Aaron Computer Rental Firm Spies On Users

An anonymous reader writes with word from Yahoo news of a lawsuit "filed on behalf of a Wyoming couple who said they learned about the PC Rental Agent 'device and/or software' inside the computer they rented last year when an Aaron's Inc. store manager in Casper came to their home on Dec. 22. The manager tried to repossess the computer because he mistakenly believed the couple hadn't finished paying for it, the couple said. Brian Byrd, 26, said the manager showed him a picture of Byrd using the computer — taken by the computer's webcam. The image was shot with the help of spying software, which the lawsuit contends is made by North East, Pa.-based Designerware LLC and is installed on all Aaron's rental computers."

Comments

Whoops

[bfmorgan]

These stupid companies think they can treat their customers like children and in the process shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:Whoops

[MoonBuggy]

These stupid companies think they can treat their customers like children and very occasionally they don't get away with it.

FTFY.

Re:Whoops

[PhreakOfTime]

Well, in this case they are right. This guy has the math skills of a child. If he's lucky. Have you ever worked out the costs of that? Some of the rental ones around here end up being over 4X the price of outright buying it, over just 15 months of payments.

He shouldn't be allowed to sign a contract that involves math in any way whatsoever.

Re:Whoops

[tripleevenfall]

Well, I'm guessing people who get computers at Aarons, (or Rent-A-Center, etc.) aren't the most likely to notice spyware either.

Re:Whoops

[dragonturtle69]

Or maybe it just proves, further, that the poor get screwed.

If you have $1,000, you can buy that laptop you didn't plan for, and so didn't save for, but would be really useful now that you are starting higher education. On the other hand, if your income dictates a 12 month period of saving to get that $1,000, chances are that your window of opportunity for schooling has closed before you have the hardware.

Enter the rent-to-own industry, giving you long term low monthly payments, with what amounts to incredible interest rates. The payday advance places are the same. If you make good money, you'll never fell their sting. If you make really good money, you'll never pay interest period, just handling fees.

And now they have, if the story is true, real spyware. What type of dirtbag, including the school "officials" reported a few months back using the webcams on student laptops, spies on someone in this manner?

Re:Whoops

[PCM2]

If you have $1,000, you can buy that laptop you didn't plan for, and so didn't save for, but would be really useful now that you are starting higher education. On the other hand, if your income dictates a 12 month period of saving to get that $1,000, chances are that your window of opportunity for schooling has closed before you have the hardware.

So what you're saying is, maybe all those people who tell you that you should never, ever buy anything on credit (because credit is evil and you should always buy everything with cash), should get a crash course on something called "opportunity cost"? It's not as if it's hard for a student to get a credit card.

Re:Whoops

[avgjoe62]

Funny. If you read TFA, you'll see that the couple in question had paid off the computer and now owned it outright. The store manager was mistakenly trying to repossess the computer and that revealed the spyware to them. So, obviously, they could afford the contract. Nothing clear about it.

The point of the article is not poor people make bad decision, get computer repossessed. It was about a company still having spyware on a computer that was owned by their former customers.

Re:Whoops

[Xtravar]

I put tape over my work laptop's webcam. A little paranoid... perhaps... but it makes me feel better.

Re:Whoops

[Beelzebud]

Speaking of reading, you probably should have RTFA... Interesting that you immediately blame the customer, who had paid for the PC in full. Not to mention the spyware (literally) they had on the machine.

Re:Whoops

[Kral_Blbec]

And you need a 1000 dollar laptop for college? Funny, I did just fine with my 300 netbook.

Re:Whoops

[d6]

That has been my habit ever since cams started showing up in every single screen/laptop I buy.
Nothing wrong with covering a cam you are not going to use and plenty right about it if your shit gets rooted.

Re:Whoops

[Darinbob]

You need a laptop for college, any cost? They're no longer considered luxury devices for self absorbed managers?

Re:Whoops

[Osgeld]

I did just fine with a 486 screwed to a chunk of plywood

Re:Whoops

[hedwards]

$1000? If you're that poor there are plenty of computers out there that are more cost effective. My dad is still running a computer he got a couple years back for $400 and it seems to be doing just fine. When it gets too slow for use, I'll just upgrade it to Linux and he'll likely be happy for a couple more years after that.

