charley

Well, I'm not an expert on education, but I do now that at companies I've worked for in the past and present, they looked disfavorably on someone who was over educated with little or no job experience in their field. i.e. - a person with a masters would be respected if they had several years on the job experience in that field before getting their masters. If they had the masters first with little or no on the job experience in that field, they were considered as unattractive paper tigers to the employers I worked for. Medium size companies tend to be very practical, more than larger companies. They don't want someone who they consider a paper tiger. Perhaps a large company wouldn't care. I'm on good terms and friends with (and an employee or former employee of) many heads of local medium size companies in my area and they've told me these things with regard to their hiring practices. i.e. - how can you be qualified to manage people or projects if you've never worked on the job at those type projects yourself? Education is like a flight simulator. On the job experience is actual hours of flight experience (so to speak). Now please don't anyone flame me. I'm just passing along what I've heard at work many times over the years.

Well, I'm not physically interested in women at all, whether awake or asleep, and haven't been for 2 months. That ceases to be a priority when you're hanging on by fingernails. I still enjoy most womens' personalities and thoughts, but zero physical interest.

I have been seeing my doctor regularly since Nov. She's an internal medicine expert. She is a very good doctor, but is at a loss as to why I can't get over it. She was going to hospitalize me at New Years if I hadn't improved by then, but I had improved, only to relapse again later. However, I'm not bad enough at this time to go to hospital (for IV anti-biotics among other things). Yet I can't shake it either. She wants to send me to a lung specialist. I personally know two people locally who have died from this. One was elderly, the other was a smoker. It seems to hit the elderly and people with weakened lungs the hardest. I'm an asthmatic, so I guess I fall into the weakened lungs category. I don't know what to do. I don't feel like I'm bad enough to die, but neither do I feel like I'm ever going to recover. My body is beaten down to low to recover. I was on antibiotics for 1.5 weeks one time and 3 weeks another. My doctor then stopped them because she felt it was more dangerous to keep me on them. Honestly, I don't know what to do. I got in this fix originally due to a combination of things: 1) I worked 6.5 days a week in Oct and got very tired. 2) I was on a powerful immune suppressent drug (Enbrel) for arthritis (related to past injuries) so it hit me extra hard. In fact, Enbrel has warnings about dying from flu or bronchitis on the box. 3) I'd just had my flu shot just prior to being exposed, but not far enough ahead to help me. They say that getting a flu shot around same time as exposure makes for a worse case. 4) I am an asthmatic and I have asthma complications from this lung infection. 5) I've just been sick so long now that I don't think my body can fight it off, even though I'm taking vitamins and eating well and getting bed rest. I have been off the immune suppressent drug for arthritis for 6 or 7 weeks now and so I'm now also brutually stove up. So much that I can barely walk now and can't sleep to good. I feel like I was just in a car wreck a day ago (instead of years ago). Lack of sex drive is not even a priority to me. I coudn't care about that. I'm concerned with survival. I don't think I'm going to die from this, but I'm not to sure. Also, I've missed enough work now to be financially concerned and also concerned about losing my position at one company. At the other comany I have no worries because I founded that company and they need me as key man. But over all, I'm feeling rather physically and mentally low and trying not to get to depressed about it. I'm trying to keep my chin up.

That's not even much of an age gap. It should not be a problem, unless her parents are against it. I think that's the question. However, if you're a nice and responsible guy, you really care about her, and you treat her good, then I think they'll probably be perceptive enough to appreciate you. What matters most is what you think, what she thinks, and to some extent what her parents think. The rest of us are just scenery.

