dealfinder500

A NY State legislator introduces the "Madoff bill," under which rich New Yorkers convicted of crimes would have to pay the state and federal governments to cover the costs of keeping them in jail.

I think this is a fantastic idea and should have been started a long time ago. However, I would not exempt anyone from paying - I would even put them to work in the prison. Except for the most dangerous criminals, they could be working a prison garden growing a lot of the food. I'm sure there could be some industries that could be designed to take place safely in a prison. (Whatever happened to them making license plates? :-) Working would also provide something constructive for them to do. I would say it would also be much better for them to spend their time doing some work that will pay for their time there (or at least part of it) then to spend it in the weight room getting stronger!

Now that Bank of America (BAC) will assess overdraft fees 10 times a day instead of five, Felix Salmon takes on the scandal of the charges, which are raking in $30B for the banks: The median amount triggering overdrafts is $36, meaning implicit "loan" interest in the thousands of percent, resulting in an unconscionable "tax on poverty."

The bank doesn't charge $3. The owner of the ATM does. Everytime you use an ATM it clearly lets you know what fees you will be charged.


On Jul 02 09:50 PM herbert hoover wrote:

> Right, becasue it's so fair to charge $3 to check your acccount balance.

Now that Bank of America (BAC) will assess overdraft fees 10 times a day instead of five, Felix Salmon takes on the scandal of the charges, which are raking in $30B for the banks: The median amount triggering overdrafts is $36, meaning implicit "loan" interest in the thousands of percent, resulting in an unconscionable "tax on poverty."

I have overdrafted my bank account a few times (mostly when I first started using it) and I know from experience that most banks will work with you and cancel the fees if you talk to them (and you don't threaten them - "you get rid of these fees or I'm out of here" - they'd probably rather you did leave).

Most banks also do allow you to tie in a savings account as overdraft protection. The main bank I use now (ING) will actually cover the amount (up to a certain amount) and charge you interest.

When you open a bank account you know what the penalties are for writing a check for more than you have in there. If you don't agree with the terms, then don't open the account - it's as simple as that.

I remember a lady telling me recently how she racked up $500 in overdraft fees from her bank. She was waiting for her tax refund to show up in her account. At her work there was an ATM machine and so she was checking her balance every 5 minutes! The ATM wasn't owned by her bank and so she was charged a $3 fee each time she accessed her account. She soon was overdrawn but kept checking, and before you know it she was overdrawn for almost $500. I felt sorry for her but really it was her own stupidity. The bank did end up getting rid of the overdraft fees.

Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P. Q4 2008 Earnings Call Transcript

Wrong stock! This transcript is for APL, not AHD.

Using DRIPs for Faster Compounding of Dividends

I've looked at several plans and many of them have ridiculous fees (particularly those done through computershare) - they'd charge you just for an ACH transaction, fees when you buy, fees for reinvesting the dividend, etc. Those plans just aren't worth it at all - using Sharebuilder would be much better.

But I have found some very good plans. Not all plans require you to register the stock in your own name before you can invest. For example, I enrolled in DUK's plan, and though I do have some shares in my brokerage account, I did not want to pay a fee to have it registered in my name, and I simply had to do a initial investment with DUK of at least $250. The only fee involved in the plan is a (currently) 5¢ commission (per share) when selling the shares. PFE also has a very good plan (though I believe it required an initial investment of $500).

If you are a long-term investor, a DSPP might be a very good idea, especially if you can only put in a little bit at a time.

Should We Really Bail Out the Big Three Automakers with $73.20 Per Hour Labor?

That's a pretty naive statement.

Most likely that guy doesn't get the $11 all to himself. It probably goes to the company, and he probably gets $10/hr or less.

But in the unlikely event that the guy did own his own garbage company and drove the truck himself and was the only worker, that $11 has to cover the cost of maintenance on the truck, gas, a place to process the trash, and then unless he has his own landfill he'll have to pay for someplace to put it, not to mention he'd have to pay the full SS tax on his income.

So your illustration really isn't comparable.


On Nov 11 08:49 AM pockyclips 2020 wrote:

> Sounds expensive, but let's crunch some numbers. I pay some guy
> $11.00/month to pick up my trash 4 times. It takes him about 45
> secs to pick up my trash.
>
> Let's see; $11/4 =$2.75 per pick up. x 60 min/hr = $165/hr. x
> 60/45 = $220 per hour. This guy is non-union and more likely than
> not an illegal alien, so the trash hauler is making a mint. $73/hr
> doesn't look so bad viewed in this context.

