Fair trade: supposedly a method of trade with suppliers who promise not to exploit children, the environment, or animals. It only serves to make the buyer happy to overpay while raising the supplier’s lifestyle up a couple of notches—the supplier has found a sucker.
Fee: another word for tax, charge, or surcharge.
Fair Tax: a clever scheme to enact a VAT tax on everything we buy. Its goal is to shove off tax payments and collections from the manufacturer and state to the retailer. See Value-added Tax.
G
H
I
J
K
L
Lexi-“con”: a con artist’s dictionary of words and phrases designed to help sell the consumer on his or her product, service, or ideal.
Liquidation sale: where a business goes out of business, and tries to sell off remaining inventory at supposedly low prices—what you DON’T know is that professional liquidators have come in and marked the prices back up to full retail before they start discounting. If you peel back the sticker on an item before buying, you can see for yourself. Those “discounts” are the LIQUIDATOR prices and not the company’s prices—quite often, you’ll find that the store’s last clearance price is half what the current liquidation price is.
Liquidation: another word for “we’re broke and need to sell this stuff quickly, but at not-too-low prices, and we pan on dragging this thing out for months with low discounts.”
Layaway: a clever storage program that makes tons of money for the retailers involved, because only about 2/3 of customers ever actually pay off their intended purchases and take them home. It's the same as renting an object while leaving it at the store.
M
Menu: a list of the same foods arranged in different configurations at different prices to see how high your “sucker” threshold is.
N
No-haggle pricing: a method used by car dealers to lure and reassure lilly-livered buyers into thinking they won’t overpay for a car, when the exact opposite is true. These dealers usually make about a 20% profit on cars, whereas regular dealers can make anywhere from 50% to 200% off the same car. Haggling is fighting for your purchasing power.
O
Organic non-food items: manufactured to make you feel better about jamming a landfill with disposable diapers, 100% recycled paper goods, all-cotton sanitary products, empty toothpaste tubes, used deodorant sticks, and plastic jugs full that once held biodegradable laundry detergent.
“Only”: when a sales pitch or marketing scheme includes the word “only”, it suggests that you are to compare the product in question to something else, only there IS nothing else to compare it to—either in the immediate area or on the retail market. Billy Mays is the king of “only” ads on TV. BEWARE OF THE WORD “ONLY”.
P
Promote: usually an ad campaign is used to promote something, or raise awareness for something--it's plain old marketing with different words to describe it. See "awareness campaign" above.
Q
R
Reprocessed: another term for “used and abused.”
Revenue: another word for “tax.”
Revenue enhancement: another term for “tax increase.”
Remodeled: a change in interior and/or ambience--often used as an excuse to charge higher prices.
Rebate: a piece of paper or printed offer essentially giving you your own money back on an item that was over-priced to begin with.
S
Sale: An old term to denote a price discount to attract buyers. Most of the time, the so-called “sale” is actually a temporary price increase.
Surcharge: another word for “tax” and is used interchangeably with “fee,” “revenue,” or “revenue enhancement.”
T
Tax: a state or federal cut of the total price of something. You're always paying for two or three when you buy anything.
U
V
Value-added tax (or VAT): From Wikipedia--Personal end-consumers of products and services cannot recover VAT on purchases, but businesses are able to recover VAT on the materials and services that they buy to make further supplies or services directly or indirectly sold to end-users. In this way, the total tax levied at each stage in the economic chain of supply is a constant fraction of the value added by a business to its products, and most of the cost of collecting the tax is borne by business, rather than by the state. VAT was invented because very high sales taxes and tariffs encourage cheating and smuggling. In other words, a sales tax like the Fair Tax structure--now you know where it comes from.
W
X
Y
Z
If that wasn't enough to dissuade you, try this: Choice vs. Privacy Invasion
____________________________________________________________
You’ve heard it before, and you hear it everyday: language used in the goal to part us from our money (or other things).
“Save the rainforest” and “save the wetlands” gets people to send in money when they really mean “save the jungle” and “save the swamps.” They’re elaborate fundraising schemes—nobody in his or her right mind would pay to save a jungle or swamp, and from what? From someone else turning it into something more useful and profitable, that’s what.
“It’s not a purchase, it’s an investment” really means an investment in the salesman’s future job outlook.
Language, specifically crafted words, really do a number on us—when used effectively, they manipulate us into doing all kinds of things, but mostly part with some money. They soothe us, they conjure us, they try to paint a picture of a better way, or a better life. Utopia is a concept, not an actual place—otherwise we’d all already be there.
Politicians are clever wordsmiths (or at least their speechwriters are). Key words are thought to get votes: “environment”, “veterans”, “farmers”, “unions”, “pro-life”, “death tax”, or even attempting to speak Spanish. Whatever it takes to appeal to certain groups of voters gets loaded into a speech.