You want to talk about fair? Did being a woman have anything to do with getting free tuition? I can remember not qualifying for many tuition assistance things I applied for because of either being white, or a male, or especially the combination. And yes, in some cases they told me that to my face when they turned me down for tuition assistance. So think about that while considering how fair trades might be to women. Perhaps there's less women in trades because the trades are more physically demanding and women have more opportunities for tuition assistance so college looks more attractive to them (and wisely so). For a woman, I'd definitely recommend the college path over the trade path because many trades are very physically demanding. Many men can't do them. I think most women would not be physically able to do them. I do know one woman heating and cooling skilled tradesperson who installs ducts and many other things. She has some trade degree and makes good money. But she is super athletic and physically tougher than the average man. Most women simply would not be strong or tall enough to do the things she does. I couldn't do the things she does. For most women, college does indeed make more sense than a trade. The extra tuition assistance available to women being another good reason. For a man, if he's not very athletic, or not healthy, then I'd also recommend the college path. However, if he's in good physical condition and reasonably athletic (and reasonably intelligent), then a trade can be a very lucrative way to earn money, and as the earlier poster said, he can start earning it much sooner than the degree route. Time value of money is a real advantage of a trade. However, not blowing your back out, or getting some other injury is a real advantage of college and a white collar job. Which is more appropriate for the OP? I don't know. I don't know his interests, aptitude, intelligence, or how athletic or healthy he is. What is his family healthy history? If prone to back or knee problems, I'd defineatly go to college over a trade. If prone to asthma, I'd go to college (most trades are dirty). If prone to good health and athleticism, then I'd go the trade route. So I cannot begin to say whether a trade or college is best for him. However, he knows himself and his family health history and there are many things in this thread for him to consider. Based on the limited information we have about him, no one in this thread can say for sure what is best for him. We can only present options.

I agree. Nothing against college, but your time value of money example is correct and plumbers and other skilled trades will always be needed. Many tradesman are as well paid or more so than the typical college graduate. However, a person cannot always count on their health. I personally know a plumber who blew out his back and had to start college at middle age to start over in a less physical type work. After some years unemployment while going to school, he's now a CAD draftsman and makes similar money per hour as he did before, but with zero exertion. It doesn't matter how you make your money as long as you do make it reliably and regularly and know (or learn) how to invest. The advantage of being a trademan is just as you said. You start earning sooner. The advantage of getting a degree in an in demand field is that you aren't likely to blow out your back or knee doing those things. Even if your body has limitations, it won't likely affect your ability to do most jobs related to a degree. That's a type of job security that people seldom consider. Those are my opinions and observations. As I said earlier, about half the multi-millionares I know have college degrees, the other half do not. The half without a college degree do have a trade, and in many cases a 1 to 2 year tradeschool degree, or a real estate tradeschool degree and brokers license, which is sort of a white collar trade.

Yep. That was exactly what I was trying to say in my prior post. Perhaps I should have said it more explicity. We are all dating ourselves to some extent whether we like it or not. There's no way to break up with yourself, and no divorce. The question isn't if you'd date yourself, but how do you like dating yourself, because we all are. Luckily, people with the ability of introspection can either change to improve, or learn to like themselves as they are. Likely some combination of those two would be best. Like it or not, you are dating yourself. We all are.

OK dude, I'm going to try and help you out here and shed some light on this and probably embarrass myself in the process, but it wouldn't be the first time I've embarrassed myself and won't be the last. First of all, let me use myself as an example. Even at my current age, morning wood would normally be almost everyday for me. However, I got that flu-cold thing way back in Nov at a speed dating thing and it turned into bronchitis for 3 weeks, then got over it for one week, then came back as pneumonia and have had that for 5 weeks now. I started to get better and nearly over it, only to have it come back on me each time after I got a bit to active and exerted myself. Then next day it'd be back. I have not had morning wood in 2 months now because I'm very ill and possibly also because I'm taking Robitussen. Read the label, it talks about possibly affecting mens' prostate and making it difficult to pee. Anything that affects your prostate might also affect your ability to have sex. Right? Seems like a reasonable assumption to me. Plus being sick also reduces or eliminates sex drive. I'm so sick and tired plus Robitussen that I'm not even interested in women at all anymore and haven't been for weeks. If the entire female cast of Baywatch walked into my bedroom nude, my only comment would be to ask them to adjust my pillow and get me a glass of water. My next reaction would be to fall asleep. You wrote of having erections and screwing like a bunny rabbit for 30 minutes, but couldn't orgasm. You wrote of doing this twice a day, day after day. Good grief, for being able to do that while sick and on Robitussen, I'd like to nominate you for stud of the year. By the way, aren't you afraid of getting your GF sick? What about your health? Exerting yourself that way is not helpful to healing. You do want to get over this, don't you? I suggest you lay off the sex and take it easy until a week after you've recovered. I've recovered (seemingly) about 6 times now, only to have it return within 1 to 3 days. Get some rest man. Your normal sex drive will return after you're well and rested, though it might take a week or two of being well and getting rest. For now, forget about sex and concentrate on gettting well and not making your GF sick.

