http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* What are currently your best saving tips ? - 14 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a23335cb8985c73c?hl=en
* It wont stay shut by itself - 6 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b4b28ebf5a595a15?hl=en
* Freezer question, your experience. - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6c40f512af1456d1?hl=en
* How much power does a 120v 15A lighted switch use anyway? - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3870703c69659a21?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What are currently your best saving tips ?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a23335cb8985c73c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 11:28 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Colbyt wrote
> marco polo <markphd21@gmail.com> wrote
>> in the long run, you are much much better off increasing your income
>> i know it's less fun, but just think about it:
>> increase your income, say $1 an hour,
>> or $10 a week, or $25 a month, or whatever,
>> and see what you have at the end of the year,
>> vs saving $1 here or $5 there, is clearly better
> I suspect you have limited experience in economic matters.
And you do in tax matters.
> Please consider these facts:
> If you are legal, you earn taxable dollars.
You earn taxable dollars even if you arent legal.
> One may then have 30-70 cents to spend after taxes.
In fact the bottom 50% of tax payers pay no nett federal income tax at all.
> Every dollar you save and don't spend is worth 1.30 to 1.70 earned.
Given that 50% figure, it is in fact much more complicated than that.
> Here is a quick example, a breakfast sandwich and drink at MickyD's place is about $5.
> One made at home in less time in less time is about a dollar.
> I am 4 after tax dollars ahead so that is six bucks I don't need to
> earn or $4 that I can invest.
> Very few people can control what they are paid.
Almost everyone can control what their income is.
> Every person can control what they spend.
> Now driving 5 miles to save a nickel on a gallon of gas when you tank only holds 12 gallons is really stupid but the
> same person who won't save where it matters does that all the time.
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 11:33 am
From: Omelet
In article <odmn06djkubb7k03vt2t7i70o067nj80eq@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> >One made at home in less time in less time is about a dollar.
>
> ...and can be had at McD's for 1$.
Plus the time and gas spent to go there.
It's cheaper for me to make it at home. Period.
AND it's usually healthier!
--
Peace! Om
Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 11:43 am
From: "Rod Speed"
The Real Bev wrote:
> On 06/05/10 20:53, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "marco polo"<markphd21@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d5334a06-add5-44fd-ad9d-9dee8bce3f3c@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> .
>>> in the long run,
>>> you are much much better off increasing your income
>>>
>>> i know it's less fun, but just think about it:
>>>
>>> increase your income, say $1 an hour,
>>> or $10 a week, or $25 a month, or whatever,
>>> and see what you have at the end of the year,
>>> vs saving $1 here or $5 there, is clearly better
>>>
>>> marc
>>
>> Sounds great, but not always easily done. With the present economy,
>> employers have cut OT, cut wages, cut hours, and much of the side
>> job part time stuff has dried up. Increasing income may be better,
>> but saving money is the only way for millions right now.
>
> AND the money you save isn't taxable!
In practice the bottom 50% of US taxpayers pay no nett federal income tax.
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 11:49 am
From: "Rod Speed"
HerHusband wrote:
>> What are currently your best saving tips you recommend
>> and also practice, relating to how you make your money
>> go much further than it used to, whether it's for food
>> weekly living expenses, home and financial investment, etc.
>
> Do as much as you can yourself. Obviously some things will require
> tools, manpower, or skills beyond your ability. But labor costs are
> usually half the cost.
>
> We do our own car repairs, do our own yard maintenance, build our own
> furniture, etc. If you study and take your time, there's not much you
> can't do yourself. For instance, my wife and I built our own house a
> few years ago for under $60,000. It's already worth more than
> $240,000 today and we have no mortgage.
Me too.
> Also, learn to live life simpler. You don't have to own that
> megamansion or new car, just because your friends and neighbors have
> them. We've never owned a car that was less than 10 years old (and
> never paid more than $3000 for it), and our 1456 sq/ft house is more
> than adequate for our family of three.
> Avoid taking loans for anything. If you don't have
> the money, wait and save until you can afford it.
I dont agree with that. There are situations where a loan does make sense,
most obviously to buy a reliable car that is essential for a particular job etc.
The loan allows you to start earning real money more quickly.
> Finance changes can easily double the cost of an item over the long term.
Yes, but if the loan is used to buy the car that produces significant
income, a cheap reliable car can be paid for quickly and you dont
end up paying much for the finance if you finance it properly.
The other obvious situation where a loan makes sense is with business startup costs.
> You can still use credit cards (that's how we pay for everything),
> just pay them off each month to avoid interest charges.
And take advantage of the rebates. Thats better than using cash and more convenient too.
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 12:03 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Omelet wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Omelet wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> and much of the side job part time stuff has dried up.
>>>> Like hell it has. In many ways that has increased because so many
>>>> have binned full time employees and replaced them with part timers.
>>>> And anyone with even half a clue can make money
>>>> on the side independently of any employer anyway.
>>> I actually have to agree somewhat, but it takes money to make money.
