.
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
Below are the 3 most recent journal entries recorded in the "." journal:
|
09:47 pm
[Link] |
Since 2001
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) vvalkyri posted this http://vvalkyri.livejournal.com/1061585.html and so I took a look back at my benefit costs for the last 10 years. Here, then, are the actual figures of my health insurance. One thing to note is that I took half of the cost that I was paying for two people until 2004, but that is pretty much what I would have paid had I been single. It should also be noted that my insurance provider has changed several times, but the overall level of coverage has been similar, though co-payments have jumped markedly.
The second graph is what a single person earning $60k would have paid in tax (taken straight from tax tables.) Now, my pay hasn't been $60k for the last 10 years, it has increased, but lets say I hadn't gotten an actual pay increase for the purposes of clarity of tax changes.
 | | From |
The major way I don't match this blog entry is that my wage has increased substantially, but this is likely to do with my ability and the industry I work.
|
01:51 pm
[Link] |
Demented Demint
I just heard a discussion involving Jim Demint, Republican Senator of S. Carolina, on ABC's This Week (thanks to C-SPAN radio.) I actually started listening to this with a relatively open mind, but found it very hard to like the Republican. In fact I came away thinking "What a douche bag."
First off, Demint defended the deficit that President Obama inherited (as compared to the huge surplus that President Bush inherited) by saying the Democrat (sic) party was in power in congress and did the spending; everyone knows that presidents don't control the finances. Then he went on to point out that President Obama has since spent more than the previous administration did in it's entire 8 years.
But wait, Senator Demint. As everyone knows, because you just told us - Presidents don't have control of the finances. Ignoring this slight of hand (Stephanopolous did, after all) I do believe the stimulus package was started during the prior administration's final year and the current administration passed it in an attempt to save the economy.
There was much more that made me dislike this man, one last memorable example being when Demint started to say something about the Democrat (sic again) process. Clearly the Repugnant ones have been saying "Democrat Party" for so long in their childish attempt to rubbish the name that it's falling though to finally describe their desire to rubbish the democratic process.
|
|
11:13 pm
[Link] |
Dear Bank Of America
First of all, thank you for refunding the $35 overdraft fee, though it did take me three representatives before I found someone who was willing and able to do that.
This is what happened, first according to what I saw - I got paid on the 31st just after 2am (yes, I was awake and watching my account to make sure it happened) then some time after that my real estate tax cheque hit my account. Having been paid, my balance before the cheque hit was more than enough to cover it, but for some reason the cheque was dated as hitting **the day before** while the payroll credit was dated 31st. That re-ordering of events then showed a negative balance on the 30th, so at the end of the 31st a $35 overdraft fee was charged.
By the way, even if the cheque really had arrived first, that $35 fee amounted to an overnight rate of more than 7% and an annualized rate of well over 2000%, so I really would have argued for weeks with you over it and eventually moved to a different bank if it wasn't at least partially refunded.
Now events according to the last person I spoke to, shortly after he told me he was going to refund the $35 - Yes, I did get paid on the 31st; the money was sent on the 30th, but it was (he said) marked by the sender to be credited on the 31st. He agreed with me that the funds were available at once on on the 31st, even if it showed as pending. Yes, I did see the cheque arrive after my payroll (at 6am, apparently) but it was deposited before some cut-off time on the 30th, scanned and transmitted to BoA electronically the same day and debited as having occurred on the 30th in a batch process overnight.
I pointed out the idiocy of showing my balance as being enough to pay a cheque, only to then make it seem like the cheque was pre-dated to cause a negative balance. I stated that had they not done this, I probably wouldn't have called.
Anyway, given that I'm never going to be willing to pay a 7% fee for a one night loan (well, not and stay with that bank afterward) let me tell you what I would have grudgingly payed. For the privilege of a paper cheque leaving my hands on the 29th by US mail, getting scanned and deliver to BoA unbelievably quickly and appearing to be back-dated to before my already credited payroll? Nothing. Not one cent. But had you instead shown the charges arrive in the order you intended them to arrive, I would have paid ::up to:: $5. I know your fee is currently $35 and I know it's a sliding scale, but still. Then I would have accepted an annualized interest rate of up to 7% above the current base rate, so lets say 10%, so that had I continued to be in debt you could have continued to make money on it. That would have meant you getting around $5.12 from me and additional 12 cents a day had the situation not been resolved.
Anyway, BoA, your supervisory customer service person (the name of whom I alas didn't catch) saved the day, so you will continue to have my pay each month, for however long it lasts and I will continue to use your credit card for a good deal of my day to day spending.
|
|
