[skerzz]

Thank you, Flu. Great information / insight.

[skerzz]

This is a single family residence (two story). Struggling to understand how one flush would have done this; might have to fly out myself to check things out.

[skerzz]

My approach to home buying was the inverse of yours, Kristopher. In 2009, one year out of college and 23 years old, I purchased my first home with an FHA mortgage and 3.5% down (which worked out to be about 1% down once you factor in the $8K federal tax credit (“handout”) I received for being a first time home buyer). It was a stretch purchase affordability wise at the time, but fortunately my salary/job situation continued to improve over the years. In 2013, I purchased a second home with a 0% down/ no PMI mortgage and kept my first home as a cash flow positive rental. Today I have a 10,000% + increase (on paper) on my original 1% equity/down payment. The point I’m getting at is leverage can be a great thing, especially when interest rates are historically low and not much capital is risked for potentially very high returns. A more conservative approach and/or all cash home purchase will make more sense when nearing retirement age assuming the equity isn’t needed to fund retirement.

[skerzz]

[quote=SK in CV] Wall Street, that sucks more than a trillion dollars a year out of the economy while providing absolutely nothing, is.[/quote]

Do you really believe Wall Street provides absolutely nothing to the US economy? That’s a bit extreme. How about the liquidity/capital they provide for companies to grow, expand, invest, and hire employees in the US? Or the role it plays in providing/facilitating the incentive necessary (big IPO pay outs) to encourage risk taking by entrepreneurs pursuing the next “big idea”.

Do you see any value in your high speed internet connection? Guess what?? — your telecom provider relied on that “dirty” Wall Street money to fund the capex necessary to bring it to you.

The view that Wall Street provides “absolutely nothing” in value sounds like a Bernie Sanders-ish liberal talking point. Do you propose we nationalize the banking industry and give the government full control and discretion over which companies/technologies we invest in? How’d that work out for Solyndra and the $500M+ taxpayer guaranteed loan?

[skerzz]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]BG, by “food elitist” I don’t mean eating only the most expensive stuff, just like an ivory tower elitist is not a multi-millionaire dollar wise, but he’s an elitist of the mind.

Choose broccoli over mash, fresh apple over apple sauce. Ban processed big food from your diet. Processed should be artisanal or home made. My teenage nieces are becoming little brat elitists. They take pride in their choices.

BTW, I buy things in season and on sale too. I like Asian markets because they have such variety. HMart and Zions in San Diego always have weekly sales.[/quote]

Oh, I agree that starch and saturated fats should be eliminated from your diet. Even sour cream and cottage cheese come in a “fat free” version and they taste fine to me. An unblemished, fresh bag of granny smith apples from WA is only $2.99 at Grocery Outlet (used to be $1.99).

Well, I’m not close to one of those large Asian markets but instead a few smaller ones. We do have a Sprouts (cheap veggies, but their bulk and packaged grain, nut and seed prices are higher than Ralph’s). There is a Trader Joe’s out in Eastlake but I don’t think their prices are that great cuz I don’t buy the type of ready-made food (i.e. stuffed salmon, etc) like they sell. And unless a “club priced” item in a local grocery chain is currently featured on a “buy 3, 4 or 5, mix or match” (red tag) promotion, I have found the club price to be too high, unless I have a paper mfr coupon or J4U coupon on my card to use for the same “club-priced” item.

I guess I’m “cheap” cuz I shopped at the military commissary for 35 years (and I still visit it 2-3 x per year when my kid gets me in). I still compare every single price on the outside to the commissary :=0

I don’t buy processed food except I keep boxes of 100-calorie MW popcorn available for when I get a “Red Box” movie and have friends over (or they bring over a movie to watch). My dog LOVES baby carrots cut up small and the 94-cent J4U bag of 3-color coleslaw! She always wants to “snack” and must keep up her girlish figure!

When I get up to my usual haunt at Kearny Mesa this summer, I’ll have my personalized-just-4-MY-house paint color professionally mixed at Glidden and check out the newer huge 99-Ranch Market across the street on CM Blvd (used to be a K-mart) and see what they carry.[/quote]

Bearish – there is strong science to support that saturated fats are not “evil”. Many foods considered “high” in saturated fat are actually are good for you: eggs, coconut oil, etc. I agree with you on starches/carbs — these foods generally trigger the same metabolic response that sugars do — blood sugar spike and a corresponding insulin release. Excess carbs/sugar,etc. result in insulin resistance, which causes your body to release more insulin to regulate blood sugar levels. Too much insulin hormone is bad as it inhibits the metabolism of fat cells and stimulates the creation of body fat.

