Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 18, 2014, 03:41:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Would you seriously date someone who you knew had a bad credit score?  (Read 44454 times)
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #75 on: December 20, 2009, 08:25:08 AM »

Solid credit rating can crumble quickly
Using a lot of your available credit and applying for more are good ways to lower your score, regardless of your payment history.

Dear Liz: I'm 28 and have had excellent credit since Day One. In May of this year, I leased a new car and found out my credit score was 780. In July I decided to lease a second vehicle. Instead of paying the leasing company monthly, I used a credit card balance transfer offer to write them a check for the entire two-year lease amount ($18,000). When I applied for two more credit cards in the following months, I was denied by both. I have never been late on any payments and always pay off my credit card debts (except for this balance transfer, on which I make monthly payments). Why was I denied credit? For a person with a great credit score, you can imagine how shocked I was.


Answer: You may not have the great credit you think you do.

You've been applying for a lot of credit in a short period, something that can adversely affect your scores. You also put a pile of debt on one of your cards, which can also hurt your numbers. Credit scoring formulas are sensitive to the amount of credit you're using on each card. The narrower the gap between your balances and your limit, the greater the potential damage.

Even if your scores are still good, they might not have been good enough for today's credit card issuers, especially if you applied for high-end rewards cards. These issuers often want FICO scores of 750 or above. Drop a point or two below, and you may be out of luck.

You didn't ask, but you should know that leasing cars is an expensive way to go. Most people are far better off financially buying slightly used cars and driving them for 10 years or more. They don't get to drive the latest models, but they save hundreds of thousands of dollars over their driving lifetimes compared with those who lease a new vehicle every few years.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-montalk20-2009dec20,0,7050203.column
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #76 on: December 24, 2009, 12:35:40 PM »

Would you date a "conservative" man with the morals of Methyl Mike?

Conservative lifestyle- I am not uppity nor a Bible thumper but I refuse to accept certain lifestyles because they are "popular" in todays culture. I am sorry but I have MORALS.

Apparently, his "morals" do not require him to pay his debts.   Roll Eyes

Ok so my score is about 600 right now. Have some stuff in collections which I doubt i will pay (its all pretty old). I have 1-2k i can afford to use for these credit cards. Advice? I currently have one cc with (dont laugh) a $300 limit which I have totally paid off. I wanted to buy a new car, but I'm not sure what to do really.

The majority of my 6k is interest. Since my debts are all about 3-4 years old, do I really stand to benefit by paying them now?
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #77 on: January 04, 2010, 06:39:40 AM »

Your Credit Score: How to Improve It Now and Later
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:39 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (AP) -- Your past is never really behind you. Or so it seems when it comes to credit reports.

As you prepare to shape up your finances in 2010, you'll find that improving your credit score is among the more complicated tasks.

You may be bewildered by what helps or hurts your score, by how much and for how long. Regardless of whether you understand how it's calculated, the number you're tagged with can play a big hand in your financial fate.

Banks use credit scores to help decide whether to extend loans, and if so, at what price. A lower score will likely mean higher interest rates on credit cards, student loans and mortgages. In the latter scenario, the difference could amount to hundreds of dollars a month.

Generally speaking, a score below 620 is considered poor; 620-659 is fair; 660-749 is good, and 750-850 is excellent. It costs $15.95 to get your score at MyFico.com.

Here are some actions you can take, now and over time, to raise your number.

WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW

One of the fastest ways to improve your score is to pay down your balances. How much of a lift you'll get will depend on your overall credit profile. But paying off all balances could push someone in the 650-range into the 700-range, said Craig Watts, a spokesman for FICO, which formulates the most widely used credit scores.

This is because the portion of your credit line that you're using -- your so-called credit utilization -- is a big component of your score, accounting for about 30 percent.

If you buy the standard FICO score package at MyFico.com, you can access a simulator that tells just how much certain actions will lift or lower your score. For some scenarios, you can see how your score would change over one month, versus six months or two years.

In the case of paying down your balances, note that it provides a one-time benefit. You don't get any extra points for keeping your credit usage at a low level.

Also keep in mind that your report could reflect a high utilization even if you pay your bills on time. This could happen if your lender reports your balance to the credit bureau before you pay your bill. To avoid this scenario, pay off charges as soon as you can -- don't wait for due dates.

Another way to have a short-term impact on your score is to make payments on time. If you've been chronically late in the past several months, paying all your bills on time for just one month could boost your score by as much as 20 points.

You'll also want to check for any mistakes on your credit report, since your score is calculated based on the information it contains. You're entitled to one free credit report a year from each of the bureaus -- Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. To get your free reports, go to www.annualcreditreport.c om (beware of sites with similar names).

To correct any information, contact the credit bureau and the lender that reported the error. The Federal Trade Commission provides a sample letter on www.ftc.gov (click on ''Credit & Loans'' under the ''Quick Finder'' tab, then ''Credit Reports & Scoring'' and scroll to the bottom).

DIGGING IN FOR THE LONG HAUL

Once you pay down your debt, improving your score becomes a game of long-term vigilance.

''One week's good behavior isn't indicative of future risk,'' Watts said. ''To improve a poor score is a long-term project.''

The key is keeping your report free of any negative marks, which can take years to recover from. For someone with a score of 680, for example, a foreclosure can zap away as much as 105 points, while a bankruptcy can shave off 150 points. A single late payment of 30 days or more can drop your score by 80 points.

Just how steeply your score falls depends on factors such as how much you owe and how late you are. But repeat offenses aren't as damaging as the initial infraction, since your riskiness is already reflected by a lower score. So a second or third late payment shouldn't hammer you as much as the first.

The negative marks, including late payments, on your credit report for seven years. Chapter 7 bankruptcies, which wipe clean unsecured debt such as credit card bills, remain for 10 years. And the repercussions recede only over time, assuming you stay current on all your payments.

Applications for new credit ding your score too, although to a far lesser degree -- usually around five points

Finally, think twice before closing any accounts. The length of your credit history counts for about 15 percent of your score, so it's a good idea to hold onto any cards you've had for a long time. Those older cards, coupled with a steady history of prompt payments, should provide a good path to an improved score.

''The people who have really high scores are the least interesting,'' Watts said. ''They have few accounts and always keep low balances. For a risk manager, these people are the ones who are as reliable as a Swiss watch.''
Report to moderator   Logged
Earl1972
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17582


stop pretending you hate this sport


« Reply #78 on: January 04, 2010, 06:23:59 PM »

If being rejected because of your bad credit score makes you unhappy just be glad you are living now and not in the future.  In the near future, people will be screening partners based on their genetic make up. 

As we saw in the movie Gattaca, it will soon be possible to take a simple blood test and get a genetic profile that details your probability for heart disease, cancers, high athleticism, high intelligence, and lots of other factors.  The screening service will be offered by private companies like the Fertility Institutes.  They are already bragging about what they can or will soon be able to offer.

