I didn't get a cell phone until college (I know, I'm old), so the family-plan thing never really came up with my actual family. I did try the family thing with one boyfriend, and never again. Someone up thread mentions this, but the person who pays the bill for the plan owns the cell phone number, and must call and speak to the company before you can get your number back (even though theoretically the company knows it was your number before). In the case of bad breakups, that's yet another headache/invitation to stalking. Has anyone tried the no-contract plans? My phone is on its last legs, my contract has already expired, and I'm thinking about trying a tmobile 30-40/mo no-contract plan.
I've got Geico renter's insurance, and they were great when my place got broken into. They sent me money for actual value of items right away, and then reimbursed me the replacement value when I replaced the items and sent them receipts. No hassling over claims, no long delays. I'd highly recommend them.
Other categories to include: gifts (it's someone's birthday every month, it seems like), misc. household (toilet paper, soap, detergent). Or go back through the last 6 months and categorize what you've spent in the past, that's usually a pretty good guide. For taxes, I am not a tax professional, but you're looking at about 14% of 60k for federal, and then whatever you have to pay for state (~9% in Oregon). So aim for 23%, not 25%, but still a bit more than 1k/mo, unless you have lots of deductions. Also, don't budget for 5k a month. Budget for 4k a month. Then if you do wind up increasing your income, you have extra fun money, and if you don't, you're fine. Doing it the other way around means that if something goes wrong with the 'increase my income by 20%' plan, some fairly non-optional expenses start feeling the squeeze.
I am also looking for a new car, and discovered two things possibly of interest to you: 1) The number of points in an inspection is largely meaningless. 2) If you hate haggling, Enterprise sells used cars at affordable and non-negotiable prices. They'll also take it back within a week, no questions asked, for a full refund minus a $200 deposit. Note: I have not actually tried this, but have heard good things about Enterprise specifically.
@MemphisBlues Actually, the article is using a timely news piece as an illustrative example of a phenomenon, and then goes on to cite actual research that supports the more general conclusion. There was pretty much no vitriol, and the last paragraph pretty explicitly spells out (for those for whom the concept of 'people who are X are more likely to do Y, but that does not mean that all people who are X do Y' is too subtle) that it is entirely possible to be an ethical rich person.
Maybe try something where you decide you have to log in every day, you have to look at the total balance, but you don't have to *do* anything about it, and you don't have to look at individual line item? That seems like it might get rid of some of the negative association.
+1 to take the money and bounce - if you have good reason to believe the company wouldn't do right by you (and it sounds like you do), you certainly aren't obligated to put your own finances at risk for their convenience, and I don't think anyone who works there (with the exception of the awful boss) would blame you.
I think @vanderlyn's claim is that businesses, regardless of the wealth of their owners, are not helpless in the face of real estate market changes. If this was a discussion of 'retenanting' apartments, that's a different situation for a lot of reasons. That said, signing a multi-year lease as suggested requires that the building owner be willing to sign that as well; if it's uncommon to do so in your area, that might not be an option. Owning the building outright requires access to capital, which owners of small businesses in poor parts of town often don't have. It's also the case that pre-gentrification, these businesses didn't have a 'great location' that they needed to protect, and expecting them to cut in to slim profit margins to get a longer lease just in case their area gets hit by gentrification in the next 5 years seems a bit extreme.
I also agree that these workers should be paid, but given that the verdict was unanimous, it sounds like an issue that Congress would have to address (ha). I can also understand this being a fuzzy area - your employer probably also requires that you get dressed before coming in, and spend time getting to the office, but is definitely not going to compensate you for those activities. It sounds like lengthy security screenings are similar, for pay purposes, to having a really out-of-the-way office.
It sounds like he got fired in the middle of his internship? As opposed to just not getting a full-time offer? If that's the case, it had nothing to do with a 'hunger for marketing', that was just the boss being nice. Generally speaking, you have to be a major, active problem to not make it to the end of an internship. Maybe one of the folks he was following to the bathroom reported him for harassment?