[skerzz]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=XBoxBoy]It’s probably worth noting that there is very little if any evidence that working out leads to weight loss.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11518804/weight-loss-exercise-myth-burn-calories
[/quote]The thing is …. cardio and weight-bearing exercise turns fat into muscle. The more muscle you have in your body, the higher your metabolism.

Second to running 5-6x per week, I still think Body Pump 3-4x per week is a great way to build muscle and overall fitness. Especially if you have knee issues from running in your younger days. The classes are only one hour:

http://www.lesmills.com/us/workouts/fitness-classes/bodypump/?_ga=1.215949970.422054149.1443998245

edit: I wear knee supports under my clothes for this class.[/quote]

Fat cannot be directly converted into muscle (it’s science). Accordingly, cardio and weight training will not convert fat into muscle. However, weight training will stimulate muscle growth.

[skerzz]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Free will. A lot of people are driven to make money, as I’m sure moneymaker is. Eating well and exercising is so much easier as that only involves oneself.

Today, for exercise, I’m chiseling off the bathroom tiles of a condo I bought. Exercise and money making all together.[/quote]

I think you may be confusing activity for exercise. Exercise is performed to achieve a specific fitness/health goals. It’s best to do both — be physically active and exercise.

[skerzz]

pick up a copy of the book “4 Hour Body” by Timothy Ferris. You can implement bits and pieces of his advice and/or modify the plan to work for you.

The book outlines a diet and workout plan all based on a “minimum effective does” theory — 20% of a standard weight training plan will give you 80% of the results. If you don’t have aspirations of becoming a fitness model / body builder, blow off the remaining 20% of results as the the incremental effort to obtain them isn’t worth the effort.

First, and most importantly, make sure you correct your diet — no (reasonable) amount of exercise will overcome a crappy diet.

second – Add weight resistance training to your routine. Contrary to common belief, cardio exercise, while great for endurance, is not an effective fat burning tool. This means you don’t need to (and shouldn’t) spend hours running on the treadmill each week like a gerbil!

I picked up the 4 Hour Body in mid-February and began my goal of dropping the 30lbs I gained after graduating college while working my desk job. In 2.5 months I’ve dropped over 20 lbs (fat loss offset by muscle weight gain) and my strength is nearly as high as it has ever been with very little effort/time commitment (I used to religiously lift weights 4x per week in college). The best part, the diet and workout routine has been extremely easy to follow and stick with due to limited time commitment and the fact that I’m not hungry while eating in a caloric deficit. Here’s an example of what’s working for me:

diet – I follow a ketogenic diet (modified version of the diet laid out in the 4 Hour Body) 6 days per week and eat whatever (literally) I want one day per week (my “cheat day”). Ketogenic diet doesn’t leave me hungry and consists of high fat (about 60% of calories), moderate protein (about 30% calories), and remainder of calories from alcohol and veggies high in fiber. Make sure your fats are from “clean” sources – grass fed beef, eggs, Kerrigold butter, coconut oil, olive oil, bacon without sulfates, avocados, almonds, etc. I enjoy craft beer, so the most difficult adjustment with this diet has been cutting back on my IPA consumption to one day per week — luckily most spirits and wine have no/low carb content. I love that I can regularly eat steaks topped with butter while cutting inches from my waistline.

Gym – I spend 10-15 minutes once every 4 days doing weight resistance training, alternating between workout A and workout B. Each workout consists of one set of two different exercises. That’s it. In and out of the gym in 10-15min (I almost feel “lazy” for working out so little/quickly). Easy to follow, not very time consuming, and results have exceeded expectations (I initially very skeptical of the workout routine and diet).

[skerzz]

They are paid very well and most typically become CPA licensed after obtaining required work experience.

[skerzz]

[quote=spdrun]IRS wanted to push requirements for tax preparers, they were rightfully slapped down. You need an ID # that costs $50 and an SSN, no other requirements.

You don’t need to be a CPA to prepare Federal income tax returns. Some states might impose their own filth, of course, but there’s no Federal requirement anymore.[/quote]

You sure about that? I am pretty sure to obtain a PTIN you’ll need to complete certain education requirements, unless you are exempt (ex. Hold a CPA license). There’s More to it than just paying $50 and singing tax returns

[skerzz]

[quote=bearishgurl]

You can’t compare the work of a paralegal to a “bookkeeper making journal entries.” Paralegals actually do all the work attorneys do except depose witnesses, negotiate settlements and explain their terms to the party(s) and appear before the court. Often when an attorney goes into court to argue a motion, a paralegal wrote the motion and filed it and served it after the attorney looked it over and signed it. If a paralegal’s attorney trusts their research skills and the paralegal provided them with the cases they will be arguing with good notes and possible objections, they’re not going to spend hours (and $100(0)’s of their client’s money) “researching the paralegal’s research.” Ditto for trial prep, deposition prep and witness prep.

