Operation Flipper , in November 1941 was a British special forces operation aimed at killing or capturing Erwin Rommel .

The intention was to disrupt the German Command and Control infrastructure before the start of Operation Crusader , which was intended to relieve the siege of Tobruk .

It was felt that Rommel was such a pivotal figure for the German army in North Africa that his death might sway the result.

The operation failed, because Rommel had left for Rome ahead of the attack (almost half the attacking force were unable to get ashore due to bad weather which meant that the other mission objectives were also not achieved).

Lt.

Colonel Laycock's report on the raid, dated 5 January 1942, can be read at the UK National Archives (reference WO 201/720 ) EDIT:

As a side-note in regard to Operation Vengeance , I found two papers that you might find interesting The first of these is the 2015 monograph Killing a Peacock:

A Case Study of the Targeted Killing of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto , by Maj Adonis C. Arvanitakis, United States Air Force, submitted to the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, which looks at the planning and execution of the operation in some detail.

The second paper is the 1992 thesis Bullets With Names: The Deadly Dilemma by Roger G. Herbert, Jr., Lieutenant, United States Navy, which considers Operation Vengeance in the wider context of targeted assassinations from the perspective of the United States.

The operation to kill Bin Laden (2011)

Yes, in recent memory the US Millitary started an operation specifically to take out Osama Bin Laden (it happened in 2011):

"The Associated Press reported at the time two U.S. officials as stating the operation was "a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn't kill unarmed people trying to surrender", but that "it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden#Operation_Neptune_Spear

Attempt to kill or capture Tito Operation Rösselsprung was a failed attempt by the Germans to capture or kill Marshal Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia on the 25th of May, 1944.

The attempt to kill or capture

Tito was led by Kurt Rybka with 500th SS Parachute Battalion .

Tito, however, escaped from his cave headquarters after the German's first assault had failed.

The only part of Tito they ended up capturing was his uniform...

"Tito with members of the Supreme Staff in front of the cave in Drvar , May 1944.

" This photo was presumably taken not long before the German assault.

Source: Wikipedia Initially involved in the attempt was Otto Skorzeny , perhaps best known for his key role in the rescue of Mussolini in Operation Eiche in September 1943.

Skorzeny's plan, though, was compromised and had no further part in the events which followed.

Capture of Admiral Horthy, regent of Hungary

Perhaps a marginal case is that of the October 1944 Operation Panzerfaust , the successful capture of the Hungarian regent Admiral Miklos Horthy , which also involved Skorzeny.

In 1920, Horthy had originally accepted the regency on the condition that he was also commander of the armed forces, but I can find little evidence as to what extent he was involved land-based operations.

He did, however, continue to wear a uniform.

The United States opened the 2003 invasion of Iraq with an attempted Decapitation Strike against Saddam Hussein.

I just learned that Operation Gaff (1944) was another such attempt of taking out the “usual” Erwin Rommel.

The abduction of German General Kreipe on Crete in 1944 (documented in the book and movie Ill Met by Moonlight might be one, although the intent was not to kill.

The general was captured and smuggled off of Crete as a prisoner of war.

The Polish Home Army (a military force still subservient to the Polish Government in Exile), had operations that took out various police and military officials - and even attempted to kill Hitler, although the operation failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Army#Assassinations_of_Nazi_leaders

If we count the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (1942—1949 span of activity) (they had between 20.000 and 200.000 fighters) as a regular army.

They actually killed many soviet officials, either from the army or the NKVD.

Their more important kill was Nikolai Vatutin , commander of the 1st Ukranian Front during WWII.

Question: Operation Vengeance   (1943) was a US military operation aimed specifically to kill Japanese Admiral Yamamoto.   It looks like something weird in contemporary era: are there any similar military operations (conducted by regular military services, I mean) which were uniquely targeting a single enemy commander (of a internationally recognized country) in the last century, or in present day warfare, furthermore?

Operation Vengeance and Individual Targeting of Enemy Commanders

The operation to kill Osama Bin Laden is an example of this as well as the attempt on Saddam Hussein in 2003. There were also examples in WWII to kill Rommel.

There have been a number of operations in history aimed at killing specific generals, including the American mission to kill Osama Bin Laden in 2011 and the British mission to kill or capture Erwin Rommel during the Second World War. Other notable missions include the mission to capture German General Kreipe, the capture of Admiral Horthy of Hungary, the German mission to kill Tito or the US mission to kill Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The USA carried out a mission specifically to kill Osama Bin Laden in 2011.

Operation Gaff and Operation Flipper were both operations aimed at killing or capturing Erwin Rommel.

The Germans launched an operation to kill Tito in 1944.

There was an operation to abduct German General Kreipe.

The American invasion of Iraq aimed to killed Saddam Hussein.

The capture of Admiral Horthy, Regent of Hungary could fall into this category.


Actually, there was a famous Soviet movie from 1966, Береги́сь автомоби́ля , whose plot centers around car insurance:

The main character sells car insurance during the day and steals the insured cars at night and, after selling stolen cars, donates the proceeds to orphanages.

(No, he is not crazy, he even has a document certifying his sanity.)

The movie is quite good (great director and cast of actors), here it is on youtube .

Edit.

On a more serious note, the following info is taken from the book " Плакат Госстраха ", Moscow, 2012.

All insurance in USSR was done by a monopoly, Госстрах , established in 1921.

According to the book, the first time (presumably, since 1920s) private cars in USSR were insured (by Госстрах) in 1946, specifically, 99 cars.

The number went up to (approx) 1700 by 1949 and to 188500 by 1969.

Below are two Soviet ads for auto-insurance, from 1951 and 1967 respectively.

Besides cute posters, the book (which is 359 page long) contains more details on personal insurance in the Soviet Union.

USSR did allow private property over personal-use items, which included cars and even houses or apartments.

What was not allowed was private property over commercial or industrial assets ("means of production"), or private business (they turned a blind eye towards self-employed stuff like tutoring or handyman services)

There was personal insurance in Soviet Union.

There was accident and life insurance (often with savings component to it), as well as insurance covering houses and cattle (critical for peasants).

Coverage for vehicle itself seems to have been introduced in the 1980's: Russian wiki Same page implies there was mandatory coverage for passengers But proper liability insurance was rolled out only after USSR was gone : Russian wiki

At USSR times, there was so called GosStrakh system (short form of Gos udarstvennoe Strakh ovanie, aka Government Insurance).

From 1946, it started car insurance program as well.

However, as any other insurance company, it had very contradictory reputation.

Cars in the USSR were not government issued, unless they were company cars so to speak, just as in Western countries.

You saved up for one, ordered one, and waited until it was delivered.

Difference is that the number manufactured was planned, and independent of actual demand, so you would likely have to wait for 5-10 YEARS for delivery.

Jalopnik is an interesting read, and mentions nothing regarding insurance.

Of course that may be an oversight by the author, but he does mention just going to the black market for spare parts or if your car got stolen, suggesting that insurance, even if it did exist, wasn't really useful (unsurprising, as the planned economy meant that the insurance couldn't simply issue you a replacement for a stolen or wrecked car, you'd have to wait another 10 years).

Marxist.org mentions "transportation insurance" being available from 1922 but doesn't explain what that entails.

This is a transcript of a booklet about the USSR published in 1929 so doesn't really say anything about the later years of the USSR when cars were manufactured locally.

Car insurance (and other private property insurance) existed, and was mandatory.

The only difference in this respect with capitalist countries was that the insurance company belonged to the state, and there was no choice of insurance company, and no competition between them.

Question: I can't imagine how it works in a planned economy. Does the government replace your car if you crash it? Was there no sort of insurance?

Was there car insurance in the USSR?

There was private property insurance in the Soviet Union. Mandatory vehicle coverage seems to have been introduced in the 1980s. The difference was that the insurance company belonged to the state and there was no competition.

Car insurance did exist in the USSR, as did other forms of personal insurance, but the insurance was run by the state rather than a private company.

Car insurance, and indeed other forms of personal insurance, did exist in the USSR.

The difference in the USSR was that insurance was operated by the state rather than a private company.


In short - if you can't get the job without incorporating, then incorporate!

Some clients will require you to be incorporated (which is why I did it 10 years ago).

Essentially, for them, it's a way of distancing themselves from you to ensure they are not responsible for any monies if you don't pay your taxes.

For you, there is also this idea of distancing company assets from your personal assets.

If they are not requiring you to incorporate, you can simply act as a sole proprietorship.

A good place to start reading up could be the sites below (for Canada/Ontario): Canada Business http://sbinfocanada.about.com/ http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/incorporation/Incorporating_A_Business_In_Canada.htm

When I registered, I simply bought a book at Grand&Toy, with all the required forms for Ontario.

These forms would also be available at a local Government service centre.

You walk in, give the government money, and shortly thereafter you are incorporated.

There are a number of others things that are required (having a minutes book, writing resolutions, creating shares, setting up a bank account, etc) -

all discussed in the guide For Ontario you can start here: http://www.ontario.ca/en/services_for_business/index.htm At a high level, there are some costs for being incorporated, and some tax savings.