If you can brandish a good or superior genetic profile, people will consider you more desirable.  If you cannot afford the test or have a poor test result, you will be considered less attractive.  At least you have some control over your credit score; like it or not the genetic score is coming...  Undecided


PREDICTIVE GENOMICS TO BE AVAILABLE: Eye color, hair color, cancer tendency and more*
December 12, 2008

We are pleased to announce the pending availability of a greatly expanded panel of available genetic tests that may be combined with our world renown aneuploidy and gender selection testing. For the first time ever, patients having genetic screening for abnormal chromosome conditions in their embryos will be able to elect expanded testing that can greatly increase the odds of achieving a healthy pregnancy with a preselected choice of gender, eye color, hair color and complexion, along with screening for potentially lethal diseases, screening for cancer tendencies (breast, colon, pancreas, prostate) and more. Not all patients will qualify for these tests and we make NO guarantees as to "perfect prediction" of things such as eye color or hair color.


http://www.fertility-docs.com/news_events.phtml?ID=22
https://www.23andme.com/ (this company was founded by the wife of one of the guys who founded Google and he is bankrolling it.)


good no more eyesores at wal mart in the future Cheesy

E
Report to moderator   Logged

E
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #79 on: January 06, 2010, 10:47:01 AM »

As you may know, many employers now do credit checks on employees and have even declined to offer or rescinded job offers for people with bad credit scores.  The rationale being a particularly bad credit score is indicative of many other potential problems especially with regard to judgment.

Do you know your own credit score?

Would you date someone with bad credit or break up with someone once you learned s/he had bad credit?

It has been argued that knowing someone’s approximate credit score is more important than knowing someone’s HIV status.



GOOD DAMN QUESTION!!!!

One of my best friends got married to a reckless spendthrift with a 550 credit score, 30k in debt, and bad work ethic. 

He is now broke himself, going through a bitter divorce, and about to lose his kid.  He made many excuses for her spending and never shut her down until it was too late.  Now he is screwed for life unless he wins the lottery. 

MEN BEWARE - A CHIC WITH BAD CREDIT WILL DESTROY YOU!
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #80 on: February 14, 2010, 08:13:42 AM »

Love me, love my credit score
Full financial disclosure before walking down the aisle can help prevent marital strife later.
Kathy M. Kristof

It's Valentine's Day, when even reasonable people wander around, engagement rings at the ready, blathering about how "love is the answer." ¶ Snap out of it! Love, in fact, may be the problem. ¶ Passion often blinds sweethearts to the fact that matrimony is, at bottom, a contract. Figuring out how that partnership can prosper is critical for a successful union. Yet financial differences rank among the greatest sources of marital misery, in part because talking about money before you tie the knot makes many couples uncomfortable. ¶ Some worry that prying into each other's finances might indicate a lack of trust, or that a prenuptial agreement is a self-fulfilling prophecy for splitting up. ¶ In fact, experts say, just the opposite is true. Spouses who find themselves bickering about finances early in their marriage could well end up hashing out the same issues in divorce court, according to Tina Tessina, a licensed psychotherapist and author of "Money, Sex & Kids: Stop Fighting About the Three Things That Can Ruin Your Marriage." ¶ "Everybody wants to focus on putting the wedding together and talk about things like having kids and a house," Tessina said. "But nobody wants to talk about the money part until you are married and financially entwined. Then it's too late."

No one is saying that money is everything. Romance, common interests, shared values and friends are important for the survival of a marriage too.

But couples must understand that money carries far more meaning than the simple things it can buy. How you handle money can telegraph how you feel about power, personal responsibility, charity and family. And these are the issues that can pull a marriage apart.

So what do you need to talk about? Here are a few suggestions from the pros:

Know the history

Understanding the past is important to building a solid future, said Cecily Maton, partner at the Chicago financial planning firm of Aequus Wealth Management.

Each partner needs to have an understanding of the other's experiences to grasp what might be motivating their behavior now. If your in-laws were cautious with money, chances are your beloved is too. If your parents spent carelessly, it would help to explain your credit card addiction.

This background can help you understand whether your partner sees money as a reward; a punishment; a tool or an albatross, she added.

"Even when couples think they know each other really well, it's amazing how often they say they're finding out something that they didn't know," she said.

Air the laundry

Forget affairs, drug habits and rap sheets. Some newlyweds have been most shocked to learn of a new spouse's checkered credit history.

That's why trading credit reports is also advisable before you tie the knot, Tessina said. These reports show how much debt you have outstanding and whether you've always been responsible about paying your bills.

You wouldn't necessarily dump somebody simply because they were in debt, said Brett Graff, a former government economist who edits the website HomeEconomist.com. But you'd certainly want to know whether that debt was linked to a lost job or an unexpected medical issue, or if it was a sign of something more ominous such as a hidden gambling habit or shopping addiction.

You may decide that you're so in love that you're willing to marry an overspender, said Laura Tarbox, a Newport Beach financial planner. But having that information might cause you to handle your finances differently, keeping your accounts separate, for example, so that the unencumbered spouse doesn't end up liable for debts he or she had no hand in creating.

"They won't let businesses merge without financial disclosures," Tessina said. "There's no law saying that you have to do that when you get married, but it should be a standard requirement so that you both know where you're at."

Set your goals

Next, you need to talk about the way you want to live and what you want to achieve.

Those conversations need to be specific, Tessina said.

"It's one thing to say that you both want a house. But one of you might be thinking about a little condo and the other wants a three-story home with a yard," she said.

Shared goals keep partners from blaming each other if things don't quite go as planned, said Lorraine Steen, a Miami Beach mother of two.

After Steen and her husband bought a house two years ago, they were dismayed to see prices tumble in the real estate bust. But they didn't take it out on each other because they had already agreed not to second-guess themselves.

Even on their honeymoon, they established rules about spending: If they agreed that a purchase made sense, they wouldn't fret later about whether they could have gotten it cheaper elsewhere or at another time.

"You can never go back and say 'I told you so.' Once we buy something, we enjoy it and move forward," Steen said.

Who does what?

After you understand how you feel about money and what your priorities are, it's time to get practical. How are you going to pay the bills?

Some couples choose to merge their checking and savings accounts and pay bills out of just one pot. Others divvy up expenses, and each pays certain bills. Some couples choose a "yours, mine and ours" approach, where they have a joint account that's fed with money from both to pay shared bills, but each keeps smaller separate accounts too.

The right answer can be as individual as the couple.

When Mark and Maria Wilson got married 20 years ago, for instance, they were fresh out of college and barely scraping by. They merged what little money they had because there wasn't enough to keep in separate accounts. No one could spend a dime without consulting the other.

About 15 years of doing that kept them on the same page, says Mark, a certified financial planner who works with Tarbox. The Wilsons could now afford to keep separate accounts, but don't feel they need to.

In contrast, when Lorraine and Joseph Steen married four years ago, they were both in their mid-30s and accustomed to handling their own finances, so they kept it that way.

A year later, the couple had their first child and bought a house. Suddenly, completely separate accounts didn't work.

They opened a third checking account to pay all the joint household expenses. They still keep their own accounts so they can maintain a certain level of fiscal autonomy.

"We were so used to doing our own thing, merging accounts was a whole new world for us," Lorraine said.

