http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Soup bouillion cubes - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b57b09cbb01b6494?hl=en
* Siding vs. painting the house - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f101ad7af8a7691a?hl=en
* walking boots-- which are good? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
* how much did I pay for our house? (for tax purposes) - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ce1376c8da9beb50?hl=en
* Delivered unsafe item damaged me - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3012e11d0875cc7d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Soup bouillion cubes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b57b09cbb01b6494?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 1:17 pm
From: aesthete8
On Feb 21, 6:05 pm, John...@BadISP.org wrote:
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >aesthete8wrote:
> >> Any recommendations?
>
> >Try "Better than Bouillon."
>
> >"http://www.superiortouch.com/retail/products/better-than-bouillon"
>
> >We get their organic product at Costco in 16 ounce jars. I don't
> >remember the price, I think it's around $10 though.
>
> Only if you like sweet soup. Of course if you're making a soup or dish
> that's supposed to be sweet go right ahead. Americans generally ruin a
> whole lot of products with their penchant for sweetness (boosts the
> food industry profits).
>
> Examples: bread, ham, soups, and worst of all, Heinz Baked Beans.
> Actually any baked beans. Try the UK, Canadian, or Australian
> versions, most often by the same manufacturer.
>
> Of course Americans are so used to the inappropriate use of sweeteners
> they actually like these adulterated products. I remember one episode
> of America's Test Kitchen where the dish called for bread. The head
> honcho made a big effort to get non-sweet bread but his assistants
> (women of a certain age) actually said they preferred Wonder bread. I
> suppose it depends on what you had as a child.
Interesting observation about sweetness.
For a couple of years, I didn't eat ice cream because it was really
expensive where I lived.
Then when I moved, ice cream was cheaper so I began eating it.
At first, I was surprised by how sweet it was.
But I must have gotten used to it after awhile because I began putting
more sugar into my coffee.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 3:32 pm
From: SMS
JohnDoe@BadISP.org wrote:
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> aesthete8 wrote:
>>> Any recommendations?
>> Try "Better than Bouillon."
>>
>> "http://www.superiortouch.com/retail/products/better-than-bouillon"
>>
>> We get their organic product at Costco in 16 ounce jars. I don't
>> remember the price, I think it's around $10 though.
>
> Only if you like sweet soup. Of course if you're making a soup or dish
> that's supposed to be sweet go right ahead. Americans generally ruin a
> whole lot of products with their penchant for sweetness (boosts the
> food industry profits).
It's got a little cane sugar in it (no HFCS) but it is still salty. Far
less sodium than bouillon cubes.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Siding vs. painting the house
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f101ad7af8a7691a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 1:19 pm
From: aesthete8
On Feb 21, 1:44 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
>
> Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
Thanks to all for your quick and informative replies.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 1:39 pm
From: "Bob F"
Kalmia wrote:
> On Feb 21, 6:44 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
>>
>> Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
>
> How long do you plan to live in that house? When was it last
> painted? I need more facts before making a decision. What prices are
> you talking about?
>
> That asked, I have never met anyone who was sorry he sided instead of
> painted.
The people that cared about the look of the house didn't do it. I suspect my
cedar siding will be good for another 80 years.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 4:26 pm
From: "h"
"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hm1hu8$8rg$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Kalmia wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 6:44 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
>>>
>>> Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
>>
>> How long do you plan to live in that house? When was it last
>> painted? I need more facts before making a decision. What prices are
>> you talking about?
>>
>> That asked, I have never met anyone who was sorry he sided instead of
>> painted.
>
> The people that cared about the look of the house didn't do it. I suspect
> my cedar siding will be good for another 80 years.
>
Agreed. I just re-sided my nearly 200 year old house with cedar. I'd burn it
down before I put vinyl on it. Shudder.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 8:31 pm
From: Les Cargill
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <hlv7b9$ngj$1@news.eternal-september.org
>> ,
> "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>> Hell, even cultured stone or stone veneer would be better,
>>>>>>> cheaper, etc than bricks.
>>>>>> Pity about what it does to the value of the house, fuckwit child.