>> No it does not. There are plenty of ways of making money that dont take any money at all.
> Okay, please enlighten me.
One obvious approach is to flog what you already have that you dont want to keep on ebay.
You only pay the commission on sales achieved.
> I just invested a rather large sum.
Its just one way of making money. The other obvious way its to sell your labor.
>>> One has to have assets to invest.
>> Nope. You can always borrow the money to invest.
> And pay interest! No thanks. <g>
What matters is whether you make more than you are paying.
Thats how all business works, they earn more on the money than they pay for it.
>> And you can make money with other than investment as well.
>>> I was lucky that way.
>> Yes, but its perfectly possible to do it without luck.
> Well actually, it was good planning. I saved.
Thats not necessarily the best approach, it can be more
profitable to borrow the money and get the extra income
earlier, most obviouslywith a job that requires a reliable car etc.
>>>>> Increasing income may be better, but saving money is the only way for millions right now.
>>>> Thats just plain wrong.
>>> No, it's not.
>> Yes it is. Even the absolute dregs can beg for example.
> And I should resort to that? No thanks.
Separate matter entirely to you claim about the only way for millions. It clearly isnt.
It may be the prefered way, but it certainly isnt the only way.
>>> Both strategies are best in the long term.
>> Thats wrong too.
>>> Quit living beyond your means. It really is that simple.
>> Its just one way. The other obvious approach is to increase your means.
> If you are good at planning!
Dont need to be, just need to get off your arse.
>>> Follow a shopping list
>> No thanks. You can make quite a bit of money by taking advantage of what shows
>> up, most obviously with the specials that show up in the store. You just need to make
>> sure that what specials you do take advantage of are stuff you will need anyway.
> Well due! It's called shopping the sales. That's old news and I do it all the time!
So you arent actually following a shopping list.
>> Someone I know makes significant money just trading in stuff from yard sales.
> <lol> Yes, and thrift stores. Ebay and Craig's list are both good for that.
> But that's work. While I don't mind it, some people are lazy.
Irrelevant to whether its one way to increase your income.
>>> and re-asses your needs and quit buying crap you really do not need!
>> You 'really do not need' somewhere to 'live', you can always
>> 'live' on the street and take advantage of free food etc.
> I don't freakin' think so. <g> For one thing, I'd not have regular internet access. ;-)
Corse you do, you just use free wifi.
>> Doesnt mean that it makes any sense to 'live' like that tho.
>>> Like i-phones for a start.<g>
>> You have to do something with the income you have.
> I don't "need" an i-phone!
You dont 'need' to 'live' either.
>> Otherwise you might as well just cut to the chase and hang yourself.
> Nope. Save up your money so you have it for when you do need it!
You wont need it if you hang yourself.
> Like having my house central air system serviced, and having the money to do it!
You dont need a central air system.
> There is no sin in prioritizing saving money.
No one said it was a sin.
> It's wisdom!
Nope. And with the derisory interest rates being paid, it makes more sense
to only save enough for whats likely to happen, not for any more than that.
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 12:25 pm
From: Omelet
In article <8729otFb2cU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> No it does not. There are plenty of ways of making money that dont take
> >> any money at all.
>
> > Okay, please enlighten me.
>
> One obvious approach is to flog what you already have that you dont want to
> keep on ebay.
'scuse me but I PAID for said items. They were not free. Not unless I
raid trash bins which I have known others to do actually. <g>
>
> You only pay the commission on sales achieved.
>
> > I just invested a rather large sum.
>
> Its just one way of making money. The other obvious way its to sell your
> labor.
I already do that. For $25.00 per hour.
>
> >>> One has to have assets to invest.
>
> >> Nope. You can always borrow the money to invest.
>
> > And pay interest! No thanks. <g>
>
> What matters is whether you make more than you are paying.
Which is harder than it sounds, for some. There is a reason I just
cashed in 25% of my IRA's. I'll be able to double my money on what I am
selling rather than make 3% interest.
> > Well actually, it was good planning. I saved.
>
> Thats not necessarily the best approach, it can be more
> profitable to borrow the money and get the extra income
> earlier, most obviouslywith a job that requires a reliable car etc.
Not necessarily.
>
> >>>>> Increasing income may be better, but saving money is the only way for
> >>>>> millions right now.
>
> >>>> Thats just plain wrong.
>
> >>> No, it's not.
>
> >> Yes it is. Even the absolute dregs can beg for example.
>
> > And I should resort to that? No thanks.
>
> Separate matter entirely to you claim about the only way for millions. It
> clearly isnt.
>
> It may be the prefered way, but it certainly isnt the only way.
Well duh!
>
> >>> Both strategies are best in the long term.
>
> >> Thats wrong too.
>
> >>> Quit living beyond your means. It really is that simple.
>
> >> Its just one way. The other obvious approach is to increase your means.
>
> > If you are good at planning!
>
> Dont need to be, just need to get off your arse.
<lol> And that's news? Hello!