Come to think of it, sometimes I do date myself. If my friends are not available to go out, that doesn't stop me. I'll go out by myself and usually have a good time. Sometimes a better time than if I was with someone else because when by myself, I can have everything my way. I can eat what I want, do what I want, have car window, heat, A/C how I want, watch whatever movie I want, stay at whatever activity as long as I want, or leave as early as I want, or whatever, and so on. Can't do that when out with another person. For example, I like to go to a club with live music and stay for about one hour and have one drink or none. If I go with one of my friends, she wants to stay for 2 to 3 hours. I get miserable, but can't leave because we came in same car (usually mine). It can turn into a torturous evening. I guess I should start suggesting separate cars, but that fouls up the whole designated driver thing. When out with a friend, I can't always do what I want because I have to think about them and I want to think about them. If on a date, well that's even worse, and better. There are some huge advantages to going out alone and being alone. When I do that, I'm not literally dating myself, but in a way I am and I find I'm easy to get along with and I have common interests with myself. So come to think of it, ya I would date myself and I have many times. However, I still don't think that has any bearing on whether a woman would want to date me or not. Some would, some not. Since I'm sick right now, I'm effectively going steady with myself.

Bingo. I'm attracted to someone different than myself. The last thing I'd want is a clone of myself. I'm light complected, I prefer women darker than me. I've gone from shy to slightly outgoing with practice, effort, and time, but I'd still prefer a woman who is more outgoing than myself. And so on. I am kind, compassionate, and loyal and those qualities I would want in a woman. So maybe some similarities are attractive, but also many differences are attractive. It's not as simple as would I date myself. Life is more complicated than that and cannot be oversimplified. I would never cheat on a woman. However, I do like to look at the passing scenery. I wouldn't do that while talking to my GF (if I had one) because I maintain eye contact with someone when I talk to them, but the rest of the time, you bet I'd discreetly look. I'm not blind. However, I would never cheat. So perhaps liking to discreetly look the ladies over is my bad quality. How many GFs would put up with that? However, it's perfectly natural. So how can it be bad? My first and best GF was super fun and she liked to girl watch with me and we'd discuss the attributes of the passing ladies. She was not gay or bi at all. She just liked checking out the competition and she got a huge kick out of my opinions, reactions, likes and dislikes. Currently I have no GF, but many of my local platonic lady friends like to girl watch with me because they find it entertaining and hilarious. Would I date myself? No. However, I don't think that has any bearing on whether a woman would date me. Some would. Some wouldn't. One person's treasure is another person's junk.

I feel for you. The advice about seeing a credit-debt councelor and taking any job you can get, even Mickey D sounds like good advice. Your comment "I'll be lucky if I see 2008" troubles me. You'll outlive this problem and your future will get eventually better, if you keep trying. Don't kill your self. Nothing is worth that. Certainly not debts. Hang in there. I'm sorry I have no additional or more specific advice. I'm not familiar with Scottish law or credit. I do wish you the best. -Charley

OK. Well, if it bothered your friend as much as I perceive it bothered you, then he should have politely told her he's not interested the first time. If a second time was needed, he should have then told her to "go away and don't bother me again" or something like that. You are correct about the fact that women can be violent. Years ago I was once hit with a purse (with a hard object in it) after telling a woman in college that I was not interested. I was kind and polite the first time I told her, but she ignored it, or it never registered. I was less polite the second time I told her a few days later. The third time I told her I was harshly blunt about it and she then hit me with her purse and it hurt badly because she had some hard object in it. I told her that if she ever touched me again I was going to punch her in the nose and I meant it. She never bothered me again. So you are correct that women can be violent. However, my level of injury was less than a woman would typically receive if assaulted by a man. Also, I was in no danger of being raped. So as traumatic as it was for me, it was not in the same class of fear or problem as when a woman is assaulted. I really think that this difference of fear and likely injury figures into why women receive more tolerance. They simply aren't likley as dangerous, but that's not to say that they can't be somewhat dangerous. However, I think most men perceive women as not dangerous, even if annoying. Usually they aren't dangerous.

Yes, but they typically don't. Not trying to be an advocate for women here, but they are typically much less prone to violence. All crimes stats back that up. Common sense also backs that up. When's the last time you heard of a woman raping a man? What's with the hostility?