Get it in writing

Prenuptial agreements are written contracts laying out the division of assets and future earnings if a marriage falls apart.

Some people consider these documents so unromantic that they swear they would never marry anyone who even suggested such a thing.

But prenups make sense for couples that come into marriage with children or widely disparate assets, said Eleanor Blayney, consumer advocate for the Certified Financial Planners Board of Standards and the founder of Directions, a financial planning firm focused on women.

"They can take money out of the relationship, so there are no nagging questions, like 'Hmm, I wonder if he married me for my money?' " she said. "By recognizing that there is a financial aspect to a relationship, they can spell out that that's not what the relationship is about."

Family law attorney Ike Vanden Kykel said the contracts are almost always enforceable in court. The one caveat: Prenuptial agreements divide only income and assets. They don't deal with child custody issues.

In second-marriage situations, the agreements can be helpful to flesh out a host of sticky concerns such as who pays to educate the kids and the rights of a surviving spouse in the event of one's death.

Consider the kids

Planning to have children? That begets a whole series of money discussions.

For instance, will you want one partner to stay home while the kids are young? If so, who? And how will you handle money matters then? After all, while that partner may not bring home a paycheck, they're still contributing to the family well-being. If they don't have an income, does that mean they lose their "mad money" too?

With older couples, the practical issues get even more complicated, Tarbox said. You not only have to talk about how you'll pay your ongoing bills, you have to discuss the assets and debts each of you have coming into the marriage and whether you want to co-mingle those assets or keep them separate.

If you both have kids, will you share the cost of their upbringing and college, or do you intend to handle your respective kids' bills from the money you hold separately? You should also consider how you each feel about supporting your offspring as adults. Do you want to help them buy houses? Would you bail them out of crushing credit card debt? Under what circumstances could you see them moving back in?

There's no pat answer. It's just better to consider the possibilities before you marry rather than after.

Estate planning gets dicey too. You may want to leave your assets to your respective children, for example, but what happens to the surviving spouse when one of you dies? Does he or she lose access to the deceased partner's pension and savings? Could they lose control over the house?

"Everybody talks about marriage in terms of love and romance," Graff of HomeEconomist.com said. "But, ultimately, it's a legal and binding contract that affects property. It's important to know where the person is coming from and make sure you can live with whatever they are bringing to the table."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cover-love-money14-2010feb14,0,6454842.column


* hole.jpg (180.4 KB, 553x396 - viewed 1840 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #81 on: February 14, 2010, 08:26:25 AM »

Love me, love my credit score
Full financial disclosure before walking down the aisle can help prevent marital strife later.
Kathy M. Kristof

It's Valentine's Day, when even reasonable people wander around, engagement rings at the ready, blathering about how "love is the answer." ¶ Snap out of it! Love, in fact, may be the problem. ¶ Passion often blinds sweethearts to the fact that matrimony is, at bottom, a contract. Figuring out how that partnership can prosper is critical for a successful union. Yet financial differences rank among the greatest sources of marital misery, in part because talking about money before you tie the knot makes many couples uncomfortable. ¶ Some worry that prying into each other's finances might indicate a lack of trust, or that a prenuptial agreement is a self-fulfilling prophecy for splitting up. ¶ In fact, experts say, just the opposite is true. Spouses who find themselves bickering about finances early in their marriage could well end up hashing out the same issues in divorce court, according to Tina Tessina, a licensed psychotherapist and author of "Money, Sex & Kids: Stop Fighting About the Three Things That Can Ruin Your Marriage." ¶ "Everybody wants to focus on putting the wedding together and talk about things like having kids and a house," Tessina said. "But nobody wants to talk about the money part until you are married and financially entwined. Then it's too late."

No one is saying that money is everything. Romance, common interests, shared values and friends are important for the survival of a marriage too.

But couples must understand that money carries far more meaning than the simple things it can buy. How you handle money can telegraph how you feel about power, personal responsibility, charity and family. And these are the issues that can pull a marriage apart.

So what do you need to talk about? Here are a few suggestions from the pros:

Know the history

Understanding the past is important to building a solid future, said Cecily Maton, partner at the Chicago financial planning firm of Aequus Wealth Management.

Each partner needs to have an understanding of the other's experiences to grasp what might be motivating their behavior now. If your in-laws were cautious with money, chances are your beloved is too. If your parents spent carelessly, it would help to explain your credit card addiction.

This background can help you understand whether your partner sees money as a reward; a punishment; a tool or an albatross, she added.

"Even when couples think they know each other really well, it's amazing how often they say they're finding out something that they didn't know," she said.

Air the laundry

Forget affairs, drug habits and rap sheets. Some newlyweds have been most shocked to learn of a new spouse's checkered credit history.

That's why trading credit reports is also advisable before you tie the knot, Tessina said. These reports show how much debt you have outstanding and whether you've always been responsible about paying your bills.

You wouldn't necessarily dump somebody simply because they were in debt, said Brett Graff, a former government economist who edits the website HomeEconomist.com. But you'd certainly want to know whether that debt was linked to a lost job or an unexpected medical issue, or if it was a sign of something more ominous such as a hidden gambling habit or shopping addiction.

You may decide that you're so in love that you're willing to marry an overspender, said Laura Tarbox, a Newport Beach financial planner. But having that information might cause you to handle your finances differently, keeping your accounts separate, for example, so that the unencumbered spouse doesn't end up liable for debts he or she had no hand in creating.

"They won't let businesses merge without financial disclosures," Tessina said. "There's no law saying that you have to do that when you get married, but it should be a standard requirement so that you both know where you're at."

Set your goals

Next, you need to talk about the way you want to live and what you want to achieve.

Those conversations need to be specific, Tessina said.

"It's one thing to say that you both want a house. But one of you might be thinking about a little condo and the other wants a three-story home with a yard," she said.

Shared goals keep partners from blaming each other if things don't quite go as planned, said Lorraine Steen, a Miami Beach mother of two.

After Steen and her husband bought a house two years ago, they were dismayed to see prices tumble in the real estate bust. But they didn't take it out on each other because they had already agreed not to second-guess themselves.

Even on their honeymoon, they established rules about spending: If they agreed that a purchase made sense, they wouldn't fret later about whether they could have gotten it cheaper elsewhere or at another time.

"You can never go back and say 'I told you so.' Once we buy something, we enjoy it and move forward," Steen said.

Who does what?

After you understand how you feel about money and what your priorities are, it's time to get practical. How are you going to pay the bills?

Some couples choose to merge their checking and savings accounts and pay bills out of just one pot. Others divvy up expenses, and each pays certain bills. Some couples choose a "yours, mine and ours" approach, where they have a joint account that's fed with money from both to pay shared bills, but each keeps smaller separate accounts too.

The right answer can be as individual as the couple.

When Mark and Maria Wilson got married 20 years ago, for instance, they were fresh out of college and barely scraping by. They merged what little money they had because there wasn't enough to keep in separate accounts. No one could spend a dime without consulting the other.