>>>>> Ah, I see. Because someone adds
>>>>> something that is cheaper, easier to
>>>>> install and much easier to maintain and
>>>>> repair, that somehow in your mind lowers
>>>>> (I assume you are implying a lowered
>>>>> value) the value of the house.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in the name of letting you hang
>>>>> yourself even further old fella, why not
>>>>> post some anecdotal evidence that this
>>>>> is true.
>>>> Speed never contributes anything of use. Just block him like just
>>>> about everyone else here does.
>>> Why? he dances so well
>> Not really.
>
> Okay, maybe I should have added "for
> someone so mentally challenged"
http://flimmr.passagen.se/movie/family_guy_stubborn_as_a_mule.action
--
Les Cargill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: walking boots-- which are good?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 2:49 pm
From: SMS
Michael Black wrote:
> Gore-Tex isn't magic. It's a very thin layer that almost looks like
> plastic. If it isn't protected properly, it will no longer work. I had
> a Gore-Tex jacket that wore out about 8 years after I bought it, the
> non-Gore-Tex wore out which then left the Goretex layer vulnerable.
> Since it has no strength in itself, there went the waterproof
That's why GoreTex works especially well in boots. It _is_ protected
properly. For jackets, the early ones had the GoreTex membrane unprotected.
> So either the boot has to be made really well to protect that Gore-Tex,
> or you won't get any long life out of it. A pair of boots that lasts 25
> years is either seeing very little use, or were very expensive in the
> first place.
Probably 50 multi-day backpacking trips, and 1200 day hikes. They would
have lasted even longer but someone left them outside in the rain for a
long time and they were growing mold. Probably could have salvaged them,
but it was time for new soles which are not cheap. I hope I can get even
half the life of the replacement Vasque boots.
> I wouldn't pay extra money for Gore-Tex in shoes, I don't see the point.
I'd never buy a pair of hiking boots or hiking shoes that lacked
Gore-Tex for waterproofing. It's usually not even an option to not get
it since nearly every high-end pair of waterproof hiking boots has it.
I.e. all 72 types of waterproof hiking boots, from $100 to $475, sold at
REI are GoreTex. It doesn't add a lot of manufacturing cost, and it's a
huge advantage.
If you go to a lower end sporting goods store (in my area it's Big 5 or
Sports Authority) you can buy non-Goretex boots, but not full-grain
leather IIRC. Wal-Mart sells some full grain leather boots that are
non-Goretex for $30.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: how much did I pay for our house? (for tax purposes)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ce1376c8da9beb50?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 3:17 pm
From: SMS
Ohioguy wrote:
> We just bought a HUD owned home at auction. There are many different
> numbers on the papers I look at in the paperwork, but I'm not sure which
> to use for tax purposes.
>
> For example, the total "bid" we made was $60k, but the papers show
> that of that HUD paid $2k themselves in "closing costs", and another
> roughly $4k went to the real estate agent as a commission. So that
> means that the seller of the home got only about $54k from us.
>
> Even if you include the commission to the realtor, we really only paid
> $58k, since HUD paid $2k.
>
> Not sure if I have to include the commission paid to the realtor
> and/or the $2k in closing costs that HUD paid itself. Would like to put
> a number down less than the full $60k, but not sure if I can. The FHA
> guy at closing said that we could use $54k for tax purposes, since that
> is what we actually paid HUD for the property, but I'm wondering if the
> local city tax folks would really allow that. Our closing papers show
> $60k as what we offered, and make no mention of the $2k HUD paid in
> closing. The $4k commission is only mentioned on other papers.
The money out of your pocket is what they'll use, though of course they
can assess it higher or lower based on comparable properties (but in
California it's rare for them to do this unless someone paid an
abnormally low price because they bought it from a friend or relative).
It's not really fair that your taxes are based on this higher amount,
but its the way it is. That's one reason that when you buy a house, if
you can afford it, you should pay the closing costs for the loan
separately and not have the seller include them in the price. They are
deductible from your income tax immediately (rather than over time if
bundled into the loan) and they don't show up as part of the purchase
price. Alas, many people can't afford to pay the closing costs
themselves so they have them included in the sale price, or roll them
into their own loan.
No matter what you paid, you can appeal the assessment if you really
think it'll go down.
What do you get for $60K in Ohio?