Gender equality means, or should mean that we have equal opportunities. No one ever said that makes us the same, did they? Normally, it'd be me pestering (politely and discreetly) the gals at work, not the other way around, but most of them like me, at least as a friend. However, sometimes it happens the other way around. One woman kept staring at me through the window in my office door. I'd be at my computer or desk and start getting a creeped out feeling like someone was watching me. After 30 seconds to a minute I'd instinctively turn towards the window in my door, and there was her eyeball and nose literally pressed against the window with her breath steaming up the glass. How creepy was that? This happened several times. I was never attracted to her, but her behavior gave me a total aversion to her. If I did that with any woman at work, I'd be reported for it the first or second time. This gal did this to me for 6 months. Not every day, but several times a week. It was really creeping me out so I started taping newspaper over my office window whenever she was on duty. She eventually took the hint and stopping staring at me and I no longer needed the newspaper on window. However, the newspaper on window had already started rumors with others as to "what in heck is he doing in his office?". Because of those rumors, I had to explain to her supervisor and office administrator what was going on. Her supervisor offered to tell her to knock it off, but I asked the supervisor to say and do nothing since the gal had already taken the hint and stopped staring at me and I'd already stopped taping newspaper over my door window. However, the double standard is clear. A man can get reported for sexual harassment for doing very little even one time at work. A woman can get away with a lot even over months and most men will not report her, even if he is bothered by it. Here are some other sexual double standards. A woman is judged negatively if she admits to having had to many lovers, what ever number that would be. A man is judge negatively for having had to few. A woman can talk about sex or sexual issues. If a man does the same, he's in serious danger of being branded a pervert, pathetic, to aggressive, inappropriate, or whatever. A woman can wear woman's clothes, men's clothes, or whatever she wants and no one is going to think anything of it. Most men would not want to wear women's clothes, but even if they did, it wouldn't be accepted. In most divorces, judges strongly favor giving custody of children to the woman just because she's a woman. It is very difficult for a man to get custody, or even equal custody. The list of double standards is longer than I have room to list here. For every double standard against women, there's one against men too. In the case of the specific double standard you mentioned, which is similar to my having to tape newspaper over my office window, let's look at that double standard specifically. Why is it that women get so much more tolerance than men do? I think it's because women have to fear for their safety, in addition to being uncomfortable and annoyed, when a man won't stop hitting on her. When it's the other way around, and the woman won't stop hitting on the man, he is likely uncomfortable and annoyed, but he does not have to fear for his safety. thereforeeee, it really is less serious (no danger) when it's the guy being harassed. When the woman is being harassed, it might really be dangerous for her. No doubt it's equally annoying for men, but they don't have the fear factor. So in the case of this double standard, it makes sense to me that women receive some extra tolerance. He could have told her in plain language that he's not interested, right? Now there's a couple other women at work who press their faces to the glass on my door and stare at me for a few seconds. Not because they're into me, but because they think it's funny since they heard about the other gal from before. I don't think it's funny. I hate when they do it and I tell them I don't like it, but they don't stop. They're my friends, but in this situation, they really irritate me. This is exactly why I didn't want to report it in the first place. If a woman reports being harassed by a man, that a serious thing. If a man reports being harassed by a woman, then it's the big company joke and now the men, and especially the women, laugh at both me and the gal who used to stare at me. Now you see why I never wanted to report it? This is yet another double standard.

Why don't you ask or request to help with other job duties? My favorite activity at work is writing computer programs, usually for real estate financial analysis, sometimes for annuity analysis, sometimes for medical records keeping, but sometimes those job activities are not needed. When those activities aren't needed, I ask for other projects to do. Then I might find myself writing legal documents related to real estate, or sometimes just being a humble typist of business letters, but I'm still keeping busy and earning my pay. Heck, I've even fixed many vacuums for the janitor. I'm willing to do any job activity if there is not a need at that time for my highest skills. I've even been known to push a vacuum and help with the cleaning, if that's what needs doing and there is (at that time) no higher level activity for me to do. So ask for other projects or things to do. You might end up with a different job at the same company either temporarily (like I do) or possibly permanently, but at least you'll be busy, earning your pay, and still employeed. Your employer will also resprect you for it, or should.

I agree with the above. There's no point in being penny wise and pound foolish. Some reason has to be applied. Time has value and that has to be considered into the equation. What is the value of your time? That question must be considered.