$1000 is justifiable for some people, but if you're having to buy through this sort of service you'd definitely be better off paying less and buying outright.

Re:Whoops

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I can't speak for all colleges; but it isn't uncommon to find that, once laptop ownership reaches a certain critical mass, the condition of public PC labs tends to fall right off the bottom of the IT department's priority list. Sometimes formally cancelled, sometimes just allowed to rot.

As for laptop vs. desktop, once you factor in the monitor and peripherals, the delta between a cheap and nasty laptop and a cheap and nasty desktop is pretty small, and being able to work with your study group in the library is pretty handy...

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Opportunity cost doesn't really play into it. You can always use computer labs at your school. A laptop is a low-ticket, nice-to-have item, which mean it should never, ever be purchased on credit.

The average savings account in the U.S. contains somewhere on the order $20,000. Therefore, if you're buying anything on credit that costs more than an order of magnitude less than that, you are basically declaring yourself to be poor, complete with a giant, flashing neon sign. Because the working poor are more likely to default on loans, they get higher rates. The smaller the line of credit, the worse you get screwed. As a result, the people who can least afford credit are taken advantage of the most.

Therefore, in general, unless what you are buying costs... I don't know, say 25% of the U.S. median annual income (about $12,500), you should not even consider buying it on credit. Save your money and pay cash. (One might make an exception for "cash back" credit cards, but only if you religiously pay them off at the end of every month.)

Re:Whoops

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You had plywood? I had to steal napkins from the dining hall, chew them into pulp and then place a layer of pulp underneath my hard, threadbare pallet, so that my uneasy tossing and turning would press it against the concrete floor and produce enough medium-density fiberboard to support my 8086.

Re:Whoops

[c6gunner]

Or maybe it just proves, further, that the poor get screwed.

No, it shows that the poor are generally poor for a reason. Consider: you claim that a person who cannot afford a $1,000 computer must therefore go out and pay $156 per month to rent one. A "poor person" who is serially-poor - or a "not poor person" who is bad at finances but has a high enough paycheck to keep him going - would probably agree with your assessment. A temporarily or formerly "poor person" - or a "not poor person" with common sense - would point out that you can buy a second-hand laptop for $200-$300. In the event that the "poor person" cannot even afford $300, the "not-poor-person" with common sense would point out that a $156 payments saved over 2 months equals $300, and that during the said 2 months it's quite possible to just use the computers at the local library. In other words, people who know how to manage and leverage their money either aren't poor, or don't stay poor for long; those who ARE poor will continue to make poor decisions when it comes to managing their money, and will remain poor.

Of course, I'm not rejecting the idea of credit outright; sometimes it makes sense to take out a loan and pay interest. However, I know plenty of people who make more money than I do yet have less disposable income simply because of their loaning habits. I've yet to run into a poor person who was good at math.

Re:Whoops

[Arcady13]

The average savings account is $20,000? I don't know anyone with more than $5000 in savings, and the average people in the US save per year is less than $500.

That said, these rental places should be avoided like the plague. At least use a low-interest credit card if you must buy on credit.

Re:Whoops

[bipbop]

Your name isn't Dave, is it?

Re:Whoops

[MaskedSlacker]

Therefore, if you're buying anything on credit that costs more than an order of magnitude less than that

Congratulations! You win the /. Mangled and Unintelligible Grammar Award for 2011! I know, it's early in the year, but I doubt even the worst New Delhi call center employee who speaks English as his 6th language could manage to construct a sentence that says so much, and means so little.

Therefore, if you're buying anything on credit that costs more than $2,000 -- $2,000 being an order of magnitude less than $20,000.
Therefore, if you're buying anything on credit that costs more than $2,000 less than $20,000
                                                                                                                                                                less than $18,000 -- perhaps the most sensible meaning.
 

Re:Whoops

[jd2112]

Enter the rent-to-own industry, giving you long term high weekly payments,
Fixed it for you.

Re:Whoops

[hairyfeet]

Or maybe it just shows the laws in this country allow the poor to be assraped at will? My GF before I met her ended up having to get a rent to own PC after losing damned near everything but the clothes on her back in a fire. Not only did they royally rip her off on the payments but when she brought it in for a cleaning, which was part of the agreement they ripped off some of the parts and didn't even take a can of fricking air to it!

Soon after we had started dating she asked me to look at it while she was cooking supper (I'm used to it, we PC repairmen are like plumbers that way) and I take one look at the specs VS what it says on the label and I knew she'd been had. Sure enough she called the rent a center the next day and they basically told her "yeah well try to prove it. Sue us and see how far you get".

These assholes make fricking used car salesman look like paragons of honor. They KNOW these poor folks don't know what PCs cost or what is a good chip VS a bad chip, so they gouge the living hell out of them and then on top rip them off any other way they can! I thought the guys at Worst Buy were bad, but at least the guys I knew there were only sniffing around for free porn and MP3s to copy, these rent a ripoffs as I call them are true scum of the earth! And didn't we have laws against usury and outrageous interests rates? WTF happened to those?

That is why you should tell your friends and relatives, especially those that are poor or have poor kinfolk, talk to your local mom&pop shop. We're decent folks and we try our damnedest not to cause someone pain in the wallet. Hell I got three of them right now that is paying me my labor costs at $10-$30 a paycheck, simply because they couldn't afford parts and labor at once, so I found them the cheapest kit deals i could find and let them just pay for the parts and pay my labor as they could, interest free. I'd rather get paid for my time in dribs and drabs than see someone get assraped at these rent a ripoffs. Besides I've found you treat folks right the referrals will keep you busy. These leeches are frankly a blight, no different that those check cashing shysters.

Re:Whoops

[jrumney]

Or perhaps the problem will be better solved by giving them easier access to credit - from reputable sources such as banks that don't charge ursurous amounts of interest, coupled with sound financial advice designed to prevent them getting into a debt spiral as a result of trying to give their children a chance to get out of the poverty trap.

Re:Whoops

[Pretzalzz]

Huh? I know this is slashdot and no one reads the story, but if you are going to strut around trying to make yourself look smart you should try. This guy obviously knew that renting it was a very bad deal which is why he bought out the rest on the rental after only two months when he had the money. He didn't wait two months to buy it since it was a time sensitive need as his wife needed it for course work.

Re:Whoops

[JayRott]

Your name isn't Dave, is it?

"Dave's not here, man!"

I feel old now......

Re:Whoops

[RoFLKOPTr]

Or perhaps the problem will be better solved by giving them easier access to credit

What are you proposing? Loans from the government?

- from reputable sources such as banks that don't charge ursurous amounts of interest

Banks don't charge ursurous (whatever that means) amounts of interest if you have good credit. High interest rates are there to offset high risk.

coupled with sound financial advice designed to prevent them getting into a debt spiral as a result of trying to give their children a chance to get out of the poverty trap.

You can click on this at your local library if you can't afford internet because of your debt spiral.

Re:Whoops

[vivian]

You need to widen your circle of friends then - or teach them how to start saving. Anyone should be able to reduce their cost of living to that it is 90% of their income, and save the remaining 10%. It's all a question of living within your means, and learning how to save so you don't have to depend on the state or your kids to support you when you retire.

Re:Whoops

[darkpixel2k]

Why not blame those asshats in the world who refuse to live within their means for their actions?

Can we stop the USA bashing for a moment? Sheesh! ;)

Re:Whoops

[SharpFang]

I just paid cash for a Cadillac Escalade EXT. My next purchase will be a house in cash. So yes it is possible to pay for things in cash.

...and posting as AC?
Are you some kind of drug dealer? Most people pay for such stuff with a money/bank transfers, cheques, a credit/debit card and the likes. Considering the highest USD note in common circulation is $100, payment for a house in cash must involve a small briefcase filled with notes. Very mafia-like.

Re:Whoops

[Nick Ives]

I bet $20,000 is the mean amount in savings, which would be pushed up by all the {m,b}illionaires.

