http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Debit card article in Reader's Digest - 17 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/30646f032f4ff9e6?hl=en
* 2⊙ ⊙Attractive and practical thing, ultra small advantage - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0a03de4a08c8e414?hl=en
* Exploding television... - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/354f162529b27d4f?hl=en
* Cover Your Assets - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/dcce736e57c861d5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Debit card article in Reader's Digest
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/30646f032f4ff9e6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:01 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:39:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>SMS ???. ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> I'd love to know any reason that someone would use a MC/Visa logo
>> debit card rather than an actual credit card, because I can't think
>> of any good reasons.
>
>One obvious reason is that you dont have to fart around paying the card off in full every month.
>
That can be done via automatic fund transfer from your bank account.
I don't do that, since that's when I look over the CC registry for any
suspicious charge. If there is a charge I want to dispute, and there
have been a few over the years, I call the CC customer service, and
don't send that piece in my payment.
But it's just another monthly online payment with Quicken. Basically
click on the payee, plug in the amount, and hit send.
--Vic
== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:08 pm
From: timeOday
SMS 斯蒂文* 夏 wrote:
> As the RD article pointed out, you have two days from
> receiving your bank statement to dispute any debits, then your liability
> goes way up.
No, you have 2 business days from when you notice the card is gone, or
60 days from receiving a statement, to report it.
== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:21 pm
From: LDC
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:34:18 -0800, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>imascot wrote:
>> Anyone read the article warning people about debit cards in the new RD?
>> Here's the website version, looks like the same one:
>>
>> http://www.rd.com/content/debit-card-traps-and-fees-to-avoid/
>> I was surprised at the growing popularity of debit cards, I thought most
>> people were getting into trouble with credit cards.
>>
>> J.
>
> My credit union offers the same protection for my debit card as my
>credit card. I recently won a dispute over a small bill.
> In addition should I exceed the balance they will first transfer
>funds from my checking account and then my money market account before
>declining the purchase,bouncing a check or imposing an overdraft charge.
>They charge nothing for this.
I was surprised the RD article suggested this. You have overdraft
protection via linked accounts. All this does is allow fraudulent
use of the debit card the ability to drain two or three accounts
instead of just one. I guess I don't see the advantage of that.
Once again, as another poster so clearly stated, you may have the
same protection with debit and credit cards in the end. It is what
happens to your money while the problem is being resolved that is
dramatically different.
For those who "have never had a problem," remember it only takes
once. Fraud is available with any type of transaction, including
cash. A wise consumer takes steps to limit exposure to risk.
== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:23 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> SMS ???. ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>>> I'd love to know any reason that someone would use a MC/Visa logo debit card
>>> rather than an actual credit card, because I can't think of any good reasons.
>> One obvious reason is that you dont have to fart
>> around paying the card off in full every month.
> That can be done via automatic fund transfer from your bank account.
I'd rather not do that, because if the card gets ripped off, the last
thing I want is for the effect of that to be automatically transferred
to the bank account if I happen to be out of town when the rippoff
occurs etc, and that is when its much more likely to happen.
I want to be able to tell the card issuer that the fraudulent use of the card
is their problem, not mine, and just use one of the backup cards while the
card issuer gets its act into gear on the fraudulent use of the card.
> I don't do that, since that's when I look over the CC registry for
> any suspicious charge. If there is a charge I want to dispute,
> and there have been a few over the years, I call the CC
> customer service, and don't send that piece in my payment.
And so there are some advantages in not always using the credit card, like I said.
The other obvious advantage is that the credit card usually has the
highest merchant fees and those arent always covered by the merchant.
> But it's just another monthly online payment with Quicken.
> Basically click on the payee, plug in the amount, and hit send.
Sure, but not everyone automates their card use like that. Those
may have some real advantages in using a debit card that has
the same guarantees from the card issuer as they get with a
credit card, particularly not having to do anything monthly at all.
== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:29 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
LDC <ldcolton@san.spamblocker.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:34:18 -0800, George Grapman
> <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> imascot wrote:
>>> Anyone read the article warning people about debit cards in the new
>>> RD? Here's the website version, looks like the same one:
>>>
>>> http://www.rd.com/content/debit-card-traps-and-fees-to-avoid/
>>> I was surprised at the growing popularity of debit cards, I thought
>>> most people were getting into trouble with credit cards.
>>>
>>> J.
>>
>> My credit union offers the same protection for my debit card as my
>> credit card. I recently won a dispute over a small bill.