At a minimum, costs would include: Incorporation costs - from memory

this is a few hundred dollars Name Search around $50 (you are not required to pick a name, and can simply use the numbered company from the incorporation, so this is optional) Bank Account in the business's name (RBC is good for new companies as they have the lowest charges currently - see http://www.redflagdeals.com forums for a more indepth discussion.

You may need the help of an account to help set things up, but it's quite easy to maintain all the records, etc that are required.

Some other minor things I enjoy are writing myself expense cheques so that I get money back immediately (and effectively only pay 60% of the cost after writing it off in the company).

I can decide how much to pay myself and push income from year to year.

Do you need to incorporate?

This depends on whether the company prefers you to be incorporated.

If you are going through a recruiting company, some of them are willing to deal with non-incorporated people (Sole Proprietor) and withhold taxes from your cheques for you.

If you do want to incorporate, you can do it yourself, go through a paralegal, or you can even do it online.

I did mine in Ontario for about $300 (no name search

- i just have a numbered corporation like 123456 Ontario Inc.) through www.oncorp.com -

there are other sites that do it as well.

Things to consider - if you're contracting through a corporation you most likely need to: File corporate taxes annually.

Collect GST from your client, and remit that at least once a year.

Pay CPP on the salary that you pay yourself.

Talk to an accountant about these for clarification - most of them will give you an initial consultation for free.

Generally speaking, accountant fees for corporate filing taxes averages about $1000-2000 a year.

I am co-owner of a business, and we incorporated federally.

(Mostly to limit liability.)

There is some excellent information above, and most of my wisdom I got from a trusted lawyer and accountant (find experts you trust in these two areas, they will prove invaluable in so many areas.)

The one point I would add is that if you decide to incorporate, you can do so federally or provincially.

We were all set to go provincially, when our lawyer asked "Is there any chance you might move the business?

Any chance you might want to do work in other provinces?

What about next year?

Five years?"

If you are going through the expenses to set up a corporation, consider doing so federally, the extra costs were insignificant, but someday you might be glad you don't have to start from scratch.

In this day and age, many people end up moving out of province for work, family concerns, etc.

I know this is a little late

but here is my answer.

No.

You do not "need" to incorporate.

In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes.

The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions.

The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).

My late answer is: Be aware of the difference of being a contractor and being an employee.

I am not sure of the laws in Canada, but in the United States lots of small companies like to hire people as "contractors" but make them work under rules that fall into employee.

The business is trying to avoid paying payroll taxes, which is fine, but make sure you know your rights and responsibilities as a contractor vs employee.

You can check with your state's Bureau of Labor and Industry in the US, but I am sure wherever you are from there is a government agency to do the same thing.

Question: I'm sure there are tax implications, and other things to consider. I don't know where to start.

I'm currently unemployed and have been offered a contract position. Do I need to incorporate myself? How do I do it?

You do not need to incorporate yourself unless the company requires it. You can also act as a sole proprietor. If you do need to incorporate yourself, you can do it with the help of a paralegal or online. You can do it federally or provincially.

The answer will depend on what the customer requires, although it is widely considered that you will not need to incorporate yourself. However, if you do decide to, you can incorporate yourself either federally or provicially and you may wish to seek professional advice on the matter.

If you do decide to incorporate yourself, you can do so federally or provincially, though you may wish to seek professional help in doing so.

The answer will depend on whether the company is asking you incorporate or not.

No, you do not need to incorporate yourself.

Some customers may require you to incorporate yourself.


As a Canadian resident, the simple answer to your question is "yes" Having worked as a tax auditor and as a Certified Financial Planner, you are required to file an income tax return because you have taxable employment income.

All the employer is doing is deducting it at source and remitting it on your behalf.

That does not alleviate your need to file.

In fact, if you don't file you will be subject to a no filing penalty.

The one aspect you are missing is that taxpayers may be entitled to tax credits that may result in a refund to you depending on your personal situation (e.g spousal or minor dependents).

I hope this helps.

While you are required to do so

as others have said, it's actually in your interest to do so.

In a recent article at GlobeInvestor , Tim Cestnick discusses the benefits of filing tax returns for teens.

This situation may or may not apply to you but the message is the same.

The main benefits are (1) create RRSP contribution room and (2) be eligible for GST/HST credits and other possible one-shot credits (think oil royalty surplus cheques in Alberta).

Excerpt: You see, when Lincoln was 14, he filed a tax return and reported $2,000 of income that year.

He paid no tax thanks to the basic personal tax credit, but he created $360 of RRSP contribution room that year.

Beginning in 2003, Lincoln started working part-time in his father's business.

His father agreed to pay him $6,000 each summer to work in the business, to help save money for university.

Lincoln didn't pay any tax on the money he earned in those summers because his basic personal tax credit was always higher than his earnings.

In addition, Lincoln added to his RRSP contribution room simply by filing a tax return each year.

Yes, you have to file a tax return in Canada.

Non residents that have earned employment income in Canada are required to file a Canadian personal income tax return.

Usually, your employer will have deducted sufficient taxes from your pay-cheques, resulting in a tax refund upon filing your Canadian tax return.

You will also receive a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid in Canada.

In many cases, you are required to file your taxes by law even if you won't owe.

If it's anything like in the US, it's quite possible

your employer is not taking the right amount and you may owe more or may even be in line for a return.

If you took advantage of options like a home buyers plan (HBP)

you definitely need to file since you must designate how much of the plan to repay.

Your employer does not know about what you do with your money so cannot take this into account for the withheld taxes.

If you do not report repayment of the HBP it will be treated as a withdrawal from your RRSP i.e. additional income for that tax year.

You are not required to file a tax return in Canada if you have no taxable income.

If you do not file a return you may be requested to by Canada Revenue Agency, and then you'll need to file one.

There are hundreds of thousands of Canadian residents who do not file tax returns.

The Minister who overlooks the CRA may assess any amount of taxes on any resident whether they file a return or not.

There are penalties for failing to file a return or filing late.

The penalties are based on a percentage of the taxes owed.

If you owe no taxes, then the penalties are meaningless.

Question: My company holds back tax from each of my pay checks.  I have no other sources of income.  I don't expect I owe anything more on my pay.  Do I really need to file an income tax return?  I live in Canada.

If I have no exemptions or deductions, just a simple paycheck, do I HAVE to file taxes?

Even if you don't owe anything, you are still required to file a tax return. You may be subjet to a no filing penalty if you don't file.

Yes, even if you have no taxable income, you still need to file a tax return. In fact, if you don't file a return, you may face a penalty.

Yes, even if you have no taxable income, you are still required to file a tax return.

If you don't file a tax return, you could face a penalty.


Dollar cost averaging moderates risk.

But you pay for this by giving up the chance for higher gains.

If you took a hundred people and randomly had them fully buy into the market over a decade period, some of those people will do very well (relative to the rest) while others will do very poorly (relatively).

If you dollar cost average, your performance would fall into the middle

so you don't fall into the bottom (

but you won't fall into the top either).

If you know with 100% certainty what the market will do, then invest it all at the best time.

If not, spread it out over time to avoid investing it all at the worst possible time.

If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market.

(IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.)

It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better.

Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't.

A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging

but it is an effective investment strategy.

Vanguard said: Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later

We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfed with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible.

But if the investor is primarily concerned with minimizing downside risk and potential feelings of regret (resulting from lump-sum investing immediately before a market downturn), then DCA may be of use.

Of course, any emotionally based concerns should be weighed carefully against both (1)

the lower expected long-run returns of cash compared with stocks and bonds, and (2) the fact that delaying investment is itself a form of market-timing, something few investors succeed at.

I agree with them.

Here are my additional opinions: The uninvested money will lose its value by inflation while it's waiting to be invested.

As time goes by, accumulated investments diminish DCA effect.

We can diversify our portfolio to reduce risk instead.

Dollar cost averaging works if the stuff you're buying goes up within your time horizon.

It won't protect you from losing money if it doesn't.

Also consider that the person (or company, or industry) that suggests dollar-cost averaging might want you to start up a regular investment program and put it on auto-pilot, which subsequently increases the chance that you won't give due attention to the fact that you're sending them money every paycheck to buy an investment that make them money regardless of whether you make money or not.

If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point.

Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time.

That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher.

Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary.

The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).

Here is a deliberately simple example of Dollar Cost averaging: Day 1:

Buy 100 shares at $10.

Total value = $1,000.

Average cost per share = $10.00/share (easy).

Day 2

: Buy 100 more shares at $9.

Total value = $1,900.

Average cost per share = $9.50/share (1,900/200). Notice

how your average cost per share went from $10.00 to $9.50.

Now instead of hoping the stock rises above $10.00 a share to make a profit, you only need it to go to $9.50 a share (assuming no commissions or transaction fees).

It's easy to see how this could work to your advantage.

The only catch is that you need buy more of a stock that is dropping (people might think you're crazy).

This could easily backfire if the stock continues to drop.

Over the long run, markets have always gone up.

There have been down periods but they have always rebounded.