About 15 years of doing that kept them on the same page, says Mark, a certified financial planner who works with Tarbox. The Wilsons could now afford to keep separate accounts, but don't feel they need to.

In contrast, when Lorraine and Joseph Steen married four years ago, they were both in their mid-30s and accustomed to handling their own finances, so they kept it that way.

A year later, the couple had their first child and bought a house. Suddenly, completely separate accounts didn't work.

They opened a third checking account to pay all the joint household expenses. They still keep their own accounts so they can maintain a certain level of fiscal autonomy.

"We were so used to doing our own thing, merging accounts was a whole new world for us," Lorraine said.

Get it in writing

Prenuptial agreements are written contracts laying out the division of assets and future earnings if a marriage falls apart.

Some people consider these documents so unromantic that they swear they would never marry anyone who even suggested such a thing.

But prenups make sense for couples that come into marriage with children or widely disparate assets, said Eleanor Blayney, consumer advocate for the Certified Financial Planners Board of Standards and the founder of Directions, a financial planning firm focused on women.

"They can take money out of the relationship, so there are no nagging questions, like 'Hmm, I wonder if he married me for my money?' " she said. "By recognizing that there is a financial aspect to a relationship, they can spell out that that's not what the relationship is about."

Family law attorney Ike Vanden Kykel said the contracts are almost always enforceable in court. The one caveat: Prenuptial agreements divide only income and assets. They don't deal with child custody issues.

In second-marriage situations, the agreements can be helpful to flesh out a host of sticky concerns such as who pays to educate the kids and the rights of a surviving spouse in the event of one's death.

Consider the kids

Planning to have children? That begets a whole series of money discussions.

For instance, will you want one partner to stay home while the kids are young? If so, who? And how will you handle money matters then? After all, while that partner may not bring home a paycheck, they're still contributing to the family well-being. If they don't have an income, does that mean they lose their "mad money" too?

With older couples, the practical issues get even more complicated, Tarbox said. You not only have to talk about how you'll pay your ongoing bills, you have to discuss the assets and debts each of you have coming into the marriage and whether you want to co-mingle those assets or keep them separate.

If you both have kids, will you share the cost of their upbringing and college, or do you intend to handle your respective kids' bills from the money you hold separately? You should also consider how you each feel about supporting your offspring as adults. Do you want to help them buy houses? Would you bail them out of crushing credit card debt? Under what circumstances could you see them moving back in?

There's no pat answer. It's just better to consider the possibilities before you marry rather than after.

Estate planning gets dicey too. You may want to leave your assets to your respective children, for example, but what happens to the surviving spouse when one of you dies? Does he or she lose access to the deceased partner's pension and savings? Could they lose control over the house?

"Everybody talks about marriage in terms of love and romance," Graff of HomeEconomist.com said. "But, ultimately, it's a legal and binding contract that affects property. It's important to know where the person is coming from and make sure you can live with whatever they are bringing to the table."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cover-love-money14-2010feb14,0,6454842.column

Good article.  I still have no idea why gays want to get married considering articles like this. 

I have buddies who have been in war and tell me that getting shot at is nothing compared to divorce court and getting bankrupted by some greedy bitch with a spending addiction. 
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #82 on: February 14, 2010, 08:35:24 AM »

Good article.  I still have no idea why gays want to get married considering articles like this. 

I have buddies who have been in war and tell me that getting shot at is nothing compared to divorce court and getting bankrupted by some greedy bitch with a spending addiction. 

Are you really that daft?  The push for gay marriage is not really about marriage per se, it is about the desire for equal treatment under the law.*  That is something every American citizen should easily grasp be they male/female, older, disabled, Asian, Jewish, an interracial couple, gay or lesbian, etc.  It’s not that complicated.

Believe it or not many gay people have zero interest in getting married, but they want the legal right to do so because what is available to one group of citizens should be available to all.


*The 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #83 on: February 14, 2010, 08:36:38 AM »

Are you really that daft?  The push for gay marriage is not really about marriage per se, it is about the desire for equal treatment under the law.*  That is something every American citizen should easily grasp be they male/female, older, disabled, Asian, Jewish, an interracial couple, gay or lesbian, etc.  It’s not that complicated.

Believe it or not many gay people have zero interest in getting married, but they want the legal right to do so because what is available to one group of citizens should be available to all.


*The 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.

It was a sarcastic joke.  But like the old saying goes - be careful what you ask for . . . . . Grin  Grin  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
drkaje
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14349


Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.


WWW
« Reply #84 on: February 14, 2010, 09:40:00 AM »

Are you really that daft?  The push for gay marriage is not really about marriage per se, it is about the desire for equal treatment under the law.*  That is something every American citizen should easily grasp be they male/female, older, disabled, Asian, Jewish, an interracial couple, gay or lesbian, etc.  It’s not that complicated.

Believe it or not many gay people have zero interest in getting married, but they want the legal right to do so because what is available to one group of citizens should be available to all.


*The 14th amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.

It didn't become about equal protection under the law until California created two classes of gays, IMO. Up to and including that point the whole movement's only purpose was to 'normalize' homosexuality in our culture through redefining marriage. You really have to wonder what kind of self-esteem issues people are dealing with where cultural approval means that much.
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #85 on: February 14, 2010, 09:44:44 AM »

It didn't become about equal protection under the law until California created two classes of gays, IMO. Up to and including that point the whole movement's only purpose was to 'normalize' homosexuality in our culture through redefining marriage. You really have to wonder what kind of self-esteem issues people are dealing with where cultural approval means that much.

Like Chris Rock says, "If I say I'm gay, I cant get married and wont have to go to Iraq? . . . . SIGN ME UP FOR THAT!"
Report to moderator   Logged
drkaje
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14349


Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.


WWW
« Reply #86 on: February 14, 2010, 02:43:17 PM »

Like Chris Rock says, "If I say I'm gay, I cant get married and wont have to go to Iraq? . . . . SIGN ME UP FOR THAT!"

Guys like me, who will never re-marry, should be able to sell our marriage rights to the highest bidder. Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged

Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 10322


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2010, 06:09:47 AM »

Guys like me, who will never re-marry, should be able to sell our marriage rights to the highest bidder. Smiley

I know so many men who have been destroyed by divorce due to these selfish, self centered, lazy, miserable bitches.
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #88 on: April 09, 2010, 09:43:31 PM »

As a Hiring Filter, Credit Checks Draw Questions
By ANDREW MARTIN

In defending employers’ use of credit checks as part of the hiring process, Eric Rosenberg of the TransUnion credit bureau paints a sobering picture.

Retailers lose more than $30 billion a year because of employee theft, he says. Workplace violence costs employers $55 million a year in lost wages. A third of employees provide bogus information on their résumés.

Screening the backgrounds of employees “is critical to protect the safety of Connecticut residents in their homes and offices, in their cars and in all other places they travel,” Mr. Rosenberg testified to Connecticut legislators in February 2009, explaining why TransUnion markets its credit reports to employers.

Trouble is, researchers say there is no evidence showing that people with weak credit are more likely to be bad employees or to steal from their bosses, a fact that Mr. Rosenberg himself later admitted.