I wonder what the modal average savings is? I bet it's a lot lower.

Re:Whoops

[wmbetts]

Personally anytime I'm on my mbp I just sit there nude while I program. If anyone spies on me they deserve what they get!

Re:Whoops

[mwvdlee]

(I'm used to it, we PC repairmen are like plumbers that way)

No we're not.
We don't star in computer games and we don't appear in cheezy porn.

Re:Whoops

[JSombra]

Around 2008 average saving per year for Americans was less than $400, though from what i have heard, due to the shaky economy it has now risen a little bit

Re:Whoops

[Anonymous Coward]

Average savings account is $3800, not $20,000. Or rather, that was the average BEFORE the economy collapsed and people started losing jobs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030400238.html

Re:Whoops

[PCM2]

You're going to have to run that by me again.

According to you:

• Most Americans have $20,000 in their savings account (I don't know any students who do).
• Therefore they have money to burn.
• Therefore they shouldn't buy anything on credit unless it's going to max out the typical credit card (at $12,500)

I'll bite. Where's the logic in this?

Whereas I use credit whenever I feel it's prudent, because it allows me to:

• Offset opportunity costs. (Someone offers to pay me $500 if I sew them a dress by this weekend, but I don't own a sewing machine. A sewing machine costs $100, but I don't have $100 cash.)
• Control my cash flow. I pay my bills when I'm ready to, and I never have to empty my accounts to do it, because I can pay larger bills off in increments.
• Get rewards points. They're not a particularly good deal, but they're nice when you add up enough of them.
• Gain the additional protections afforded me by using a credit card. I want to return something, the store says "Our policy says no returns," I say, "No it doesn't." Either they give me my money back or I have my credit card company negate the charge.

Another delusion anti-credit people suffer is that all credit products are created equal. They are not. It's a huge industry and there are lots of different products to choose from. Some are only available to people with good credit ratings (and you can only really build a good credit rating if you use credit), but even people with no credit history can shop around for a card that comes with good terms. The main card I use today is the first credit card I was ever issued (even though it's since been bought and sold by several different banks). It gives me all of the benefits above, plus my APR is 4.65% -- which is less than half the sales tax rate in my region, spread out over a year.

Re:Whoops

[1u3hr]

he other hand, if your income dictates a 12 month period of saving to get that $1,000, chances are that your window of opportunity for schooling has closed before you have the hardware.

Or, buy a used 2-year-old laptop for $200.

Re:Whoops

[beelsebob]

You fail at maths too – if it cost 4x as much in just 15 months, then clearly it would only take 3-4 months of saving to buy brand new, or 1-2 months of saving to buy off ebay.

Re:Whoops

[beelsebob]

This is of course why good laptops like the MacBook Pro have an LED hard wired to come on whenever the camera has power.

Re:Whoops

[evanism]

People in the USA are still SAVING? By god. You are all about to be wiped out by hideous deflation then hyperinflation over the next 12 months. Cash is the last thing you want.

Re:Whoops

[evanism]

What do you suggest we start using? Polish?

Re:Whoops

[evanism]

You sure do like your ass raping!

Re:Whoops

[Sarten-X]

Like I Polish.

Re:Whoops

[hduff]

Or perhaps the problem will be better solved by giving them easier access to credit - from reputable sources such as banks that don't charge ursurous amounts of interest, coupled with sound financial advice designed to prevent them getting into a debt spiral as a result of trying to give their children a chance to get out of the poverty trap.

While the APR may seem outrageous on these items, the actual dollar amount of the effective "finance charge" is relativelysmall when you consider the cost of originating, processing and administrating these "loans". These companies only make huge amounts of money because of the large number of loans/sales they make.

A small loan for a laptop is not the kind of loan a bank would make. If your next alternative is a finance company, well, that's pretty much what these RTO places are.

Re:Whoops

[jimicus]

So what you're saying is, maybe all those people who tell you that you should never, ever buy anything on credit (because credit is evil and you should always buy everything with cash), should get a crash course on something called "opportunity cost"? It's not as if it's hard for a student to get a credit card.