If you pick any random point in the past 100 years and lump sum invested, on average you would have done better than dollar cost averaging if you kept your holdings long enough.

This is why most professionals recommend lump sum investing than dollar cost averaging.

Of course, however, this discards any information about the current market conditions.

If you change the statement above and lump sum invest at new highs, vs dollar cost averaging, this will skew the result to in favour of dollar cost averaging, likewise at 20 year lows this will skew the result to favour lump sum investing.

Question: Does dollar cost averaging really work? If I have money available now, why shouldn't I invest it all at once? If the market's going up, wouldn't that be better?

Does dollar cost averaging really work?

Dollar cost averaging doesn't work statistically better than any other strategy. It works if the stuff you're buying goes up with your time horizon.

The answer to this question is subjective. It's quite possible that dollar-cost strategies are no more effective than other investment strategies. They are effective if what you are buying goes up in value over the period that you're interested in. If you know 100% what the market will do, then it is best to invest all your money at once.

If you know what the market will do, 100%, then invest all your money at once.

Dollar-cost stragies do not work statistically any better than any other strategy.

A dollar cost strategy is effective if what you are buying goes up over the specific time period you're interested in.


Let me add a counterpoint.

I don't know about you, but for some psychological reason, when I know I have an abundance of something I tend to be less frugal about the way I consume it.

For example: When there is a six pack of cokes in the fridge I feel like I am more prone to not drink them up so quickly

so I have some for later on.

However, if I knew I had 3 more cases in the pantry, I seem to go through a lot more of them.

If they don't spoil, you can still get some marginal benefit if buying in bulk means you avoid the need for a trip to the shops to get a replacement.

If the item is a commodity that you will use eventually you are unlikely to lose out as the prices tend to remain fairly stable.

There's also the inconvenience factor, I like to have plenty of some items

so I'm not caught short, consider how important your furnace is in mid winter, or the inconvenience of running out of an item right when you need it.

As with everything else, it's a question of trade-offs.

Pros For Buying

In Bulk Less frequent trips are needed to purchase more items.

You are less likely to run out of the item at an inconvenient time.

There is a longer lead-time before you need to restock.

Cons For Buying

In Bulk Inventory cost.

You need to purchase more shelving/cupboards to stock the goods.

This is a real cost.

The psychological effect of having more means you are more likely to use more, thus costing you more.

Deflation of the cost of the item should occur over time in a well-functioning market economy.

A $10 item today might be $9.50 in one year in real terms.

There is a real opportunity cost associated with overbuying.

Granted, an extra $100 in your bank account won't be earning too much if you have to spend it one month later, but it does mean you have less financial independence for that month.

Risk of spoilage.

There is a nonzero risk that your goods could be ruined by flood/fire/toddler/klutz damage.

You need to decide which of these pros and cons are more important to you.

Financially, you should only buy what you need between shopping trips.

In reality the convenience of holding goods in storage for when you need them may outweigh the costs.

To Rich Seller's point, we live 1/2 gallon of gas and 30 minute round trip from the supermarket.

For the items that are non-perishable, such as bathroom or facial tissue, paper towels, shampoo,soap, toothpaste, etc, there's value in never running out of it.

(@JohnFx - your point is well taken.

When my daughter was a toddler, I found her covered in band-aids.

One tiny scratch, 9 band-aids.

My wife asked why I was concerned, we had hundreds in the pantry.

I can see how some items might just encourage over-use)

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

I agree with Rich Seller.

Avoiding a trip to the store is a benefit.

Not only do you save the time and hassle , but there's real money saved if a car trip is avoided:

I maintain a spreadsheet for all of my car expenses – depreciation, maintenance, insurance, license & registration, gas, etc.

Combined with starting & ending odometer readings for the year, I can see exactly what it costs me to drive one kilometre.

Granted, some costs are fixed simply by virtue of having the car, but gasoline is a variable cost avoided when a trip is avoided.

It could be a sunk cost.

If you buy 5 gallons of vegetable oil it costs $50. Until you use up all the vegetable oil you dollars are tied up and cannot be spent on popcorn or any other good.

So weigh if the convenience is more important than having the cash on hand for other purchases is another factor to consider

There is a trade-off.

It can be worthwhile because you save those extra trips.

(On the other hand, don't you need to go shopping all the time for perishable items anyway?)

On the other hand, having those items on stock implies inventory costs (the space they take up might be limited, the money they represent is sleeping and cannot be put to other usage, some of them might break...).

This trade-off gives you the economic order quantity .

Your stock levels over time based on that would look like a saw-blade.

In addition, you might want to keep a safety stock for emergencies (if you use them faster than expected, if there is a supply shortage...).

Question: If I'm buying household items that get used up (e.g; furnace filters, soap, etc.) is it still worthwhile sometimes to buy a bunch, even if there is no volume discount, or am I wasting money?  p.s. could somebody please retag with "volume" or "volume-discount"? I can't create new tags.

If there's no volume discount, does buying in bulk still make sense?

Buying things in volume means you are less likely to run out an an inconvenient time. You will save on extra trips to the store, which is a marginal benefit.

Buying in bulk for non-perishable items that you will definitely use will at least prevent you from running out of them at an inconvenient time. It may also save you some money on shopping trips. However, it will mean that more of your money is tied into those purchases and won't be available for buying other, more urgent, products.

If you are considering buying non-perishable goods in bulk then the main benefit is that you are unlikely to run out of them at an inconvenient time.

The main benefit of buying in bulk is probably the reduced number of shopping trips that you will have to make, along the added fuel costs.

Buying in bulk does mean that your money will be tied into assets and that money won't be available for other purchases.


Consider getting rid of all your credit cards.

This has several benefits: No monthly credit card bill to pay, thus having more money to pay down other debt (if you have any)

You won't have the temptation to spend money you don't have

You won't have to pay any interest on purchases you make No late charges or interest rate hikes due to your own mistakes (Mistakes do happen)

No late charges or interest rate hikes due to the credit card companies mistakes No extra monthly fees for American-Express-like cards Now, in order have some peace of mind without credit cards, you should have an Emergency Fund for 3 - 6 months worth of expenses.

That said, there are a couple reasons I see making it reasonable to have one or two cards:

You are currently building up an emergency fund, and want to have something to use in a cash-flow related emergency.

You plan on getting a mortgage soon (although I would recommend living on the cheap for a while and buying an inexpensive condo or house instead of using debt).

If you take this option, make sure you pay off the card on the same day you purchase stuff.

Never maintain a balance for more than a day.

Other than that, I fail to see any benefits.

Sure, you can get free crap like gift certificates and airline miles, but the long term benefits of having no debt are a lot better.

The number to hold depends on your usage and your goals.

However the most important aspect of credit cards is the effect it has on your credit score.

Having a good credit score can be useful later when making large purchases like a car or house.

Things to consider about credit cards: Paying the minimum monthly balance.

Late payments affect your score negatively.

Excessive credit.

High unused credit limits can flag you as a high risk.

Also too many credit cards with low limits can also create lots of unused credit.

(Another user mentioned getting free tupperware with every card they got).

Merchant support.

Not all merchants support all the common cards.

e.g. You may want 1 Visa, 1 Mastercard.

Reward systems.

Some cards have a maximum limit on rewards given based on spending.

At that point you may switch to another card.

For most people who have never had a credit card 1 credit card is usually enough initially since the expenses should not exceed income (plus this reduces the temptation to get into lots of debt).

The best way to find out if you are okay is to check your credit score and do it regularly.

In Canada there are several ways to get this information and some of it free like Equifax .

I have five credit cards.

I confess:

two are in a drawer and don't ever get used!

I do find the other three useful: A Visa card with no annual fee and a 1% cash-back privilege.

I use this card a lot.

A MasterCard card with no annual fee and travel points.

I only use it when Visa isn't taken.

An American Express card.

I wouldn't be carrying an Amex card at all except

it's the only card accepted at Costco

and I like the flexibility of using credit there, especially near the holidays.

So, I would suggest anything more than five -- I mean,

ahem, three might be excessive ;-)

The other responses make good points:

Consider your overall debt, consider your credit score.

And ask yourself, "Do I really need this card?"

I have one, and consider it plenty.

But I do have a pretty big line of credit, which may have something to do with the number of cards I carry :)

I've had 3 on the go at one point, but I've worked hard over the past year to reduce that down to 1, which will be cleared in 2 months.

I would say its fine to have as many as you want, its more about how you are using them Having 10 all with a fiver on is better than 2 with a few thousand on

We have one each for convenience, but we pay them both off every month.

It's true that this doesn't establish a payment history with the bank, but if you have a job and little or no debt, you should have no problem getting the important credit, like mortgages and car loans.

If you have some stuck in a drawer (assuming no balance on them) there is still a problem as the bank may consider this part of your "used" credit.

I know this happened with business credit cards.

Also, there's the chance of having the cards stolen, of course.

I've heard of people having a second credit card with a low limit for online purchases in case it's stolen.

I don't believe this is necessary, as you still have a debit card in case the credit card has to be canceled due to fraud, and they can rush you a new credit card in 2 days or better.