>> In addition should I exceed the balance they will first transfer
>> funds from my checking account and then my money market account
>> before declining the purchase,bouncing a check or imposing an
>> overdraft charge. They charge nothing for this.
>
> I was surprised the RD article suggested this. You have overdraft
> protection via linked accounts. All this does is allow fraudulent
> use of the debit card the ability to drain two or three accounts
> instead of just one. I guess I don't see the advantage of that.
>
> Once again, as another poster so clearly stated, you may have the
> same protection with debit and credit cards in the end. It is what
> happens to your money while the problem is being resolved that is
> dramatically different.
>
> For those who "have never had a problem," remember it only takes
> once. Fraud is available with any type of transaction, including
> cash. A wise consumer takes steps to limit exposure to risk.
And the best way to do that is what rick calls a gateway account that cant
be looted for more than you will just yawn about while the problem is resolved.
If you have that because its the best protection, even if the bank chooses to
try to play silly buggers about what the law requires for a while, and you have
enough of a clue to have a debit card with the same protection as a credit
card has, there isnt really any point in using the credit card for most transactions,
and its best to just use the credit card for backup and for when a particular
operation like say car rental will only accept a credit card and then you only
have to bother to do the monthly pay in full operation very occassionally
when you ended up needing to use the credit card for whatever reason.
== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:31 pm
From: George Grapman
LDC wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:34:18 -0800, George Grapman
> <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> imascot wrote:
>>> Anyone read the article warning people about debit cards in the new RD?
>>> Here's the website version, looks like the same one:
>>>
>>> http://www.rd.com/content/debit-card-traps-and-fees-to-avoid/
>>> I was surprised at the growing popularity of debit cards, I thought most
>>> people were getting into trouble with credit cards.
>>>
>>> J.
>> My credit union offers the same protection for my debit card as my
>> credit card. I recently won a dispute over a small bill.
>> In addition should I exceed the balance they will first transfer
>> funds from my checking account and then my money market account before
>> declining the purchase,bouncing a check or imposing an overdraft charge.
>> They charge nothing for this.
>
> I was surprised the RD article suggested this. You have overdraft
> protection via linked accounts. All this does is allow fraudulent
> use of the debit card the ability to drain two or three accounts
> instead of just one. I guess I don't see the advantage of that.
>
> Once again, as another poster so clearly stated, you may have the
> same protection with debit and credit cards in the end. It is what
> happens to your money while the problem is being resolved that is
> dramatically different.
As I have already noted the one time I disputed a debit card charge
the funds were back in my account the next day. I can not address the
policies of other financial institutions.
>
> For those who "have never had a problem," remember it only takes
> once. Fraud is available with any type of transaction, including
> cash. A wise consumer takes steps to limit exposure to risk.
== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:37 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 07:23:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote
>
>> But it's just another monthly online payment with Quicken.
>> Basically click on the payee, plug in the amount, and hit send.
>
>Sure, but not everyone automates their card use like that. Those
>may have some real advantages in using a debit card that has
>the same guarantees from the card issuer as they get with a
>credit card, particularly not having to do anything monthly at all.
>
True enough, and I agree.
--Vic
== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:42 pm
From: LDC
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:38:16 -0700, Rick Blaine <dont@bother.com>
wrote:
>There are three types of ATM or Debit cards these days:
>
>- The classic bank ATM card which works at local ATMs. It may work at local
>online retailers, if they all belong to a local or regional ATM network. These
>are almost impossible to find, but banks can issue them. There's no advantage to
>using one though.
Unless, of course, you want to use it in the classic manner:
extracting cash from an ATM.
== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:45 pm
From: Scott in SoCal
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:38:16 -0800 (PST), sfgeorge
<sfgeorge@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On Dec 19, 7:10 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:40:25 -0800, George Grapman
>>
>> <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> > I know people who take their pay checks to their employers bank
>> >(often incurring a fee) because they do no want anyone in the company to
>> >have their account number.
>>
>> Are you sure they are not just illegal aliens without a bank account?
>
> Positive,. The two I am thinking of were born here. One refuses to
>get an answering machine because he thinks it would let a thief know
>that he was not home. I tried to explain that no answer is a stringer
>sign of that than a machine where one might be screening calls but it
>did not register.
So these people are just dumb. :)
== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:50 pm
From: Scott in SoCal
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800, George Grapman
<sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
> As I noted in a previous post the one time that I disputed a debit
>card item the money was back in my account the next day.