>
> >>> Follow a shopping list
>
> >> No thanks. You can make quite a bit of money by taking advantage of what
> >> shows
> >> up, most obviously with the specials that show up in the store. You just
> >> need to make
> >> sure that what specials you do take advantage of are stuff you will need
> >> anyway.
>
> > Well due! It's called shopping the sales. That's old news and I do it all
> > the time!
>
> So you arent actually following a shopping list.
I make the shopping list based on what I need. I still won't buy
something on sale if I don't normally need or use it. There is no point.
I will, however, take advantage of sales and go to that store based on
my current needs.
>
> >> Someone I know makes significant money just trading in stuff from yard
> >> sales.
>
> > <lol> Yes, and thrift stores. Ebay and Craig's list are both good for that.
>
> > But that's work. While I don't mind it, some people are lazy.
>
> Irrelevant to whether its one way to increase your income.
Yah think?
>
> >>> and re-asses your needs and quit buying crap you really do not need!
>
> >> You 'really do not need' somewhere to 'live', you can always
> >> 'live' on the street and take advantage of free food etc.
>
> > I don't freakin' think so. <g> For one thing, I'd not have regular
> > internet access. ;-)
>
> Corse you do, you just use free wifi.
And where will I get the laptop and electricity if I'm a street bum?
>
> >> Doesnt mean that it makes any sense to 'live' like that tho.
>
> >>> Like i-phones for a start.<g>
>
> >> You have to do something with the income you have.
>
> > I don't "need" an i-phone!
>
> You dont 'need' to 'live' either.
>
> >> Otherwise you might as well just cut to the chase and hang yourself.
>
> > Nope. Save up your money so you have it for when you do need it!
>
> You wont need it if you hang yourself.
>
> > Like having my house central air system serviced, and having the money to
> > do it!
>
> You dont need a central air system.
I live in Texas. Yes I do. ;-)
>
> > There is no sin in prioritizing saving money.
>
> No one said it was a sin.
YOU seem to think it's a waste of time and effort.
>
> > It's wisdom!
>
> Nope. And with the derisory interest rates being paid, it makes more sense
> to only save enough for whats likely to happen, not for any more than that.
Think about the future...
--
Peace! Om
Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 1:09 pm
From: "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:33:39 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <odmn06djkubb7k03vt2t7i70o067nj80eq@4ax.com>,
> "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>> >One made at home in less time in less time is about a dollar.
>>
>> ...and can be had at McD's for 1$.
>
>Plus the time and gas spent to go there.
Takes time and gas to drive to work, too. Chances are that there is a McD's
on the way.
>It's cheaper for me to make it at home. Period.
Usually, but not always. It's even cheaper to skip it. I do bag a lunch, but
not because my ass squeaks.
>AND it's usually healthier!
Usually, but not always.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 1:21 pm
From: The Natural Philosopher
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:58:51 -0400, "Lou" <lpogoda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hufdel$26s$2@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> On 06/05/10 20:53, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> "marco polo"<markphd21@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>> news:d5334a06-add5-44fd-ad9d-9dee8bce3f3c@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> .
>>>>> in the long run,
>>>>> you are much much better off increasing your income
>>>>>
>>>>> i know it's less fun, but just think about it:
>>>>>
>>>>> increase your income, say $1 an hour,
>>>>> or $10 a week, or $25 a month, or whatever,
>>>>> and see what you have at the end of the year,
>>>>> vs saving $1 here or $5 there, is clearly better
>>>>>
>>>>> marc
>>>> Sounds great, but not always easily done. With the present economy,
>>>> employers have cut OT, cut wages, cut hours, and much of the side job
>> part
>>>> time stuff has dried up. Increasing income may be better, but saving
>> money
>>>> is the only way for millions right now.
>>> AND the money you save isn't taxable!
>>>
>> Well, that depends. When I lived in Georgia, money sitting in a bank
>> account was taxable. If you had an account, you owed tax on the balance and
>> had to pay. After a year went by and tax time rolled around again, you had
>> to pay tax on whatever was in that account again, even if you hadn't touched
>> the account at all. In essence, you paid tax on the same money again and
>> again, for as long as you had it.
>
> I've *never* heard of such a thing. Do you have a citation? The obvious
> conclusion that one has to draw is that Georgia doesn't want savings. The
> solution is to never leave money in a Georgia bank. That's easy enough since
> there are many who would really like to store my money.
According to my siter, the same was true of Sweden until recently. The
socialists simply don't like privately held money: all property is
theft. It belongs to everyone i.e. the State.
Naturally Swedees with any money leave the country, and there are few
privately owned businesses of any note, as no investment is available
for them.
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 2:52 pm
From: Omelet
In article <ivvn06t6bb49omrrk9ushr97l34raf058t@4ax.com>,
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:33:39 -0500, Omelet <ompomelet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <odmn06djkubb7k03vt2t7i70o067nj80eq@4ax.com>,
> > "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> >
> >> >One made at home in less time in less time is about a dollar.
