He Won't Pay It

The latest celebretard to come out and say that they'd be willing to pay more taxes is none other than Jay-Z. He's got 99 problems, but a tax ain't one. According to the Huffington Post, Mr. Z was on CNN when he uttered this statement: "Me, personally, I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes if it went to the things that really mattered," he said to CNN. "If it went to education, to people in poverty, I wouldn't mind." Oh, good Lord.

If it went to things that really mattered?! Now, I realize that he has just stated what he thinks "matter". Those things being like people in poverty and education. I love it when people like him think that the way to solve a problem is to just throw more money at it. How about if, before the subject of raising taxes comes up, we find places where we can cut? How about if we find waste and stop it? Everyone just wants to spend while there are ineffective programs and departments all over the place that we could cut which would free up or save some money. Why don't any of these people who think that their offer to pay more taxes is so gracious, how come they don't ever mention the incredible waste that is going on?

Well, I think that this next statement of Mr. Z's might answer that question (or at least give you some insight into the answer). He also said: "I think most people with a conscience, with some integrity and moral fiber wouldn't have any problem paying more taxes." Oh, spare me. People with a conscience and moral fiber?! THOSE are the people who wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes?! What about people with half a brain in their head who realize that the amount of waste and fraud and abuse is abundant and that just blindly throwing more money at the same people who are responsible for all of the waste isn't going to do anything?!

And I'm just going to mention again that if someone wants to pay more taxes, they are free to do so. There is a little box on your tax form that you can check if you would like to contribute more than you legally owe. So there you have it, Jay-Z. I will wait to hear back from you after April 15, 2012 when you have paid not only the taxes that you legally owe, but (because you're clearly a man with some integrity and moral fiber) that you also contributed more than you were required. And of course I have no reason to doubt that he'll do that, right? He's obviously very serious about it, so of course he'll check that little box and send in a boatload of more money. And the best part is that he won't even have a problem with it! Yeah. Right. If he ends up voluntarily paying more than he legally owes, I will eat my computer piece by piece. And I'm clearly not worried that something like that would happen because he isn't going to do that. I have yet to see any of these celebretards who say that they're willing to pay more taxes actually do it. Pipe down, Jay-Z.

Sphere: Related Content

The New And Improved Barter System

OK, fine. I take it back.

I take back what I said about people not putting time and effort into communicating online. Yeah, I totally take that back because I've learned there is at least one individual out there who puts time AND effort (not to mention a heckuva lot of creativity) into his communications. Especially those communications with those from the collections department of a business to which his payment is overdue.

I speak of a one David Thorne. I don't know if he goes by Dave. He has a website called 27bslash6. He claims it's basically for his own amusement and to amuse his friends and also, on occasion, to annoy others. (I like the guy already) If you're like me, you have no idea what the heck that means. Whether or not the explanation will help you (it didn't help me very much) is yet to be seen. According to David, "The term "27Bstroke6" was used in the Terry Gilliam film Brazil, a dystopian black comedy from the '80s that has always been a favourite." That's nice. I like obscure.

David had let some account with some business (I'm assuming it's a legitimate business. I don't know if hookers or drug dealers run lines of credit with their clientele, but I'm going to assume they don't and, hence, assume the legitimacy of the business.) get past due. And as people who are owed money are want to do, they emailed David and asked for their money. They never say it like that for some reason. It's always all fluffy.

Dear Sir or Madam, (Who? Me?)

We noticed that your account was past due. (Huh. Hadn't noticed that.)

This letter is to inform you that your past due balance that you now owe is $146,286.97. (Uh-huh.)

Please remit this payment immediately. (Yeah, I'll get riiiiiight on that!)

Thank you and have a nice day. (FU.)

Why don't they just come out and say "Yo! Money please!" I don't know either, but they don't. But that didn't bother David. See, David is the kind of guy who will make a concerted effort to hold up his end of a deal. In this case, his end was the end that owed the other end money and even though he didn't have the money on his end, he still wanted to give the other end something. Even if it wasn't money. So David decided that he would make good on his promise to pay what he owed by sending them a drawing of a spider. Wait. What?

Correct. David drew a spider. (it only had 7 legs, but technically, it was a spider. It's not so much what the drawing looks like in the end, but rather the intent of the one who is doing all of the drawing. That's why paintings that are titled "Dog in Daytime" look like "Frog in Blender" and still manage to sell for a bazillion dollars. Intent. It's everything. To some.) Then David sent the spider drawing in an email when he replied to the initial email requesting that he cough up the dough that he owed them.