There are three roles for credit cards: financing ( credit ) rewards discounts

So, two general-purpose credit cards should be all you need: one for everyday spending to collect rewards, and one with a low APR for things that you need to finance.

Store credit cards at the top two or three stores you shop at, with their credit function ignored (low credit limits, and pay them off every month), are also fine for collecting discounts.

As many of these as is convenient is okay - if you don't take it as license to spend freely.

A gas station credit card also falls in this category, if your regular rewards card doesn't cover it.

Question: Is there a right number of credit cards to hold? (Please don't say zero :) What would be the excessive number of credit cards, or how else would you judge enough is enough? If I have some cards I do not use just stuck in a drawer somewhere, is it a problem?

How many credit cards is it reasonable to have?

It depends on your usage and goals. For people who have never had a credit card, 1 is usually enough and the expenses should not exceed income. Some people have a second card with a low limit for online purchases in case it's stolen.

The answer to this question will be subjective and depend on your own personal circumstances. Some people would recommend not having a credit card at all. Keeping credit cards unused in a draw could still have an impact on your credit score.

The answer to this question is subjective and will depend on your own credit needs and levels of debt.

You may want to consider whether you need a credit card at all.

Having credit cards unused in a draw at home may still have an impact on your credit score.


Even without analyzing the math or doing a complete risk assesment, consider the following: They wouldn't be doing such a hardsell if these warranties weren't abig profit center for the companiesthat

offer them Extended warranties are essentially insurance policies.

Insurance policies generally only make sense to protect you from major financial hardship by transferring risk to the company issuing the insurance.

I wouldn't buy insurance or a warranty on anything unless the cost or repairing/replacing it

wouldn't put me in a bad way with my finances.

When you buy these you are bettingthat the cost of the warranty will be less than the cost of anyreplacement/repair cost, the companyoffering it is betting on the otherside of the equation AND they set theprice.

Consider who in thistransaction has better informationabout repair/replacement costs forthe item.

Hint:

It isn't you.

My knee-jerk reaction was "no, they are not worth it", but I took a little time to look up what some of the trusted names in consumer electronics reviews had to say about extended warranties/service contracts.

A cnet writer said that your decision should consider the price of the service contract relative to the price of the item you're buying, as well as the amount of hassle you're willing to endure, should something go wrong.

Consumer Reports believes that the warranties that come with your products are almost always enough, and they say that electronics and appliances are so well-built nowadays, the likelihood of you needing extra service before you upgrade are slim-to-none.

And the folks over at epinions.com offer the same

maybe-yes-

maybe-

no advice as the cnet guys: depends on your appetite for risk and the options available to you.

So I would suggest that the answer be "no" most of the time, but consider it anyway.

I worked for a major retailer that offered such extended warranties.

Our profit margin on these "product protection plans" was ~80%.

That should tell you something about how much they are "worth" to the consumer.

I was just reading Consumer Reports ' December 2009 issue.

The issue's focus is electronics, and there was a small section on extended warranties in the "Best electronics" article.

Here's what they said: Extended warranties still aren't worth buying Seven in 10 respondents to our survey on buying major electronics reported they were pitched an extended warrranty.

However hard they're sold, extended warranties are generally bad investments.

Most electronics products won't need a repair, especially if you choose brands that have fared better than others in the reliability ratings we include in this section.

In the unlikely event they break, other Consumer Reports survey data has shown, the average repair bill is often comparable with the cost of a warranty.

However, buying a plan that includes accidental damage might be worth considering for a laptop or netbook that you'll use a lot on the go.

And buying a computer warranty that extends tech support, too, might make sense if you or a gift recipient could use a lot of hand-holding. [...]

Paying with your credit card might automatically double the manufacturers' warranty and offer other benefits at no extra cost [...]

BTW, I like Consumer Reports

and I am a long-time subscriber.

Check them out if you haven't before.

In my opinion it depends on the type of product.

I would get a warranty for a washing machine or tumble dryer or other product with lots of moving parts that is liable to break down.

I also take into account my luck, the one washing machine I didn't get covered broke down 2 weeks outside the normal warranty period...

I would not get a warranty for a consumer electronics product like a TV, PC, or iPod because they devalue so quickly.

As a rule of thumb, if the model you buy today is going to be on sale for the next few years for around the same price and has moving parts, it is worth considering a warranty.

If it will be worth a small percentage of its value because newer faster shinier models come along to replace it don't bother.

I would also not get the warranty from the shop I bought the product from.

You can get warranties for consumer products from specialist third parties that will allow you to cover multiple products for a discount.

These work out a lot cheaper than the one the shop will give you.

For example in the UK, DomGen will cover 3 appliances for £14.99/month and 6 for £20.99/month

To take a higher level view of this, consider the warranty as buying insurance.

They want to sell you the warranty because there's profit in it for them over the aggregate of all the warranties they sell.

So ask yourself, would having to replace this item out of your own pocket

cause you a significant financial burden?

Items like houses we insure because we can't afford to lose the investment.

Items like cars

we get liability insurance because we can't afford to pay for another person's medical costs if we're liable for their injury.

On the other hand, if you're talking about a $1000 piece of equipment in your house, this won't break you.

That means you can self-insure, and if you do that for all the items you purchase, over the long haul, then you will save money (equal to the profit that the company expects on the warranties).

So I say, no, don't buy extended warranties.

The more they're trying to sell it to you, the less you should be willing to buy it (because the higher their profit margin is if they can convince you to buy it).

The issuer of the service contract is making money.

DO NOT buy these contracts.

Self insure over your life time 40/60 years and you will save money.

Question: When shopping for big budget items like TV's and appliances, the resellers (e.g. Best Buy, FutureShop) will often sell an extended warranty that covers the product well beyond the manufacturer's warranty.  Is this worth spending the money?

When buying expensive electronics is it worth getting the extended warranty?

Consumer Reports believes that the warranties that come with the products are almost always enough. It might be worth it for a washing machine or any product with moving parts that is more liable to break down.

The answer to this question will depend on the product, the cost to replace it and how much you're willing to put up with if it breaks. However, generally, people would advise taking an extended warranty out on items that have a lot of moving parts whilst not bothering for electronic goods.

Most people would consider that an extended warranty is not worth purchasing for the majority of products, particularly electronic ones.

Some people would recommend getting an extended warranty for items that contain a lot of moving parts.

The answer will depend on the product type, how much it would cost to replace and your own levels of patience should something go wrong.


I have a had a TON of success by negotiating.

Just talk to your current carrier and let them know that you can't afford it and there are other more reasonable options out there

and they will most likely be willing to help you out.

I wrote a few posts about how to negotiate with wireless carriers as well as one detailing my success .

For customer who can get a Google Voice account:

Use one of your plan's preferred numbers and make receiving all your calls from the Google Voice number free.

I have t-mobile with their "Fav5" plan.

I put my Google Voice number as a fav, tell Google Voice to make the caller id be that number, and to transfer calls to my cell.

When people call me it comes from Google Voice and it is free.

My family has one of those "package" deals from Verizon where we get internet, cable TV, landlines, and cell phones all bundled together.

If you're going to get TV and internet anyway, it's worth at least checking to see whether the package deal might be cheaper.

In our household, we pay for two mobile phones:

Our first phone is on a plan that I use heavily for data (including occasional tethering to a laptop while on the train), but I use very little voice.

So, I have a great data plan, but a minimal voice plan.

Next, even though I am gadget-oriented person, I try not to replace my phone too often.

I want to get at least 3 years out of every phone I buy, to reduce the amortized monthly cost of the phone itself.

The second mobile phone we keep primarily for emergency purposes or a very occasional call

, so we bought a cheap prepaid Virgin Mobile phone, and we charge it up with $100 per year.

That amount was chosen judiciously: As you can see on Virgin Mobile's Topping Up page, when the top-up is at least $100, the credit doesn't expire for 365 days .

So, the cost of carrying this second cell phone for the household – provided we don't use many minutes (and we don't) – is only $8.33/month + tax .

At the time we bought this phone we checked out all other carriers in Canada that had prepaid and none of them had a credit that lasted that long.

I find that researching the various companies and taking time to choose the right plan for your calling and texting pattern is the way to go.

Sometimes people don't take the time to properly analyze their usage, instead simply choosing a plan that has an attractive monthly rate.

In our household, we text far more than we call, so we're on "unlimited" texting plans, with very small voice packages.

It's very easy to adhere to, because I chose plans well-suited to our needs.

That way, throughout the month, we don't have to pay unnecessarily close attention to our calling/texting volumes.

Switch to sprint, check out this article about it

http://honestbanker.blogspot.com/2009/03/sprint-offers-best-bang-for-your-buck.html or check out cricket wireless, http://honestbanker.blogspot.com/2009/04/do-you-hate-cell-phone-contracts-try.html and also most everything plans are becoming rather affordable these days, try checking into those regardless of who your carrier is, but id look into sprint, they also offer like 15 percent discounts to almost everyone for some reason or another, like military, or many employeers, just ask them about it

Question: In terms of cell phone plans the U.S. is the  worst  followed by Spain and then Canada.  Besides the obvious get rid of the phone option what other strategies can be employed to keep the costs down?