> >>
> >> ...and can be had at McD's for 1$.
> >
> >Plus the time and gas spent to go there.
>
> Takes time and gas to drive to work, too. Chances are that there is a McD's
> on the way.
Nor on my route to work, and I can nuke a couple of eggs and toast for
under $1.00.
>
> >It's cheaper for me to make it at home. Period.
>
> Usually, but not always. It's even cheaper to skip it. I do bag a lunch, but
> not because my ass squeaks.
>
> >AND it's usually healthier!
>
> Usually, but not always.
So we are somewhat in agreement... <g>
--
Peace! Om
Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 3:11 pm
From: "Colbyt"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:p2mn0659alncvvct1r39aokfr3pqlc30q1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:58:51 -0400, "Lou" <lpogoda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Well, that depends. When I lived in Georgia, money sitting in a bank
>>account was taxable. If you had an account, you owed tax on the balance
>>and
>>had to pay. After a year went by and tax time rolled around again, you
>>had
>>to pay tax on whatever was in that account again, even if you hadn't
>>touched
>>the account at all. In essence, you paid tax on the same money again and
>>again, for as long as you had it.
>
> I've *never* heard of such a thing. Do you have a citation? The obvious
> conclusion that one has to draw is that Georgia doesn't want savings. The
> solution is to never leave money in a Georgia bank. That's easy enough
> since
> there are many who would really like to store my money.
Contrary to what someone one else posted this may be true. Kentucky had an
intangible property tax like that until a few years ago.
One was to report the value of all property other than real estate once per
year and then pay taxes on it. This included bank accounts, stocks, bonds,
notes and cash in pocket I know the courts invalidated it. I thought it was
Federal court but it may have been state court here.
--
Colbyt
Please come visit http://www.househomerepair.com
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 3:25 pm
From: "Colbyt"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8727n3Fu8kU1@mid.individual.net...
> Colbyt wrote
>> marco polo <markphd21@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> in the long run, you are much much better off increasing your income
>
>>> i know it's less fun, but just think about it:
>
>>> increase your income, say $1 an hour,
>>> or $10 a week, or $25 a month, or whatever,
>>> and see what you have at the end of the year,
>>> vs saving $1 here or $5 there, is clearly better
>
>> I suspect you have limited experience in economic matters.
>
> And you do in tax matters.
>
>> Please consider these facts:
>
>> If you are legal, you earn taxable dollars.
>
> You earn taxable dollars even if you arent legal.
>
>> One may then have 30-70 cents to spend after taxes.
>
> In fact the bottom 50% of tax payers pay no nett federal income tax at
> all.
>
>> Every dollar you save and don't spend is worth 1.30 to 1.70 earned.
>
> Given that 50% figure, it is in fact much more complicated than that.
>
>> Here is a quick example, a breakfast sandwich and drink at MickyD's place
>> is about $5.
>
>> One made at home in less time in less time is about a dollar.
>> I am 4 after tax dollars ahead so that is six bucks I don't need to
>> earn or $4 that I can invest.
>
>> Very few people can control what they are paid.
>
> Almost everyone can control what their income is.
>
>> Every person can control what they spend.
>
>> Now driving 5 miles to save a nickel on a gallon of gas when you tank
>> only holds 12 gallons is really stupid but the same person who won't save
>> where it matters does that all the time.
>
>
----------------
> In fact the bottom 50% of tax payers pay no nett federal income tax at
> all.
I haven't been that low on the totem pole for so many years. Every year I
seem to pay. Due to astute tax management I manage to keep the Federal bite
at around 15%. Of course I still have to add on Fica, Mediscare, the state
and local leeches.
I must be a real dumbass. All those savings over the years have compounded
to the point where I can no longer be a freeloader on the tax system.
Maybe you could offer me some tips on how to reduce my income and get back
to freeloader status.
Colbyt
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 3:52 pm
From: "Lou"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:p2mn0659alncvvct1r39aokfr3pqlc30q1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 11:58:51 -0400, "Lou" <lpogoda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:hufdel$26s$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> On 06/05/10 20:53, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> > "marco polo"<markphd21@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >news:d5334a06-add5-44fd-ad9d-9dee8bce3f3c@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> .
> >> >> in the long run,
> >> >> you are much much better off increasing your income
> >> >>
> >> >> i know it's less fun, but just think about it:
> >> >>
> >> >> increase your income, say $1 an hour,
> >> >> or $10 a week, or $25 a month, or whatever,
> >> >> and see what you have at the end of the year,
> >> >> vs saving $1 here or $5 there, is clearly better
> >> >>
> >> >> marc
> >> >
> >> > Sounds great, but not always easily done. With the present economy,
> >> > employers have cut OT, cut wages, cut hours, and much of the side job
> >part
> >> > time stuff has dried up. Increasing income may be better, but saving
> >money
> >> > is the only way for millions right now.
> >>
> >> AND the money you save isn't taxable!