“At this point we don’t have any research to show any statistical correlation between what’s in somebody’s credit report and their job performance or their likelihood to commit fraud,” he said in separate testimony to Oregon legislators in January.

With millions of Americans nursing damaged credit reports after a bruising recession, some lawmakers are seeking to limit the use of credit reports as a factor in hiring.

Legislators in more than a dozen states have introduced bills to curb the use of credit checks during the hiring process, and three states have passed such laws.

At the federal level, Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, is pursuing his own legislation that would prohibit employers nationwide from using credit checks to discriminate in hiring.

Supporters of such laws say they are necessary because an increasing number of employers are doing credit checks even though there is no proof that bad credit is a marker of risky employees.

Furthermore, they say the practice unfairly tars the huge pool of people whose credit was damaged by layoffs, medical bills or other factors beyond their control. They also say it disproportionately screens out minorities.

“Bernie Madoff had a pretty good credit score,” said Matthew Lesser, a Connecticut state representative who introduced a bill early last year that would have limited employers’ use of credit reports.

“And yet there is this consistent message that if you have a bad credit score, there is something wrong with you.”

Jerry K. Palmer, a psychology professor at Eastern Kentucky University, said his studies, though relatively small, found no correlation between the quality of an employee’s credit report and that worker’s job performance or likelihood to quit.

He said he was not aware of any studies that showed a correlation between poor credit and employee fraud or violence. But he noted that more research was needed to show what credit reports could predict.

Even so, the industry that sells credit checks has remained firm, mounting a counterattack against legislation with some success.

Bills introduced in California, Maryland and Connecticut, for example, have been stalled amid opposition from credit bureaus and other businesses.

In arguing against the legislation in Connecticut, Mr. Rosenberg, director of state government relations for TransUnion, testified, “This restriction could jeopardize the health and safety of many Connecticut residents who have come to rely on safe and secure environments, and risks the financial status of businesses across the state.”

Mr. Rosenberg did not return messages seeking comment. A spokesman for TransUnion, Steven Katz, reiterated the company’s stance that credit reports were a valuable tool for employers.

Several other large credit bureaus also suggest in their marketing materials that credit checks are an important security measure for companies. “Every time you hire a new employee, you put a lot on the line,” an Experian brochure reads. “The wrong decision could jeopardize your firm’s assets, reputation or security.”

Kristine Snyder, a spokeswoman for Experian, said the ability to assess risk was important for business owners, particularly those running small companies, given the level of employee fraud. She said the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners found that important indicators of potential fraud were employees living above their means and those experiencing financial difficulties.

“Employers should have information available to them that protects their businesses from catastrophic losses so that workers can continue to stay employed and remain productive,” she said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/business/10credit.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #89 on: April 14, 2010, 12:09:47 PM »

Q:  A close friend lent me some money she received in an inheritance. I have paid her back what I could over time yet still owe more than half. In the ensuing months, she developed a serious drug problem, lost her house and job and is receiving treatment at a halfway house. She is calling now and demanding that I immediately repay the balance. I cannot right now, without going into retirement savings. I have also been advised by her family not to give her any money, because she may use it on drugs. What is my moral responsibility here?  NAME WITHHELD


A: If you truly cannot repay your friend immediately, the question is moot. But the way you have phrased it seems faintly self-serving, hinting that it would be virtuous, almost saintly, to ignore your debt. You can adhere to the original agreement to repay gradually, but repay you must, her current condition notwithstanding. She is an adult. No court has found her unfit to make decisions, even bad decisions, about her own life. It would be paternalistic, if benignly intended, to refuse to return her money because you are wary of how she would spend it.

I do admire your concern for your friend’s well-being and suggest that you consult with the halfway house. It is apt to have had experience with similar situations. If your friend agreed to various terms, including financial restrictions, as a condition of enrollment, there could be a way for you to put this money into escrow — that is, to repay it without doing harm.
Report to moderator   Logged
Doug_Steele
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10640


I'm totally Brolic, bro!


« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2010, 09:33:04 AM »

Guys like me, who will never re-marry, should be able to sell our marriage rights to the highest bidder. Smiley

That is one of the best ideas that i have ever heard of.  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged

D
drkaje
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14349


Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.


WWW
« Reply #91 on: April 17, 2010, 09:37:11 AM »

That is one of the best ideas that i have ever heard of.  Wink

My rights would be on E-bay with a reserve of $12M. Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged

Doug_Steele
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10640


I'm totally Brolic, bro!


« Reply #92 on: April 17, 2010, 09:38:49 AM »

My rights would be on E-bay with a reserve of $12M. Smiley

I would sell mine for a cool 25k and there ya go.  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged

D
drkaje
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14349


Quiet, Err. I'm transmitting rage.


WWW
« Reply #93 on: April 17, 2010, 09:48:04 AM »

I would sell mine for a cool 25k and there ya go.  Wink

Fuck that shit!! Gays act like marriage is the most important thing on earth. There's no way I'm selling my rights cheap.
Report to moderator   Logged

Doug_Steele
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 10640


I'm totally Brolic, bro!


« Reply #94 on: April 17, 2010, 10:22:10 AM »

Fuck that shit!! Gays act like marriage is the most important thing on earth. There's no way I'm selling my rights cheap.

You make another great point! They are making a big deal out of marriage and it really blows....I would sell mine for about 10 Million.  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged

D
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #95 on: May 02, 2010, 07:54:01 AM »

Employer credit checks can irk workers
Carolyn Said, Chronicle Staff Writer
  
Does having bad credit make you a bad worker?

That's a pivotal question for some job hunters. Companies increasingly are asking prospective employees to submit to credit checks. Amid a brutal recession, people who racked up bills while they were unemployed or lost their homes to foreclosure say they're discriminated against when they look for a job.

"In today's economy, the last thing you want is to create any more hurdles for employees to get a job," said state Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Norwalk (Los Angeles County). "In my opinion, a credit report does not determine a person's work ethic or trustworthiness. If employers want to see who people really are, a background check will take care of that."

Mendoza is sponsoring AB482, which would restrict employer credit checks except for jobs that involve handling money, other assets or personal information and also meet other conditions, such as being managerial or in law enforcement. A previous Mendoza bill on the same topic passed the California Legislature last year but was vetoed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as a "job killer."

Other lawmakers also are targeting employment credit checks. Oregon, Washington and Hawaii have restricted the practice. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., has introduced federal legislation to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to stop companies from using credit checks as part of the hiring process. Currently, the act requires employers to get permission from applicants before running their credit, but many say they feel they'll be penalized if they refuse.

Businesses and credit bureaus oppose the bills.

"Credit information can reveal patterns that may present an unreasonable risk to businesses," said a letter opposing Mendoza's bill authored by the National Federation of Independent Business' California office in Sacramento and co-signed by a range of other business associations. "Employee theft is a growing problem. ... We believe this bill unduly restricts the ability of businesses to use all legally available information in employment decisions."

Showing responsibility

Rick Harper, vice president of program services at Consumer Credit Counseling of San Francisco, said credit history can be predictive of how responsible someone is.