You were lucky. Some people, such as the two profiled in the MSNBC
Identity Theft show I saw the other day, waited weeks or months to get
their money back. One guy is still fighting with his bank after 8
months. They have sent collection agents after him, and he is
basically blacklisted in the banking industry (e.g. can't open another
bank account) until he can clear things up.
== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:50 pm
From: George Grapman
LDC wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:38:16 -0700, Rick Blaine <dont@bother.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There are three types of ATM or Debit cards these days:
>>
>> - The classic bank ATM card which works at local ATMs. It may work at local
>> online retailers, if they all belong to a local or regional ATM network. These
>> are almost impossible to find, but banks can issue them. There's no advantage to
>> using one though.
>
> Unless, of course, you want to use it in the classic manner:
> extracting cash from an ATM.
And as a poster noted, a stolen ATM card is worthless to the thief.
On a related note debit cards have really cut into the sales of
travelers checks. I can not remember the last time I used them.
== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:53 pm
From: George Grapman
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:38:16 -0800 (PST), sfgeorge
> <sfgeorge@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 19, 7:10 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:40:25 -0800, George Grapman
>>>
>>> <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>>> I know people who take their pay checks to their employers bank
>>>> (often incurring a fee) because they do no want anyone in the company to
>>>> have their account number.
>>> Are you sure they are not just illegal aliens without a bank account?
>> Positive,. The two I am thinking of were born here. One refuses to
>> get an answering machine because he thinks it would let a thief know
>> that he was not home. I tried to explain that no answer is a stringer
>> sign of that than a machine where one might be screening calls but it
>> did not register.
>
> So these people are just dumb. :)
Some otherwise smart people can be dumb about one or two things.
== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:54 pm
From: George Grapman
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:03:23 -0800, George Grapman
> <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote:
>
>> As I noted in a previous post the one time that I disputed a debit
>> card item the money was back in my account the next day.
>
> You were lucky. Some people, such as the two profiled in the MSNBC
> Identity Theft show I saw the other day, waited weeks or months to get
> their money back. One guy is still fighting with his bank after 8
> months. They have sent collection agents after him, and he is
> basically blacklisted in the banking industry (e.g. can't open another
> bank account) until he can clear things up.
Before opening my account I checked the rules on how my credit union
dealt with those issues.
== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 3:58 pm
From: SMS 斯蒂文* 夏
Rick Blaine wrote:
> SMS ???* ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Again, these are very easy to find. They are issued upon request. The
>> problem is that you're equating what the bank does by default (sending a
>> Visa/MC Logo card) with "hard to find" when in fact they are not hard
>> to find at all.
>>
>
> By hard to find, I mean the bank does not advertise it, make it easy to get and
> in some cases, will refuse to issue this type of debit card.
Well I only have three examples from the banks I use, but none of them
refused to issue it, nor did they make it hard to get. You just had to
ask them for it. But as you state, the reason they don't push these
cards out is because they're less profitable for the bank, and less
risky for the account holder.
It's almost like buying insurance--whatever they don't want to sell you
is what you really want to buy.
>> These are the ones that should be avoided. You lose all the federal
>> protections of the Fair Credit Billing Act, you are at great risk if the
>> card is lost or stolen, and of course there is no advantage to you to
>> use one versus a credit card.
>>
>
> Agreed 100%.
A good rule of thumb when dealing with banks, insurance companies, and
car dealers is that whatever they do want to sell you is what you don't
want.
>> The real question is why anyone would ever want to use a MC/Visa debit
>> card rather than a credit card. The advantages of using a credit card
>> are overwhelming. The banks, as well as Mastercard and Visa really want
>> you to use the MC/Visa debit card rather than a credit card. That should
>> be enough to convince anyone that it's better to use a credit card!
>
> Minor clarification: The real question is why anyone would want to use a MC/Visa
> signature (offline) debit card for the reasons you cited. Some people have valid
> reasons for using online (PIN required) debit. That's no different and much
> safer than carrying cash. While there's nothing wrong with using an MC/Visa card
> in the online mode (ie with a PIN), the fact that the card could be used by a
> thief without a PIN makes it a poor choice to carry.
Yes, I can see some reasons to use an ATM-only card (or the Maestro or
Electron card) but no reason to ever use a Mastercard or Visa debit
card, though maybe someone can come up with a valid reason (other than
the card holder can't qualify for a credit card).
== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:01 pm
From: SMS 斯蒂文* 夏
George Grapman wrote:
> I use mine because any time I need cash I can go to a store,buy
> something with the card and get cash back with no charge. Beats having
> to drive around looking for an ATM.
