On 2012-06-12, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> beyond the capabilities of many uneducated people.

It's no cakewalk for educated ppl. I found myself in arrears over a 6
yr old tax return and hadda try and "do the math". Now, I've been
doing my own taxes fer over 45 yrs and this new 1040 was total
nonsnese. There seemed to be 2-3 important lines missing and some
wording on several lines that made about as much sense as a 1968
Japanese motorcycle service manual. I put down what I thought I
should owe, going by the gobbledegook on that return form and sent it
in. I'm paying, but I expect a correction any day now.

nb

--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

On 6/12/2012 2:29 AM, sf wrote:

> And you can thank goodness that you can afford to do it that way. The
> people who pay for partial payments obviously can't afford to pay it
> in full on a one time only basis. That's why the poor stay poor.
> They are penalized by every business for not being able to afford
> their outrageous fees.

Like having to use check cashing places because they can't
afford a minimum balance to open a checking account. Another
example, I was shocked to see how much it costs to do laundry
at a local laudromat. Blew my mind. I was just there to wash
a cumbersome item, the other people there had no choice but to
do all their laundry there. And then have to take a cab home,
often.

nancy

On 12 Jun 2012 03:49:53 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2012-06-12, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> Many insurance companies charge 4 to 6 bucks for partial payments.
>> Why? Because they can.
>
>Because lobbyists have made usury legal.

Don't be silly... there's a lot of costs involved in processing all
those payments... $4-$6 is a bargain... and you are fully insured even
though only partially paid so quit yer bitchin. No one forces folks
to make monthly insurance payments, it a choice YOU make.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:08:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:29:52 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>And you can thank goodness that you can afford to do it that way. The
>>people who pay for partial payments obviously can't afford to pay it
>>in full on a one time only basis. That's why the poor stay poor.
>>They are penalized by every business for not being able to afford
>>their outrageous fees.
>
>Very true. The furniture rental places and the like are very
>expensive also. The Pay It Here car lots prey on the low income
>people.
>
>I filled out tax forms for a few people. In a couple of cases, they
>could file on line and have direct deposit of the refund. Total cost
>was about $24. These people could not come up with the $24, so they
>opted to have the fee taken out of the refund. That was another $20
>or more IIRC.
>
>Even worse, (I did the taxes for free) if they went to a regular place
>it would have cost $50 or more for a simple form. Our tax system is
>beyond the capabilities of many uneducated people.

The thing is people CHOOSE to be uneducated and poor.

On 2012-06-12, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> those payments... $4-$6 is a bargain...

Didn't say it wasn't, and wasn't arguing the "$4-$6" payment, was I.
Hell, the IRS charges more than that for an online payment. Pay
attention. If yer gonna jump in, at least get on the same page.

nb


--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

Nancy Young wrote:
>sf wrote:
>
>> And you can thank goodness that you can afford to do it that way. The
>> people who pay for partial payments obviously can't afford to pay it
>> in full on a one time only basis. That's why the poor stay poor.
>> They are penalized by every business for not being able to afford
>> their outrageous fees.
>
>Like having to use check cashing places because they can't
>afford a minimum balance to open a checking account. Another
>example, I was shocked to see how much it costs to do laundry
>at a local laudromat. Blew my mind. I was just there to wash
>a cumbersome item, the other people there had no choice but to
>do all their laundry there. And then have to take a cab home,
>often.
>
>nancy

Nancy, being poor is their choice... you only see them at the
laundromat... you're not seeing the whole picture... you don't see how
they party away their whole paycheck on Saturday night. I worked with
people like that, and they made very good money, but come Monday
morning they were scrounging to borrow gas money until payday so they
could drive to work, and these were middle aged adults with a good job
who chose to live their entire lives being broke... they CHOOSE to be
poor. No one in the US has to be uneducated and poor... really all
anyone needs is a library card and don't do criminal acts. Sloth is a
sin, should be a felony... bringing back debtors prison is long
overdue... I don't mind housing and feeding them but the deadbeats
need to be taken out of society, they are a comunicable disease
because they breed and beget.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:10:05 -0400, Nancy Young <replyto@inemail>
wrote:

