In DC it's impossible to avoid the question. I'm certainly guilty of it, but I also don't mind when people answer brusquely or glibly. If asked in a social situation, I generally reply, "I bust trusts."
Are there really landlords who will refuse to give back a security deposit if their tenants don't do a deep professional-level clean!? I've always heard "broom clean," plus charges for anything above ordinary wear and tear (that's what's in the lease for our tenant). In fact, it seems vaguely unfair to require otherwise- one of the expenses of being a landlord is repairs and maintenance, and you can't exactly threaten you tenants with losing their security deposits if they aren't also willing to be your free handymen, landscapers, painters, floor-refinishers, and cleaners...
Unfortunately, this isn't true for pick-ups. Cabbies using those apps to find fares can and do reject them based on where they're calling from. I live in city where Uber (yup, naming and shaming) operates, in a 95% black neighborhood, although I myself am not black. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get an Uber cab or sedan to pick me up at my house. If I drop the pin right across the street from my house, fifty feet away, at a university that is not majority-black, a cab or sedan suddenly becomes available, no problem.
This is the sunk cost fallacy in action. You have already put effort into doing something (waiting in line for the snack, choosing and going to the restaurant) so you don't want to "waste" the effort, and end up buying something you don't really want/staying at the noisy restaurant. You just have to remind yourself that sunk costs are sunk, and then you're less likely to settle. (Defnitely works best if you are alone and not with a bunch of people, who tend to annoyed as you walk around trying to optimize while they get hungrier and hungrier! We call this an externality.)
@alpacasloth I am not a family lawyer, but I do know that in some jurisdictions, it's important for BOTH parties to be represented by SEPARATE counsel. It's actually a factor the judge looks at when deciding whether the agreement was entered into voluntarily. Not voluntary = no pre-nup. (So don't just take a sample off the Internet and sign it in front of a notary. It might not hold up when you need it.)
@@fo Great advice! I'm actually a lawyer and I made sure we were tenants by the entirety when we bought a house. Short story: it's the only way you can make sure that your spouse's individual creditor can't get at your house, it means you automatically get the property if your spouse dies, your spouse can't sell your house without your consent, etc.
Having the family house in only one name forces an uncomfortable discussion: who gets to own it? "It is easier [to sell] if it is in one person’s name." Sure - easier for that person! I'd be VERY wary if my husband told me he wanted to be the sole owner of the house I helped him buy. When it comes down to it, this is a contradiction at the center of marriage. Where do you draw the line between protection and trust? Becoming a family and staying two people? Fully protecting yourself means looking out for number one first and foremost, no exceptions. And extreme versions of that seem sort of incompatible with what [many people think] a marriage is supposed to be... Definitely thought-provoking.
About $125/week for 2 adults and 1 cat, including household stuff. That certainly feels like a lot, but we hardly ever eat out and bring our own lunches to work. So it's actually 3 meals a day times two people times 7 days, or approximately $3.00/meal. EDIT: Oh, and this is in central Washington DC, which is very expensive, new Costco notwithstanding.
My husband and I pay 20% gross/33.7% takehome on PITI (principal, interest, taxes, insurance). We own an old rowhouse in NE Washington DC. That number surprised me, because it sounds like a lot, but it doesn't feel like a squeeze. We have modest expenses otherwise, bike or Metro to work, and our only other debt is my law school loans, which have a low monthly payment under IBR. Even though it means we have less discretionary income, I think it's the right choice. You can't buy more time, and around here, buying in the city or close suburbs is investing in NOT having to own a car and sit in traffic for 1.5 hours a day. (We do own one car, but it's not be reliable enough to commute in.)