You can do the same thing with a Maestro, Electron, or plain bank ATM
card. No need to risk using a Mastercard or Visa debit card. I've done
this on occasion, when going to an ATM was inconvenient.
== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:03 pm
From: SMS 斯蒂文* 夏
Vic Smith wrote:
> Never thought of that one. I have plenty of ATM's handy, but hardly
> ever use cash anyway.
And of course the plain ATM card or Maestro/Electron card can also get
you cash back.
I hate paying with an ATM card just to get some cash back because I lose
the rebate on that purchase, but I've done it on occasion when I really
needed some cash for something.
== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:06 pm
From: SMS 斯蒂文* 夏
Vic Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:39:23 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> SMS ???. ? <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I'd love to know any reason that someone would use a MC/Visa logo
>>> debit card rather than an actual credit card, because I can't think
>>> of any good reasons.
>> One obvious reason is that you dont have to fart around paying the card off in full every month.
>>
> That can be done via automatic fund transfer from your bank account.
> I don't do that, since that's when I look over the CC registry for any
> suspicious charge. If there is a charge I want to dispute, and there
> have been a few over the years, I call the CC customer service, and
> don't send that piece in my payment.
> But it's just another monthly online payment with Quicken. Basically
> click on the payee, plug in the amount, and hit send.
In fact it's much simpler to make a single credit card payment after a
quick scan of the credit card bill, than to have to keep track of every
single debit on a checking account. George just proved that with his
statement that he checks his account twice a day to see the activity on
the account. Talk about using technology to make your life as
complicated as possible!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2⊙ ⊙Attractive and practical thing, ultra small advantage
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0a03de4a08c8e414?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 12:42 pm
From: cheapeshopcn11@gmail.com
It is our pleasure to meet you here.
we are ale cheapeshop International Trade Co.,Ltd in Fujian of China.
We are professional and honest wholesaler of all kinds of brand
sneaks and apparel.the products
our company supply are as follows:
1.jordan1-21shoes
2.airmax(95/97/360/2003/TN...)shoes
3.airforce1(airforce1/bape/dunk...)shoes
4.Shoes(R3/R4/NZ/turbo/t13/monster...)shoes
5.Shoes/Shoes/Shoes/rift/Sports shoes
6.fashion branded hoodies/jeans/caps/handbag/t-shirts and
others
7.because the space of the website is limited,we can also supply many
other products which be not showed out in our site. if you have the
photos of the products you need , we are pleasure to supply for your
orders.
And our company can supply for our customers ,as follow:
1. top quality.all our products have top quality.
2. most rational price.we will give you best price according to your
ordering quatity and the place you are at.
3. safe and fast shipment. As different country you are in, we will
deliver the products to you by different ways and pledge to arrive to
your address 100%.and we will send the products to you within 24h
after we get your payment.
4.many products in stock. We have many products in stock and kinds of
size you need , also include kid's.
5.our credit. If the products can be not delivered to your address as
our reason, we will refund the money you paid.
Hope sincerely to have glad and long term business relationship with
you.
////////////////////////
good quailt and low price ,hope every one do business with me
////////////////////////
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Exploding television...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/354f162529b27d4f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 1:12 pm
From: Dennis
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:22:33 GMT, PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:59:33 -0000, gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)
>wrote:
>
>>cornformal
>
>
>Sigh. Two finger typing and sleepy eyes. 6 point type isn't exactly
>kind on casual proof-reading.
>
>To address another's comment. Smashing a TV crt is a staple
>expression of anger in movies. The glass breaks and the bright light
>goes fizz. For effect the prop guy may add a puff of smoke, probably
>using black powder, and dub in the fizz soundtrack too. No electronic
>component smokes that way. But no flying shards of glass that cut the
>actor or another actor nearby.
Most of us understand that movies are make-believe and don't make a
very compelling argument against actual firsthand personal experience.
>They use real TV sets not props (need
>the video with scan lines or it'll look fake.) The stunt co-ordinator
>knows the danger zone around smashing a TV set. Exploding glass from
>an implosion there may be but they don't go far.
*smirk* Now who's making things up?
Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 1:44 pm
From: "Lou"
"Vic Smith" <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i7kgm3d2jurgdipqd3t3crhndgmktg255e@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:57:43 -0800 (PST), Seerialmom
> <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 18, 9:20 am, maryatbe...@webtv.net (Mary Mathews) wrote:
> >> My sister's friend's TV exploded. The two ladies there were hurt and
> >> taken to the hospital. The house burned to the ground. Does anyone here
> >> know about exploding TV's and what we can do to prevent such an
> >> accident? Thanks. Mary
> >
> >Simplest answer: Don't have a TV in the house Second simplest answer:
> >Get an LCD TV; no pesky CRT to build up pressure and burst.