> On 6/12/2012 2:29 AM, sf wrote:
>
> > And you can thank goodness that you can afford to do it that way. The
> > people who pay for partial payments obviously can't afford to pay it
> > in full on a one time only basis. That's why the poor stay poor.
> > They are penalized by every business for not being able to afford
> > their outrageous fees.
>
> Like having to use check cashing places because they can't
> afford a minimum balance to open a checking account. Another
> example, I was shocked to see how much it costs to do laundry
> at a local laudromat. Blew my mind. I was just there to wash
> a cumbersome item, the other people there had no choice but to
> do all their laundry there. And then have to take a cab home,
> often.
>
I see red when the Romney's of this world write everything off to "get
a job". They have jobs, often more than one, and yet they still can't
make ends meet.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Jun 11, 3:29*pm, "
> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 10:17*am, Nancy2 > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 6:54*pm, "
>
> > > I believe the bank charges the merchant more in fees when a card is
> > > used as a credit transaction vs. debit.
>
> > I don't know about that - many stores have done away with debit
> > transactions (they just cover up that option on the card readers - and
> > only accept credit. *The merchants don't appear to care one way or the
> > other.
>
> > N.
>
> Probably each city/state/merchant/bank has their own rules how they
> are going to handle 'plastic' purchases. *I do know *_here_ *if a
> debit card is run through as a credit purchase the fee charged to the
> merchant is more than if it is a debit purchase. *No stores *_here_
> have done away with the debit option; what other cities/banks/
> merchants throughout the country do, I can't say.

The local Blockbuster and the local Michael's (hobby shop) are two
that come to mind - no way to use your debit card in any way except as
a credit card.

N.

On Jun 11, 10:13*pm, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:45:22 -0700 (PDT), "
>
> > wrote:
>
> >But, I did get highly annoyed at Travelers car insurance for wanting
> >to charge me a $5 fee for paying online and paying my premiums at 6
> >months intervals. *However, if I were willing to let them debit my
> >checking account *_each month_ *there was no charge. *That made no
> >sense to me at all but I've switched my home owners policy to another
> >company due to Traveler's exhorbitant increase and will be switching
> >car insurance in December.
>
> Many insurance companies charge 4 to 6 bucks for partial payments.
> Why? *Because they can. I bet a lot of people just look at the amount
> to pay every month and it does not sink in what the cost is.
>
> I prefer to pay it all and save about $60 a year rather than give it
> to them.

Mine charges $1 a month to pay monthly. I don't care, it's not a big
deal.

N.

On Jun 12, 1:57*am, sf > wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2012 03:49:53 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
> > *I recall when CA changed the law making it mandatory to have car insurance.
>
> Unbelievable. *If you can't afford insurance, then you shouldn't be
> driving.
>
> --
> Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Paying $12-2000 once a year is much more difficult for people living
paycheck to paycheck (assuming they get a paycheck at all) than paying
once a month. And many people can't work if they can't get to work,
and don't have public transportation available. You're painting them
all with a black brush, sf. I'm willing to say there are extenuating
circumstances in many cases.

My car insurance is together with my household insurance, so I pay
monthly. It's much more convenient for me to just count it as a
monthly expense than to budget it for an annual payment - and like I
said, it costs an extra $12 for a year. Big whoop.

N.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:51:43 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:

> On Jun 12, 1:57*am, sf > wrote:
> > On 12 Jun 2012 03:49:53 GMT, notbob > wrote:
> >
> > > *I recall when CA changed the law making it mandatory to have car insurance.
> >
> > Unbelievable. *If you can't afford insurance, then you shouldn't be
> > driving.
> >
> > --
> > Food is an important part of a balanced diet.
>
> Paying $12-2000 once a year is much more difficult for people living
> paycheck to paycheck (assuming they get a paycheck at all) than paying
> once a month. And many people can't work if they can't get to work,
> and don't have public transportation available. You're painting them
> all with a black brush, sf. I'm willing to say there are extenuating
> circumstances in many cases.