> >>
> >
> >Well, that depends. When I lived in Georgia, money sitting in a bank
> >account was taxable. If you had an account, you owed tax on the balance
and
> >had to pay. After a year went by and tax time rolled around again, you
had
> >to pay tax on whatever was in that account again, even if you hadn't
touched
> >the account at all. In essence, you paid tax on the same money again and
> >again, for as long as you had it.
>
> I've *never* heard of such a thing. Do you have a citation?
I'm reporting my experience. I don't have citations for my experience.
Possibly, I could dig out my tax returns from that time and post them
online, but it's not worth my trouble.
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 4:03 pm
From: "Lou"
"The Daring Dufas" <the-daring-dufas@peckerhead.net> wrote in message
news:hugng7$km6$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 6/6/2010 10:58 AM, Lou wrote:
> > "The Real Bev"<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:hufdel$26s$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> On 06/05/10 20:53, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>
> >>> "marco polo"<markphd21@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>
> >
news:d5334a06-add5-44fd-ad9d-9dee8bce3f3c@x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> .
> >>>> in the long run,
> >>>> you are much much better off increasing your income
> >>>>
> >>>> i know it's less fun, but just think about it:
> >>>>
> >>>> increase your income, say $1 an hour,
> >>>> or $10 a week, or $25 a month, or whatever,
> >>>> and see what you have at the end of the year,
> >>>> vs saving $1 here or $5 there, is clearly better
> >>>>
> >>>> marc
> >>>
> >>> Sounds great, but not always easily done. With the present economy,
> >>> employers have cut OT, cut wages, cut hours, and much of the side job
> > part
> >>> time stuff has dried up. Increasing income may be better, but saving
> > money
> >>> is the only way for millions right now.
> >>
> >> AND the money you save isn't taxable!
> >>
> >
> > Well, that depends. When I lived in Georgia, money sitting in a bank
> > account was taxable. If you had an account, you owed tax on the balance
and
> > had to pay. After a year went by and tax time rolled around again, you
had
> > to pay tax on whatever was in that account again, even if you hadn't
touched
> > the account at all. In essence, you paid tax on the same money again
and
> > again, for as long as you had it.
> >
> >
>
> Georgia? The state in the U.S.A. or the country of Georgia?
>
Georgia, the state in the U.S.A. All real and personal property in the
state is taxable unless specifically exempted by law. At the time I lived
there, money in a bank account was not exempt.
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 4:05 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Omelet wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Omelet wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Omelet wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> and much of the side job part time stuff has dried up.
>>>>>> Like hell it has. In many ways that has increased because so many
>>>>>> have binned full time employees and replaced them with part timers.
>>>>>> And anyone with even half a clue can make money
>>>>>> on the side independently of any employer anyway.
>>>>> I actually have to agree somewhat, but it takes money to make money.
>>>> No it does not. There are plenty of ways of making money that dont take any money at all.
>>> Okay, please enlighten me.
>> One obvious approach is to flog what you already have that you dont want to keep on ebay.
> 'scuse me
No way, you are completely inexcusable.
> but I PAID for said items.
Not necessarily. I have quite a bit of stuff that my parents discarded.
> They were not free.
Some of them are.
> Not unless I raid trash bins which I have known others to do actually. <g>
Or get stuff at yard sales for peanuts.
>> You only pay the commission on sales achieved.
>>> I just invested a rather large sum.
>> Its just one way of making money. The other obvious way its to sell your labor.
> I already do that. For $25.00 per hour.
You can sell more of that and that doesnt necessarily take any money to do that.
>>>>> One has to have assets to invest.
>>>> Nope. You can always borrow the money to invest.
>>> And pay interest! No thanks. <g>
>> What matters is whether you make more than you are paying.
> Which is harder than it sounds, for some.
Sure, but isnt that hard for plenty.
> There is a reason I just cashed in 25% of my IRA's. I'll be able to
> double my money on what I am selling rather than make 3% interest.
And if you know what you are doing, you can earn more
on the money you borrow than you are paying for it.
>>> Well actually, it was good planning. I saved.
>> Thats not necessarily the best approach, it can be more
>> profitable to borrow the money and get the extra income
>> earlier, most obviouslywith a job that requires a reliable car etc.
> Not necessarily.
I said can be for a reason.
>>>>>>> Increasing income may be better, but saving money is the only way for millions right now.
>>>>>> Thats just plain wrong.
>>>>> No, it's not.
>>>> Yes it is. Even the absolute dregs can beg for example.
>>> And I should resort to that? No thanks.
>> Separate matter entirely to you claim about the only way for millions. It clearly isnt.
>> It may be the prefered way, but it certainly isnt the only way.
> Well duh!
So your original was just plain wrong, like I said.
>>>>> Both strategies are best in the long term.
>>>> Thats wrong too.
>>>>> Quit living beyond your means. It really is that simple.
>>>> Its just one way. The other obvious approach is to increase your means.
>>> If you are good at planning!