Marketers are another class of clever wordsmith: words like “fair trade”, “organic”, “natural”, or “sale”, or “grande triple mochaccino light whip”—all terms meant to appeal to buyers AND separate buyers into classes of susceptibility. Their art is to play on your emotions and render you helpless. None of it is verifiable on the spot, and you don’t know whether or not you really NEED it.
A classic: “a little old lady used to own this car, and she only drove it to church.” Yeah, sure she did—probably doing 70 mph, two states away. No, wait—that was her grandson during the week. Funny how we never hear of the grandson’s use between church visits, or how the car is really a casualty of Hurricane Katrina that got fixed up and auctioned off.
Persuasion is the language of the “con” artist—the lexi-“con” artist. All of it looks and sounds tempting, but none of it is verifiable. This is where detective work in the form of comparison comes in. The amount of detective work done will reveal another class of patron: one who cares about his money.
Case in point: a Starbuck’s menu board—the great separator without a single word spoken. The menu offers hot chocolate, cappuccino, café mocha, white chocolate mocha, and a 20 oz. cappuccino. Translated into “con speak”, this means “plain old hot chocolate”, “plain old cappuccino”, “mix hot chocolate with the cappuccino”, “use different powder for this one”, and “make mine larger.” See how much can be done with just three ingredients and a multitude of prices for each new combination? The customer is taken from $2.20 all the way to $3.40 (D.C. prices) for a beverage he has been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking is somehow special, and he can’t get it anywhere else or make it for himself at home. Even the paper cup has become a status symbol among commuters—it means “I had money and time to stand in line for this.” To me, it means, “I’m an idiot who wouldn’t know good coffee if it bit me on the leg, and Starbuck’s reeled me in good.” A simple transaction speaks volumes about both buyer and seller. Think about this next time you go to a Mexican restaurant—most of the menu items consist of the same handful of ingredients in a manipulated tortilla (either flat, rolled, or folded over). After scanning the menu, you see that all the items start blurring together in the same combination of ingredients served in a different configuration, yet the prices vary wildly for essentially the same item.
Are we the ultimate suckers or what?
A recent advertising campaign really brought the unspoken “con” home: the car ad that had drivers in expensive cars pulled over and shouting through megaphones such sayings as “because my daddy never hugged me”, and “the more men like me, the more I like myself” over and over. The ad dubbed these “ego emissions”, and they were dead on—so much of what people tend to buy are unspoken ego emissions. Anybody who can objectively look at purchases from a consumer standpoint can see this for themselves.
Psychology has gone from helper to enemy in the consumer world. At any time, anybody can make you believe anything—just look at Hitler and Stalin, media in general—television documentaries, the History Channel (which is riddled with inaccuracies, BTW), various activist groups, Lou Dobbs and CNN, invented film critics, inventful journalists like Jason Blair, Fox News, and book authors—any church, any community leader (or perceived leader), any teacher or professor, any ad with testimonials and before-and-after photos, any salesman worth his salt, PhotoShop software, and even bloggers. Anybody with any amount of influence and something to sell, whether it’s merchandise, a service, or an idea, will employ a lexi-“con” to lure you into doing something in their favor—parting with money or mind. There is even a whole science devoted to selling called “marketing”—just ask Donny Deutsch, host of the Big Idea.
Another good source for lexi-“cons” comes from George Carlin, who recently wrote the book, “When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?” In it, he describes how words are twisted and allowed to evolve into emotional events, depending on who the desired recipient is: “inheritance tax” becomes “death tax” and “shellshock” becomes “post-traumatic stress disorder.” These paint-by-number outlooks are engineered to maximize emotional response, especially near election time. Emotions are most needed at the polls and the malls.
Your job, should you choose to accept it, is to separate fact from fiction, and don’t let the fiction bite you in the wallet. Go forth, consumers, and watch out for the lexi-“con” artists. Beware the power of persuasion and the science of selling in all its forms.
Now for the bonus: here’s a little ditty I’ve been working on for the last three years, and still can’t manage to get it filled in—it’s my very own Lexi-“con”-to-English dictionary.
The Marketer-to-Consumer Dictionary or How to Decipher a Lexi-“Con”
This is my attempt to put together a guide to help you translate the emotional bunk into something you can understand and avoid. Obviously I need help—if you can fill in some of the blanks, please leave a comment for your entry to be added.
A
“Awareness” campaigns: a way to collect money for PR purposes rather than the disease itself.
Antiwar: another word for “peace.”
Auction: a place where people who largely have no idea of worth and value go and bid up prices beyond market value for someone else’s stuff, serving to keep out competition.
B
Barista: overpaid, single-function waitress who pours disgusting coffee into prestigious paper cups, then disguises the taste with flavored syrups and whipped cream.
Black Friday: supposedly means the day when retailers finally get into the black for the year, but really refers to the mourning of consumer common sense.
C
Certified pre-owned: a piece of paper that certifies that yes, this car was pre-owned—a marketing gimmick supposedly to make the consumer less leery about buying a used vehicle.