I was painting him, not them, but I certainly don't want to be on the
same road as people with no insurance because they have nothing to
lose if/when they hit me and one extenuating circumstance won't change
my mind. People who need alternate transportation to get to work also
need to live closer to where they work, so they can take a bus, ride a
bike or walk to their jobs.
>
> My car insurance is together with my household insurance, so I pay
> monthly. It's much more convenient for me to just count it as a
> monthly expense than to budget it for an annual payment - and like I
> said, it costs an extra $12 for a year. Big whoop.
>
This is another example of the poor are penalized for being poor. Our
public transportation system over all needs to improve and there
definitely needs to be more of it available in rural areas. However
that won't happen in this day and age of Republican cut backs and over
all austerity. God forbid the "have nots" should have access to
anything that could make their lives just a little easier.


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Joan wrote:

> I did get highly annoyed at Travelers car insurance for wanting
> to charge me a $5 fee for paying online and paying my premiums at 6
> months intervals. However, if I were willing to let them debit my
> checking account _each month_ there was no charge. That made no
> sense to me at all but I've switched my home owners policy to another
> company due to Traveler's exhorbitant increase and will be switching
> car insurance in December.

State Farm charges more for automatic monthly payments, so I end up
writing two checks per year to them -- and some years, those are the
only two checks I write.

Bob

notbob wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> those payments... $4-$6 is a bargain...

>If yer gonna jump in, at least get on the same page.

If you had a functioning brain, Doofus, you'd know that the page says
nowadays one can easily avoid being charged any fee and still make
monthly payments, just have monthly payments automatically deducted
from ones bank account... works perfectly so long as one makes sure
the funds are available in the account, otherwise you're just another
stinkin' deadbeat that belongs in prison.

On Jun 12, 11:51*am, Bob Terwilliger >
wrote:
>
> Joan wrote:
> > I did get highly annoyed at Travelers car insurance for wanting
> > to charge me a $5 fee for paying online and paying my premiums at 6
> > months intervals. *However, if I were willing to let them debit my
> > checking account *_each month_ *there was no charge. *That made no
> > sense to me at all but I've switched my home owners policy to another
> > company due to Traveler's exhorbitant increase and will be switching
> > car insurance in December.
>
> State Farm charges more for automatic monthly payments, so I end up
> writing two checks per year to them -- and some years, those are the
> only two checks I write.
>
> Bob
>
>
I just don't get their logic of charging me $5 for a cashless payment
(online) but yet they were happy to deduct a monthly figure from my
checking account without a charge. Either way the bank is going to
charge them a transaction fee. Why not charge the ones who pay
monthly?

On 2012-06-12, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> If you had a functioning brain, Doofus, you'd know that the page says
> nowadays one can easily avoid being charged any fee and still make
> monthly payments, just have monthly payments automatically deducted
> from ones bank account...

heh heh.... I knew you would respond. Yer so predictable.

Besides, my brain functioned well enough it included the fact I did
make my payments on time and did not have any penalties imposed. What
was yer brain doing? It damn sure wasn't reading my post. BTW, this
all occurred prior to anyone having online anything. You know, back
when you got that cheesey high school prom picture of yourself (alone,
as usual) taken for future use on the internet.