These companies don't aim at people who can easily get a credit card. I don't know what it's like where you are, but here in the UK they've got very flashy window displays proudly announcing things like "Poor credit history? No proof of earnings? Not a homeowner? No problem!". The actual final price you wind up being stung for is carefully hidden.

They'll sell to more-or-less anyone, and the business model is clear - their customers have a high risk of not paying, but that doesn't matter too much because the item that was sold under a 12 or 24 month contract was actually paid for in the first 3-6 months. Provided the customer continues to pay for longer than that, you're in profit. And they often will, because you're not the sort of company that writes a few rude letters before taking someone to court over missed payments. You're the sort of company that sends around a couple of big, threatening-looking men to take the item away if payment is so much as 10 days late.

Such companies are vultures, they prey on a section of society that wants the latest toys but cannot hope to afford them. But they're very well dressed, very smart vultures with high street business premises, which is enough for the target market not to realise what they're letting themselves in for until it's far too late.

Re:Whoops

[gl4ss]

I did that, but then I got thin and gorgeous and now they have to pay for me to remove the tape.

Re:Whoops

[jimicus]

Do you know, I think you're the first person to get it in the whole thread?

These companies do not sell to people who will do a bit of arithmetic and work out the most cost-effective way of getting what they want. They don't expect to sell anything to such a person.

They sell to a group who want the latest thing and focus purely on how much it'll cost them per month.

Clearly this group of people is big enough to sustain such businesses or they wouldn't exist.

Re:Whoops

[makomk]

A temporarily or formerly "poor person" - or a "not poor person" with common sense - would point out that you can buy a second-hand laptop for $200-$300.

Buy one from where? Actual physical second-hand PC stores are quite rare these days, and an awful lot of poor Americans don't have access to the banking system in order to buy stuff online (even if they did somehow manage to get access to a PC to do it from). Then there are the unbudgeted consequences when your old, out-of-warranty second hand laptop suffers from a hardware fault...

Re:Whoops

[asdf7890]

Yep. See also The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice: http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Sam_Vimes_Theory_of_Economic_Injustice

Re:Whoops

[enrevanche]

$20,000 is not the median savings account size for all Americans. They have no where that amount of liquid capital. The national median household net worth is about $90,000 the majority of which is in homes and retirement. I doubt most Americans even have a savings account.

Re:Whoops

[AtomicJake]

These stupid companies think they can treat their customers like children [...]

I definitely hope that nobody is treating children like this.

Re:Whoops

[AtomicJake]

I put tape over my work laptop's webcam. A little paranoid... perhaps... but it makes me feel better.

Understandable. So you also put cotton in the build-in mic?

Re:Whoops

[DamienRBlack]

I am a "poor person". A "serially-poor" one. Math has been and still is my subject of interest. Currently, my skill in math lies somewhere mid-way through differential equations. My mathematics education, as well as computer science, physics, chemistry, philosophy and music are all gained from auditing college classes. Do to circumstances currently beyond my control, I can't afford to actually take the classes. I cannot get a loan, as I made a mistake when I was 17 years old and forgot to un-enroll from a semester of classes I didn't end up taking. Now I owe a state owned collection agency $6,000 plus a hefty amount of interest. I can't enroll or take out student loans until I've paid in full. Actually, it suits me fine. I prefer learning on my own and I don't think I could stand the tedium of going to classes over things I've known and used for years. In the meantime though, I find myself unable to "prove" to anyone my merit. So I find myself without a job that pays a reasonable amount. I am currently running a business, but the truth is that it takes lots of money to make money. I scrape by, but only barely. And I assure you, it isn't because of my math skills.

Re:Whoops

[xaxa]

Lojban is a constructed, human language that would work. It's interesting, but I don't see it catching on.

Re:Whoops

[c6gunner]

I thought about writing a lengthy rebuttal, but realized that you would be unable to respond as I am sure your laptop is about to be repossessed. So I'll just note that there are exceptions to every rule, and math skills clearly aren't the only criteria required for financial success.