How can I reduce the cost of having a cell phone?

Try negotiating with your current carrier and research the various companies to find the best deal.

The most effective ways to reduce your cell phone bill will be to shop around first and then attempt to negotiate with your provider. You may also want to look into how Google Voice could be used to make free calls.

You may have success in reducing your bill by simply negotiating with your provider.

Google Voice could be a useful tool for making all your received calls free.

Shopping around is probably the simplest way to reduce your cell phone bill.


There's a bit of working backwards that's required.

This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer.

What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years.

The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved.

This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline.

More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%.

The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return.

Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year.

One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions.

I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable.

Not so sure today.

What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate.

Will $1M be enough for you?

Only you can answer that.

But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way.

(note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought.

I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k).

Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers.

The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary.

Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

I would focus first on maxing out your RRSPs (or 401k) each year, and once you've done that, try to put another 10% of your income away into unregistered long term growth savings.

Let's say you're 30 and you've been doing that since you graduated 7 years ago, and maybe you averaged 8% p.a. return and an average of $50k per year salary (as a round number).

I would say you should have 60k to 120k in straight up investments around age 30.

If that's the case, you're probably well on your way to a very comfortable retirement.

For most people, a million dollars is about right.

Here's the back of the napkin math that you should consider to find your own estimate: How much money do you need to maintain a comfortable retirement lifestyle?

What interest rate is your retirement account earning?

If you take 1 and divide it by 2, that's roughly the size of the nest egg you'll need to live indefinitely.

For example, if your retirement investments are earning 5% a year, and you want to live on $50,000 a year, you would need a $1,000,000 nest egg (50,000 / 0.05) Note that you don't have to make any assumptions about how long you'll live .

The whole idea of a nest egg is that you live off the interest it earns each year without ever dipping into the principle.

It's the gift that keeps on giving!

When you die, you can pass it along to children, charities, etc.

One more thing to consider is

that $1M today is not the same as $1M 30 years from now because of inflation.

Consider that just 30 years ago (1980) the average house price in the US was only about $69K and a new car cost around $7K on average.

When you retire, it isn't much of a stretch to assume that you could be paying $1.5M for a typical house, $100K for mid-grade car, by the time you retire in 30 years.

Of course, over the rest of your working life your salary will likely increase due to inflation too, so that will help.

In 1980 the average US income was around $19K/year.

So even though that number seems huge, it is because it is denominated in currency that has been devalued significantly.

There are three numbers that matter in that calculation: 1)

How much do you expect per month from in pension/social security/or other retirement programs?

At what age will each of you retire?

How long will each of you live?

What will your annual expenses be when you retire?

Unfortunately #3 is the most important of the three and the hardest to know with any certainty.

Here's another answer on the topic: Saving for retirement: How much is enough?

An angle on it

this question made me think of: a good approach here is to focus on savings rate (which you can control) rather than the final number (which you can't, plus it will fluctuate with the markets and make you nervous).

For example, focus on saving at least 10% of your income annually (15% is much safer).

If you focus on the final number: the "goal number" varies a lot according to how much you spend (if you are living on 60K/year vs. 120K/year).

But the ideal savings rate is similar for most people since it's relative to income the nature of compound interest is that you'll only get close to the goal pretty late in the game, you'll feel far away most of your life, maybe losing motivation as the stock market bounces around you can also lose motivation

you really can't do anything about the goal number; if it goes up and down with the market, trying to 'do something' about that is actively harmful

The way it works in the real world is that you save as much as you can, but there are lots of random factors and unknowns.

Some people end up having to work a lot longer than they hoped to.

Others end up able to retire early.

Others retire on time but have to spend less than they hoped.

But the one thing you can often control (as long as you have an income and no catastrophes, anyway) is that you spend less than you make.

Question: Of course I know I should have a substantial sum of money that generates its own income, off which my spouse and I will live, when we retire.  But what is the right amount to have, or even a range?  I've heard $1,000,000 but that just seems so huge and unattainable.  Is that the magic number?  If not, what is?    We don't plan on living lavishly when we retire, and plan on moving into an assisted living facility in Canada when it makes sense.

What size "nest egg" should my husband and I have, and by what age?

A million dollars is about right for most people. Start by maxing out your 401k every year and then putting 10% of your income into long-term growth savings.

The answer to this question is subjective, but a million dollars might be correct. Another suggestion would be to make sure that you save 10% of your earnings year on year.


I've found at various times we've spent a lot less when we've been absorbed by "cheap pastimes" or passions, such as: video games books deciding to organize a room starting a website :) writing some code

It's incredible how fast some things can burn through your money:

movies dining out going out for lunch get-togethers with friends or relatives travel home renovations procrastination

(it's easier to buy an exercise machine than to actually use it) "hobbies" (scrapbooking, collecting, autos/motorcycles)

Depends what you mean by simplify.

I thought I would save money when I talked the family into dropping cable TV, but it ends up coming out as a wash because we rented more and bought TV shows online from amazon.com.

(Then we bought a new computer so I could keep working on my laptop while the family watches streaming internet, we save money, but not as much as I thought)

We did a great purge of "stuff" from the garage and closets a couple of summers ago because I wanted to simplify (some clothes, extra pots and pans, a coat rack, unused electronics)

and now I am seeing their replacements coming back into the house in the form of new purchases.

I guess my lesson is that you cannot make another person simplify their life.

I love my wife for trying so hard to help me with my plan, and I certainly don't blame her for wanting a coat rack again

(it is just who she is, she doesn't see the irony)

but I should have considered how my desire impacted those around me.

I think that one change you can make which can make a significant impact to your cash flow is not eating out, if you tend to do so a lot.

My family used to eat out at least once a week, and we've cut it out entirely, saving about $200 a month.

I've seen various blog posts (mostly from Penelope Trunk) refer to "optimizers" versus "settlers."

The optimizers are the go-getters, the ones always on the move, trying to optimize their time, their life, their experience, etc.

They tend to be younger, on average, live in bigger cities, and on the whole, tend to be less happy.

The settlers are the ones who settle for what is, live in smaller cities, and tend to be happier, albeit "less interesting".

Assuming that your idea of "slowing down" refers to moving away from that maximizer lifestyle, yes, I think you'll probably save money.

Apparently it costs money to be unhappy!

Going out for meals everyday, going out with friends every evening, shopping for the latest and greatest whatever, buying the newest gizmo, trading up your car every 3 years, traveling every other weekend to far-off places, making your life "interesting" - these all cost, and far more than their opposites.

Take time to be happy with what you have - enjoy your comfortable and broken-in shoes, enjoy your paid-off car, enjoy some quiet alone time with a good (library) book, appreciate the delicate tastes of a homecooked meal over the in-your-face greasebomb of restaurant food, take a walk, shut off the latest Apple iDevice, and just be.

You'll save money, find calm, and feel refreshed.

*Apologies for waxing philosophical - though the connotations of "slowing down" sort of insist on it :).

Maybe it's a slightly different interpretation of "slowing down" that you're referring too, but selective procrastination can definitely save you money.

It's basically a technique for advertisement resistance:

When I see some item that I want (but really have no need for), I just procrastinate getting it.

This mostly involves just not actively going out and getting it, waiting for it to go on sale (and then waiting for a better sale), and just generally being lazy about it.

If I still want it by the time I get around to it, then it's usually something that I consider worth its value.

Usually though, after a month or two, I've forgotten about it altogether and moved on to the next thing.

This is most effective in avoiding buying the latest tech gadgets and depending on your gadget consumption can save you hundreds.

I'm currently procrastinating buying an iPad until it either goes down in price, a nice alternative shows up, or I decide that it's worth getting myself to an Apple Store -

or I decide it's not worth the hype altogether.

I think you need to have the experience of over-consumption to realize that buying more stuff won't make you happy.

And then when you see TV commercials and ads everywhere, you no longer will want the stuff.

When you do that, then you slow down and start to value spending time with the people important to you, doing stuff and going places with them.

It's the experiences that count, and some of the most fun and memorable stuff you can do is free or cheap.

By simplifying my hobbies, I have more time for money-saving activities such as researching deals, creating an effective coupon-clipping system, and making more foods from scratch (which doubles as entertainment since I enjoy it).

When I run frantically from activity to activity, I tend to mindlessly throw away more money, too.

By living more intentionally, I think about my purchases more as well.

On the simplifying note, never underestimate the power of less stuff in terms of being able to fit into a smaller home.

That leads to less space to heat and cool, which leads to savings.

Everyone has their comfort level with less, of course, and some people love space.

There are just trade-offs to more stuff.

Depends, sure you could save a buck or two here and there

but maybe that time could be used for better things - i.e. earning a side income

It's all situational and relative to you and where you are in life - try things, don't be afraid of mistakes

Question: If you simplify your life, and slow things down.. can you save money?I'm looking for opinions and experiences here.

Can slowing down your lifestyle save you money?