>
> Just have to bleed off the CRT pressure once in a while.
> Problem solved.
That doesn't make much sense - CRT's are vacuum tubes. A defective tube
would most likely implode, not explode.
That being said, TV's do apparently explode occasionally. See for instance
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1656362.ece
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 3:58 pm
From: PaPaPeng
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:12:07 -0800, Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:22:33 GMT, PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:59:33 -0000, gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>cornformal
>>
>>
>>Sigh. Two finger typing and sleepy eyes. 6 point type isn't exactly
>>kind on casual proof-reading.
>>
>>To address another's comment. Smashing a TV crt is a staple
>>expression of anger in movies. The glass breaks and the bright light
>>goes fizz. For effect the prop guy may add a puff of smoke, probably
>>using black powder, and dub in the fizz soundtrack too. No electronic
>>component smokes that way. But no flying shards of glass that cut the
>>actor or another actor nearby.
>
>Most of us understand that movies are make-believe and don't make a
>very compelling argument against actual firsthand personal experience.
I had fixed many computer monitors, CRT and LCD displays (job related)
and my own TV sets. After being zapped once 30 years ago I had
never been zapped thereafter. I can find my way around any CRT or
LCD display without breaking or smoking any parts. In that sense I
don't have much experience with dangerous CRTs. I have never come
across one myself or heard of a piece of consumer electronics
equipment bursting into flames from people in the
electronics/electrical equipment trade. For the hell of it I tried
breaking a 23 inch TV set to find out what it would take to do it.
Believe me they build them real strong. You can drop it off a table
for example and the box will be dinged badly without the tube
shattering.
In modern equipment (ie anything 20 years old or newer) the parts are
so small and draw so little juice that even if a component does smoke
(short circuit) the worst that happens is a charred spot smaller than
a shirt button. Often you cannot even spot the part that failed.
Ergo modern electronics are not repairable on account of very highly
integrated parts (a whole function block in a single chip). The
electrical interconnects are thinner than a human hair and the whole
board is sealed under a thick polymer coating. The slightest
electrical surge and some electrical trace will vaporize somewhere.
There is no heat build-up to start any sparks or flames. A 32 inch
CRT TV has only a single board. If that goes the only option is to
replace the whole board. And since model changes happen in less than
a year that TV, and just about every modern electronics gadget, is as
good as a tosser.
>
>>They use real TV sets not props (need
>>the video with scan lines or it'll look fake.) The stunt co-ordinator
>>knows the danger zone around smashing a TV set. Exploding glass from
>>an implosion there may be but they don't go far.
>
>*smirk* Now who's making things up?
When a TV tube implodes some fragments will bounce. They don't go
far. I know what I am talking about. If you want to worry yourself
about exploding TV tubes be my guest.
>
>
>Dennis (evil)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cover Your Assets
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/dcce736e57c861d5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 1:52 pm
From: moreonrealestate
Article Source: http://moreonrealestate.com
If you own a rental property, make sure your insurance coverage is
protecting your investment. Most insurance companies offer specialized
insurance packages for landlords and property owners that help cover
any loss incurred by tenants, lawsuits, loss of rent and even
terrorism. Though in many cases, regular household insurance will
cover claims on rental properties, most household insurance policies
aren't tailored to the needs of landlords and therefore don't address
them. Sometimes simply having a tenant can make your home insurance
policy null and void - so check the fine print!
LOSS OF PROPERTY
The most basic coverage will protect you against major losses in case
of fire, high wind or other damages that make your property
unrentable. All policies are different however, and no one policy will
suit all landowners in all areas of the country. there are however,
two basic types of policies to choose from:
1. NAMED PERIL policies require the policy holder to choose specific
types of losses that will be insured against
2.COMPREHENSIVE policies provide much broader coverage and includes a
wide variety of accidental losses. Despite the name however, most
polices are not truly 'comprehensive.' Make sure to check the list of
exclusions before you make your choice.
INSURANCE AGAINST TERRORISM?
Aside from flood damage, one of the most widespread exclusions right
now are terrorist events. If you own a rental property in a major
urban center, you might want to look into coverage that protects you
against this as well. After 9/11, many agencies adjusted their
policies to exclude "terrorist events" from basic coverage. The
attacks, which cost the industry in excess of $40 billion, caused a
backlash that saw most companies raise prices, raise deductibles, and
alter polices to require policy holders to purchase terrorism
insurance separately (if available).