As you might surmise, this did not exactly bode well with the creditor. Even if we were on the barter system, a drawing of a spider with only seven legs is hardly what I would call something of substantiated value. Oh, don't get me wrong! It's fine drawing! Very good! Accurate. I knew it was a spider the moment I laid eyes on it. It just ain't worth much, is all I'm saying.

But what transpired what a series of email exchanges that David posted on his website for all to enjoy. And I did. Hopefully, you will too. We can learn a lot of things from David. But drawing 8-legged spiders is not one of them. Keep that in mind.

***********************
From: Jane Gilles
Date: Wednesday 8 Oct 2008 12.19pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Overdue account

Dear David,

Our records indicate that your account is overdue by the amount of $233.95. If you have already made this payment please contact us within the next 7 days to confirm payment has been applied to your account and is no longer outstanding.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Gilles

***********************

From: David Thorne

Date: Wednesday 8 Oct 2008 12.37pm

To: Jane Gilles

Subject: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,

I do not have any money so am sending you this drawing I did of a spider instead. I value the drawing at $233.95 so trust that this settles the matter.

Regards, David.

***********************
From: Jane Gilles

Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 10.07am

To: David Thorne

Subject: Overdue account

Dear David,

Thank you for contacting us. Unfortunately we are unable to accept drawings as payment and your account remains in arrears of $233.95. Please contact us within the next 7 days to confirm payment has been applied to your account and is no longer outstanding.

Yours sincerely, Jane Gilles

***********************

From: David Thorne

Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 10.32am

To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,

Can I have my drawing of a spider back then please.

Regards, David.

***********************
From: Jane Gilles

Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 11.42am

To: David Thorne

Subject: Re: Re: Overdue account

Dear David,

You emailed the drawing to me. Do you want me to email it back to you?

Yours sincerely,

Jane Gilles

***********************

From: David Thorne

Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 11.56am
To: Jane Gilles

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Overdue account

Dear Jane,

Yes please.

Regards, David.

***********************

From: Jane Gilles
Date: Thursday 9 Oct 2008 12.14pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Overdue account

Attached (spider.gif)

***********************
From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 09.22am
To: Jane Gilles
Subject: Whose spider is that?

Dear Jane,

Are you sure this drawing of a spider is the one I sent you? This spider only has seven legs and I do not feel I would have made such an elementary mistake when I drew it.

Regards, David.

***********************
From: Jane Gilles

Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.03am

To: David Thorne

Subject: Re: Whose spider is that?

Dear David,

Yes it is the same drawing. I copied and pasted it from the email you sent me on the 8th. David your account is still overdue by the amount of $233.95. Please make this payment as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Gilles

***********************

From: David Thorne

Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.05am

To: Jane Gilles

Subject: Automated Out of Office Response

Thank you for contacting me. I am currently away on leave, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Regards, David.

***********************

From: David Thorne

Date: Friday 10 Oct 2008 11.08am

To: Jane Gilles

Subject: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Hello, I am back and have read through your emails and accept that despite missing a leg, that drawing of a spider may indeed be the one I sent you. I realise with hindsight that it is possible you rejected the drawing of a spider due to this obvious limb ommission but did not point it out in an effort to avoid hurting my feelings. As such, I am sending you a revised drawing with the correct number of legs as full payment for any amount outstanding. I trust this will bring the matter to a conclusion.

Regards, David.

***********************
From: Jane Gilles

Date: Monday 13 Oct 2008 2.51pm

To: David Thorne

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Dear David,

As I have stated, we do not accept drawings in lei of money for accounts outstanding. We accept cheque, bank cheque, money order or cash. Please make a payment this week to avoid incurring any additional fees.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Gilles

***********************
From: David Thorne

Date: Monday 13 Oct 2008 3.17pm

To: Jane Gilles

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

I understand and will definately make a payment this week if I remember. As you have not accepted my second drawing as payment, please return the drawing to me as soon as possible. It was silly of me to assume I could provide you with something of completely no value whatsoever, waste your time and then attach such a large amount to it.

Regards, David.

***********************
From: Jane Gilles

Date: Tuesday 14 Oct 2008 11.18am

To: David Thorne

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Whose spider is that?

Attached

Sphere: Related Content

Upside-Down = Bass-Ackwards

As I'm sure that any day now people from the US government will be reading this blog so that they can better understand all they don't seem to know or acknowledge about the current housing/mortgage/foreclosure/dumbass situation that is making me crazy. Any day. I can feel it! I just hope they hurry. My head is going to explode if I have to continue to see misrepresentations of the US economic debacle.