nb


--
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> Nancy Young wrote:
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>> And you can thank goodness that you can afford to do it that way. The
>>> people who pay for partial payments obviously can't afford to pay it
>>> in full on a one time only basis. That's why the poor stay poor.
>>> They are penalized by every business for not being able to afford
>>> their outrageous fees.
>>
>>Like having to use check cashing places because they can't
>>afford a minimum balance to open a checking account. Another
>>example, I was shocked to see how much it costs to do laundry
>>at a local laudromat. Blew my mind. I was just there to wash
>>a cumbersome item, the other people there had no choice but to
>>do all their laundry there. And then have to take a cab home,
>>often.
>>
>>nancy
>
> Nancy, being poor is their choice... you only see them at the
> laundromat... you're not seeing the whole picture... you don't see how
> they party away their whole paycheck on Saturday night. I worked with
> people like that, and they made very good money, but come Monday
> morning they were scrounging to borrow gas money until payday so they
> could drive to work, and these were middle aged adults with a good job
> who chose to live their entire lives being broke... they CHOOSE to be
> poor. No one in the US has to be uneducated and poor... really all
> anyone needs is a library card and don't do criminal acts. Sloth is a
> sin, should be a felony... bringing back debtors prison is long
> overdue... I don't mind housing and feeding them but the deadbeats
> need to be taken out of society, they are a comunicable disease
> because they breed and beget.

That's not always true. I once opted to live in a crappy apartment above a
dance studio because it was close to work and the rent was only $250 per
month. I lived there for years and they never raised the rent. In those
days, a cheap apartment was renting for about $440 a month just to give you
a reference.

I had no washer or dryer in there. I often did do my laundry by hand in the
bathtub using a clean plunger. But that was a pain. And it didn't work
very well for things like undies and towels. So I went to the laundry
facility. I think in those days it was about $1.25 per load, both wash and
dry. The machines used computer chips which I bought 10 at a time and got a
slight discount. I didn't mind going there at all. The one I used was in
another city. Close enough to go to the beach if I opted. There was a
grocery store next door and I would often do my shopping while the laundry
was in. The guy that worked there was very fun to talk to. He was going
bald and would talk to me about how he was treating his hair. One treatment
included covering his head with raw onion slices. That didn't work! I also
had a friend who lived near there and we would go out to dinner after I did
the laundry.

I didn't take a cab. I had a car. And I wasn't poor. While I didn't make
a huge amount of money, I made plenty enough to live on and I was able to
buy myself a newer car. I have never had a brand new car and probably never
will. I did deliberately plan on the cheap rent so that I *could* buy
myself some things. In those days I wasn't home much at all. I didn't
exactly party. I did go to a lot of parties and I went out dancing. I was
young. But I didn't drink very much at all. Maybe 6 alcoholic drinks per
year, if that.

On 12/06/2012 2:57 AM, sf wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2012 03:49:53 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> I recall when CA changed the law making it mandatory to have car insurance.
>
> Unbelievable. If you can't afford insurance, then you shouldn't be
> driving.
>

IN Ontario, the maximum fine for driving without insurance was $500 up
until about 10 years ago when they clued in that for the types of people
who can't get insurance or can't afford it because of their driving
record, it is cheaper to pay the fine than the insurance. Then they
boosted the minimum fine fore a first offence to $5000, and $10,000 for
a subsequent conviction.

I used to deal with those types of people when I was working. A typical
scenario was for it to be a piece of crap pickup truck, no insurance,
driver suspended for impaired or non payment of (many) fines. They
tended to have long records, especially the suspended drivers. I held
the record in our district for catching a driver with the most driving
under suspension convictions.... 24.

Thank you judges and JPs and giving suspended drivers licence
suspensions instead of jail time.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> But I didn't drink very much at all. Maybe 6 alcoholic drinks per
> year, if that.

That's probably where you took a wrong turn in life.

On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> Chris is too embarrassed to do this herself, but she grudgingly gave
> me permission. She is supposed to have a knee replacement surgery
> soon, but was physically unable to keep working long enough to save up
> for her insurance premiums. She needs this surgery, but needs our
> help. I persuaded her to post a request to Wish Upon a Hero. Here is
> that request. Any hereos out there?
> http://www.wishuponahero.com/wishes/?id=1209315
>
> Thanks,
> Carol

my baank where we have a checking account does not make us keep a minimum balancre
free checks
no charges for any checking

On 6/12/2012 5:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
(major snips)
>
> Thank you judges and JPs and giving suspended drivers licence
> suspensions instead of jail time.