Should We Really Bail Out the Big Three Automakers with $73.20 Per Hour Labor?

Perhaps a (slight) pay cut is in order for the ordinary worker, but that should not be considered until the management cuts their pay first. Personally, I think 10-20x the average worker's income is more than sufficient for management. As a general rule, I really don't that anyone should get paid more than $1 million a year for being a CEO (with some exceptions, such as if you started the company).

It makes you wonder if these companies would be in this mess now if they had done something like that years ago.

Why I Prefer Dividend Paying Stocks

I am relatively new to investing (about 6 months) and I was wondering the same thing. I really don't understand why someone would want to own a non-dividend paying stock. The whole idea of owning stock is to share in the profits - you're one of the owners! If the business isn't going to provide any return to me, why would I want to own it? If I had shares of a non-dividend paying company why would someone want to buy that from me? Their only hope of making money is if they can find someone willing to buy their shares for more then they originally paid for them.

If I invested money in a local company I am going to expect to get something in return. Now it may take a while for that company to generate a profit, but once that company becomes successful, I'm going to expect to get some payout from my investment.

I would not want to own part of a company knowing that they are never going to give me any cut of the profits. Why would anyone want to own a company that doesn't give them anything in return? Why would anyone want to buy that from me?

But obviously, since it appears most stocks pay very little or nothing in dividends, most people don't share the same view as I do.

Credit Crisis Sharpens Anger Over CEO Pay

While I am hesitant about a law limiting pay because it's a step towards socialism, I really think that it should be limited for executives. You would have thought that shareholders would have limited it a long time ago - as 1 million that they don't pay the executive is 1 million more in profit for the company. I don't think that any executive should make more than $1 million a year in salary (unless of course they started the business).

Dollar Goes Down Along with Bailout Plan

It's hard to say, but if I had to give a percentage, I'd say probably 10-15% of the people I work with just had a rough time and it really wasn't their fault. But the majority it's because they've made so many bad decisions. These people just don't realize that a student loan is something you don't put off. It'd be so much better to go without cable, or the fancy cell phone with all the bells and whistles, then to have those and have 25% of your wages garnished, your taxes taken, and possibly (if it's a large debt) have your property subrogated.

When I questioned one person about their mortgage payment (more than 1/2 their income), they told me that they deserved such a nice house, after all they've been through. Another person had 3 car payments ranging from 500-800, and they deserved them because they worked hard at their job. Ironically, that person made monthly bonuses the year before and the first couple months of this year, and just one of those bonuses was enough to pay off the entire debt. But, surprise, surprise!! They spent it on vacations and such. Didn't save a penny of it. Now they are out of work. Guess they must not have worked that hard, huh? :-)

So yeah, most people put themselves in that type of situation because of their own poor choices.

Dollar Goes Down Along with Bailout Plan

Well said Curbs-In. I work in the debt industry and I talk to idiots all the time who have huge mortgages, multiple car payments, large luxury item bills, and then tell me I'm taking food of their table when I tell them they have to pay $xx for their defaulted student loan in order for them to avoid wage garnishment. The major problem I see is that people just will not deny themselves any type of pleasure - if they want it, they go buy it. The average family that I see will have an income of around $3k a month. They spend around $1200 of that for a mortgage. They have two $350+ car payments. They spend $150+ for cell phones, and another $150+ for television and internet. They'll spend $500 for groceries. Very few (less than 1%) have any kind of savings.They think it's more important to keep their cable bill current than their school loan. They have their priorities completely screwed up and no desire to change.

These people should loose their homes if they can't pay. And the government shouldn't bail them out. Last year I almost got a mortgage. I have been wanting my own home for a long time. I got pre-approved, and could have gotten a nice house. But I didn't. Why? Because as much as I hated to admit it, I couldn't really afford at the time. So currently I'm living with my parents and saving up every penny I can. And then when I get enough saved up, I'll go and put a 20% down payment on a house. Personally, I think that every home buyer should be required to put at least 10% at a bare minimum down on a house. If you can't save that up, then you aren't ready to own a home.

I'm all for helping out the unfortunate family who's been paying their bills regularly for years, then suddenly the husband looses his job and after months of not being able to find a job they can't make ends meet. (there's a difference between being not able and not willing - and working at McDonald's could at least be a temporary thing. Might even teach you a little humility). People like that should be helped. But those who took a loan much higher than their means, and got all the extras, I say repo the house and the boat and the cars. Make them go rent. The taxpayer shouldn't have to help someone who doesn't even want to help themselves.