>> Dont need to be, just need to get off your arse.
> <lol> And that's news? Hello!
You never could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>>>> Follow a shopping list
>>>> No thanks. You can make quite a bit of money by taking advantage of what shows
>>>> up, most obviously with the specials that show up in the store. You just need to make
>>>> sure that what specials you do take advantage of are stuff you will need anyway.
>>> Well due! It's called shopping the sales. That's old news and I do it all the time!
>> So you arent actually following a shopping list.
> I make the shopping list based on what I need.
You dont need a list for what you use regularly.
> I still won't buy something on sale if I don't normally need or use it. There is no point.
You dont need a list for that.
> I will, however, take advantage of sales and go to that store based on my current needs.
So you dont need a list.
>>>> Someone I know makes significant money just trading in stuff from yard sales.
>>> <lol> Yes, and thrift stores. Ebay and Craig's list are both good for that.
>>> But that's work. While I don't mind it, some people are lazy.
>> Irrelevant to whether its one way to increase your income.
> Yah think?
I know.
>>>>> and re-asses your needs and quit buying crap you really do not need!
>>>> You 'really do not need' somewhere to 'live', you can always
>>>> 'live' on the street and take advantage of free food etc.
>>> I don't freakin' think so. <g> For one thing, I'd not have regular internet access. ;-)
>> Corse you do, you just use free wifi.
> And where will I get the laptop
From a dumpster, stupid.
> and electricity if I'm a street bum?
Plenty of places to plug it in.
>>>> Doesnt mean that it makes any sense to 'live' like that tho.
>>>>> Like i-phones for a start.<g>
>>>> You have to do something with the income you have.
>>> I don't "need" an i-phone!
>> You dont 'need' to 'live' either.
>>>> Otherwise you might as well just cut to the chase and hang yourself.
>>> Nope. Save up your money so you have it for when you do need it!
>> You wont need it if you hang yourself.
>>> Like having my house central air system serviced, and having the money to do it!
>> You dont need a central air system.
> I live in Texas. Yes I do. ;-)
No you dont.
>>> There is no sin in prioritizing saving money.
>> No one said it was a sin.
> YOU seem to think it's a waste of time and effort.
YOU need to get your seems machinery seen to.
>>> It's wisdom!
>> Nope. And with the derisory interest rates being paid, it makes more sense
>> to only save enough for whats likely to happen, not for any more than that.
> Think about the future...
Dont need to, I'm rolling in it because I have always been able
to earn a lot more on what I borrow than I paid in interest.
I in fact built my house from scratch using just borrowed money, because
I was earning more on that money on the stockmarket than I was paying
in interest was was interested to see if that was feasible.
It was in fact effortless and I earned a lot more that way than I was
being paid in a very well paid professional job that was paying a lot
more than that $25/hour at that time. And we dont pay any tax on the
capital gain tax on our principle dwelling either so that was all tax free.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: It wont stay shut by itself
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b4b28ebf5a595a15?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 11:31 am
From: "Rod Speed"
john hamilton wrote:
> When working on my car, I bring it right up close to the house and
> lay my tools out on the floor behind the front door. Since you never
> know when it will rain, it works out very handy since then all I have
> to do is close the door; and don't have to be picking up all the
> tools.
> Now if its not warm the family doesn't like the cold air coming into
> the house and they want the front door shut, which is fair enough.
> Since the door just swings open I have to keep getting the keys out
> of my pocket to open the door.
>
> I would like the door to stay shut on its own accord, yet just open
> with a push without having to use the keys. There is no room on the
> door jamb to screw one of those helical spring self closers. And
> anyway in general use we dont want the door to close by itself. Which
> also rules out one of those hydraulic self closers which could fit on
> at the top of the door.
> Have tried using the strongest cuboard magnet I can find (In north
> London u.k.), but if the wind picks up surprisingly it will just not
> hold. Also tried cutting a thin wedge of cork glued to an upright
> jamb which makes the door a tight fit when closed. However the door
> shrinks in the summer and expands in the winter so that only works
> for about half the year.
> Grateful for any suggestions, especially something similar to the cork
> arrangement which works just fine prividing the weather suits it.
Presumably some form of spring loaded device should work better than
the cork, allowing the door expansion and contraction to be handled auto.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 11:51 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Peter Parry wrote
> Jeff The Drunk i-am@the.bar wrote
>> Really? What kind of hard drive has a big flat magnet inside?
> Most modern ones that use voice coil positioning for the heads.
All do in fact, stepper motor head positioning is long gone now.
>> That defies all logic on the principals of how a hard drive works.
> Cunning design (the N and S poles share the same face) and a bit
> of shielding keep the magnetic field contained and the platters safe.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 2:19 pm
From: Oren
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 15:31:31 +0000 (UTC), Jeff The Drunk <i-am@the.bar>
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:27:12 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> Jeff The Drunk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:06:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>>
>>>> "john hamilton" <bluestarx@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:hugc8b$uec$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Have tried using the strongest cuboard magnet I can find (In north
>>>>> London u.k.), but if the wind picks up surprisingly it will just not
>>>>> hold. Also
>>>>
>>>> The magnet out of a hard drive is flat and very strong.