There is no such thing as spending to little. You don't have a problem. I think you're superior. Now make that attribute work for you by learning how to invest the money you save. Leaving it to accumulate in the bank is NOT nearly as productive as learning to invest. If you can do that and land a decent job, then someday you'll be very wealthy and married to a woman who's determined to spend it and drive you insane. ;-) At least I've observed that to be a common scenario. Mind you, you don't need 2 million dollars to get started like this other guy has. A few thousand would be more than enough to get started. Even a few hundred might be enough to started, especially if you can muster that regularly to invest. Go talk to a certified public accountant, or whatever they're called in Australia, to get some professional advice. You've got habits that can make you wealthy some day. Don't try to change that. Just learn to capitalize on it by learning how to invest. As for going on vacation, I'd like to tour the warmer states of the USA. I've had more than enough of cold, rain, ice, snow, and cold high velocity wind. The only foreign country I have any interest in seeing and vacationing in is Australia (because I don't hear them constantly bashing the USA like is common in so many other places). You're already there you lucky guy, and it didn't even cost you any money to get there. I also observe that women in warmer climates are typically better looking than in colder climates. I remember a summer road trip vacation to California, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas and being blown away by how good looking the women were. I couldn't believe my eyes. An average looking woman in a warmer climate would be the best looking woman in town in a colder climate, except in the warmer climate she's just average looking - so she typically has a nice attitude instead of a snobbish attitude. Then there's also the joys of being warm instead of cold, seeing the sun every day instead of hoping to see it once a week, and so on. You're very lucky to be in Australia. Be happy.

I might add that this young guy your parents are so enamered with is clearly showing off and flaunting his wealth. He might be doing OK, but I doubt he's doing as well as he'd like everyone to think. Most of the multi-millionares I know are humble, drive cars that are 10 to 15 years old, and like to keep things low key. You'd never guess they were wealthy by looking at or talking to them. Some of these people are worth 10 to 30 million, but you'd never guess to talk to or look at them or their cars. Some of them tend to show it a bit in their homes, but two of the four wealthiest people I know do not show it even in their homes. One who is worth about 20M lives in a nice, but small 2 bedroom apt (he owns building). Another lives in a 2,000 sq ft middle class type home and you can see him mowing his own lawn and washing his own cars. This guy is worth 30M and he washes his own cars. Once he embarrased me (on purpose) by offering to wash my car for $20 when my car was dirty. All the wealthy people I know who are over 50 are very low key, humble, and don't spend much and don't show off. The only semi show off I know is one of my bosses, Bill, who is 45. That's young for a multi-millionare. He has a yaught and new car (only a Chrysler truck) and likes to show off a little, but really not that much. The only area where he really shows off is his clothes and endless stream of women. Otherwise he's totally humble. I know very few young wealthy people because there just aren't many. The few I've known were total showoffs like this guy you described. Yuck. If your parents knew some of the mature, self made weathly people I know, your parents would not have a clue that they are wealthy because they give few clues due to humble lifestyles and attitudes. Another common trait I see among most of them, is their willingness to help others by teaching them how to become wealthy, if they want to learn.