"Given two candidates who are equally qualified, sometimes it's a weighing factor," he said. "If you've got debt problems, you may not really concentrate on what you're doing, if you're worried the telephone will ring and a creditor will call."

About 60 percent of employers said they conduct credit checks on some job applicants, according to a 2009 survey by the Society for Human Resource Management. That was up from 43 percent in 2006 and 25 percent in 1998.

Julie Lupian, 28, a front desk clerk at the Homewood Suites in Oakland, is among 34 workers there who must reapply for their jobs because the hotel is under new management. Originally, all the workers were asked to submit to credit checks; after their union objected, that was changed to just workers who handle money, which includes Lupian.

"My husband lost his job (as a baker) a year ago and we lost our house, so our credit report now is bad," she said Thursday as her two young sons played nearby at a union rally outside the hotel.

She thinks her six years at Homewood, working her way up from a housekeeping position, should outweigh the credit hit from the foreclosure. She recently returned to work after having a baby three months ago, and is now her family's primary breadwinner.

"The practices we're following are sound and consistent legally," said Rick Gabrielsen, president of Kupuna Hospitality LLC, the new management company.

Racial bias alleged

Mendoza and others opposed to employment credit checks say the practice discriminates against blacks, Latinos and lower-income people, who tend to have worse credit, and say credit reports can be inaccurate.

"They are very imprecise, crude arbitrary measures, riddled with errors," said Joe Ridout, consumer services manager with Consumer Action, a San Francisco advocacy group. "They are particularly misleading in a time of high unemployment. A credit check is no more predictive of job performance than someone's hat size or favorite hockey team."

Credit experts say the practice is yet another reason consumers should pay close attention to monitoring their credit, getting free credit reports at least annually, disputing any errors and taking steps to improve their score.

"How long you're penalized (for an event like a foreclosure or bankruptcy) depends on what you do to re-establish yourself as creditworthy," Harper said. "If you're proactive and address issues, there are things you can do to put yourself back very quickly in 24 to 36 months."

Consistent, on-time monthly payments top that list.

Ken Lin, CEO of Credit Karma, a San Francisco company that lets consumers view their credit scores, had some additional tips.

"Don't overextend," he said. "Don't have too many credit card balances - spend less than 30 percent of your credit card limits. Don't apply for too many products at one time unless you're house shopping or car shopping. Getting six credit cards in two months shows some level of desperation. The longer you keep your accounts open, the better off you are."
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #96 on: July 12, 2010, 03:21:29 PM »

More Americans' Credit Scores Sink to New Lows
by Eileen AJ Connelly

The credit scores of millions more Americans are sinking to new lows.

Figures provided by FICO Inc. show that 25.5 percent of consumers — nearly 43.4 million people — now have a credit score of 599 or below, marking them as poor risks for lenders. It's unlikely they will be able to get credit cards, auto loans or mortgages under the tighter lending standards banks now use.

Because consumers relied so heavily on debt to fuel their spending in recent years, their restricted access to credit is one reason for the slow economic recovery.

"I don't get paid for loan applications, I get paid for closings," said Ritch Workman, a Melbourne, Fla., mortgage broker. "I have plenty of business, but I'm struggling to stay open."

FICO's latest analysis is based on consumer credit reports as of April. Its findings represent an increase of about 2.4 million people in the lowest credit score categories in the past two years. Before the Great Recession, scores on FICO's 300-to-850 scale weren't as volatile, said Andrew Jennings, chief research officer for FICO in Minneapolis. Historically, just 15 percent of the 170 million consumers with active credit accounts, or 25.5 million people, fell below 599, according to data posted on Myfico.com.

More are likely to join their ranks. It can take several months before payment missteps actually drive down a credit score. The Labor Department says about 26 million people are out of work or underemployed, and millions more face foreclosure, which alone can chop 150 points off an individual's score. Once the damage is done, it could be years before this group can restore their scores, even if they had strong credit histories in the past.

On the positive side, the number of consumers who have a top score of 800 or above has increased in recent years. At least in part, this reflects that more individuals have cut spending and paid down debt in response to the recession. Their ranks now stand at 17.9 percent, which is notably above the historical average of 13 percent, though down from 18.7 percent in April 2008 before the market meltdown.

There's also been a notable shift in the important range of people with moderate credit, those with scores between 650 and 699. The new data shows that this group comprised 11.9 percent of scores. This is down only marginally from 12 percent in 2008, but reflects a drop of roughly 5.3 million people from its historical average of 15 percent.

This group is significant because it may feel the effects of lenders' tighter credit standards the most, said FICO's Jennings. Consumers on the lowest end of the scale are less likely to try to borrow. However, people with mid-range scores that had been eligible for credit before the meltdown are looking to buy homes or cars but finding it hard to qualify for affordable loans.

Workman has seen this firsthand.

A customer with a score of 679 recently walked away from buying a house because he could not get the best interest rate on a $100,000 mortgage. Had his score been 680, the rate he was offered would have been a half-percent lower. The difference was only about $31 per month, but over a 30-year mortgage would have added up to more than $11,000.

"There was nothing derogatory on his credit report," Workman said of the customer. He had, however, recently gotten an auto loan, which likely lowered his score.

Studies have shown FICO scores are generally reliable predictions of consumer payment behavior, but Workman's experience points to one drawback of credit scoring: the automated underwriting programs lenders use can't always differentiate between two people with the same score. Another consumer might have a 679 score because of several late payments, which could indicate he or she is a bigger repayment risk. But a computer program that depends just on score won't consider those details.

On a broader scale, some of the spike in foreclosures came about because homeowners were financially irresponsible, while others lost their jobs and could no longer pay their mortgages. Yet both reasons for foreclosures have the same impact on a borrower's FICO score.

In the past too much credit was handed out based on scores alone, without considering how much debt consumers could pay back, said Edmund Tribue, a senior vice president in the credit risk practice at MasterCard Advisors. Now the ability to repay the debt is a critical part of the lending decision.

Workman still thinks credit scores alone play too big a role. "The pendulum has swung too far," he said. "We absolutely swung way too far in the liberal lending, but did we have to swing so far back the other way?"

Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #97 on: September 03, 2010, 11:29:39 PM »

How Debt Can Destroy a Budding Relationship
By RON LIEBER

Nobody likes unpleasant surprises, but when Allison Brooke Eastman’s fiancé found out four months ago just how high her student loan debt was, he had a particularly strong reaction: he broke off the engagement within three days.

Ms. Eastman said she had told him early on in their relationship that she had over $100,000 of debt. But, she said, even she didn’t know what the true balance was; like a car buyer who focuses on only the monthly payment, she wrote 12 checks a year for about $1,100 each, the minimum possible. She didn’t focus on the bottom line, she said, because it was so profoundly depressing.

But as the couple got closer to their wedding day, she took out all the paperwork and it became clear that her total debt was actually about $170,000. “He accused me of lying,” said Ms. Eastman, 31, a San Francisco X-ray technician and part-time photographer who had run up much of the balance studying for a bachelor’s degree in photography. “But if I was lying, I was lying to myself, not to him. I didn’t really want to know the full amount.”