>>>
>>> Really? What kind of hard drive has a big flat magnet inside? That
>>> defies all logic on the principals of how a hard drive works.
>>
>> ordinary IDE, the magnet is so strong that it is hard to get off a flat
>> metal surface without tools!!!
>
>Well I guess you learn something new every day. I would think a magnet
>anywhere near the metal recording medium where the data lives would wipe
>it out.
DAGS _rare earth magnets hard drive_
Get your free magnets ;)
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 3:13 pm
From: Stuart
In article <hugc8b$uec$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
john hamilton <bluestarx@mail.invalid> wrote:
> Grateful for any suggestions, especially something similar to the cork
> arrangement which works just fine prividing the weather suits it.
> Thanks.
Eclipse have a range of very strong magnets available through some tool
sellers.
Take a look at:
http://www.buckandhickman.com./find/keyword-is-magnet
Some of these have a pull of up to 180kg but I suppose you do want to be
able to open the door :-)
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 3:30 pm
From: bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi)
In article <hugc8b$uec$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
john hamilton <bluestarx@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>I would like the door to stay shut on its own accord, yet just open with a
>push without having to use the keys. There is no room on the door jamb to
>screw one of those helical spring self closers. And anyway in general use we
>dont want the door to close by itself. Which also rules out one of those
>hydraulic self closers which could fit on at the top of the door.
>
>Have tried using the strongest cuboard magnet I can find (In north London
>u.k.), but if the wind picks up surprisingly it will just not hold.
The 'big projects' answer is to tilt the house, so the door swings closed
of it's own weight. <GRIN>
What _I'd_ do is close the door, then on the -outside-, at the top corner
away from the hinges, mount a hook-eye, or similar. Do the same thing on
the jamb, at the same position. See the ascii art, below.
Now, get some heavy-duty nylon fishline. run a piece from about ground
level, up to the top of the door, through the eye on the jamb, through
the eye on the door, _back_ through_ the eye on the jamb, and back down
to floor level. Take those two loose ends, tie them together, and tie
both of em to a 'weight' of some sort -- a bag of fishing sinkers, coins,
'lead shot' for shotgun rounds -- *anything*.
The 'eye' in the jamb acts as a pulley. when the door opens the 'weight'
is raised. when you let the door go, the weight falls, pulling the door
closed.
When you don't want the self-closing action, you simpley remove the line
and weight.
ASCII ART, use fixed-with font:
[top view]
| JAMB |
| |
++------------------------+
\___| +---------+
| | |
O O-| |
| DOOR |
| |
| |
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 3:36 pm
From: "Duncan Wood"
On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:24:38 +0100, Meat Plow <mhywatt@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:13:54 +0100, The Natural Philosopher ǝʇoɹʍ:
>
>> Jeff The Drunk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 11:06:09 -0400, Ralph Mowery wrote:
>>>
>>>> "john hamilton" <bluestarx@mail.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:hugc8b$uec$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>> Have tried using the strongest cuboard magnet I can find (In north
>>>>> London u.k.), but if the wind picks up surprisingly it will just not
>>>>> hold. Also
>>>> The magnet out of a hard drive is flat and very strong.
>>>
>>> Really? What kind of hard drive has a big flat magnet inside? That
>>> defies all logic on the principals of how a hard drive works.
>> themotor
>
> So hard drives have a motor that has a big flat strong magnet? Wouldn't
> that mess up the data being written to the platers?
>
No.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freezer question, your experience.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6c40f512af1456d1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 11:38 am
From: "Rod Speed"
dennis@home wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> dennis@home wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> dennis@home wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> After seeing the upright models it occurred to me that when
>>>>>>>>> a check freezer is full, it's really full because all the crap
>>>>>>>>> is a big pile, while a full upright will still have air because the contents are unlikely exactly match the
>>>>>>>>> shelf spacing.
>>>>>>>> Yes, but that air makes no difference to the effeciency of the freezer.
>>>>>>> It does when you open the door, that free air leaks out and is replaced by nice warm moist air that has to be
>>>>>>> cooled.
>>>>>> In practice thats a trivial effect because the specific gravity of the air is so low.
>>>>> Its that low that it ices up your freezer.
>>>> Nope, that mostly comes from what is in the freezer and happens in chest freezers anyway.
>>> It happens faster in uprights.
>> Not with the frost free ones it doesnt.
> So what,
So your claim about frost in uprights is just plain wrong with frost free uprights.
> they still use more energy to removing the water vapour that comes in with the air.
But that isnt enough to matter, much less than the energy
required to freeze the contents of the freezer in the first place
and to pump out what leaks in thru the insulation all the time.
Yes, uprights are a little less efficient than chest freezers, but
when you allow for the difficulty of access to the contents of a chest
freezer compared with an upright, there is fuck all in it in practice.
