Every Tuesday brings a new Festival of Frugality. This week, it is hosted by "Modern Tightwad" and Grace's post on her (accidentally) frugal week-end is among the offerings.
And, yes, I really did get through the entire week-end for a measly three bucks!
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Freebie Weekend
It started accidentally.
First, I stopped at the library after work and picked up the two movies I'd reserved ("Charlie's War" and "Angels and Insects") for free weekend viewing.
Then Friday evening, a neighbor who was headed out to a local park for a free blues concert, invited me to share a picnic dinner with her family. I'd won a free six-pack of "Mike's Hard Lemonade" in a grocery store drawing earlier in the week, so I brought that along as my contribution, along with a bag of potato chips that had remained miraculously unopened. The weather was warm, the music cool, and the company, great.
On Saturday, a friend and I used our Bank of America debit cards for free entry to a local historical mansion and our local art museum. This is a program available on the first Saturday and Sunday of each month, wherein any proof of a Bank of America account will get one into various city attractions. It's too bad I live nowhere near New York City, because the Bronz Zoo is on the list.
Lunch was another picnic, this time on the grounds of the mansion, with a terrific view of my city, including the mountains in the background. Salami sandwiches and leftover hummus never tasted so good. Then we went to an IMAX movie with the two free tickets I'd gotten a couple of months ago when the projector ate the film I'd gone to see. (I'd only purchased one ticket, but the theatre gave out two tickets to each of us as compensation for the inconvenience.)
Today I went to an office brunch to honor our summer interns.
So here it is, not quite noon on Sunday, and I've spent exactly $3.00 for the entire week-end. (If you must know where the $3 went, consider that Grace NEVER watches a movie without popcorn!)
Now that I see what a cheap weekend it has been, I think I will deliberately not spend anything for the rest of the day just so I can say I had a $3 weekend! And I didn't skimp on a thing!
First, I stopped at the library after work and picked up the two movies I'd reserved ("Charlie's War" and "Angels and Insects") for free weekend viewing.
Then Friday evening, a neighbor who was headed out to a local park for a free blues concert, invited me to share a picnic dinner with her family. I'd won a free six-pack of "Mike's Hard Lemonade" in a grocery store drawing earlier in the week, so I brought that along as my contribution, along with a bag of potato chips that had remained miraculously unopened. The weather was warm, the music cool, and the company, great.
On Saturday, a friend and I used our Bank of America debit cards for free entry to a local historical mansion and our local art museum. This is a program available on the first Saturday and Sunday of each month, wherein any proof of a Bank of America account will get one into various city attractions. It's too bad I live nowhere near New York City, because the Bronz Zoo is on the list.
Lunch was another picnic, this time on the grounds of the mansion, with a terrific view of my city, including the mountains in the background. Salami sandwiches and leftover hummus never tasted so good. Then we went to an IMAX movie with the two free tickets I'd gotten a couple of months ago when the projector ate the film I'd gone to see. (I'd only purchased one ticket, but the theatre gave out two tickets to each of us as compensation for the inconvenience.)
Today I went to an office brunch to honor our summer interns.
So here it is, not quite noon on Sunday, and I've spent exactly $3.00 for the entire week-end. (If you must know where the $3 went, consider that Grace NEVER watches a movie without popcorn!)
Now that I see what a cheap weekend it has been, I think I will deliberately not spend anything for the rest of the day just so I can say I had a $3 weekend! And I didn't skimp on a thing!
Friday, July 31, 2009
July End of Month Review
Things are looking pretty good, especially since summer is often when my budget gets shot to pieces.
I lowered my overall debt by $1075.14--it would have been $50 more if I hadn't incurred a $50 balance transfer fee when I moved one of my credit cards to a "zero interest for nine months" card. Other than that, I did not increase any other balances.
My 401(k) funds are headed up, and now stand at $142,108--still not at the $174,000+ they were in October, 2007, but increasing nicely and at least they are NOT at the $89,654 they fell to in March, 2009.
I have until August 18th to come up with the car repair monies for Firestone--it looks more or less feasible at this point, so I've got my fingers crossed.
I lowered my overall debt by $1075.14--it would have been $50 more if I hadn't incurred a $50 balance transfer fee when I moved one of my credit cards to a "zero interest for nine months" card. Other than that, I did not increase any other balances.
My 401(k) funds are headed up, and now stand at $142,108--still not at the $174,000+ they were in October, 2007, but increasing nicely and at least they are NOT at the $89,654 they fell to in March, 2009.
I have until August 18th to come up with the car repair monies for Firestone--it looks more or less feasible at this point, so I've got my fingers crossed.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
About That Emergency Fund
When I whined about my $500+ car repair a few posts back, Living Almost Large left a comment, asking: "Don't you have any taxable investment savings? Even in stocks? Is it all in retirement account?"
Good question.
Not-so-good answer.
No, I don't have any taxable investment savings. I don't have any savings at all, except for the ever-changing but never-quite-$1000 emergency fund that Dave Ramsey says we all should have.
While people like Jennifer at "Finding Financial Peace" are well on their way to accumulating three to six months of expenses, others of us are still struggling with Murphy-visitations every time we get near to our first $1000.
JD at "Get Rich Slowly" explores with his readers the issue of what happens after you use your emergency savings. Check out the comments to his post because that's where all the action is. Some readers have three to six months stored away; others are more like Grace.
And just why does Grace have no savings?
16% of my pre-tax income goes into my retirement accounts. When one comes late to the retirement party, cash and time are of the essence. But then there are debts that need to be paid off, and daily life to be lived. When all of those are factored in, not much is left for non-retirement savings.
Right now, I am determined to pay off the car repairs prior to incurring any interest charges (I put the expense onto my dormant Firestone account). I may succeed in doing that during August, but it will mean that my emergency savings must wait another few months before it gets back up to $1000. And that is only if Murphy stays the heck away from my budget!
Good question.
Not-so-good answer.
No, I don't have any taxable investment savings. I don't have any savings at all, except for the ever-changing but never-quite-$1000 emergency fund that Dave Ramsey says we all should have.
While people like Jennifer at "Finding Financial Peace" are well on their way to accumulating three to six months of expenses, others of us are still struggling with Murphy-visitations every time we get near to our first $1000.
JD at "Get Rich Slowly" explores with his readers the issue of what happens after you use your emergency savings. Check out the comments to his post because that's where all the action is. Some readers have three to six months stored away; others are more like Grace.
And just why does Grace have no savings?
16% of my pre-tax income goes into my retirement accounts. When one comes late to the retirement party, cash and time are of the essence. But then there are debts that need to be paid off, and daily life to be lived. When all of those are factored in, not much is left for non-retirement savings.
Right now, I am determined to pay off the car repairs prior to incurring any interest charges (I put the expense onto my dormant Firestone account). I may succeed in doing that during August, but it will mean that my emergency savings must wait another few months before it gets back up to $1000. And that is only if Murphy stays the heck away from my budget!
Monday, July 27, 2009
Getting A Grip on Retirement Planning
You KNOW I'm gonna sympathize with Rose Bloom who was profiled recently by the Los Angeles Times.
Rose is 53 years old, a single parent to two adult children, who is just now realizing that she has to save more than the $12,000+ she currently has in retirement accounts. She plans to work forever, but she has diabetes and heart issues. (Now do you see why Grace can relate?)
The good news is that she has a decent salary (almost $95,000 a year). Even better, she will have a pension plus Social Security when she retires. But the bad news is that she lives in California. That means her job may be in jeopardy, she can't afford a home, and the cost of living is high.
Rose is just three years older than I was when I finally buckled down to saving for retirement. I'm a bit blown away by the financial planner's numbers--somehow I just don't see her saving $500,000 over the next ten to fifteen years nor am I sure that her savings will earn a 7.5% average.
BUT, that pension is going to make up for a whole lot of savings mistakes.
Rose is 53 years old, a single parent to two adult children, who is just now realizing that she has to save more than the $12,000+ she currently has in retirement accounts. She plans to work forever, but she has diabetes and heart issues. (Now do you see why Grace can relate?)
The good news is that she has a decent salary (almost $95,000 a year). Even better, she will have a pension plus Social Security when she retires. But the bad news is that she lives in California. That means her job may be in jeopardy, she can't afford a home, and the cost of living is high.
Rose is just three years older than I was when I finally buckled down to saving for retirement. I'm a bit blown away by the financial planner's numbers--somehow I just don't see her saving $500,000 over the next ten to fifteen years nor am I sure that her savings will earn a 7.5% average.
BUT, that pension is going to make up for a whole lot of savings mistakes.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Earlier Than You Think
Emily Brandon, at US News & World Report's Planning To Retire has a scary post about 'earlier than planned' retirements.
My goal has always been to retire on my 69th birthday. The view from here makes my plan look feasible, but, according to Brandon, almost half of workers wind up retiring earlier than they planned to. All but 10% do so involuntarily.
Job loss, age discrimination, family duties (such as caring for a spouse or one's parents) or a personal health crisis make a mockery of well-laid plans. Only 3% of potential retirees INTEND to retire in their fifties, yet 18% do so. 21% want to work into their seventies, but only 5% will still be employed when they reach their seventh decade.
I, of course, fall into the group of seniors who haven't saved enough to have the retirement they want (modest though that might be) if they retire earlier (or even "on time" at age 65), so continued employment is a must.
It gives me pause to contemplate all the things that can go wrong between now and age 69.
My goal has always been to retire on my 69th birthday. The view from here makes my plan look feasible, but, according to Brandon, almost half of workers wind up retiring earlier than they planned to. All but 10% do so involuntarily.
Job loss, age discrimination, family duties (such as caring for a spouse or one's parents) or a personal health crisis make a mockery of well-laid plans. Only 3% of potential retirees INTEND to retire in their fifties, yet 18% do so. 21% want to work into their seventies, but only 5% will still be employed when they reach their seventh decade.
I, of course, fall into the group of seniors who haven't saved enough to have the retirement they want (modest though that might be) if they retire earlier (or even "on time" at age 65), so continued employment is a must.
It gives me pause to contemplate all the things that can go wrong between now and age 69.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Grace v. B of A--This Time, Grace Wins One
As I've pointed out in earlier posts, I've had a Bank of America checking account since the late sixties when I headed off to college. (Actually, I had an account with a different bank--several different banks, come to think of it--but ultimately, as one bank absorbed another, I found myself with Bank of America.)
My current account is called Senior Advantage and comes with free checks, no monthly service costs and no minimum balances.
On Saturday, I get a letter from Bank of America assuring me that my account will be better than ever, and oh, by the way, they were now going to assess a $15 a month charge unless I kept at least $1000 as a minimum balance.
Excuuuuse me?
If I had an extra $1000 laying around, it would be in my emergency fund, NOT my checking account! But it's a moot point since I do NOT have $1000 to put in.
I called B of A, enraged at their action, and even more enraged that they would be directing these charges at their senior citizen clients. But before I could even get out an angry sputter, the extremely nice lady at customer service agreed with me that it was outrageous and said she could solve the problem.
Did I have paychecks? Umm--Yes!
Could I do a direct deposit? Umm--I already DO have my payroll checks deposited directly into my checking account.
"Well, then," said the extremely nice lady, "We'll just sign you up for an Access Account,--same bank account number, same checks, same everything--and you'll be on your way."
Which I was, within five minutes of calling customer service.
Now, why the bank couldn't have just done this on their own, since I've had my checks deposited directly for the past nineteen years, I don't know. Why they couldn't have put these options in their letter, I don't know. Why they want or need to start charging for the senior accounts, I don't know.
Then again, why I'm still with Bank of America? I don't know.
Maybe because of the extremely nice lady at customer service.
My current account is called Senior Advantage and comes with free checks, no monthly service costs and no minimum balances.
On Saturday, I get a letter from Bank of America assuring me that my account will be better than ever, and oh, by the way, they were now going to assess a $15 a month charge unless I kept at least $1000 as a minimum balance.
Excuuuuse me?
If I had an extra $1000 laying around, it would be in my emergency fund, NOT my checking account! But it's a moot point since I do NOT have $1000 to put in.
I called B of A, enraged at their action, and even more enraged that they would be directing these charges at their senior citizen clients. But before I could even get out an angry sputter, the extremely nice lady at customer service agreed with me that it was outrageous and said she could solve the problem.
Did I have paychecks? Umm--Yes!
Could I do a direct deposit? Umm--I already DO have my payroll checks deposited directly into my checking account.
"Well, then," said the extremely nice lady, "We'll just sign you up for an Access Account,--same bank account number, same checks, same everything--and you'll be on your way."
Which I was, within five minutes of calling customer service.
Now, why the bank couldn't have just done this on their own, since I've had my checks deposited directly for the past nineteen years, I don't know. Why they couldn't have put these options in their letter, I don't know. Why they want or need to start charging for the senior accounts, I don't know.
Then again, why I'm still with Bank of America? I don't know.
Maybe because of the extremely nice lady at customer service.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Grace vs. Car (And the Car Wins!)
The problem with living close to the financial edge is that it doesn't take much to push one right over the financial cliff!
OK, so it's not like I have a pending foreclosure or I've lost my job or anything truly horrible.
It's my 1999 Dodge Caravan with a mere 162,000 + miles under its belt. Or, to be more specific, it's the minivan's water pump which leaks and must be replaced. Don't ask me--all I know is that the temperature gauge whammed up to HOT, stayed there, and caused the alarm to keep buzzing. Not daring to look under the hood, I immediately took it to the mechanics.
The mechanics assure me that it is nothing that $512 can't fix.
I do have to have a vehicle. And I can't purchase anything else in adequate condition for the $512 it will take to make the repairs.
BUT--according to Kelly Blue Book, the whole dang car is only worth $1650! Can I just have a moment to rant about how much I DO NOT want to pay $512 for a car that is already worth so little?
Then there's the issue of my currently non-existant emergency fund. IF I had that $1000 that both Dave Ramsey and I believe I should have, no problem. Unfortunately, said emergency has been depleted by EMERGENCIES over the past couple of months and has exactly $137 in it!
SO, onto my Firestone Card goes the charge--I'll apply the emergency fund to the balance and hope to pay off the card in full by the payment due date.
But I will NOT be happy about it!
OK, so it's not like I have a pending foreclosure or I've lost my job or anything truly horrible.
It's my 1999 Dodge Caravan with a mere 162,000 + miles under its belt. Or, to be more specific, it's the minivan's water pump which leaks and must be replaced. Don't ask me--all I know is that the temperature gauge whammed up to HOT, stayed there, and caused the alarm to keep buzzing. Not daring to look under the hood, I immediately took it to the mechanics.
The mechanics assure me that it is nothing that $512 can't fix.
I do have to have a vehicle. And I can't purchase anything else in adequate condition for the $512 it will take to make the repairs.
BUT--according to Kelly Blue Book, the whole dang car is only worth $1650! Can I just have a moment to rant about how much I DO NOT want to pay $512 for a car that is already worth so little?
Then there's the issue of my currently non-existant emergency fund. IF I had that $1000 that both Dave Ramsey and I believe I should have, no problem. Unfortunately, said emergency has been depleted by EMERGENCIES over the past couple of months and has exactly $137 in it!
SO, onto my Firestone Card goes the charge--I'll apply the emergency fund to the balance and hope to pay off the card in full by the payment due date.
But I will NOT be happy about it!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Carnival of Personal Finance Link
My last post on the credit card shuffle is included in The 213th Carnival of Persona Finance hosted by Man vs. Debt .
Lots of interesting posts, not to mention some nice shots of New Zealand.
Lots of interesting posts, not to mention some nice shots of New Zealand.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Shuffling the Cards
I have a brand new credit card.
It's part of my "let's see if I can get a low-cost, no-interest balance transfer" debt reduction plan.
I get a lot of credit card applications in the mail. I scrutinize each one to see if it will meet my needs. Most don't.
I don't know if it is true for everyone, but I no longer get applications with no balance transfer fees. Most charge 3 or 4% with no ceiling on the transfer charge. It would cost me between $165 and $220 to transfer the balance on my highest card. Hmm--I don't think so!
The card I finally accepted charges 3% but has a $50 maximum. That's the best deal I've seen over the past six months.
I also notice that the zero percent offers have become markedly more limited. Some don't apply to balance transfers at all. Since I have no desire to put additional charges on any credit card, these offers don't attract me.
Others offer zero percent for six months. That's something of a bummer because I fondly recall getting prior offers of 18 months at no interest. The card I accepted is for 9 months.
The usual interest rate after the initial offer period runs out is between 8 and 12%. The one I accepted will go to 11.99% after 9 months, just a tad under what I'm currently paying.
Still, there is at least a $450 benefit to me when I transfer my highest credit card balance.
My highest balance is also the card with the highest interest rate: 12.24% The balance is $5400. Since I'm doing the Dave Ramsey snowball, I only make minimum payments (roughly $113 per month) on this card. Finance charges, which reduce slightly with each payment, are currently $57.34 per month. Therefore, even when I count the addition of the $50 balance transfer fee, I will be applying an additional $463 during the nine zero-interst months to debt reduction.
I assume there will be some effect on my credit score, though this new card has a $10,000 limit, so my $5400 transfer still leaves a lot of room--I understand credit scoring companies like that.
What else did I do with my brand new credit card? Well, I activated it, signed it, and promptly froze it my ice-cube tray along with my other credit cards!
It's part of my "let's see if I can get a low-cost, no-interest balance transfer" debt reduction plan.
I get a lot of credit card applications in the mail. I scrutinize each one to see if it will meet my needs. Most don't.
I don't know if it is true for everyone, but I no longer get applications with no balance transfer fees. Most charge 3 or 4% with no ceiling on the transfer charge. It would cost me between $165 and $220 to transfer the balance on my highest card. Hmm--I don't think so!
The card I finally accepted charges 3% but has a $50 maximum. That's the best deal I've seen over the past six months.
I also notice that the zero percent offers have become markedly more limited. Some don't apply to balance transfers at all. Since I have no desire to put additional charges on any credit card, these offers don't attract me.
Others offer zero percent for six months. That's something of a bummer because I fondly recall getting prior offers of 18 months at no interest. The card I accepted is for 9 months.
The usual interest rate after the initial offer period runs out is between 8 and 12%. The one I accepted will go to 11.99% after 9 months, just a tad under what I'm currently paying.
Still, there is at least a $450 benefit to me when I transfer my highest credit card balance.
My highest balance is also the card with the highest interest rate: 12.24% The balance is $5400. Since I'm doing the Dave Ramsey snowball, I only make minimum payments (roughly $113 per month) on this card. Finance charges, which reduce slightly with each payment, are currently $57.34 per month. Therefore, even when I count the addition of the $50 balance transfer fee, I will be applying an additional $463 during the nine zero-interst months to debt reduction.
I assume there will be some effect on my credit score, though this new card has a $10,000 limit, so my $5400 transfer still leaves a lot of room--I understand credit scoring companies like that.
What else did I do with my brand new credit card? Well, I activated it, signed it, and promptly froze it my ice-cube tray along with my other credit cards!
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Gone the Way of the Dodo?
On Friday, having gotten the day off for the July 4th weekend, I hauled four boxes of books to my local bookstore, intent upon creating a sizeable snowflake for my credit card debt.
I did generate $54, so that was good.
But Goodwill wound up with a full box of donations because the bookstore wasn't interested in a lot of the books I thought would sell well. For the record, historical non-fiction and craft books were immediately taken. The Patricia Cornwall and John Sandford hardcover mysteries? Not so much.
When I asked why, I was told that these are considered 'leisure reading.'
Apparently, there's not a strong market for 'leisure reading' in hardcover.
Really? People don't want their fun reading in anything but paperback? I get that paperbacks lighter and easier to carry. And cheaper to buy in the first place.
But personally, only a hardcover feels like a real book to me.
I say this in spite of the fact that I hang out with science fiction writers who often find their work appearing in paperback originals. I say this in spite of the fact that I now read some books on my Kindle, so they "exist" only in electronic form.
Funny that I brought up science fiction. I read it, I write it, and I seldom see books or mention of books in it--in future worlds, books are on computers or directly inserted into the brain or injected by weird-looking devices. But whatever their form, they aren't the good old hardcover books that I know and love.
I dunno.
Paperbacks may be cheap. And electronic books cheaper still.
But I like hardcovers. If, one day, they disappear in favor of books in alternate forms, I'm gonna miss 'em.
I did generate $54, so that was good.
But Goodwill wound up with a full box of donations because the bookstore wasn't interested in a lot of the books I thought would sell well. For the record, historical non-fiction and craft books were immediately taken. The Patricia Cornwall and John Sandford hardcover mysteries? Not so much.
When I asked why, I was told that these are considered 'leisure reading.'
Apparently, there's not a strong market for 'leisure reading' in hardcover.
Really? People don't want their fun reading in anything but paperback? I get that paperbacks lighter and easier to carry. And cheaper to buy in the first place.
But personally, only a hardcover feels like a real book to me.
I say this in spite of the fact that I hang out with science fiction writers who often find their work appearing in paperback originals. I say this in spite of the fact that I now read some books on my Kindle, so they "exist" only in electronic form.
Funny that I brought up science fiction. I read it, I write it, and I seldom see books or mention of books in it--in future worlds, books are on computers or directly inserted into the brain or injected by weird-looking devices. But whatever their form, they aren't the good old hardcover books that I know and love.
I dunno.
Paperbacks may be cheap. And electronic books cheaper still.
But I like hardcovers. If, one day, they disappear in favor of books in alternate forms, I'm gonna miss 'em.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
End of Month Recap With Only a Minimum of Lying
On second thought, forget lying--I consider it more like financial misdirection.
First, my quarterly net worth update: I'm up $24,465 to a total net worth of $507,180. Really good, though it begs the point that the first quarter of 2009 was an all-time low economically. And that every other quarter, back to 12/31/2006 was higher. Also, given that the stock market is down today, but was up yesterday (the last full day that I could use for my calculations), chances are, my retirement funds are lower than the numbers I used.
See? Not exactly a lie, but not the full truth, either.
Second, my debts are down by $1122.26. These numbers are accurate. Sort of. I chart my credit cards by the last statement. What I ignore are any purchases made since the statements came out. So, either I won't reduce my indebtedness by as much next month or I'll have to make larger payments to the balances. My plan is to do the latter, as I have in the past, when I don't really want to admit I haven't been as frugal as I sometimes make it sound. My true goal (which I achieved last month and the month before) is to make NO new purchases on any credit card. I tell you when I do that. It's just that I don't always 'fess up when I don't!
First, my quarterly net worth update: I'm up $24,465 to a total net worth of $507,180. Really good, though it begs the point that the first quarter of 2009 was an all-time low economically. And that every other quarter, back to 12/31/2006 was higher. Also, given that the stock market is down today, but was up yesterday (the last full day that I could use for my calculations), chances are, my retirement funds are lower than the numbers I used.
See? Not exactly a lie, but not the full truth, either.
Second, my debts are down by $1122.26. These numbers are accurate. Sort of. I chart my credit cards by the last statement. What I ignore are any purchases made since the statements came out. So, either I won't reduce my indebtedness by as much next month or I'll have to make larger payments to the balances. My plan is to do the latter, as I have in the past, when I don't really want to admit I haven't been as frugal as I sometimes make it sound. My true goal (which I achieved last month and the month before) is to make NO new purchases on any credit card. I tell you when I do that. It's just that I don't always 'fess up when I don't!
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Immoral? Tacky? Or A-OK?
I'm curious about this, but just so you know--I already did it. My question now is whether I should feel guilty about it.
My (did I mention she is rich?) baby sister gave me a Kindle for my 60th birthday. Along with it, she also gave me a $500 giftcard from Amazon.
Obviously, the intent was for me to use the giftcard to buy books for the Kindle. Which I have, though I tend mostly to download the free books that are offered periodically. I never would have gotten a Kindle for myself but now that I have it, I find it handy for commuter-reading on the bus, and if I can ever afford to travel again, I think it will be great then, too.
But have you noticed that people tend to buy gifts for others that they'd like for themselves? Well, it became apparent to me that my sister would like a Kindle of her own. Given that she travels all the time, she would undoubtedly use it far more than I do.
First, I checked with her husband who was giving her an entirely different gift. Then I sent her a Kindle for her birthday present. It cost $349, which I did not have. So, I used that giftcard.
Hence, the question. Was it tacky to use what was essentially her money to buy her a birthday gift I knew she would like? Or was it the act of a loving sibling who really wanted her sister to have a birthday gift she'd especially enjoy? (Hmmm--Grace votes for the latter!)
I still have money left on the giftcard with which to buy books for my own Kindle. Does that make a difference?
Is there, in fact, any moral issue here at all?
My (did I mention she is rich?) baby sister gave me a Kindle for my 60th birthday. Along with it, she also gave me a $500 giftcard from Amazon.
Obviously, the intent was for me to use the giftcard to buy books for the Kindle. Which I have, though I tend mostly to download the free books that are offered periodically. I never would have gotten a Kindle for myself but now that I have it, I find it handy for commuter-reading on the bus, and if I can ever afford to travel again, I think it will be great then, too.
But have you noticed that people tend to buy gifts for others that they'd like for themselves? Well, it became apparent to me that my sister would like a Kindle of her own. Given that she travels all the time, she would undoubtedly use it far more than I do.
First, I checked with her husband who was giving her an entirely different gift. Then I sent her a Kindle for her birthday present. It cost $349, which I did not have. So, I used that giftcard.
Hence, the question. Was it tacky to use what was essentially her money to buy her a birthday gift I knew she would like? Or was it the act of a loving sibling who really wanted her sister to have a birthday gift she'd especially enjoy? (Hmmm--Grace votes for the latter!)
I still have money left on the giftcard with which to buy books for my own Kindle. Does that make a difference?
Is there, in fact, any moral issue here at all?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Rx for Prescriptions
I remember spending nights with my grandparents (who lived next door--it was a SMALL town) and being freaked out at the number of medications lined up on their bathroom shelf.
That was a long time ago, and I'm now the grandparent, and yes, there is a shelf full of prescription medicines in my bathroom.
Not that I'm complaining.
The fact that I have taken blood pressure and cholestrol medications for the past ten years means that I was in good shape for my heart surgery in March, and contributed to my fast recovery. The medications I take regularly for diabetes are necessary for continued longevity.
But it's a darn good thing I have insurance and only have to pay a $10 co-pay for my prescriptions, because I take five different medications each day.
Lately, I've been searching for ways to reduce those costs. I already pay my co-pays with tax-free dollars since I have a flex medical account. But what other savings might there be?
As it turns out, I had to look no further than my HMO pharmacy. To go into the clinic monthly costs $10 per prescription, not to mention the time loss. But if I buy a 90 day supply of each medicine, I can do that for $27 per prescription plus make 66% fewer visits to the pharmacy.
But wait--there's more!
If I order by mail or over the internet, I can get a 90 day supply of each medicine shipped to me for $20 per prescription. (The package is pretty large--it probably does NOT make my mailman happy.)
Don't have an HMO? Maybe, don't have insurance?
Wal-Mart runs a cost-effective program for the most-used prescriptions. I checked their list of $4 medications, and it includes every one of mine with one exception (I was initially prescribed the most common blood pressure medication, but 10% of users develop a really loud and annoying cough. Wouldn't you know it, Grace is in that 10%). Wal-Mart also provides an additional discount for the purchase of a 90 day supply ($10) bringing the cost of common drugs down to $3.33 a prescription.
I'm not the biggest fan of Wal-Mart, but you can't beat those prices.
I know that I will, at a minimum, start getting my prescriptions by mail. I haven't decided if I will (or even if I can) forego the HMO pharmacy in favor of Wal-Mart.
In the meantime, I will hope that I don't ever contract the infection that a close friend of mine recently did--the drug that ultimately knocked out the bacterium cost her $495. And that WAS the CO-PAY!
That was a long time ago, and I'm now the grandparent, and yes, there is a shelf full of prescription medicines in my bathroom.
Not that I'm complaining.
The fact that I have taken blood pressure and cholestrol medications for the past ten years means that I was in good shape for my heart surgery in March, and contributed to my fast recovery. The medications I take regularly for diabetes are necessary for continued longevity.
But it's a darn good thing I have insurance and only have to pay a $10 co-pay for my prescriptions, because I take five different medications each day.
Lately, I've been searching for ways to reduce those costs. I already pay my co-pays with tax-free dollars since I have a flex medical account. But what other savings might there be?
As it turns out, I had to look no further than my HMO pharmacy. To go into the clinic monthly costs $10 per prescription, not to mention the time loss. But if I buy a 90 day supply of each medicine, I can do that for $27 per prescription plus make 66% fewer visits to the pharmacy.
But wait--there's more!
If I order by mail or over the internet, I can get a 90 day supply of each medicine shipped to me for $20 per prescription. (The package is pretty large--it probably does NOT make my mailman happy.)
Don't have an HMO? Maybe, don't have insurance?
Wal-Mart runs a cost-effective program for the most-used prescriptions. I checked their list of $4 medications, and it includes every one of mine with one exception (I was initially prescribed the most common blood pressure medication, but 10% of users develop a really loud and annoying cough. Wouldn't you know it, Grace is in that 10%). Wal-Mart also provides an additional discount for the purchase of a 90 day supply ($10) bringing the cost of common drugs down to $3.33 a prescription.
I'm not the biggest fan of Wal-Mart, but you can't beat those prices.
I know that I will, at a minimum, start getting my prescriptions by mail. I haven't decided if I will (or even if I can) forego the HMO pharmacy in favor of Wal-Mart.
In the meantime, I will hope that I don't ever contract the infection that a close friend of mine recently did--the drug that ultimately knocked out the bacterium cost her $495. And that WAS the CO-PAY!
Friday, June 19, 2009
Postal Ponderings
There I was, hanging out at the local post office with two packages: a yellow box emblazoned with hearts and filled with shoes, socks, and books for a grandchild who lives out of state who is having a birthday; and a more demure bubble-wrap-envelope filled with Skittles, jerky, fruit roll-ups, and underwear for a grandson who is spending his summer working for the US Forest Service.
I was prepared to pay big bucks to send these packages out in the fastest reasonable manner. But what shocked me was that the faster Priority Mail (will get there in 1-2days) was only 47 cents more than the slower Parcel Post (projected arrival in 5-9 days).
What gives?
According to the person stamping my packages, the recent postage price increases (you know--the one where you're now paying $ .44 cents for each letter you send) also increased the rates for Parcel Post but NOT for Priority Mail.
This results in the two rates usually being with $.50 of each other.
This also means that the post office got an additional $.47 from Grace because why bother with Parcel Post at these rates?
Perhaps I should keep quiet about it--I have a feeling the government's response would be to RAISE the amount needed for Priority Mail!
I was prepared to pay big bucks to send these packages out in the fastest reasonable manner. But what shocked me was that the faster Priority Mail (will get there in 1-2days) was only 47 cents more than the slower Parcel Post (projected arrival in 5-9 days).
What gives?
According to the person stamping my packages, the recent postage price increases (you know--the one where you're now paying $ .44 cents for each letter you send) also increased the rates for Parcel Post but NOT for Priority Mail.
This results in the two rates usually being with $.50 of each other.
This also means that the post office got an additional $.47 from Grace because why bother with Parcel Post at these rates?
Perhaps I should keep quiet about it--I have a feeling the government's response would be to RAISE the amount needed for Priority Mail!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Retirement, Defined. Or Not.
CNN blogger, Jack Cafferty had an interesting question today. Has Your Definition of Retirement Changed? Among the usual political responses (let's blame the Democrats, the Republicans, Obama, sunspots), smug "I'm doing fine, thank you, and I could care less about those who aren't" declarations, and concerns raised by Gen X and Y'ers, are other comments both wise and funny.
Absolutely, my definitions of retirement have changed.
I believe we've all had to rethink exactly what retirement will mean to each of us. It's not only the money, but the time. As retirement draws closer for me, I've started to realize I must make lifestyle plans as well. What I discovered during my recovery from heart surgery was that days filled with books (even good ones) and TV (even good. . .oh never mind!) quickly breed boredom.
I don't share the paranoia of some of those who responded to Cafferty's column. For example, I'm quite confident Social Security will be around for coming generations. But this particular recession has been a wake-up call for everyone. We just can't count on the things some of us thought would always be there: ever-rising markets; lasting good health; an encompassing sense of having made it.
Absolutely, my definitions of retirement have changed.
I believe we've all had to rethink exactly what retirement will mean to each of us. It's not only the money, but the time. As retirement draws closer for me, I've started to realize I must make lifestyle plans as well. What I discovered during my recovery from heart surgery was that days filled with books (even good ones) and TV (even good. . .oh never mind!) quickly breed boredom.
I don't share the paranoia of some of those who responded to Cafferty's column. For example, I'm quite confident Social Security will be around for coming generations. But this particular recession has been a wake-up call for everyone. We just can't count on the things some of us thought would always be there: ever-rising markets; lasting good health; an encompassing sense of having made it.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Poverty Economics 101
Thanks to Single Ma at Fabulous Financials for referencing this Washington Post article about the high cost of being poor.
I live in a transitioning urban neighborhood that has traditionally been home to a majority of African American residents. Over the 16 years I've lived here, it has become increasingly trendy. That means we finally got a supermarket--two of them, in fact. But for years, the only grocery stores within walking distance were small and expensive neighborhood operations. The housing stock is old--great for yuppie rehabbers, but less satisfactory for families who have lived here since their homes were built in the 1930's and '40's. We have the second highest crime rate in our city, recently edged out of first place by a low-income white neighborhood on the other side of town. Our insurance rates reflect this.
Professionally, I work with and for poor people. For all my whining about my finances, I am grateful NOT to be in their shoes. I DO have a washer and dryer. I DO have the funds to replace my ten-year-old van when it finally dies. I DO have a bank account--more than one, in fact, so there's no charge to cash my checks.
Recently, a friend griped to me about all the "benefits" a "welfare mom" gets. He started off with subsidized housing. I responded that in our city, less than 12% of the poor have subsidized housing. The rest pay market rates for what are often substandard apartments--the kind of places that don't ask questions about prior evictions or require that the family make 3 times the rent each month. He was surprised to find that food stamps are based on a PERCENTAGE of what a single person or family needs to feed themselves for a month, and that the percentage is NOT 100%.
As the Washington Post article says, "You have to be rich to be poor."
I live in a transitioning urban neighborhood that has traditionally been home to a majority of African American residents. Over the 16 years I've lived here, it has become increasingly trendy. That means we finally got a supermarket--two of them, in fact. But for years, the only grocery stores within walking distance were small and expensive neighborhood operations. The housing stock is old--great for yuppie rehabbers, but less satisfactory for families who have lived here since their homes were built in the 1930's and '40's. We have the second highest crime rate in our city, recently edged out of first place by a low-income white neighborhood on the other side of town. Our insurance rates reflect this.
Professionally, I work with and for poor people. For all my whining about my finances, I am grateful NOT to be in their shoes. I DO have a washer and dryer. I DO have the funds to replace my ten-year-old van when it finally dies. I DO have a bank account--more than one, in fact, so there's no charge to cash my checks.
Recently, a friend griped to me about all the "benefits" a "welfare mom" gets. He started off with subsidized housing. I responded that in our city, less than 12% of the poor have subsidized housing. The rest pay market rates for what are often substandard apartments--the kind of places that don't ask questions about prior evictions or require that the family make 3 times the rent each month. He was surprised to find that food stamps are based on a PERCENTAGE of what a single person or family needs to feed themselves for a month, and that the percentage is NOT 100%.
As the Washington Post article says, "You have to be rich to be poor."
Friday, June 12, 2009
Loving My Kitchen
My (rich) sister's Christmas gift to me was a complete interior repainting of my house. The entire residence looks 100% better, but nowhere did the paint make a bigger difference than in my kitchen.
Keep in mind that my kitchen had blue plaid wallpaper which was coming off the walls. I'm not sure that the wallpaper could ever have looked good, even when new. But it was especially unattractive as it peeled. Now that the wallpaper is gone, and the walls are sage green, one can safely cook in my kitchen without wanting to throw up. (There will be no cracks about my cooking--I'm talking about walls, here!)
The kitchen also came with fake oak veneer cabinets. Amazingly, these look a lot better now that they are painted white and the wooden knobs have been changed out for ones made of brushed nickle.
I'm happy with the new look.
But I'm getting a little tired of folks who keep asking if I was going to have granite counters and stainless steel appliances installed.
Umm--NO!
I wouldn't have granite counters put in even if I could afford them, which I can't.
In fact, I don't get the attraction of granite at all. It's expensive; it's heavy; it's easily stained unless properly sealed; it requires maintenance that I'm unlikely to do; dishes break when dropped on it (something klutzy Grace does all too often); it dulls knives if you cut on it; and it can crack if stressed.
My counters are formica and they work just fine. If I felt I needed new counters, I'd likely get more formica, though perhaps in a different color or pattern.
My real point here is that if granite really isn't optimal in a kitchen, why are all the "in" remodelers and designers using it? Why are people paying a premium for homes that have it?
I feel the same way about stainless steel appliances. Why get something that is a magnet for scratches and fingerprints, requires significantly more expense and maintainance and doesn't work any better than a regular appliance? (Oh, and speaking of magnets, WON'T allow you to stick one's treasured magnets on the front of it!)
Isn't it all a bit precious and silly to pay extra for items of decor that don't enhance the function of the room or the activities that take place there?
Or am I just being cheap?
Keep in mind that my kitchen had blue plaid wallpaper which was coming off the walls. I'm not sure that the wallpaper could ever have looked good, even when new. But it was especially unattractive as it peeled. Now that the wallpaper is gone, and the walls are sage green, one can safely cook in my kitchen without wanting to throw up. (There will be no cracks about my cooking--I'm talking about walls, here!)
The kitchen also came with fake oak veneer cabinets. Amazingly, these look a lot better now that they are painted white and the wooden knobs have been changed out for ones made of brushed nickle.
I'm happy with the new look.
But I'm getting a little tired of folks who keep asking if I was going to have granite counters and stainless steel appliances installed.
Umm--NO!
I wouldn't have granite counters put in even if I could afford them, which I can't.
In fact, I don't get the attraction of granite at all. It's expensive; it's heavy; it's easily stained unless properly sealed; it requires maintenance that I'm unlikely to do; dishes break when dropped on it (something klutzy Grace does all too often); it dulls knives if you cut on it; and it can crack if stressed.
My counters are formica and they work just fine. If I felt I needed new counters, I'd likely get more formica, though perhaps in a different color or pattern.
My real point here is that if granite really isn't optimal in a kitchen, why are all the "in" remodelers and designers using it? Why are people paying a premium for homes that have it?
I feel the same way about stainless steel appliances. Why get something that is a magnet for scratches and fingerprints, requires significantly more expense and maintainance and doesn't work any better than a regular appliance? (Oh, and speaking of magnets, WON'T allow you to stick one's treasured magnets on the front of it!)
Isn't it all a bit precious and silly to pay extra for items of decor that don't enhance the function of the room or the activities that take place there?
Or am I just being cheap?
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Not-So-Financially Grown-Up Kids
While I'm not certain that Jung got it right about Synchronicity, there are still plenty of examples in daily life. Witness my thoughts about giving money to my children, which coincided with a "Ask Amy's" column in Today's Washington Post and a new entry on World of Wealth. [You may have to register to get on the Washington Post site, but registration is free.]
Amy's inquirer and Meg's family are at opposite ends of the issue. How do you handle it when you don't have the money to keep on giving the way you used to, or how do you make decisions about giving the money, when you do have it. Meg, of course, has the "problem" of how to graciously accept the gifts--we should all have her issues!
I note that many of the personal finance bloggers and those who comment on the blogs either have no adult children or have no children at all. Frankly this makes it easier for them to stand back and insist that one's adult children "stand on their own two feet." I will be interested to see how it works out for them as they do have families, and their children become adults. Given that many of us took to baring our financial souls on the internet because we were not exactly role models when it came to our own finances, will we be surprised if our kids aren't all that good at it either?
I've never had large sums to give to any of my daughters, but like the parents who wrote Amy for advice, my children do expect me to cover meals out, to help them with payments here and there when they run into trouble, to cover tuition and books for college (fortunately, my granddaughter is using the local community college for her higher education), and generally to "be there" for them financially. I don't think any of them has a clear idea of what I make or what my expenses are.
I have two conflicting mindsets about all of this. On one hand, I adopted children who were damaged, both emotionally and organically. I knew it was unlikely they would ever achieve my level of education or income. So helping them out has been built in to my parenting, and that did not end when they became adults and left home. On the other hand, we all have to be realistic. I cannot afford to support five families. I have to prioritize what I'm willing to give my children, and I do make an effort to equalize the monies that I give out.
I estimate that, on average, I spend about $600 a month on my children and grandchildren. Not all of that is spent in any given month, but I spend more than that three times a year when my granddaughter's college tuition comes due. So, $600 a month on average. That is money that could go a long way toward reducing my credit card debt.
I have not completely worked out how I feel about this expense. Right now, I include it in my budget. And right now, it is all financially doable. But I wonder how it will play out if/when I find myself in the position of Amy's letter-writer.
Amy's inquirer and Meg's family are at opposite ends of the issue. How do you handle it when you don't have the money to keep on giving the way you used to, or how do you make decisions about giving the money, when you do have it. Meg, of course, has the "problem" of how to graciously accept the gifts--we should all have her issues!
I note that many of the personal finance bloggers and those who comment on the blogs either have no adult children or have no children at all. Frankly this makes it easier for them to stand back and insist that one's adult children "stand on their own two feet." I will be interested to see how it works out for them as they do have families, and their children become adults. Given that many of us took to baring our financial souls on the internet because we were not exactly role models when it came to our own finances, will we be surprised if our kids aren't all that good at it either?
I've never had large sums to give to any of my daughters, but like the parents who wrote Amy for advice, my children do expect me to cover meals out, to help them with payments here and there when they run into trouble, to cover tuition and books for college (fortunately, my granddaughter is using the local community college for her higher education), and generally to "be there" for them financially. I don't think any of them has a clear idea of what I make or what my expenses are.
I have two conflicting mindsets about all of this. On one hand, I adopted children who were damaged, both emotionally and organically. I knew it was unlikely they would ever achieve my level of education or income. So helping them out has been built in to my parenting, and that did not end when they became adults and left home. On the other hand, we all have to be realistic. I cannot afford to support five families. I have to prioritize what I'm willing to give my children, and I do make an effort to equalize the monies that I give out.
I estimate that, on average, I spend about $600 a month on my children and grandchildren. Not all of that is spent in any given month, but I spend more than that three times a year when my granddaughter's college tuition comes due. So, $600 a month on average. That is money that could go a long way toward reducing my credit card debt.
I have not completely worked out how I feel about this expense. Right now, I include it in my budget. And right now, it is all financially doable. But I wonder how it will play out if/when I find myself in the position of Amy's letter-writer.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Attitude
BlueBird, over at Hedonic Adjustment posed an interesting question in his Tuesday post.
Bluebird asks his question in the context of union employees, but I think it is a fine question to ask generally: Why is the answer to inequity to make everybody as worse off as the worst?
How many times do we hear that "people on welfare" get too many freebies? Or complaints that too much of Obama's stimulus program is going to folks in foreclosure rather than those who are actually making their mortgage payments? Or rants against union employees with good healthcare benefits?
Why is the knee-jerk response to take away those benefits from the poor and working class rather than work to expand them into the middle class?
I understand envy. It's not like I don't get jealous of people who make more than I do, are smarter than I am, or have more opportunities than I do. But I don't see how my being jealous means they (whoever "they" might be) should make do with less.
Just so you know where I'm coming from--I work for a non-profit. Although I am an considered a "professional," my entire program is unionized, and I am currently president of my local. I make quite a bit less than I would if I worked for a private corporation. But I do have excellent health benefits (for which I and my recently unblocked arteries are duly grateful!).
Others with my education could have my health benefits if they worked here, but first, they would have to accept my pay. Like that is an option!
So is the answer to say that if one group can't have (because their employer can't or won't pay for it) my level of health benefits, then I shouldn't have it either?
In a different context, (and referring to a past post by Morrison at All Doors Considered), should the fact that an uneducated Deli worker from the projects got financial help from the government to move her family into a suburban home while a newly unemployed, college-educated banker is facing homelessness mean that we should never have helped the deli worker? Would taking funds away from her do anything for the about-to-be-homeless executive?
Somehow, I can't imagine those who "envy" the deli worker would really want to live her life in order to reap her "government benefits."
Bluebird asks his question in the context of union employees, but I think it is a fine question to ask generally: Why is the answer to inequity to make everybody as worse off as the worst?
How many times do we hear that "people on welfare" get too many freebies? Or complaints that too much of Obama's stimulus program is going to folks in foreclosure rather than those who are actually making their mortgage payments? Or rants against union employees with good healthcare benefits?
Why is the knee-jerk response to take away those benefits from the poor and working class rather than work to expand them into the middle class?
I understand envy. It's not like I don't get jealous of people who make more than I do, are smarter than I am, or have more opportunities than I do. But I don't see how my being jealous means they (whoever "they" might be) should make do with less.
Just so you know where I'm coming from--I work for a non-profit. Although I am an considered a "professional," my entire program is unionized, and I am currently president of my local. I make quite a bit less than I would if I worked for a private corporation. But I do have excellent health benefits (for which I and my recently unblocked arteries are duly grateful!).
Others with my education could have my health benefits if they worked here, but first, they would have to accept my pay. Like that is an option!
So is the answer to say that if one group can't have (because their employer can't or won't pay for it) my level of health benefits, then I shouldn't have it either?
In a different context, (and referring to a past post by Morrison at All Doors Considered), should the fact that an uneducated Deli worker from the projects got financial help from the government to move her family into a suburban home while a newly unemployed, college-educated banker is facing homelessness mean that we should never have helped the deli worker? Would taking funds away from her do anything for the about-to-be-homeless executive?
Somehow, I can't imagine those who "envy" the deli worker would really want to live her life in order to reap her "government benefits."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