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 3:27 pm
From: Gene S. Berkowitz
In article <w3Wgn.18655$OJ6.16471@newsfe22.iad>, none@none.net
says...
> We just bought a HUD owned home at auction. There are many different
> numbers on the papers I look at in the paperwork, but I'm not sure which
> to use for tax purposes.
>
> For example, the total "bid" we made was $60k, but the papers show
> that of that HUD paid $2k themselves in "closing costs", and another
> roughly $4k went to the real estate agent as a commission. So that
> means that the seller of the home got only about $54k from us.
>
> Even if you include the commission to the realtor, we really only
> paid $58k, since HUD paid $2k.
>
> Not sure if I have to include the commission paid to the realtor
> and/or the $2k in closing costs that HUD paid itself. Would like to put
> a number down less than the full $60k, but not sure if I can. The FHA
> guy at closing said that we could use $54k for tax purposes, since that
> is what we actually paid HUD for the property, but I'm wondering if the
> local city tax folks would really allow that. Our closing papers show
> $60k as what we offered, and make no mention of the $2k HUD paid in
> closing. The $4k commission is only mentioned on other papers.
>
> Thanks!
You paid $60K for the house.
HUD paid $2K to close the mortgage, NOT to buy the house.
The Seller (HUD) paid the Realtor the $4K commission out of their
earnings (your $60K).
No matter how you slice it, *you* paid $60K, and that's what you
should declare.
--Gene
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 3:52 pm
From: SMS
Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
> No matter how you slice it, *you* paid $60K, and that's what you
> should declare.
I don't think that there is anything to declare here. None of the
purchase price is deductible, it's the property taxes he's talking
about. The county or city will determine the property taxes based on the
purchase price that was recorded.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 4:27 pm
From: "The Henchman"
"Ohioguy" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:w3Wgn.18655$OJ6.16471@newsfe22.iad...
> We just bought a HUD owned home at auction. There are many different
> numbers on the papers I look at in the paperwork, but I'm not sure which
> to use for tax purposes.
>
> For example, the total "bid" we made was $60k, but the papers show that
> of that HUD paid $2k themselves in "closing costs", and another roughly
> $4k went to the real estate agent as a commission. So that means that the
> seller of the home got only about $54k from us.
>
> Even if you include the commission to the realtor, we really only paid
> $58k, since HUD paid $2k.
>
> Not sure if I have to include the commission paid to the realtor and/or
> the $2k in closing costs that HUD paid itself. Would like to put a number
> down less than the full $60k, but not sure if I can. The FHA guy at
> closing said that we could use $54k for tax purposes, since that is what
> we actually paid HUD for the property, but I'm wondering if the local city
> tax folks would really allow that. Our closing papers show $60k as what
> we offered, and make no mention of the $2k HUD paid in closing. The $4k
> commission is only mentioned on other papers.
>
> Thanks!
I assummed you are talking about claiming this purchase on your income tax
return to qualify for tax refunds or credits, related to this house
purchase. Is this a correct assumption?
The closing papers show offered?? The closing papers should say purchase
price. The closing papers come from your lawyer do they not? Offer papers
come from your real estate agent, if you used one in your case.
Out of curiosity is Ohioguy allowed to claim any expenses such as title/lien
insurance, home inspection, real estate lawyer fees, township tax adjustment
etc that he paid out of pocket to complete the purchase on his federal
income tax filing?
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 4:48 pm
From: MAS
On 2/23/2010 6:17 PM, SMS wrote:
> What do you get for $60K in Ohio?
I have a 1300 sq ft ranch on 1 acre, with a 2-car garage, in the
suburbs, assessed fairly IMO at $94,000. While our weather isn't
anything to crow about, the cost of living is decent in my area
(northwest Ohio)
Marsha
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 6:37 pm
From: Ohioguy
>What do you get for $60K in Ohio?
A 2,100 square foot quad level with basement, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths,
attached garage. Plus, back yard is 5x our present size, fenced, &
school district is one of the best in the area. (we're moving from a D-
rated to A rated) Doesn't hurt that Caterpillar announced a new
facility with 600 jobs 1 mile away just 3 weeks after we signed for the
place.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 7:53 pm
From: SMS
Ohioguy wrote:
> >What do you get for $60K in Ohio?