At a time when even people with no graduate degrees, like Ms. Eastman, often end up six figures in the hole and people getting married for the second time have loads of debt from their earlier lives, it should come as no surprise that debt can bust up engagements. Even when couples disclose their debt in detail, it poses a series of challenges.

When, exactly, are you supposed to reveal a debt of this size during the courtship? Earlier than you’d disclose, say, a chronic illness?

Even if disclosure doesn’t render you unmarriageable, tricky questions linger. If one person brings a huge debt to a relationship, who is ultimately responsible for making good on the obligation? And if it’s $170,000, isn’t the more solvent partner going to resent that debt over time no matter how early the disclosure comes? After all, it will profoundly affect every financial decision, from buying a home to how many children to have.

These were the questions that weighed on Kerrie Tidwell. A third-year student at the Medical College of Georgia and an aspiring emergency room doctor, she doesn’t worry so much about her ability to pay back her loans.

Ms. Tidwell, 26, is involved in a serious relationship with Stefan Kogler, an architect who is a native of Austria and living in Vienna. To Europeans, who often pay little or nothing toward their university studies, the idea of going deeply into debt to get educated is, well, foreign.

Ms. Tidwell feels no guilt about the $250,000 in debt she will probably run up, including some from a master’s degree program she completed in London, where she and Mr. Kogler met. “I didn’t acquire it because I go out and shop a lot,” she said. “It’s because I’m doing something that I’ll love for the rest of my life.”

Still, if she and Mr. Kogler are going to move in together and get engaged, she wants their financial arrangements to be clear and fair. But how do you define fair when you’re bringing a quarter of a million dollars in debt to a relationship?

Mr. Kogler, 30, said he’s not so worried about it. “In the long run, it will equal out,” he said. “In the short run, you have to support each other, and I will support her as much as I can.”

His stoicism is admirable. It’s all the more so, given that if he moves to the United States permanently, he’ll probably lose the chance to run his family’s business in Austria. Supporting Ms. Tidwell as she begins to pay back her loans also means he doesn’t have the freedom to, say, make a career change that involves a big pay cut. “I know he has his own dreams, and they will require money,” Ms. Tidwell said. “Will my debt take away from that?”

Lisa J. B. Peterson, a financial planner with Lantern Financial in Boston, specializes in counseling young couples and has heard this story before. About half the people she sees are both bringing significant debt to the relationship, and about a quarter of the others have one person who has a pile of student loans.

When I told her about Ms. Tidwell and Mr. Kogler, one of her first suggestions was for them to make sure that Mr. Kogler did not have to make all the compromises when they prepared a joint household budget. “They can make some kind of sacrifice so that a goal of his is achieved, too,” she said.

Then there’s the question of how to plan for the unknowns. “What would happen if I got hurt and couldn’t practice or got sued for malpractice?” Ms. Tidwell asked.

While insurance (which is itself expensive, alas) can reduce this anxiety, it can’t cover the desire to stay home with children. Ms. Tidwell is resolute about having children and working full time, but Sheila G. Riesel, a matrimonial lawyer and partner with Blank Rome in Manhattan, said Ms. Tidwell ought to consider potential extreme circumstances as well. “It could happen that she wants to be a stay-at-home spouse for a while. What if she has triplets?” Ms. Riesel asked. “All of this is worthy of discussion.”

The problem is, most couples never get this far in the premarriage money talks. One advantage to prenuptial agreements is that they force the issue, even if it does turn the talks into a negotiation. “At least half the time, people are shocked at what the other person’s attitude is,” said Susan Reach Winters, a matrimonial lawyer with Budd Larner in Short Hills, N.J. “You ask how they’d handle it if someone wanted to stay home after having a baby, and at the same time they give completely different answers.”

Legally, it is likely that any leftover debt that Ms. Tidwell brought to a marriage would remain hers alone after a divorce. But Ms. Reach Winters said that if she were representing someone like Ms. Tidwell’s boyfriend in a divorce, she would argue that he deserved a sort of refund for everything he paid toward household expenses even if Ms. Tidwell were making the loan payments out of her salary alone. Whether a state’s laws back up this argument may be beside the point; any lawyer can use it as a battering ram in settlement negotiations.

Ms. Riesel also said couples needed to be wary of states like New York, where an advanced degree acquired during the marriage, and the earning power it brings, are treated as assets to be divided.

While Ms. Tidwell seems resolute about cordoning off her debt and paying it off with money she alone earns, she and anyone like her probably ought to codify that intent in a legal agreement, even at the point they decide to move in with someone. And this only gets more complicated (and the agreements more crucial) in second marriages, where people may come to the relationship with assets, sole responsibility for a mortgage and a couple of college tuitions. Better to write it all down, no matter how clear the laws may be in your state.

In some ways, Mr. Kogler has it easy. There aren’t a lot of unemployed doctors. So he and Ms. Tidwell should be able to pay back her loans (albeit over 20 or 30 years) as long as they live relatively modestly. He might feel differently if he were dating a lawyer with similar debt but less certain prospects, or an X-ray technician who would really like to be a photographer.

Still, all of this raises the question: At what point do you have a moral obligation to disclose your indebtedness during courtship? On the eighth date? When you get to third base? In your eHarmony online dating profile?

“It’s a sliding scale,” said Ms. Riesel, the Manhattan lawyer. “It depends on the person and the nature of the relationship.” Ms. Winters, the Short Hills divorce lawyer, said it might depend on your definition of a serious relationship. “But I wouldn’t wait until you were signing leases for apartments or picking out engagement rings.”

Ms. Eastman in San Francisco says she knows that now. “What would I have done differently, besides bringing a copy of my credit report on the first date?” she said, with a rueful chuckle. “I would have been more responsible.”

And while she hasn’t dated anyone seriously enough in recent months to get to the point of disclosure, she says it’s probably necessary by the eighth or 10th date. “I know that now,” she said. “But it had never occurred to me that this is something that might end up being a deal-breaker.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/your-money/04money.html?scp=1&sq=Allison%20Brooke%20Eastman&st=cse
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #98 on: September 08, 2010, 11:04:40 AM »

'Til Debt Do Us Part

$170,000 in debt and no advanced degree (MD, PhD, MBA) suggests an extraordinary level of whimsy. In Asia, courtship is very open about financial prospects---especially for men, obviously---and such a debt would be the poison pill for most serious relationships.
JK
Berkeley


Absolutely absurd. If you don't know your exact financial situation, and compound it by not revealing it to a prospective spouse, sorry, I agree with the man who broke off the engagement. My wife and I (of almost 3 decades), knew going in what our respective financial situation was at the time as well as our life histories. Not only that, but our respective views on money, money management and where we wanted to be these three decades later were almost exactly the same and has stood us in good stead all these years. Failure to manage your finances is a very clear indicator you cannot manage other parts of your life very well either. It brings up the immediate question, what else in your life do you not know or did not manage very well?
Tom
Midwest



I have to say, I would probably not marry someone with six-figure debts of any kind unless perhaps it was for med school or something. Now that I have been married 10 years, I realize how much these things really matter. When you are young and in love, you don't think about it too much....
Jen
New York


A large monetary debt is like any other problem one might bring into a relationship. Would you marry a guy who has only one leg? How about AIDS? Would it make a difference to you how he became HIV positive?
Brenda
DC



I graduated in May from a "Top-10" law school with $190,000 in debt. I'm also currently engaged. My fiancee is in her third year of medical school, and when she graduates next year she will have an additional $350,000 in debt.