Increasingly however, specialized landlord policies address this issue
and provide some sort coverage for those who own rental property.
Though burned by the attacks on the world trade center, support from
the federal government has allowed insurers to get their courage back
up and give landlords the kind of protection they've been asking for
since 2001.
LOSS OF RENT
As part of their coverage for property owners, many companies offer
additional insurance against loss of rent. In most cases this applies
to situations in which the property becomes unrentable due to damage.
When this happens, the insurance company will cover the rent on the
property for a certain number of months. Other types of rent loss
protection cover long periods of time when a property goes unrented
that isn't due to damage or protect landlords against tenants who
default on the rent.
Landlords with multiple rental properties or buildings will probably
also want to consider insurance against lawsuits or policies that will
cover legal fees in the case of a lawsuit. Keep in mind that because
policies at different insurance agencies differ, you should shop
around to find the coverage that best suits your needs.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 2:44 pm
From: normalinsurance@gmail.com
On Dec 19, 4:52 pm, moreonrealestate <tn75...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Article Source:http://moreonrealestate.com
>
> If you own a rental property, make sure your insurance coverage is
> protecting your investment. Most insurance companies offer specialized
> insurance packages for landlords and property owners that help cover
> any loss incurred by tenants, lawsuits, loss of rent and even
> terrorism. Though in many cases, regular household insurance will
> cover claims on rental properties, most household insurance policies
> aren't tailored to the needs of landlords and therefore don't address
> them. Sometimes simply having a tenant can make your home insurance
> policy null and void - so check the fine print!
>
> LOSS OF PROPERTY
>
> The most basic coverage will protect you against major losses in case
> of fire, high wind or other damages that make your property
> unrentable. All policies are different however, and no one policy will
> suit all landowners in all areas of the country. there are however,
> two basic types of policies to choose from:
>
> 1. NAMED PERIL policies require the policy holder to choose specific
> types of losses that will be insured against
>
> 2.COMPREHENSIVE policies provide much broader coverage and includes a
> wide variety of accidental losses. Despite the name however, most
> polices are not truly 'comprehensive.' Make sure to check the list of
> exclusions before you make your choice.
>
> INSURANCE AGAINST TERRORISM?
>
> Aside from flood damage, one of the most widespread exclusions right
> now are terrorist events. If you own a rental property in a major
> urban center, you might want to look into coverage that protects you
> against this as well. After 9/11, many agencies adjusted their
> policies to exclude "terrorist events" from basic coverage. The
> attacks, which cost the industry in excess of $40 billion, caused a
> backlash that saw most companies raise prices, raise deductibles, and
> alter polices to require policy holders to purchase terrorism
> insurance separately (if available).
>
> Increasingly however, specialized landlord policies address this issue
> and provide some sort coverage for those who own rental property.
> Though burned by the attacks on the world trade center, support from
> the federal government has allowed insurers to get their courage back
> up and give landlords the kind of protection they've been asking for
> since 2001.
>
> LOSS OF RENT
>
> As part of their coverage for property owners, many companies offer
> additional insurance against loss of rent. In most cases this applies
> to situations in which the property becomes unrentable due to damage.
> When this happens, the insurance company will cover the rent on the
> property for a certain number of months. Other types of rent loss
> protection cover long periods of time when a property goes unrented
> that isn't due to damage or protect landlords against tenants who
> default on the rent.
>
> Landlords with multiple rental properties or buildings will probably
> also want to consider insurance against lawsuits or policies that will
> cover legal fees in the case of a lawsuit. Keep in mind that because
> policies at different insurance agencies differ, you should shop
> around to find the coverage that best suits your needs.
The liability part is very important whether you have one or many
rental units. One lawsuit can wipe you out financially.
Also, the tenant would be wise to purchase a renter's policy for their
contents. No coverage here from the landlord. Also, the tenant can
be held liable for accidental damage they do to the property from
perils such as fire, smoke and explosion. A renters policy will
afford liability insurance for the tenant if this type of thing would
occur.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 2:57 pm
From: clams casino
moreonrealestate the spammer wrote:
>Article Source:
>
Why does your link site drop cookies?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 3:14 pm
From: Dennis
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:57:21 -0500, clams casino
<PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>moreonrealestate the spammer wrote:
>
>>Article Source:
>>
>
>
>Why does your link site drop cookies?
What do you expect from a site named Moron Real Estate?
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment