I recently bought a house that was vacant for a while and people were using it as parking.
I moved in now it’s clear someone lives there so people stopped parking there.
Sometime last week I had to leave but couldn’t because when I opened my garage door there was a car there blocking it in.
I don’t know who’s car it is and I’m not going to waste my fucking time walking around knocking on doors to figure out who’s it is.
Also you could’ve parked in the grass or off to the side or something I don’t know
Now I found out it’s someone 3 doors down because they knocked on my door demanding I pay them back because I’m the one who called to get it towed.
I told they should’ve had their visitors park at their house and they said “no, because we’ve always parked here”
Okay well not anymore and I’m not paying for your shit.
I kind of feel bad how much they had to pay but I shouldn’t have to take time out of my day to go figure out who’s car it is because they’re being dicks. Also why park in front of the garage??? Literally anywhere else would’ve just been annoying but I could’ve gone on with my day
My employer offers a 100% match on a 529 plan, up to $2000. I'm not planning on having kids, and I was curious if it made sense to take advantage of the match anyways.
From what I've read, disbursements not used for education have their earnings taxed at your current rate + a 10% penalty. Even with the taxes and penalty, it seems like this is a smart option given the 100% match. In other words, I could use this like a savings account my employer matches.
Does this make sense? Are there any scenarios I'm not thinking through?
I'm already maxing out a Roth IRA, and I'm contributing 11% to my company's 401k (6% by me, 5% maximum match by the employer).
Thanks in advance for any advice!
Can't believe I've spent all that money and have nothing to chauffer it.
I could imagine the frustration of non locals paying 125+ just to get nickel and dimed by a bucket of balls. Rant over.
I raised my concern that the lease states "Monthly Garage/Parking Rent: $0." They replied,
> "Even though it is not listed on your lease agreement the charges unfortunately still stand."
Upon asking where in the lease this statement is backed up they replied,
> "The lease agreement may have been generated inaccurately, but I've attached our reports of 'Rentable Items' to show you these charges validity in our system. Once the Audit had taken place, you were sent a Lease Amendment correcting the claimed tandem space charges to be effective on 2/1/21 to which could have been backdated to 10/29/19. I've also attached a copy of an email that was sent before assigning you the space notifying you of the charges for the tandem space."
The lease amendment now lists my parking spot and associated $120/mo fee. I have not signed this. Backdating to 10/29/19 would involve backdating to a completely different lease (the first year living here, which, btw, also states $0.00 parking fee). There is email correspondence between myself and the property manager regarding the $120 for the tandem parking spot, but again, it's not listed on the original lease anywhere. This seems like a unilateral attempt to change the contract, and it seems misleading, at best, to say they can backdate this fee (especially to a different lease entirely).
Should I sign the new lease amendment, or tell them to pound sand? Consult a lawyer? I had one lawyer quote $250 for consult and demand letter. Should I go that path?
Many thanks for any help.
I do not want to comment on how I feel about that, but important thing is that if your account is empty they will not take your money from the credit card, only if you have some balance left.
The fee won’t be applied to those who have a zero balance, where there is a credit or debit card linked to the account. PayPal says will only take the fee from the balance and not from a linked card or a bank account.
Title says it all.
After wasting 30 minutes clicking through and being forced to get the deluxe package due to having an HSA, a window pops down for a brief second showing it's gone from $71 to $110 for NO REASON!
H&R can bite me. Does anyone know of a less expensive way to file?
This technically wasn't my petty revenge, but that of a coworker of mine that I was witness to. I worked in a call center for a credit card company. At the time there was a $10 fee for processing a payment over the phone, I'm not here to justify it, that's just what it was and it was perfectly legal. It was one of those things that a CSR could choose to waive, but were definitely not required to and in fact would have to justify their reasoning for waiving it (waive too many and you'll get a lesser raise, worse shift choices, etc), so not a lot of people waived them. Anyway, I was sitting with a girl, listening to her call as part of my job at the time and she received a call that went like this, verbatim.
“I want to make a payment over the phone,” the customer said gruffly.
“That’s no problem,” replied the rep. “It does have to be with a check and there is a $10 processing fee for that.”
“A fee? I didn’t know there was a fee.”
“Well, I can waive it for you as a courtesy, since this is your first time paying by phone, just remember you can always pay online or in the store-”
“A courtesy?!?” he shrieked, cutting her off. “It isn’t a courtesy! You can’t consider it a courtesy if there is no other way to pay the dang bill.”
“I’m going to waive it for you, sir,” she pleaded, trying to talk him down from his unhinged fury. “It’s no problem, but there are other payment methods, as I was saying you can-”
“This isn’t right,” he continued to berate her. “How dare you say it’s a courtesy, I want to talk to your supervisor right now!”
At that point she was required to transfer to a supervisor, getting someone I knew quite well and who had little patience for jerk customers. I didn't hear that call myself, but I talked to the supervisor after. Upon getting the call, the customer screamed at her (the supervisor) for the word 'courtesy' being used and demanded an apology and to pay his bill. She apologized (she was required to, we all were, regardless of fault or logic when talking to a customer), and offered to take his payment, however because he was being an ass, she refused to waive the $10 fee, which was her prerogative and totally allowed. The prior rep had made a judgement call to offer to waive the fee, that was that individual's decision and since he didn't allow her to process the payment, thus he didn't accept her offer, the next person was not bound by that and the way our phones were set up it was impossible to transfer it back to the origin... keep reading on reddit ➡
That 180 resin a week towards bosses could be used elsewhere especially considering this leyline event coming up. Won’t have enough resin to go around
I recently left Japan where my friend lives. I recently asked her for a favor to ship some things out to the USA for me. Quick background, I left some of my brand name clothes at her place so she can resell it since she flips and sells used clothes. Originally, I was going to just sell my clothes to a thrift shop, but then she said she can make 20xs the profit by selling it online. So, we agreed to sell the clothes and she gets to keep 50% of the profit which would be more profitable than if she bought those clothes and resold them. If it doesn't sell, she could keep them.
But it turns out my sister wanted some of my clothes, so I asked her if she was willing to help me ship it to the US for me and I'll pay her the shipping and packaging fees. She agreed and I thought it would be a favor among friends. I was going to give her an extra $20 anyways as a thank you. She didn’t mention any service fee during the agreement at the time. I figured that since she was shipping clothes anyways, I asked her if she could ship me some matcha as well if I bought it online in Japan and shipped it to her. She said okay.
She was putting off the shipment for a month because of mental health, which I completely understood. I didn't want to rush her since it was a favor and told her to take her time. Suddenly a month later she messages me and tells me she will charge me $70 as a service fee to ship the items to me. I don't have a problem with the fee itself but with the fact that she brought it up suddenly after I already bought the matcha and shipped it to her.
She told me the reason why she is charging me is that she feels as if I treated our relationship as business transactions. The two points she brought up were that I sold her my used bike and a gift card. She offered $35 for my 1yr old bike when I was going to sell it for $50 (I paid $120). I didn't want to sell her my bike, but since she was my friend, I told her I'd give it to her. Fast forward to now, and she says that if I treated her like a friend, I would have given it to her for free.
She was the one who asked to buy the bike! I never even asked her to buy it! Similarly, she offered to buy a sold-out limited gift card that I was going to gift someone else (a $16 value), but I just asked for $10. Now she says that because I didn't give her my used items for free and instead accepted monetary compensation, it means that our friendship is purely transactional and it's fair for her to charge me this service fee.... keep reading on reddit ➡
Skip to the 3 hour mark for the result of the motion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Lx9G_YyFk
There were a ton of delegates which were in favour of the motion to study financial impacts, and I feel like there were a few r/winnipeg'ers in attendance! Unfortunately, the result of the vote was to not consider studying how we could implement either system.
As Councillor Allard said shortly before the vote, "we will never achieve free transit if we don't even ask the questions of how much it might cost , yes it's true we don't have a partner in the provincial government that supports transit today, it's also true that we might have a partner in the future that might support transit [...] and my hope in supporting councillor Santos' motion is that once we give the public and government the information on what it would look like to provide free transit to winnipegers, that's when we would find the government partners for the campaign pledges, for the interest. At the end of the day places where free transit is a reality is where there are state support for those programs. It's a bit of a chicken or egg issue because other levels of government will say, well, we don't know how much it costs to provide free transit and therefore they may be hesitant to make commitments to that effect. [...] If we don't support this motion today, we are killing that possibility, that aspiration for free transit in Winnipeg."
Hopefully the city is able to allocate these funds effectively to make a super efficient transit program to shift our reliance away from vehicles, make transportation more affordable, and contribute to a greener economy.
Hi everyone, so yesterday I purchased $120 worth of Bitcoin and received $100.61. So $20 went straight to fees. From what I was reading the fees for an atm should be anywhere between 8-10%. I understand there’s a fee for more anonymity and ease of access but does anyone else think this is extremely high? Are fees above 10% typical? Does the amount of Bitcoin I purchase determine the fee? It was my first time purchasing BTC and I couldn’t purchase in person via local bitcoin so I went this route. Thanks for your help!
Hey guys. I often see questions asking how Nano can have no fees and yet still incentivize people or businesses to run nodes (representatives, those that confirm transactions). I've been thinking about it a bit, and I actually think that in the long run, having no fees is one of the best ways to combat centralization. So in this post, I’ll explain how a zero-fee proposition provides plenty of incentives in theory and practice, and why having zero fees makes Nano more secure than other cryptocurrencies. It's a bit of a long read, but I'd love to hear opinions on it. I'm comparing mostly with Bitcoin's PoW here, but the argument holds for most fee- or inflation based cryptocurrencies.
Simplified: The classical, old way of confirming transactions as done in Proof of Work coins such as Bitcoin has miners competing over blocks which contain many transactions. The first miner to solve a mathematical puzzle, thereby validating the block, gets the fees that were paid for all the transactions in the block and gets an X amount of Bitcoin, increasing the total money supply.
The idea is that the competition for these rewards incentivises miners to invest in more hash power, increasing their chances of solving a block. While this might seem like a reasonable method to ensure many miners try to “solve” blocks and therefore there is a lot of competition, the problems become clear when we think this through.
In Bitcoin mining, there are many economies of scale. Buying more mining rigs at once gets you discounts, the marginal cost of electricity decreases with scale, maintenance of mining rigs becomes more efficient, and larger players have access to cheaper capital. While great for individual companies, economies of scale are why we have antitrust legislation in place. Decentralized networks have no place for governmental interference, and these economies of scale therefore lead to concentration/centralization over time, as the big parties get ever bigger. This is the opposite of what we want in a cryptocurrency, as security comes from the decentralized nature.
Rat... keep reading on reddit ➡