> Then, I figured since inflation was at 4-5% (if not more) that 2% interest was essentially free money if I managed the extra cash well.

Inflation is never the right metric to use. You want to compare two things:

• Risk-adjusted or risk-free rate of return elsewhere. If you can get 4% with your money somewhere else and are financing 2%, you can (mathematically) come out ahead. This only applies if you have the liquidity to invest, though.

• Probability of self-discipline working in your favor. For a lot of people, "Invest" turns into "Buy better Starbucks once a week."

Inflation doesn't matter. If you can't actually get returns on your money and if your earning power isn't going up, then you shouldn't be financing. As an example, if you can finance at 6%, inflation is 8%, and your medium-term investments are returning 4%, should you finance? The answer is no - you'll end up paying more in interest than your investments are returning.

6k/year in car payment - probably closer to 9 or 10k once gas and insurance is factored in - is ludicrous on a 40k/year salary. You're going to be spending a week every month working to pay for the car you use to take to work.

Spend 10k on something used and decent.

Nope. In some states you have to pay an application fee, but the prospective ll is the one that should be running the credit check, not the tenant.

Might help if you named the site and the state you're in.

Yeah, I'm thinking of writing an FAQ on "How to ask a question."

Chronology is important and that's not a mundane detail.

>From March 2013 to June 2013, my father came back to my mother's house, where I lived, and asked me to head to the Bank of America to get all the life insurance money.
>
>However, he told me that it wasn't the life insurance money. He said it was the money from the Will. At the same time, he asked my brother to give my money from the Will to him and transfer it to me. Thus, he stole my money from the Will, and I really thought I got my money from the Will.

Again, you're meandering into really pointless detail while skimming over the highlights.

Missing from this is "Who is the executor?" And it's still confusing, because you contradict yourself in your first sentence ("asked me to head to the B of A to get all the life insurance money" vs your second sentence "He told me that it wasn't the life insurance money. He said it was the money from the Will")

Yeah, so chances are - and you should ignore everyone upthread saying "He should be covered!" because that isn't how it works - there is a requirement that all members of the household be either named as included drivers or specifically excluded.

This is done so that Sober Jane can't just get insurance for herself, and then toss the keys to her spouse, Drunken Bob With 3 DUI's, whenever he wants to drive. If somebody is a member of the household, there is specific treatment for that household member. That they "removed" him likely means that he is now specifically excluded as he is a member of the household.

Even if they do elect to cover him, you'd want to see what the property damage limits on the policy are. California is (drumroll) 5k property damage minimums. So even if they do have a policy in effect, it might be very very limited.

Right. The small risk you run is that the strike price on June 30 is something high (for easy math, say it's $100) and then your CEO gets discovered on July 1 to be snorting coke off his CFO's belly while the board is lighting cigars with sawbucks and watching and the stock price tumbles to $50 while your shares are not yet sellable in your account because they haven't settled yet.

If you have a lookback provision, 100% do this.

The only two risks are - if you sell immediately - the following:

1. Stock falls of a cliff between when you purchase the shares and when they settle and are made available for sale;

2. You have a theoretical opportunity cost that exceeds the 15% discount

For an example of (2), if you have CC debt at 30% interest, you'd probably be better off just paying it down than contributing to an ESPP; while the ESPP does offer a significant gain, if you're indebted elsewhere this may be a problem.

You're also subject to the 25k annual cap.

Get paid in RSU's, that's how it rolls. You're entitled to the value of the stock at the point in time the company was taken private, most likely (whatever the strike price for acquisition was).

> Why isn't that I receive 25k in private equity

Because the whole point of private equity is that the PE entity maintains a controlling stake.

It means you should call Capital One 360 for inquiries regarding your checking account.

Drop the "in so and sos name" affectation.

• Who owns the car

• Who is the car registered to

• Who is the named insured

• how long ago did he move out

• was he still considered a household member

• was he a named exclusion on the policy

Most likely: cough up money and prepare to be sued.

Nope. Kid might have been a named exclusion on the policy (common) or parents could be running California minimums (5k property only).

There's lots of ways current or former household members could end up not covered.

Like, you're going to get down Voted because while you are using a lot of words, relevant detail and chronology is missing. Put this in a chronology, like:

January 2009: Parents divorce

February 2010:Post divorce judgment awarded to my father in the sum of 3000, against my mother

Etc.

I can't figure out what happened, let alone what your inquiry is

Every two weeks? You in the US or Canada? Which state or province?

The best answer anyone can offer is to psy it off as fast as you can.

And even then, there are limits on all the elements of the coverage.

I have liability only on one car and waived collision on my other. If I'm at fault, I definitely don't get a rental.

If someone else hits me, then I'm subject to their coverage caps (15,000 min in my state). Anything beyond that I'm paying my under insured motorist deductible or having to come out of pocket.

Dude, just let it go. Advising people to open up bank accounts overseas when it's obvious you have no experience in the matter is a dumb move, and you have no reason to compound that error here.

You keep talking about things you don't know about.

If he has currency, it has to be entered into a US bank before it goes overseas. If he resides in a state with a creditors right to levy his account, it can be levied. If he lies about its existence, he can be held for contempt.

There's a reason wealthy people on the verge of bankruptcy don't just move to Texas and move their money overseas. It's because the motion you've described fundamentally puts on society's fringes, makes dealing with everything inconvenient, and can be construed as contempt of court or criminal behavior.

You literally do not know what you're talking about. Non US accounts require a non US nexus anyway. And considering you went bankrupt recently, I have my doubts that you've opened an overseas account or have any knowledge of the reporting requirements or overseas assets vis a vis debt collection.

Ha, buddy. I'm a landlord, not a debt collector, and thus only sue people who owe me (a first party collector, in the lingo). And I have non US accounts. You are absolutely talking out of your nether regions with this advice.

And if OP followed your advice in a variety of states, he'd end up getting his employer in trouble, not to mention himself because you still have to have money residing in a US account before it gets transferred overseas. If he has high 5 figures of debt, then he will get nailed to the wall in any supplemental earing where he's hiding assets. If he has less than that, your advice boils down to "Make your life significantly less convenient and expensive to dodge debt collectors"

First, ignore what /u/Vanathor said. "Open a bank account in another country" is the kind of spectacularly bad advice that will cause all kinds of difficulties for you. Starting with fundamentals, like "You won't be able to buy anything online that ships to the US quickly" and "You'll eat gigantic sums in currency exchange going both directions" and "Other countries have laws, same as us, and generally require some kind of reason to open an account within their borders."

Second, name your state. Texas is not California is not Maryland. Different states permit creditors to do different things.

Third, your bank isn't subject to your lawsuit.

Fourth, the reason I haven't answered your question is because nobody can. Decisions as to when to sue a debtor and when to obtain a writ of garnishment are heavily dependent on the nature of the debt, the amount, where an individual is working, the state, and how much the collector has on his plate. I've gone from lawsuit to garnishment for some of my debtors in under 5 weeks; others I've waited months on.

Supply the details and an answer might be on offer.

Age is far less important than people think. Maintenance and proper diagnosis matter more.

I'd take a 20-year-old Corolla before a 10-year-old VW. I'd take a 300,000 mile Corolla driven by Grandma Mae and dealer-serviced every 3k over a 150,000-mile Corolla driven by Big Steve the 16yo and hooned in the high school parking lot.

For the ESPP, preferential tax treatment is given for 2 years after the beginning of the offer period, not purchase date (you have to have at least one year from the end of the offer period to get long term capital gains tax, and at least 2 years from beginning of offer period to avoid a disqualifying disposition).

Your ESPP's will require you to pay ordinary income tax on the 15% discount, so you're probably just better off selling your RSU's. Given carry-forward losses, it really doesn't matter that much unless you know you'll be in a higher or lower tax capital gains bracket next year.

The "right" answer to all the above is to just do the research. Most good jobs have some combination of salary, bonus, commission, stock/RSU, retirement, etc. A 100k straight salary job is not as good as 80k straight / 40k variable, so listing out salary is not as easy as people make it seem.

> According to Reddit

There is a lot of Reddit that is full of bad advice, including - given the demographics of the environment - a lot that is based on the notion that employers are inherently adversarial. You should ignore them.

> Did I play this wrong at all? This experience has made me more suspicious of taking Reddit advice that goes against the "real world" common sense grain to be honest.

Yes, you played it wrong.

An employer needs to know roughly what you expect to determine if it's worth the time of their generally well-paid employees to continue interviewing you. If they can't make that assessment, you'll get told to go home.

The average cost of a first-round interview with 4 people involved (a recruiter, an HR person setting the interview, two actual interviewers) is going to be anywhere from $500 to $1,000. It gets more expensive from there.

Next time, have an actual answer, like "I'd expect X to Y dollars depending on benefits and stock plan."

You didn't "dodge a bullet" here, as others are saying. I would never and have never pushed a candidate to a second-round interview if they didn't tell me what they expected to earn in the posting. If I have no hope of matching it, then of course a second round interview would waste everybody's time, and I'm not sure where "Willingness to waste the time of everybody involved" became a hallmark of a good company.

Sorta depends on use case. For the record, you never need an alignment after swapping tires (an alignment alters the suspension geometry, not wheel geometry).

If you drive your Corolla around at 45MPH in the city and never get on the freeway - sure, get the cheap tires.

If you drive in very cold weather, very hot weather, very fast, or in rougher conditions, get the better tires. Every tire made in the US has a speed rating (which is set under ideal conditions); if you (for example) buy an 81MPH-rated-tire for your 4000-pound Echo and then pack the whole family and cargo into it and go zipping around Arizona or Nevada at 100MPH in the heat of summer, you're going to have a bad time.

Always put absolute numbers in - we can figure out percentages from absolutes, but the inverse is much more difficult.

60 net = 5k/month, a quarter of that would be 1200 on a car.

Yeah, that's a terrible idea.