I know it’s fake and gay, but anon should be able to get “cheapest possible” internet at $45/mo and soft unlimited data on cell for $20/mo. Nationwide.
Given their rent is the ridiculously low $750, the $90/mo in gas seems excessive too, although their insurance (esp if you assume <25yo given the source) is almost unbelievable. That’s like 2000s numbers, or super super rural which might explain the gas.
I rent a small house in West Virginia for $750. I’m five minutes from downtown in the capital city, fifteen minutes from the only decentish airport in the state. It’s possible.
Oh yeah the 750 I believe, it’s just super cheap. West VA makes sense. $90 for gas would make more sense to me in the western liberal states with high gas tax and even higher rent. Doesn’t make as much sense to me if your rent is 750.
If they’re driving an older truck, it’s possible they’re getting 12 mpg or something.
My truck is actually a 2020 and it gets 17 mpg, but it’s got a 35 gallon tank.
Yeah 17 is bad but it’s got an eight foot bed that I need to haul equipment and tools for work.
The killer is volatility—irregular hours + fixed bills = constant crisis mode.
This is killing me in a different way.
Weekly pay for monthly bills.
Most of my bills land between the 10th and 20th of the month, which means I have to set aside and reserve money from my other paycheques to cover that range.
I am bad at doing so.
If you can afford $9/mo, YNAB (You Need A Budget) is a great app for managing income and expenses that don’t necessarily align on a calendar schedule.
I get that budgeting won’t make up for insufficient income, but if it’s actually the financial habits that are holding you back, this app works wonders for learning how to properly plan your expenses.
If you’re into open source stuff and are willing to spend more effort tinkering, ActualBudget is the same concept, but lacks some QoL features (notably, auto-importing transactions from your bank/credit card statements). But all the data stays in your hands, not some company, so that’s good.
I’m a big fan of a budgeting software called “budget with buckets”.
It’s the same envelope/bucket budgeting method as YNAB, except it only runs on your machine so you have greater privacy. It comes with an unlimited, untimed free trial, since it often can take months to decide if a budgeting software works for you. I used it for maybe a year without paying. If you do pay, it’s a one-time payment.
It supports account syncing for a pittance - I think it was $15/year.
Open an account for rent and other known monthly expenses put 25% of that total from each check(or 50% if paid 2x a month). For utilities that are variable use an average of the 5 highest bills you gotten for each account. direct deposit some amount into a account for emergency savings. And the rest to your main account. NEVER steal from your bills account. You can add an amount for fun money as well.
That would be a great idea if I had any discernable savings. I expect I need at least half a month of money in my bills account to balance everything out, for those weeks that I am paid less than what I need to pay for bills.
That’s the point of setting up the bills account. If you deposit directly to it each check the amount you need based on how many checks you get. You won’t have to worry about finding your bills money when they are due and you’ll know how much you have to spend on other stuff because bills are already accounted for. If paid weekly put 25% of your total bills(rent, phone, Internet, gas, electric water ect.). For easy math let’s say total bills are $1600 a month you’d but $400 each pay check into the account ideally using direct deposit so it’s automatic. If paid every 2 weeks $800 a check. For usage based bills (water electric ect put enough for worst case bills in each month) over time you’ll build up extra money but leave it alone until you have at least 3 months extra in the account ( it could save your ass some day).
Let’s say your take home is $580 a week $400 to bill which leaves you with $180 a week for food and gas and fun. Seems pretty shitty and I’d recommend finding a cheaper place to live or get a roommate if possible in this scenario but at least you can clearly see how much you can actually spend while your bills are already accounted for. Is still recommend taking another $30 out leaving $150 for food and gas and put it directly into a savings account. Or split it $20(emergency fund) $10(fun stuff).
Don’t buy fun stuff (games, drugs, alcohol, movies, eating out) unless you can cover it from fun stuff account.
Emergency fund is for car repairs medical bills loss of income not a new TV or vacation.
If you get a raise 90% of the new take home should go to 80/20 split emergency/ fun stuff. If you can get at least 3 months of income (6 months would be better) saved in your emergency fund you can re-allocate some of it to food /gas day to day account and fun stuff account but only do that if you need to save your sanity, because in my experience every time you feel like you’re making progress some big bill will come along and wipe it out.
This all sounds great until you realize that you need time to run up to this, or a modicum of savings in order to make it happen.