It depends what you mean by simplify. Running frantically from activity to activity means you tend to throw money away more too. Reducing the amount you spend on meals out would definitely save you money.

It is generally considered that 'slowing down' or simplifying your lifestyle will save you some money, particular when it comes to spending on unnecessary items or outings.


Is it a safety thing?

If the heat pump goes out you replace it immediately, if your floor looks bad but you aren't tripping, I would suggest saving.

Use the extra time to find a great deal and educate yourself on your options.

Maybe even take a class and learn to do it yourself.

In these rough times, anything I can save for and pay cash I would.

The exception is if you can finance with 0% interest for a period of time and you have enough money to pay that off.

The last consideration I can think of is if you plan to sell the home soon?

For that you might be getting more value than the loan and a real estate agent would be probably know best.

I agree with MrChrister about first considering how necessary the renovations are (is it a nice-to-have, or a need-to-have?), as well as the importance of consulting a Realtor, if you are selling your home, as they will advise you wisely.

For instance, they might advise you to replace the linoleum with a neutral beige ceramic tile, as you would be assured a better resale value on your dollar spent, than if you were to replace the old linoleum with new linoleum (or laminate).

There are many types of renovations that simply don't pay off, and others that do provide good return-on-investment (like intelligent kitchen and bathroom updates).

I found this ROI grid at lendingmax.ca (which is pretty consistent with what I remember reading in the Toronto Star this spring):

Top 10 Renovations ~ Average return on investment Painting and interior decorating = 73% Kitchen renovations = 72% Bathroom renovations = 68% Exterior painting = 65% Flooring upgrades = 62% Window/door replacement = 57% Family room addition = 51% Fireplace addition = 50% Basement renovation =

49% Furnace/heating updating =

48% If you are selling your home, and your Realtor has suggested improvements, they are probably necessary, and not doing them might serve as an impediment to quickly selling your home - so factor in the (potential) costs of carrying your home for additional weeks/months, or worse, overlapping mortage costs, if it takes your home longer to sell, and you end up owning two homes simultaneously for a bit.

As far as your question (should you pay cash for renos or take out a loan), one factor to consider if you live in Canada is the Home Renovation Tax Credit , which applies to renos that take place until Feb 1, 2010, and can deduct up to $1,350.

So if you have to do a reno and yours qualifies for this tax credit, and you won't have the cash before that deadline, factor in the cost of borrowing vs. the $1,350.

Good luck!

I have a different take on this.

If it would only take 3 months to save up to pay for it, line up the work now.

Shop with your spouse to find the exact floor you want.

By the time you hire the store to do the install, a month will have gone by, by the time the charge bill comes in, you'll be able to pay 2/3 off, and pay in full next month.

Note

: I see this was asked in December.

For those carrying no debt at all, I'm not adverse to a purchase of this type getting partially floated on a credit card for a month or two.

Not a pair of shoes, or golf clubs, but a kitchen floor?

The $10 interest is worth it to not walk over a ripped up floor in your home.

money.stackexchange.com/users/187/JTP - Apologise to Monica

It depends on your situation.

If your floor is broken, fix it.

If you don't have $1,000 on hand, spend appropriately.

It seems silly to be doing ROI calculations on the potential impact on resale value.

It's sillier to blow money frivolously, whether you do so with cash or credit.

I'm assuming that if you have a broken linoleum floor that the kitchen isn't new, so it doesn't make sense to install your "dream tile" into the kitchen.

Skip the imported travertine or wood and buy some nice linoleum and hire a handyman to put it in or install it yourself.

You can probably do this for $500-700.

If you have longer term plans for the kitchen, get them on paper and figure out what exactly you want to do and when you'll be able to do it.

I know that both Lowes and Home Depot (in Canada at least) will offer a 6 month deferred interest payment on all purchases over a certain dollar amount (IIRC, $500+), and sometimes run product specific 1 year deferred interest specials.

This is a very effective way of financing renovations.

Details:

You've probably seen deferred interest -- It's very commonly used in furniture sales (No money down!!!

No interest!!!

Do not pay for 1 full year!!!)

(Personally, I think it's a plot by the exclamation point manufacturers)

It works like this:

Buy something

- Say $2000 item Interest accrues, but is not charged over the term of the loan.

On the end date of the loan, if the entire principal is paid off, then the interest is never charged.

However, if on the end date, you owe even one penny, then the entire accrued interest is added to your account.

Typically, I manage these types of purchases by dividing the principal by 6, and then adding 5%, and paying that amount each month.

Pay close attention to the end date, because you do not want to pay 22% interest on the entire amount.

This also requires that you watch your card balance carefully.

All payments are usually put to current purchases (i.e. those not under a plan) first, before they are applied to the plan balance.

So if you are paying 250 a month on the new floor, and run up another $150 on paint, You need to pay the entire new balance, and then the $250 floor payment in order for it to be applied correctly.

Also <shameless plug> http://diy.stackexchange.com </shameless

plug> Consider doing it yourself.

Question: Should I save up enough cash to do home renovations, or can I take out a loan?  Our house needs a new kitchen floor as the linoleum is actually ripped in some areas, and the wood is exposed... This is going to cost $1500 to fix.. it's going to take a few months to save for that.. ideas?

Home Renovations are expensive.. Should I only pay cash for them?

It depends on your situation but think about good return-on-investments and consider your long term plans like whether you would want other work to be done in the future or if you're planning to sell the house. If something essential brakes down then you should replace it immediately, but a floor that looks bad but you're not tripping on but be better to save up for.

The answer will depend on your situation and how urgent the repair is. If it would not take long to save up, you might want to wait, if not, you may want to consider a loan. If you have longer-term plans for your kitchen, perhaps you should consider making a long-term plan on how to pay for them.

The answer will depend on your situation at how urgent the repair is.

If it would only take 3 months to save up, you might want to consider paying cash.

If your floor is broken, you should fix it as soon as possible.

If you have longer term plans for the kitchen, you may want to come up with a longer term plan to pay for the work too.


Wine is often invested, as is whisky and some other spirits And fortified wines that have particular vintages, such as port.

You need to be particular about which ones to invest in though.

Top vintages of wine and port can rocket in value, to make the big profits you need to buy the new vintage before everyone realises it is going to be a top year and sell it some years later when it is approaching its peak.

This is obviously quite tricky to do.

It is fairly common to buy a share in a particular batch of whisky (proper Scottish single malt), then after 12-18 years when it is matured you can take your share in bottles or cash.

I think you would be better asking about what things COULD increase in value.

Even the given example (houses) are not certain to increase in value.

In fact, one of the key causal factors of this recession IMHO is that no one realized that partly because there have been few recent housing busts, and also the illusory effect of inflation that made it seem like houses always increase in value.

I once heard it described that rich people tend to get richer because they spend more of their money on things that are more likely to hold their value or appreciate (houses, art, etc.)

as opposed to poor people who spend the majority of their money on consumables like rent, utilities, food, cars, etc.

A truly classic automobile.

Art or antiques Sports cards (and some trading cards)

There are lots of thing that people will pay for if you wait long enough.

I don't know that I would consider them investments, but they go up in value.

In the US, the "first class forever" postage stamps.

The post office has never lowered the cost of a stamp, but has raise it several times recently.

Given that the gov't has bailed out everyone else, I believe it is a safe bet that they would bail out the post office if it financially fell apart.

And you can always use them to send a letter.

They aren't very liquid, and it would probably be difficult to invest in them in large quantities.

Although, when the post office does raise rates, you could sell yours off on ebay or something.

For an investment to appreciate in value, one of two things needs to happen:1)

Demand for that particular item needs to increase.2)

The supply of that item needs to decrease.

Houses are good because everyone needs a place to live, but there is a finite amount of land.

No matter how much you invest in Manhatten real estate, Manhatten ain't growin'.

The trick there is to find an area that people are going to want to live in when you're ready to sell.

Specific vintages of wines and spirits are another good example, because it's literally impossible to create more of that vintage.

Cars, and most consumer goods, usually don't appreciate because they don't last long enough.

Most cars are resold within three to five years after the initial purchase.

This is also why jewelry is a good investment; properly cared for, it can last centuries without wearing out.

So, look for something durable that has a limited supply.

All of the above mentioned items might appreciate in value (gold, wine, art).

However your house is still the only asset that can appreciate TAX-FREE (no capital gains tax to pay when you sell your principal residence).

Question: Say, for instance, diamonds, or gold?  Watches?

Is there anything material I might own (aside from a house) that would increase in value?

Look for something durable that has a limted supply. Top vintages of wine and port can increase in value. It is common to buy a share in a batch of whisky then take your share when it has matured. Jewelry is also a good investment as it will last for centuries as well as a classic car or an antique sports card or postage stamp.

Material goods that may increase in value are likely to be things are durable that people will be prepared to still pay for in the future. Vintage wines and spirits are particularly good examples, as is jewellery. Other examples include art, antiques, classic cars, trading cards and stamps.

Wines and spirits are often invested in because they increase in value and there is a limited supply of that particular vintage.