Coupon: a piece of paper offering money off the price of a particular item that is nearly always the highest-priced-per-unit in it’s category. The piece of paper is enticement to get you to buy an otherwise over-priced, unnecessary item when perfectly good substitutes and cheaper alternatives are often right next to it on the shelf.
D
Door-to-door salesmen: beware these people, because chances are very good their wares aren’t fit for standard retail sale due to age or inferiority, legal reasons (banned or recalled by someone), legitimacy reasons (someone else’s cheap copy), or it may be a plain old-fashioned stolen item.
Deal: you have to ask, “for whom?” before partaking—what is advertised as a deal may really turn out to be a deal for the retailer and not you. Prices for that same item may have been lower in the past, or may be lower in the near future, but certainly aren’t right now. In fact, markups usually preceded any so-called “sale” or “deal.”
E
Environmentalist: someone who tries to play on your emotional heartstrings to get money or attention from you for a cause, whether it’s a legitimate one or not.
Ego emission: buying an expensive and prestigious, or wholly unnecessary item for the sake of ego.
F
Fair trade: supposedly a method of trade with suppliers who promise not to exploit children, the environment, or animals. It only serves to make the buyer happy to overpay while raising the supplier’s lifestyle up a couple of notches—the supplier has found a sucker.
Fee: another word for tax, charge, or surcharge.
Fair Tax: a clever scheme to enact a VAT tax on everything we buy. Its goal is to shove off tax payments and collections from the manufacturer and state to the retailer. See Value-added Tax.
G
H
I
J
K
L
Lexi-“con”: a con artist’s dictionary of words and phrases designed to help sell the consumer on his or her product, service, or ideal.
Liquidation sale: where a business goes out of business, and tries to sell off remaining inventory at supposedly low prices—what you DON’T know is that professional liquidators have come in and marked the prices back up to full retail before they start discounting. If you peel back the sticker on an item before buying, you can see for yourself. Those “discounts” are the LIQUIDATOR prices and not the company’s prices—quite often, you’ll find that the store’s last clearance price is half what the current liquidation price is.
Liquidation: another word for “we’re broke and need to sell this stuff quickly, but at not-too-low prices, and we pan on dragging this thing out for months with low discounts.”
Layaway: a clever storage program that makes tons of money for the retailers involved, because only about 2/3 of customers ever actually pay off their intended purchases and take them home. It's the same as renting an object while leaving it at the store.
M
Menu: a list of the same foods arranged in different configurations at different prices to see how high your “sucker” threshold is.
N
No-haggle pricing: a method used by car dealers to lure and reassure lilly-livered buyers into thinking they won’t overpay for a car, when the exact opposite is true. These dealers usually make about a 20% profit on cars, whereas regular dealers can make anywhere from 50% to 200% off the same car. Haggling is fighting for your purchasing power.
O
Organic non-food items: manufactured to make you feel better about jamming a landfill with disposable diapers, 100% recycled paper goods, all-cotton sanitary products, empty toothpaste tubes, used deodorant sticks, and plastic jugs full that once held biodegradable laundry detergent.
“Only”: when a sales pitch or marketing scheme includes the word “only”, it suggests that you are to compare the product in question to something else, only there IS nothing else to compare it to—either in the immediate area or on the retail market. Billy Mays is the king of “only” ads on TV. BEWARE OF THE WORD “ONLY”.
P
Promote: usually an ad campaign is used to promote something, or raise awareness for something--it's plain old marketing with different words to describe it. See "awareness campaign" above.
Q
R
Reprocessed: another term for “used and abused.”
Revenue: another word for “tax.”
Revenue enhancement: another term for “tax increase.”
Remodeled: a change in interior and/or ambience--often used as an excuse to charge higher prices.
Rebate: a piece of paper or printed offer essentially giving you your own money back on an item that was over-priced to begin with.
S
Sale: An old term to denote a price discount to attract buyers. Most of the time, the so-called “sale” is actually a temporary price increase.
Surcharge: another word for “tax” and is used interchangeably with “fee,” “revenue,” or “revenue enhancement.”
T
Tax: a state or federal cut of the total price of something. You're always paying for two or three when you buy anything.
U
V
Value-added tax (or VAT): From Wikipedia--Personal end-consumers of products and services cannot recover VAT on purchases, but businesses are able to recover VAT on the materials and services that they buy to make further supplies or services directly or indirectly sold to end-users. In this way, the total tax levied at each stage in the economic chain of supply is a constant fraction of the value added by a business to its products, and most of the cost of collecting the tax is borne by business, rather than by the state. VAT was invented because very high sales taxes and tariffs encourage cheating and smuggling. In other words, a sales tax like the Fair Tax structure--now you know where it comes from.
W
X
Y
Z
If that wasn't enough to dissuade you, try this: Choice vs. Privacy Invasion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