Well, first of all, I personally know well and have worked for 8 multi-millionares. Only 4 of them have college degrees. Of those 4, two have degrees as school teachers. One taught grade school until she retired. The other taught junior high only until he became wealthy. Then he quit teaching. Can't blame him. Junior high kids can be annoying. Another is an electrical engineer. One has a doctorate in chemistry. All of the multi-millionares I know, except one, started out working a job that was decent paying, but not high paying, School teachers for example. The only one who started with a high paying job was the engineer. The other 4 don't have college degrees at all. One was a blue collar worker with a decent job. Three of them were real estate brokers, which provided a decent living, but more importantly provided many real estate investment opportunities. My dad is one of these 3 people. The 4 most wealthy are worth from 10 to 30 million. Three of these four people do have college degrees. So I see a strong correlation between a college degree and having a shot at being worth over 10 million. However, I see no correlation between a college degree and being worth 1 to 5 million. So maybe a degree matters a little, but not much. What matters is: can you get a decent paying job to get you started? i.e. - can you save $10,000+ every year for a downpayment? If so, you can get started in my local real estate market buying another property each year. It's really not difficult to do it, if you want to, but you can't be poor and do it because you wouldn't have 10K to spare. A middle class person can easily become wealthy if they want to and know how. A poor person has it more difficult, but can still do it by starting with a duplex and living in one side, which enables an owner occupied loan with lower interest, lower payment, and lower downpayment. What did all these people have in common? They invested in income property real estate and over about a 10 to 15 year time they became wealthy. Some became very wealthy. That means income producing real estate, which is any real estate that is rented or leased to generate an income for the owner. The key is that the investor needs only invest the downpayment. After that, loan payments and expenses are covered by the incoming rent or lease payments. This means that it does not take much money to buy your first 7 income properties because you can qualify for government subsidized mortgages with lower downpayments. After 7 subsidized loans, no more subsidized loans and it then takes more money to make money due to higher downpayment of commercial loans, but by then you have more money. Three of the four most wealthy then became real estate developers, which meant they could then build their own investment properties, and become more wealthy faster. Most people do not have the skills to become a real estate developer. However, it's not necessary to build your own as shown by the fact that 5 of the 8 people I mentioned just bought existing properties and never built any. Even the developers first started out by buying existing properties. Heck, even Donald Trump started that way, but he had the advantage of his father giving him $200K to get started, plus his dad paid for a top rate business education for the Don. Not to take anything away from his success, but he did have some early advantages that the rest of us don't have. However, all 8 of the multi-millionares I mentioned started from scratch and are truly self made. Now back to the point of the original post of this thread. You don't need a college degree to become a millionare or multimillionare. What you do need is a decent job, steady income, good credit, good work ethic, decent health to support work ethic, and a good investment plan and knowledge. Real estate income property being one good way to do it. There are also other ways, like you describe this fellow doing. A college degree has nothing to do with it, except maybe two things. If the degree is needed to get your first decent job, then the degree is needed. If you can get a decent job without the degree, then it's not needed. The other area where a degree will help is if you get educated in investment as part of your degree. That would be helpful and is helpful. Donald Trump being an example. Perhaps the guy in your first post being another example. However, a degree is not a requirement to becoming wealthy. I also work with many, many other millionares and multimillionares when providing software support on the real estate investment software I wrote. However, I have no idea which of those people has a degree because I never ask because it's irrelevant. They never ask if I have a degree because it's irrelevant to them. I am educated in business administration and real estate investment. I do not have my degree because my neck was broken in a car accident a couple days after I'd finished my last class, but before I applied for graduation. That sucked. Years later (recently) I ran into the dean of students at local drug store. I knew her well back in my college days. She wants me to type a letter of explanation and provide a letter from my doctors and then they'll give me my degree without making me retake any classes (due to passage of time, some classes have dropped off). I don't need the degree, but I did earn it. So I should go back and get it.

While on hold today for over an hour with HP suppote, they made me the goat, but I had time to think, in between making a stink, of a rhyme about beating debt despair, for those who care. God bless the IRS, they're a fine mess. Sometimes they made me swear, while other times they were fair, and that's all I care. All I know, is if you are slow, expect trouble and mo, but in the end, it will depend, partly on knowledge, partly on luck, partly on pluck, and partly on what's just and fair, because to some extent, the IRS does care, and tries to be fair. Consult your CPA. No, that last part didn’t rhyme, but if this poem applies to you, then it’s time.

I have had businesses who were my programming or tech supp customers tell me exactly what you siad in your paragraph above and we negotiated notes (payment terms) for the balance, which might be a payment in full over time, or a discounted settlement paid in full at the time. That's unusual, but it happens, especially if you're a subcontractor, which I have been in the past. This has happened to me. I didn't like it either, but that's life and if they're really in trouble and not just jerking me around, then I was understanding. With one local business who I'd made a very complex custom computer program for, I accepted a settlement of $5,000 on a $15,000 overdue debt. So they paid me $5,000 in one lump and no more payments. We still do business on a net 30 basis (pay within 30 days), I support that program, and I hold no grudges, but I won't extend that company credit again. They have to pay within 30 days from now on, or no more support. So I've been on the creditor's end of a negotiated settlement before. I have not been on the debtor's end of it with a business because I paid my bills in full when I repaired my credit, but if in that situation again, I would not hesitate to negotiate a settlement, if I needed to. I have as a debtor negotiated payment plans before with companies, but I paid in full. The only time I've ever been a debtor who negotiated a reduced settlement aka discounted settlement was with the IRS. What I negotiated with them (with help of my CPA) was that they drop their outrageous loan sharking penalties and interest on those penalties and just let me pay the original principal plus interest on that principal. i.e. - no penalties or interest on penalties. That greatly helped me. They agreed and were fair about it since I had extenuating circumstances of a broken neck. God bless the IRS, they're a fine mess, but sometimes they're fair, and that's all I care. A more common scenario is when an employer says to an employee, "We're having trouble so I have to cut your hours" or "Where having trouble so I have to layoff X number of you employees." These are common scenarios that happen everyday all over the USA. Very often the employer does not give the employee the same one or two week(s) notice that they'd expect from an employee who was quitting. Some customers aka debtors are fair and some aren't. Some employers and employees are fair, and some aren't. I cannot argue the human condition or the goodness of mankind and I won't try. I'm only explaining the system and hoping people will use it responsibly. It is ethical and responsible to negotiate a settlement if you have no way to pay in full. If you must negotiate, then do the best you can to get the best reduction you can.