>
> A 2,100 square foot quad level with basement, 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths,
> attached garage. Plus, back yard is 5x our present size, fenced, &
> school district is one of the best in the area. (we're moving from a D-
> rated to A rated) Doesn't hurt that Caterpillar announced a new
> facility with 600 jobs 1 mile away just 3 weeks after we signed for the
> place.
OMG. That's about $1.2M in my town (also with good schools), but
slightly lower square feet and no basement on < 7000 square foot lot.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Delivered unsafe item damaged me
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3012e11d0875cc7d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 23 2010 9:02 pm
From: DerbyDad03
On Feb 23, 11:58 am, "michael adams" <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> "DerbyDad03" <teamarr...@eznet.net> wrote in message
>
> news:626fc5ae-49be-43b9-9b3c-cbbf04e39566@n5g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 23, 7:22 am, "michael adams" <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Toom Tabard" <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >news:6bda30bf-3abb-4c76-8dac-7adf26c628ce@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Total nonsense - in an item supplied to a consumer,
>
> > Regardless of who its supplied to, consumers don't ever get to
> > handle gas hobs because. they normally give the job to a fitter
> > or similar professional.
>
> > An experienced fitter wouldn't have cut his hand in this way.
> > But then an experienced fitter would have cost money.
>
> > The OP can't have it both ways. Either he's a consumer in which
> > case he gives the job to someone who can handle it, or he's a
> > fitter in which case he wouldn't have cut his hand.
>
> > Had this been a saucepan being talked about then that would
> > be an entirely different thing.
>
> > michael adams
>
> > ...
> > re: Either he's a consumer in which case he gives the job to someone
> > who can handle it, or he's a fitter in which case he wouldn't have cut
> > his hand."
> > What?
>
> ...
>
> In the UK at least a "fitter" is a name given to professional installers
> of all sorts of things. Kitchen fitter, motor fitter, electrical fitter
> etc etc.
>
> Not just simply to someone who "fits" things.
>
> A professional fitter might reasonably be expected to have the experience to
> forstall such problems.
>
> The packaging being complained of is intended for opening by professional
> tradesmen. Not unskilled amateurs.
>
> "Unskilled" if only in the sense that when they cut their little "handies" as
> a result of not using a box-cutter, the correct tool for the job, they then
> start to blub like little children. And start demanding that the "naughty man"
> should be made to pay money to Charity "cos they hurted demselves"
>
> Yeah right! Like that's gonna happen !
>
> HTH
>
> michael adams
>
> posting on uk.people.consumers
>
> ....
>
> > You don't truly believe that a "consumer" can't be a "fitter" do you?
> > I guess I shouldn't have put in my own windows or doors or bath
> > fixtures or water heater or stove or deck or any of the other things
> > I've "fitted" into my house.
> > After all, I'm just a consumer and "can't handle it".
> > I'm not defending the OP...I'm not even talking about the OP. I'm only
> > responding to your claim that a consumer can't also be the fitter.
re: "In the UK at least a "fitter" is a name given to professional
installers of all sorts of things."
I know what you meant by a "fitter".
However, I still don't agree with your point that a consumer should
never handle a gas hob.
Using US terminology, I'm not a "contractor" but I bought all of my
windows and doors from a "contractor's supply house".
They weren't packaged any differently than the windows and doors you'd
buy from a "consumer's supply house"
I'm not a plumber, but I bought my fixtures at a plumbing supply
house. They weren't packaged any differently than the fixtures at the
big box stores, where "consumer's" shop.
re: "The packaging being complained of is intended for opening by
professional tradesmen. Not unskilled amateurs."
Again, I beg to differ. Packaging isn't "intended" to be opened by
people of a certain occupation. It's intended to protect an item
during shipping/storage.
If the item in question should never have been (to use your word)
"handled" by the consumer, then it should have been a "controlled
substance" and he shouldn't have been able to buy it without a license
or proof of training. Absent those restrictions, anyone, consumer or
professional, is allowed to "handle" the product and it's their
responsibility to take the proper precautions when doing so.
==============================================================================
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