Jewellery is a good investment because it is very durable.

Art, antiques, trading cards, classic cars, and stamps are all considered goods that may increase in value over time.

Things that increase in value are generally things that last a long time that people will still be willing to pay for in the future.


If you're determined to save money, find ways to integrate exercise into your daily routine and don't join a gym at all.

This makes it more likely you'll keep it up if it is a natural part of your day.

You could set aside half the money you would spend on the gym towards some of the options below.

I know it's not always practical, especially in the winter, but here are a few things you could do.

Walk to work

Take a weekly walk with the family.

We do a minimum of 3 miles/week at the weekend, more if weather is good.

Take the stairs

not the lift/elevator Do the odd exercise at your desk (unless you make funny faces when you exercise)

Park further away from the entrance to buildings Get off the bus one stop earlier Go for a jog in the morning

Make an exercise routine out of unpacking the shopping, e.g. do

a few bicep curls with a can Get a dog "bench press" your kids,

i.e. play games that involve lifting them in various ways (helps if they're younger)

Play social sports like football (proper football,

none of that girly stuff with shoulder pads) or doubles tennis/badminton at the local sports centre.

Court charges split 4 or 10 ways are much less.

If you mainly do one type of exercise, like rowing, buy a rowing machine.

An OK one typically costs about 5-10 months membership.

And it is a one off purchase you won't use instead of a monthly recurring expense you won't use.

One of the other answers makes a good point.

Gym membership can be cost effective if you go regularly, but don't kid yourself that you'll suddenly go 5 times a week every week if you've not done much regular exercise.

If you are determined to join a gym, here are a few other things to consider.

Ask about an introductory trial.

You may be able to get a 1-3 month trial.

If you do, keep notes of every visit so you can evaluate if you really are getting value from it.

You may be able to get a discount through work, for example my employers have negotiated a discount with some local gyms.

Don't join up at the beginning of a month, especially January.

Like when buying a car, the reps may be keen to get commission near the end of a month/week. Get together with some friends who are keen and see if you can negotiate a discount for the group to join.

You may also find it easier to keep in the habit if friends are going too.

Shop around for Gym January is a great time to look because that's when most people join and the gyms are competing for your business.

Also, look beyond the monthly dues.

Many gyms will give free personal training sessions when you sign up - a necessity if you are serious about getting in shape!

My gym offered a one time fee for 3 years.

It cost around $600 which comes out to under $17 a month.

Not bad for a new modern state of the art gym.

Try a gym for a month before you sign up on any contracts.

This will also give you time to figure out if you are the type who can stick with a schedule to workout on regular basis.

Community centres are cost effective and offer pretty good facilities.

They have monthly plans as well so no long term committments.

Find a physical activity or programme that interests you.

Memberships only have real value if you use them.

Consider learning a martial art like karate, aikido, kung fu, tai kwan do, judo, tai chi chuan. :-)

Even yoga is a good form of exercise.

Many of these are offered at local community centres if you just want to try it out without worrying about the cost initially.

Use this to gauge your interest before considering more advanced clubs.

One advantage later on if you stay with it long enough - some places will compensate you for being a junior or even associate instructor.

Regardless of whether this is your interest or if the gym membership is more to your liking real value is achieved if you have a good routine and interest in your physical fitness activity.

It also helps to have a workout buddy or partner.

They will help motivate you to try even when you don't feel like working out.

The gym I used to use was around £35-40 a month, its quite a big whack

but if you think about it; its pretty good value for money.

That includes gym use, swimming pool use, and most classes Paying for a gym session is around £6 a go, so if you do that 3 times a week, then make use of the other facilities like swimming at the weekends, maybe a few classes on the nights your not at the gym it does work out ok

As for deals, my one used to do family membership deals, and I think things like referring a friend gives you money off etc.

They will probably also put on some deals in January since lots of people want to give it a go being new year and all

Look for discounts from a health insurance provider, price club, professional memberships or credit cards.

That goes for a lot of things besides health memberships.

My wife is in a professional woman's association for networking at work.

A side benefit is an affiliate network they offer for discounts of lots of things, including gym memberships.

I came across an article posted at Squawkfox last week.

It's particularly relevant to answering this question.

See 10 Ways to Cut Your Fitness Membership Costs .

Here's an excerpt: [...]

If you’re in the market for a shiny new gym membership, it may be wise to read the fine print and know your rights before agreeing to a fitness club contract.

No one wants to be stuck paying for a membership they can no longer use, for whatever reason.

But if you’re revved and ready to burn a few calories, here are ten ways to get fitter while saving some cash on a fitness club or gym membership.

Yay, fitness tips!

[...] Check it out!

Question: Do gyms ever negotiate or haggle on price?  Do they always insist on a term commitment?  Are there any tips and tricks on ways to avoid paying through the nose?

How can I save money on a gym / fitness membership? New Year's Resolution is to get in shape - but on the cheap!

There can be discounts from health insurance providers or through an employer. January is a good time to shop around for the best offer. You could also get together with friends and negotiate a discount. You might also be able to get a free trial before you sign up and look into community centres that are much more cost effective.

Ways to save on gym membership include shopping around and trying to negotiate deals. You could even try and negotiate a group deal with friends. Make use of any trial periods and never join a gym at the beginning of a month. You could also check out any local community sports facilities, which are likely to be cheaper.

Shop around and look to negotiate prices or offers with fitness centres. You may even wish to negotiate a group deal with friends.

Ask about any trial offers so that you can try the facilities before making any long-term commitments.

Don't join a gym at the beginning of a month.

Try looking at community sports facilities, which are usually cheaper.


Short term: ask for a raise or look for a new job that pays more.

Longer term: Expand your skill set.

PHP programmers are plentiful.

Unless you are exceptional (e.g. you wrote a top selling PHP book)

you're going to get PHP programmer market pay.

If you have other skills you will be in high demand.

Keep an eye on job postings, what are they asking for?

Acquire those skills.

Work on gaining expertise in tools.

What's in use at your company?

What's listed in job postings?

Expand the scope of your skills.

Get outside just coding.

Programmers are plentiful.

Developers who understand the entire life cycle, understand the business, and can work with customers are rarer.

Learn about project management.

Work on your "soft skills" -- listening, negotiation, etc.

Get some "domain specific" knowledge.

If you're a developer with deep expertise about the Real Estate market, you're in a smaller niche.

Grow your personal network.

Live and online.

Meetups, Linkedin, etc.

Some of these will also help increase the skills I mentioned above.

Keep a journal of things you've done for the company.

When it's time to ask for a raise or for your review, things will go more in your favor if you can show management a detailed list of what you've delivered for the company.

(This list also helps you when it's time to revise your resume -- lift out the high points and insert into your resume.)

In general, turn yourself into an indispensable asset to your company and/or clients.

And make sure they know it.

(Just don't be an arrogant jerk in the process.)

It's a tough thing to do.

You should look for a salaried position.

Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time.

Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years.

If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net.

Now that's asking a lot.

Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'.

That is, a share in the company for you labour.

In other words "FREE".

I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them.

You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-)

You are paid hourly?

I would have expected most IT people to be on salary

Depends what your boss is like, he might be easy going and just give a raise if you ask for it.

Failing that, do some self improvements, learn something new, take a course, maybe take some PHP certifications or even java certifications?

Then at least you can say you're trying to move up In regards to pay, have a look on monster or some US job sites, at jobs similar to what you do and with the similar requirements, that should give you an idea of what you should be on.

If all else fails, find a new job, that is always a good way of moving up Hope this helps

Start by going to Salary.com and figuring out what the range is for your location (could be quite wide).

Then also look at job postings in your area and see if any of them mention remuneration (gov't jobs tend to do this).

If possible go and ask other people in your field what they think the expected range of salary should be.

Take all that data and create a range for your position.

Then try and place yourself in that range based on your experience and skill set.

Be honest.

Compare that with your own pay.

If your figures indicate you should be making significantly more, schedule a meeting with your boss (or wait for a yearly review if it's relatively soon) and lay out your findings.

They can say: Yes

No Be ready for curve balls like benefits, work environment and other "intangibles".

If they say no

and you still think your compensation is unfair

, it's time to polish up your CV.

The easiest way to get a job is to already have one.

Most full time developer jobs in the US are paid on a salary basis rather than hourly unless you are a contractor.

Also, the pay varies widely by region in the US with the West and East coast typically paying the most, but also having the highest cost of living.

A site I really like for getting salary data by region and keyword for technical jobs is indeed.com.

Here is a link to a chart on that site comparing salary trends for PHP and Joomla.

Question: I am a PHP developer with 3 yrs experience and got exposure in Joomla, CodeIgniter. What should be my hourly pay in U.S. and what should I do to increase it with a steady curve?  Thanks.

How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer?

You should start by going to salary.com or indeed.com and looking for the range in your location. Salary ranges vary by region in the US. In the long term, you should expand your skillset and learn more tools and project management as well as soft skills like negotiation. In general, make yourself an asset to your company and grow your personal network.