Regarding Negotiated Settlements I just wanted to add that although "paid in full" looks better on a credit history (and is better for credit score) than "settlement in full", "settlement in full" is much better than unpaid delinquent (unpaid late). So if your debt is overdue and you can't pay it in full, then a settlement is much better than leaving it unpaid. Just remember that once you negotiate a settlement, it's going to show as "settlement in full" no matter how much of a discount you get. For example a 10% discount (pay 90%) will show as "settlement in full" same as a 40% discount (pay 60%). So if you are going to negotiate for a settlement, then get the best settlement you possibly can. Also, to remove "paid in full" late history off your credit, or to remove "settlement in full" history, you can then resort to repeated credit history challenges as explained in earlier post(s). You can do the challenges yourself, or hire a credit repair firm. See earlier post(s) on challenges. Of course, it's easier to keep credit good in the first place than to repair it. However, once the toothpaste is out of the toob, then paying it off in full or by settlement and then after that repeatedly challenging the history is the only way to repair credit, other than just waiting X years for the history to drop off on it's own.

If you pay your debt in full, your credit history will say "paid in full". It will indicate late if it was late, but at least it shows you paid in full. If you negotiate a reduced settlement, then your credit history will say "settlement in full" (and also obivously indicate late). Paid in full means you paid in full. Settlement in full means you negotiated a reduced settlement. Obviously right? The thing is that when future lenders and creditors look at your credit history to decide if they want to loan you money and at what rate, they will be less bothered by paid late in full, then paid late settlement in full. Look at it from the point of view of the lender. Imagine you are the lender in the future and a person comes to you asking for a loan. You see on their credit history that they paid late, but in full. You're concerned that they paid late, but at least you know they did pay in full. Now imagine you see "paid settlement in full" on their credit history. Now you are probably more concerned because you know that not only did they pay late, but they did not pay the full amount. thereforeeee, if you are the lender, you would likely charge a higher interest rate to someone who has settlement in full (obviously late), than if they had payment in full (late). As a lender, you'd be less likely to make a loan to a person who had "settlement" in full on their credit history. Also, I assume that "settlement in full" will lower your credit score more than "payment in full (late)" would. If they're going to put "settlement in full" on your history anyway, then I'd definitely go for the lowest settlement possible. However, if they offered to make show "payment in full" on your history, then I'd pay the higher amount - up to $400 more if I could afford it. I think it's worth about $400+ extra to you to get "payment in full" instead of "settlement in full" because settlement in full will cost you more interest on future loans and credit cards, or may cause you not to get the loan at all. It also costs about $300 to $350 to hire a credit clean up firm (last I checked) to challenge repeatedly to remove something from your credit history. If you do it yourself, it still takes that much of your time. This is one reason why negotiating settlements should only be the last resort of someone who really does not have the money to pay in full. If you can pay in full, and it's less than $400 more, I'd paid in full because you'll save a lot of money on future loans. However, if you lack the money to pay in full, then do negotiate a settlement and be a tough negotiator and get the lowest possible settlement you can because it's going to show as "settlement in full" whether you get 20% off or 30% off or 40% off. If I had to try to negotiate a settlement because I had no choice, I'd let them make an offer and then go from there. Try to end up with a settlement where you pay either 80% or 70% or less. Ideally, maybe you can end up paying 60%. If I had to make the first offer, then I'd offer 50%. I don't think they'd accept it, but then they'd make a counter offer and I can haggle from there. Bottom line is that negotiated settlements are a valuable tool of last resort for both the debtor and creditor, but pay in full if you can. This with mediuim amounts of money (say few hundred to several hundred dollars). Now if were talking larger debts into the thousands of dollars, then the "settlement in full" rap on your credit history is less important than the dollars saved. If we're talking small debts, just pay them in full if you possibly can. Yet, if you have no choice (due to lack of money) then negotiate. So if you have money to pay all in full then do so. If not, then pay the small ones (under $400 say) in full. Now look at the medium size ones ($400 to $1,000 say). If you have the money, pay them in full, if not, then negotiate and bargain to the best of your ability for the best settlement possible. Now look at your larger debts (over $1,000). If you can pay them in full, then consider that. If not, then negotiate. If the amount of the larger debt is more than a few thousand dollars I'd be tempted to negotiate in all cases, but at that point with that much money involved, I'd suggest you get some advice from your local loan officer at credit union or mortgage company, or consult your local CPA or attorney, or other qualified credit councelor. For larger amounts of money, I'd be inclined to err on the side of bargaining. i.e. - if in doubt negotitate it out. Now if a larger debt is to the IRS, you need professional consultation with a CPA or tax attorney. The IRS cannot intimidate your CPA or tax attorney. CPAs are my preference for this type help because they know so much about it. However, I will say this, negotiating a settlement with the IRS will NOT affect your credit at all. There would be nothing saying "settlement in full" or anything else on your credit history. At least that has been my experience. However, I'd strongly advice you not to get in trouble with the IRS in the first place, if you can possibly avoid it.