>>> If it came from the contents they would all suffer from freezer
>>> burn big time and freezers would be useless for storing food.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Don't say stupid things, it is a statement of fact,
Nope.
> if the ice comes from the food then they dehydrate, this is freezer burn.
Nope, quite a bit of the time its just surface moisture on the food, not freezer burn.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 12:10 pm
From: "dennis@home"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87288qF21jU1@mid.individual.net...
> dennis@home wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> dennis@home wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> dennis@home wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>> After seeing the upright models it occurred to me that when
>>>>>>>>>> a check freezer is full, it's really full because all the crap
>>>>>>>>>> is a big pile, while a full upright will still have air because
>>>>>>>>>> the contents are unlikely exactly match the shelf spacing.
>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, but that air makes no difference to the effeciency of the
>>>>>>>>> freezer.
>
>>>>>>>> It does when you open the door, that free air leaks out and is
>>>>>>>> replaced by nice warm moist air that has to be cooled.
>
>>>>>>> In practice thats a trivial effect because the specific gravity of
>>>>>>> the air is so low.
>
>>>>>> Its that low that it ices up your freezer.
>
>>>>> Nope, that mostly comes from what is in the freezer and happens in
>>>>> chest freezers anyway.
>
>>>> It happens faster in uprights.
>
>>> Not with the frost free ones it doesnt.
>
>> So what,
>
> So your claim about frost in uprights is just plain wrong with frost free
> uprights.
>
>> they still use more energy to removing the water vapour that comes in
>> with the air.
>
> But that isnt enough to matter, much less than the energy
> required to freeze the contents of the freezer in the first place
> and to pump out what leaks in thru the insulation all the time.
>
> Yes, uprights are a little less efficient than chest freezers, but
> when you allow for the difficulty of access to the contents of a chest
> freezer compared with an upright, there is fuck all in it in practice.
See I was correct.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 3:48 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
dennis@home wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> dennis@home wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> dennis@home wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> dennis@home wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> dennis@home wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> After seeing the upright models it occurred to me that when
>>>>>>>>>>> a check freezer is full, it's really full because all the crap is a big pile, while a full upright will
>>>>>>>>>>> still have air because the contents are unlikely exactly match the shelf spacing.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, but that air makes no difference to the effeciency of the freezer.
>>>>>>>>> It does when you open the door, that free air leaks out and is replaced by nice warm moist air that has to be
>>>>>>>>> cooled.
>>>>>>>> In practice thats a trivial effect because the specific gravity of the air is so low.
>>>>>>> Its that low that it ices up your freezer.
>>>>>> Nope, that mostly comes from what is in the freezer and happens in chest freezers anyway.
>>>>> It happens faster in uprights.
>>>> Not with the frost free ones it doesnt.
>>> So what,
>> So your claim about frost in uprights is just plain wrong with frost free uprights.
>>> they still use more energy to removing the water vapour that comes in with the air.
>> But that isnt enough to matter, much less than the energy
>> required to freeze the contents of the freezer in the first place
>> and to pump out what leaks in thru the insulation all the time.
>> Yes, uprights are a little less efficient than chest freezers, but when you allow for the difficulty of access to the
>> contents of a chest freezer compared with an upright, there is fuck all in it in practice.
> See I was correct.
Like hell you were.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How much power does a 120v 15A lighted switch use anyway?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3870703c69659a21?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 2:46 pm
From: Gary H
On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:08:57 +0000 (UTC), Glenda Copeland
<gscopeland@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 May 2010 21:04:51 -0700 (PDT), hr(bob) hofmann@att.net wrote:
>
>> Much less than the stand-by power a wall-wart uses
>
>What is a wall wart?
It's one of those things on the end of a power cord, that's bigger
than a plug. Makes it look like some sort of fungus is growing on the
wall. These are usually power supplies, but can be other things like
remote controls and GFCI adapters.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jun 6 2010 2:54 pm
From: Mark Lloyd
On Tue, 18 May 2010 17:20:53 +0000 (UTC), Glenda Copeland
<gscopeland@Use-Author-Supplied-Address.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 May 2010 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT), terry wrote:
>
>> The neon glows when the switch is 'off'.
>
>Yes.
>
>> At ten cents per k.watt.hr
>
>The only "problem" is that our energy here in sunny California is nowhere
>near 10� per KWh. I'm going to get my bill and come back with the actual
>numbers, but the first KWh is about 12� but that only lasts for a
>"baseline" which is about a week. Then the next week is double, then
>triple, then more than four times that when you get to the last week.
>
>I'm figuring easily that it's 35�/KWh here in California. Any other
>Californians out there that can help me on the math?
>
That's a big difference. It's about 8� here in east Texas (figuring
from actual electric bills, NOT company ads).
[snip]
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us
"At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as our personal
lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later had to dismiss him for
incompetence, gross negligence, misconduct and consistent failure to
show up for work."
==============================================================================
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