Your numbers are optimistic at best. My bills vary and they’re more than 70% of my income (roughly).
It’s more efficient to deposit my money into a bill payment account, then take out what I can spend from that.
Guess what I already do?
Guess how much “spend” I have, per week, that needs to cover all of my gas, food, and everything else? I’m not even saving a dollar, and my available money per week is around $200.
That seems great until you realize that I’m Canadian and it’s Canadian dollars, and $200 CAD is around $150 USD.
I’m employed, full time, in a specialized field, and I can spend $100 USD a week on food because I need the extra $50 for incidentals and gas.
I don’t need a budget. I have a budget. I need a raise.
Ask for a raise. One thing that might help you stretch your money a bit further is utilizing a food pantry or food bank. Not sure if they are as common in Canada.
I was only off by $30 in my scenario compared to your situation. Having multiple accounts and using direct deposit to help divide your budget upfront just makes it easier.
I’m lucky that money isn’t a major concern for me at this point in my life, but earlier in my career when my ex-gf had a significant amount of credit card debt doing our budget this way really helped and got her to be debt free.
I’m not sure why you think my scenario requires savings to start, If you’re already paying all your bills. This is just a tool to help manage your budget.
I need savings because all my bills land in the same week-and-a-half timespan.
So there needs to be all of the money in the account before that happens.
I know, it’ll balance itself out in the long term, but the weeks I don’t have bills to pay are usually the weeks that I need to refill the pantry, and end up spending more than I have allocated for that week so that I can eat.
I need to accumulate the base amount to pay all my bills when they come due, before I can really get started.
I know it seems really simple, once all my bills are done for the month, start then! Except there’s probably incidentals, like the food that I mentioned, that need to be purchased, that I just can’t afford on the $100 available for me that week. So I take what’s needed, and then I’m behind again. The cycle continues.
I had a very good system for this when I was getting paid twice a month. I took the ~400 or 450 or whatever (again CAD) from each paycheck, and I split my bills so that, by cost, they were roughly split between before-the-15th and after-the-15th pay periods. I’d get paid, take my share, let the bank do the rest, and when I get a notification for a bill I need to pay by hand, from my calendar app, I go and pay it in full.
Then I ended up with weekly pay and suddenly, I’m paying 130%+ of a weeks income to pay my bills on the same week.
It fucked me up man. I’m still pretty wrecked by it and it’s been like this for more than a year.
Anon needs to redirect his hatred.
born in 1949 Don’t have to fight in a war
Hmmm
Putting it in context, it’s probably right. There are a lot of different swathes/classes of boomer, and the ones that would be able to do the listed in lines 7-10 are probably not the ones that were targeted for conscription in vietnam.
Still not enough cookies. Nice improvement though.
$115 a month phone/internet? Are US prices really that insane? My phone is £4 a month for unlimited calls/SMS and got an unlimited data SIM for a 4G router that costs £24/month.
Limited-time offer available to new MINTernet customers who purchase the 3- or 12-month MINTernet plan with any Mint Premium voice plan. MINTernet plan requires upfront payment of $75 for 3-month or $300 for 12-month plans (each equiv. to $25/mo) & AutoRenewal enrollment. Mint Premium voice plan requires upfront payment of $45 for 3-month, $90 for 6-month or $180 for 12-month plan (each equiv. to $15/mo). Combined equivalent is $40/mo. After introductory rate, standard rates apply. Taxes & fees extra. Fixed wireless gateway provided on loan; return of equipment required upon cancellation or subject to fee. Service delivered via cellular network; speeds vary & may be reduced during congestion after 1TB/mo for MINTernet. MINTernet service limited to registered address at time of enrollment & cannot be relocated. Premium “Unlimited” data may be slowed during congestion after 50GB/mo; video streams at 480p. Includes 20GB/mo. mobile hotspot. Not combinable with certain other offers. Terms subject to change; additional terms & conditions apply. See terms for details.
It’s not actually as cheap as they say, and what you’re getting isn’t really worth the price.
Regardless, when the thing being said is “wages are crap, things are expensive, people are trapped and can’t afford a future” it sorta misses the point to say that they could get substantially worse service for roughly half the price.