Not for a moment did either of us hesitate before getting engaged because our debt would be so great. Nor will either of us hesitate before getting married next July. Why? Because we LOVE EACH OTHER.

Getting married shouldn't be thought of as a financial transaction, even though it does have financial consequences. The only reason anyone should be getting married is they want to spend the rest of their time on earth in partnership with the person they love, and an outstanding education loan should have NO impact on that. This is especially true because under the new federal Income Based Repayment plan (IBR), you will never have to pay more than a certain low percentage of your income, and all loans will be forgiven after a number of years. Education debt will not substantially affect your standard of living.

So if this shmo really called off his engagement just because his fiancee had debt from medical school, the relationship was doomed from the start, because 170,000 U.S. Dollars was apparently more important to him than his love for her.
Josh
California


When people borrow this kind of money for an education, one must also realize that one has to pay it back in after tax dollars. One would have to make $250,000 to $300,000 to pay a $175,000 debt. This is not taking into account any housing, healthcare, auto, food or basic entertainment services. This is a big hole to dig out of if one could. I would have broken off the engagement also.
SGR
New York



The man in the relationship with the med student sounds like a good man. The other guy who broke up with his Fiance sounds like a shallow excuse for a man. Love is love. If he loved her enough to ask her to marry him, than he should love her enough to understand her mistake. I wonder if he has made any mistakes in his life? That girl can do better.
Jen
Los Angleles


170K for a degree in photography and now working as an X-Ray Tech. So easy to compare to the level headed Ms. Tisdale.
Jack
Connecticut



I think the way people look at money reveals a lot about the way they will treat their boyfriend/girlfriend or spouse. I also think that that much debt for anything other than an advanced degree is a huge red flag for mental illness or addiction issues.

I would run screaming from someone with >100,000 in debt for anything besides an advanced degree. Actually, I think that it was sort of misleading in this article to talk about people who make a rational choice to take on a lot of debt in order to become doctors or lawyers. In all likelihood, those people will be fine or even wealthy in 10-15 years. However, most people with that much debt aren't in med school. And, I think that it's very smart to be wary of large amounts of unnecessary debt.

Employers perform credit checks for a reason -- to see if the prospective employees are responsible and trustworthy. If you are going to marry someone and possibly have kids with them, shouldn't you also worry about these things?
Ann
New York


My husband and I both brought student loans into our marriage. I knew what mine were, he didn't really pay attention to his. It became stressful when all of a sudden a bill for repayment would arrived that we hadn't budgeted for because he was so irresponsible. My debt came from Medical School and while I made a good salary as a primary care physician, it wasn't great and we were always struggling to make ends meet, which was not at all what we expected, being two professionals.

Then the unforseen happened, I became chronically ill and later, my husband died. Our debts were paid off prior to that, but we hadn't been able to have as much savings set aside because of our school debts. That was frustrating enough, but now I am only able to work part time. So even being a physician isn't going to guarantee a satisfactory income.
Each party should know exactly what they owe before they get engaged. And then agree how to repay the debt.

I believe that if one is going to need to have student loans for education, one should choose the least expensive school that will provide them a quality education. But young adults seem to think the sky is the limit and that debt will somehow get paid off - "later". It doesn't seem like real money until that first payment is due.

Keep in mind that life throws curve balls. Your best laid plans may never be realized. If Medicare makes more cuts, hospitals may replace the bulk of their ER staff with PAs and Nurse practitioners. Having "MD" after your name doesn't promise big salaries and job guarantees anymore.
Nancy
Denver



The problem is not just the debt, but what debt says about how the person is going to approach money throughout the relationship.

When my wife and I were engaged and approaching our wedding day, one day she told me that she had a bunch of credit card debt -- almost $40,000 on almost no income. I had been saving for awhile, for the wedding, a honeymoon, and down payment on a house. We were able to get rid of the debt, but there was a fair amount of lingering resentment that I was presented with this only at the last minute, and it really wiped out a lot of scrimping and saving on my part to put that money away.

Over the 10 years we've been married, though, I've seen time and again the same patterns of dealing with money that got her into trouble to begin with -- buying things and not paying attention to how much they cost, buying things to feel better, buying things we don't need, buying things we already have, buying things because her friends have them, wanting vacations and cars we can't afford, buying buying buying. It's like a drug addiction. It will probably continue to undermine our future, hobble our retirement, serve as a source of stress and friction, and limit our options for the rest of our lives together.
Pierce
Oregon


We have only heard Ms. Eastman's side of the story so we don't know for sure if she told him early on (as she claims) that she had $100K in debt. It's too bad her fiance wasn't or refused to be interviewed. But if you add up her not being entirely truthful about her total debt and her apparent lack of common sense in racking up $200K of student loans for a bachelor's degree in a field that doesn't offer that many highly paid positions, and a field in which she is only working part-time or so she claims, I can understand why the man bailed. If she had been truthful about what she owed and had a viable plan for employment or business ownership to repay the debt, he may have been more sympathetic. I think Ms. Eastman expects to be taken care of by a man and her former fiance wasn't having it. Maybe she'll find an older wealthy man to indulge her. Is Letterman looking for more interns?
Lynn
DC


http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/til-debt-do-us-part/

Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17269



« Reply #99 on: October 06, 2010, 03:33:06 PM »

Q: I am in a committed relationship with the most honest, ethical woman I have ever known, but we have a financial dispute. We agreed to split the cost of a vacation. She bought both of our airline tickets with bonus miles acquired through her credit card but wanted me to pay her the monetary value of the ticket she got for me. It left a bad taste in my mouth to pay for something that cost her no money. Is there a right and wrong in this matter? NAME WITHHELD,WEST PALM BEACH, FLA.


A: There is a right and a wrong in this matter: she is right, and you are wrong. You agreed to split these costs, and that’s what you did. How she covers her half is beside the point.

Those miles really are, in effect, money. She received them as incentive pay, in the form of a rebate, when she used her credit card. And they function as money because they are fungible: that is, they can be exchanged for goods or services. It doesn’t matter how she (legally) got them: paycheck, lottery, found in the trash. Just as it is not relevant how you acquired the money you used to pay for your share of the tickets: borrowed, inherited, won in a poker game. Money, or its equivalent, is money. Perhaps you would have been less vexed buying your ticket from the airline rather than giving your companion what might feel like your cash for her miles. I suggest you wash that bad taste out of your mouth with an apology and a bottle of Champagne shared with your estimable partner. And it doesn’t matter how you acquire the wine. Short of robbery.

 Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!