True. In my case, they wanted to see my insurance stuff even while I was strapped to a board with a broken neck in agony. Once they had my insurance card and had checked my BP and pulse, they showed no further interest in me for another 3 hours. True enough in many cases. However, in my state, a mostly Republican state I might add, the laws about medical law suits are so heavily tipped in favor of the doctors and hospitals that they are nearly sue proof no matter what they do. I received terrible medical care at the emergency room when my neck was broken, and only some of that was because they weren't qualified. Much of it was because they clearly didn't care. I talked to a lawyer about it later and he told me, "In this state, unless they completely ignored your neck and instead sowed an extra breast on you, then forget about it." Who says those people could get affordable health insurance, or even any health insurance at all, if they went back to work? Many working people have no health insurance. What if they had serious chronic health problems or injuries that required ongoing medical care? I had to cross that bridge myself when I went back to work after my crushed neck at age 25 and again after my broken neck at age 34 (two separate accidents). I've been through that twice and had to cross that bridge twice. Luckily, I do have good group health insurance after returning to work, but many are not so lucky. With all due respect, if you've never been through these things, then you don't understand. I was at one time a rather conservative Republican type. However, life has since kicked me in the teeth enough to show me the other side of the coin. That's how I became a moderate. Truth and fairness are in the middle, not at either extreme. One of several things we agree on is that the medical and medical insurance systems need change and reform. Working people should all be able to get good health insurance that they can afford. Hospitals are a multi-billion dollar industry that gouges the consumer and medical insurance. Yet most hospitals are tax exempt, non-profit organizations. Their non profit status is a joke and we all know it. Most hospitals are filthy rich and not paying any taxes. True. I cannot argue with that. However, if the person is in a situation where they can pay most back, but not all (whether their fault or not), it is often in the interest of the creditor to settle just as it is for the debtor. I do not advocate intentional irresponsiblity. However, sometimes a person gets buried and has to dig out. Creditors and collection agencies willingly agree to settlements (sometimes) because it's in their best interest to do so. If not in their best interests, then they don't agree. It is not discrimination to refuse to issue a credit card due to credit history, score, debt ratio, employment history, residence history, or other legitimate financial related reasons. Race is not a question they ask. Those unsolicited credit card offers are pushing a product that was never asked for, never requested. Many times they are knowingly pushing them on people who really should not have a credit card. The terms of those cards are typically grossly unfair to the consumer and they are offering them to people who don't know any better. The credit card industry bears scrutiny for these practices and needs reform. Local credit unions and local banks are much more responsible and trustworthy in their dealings with the public. It should be against the law to offer credit to anyone who didn't request it. This would be better for everyone and would also reduce identity theft, IMO. It would protect the consumers and creditors alike. I say the above with all due respect.

Oh ya. Just because people are friends does not mean they are suited for living together as roomates. Perhaps after one of you moves out, then absense will make the heart grow fonder. Maybe the best thing for your friendship is to see less of each other. That would also give you the opportunity to make more friends.