I appreciate you quoting all of the fine print, what is the actual gotcha you’re taking away from it? The biggest “gotcha” that in seeing is you have to prepay, which is mints while thing. The second gotcha I can see is that the free phone line they throw in is only good for a year? Which is fine. You’d go from $40/month to $55, still less than half of what was described in the post.
Regardless, when the thing being said is “wages are crap, things are expensive, people are trapped and can’t afford a future”
I understand that’s the point of the overall post, but I’m answering a question asking if internet and cell service is really that expensive in the US.
It’s doing a disservice to pretend like it is when there are much more affordable alternatives. Not only is the typical market price cheaper than what is mentioned in the post, but if you’re on many government aid programs, you qualify for subsidized phone and internet. Pairing the two seemingly adds up to $25/month.
How much do you pay for Internet and cell service that meets your needs?
My “gotcha” was the bit I said right after the fine print: not as cheap as advertised in the long run and not a good value.
The existence of a lower price for some people in some circumstances in some parts of the country doesn’t do much to address actual measurable statistics on us internet costs: Monthly Internet Cost: https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/internet/internet-cost-per-month/
My Internet is about $80 a month, and my phone is roughly $30 per line per month, $120 total because of regulatory fees and such. Looking at what mint typically delivers for internet they wouldn’t work for my requirements, purely for work and not considering I like my streaming to be good quality.
My “gotcha” was the bit I said right after the fine print: not as cheap as advertised in the long run
It’s…it’s a promotion. I didn’t even mention it in my post, where I said internet can typically be had for $40-$50.
After the promotion, the Internet still stays the same price, it’s the free voice line that you don’t get.
I don’t think it’s much of a gotcha worth flourishing the terms and conditions over, but…sure, you’ve pointed out that additional discounts that were never factored into my initial comment expire, so the baseline offering goes back to what I mentioned in my post. $40-$50. This is also entirely avoiding the discussion of the government subsidized internet if you’re on SNAP, etc.
It’s directly applicable when you say cheaper options are available and then link to a promotional offer where the pricing expires.
Government subsidized free Internet is currently not a thing in the US because the government is actively hostile to most of the citizenry. We still have the program to get up to $9.25 off if you make less than $25k a year though. It also requires enrollment in a program whose funding is being cut, is kicking people off , and doing everything possible to reduce enrollment.
Please read the rest of the comment I previously made where I linked to some actual averages for cost, because again: a lower cost existing isn’t the same as the average cost being low.
It’s directly applicable when you say cheaper options are available and then link to a promotional offer where the pricing expires.
Just to make sure we’re on the same page.
I said you can get Internet for $40-$50.
I linked a provider which provides a non-promotional rate of $40/month for Internet.
As a promotion, they’re throwing in a cellular line for free. This expires.
Does this somehow invalidate my claim of you can get Internet for $40-$50?
Government subsidized free Internet is currently not a thing in the US because the government is actively hostile to most of the citizenry. We still have the program to get up to $9.25 off if you make less than $25k a year though.
Yes. I never said it was free, just that it was subsidized.
Please read the rest of the comment I previously made where I linked to some actual averages for cost, because again: a lower cost existing isn’t the same as the average cost being low.
Sure - the average, non-promotional rate of $60 is still cheaper than what this post implies.
If we’re being real, in many markets (hello Xfinity/comcast) you’re oftentimes expected to be on a promotional rate more often than not. When I was living by myself, I could call Xfinity and ask for a promotional rate, and be told that I’d be eligible in x months, usually 2-4. If you live with others, you can swap who the Internet is under each year to always be getting a promotional rate.
In a country with a reputation of overconsumption, I think when someone asks with incredulity about the price of something, it’s valid to include the floor in addition to average/median/etc.
When discussing in the context of someone making little money, the floor is probably more relevant. Someone who’s barely making ends meet is not going to worry about splurging for the no data caps (fuck Xfinity) package for the streaming services he does not have.
I hate to break it to you 4chan dwelling normie fucking stupid shit head, but that 25 hrs a week is not because of the Affordable Care Act. It’s because of greedy capitalist fucks who are squeezing you for every cent they give you to maximize profit margins well beyond what they need to for a healthy business model.
Yeah that stuck out at me too. I love how the conservative media has thoroughly convinced the average dimwitted moron from flyover states that all of their problems are because of Obamacare and not because of the greed of their employer and the laws that they have enticed Congress to enact in their favor to prevent them from having to employ people full time.