From the phoning-it-in folks over there at Reuters, comes the article " 'Under water' mortgages are growing threat to US". Aside from the poor wording, (Are they? Are the mortgages out there actually "growing threat"? Like in their garden? Cultivating the "threat" like marijuana up in the foothills? Come on, Reuters. Is that the best you can do?) what are they saying? That we've become like the lost city of Atlantis? Not enough scuba gear to go around for all homeowners? Don't we have enough to deal with as it is without having to live under water as well?

Actually, I kid. (It keeps me from leaping to my doom.) If your mortgage is "under water", you're not really underneath any water. Although you could be just as screwed as if you were. Reuters claims that "under water" on your mortgage is defined as "owing more on a mortgage than the house is worth." Now, maybe things have changed, I haven't seen the rule book in a long, long time (which has definitely factored into this mess), but that's called "upside down", not "under water". But as you can imagine, being "upside down" isn't all that great either. If you're "upside down" AND "under water", you're so screwed. What they call it isn't really my point, though.

They say that, as the financial situation in the US spirals to places not yet known, one in six "homeowners" are finding themselves upside down in their mortgage. I've quoted "homeowners" because if they actually "owned" the "home", they might not have this problem. I'd prefer the term "mortgage payers", but they go with "homeowners". (But it's just because they're clueless, that's all.) The article claims that because of all of the upside down-ness, it is "threatening the U.S. economy with a new wave of foreclosures and bankruptcies." To which I said, "It is?" (Actually, that's not all I said. The first thing I said was, "That's bull S.")

The entire article builds on that incorrect statement/assumption and it is misleading at best. See, what your home is currently worth has little to NO impact on your ability to make a payment on your mortgage. Well, it should have little to NO impact on your ability to make a payment on your mortgage. You're not paying for what your house is worth day-to-day. You're paying back the money you borrowed, regardless as to what you borrowed it for.

When is it, exactly, that a house did not become something to live in? People seem to think that their house is this big huge investment from which they will see great returns and great rewards and life of servants in togas feeding you grapes as you recline on a chaisse lounge by a pool with fountains. The problem with thinking that way is that it makes the assumption that one will always see a gain on top of their investment. The only way that is going to happen all the time is if housing prices continually increase. Forever. That's unrealistic, which is why it doesn't happen. Things do plateau once in a while. (Welcome to Once In A While. Next stop: You're Going To Be Here A While.)

Because people have the ill conceived idea in their head that if they become a "homeowner" that they will suddenly have a big, huge ATM with an unlimited supply of cash that they can just dip into (with a ladle or without) whenever they feel like it. Sure. That's realistic. It will have a garage where they can park both of their unicorns as well! And spare bedrooms for when Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy come for Thanksgiving Dinner.

But aside from it being ridiculous to expect that your house will always increase in value, it's still unrelated to your ability to pay the mortgage. If you borrowed $100,000 and agreed to pay back $1,000 a month, that's the agreement. How does that change if your house is suddenly worth $90,000 or $80,000? You have still borrowed and spent the original $100,000. Nothing is different in that regard. How does that cause bankruptcy and foreclosure? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

I don't recall hearing people complain about their car payment. I'll guarantee you that anyone with a car payment has a vehicle that is worth less now than when they bought it. (Yes, I am fully aware of 'depreciation'. It's the concept I'm working on here. The concept.) But are people getting their vehicles repossessed right and left because they're all upside-down or topsy-turvy or pell-mell on their loan payments? Of course not. It's the same...what? The same concept, correct.

Just as things go down, things go up. I find it amazing that these same people that are freaking out because the price of their house has gone down expect it to STAY down, but when the price of their house is going up, they expect it to KEEP going up. But if they thought it was going to go up in the first place, why would they think it would never go up again? Just sit tight, people. Oh, wait. That's right. You couldn't afford the house in the first place. You were only hoping to hang out long enough to see the price go up a bit so that you could make a quick buck. But that didn't turn out so well for you. Now you're in the position that is very similar to that of the illustration below as far as what you feel your house is doing to you. Good luck with that.

Just remember, upside-down, sideways, inside-out, bass-ackwards, none of those things have anything to do with someone not being able to pay their mortgage. If you hear or read stories that imply such a thing (and how can you avoid them? I know I've been trying to not listen to moronic sob stories for months now. No such luck.) be skeptical and ask lots of questions. If for no other reason than just to watch them squirm when they figure out you're onto them. (But not in the same way as the illustration above. Thank God.)

Sphere: Related Content