To find out what your salary could reasonably be, you might want to consult online sources or job websites. However, the expected pay for a programmer will vary depending on where you live. If you want to increase your salary, the best way is to expand your skill set, including in skills that aren't related to programming. Other key strategies could be to grow your personal network and gain experience that makes you an indispensable asset for the company that you work for.

Aim to expand your skill set, including skills that aren't related to programming, such as project management or domain specific skills.

There are many websites that could provide a rough idea of expected salaries, and some job websites may also provide a guide.

Pay will vary depending on where you live.

Ask other people in the profession about what your expected salary should be.

Try to make yourself into an indispensable asset for the company you work for.


The answer is: IT DEPENDS ON THE BANK!

And the country.

Many, many banks are only used to dealing with depositors from their own country.

They may not even be able to handle street addresses or phone numbers which are not in their own country.

Or worse, they may appear to handle it fine, but then not put the right stamp on the envelope when they send you your statements, which you will never get :)

Many countries have strict rules (like the US PATRIOT rules) that make it almost impossible to take deposits from people outside the country.

I would go so far as to say that it's going to be incredibly difficult if not impossible to open a US bank account without physically going to the bank, AND having a permanent mailing address in the US.

That said, some banks (and countries) are particularly good at this.

There are "offshore" banks in Jersey, the Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands, etc., which have been specifically set up for the purpose of allowing depositors from anywhere in the world to open accounts.

If you search Google for "Offshore Banking" you'll find a lot of references and links to banks that are set up to do this.

I don't think its as hard as you might think.

I personally know of someone who set up an account at "Loyal Bank"

and I know they didn't have to leave the country to do it: https://www.loyalbank.com

I just went there and clicked on "Open Personal Account" and basically it looks like you just have to print and mail them signed documents and proof of identification, etc.

Pretty easy stuff...

Opening a bank account in Canada as a US citizen requires you to physically go to Canada.

I'm not sure about other countries.

I opened an account with saxobank.com (Denmark) w/ no problem.

Filled out online forms, scanned my driver's license and 1-2 other documents, wired them money, and was good to go.

I have worked in France and had to open a bank account there.

Boy, the amount of administration that goes into that...

But above all, you have to prove that you reside in France to be able to open the account.

The catch: to reside in France, you need to have a bank account.

I can't imagine that you can open an internet account in a French bank with that complicated a system.

Your question isn't clear about which countries are "foreign", but it's basically impossible to open a USA bank account if you are not a citizen or resident.

Question: Has anyone attempted opening a foreign bank account from Nepal as a Nepalese citizen, if so what was your experience? how easy was it? Which country's banks will allow this?

How easy is it for people from Nepal to open a foreign bank account via the internet?

It is impossible to open a US bank account unless you are a citizen or resident. Other countries might allow it, such as Denmark, but it depends on the bank.

The answer will depend on the bank and the country in question. Some countries make it very difficult, if not impossible, to open a bank account without being physically in the country. Other countries make it a little easier.

In some countries, it is physically impossible to open a bank account without being in the country.

In some countries, it is fairly easy to open a bank account without being physically present.


I know some companies or entities have large incomes or expenses at certain times of the year, and like to close their books after these large events.

For example where I work, the primary seasonal income comes after summer, so our fiscal year ends at the last days of October.

This gives the accountants enough time to collect all the funds, reconcile whatever they have to, pay off whatever they have to and get working on a budget for the next year sooner than a calendar year would.

There also might be tax reasons.

To get all of your income at the beginning of your fiscal year, even if that is in the middle of the calendar year would allow a company to plan large deductible investments with more certainty.

I am not to sure of the tax reasons.

I can think of a few good reasons: A company, especially public, usually wants their fourth-quarter earnings to be the strongest of the year.

That ends each fiscal year on a high note for the company and its investors, which helps public sentiment and boosts stock prices.

So, travel agencies and airlines usually like ending their year in October or March, in the lull between the summer and winter travel seasons with a large amount of that revenue falling within the company's fiscal Q4.

Oil companies sometimes do the same because fuel prices are seasonal for much the same reasons.

The downside of the above approach is that you make or break your entire year on your last quarter, which can cause problems for companies with scheduled dividends.

Usually that's not a huge concern, as dividends are based on profits, so if there aren't any profits there aren't any dividends.

However, in such cases a bad Q4 which also sends the entire company's year into the red is a double-whammy for stock prices.

If this is a concern, a schedule with strong Q1 and Q3 earnings, with decent Q4 (second or third-best season) and a "dump" in Q2 (weakest season) is typically the best overall bet.

December is a really bad month to try to close out an entire year's accounting books.

Accountants and execs are on vacation for large parts of the month, most retail stores are flooded with revenue (and then contra-revenue as items are returned) that takes time to account at the store level and then filter up to the corporate office, etc etc.

It also doesn't tell the whole story for most retail outfits; December sales are usually inflated by purchases that are then returned in January after all the hullaballoo.

As a result, a fiscal year end in January or even February keeps the entire season's revenues and expenses in one fiscal year.

The downside of the above is that a February fiscal year-end normalizes your December earnings.

Investors expect bad Q1 reports for most retail; consumers are looking at credit card statements and tightening belts.

Conversely, investors expect huge calendar Q4 numbers; to lump some of the bad news of returns and lower revenues in with your best sales quarter may cause you to continually fail to meet speculator's expectations which will cause your stock to be devalued relative to competitors.

My grandfather owned a small business, and I asked him that very question.

His answer was that year-end closeout is very time-consuming, both before and after EOY (end of year), and that they didn't want to do all that around Christmas and New Year.

Maybe it's just because of the foundation date.

If I start a company on August 1st, I would like its FY starts on that date too, in order to track my first whole year.

Would be quite useless to finish my year on December, after just five months.

I want to have data of my first year after a twelve months activity.

In addition to the company-specific annual business cycle reasons and company-specific historical reasons mentioned in the other answers, there is another reason.

Accounting firms tend to be very busy during January (and February and March)

when most companies are closing and auditing their calendar-year books.

If a company chooses its fiscal year to end at a different time of year, the accounting firms are more available, and the auditing costs might be lower.

Question: There are many companies that have their year end occur on dates other than December 31.  What are the advantages to this?

Why do companies have a fiscal year different from the calendar year?

Companies generally want their fourth quarter to be their strongest so this tends to influence the end of year date. Some companies have large incomes or expenses at a specific time of year, so will close their books after this. Accounting firms might also be more available if a company closes it's books at another time of year than December. It also depends on the date the company was founded.

The answer will depend on the company's circumstances. However, some companies will want their fourth-quarter to be their strongest quarter. Other companies will want their first quarter to be the strongest so that they can plan investments. Other reasons could be related to tax implications or the availability of accountants during holiday periods.

Many companies want their fourth-quarter earnings to be their strongest.

Because of the holidays, December is often a very impractical time to be closing accounting books.

The company's tax year may simply depend on when the company was founded.

There may be tax reasons for closing a company's yearly books on a specific date.

If a company receives the bulk of its income at the beginning of its fiscal year, this will allow it to plan investments with more certainty.


It's a fake!

Don't fall for it

or you'll regret it!

This is another classic example of what is called a phishing attack .

This other question has another example .

The email in question was not from MasterCard, your bank, or your credit card company.

A phishing attack is a form of social engineering or pretexting where you are led to believe through an official-looking email that the notice is from a legitimate source when, in fact, it is not.

Cyber-criminals and online organized crime try to use phishing attacks to trick you into revealing your credit card number, your bank account information, your Social Security Number (SSN, United States) or Social Insurance Number (SIN, Canada) or any other kind of personal information.

Your bank, credit card company, or other financial account provider

should never ask you in an email to visit their site through a link provided in the email.

Never trust a hyperlink provided in an email — odds are good

it leads to a fake site created by criminals!

When in doubt about such a message, don't click anything .

Contact your financial service provider by phone to inquire, using the phone number on your card or on a previous bill.

Don't call any phone numbers in the message.

Most, if not all, banks, have an address that you should forward such messages to.

Again, do not click on anything in the email itself , but go to your bank's website by opening a browser and typing in the address, then look for a link saying something about "fraud" or "phishing" attacks.

It will probably have an email address, and then you should forward the phish email to that address.

In my experience - security issues are typically handled by banks via regular mail or a telephone call.

Email is used for notifications like a new statement is available, or we did that transfer you asked us to.

Don't reply to the email or click the links on a security question.

CALL

YOUR BANK instead.

That is why the support phone number is on the back of the card.

Do not trust the hyperlink.

If you feel there is even the slightest possibility that this is real, call the number on the back of your actual credit card.

Don't click or call anything provided in the email.

I have similar experience, in cases like this banks are normally send you a normal mail and ask you to call them back.

They never send you an email and ask you to do anything regarding to your password.

Question: (Public service announcement)  I received an email titled " URGENT: Your Master Card SecureCode Password has expired! "  The email body is an image.  Is it legitimate?

Received email from credit card company: "URGENT: Your Master Card SecureCode Password has expired!" Is it legitimate?

This is definitely a fake.
This e-mail is a fake.