Do I detect a bit of cynicism and sarcasm here? (wry grin)

Sky6


--

Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:08:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:29:52 -0700, sf > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>And you can thank goodness that you can afford to do it that way. The
>>>people who pay for partial payments obviously can't afford to pay it
>>>in full on a one time only basis. That's why the poor stay poor.
>>>They are penalized by every business for not being able to afford
>>>their outrageous fees.
>>
>>Very true. The furniture rental places and the like are very
>>expensive also. The Pay It Here car lots prey on the low income
>>people.
>>
>>I filled out tax forms for a few people. In a couple of cases, they
>>could file on line and have direct deposit of the refund. Total cost
>>was about $24. These people could not come up with the $24, so they
>>opted to have the fee taken out of the refund. That was another $20
>>or more IIRC.
>>
>>Even worse, (I did the taxes for free) if they went to a regular place
>>it would have cost $50 or more for a simple form. Our tax system is
>>beyond the capabilities of many uneducated people.
>
> The thing is people CHOOSE to be uneducated and poor.

In some cases yes. But certainly not all. Some kids have parents that are
so bad that they are forced to go to work at an early age to support their
siblings. And if they were raised in poverty they might not know any
better.

On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> Chris is too embarrassed to do this herself, but she grudgingly gave
> me permission. She is supposed to have a knee replacement surgery
> soon, but was physically unable to keep working long enough to save up
> for her insurance premiums. She needs this surgery, but needs our
> help. I persuaded her to post a request to Wish Upon a Hero. Here is
> that request. Any hereos out there?
> http://www.wishuponahero.com/wishes/?id=1209315
>
> Thanks,
> Carol



On Wednesday, June 6, 2012 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> Chris is too embarrassed to do this herself, but she grudgingly gave
> me permission. She is supposed to have a knee replacement surgery
> soon, but was physically unable to keep working long enough to save up
> for her insurance premiums. She needs this surgery, but needs our
> help. I persuaded her to post a request to Wish Upon a Hero. Here is
> that request. Any hereos out there?
> http://www.wishuponahero.com/wishes/?id=1209315
>
> Thanks,
> Carol

In article >,
Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Chemo the Clown
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 7, 3:43?pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>>in CA tellers dress like they work at a titty bar.
>>
>>Most probably do.
>
>Oh, fer the love of Mike...CA tellers dress like everyone else in
>business. Well, except for the flipflops, of course.

If anyone at my branch is wearing them, they're behind the counter where I
don't see. Might be a Fogbelt/SoCal difference.

Sheldon was probably in one branch over twenty years ago. But of course
he's THE EXPERT.




--

On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:05:53 +0000 (UTC), (Charlotte L.
Blackmer) wrote:

>In article >,
>Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>>On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Chemo the Clown
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 7, 3:43?pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>>>in CA tellers dress like they work at a titty bar.
>>>
>>>Most probably do.
>>
>>Oh, fer the love of Mike...CA tellers dress like everyone else in
>>business. Well, except for the flipflops, of course.
>
>If anyone at my branch is wearing them, they're behind the counter where I
>don't see. Might be a Fogbelt/SoCal difference.
>
>Sheldon was probably in one branch over twenty years ago. But of course
>he's THE EXPERT.

You know better, my fettish ain't feet.

On Jun 14, 9:23*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 04:05:53 +0000 (UTC), (Charlotte L.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Blackmer) wrote:
> >In article >,
> >Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
> >>On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Chemo the Clown
> > wrote:
>
> >>>On Jun 7, 3:43?pm, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> >>>in CA tellers dress like they work at a titty bar.
>
> >>>Most probably do.
>
> >>Oh, fer the love of Mike...CA tellers dress like everyone else in
> >>business. *Well, except for the flipflops, of course.
>
> >If anyone at my branch is wearing them, they're behind the counter where I
> >don't see. *Might be a Fogbelt/SoCal difference.
>
> >Sheldon was probably in one branch over twenty years ago. *But of course
> >he's THE EXPERT. *
>
> You know better, my fettish ain't feet.

It apparently "ain't" spelling, either.

N.