Obamacare includes a minimum hour exemption and it should have been obvious to the authors of the bill that employers would cut hours to hit that mark.
You’re expecting people who are worth a minimum of 7 figures to consider the plight of people who struggle to maintain 5 figures. Companies were already lowering time employees worked to begin with regardless.
I’m saying the ACA was a bad bill that was never intended to help anyone but insurance companies. We shouldn’t be shocked that it includes workarounds for other businesses. Of course it does. Obama and the others who passed it knew that when they passed it. Thats why they wrote it that way.
True enough. It’s your typical Democrat work, make a half measure that doesn’t readily improve the situation but looks like it can.
They were keeping people below full time hours to begin with, it just got lowered to squeeze that extra penny from their buttholes.
Dog whistling bullshit. “Obongo”, “waahh socialised medicine is the reason i’m trapped in a poverty spiral” get faaarked
The ACA is not socialized medicine. It is health insurance reform and only partial at that.
Also, I don’t agree that “Obongo” is a dog whistle. It is so openly racist no one is going to miss it.
To be fair, the requirement to provide health insurance and other benefits for full-time workers is definitely one of the leading causes of the reduction in full-time jobs. If lawmakers were really putting the peoples’ interests first, they would have just said that for a part-time job the employer would have to provide benefits based on the fraction of 40 hours the employee worked (e.g. 20 hours is half-benefits).
Look I’ll be honest with you. As someone outside the US the idea that your workplace is responsible for your private insurance / healthcare is bug fuck insane and open to exploitation on a mind boggling scale.
Not just open to exploitation; openly exploited. Disruption to coverage and questions about what could be covered differently are significant factors that cause people to choose not to take a job elsewhere.
The trick is that health insurance can be bought directly, but it’s just so insanely expensive to do it that way so nobody does. Companies get a huge discount to buy bulk enterprise packages, and then their employees pay for a lot of it themselves. The portion that the company pays for is just an expense of labor, the same as salary, and offering better than the company across the street is an incentive to get better hires.
The ACA basically was just “hey, you know that discount that companies are getting? Now do it for the state and we’ll offer it to everybody. And insurance companies will like it because people are given incentive to buy this because we’re gonna fine people for not being insured.” Pretty shitty deal, but at least people had the freedom to jobhop or become unemployed and keep their doctors.
It’s cheaper and easier to buy a gun than to get an abortion in this shithole country.
Classic US capitalism: Take a product, triple the price, and then offer a generous 50% discount if you sign up on unfavourable terms.
But yeah, I guess I am preaching to the choir here.
Obamacare isn’t perfect and made some things more expensive for some people. Yes it helped others and overall I think it’s beneficial, but covering your ears and pretending that anon is blaming socialized medicine entirely is just inaccurate.
Criticism, when factual, is good.
He called it “obongocare.” He isn’t operating in good faith.
Sure, that’s plausible, but that’s also just 4chan lingo.
Schedules one hour under benefits have been a feature for a lot longer than Obamacare.
yes, which would make this specific criticism of Obamacare nonfactual, but anon is still not blaming socialized medicine like the person I replied to thinks
Anyone using the word Obongo to refer to Obama does not make that distinction. Anything left of YOYO plans is socialized healthcare to them.
Anyone using the word Obongo to refer to Obama does not make that distinction
idk, that’s a strawman. Obongo is often just used as a funny word because it’s 4chan
It’s 4Chan, “Obongo” is one of the more polite names they could say.
Obamacare is corporate medicine, designed to give more money to the health insurance industry. Anyone in support of socialized medicine should not be a fan of it just because it’s marginally better than before.
Democrats tried to offer a single payer option. However, EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted against it, and as a result, it was possible for two Democrats, Dick Durbin and Joe Lieberman, to vote against it and force the removal of Single Payer and the Public Option from the bill.
And as a result, we get the BOTH SIDES SAME bullshit. Republicans stand firm and vote 100% against a bill, making it possible for 1 or 2 Democrats to derail it, and as a result, people get mad at Democrats as a whole and ensure Republicans keep getting enough seats to keep this strategy alive.
What’s amazing is how well this works for Republicans. So many idiots in the world.
You forgot to mention the Dems got slaughtered in the following midterms. And folks wonder why the party is the way it is
Don’t blame the ACA, those companies always had people working part time and just lowered the hours further.