Umm, paralegals are frequently the invisible “grunt-worker attorneys” in the back room doing all the work and the “real (licensed) attorney” is in the front room taking all the credit for it.

As it should be :=)[/quote]

Bookkeeper to paralegal seems like a fair comparison. A bookkeeper can generally do everything a CPA does except sign a tax return as preparer (unless they obtain additional certifications/education requirements), provide attest services (issue an audit opinion on financial statements), and represent a Client in front of the IRS. That leaves a lot of accounting/bookkeeping type tasks that can be performed. Accountants without a CPA designation often do most of the “grunt” work while the CPA takes the credit/assumes risk for work performed and is out bringing in more work for the “grunts” to perform.

[skerzz]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Of course, you millenials really have no idea about how overt discrimination feels because you have never experienced it … yet. That day will come and it might be sooner than you think.[/quote]

Are you now arguing that there are no millennials that have ever been turned down for a position/passed over for an older worker because they appeared too inexperienced/young or were too “risky” because of lack of mortgage and family obligations to keep them tied to the prospective job? Discrimination goes both ways.

For the paralegal positions you did not successfully interview for, were you asking for the same salary as the younger worker? Perhaps you were a more qualified candidate, but did not get the job because you were too expensive (boomers are generally more expensive and demand higher wages because of more personal financial obligations/expectations than their millennial competition)? Assume you (candidate “A”) meet all job requirements and will deliver 100% of needed results while costing $X. Candidate B will initially deliver 80% of the results while costing 70% of X. It would be a more prudent business decision to hire candidate B since the expected return of value on candidate B is 14% greater than that of candidate A. Further, candidate B has more “upside” and will produce close the 100% of the desired results after gaining experience while still costing significantly less than candidate A.

[skerzz]

[quote=bearishgurl]”

Your response indicates to me that you are in favor of the ongoing overt age discrimination that has been in full force in the private sector for at least 10 years. I hope you never find yourself “looking for work” in middle age :=0[/quote]

Nope, no issues with boomers at my place of work. Employers should hire the best possible candidate for the wage being paid (ROI), regardless of age, race, sex, etc.

I had myself convinced that your rant about workplace hiring age discrimination (especially the asinine comments on iphone use, nail polish, and pregnancy) was sarcasm. Apparently I was wrong, and I’m somewhat shocked you were attempting to be serious.

[skerzz]

[quote=bearishgurl]

skerzz, I have been aware that millenials will “vote with their feet” if they can’t have the type of schedule they want from their employer. But what I have had a hard time understanding is why there has been so much age discrimination in hiring in the past ten years plus when boomers typically come in on time and leave on time, know how to dress and groom themselves for business, express themselves in a businesslike fashion on paper, in person and on the phone and don’t sit around texting all day. It’s mind boggling to me that employers would prefer the “prima-donna problem children” with black sparkle nail polish (who may be slightly pregnant but not telling anyone about it) and have an iphone for an appendage when they could have a very hardworking boomer with 30-40 years of experience and ready to work from day one with no training :=0[/quote]

It’s in a business entity’s best interest to hire employees that deliver the greatest ROI. Considering this, perhaps you’re perception of how great the boomer workforce is and/or how terrible the millennial “prima-donna problem children” are is flawed? I’ve spared a list of common boomer stereotypes that may help explain hiring preferences from my response so you’ll have something to google (a commonly used internet search engine provider) the remainder of the day. 🙂

[skerzz]

Costco is great IMO. Excellent prices on beer/wine/alcohol, dog food, organic eggs, meats, bulk household supplies (dish soap, laundry detergent, toothpaste, paper towels, TP, etc.) and TVs. Fill up the “nanny” car, a gas-guzzling HD2500 Chevy Suburban, every other week so long as the lines aren’t too long. Last Sunday I saved over $30 dollars shopping at costco on just two purchases — filled the ‘burb up with 35 gallons of fuel ($13) and and picked up a bottle of nice scotch whiskey ($21) vs. purchasing at local retailers.

The gas savings on one vehicle justifies the cost of the executive membership. However, I have found the gas lines not worth the wait/time when filling up my more fuel efficient/smaller fuel capacity vehicles.

[Author]

Posts