Re:Whoops

[garynuman]

who needs access to the banking system to buy things online? Last time I checked pretty much every store I see these days sells prepaid visa, etc "gift" cards that work just the same as a credit or debit card for shopping online

Re:Whoops

[c6gunner]

Buy one from where?

The flea-market I was at last week had laptops going for $300, and desktops going for $150 ($200 with a monitor). The local Salvation Army and Goodwill stores regularly sell components and sometimes complete systems. Then there are resources like Craigs List or kijiji. There's even Freecycle if you're really strapped for cash.

And if you're considering making the obvious silly crack about looking online for a computer, please, do yourself a favor and think, first. Or, alternately, refer back to my previous comment.

Then there are the unbudgeted consequences when your old, out-of-warranty second hand laptop suffers from a hardware fault...

So go even cheaper, and budget for a replacement. The sites I linked to list several laptops in the $175 and under bracket.

My aunt bought two laptops for about $350, almost two years ago. That's $350 for both, not each, so you can imagine the specs on them. I offered to find her a good deal on something more modern, but she insisted she didn't need anything fancy. Almost two years later, both laptops are still running fine. Their batteries last about 25 minutes, but they're still adequate for her and her husband. She checks her e-mail, composes documents in word, creates power-point presentations, and even does web-site design for her own small business. Oh, and she also has a 6-figure income. Maybe that's why poor people can't find these computers - the rich people keep buying them up!

Re:Whoops

[mcgrew]

Some things never change. A couple thousand years ago a guy said something along the lines of "those who have will have more, those who don't will lose what they have".

I think it's pathetic that the rich are complaining about taxes. It's the poor who pay a substantial percentage of their incomes in taxes. I saw a thing on Fox yesterday about how the very rich are paying more and more in taxes -- well, duh. They're the only ones whose incomes are rising, of course their tax bill will (and should) rise as well.

The poor get screwed by everyone. It's a lot easier to steal with a pen than it is with a gun, provided you have the resources.

Re:Whoops

[Neil Boekend]

Threadbare pallet? You were lucky to have a threadbare pallet! We had concrete blocks to sleep on and a 2 inch steel plate for blanket. Although the steel plate was useful as a heat sink for our transistor.

Re:Whoops

[aclarke]

Transfer your savings into a different currency. Problem solved.

The solution to the American financial crisis isn't to stop saving, but to be smart about how you do it.

Re:Whoops

[adamofgreyskull]

FYI: I'm pretty sure that when someone says they are going to pay for a car or a house "with cash", they don't mean they're going to walk into the dealership/estate agent's office with a suitcase full of bank notes, they mean they're going to buy it with money they have on hand, rather than buy it on credit/with a mortgage.

Re:Whoops

[Will.Woodhull]

Another aspect of this is that the only way to establish a good credit history is to buy on credit. For a youngster just starting out, a good route is a credit card account shared with a parent, and instructions to buy all groceries and such, everything possible, on credit and pay the account down to zero balance every month.

But if you do not have a parent who can do this, then paying the premium for credit at a place like Aarons for something that you need no matter what makes sense. The high interest rate you pay for a laptop in your freshman year assures that you will qualify for a mortgage when you graduate.

Using Aarons appropriately can be a good way to achieve something much more important than having money in the bank: it can buy you a good credit rating.

Re:Whoops

[techwrench]

LoL! Mod this comment up! Now I'm feeling old too....

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

(1) Median is not mean;

(2) I've never met a decent rich guy, and I was brought up in a significantly privileged environment - while I've never used money to decide on my friends, I've never been able to form a lasting friendship with anyone of significant means as they have all failed at demonstrating kindness/selflessness/generosity/etc and end up taking advantage of me when I try to demonstrate same. Causation no, but correlation certainly;

(3) People in debt (e.g. medical bills) don't get to save anything, let alone 10%;

(4) Many people live on the bread line - for any given location, recalling the cost of transport, there is a typical minimum wage which reflects the absolute minimum needed to survive. Many people are on this wage. The idea that you can always "save the remaining 10%" is inherently irrational and contrary to basic market theory: if it's an employers' market, employers will pay the absolute minimum to keep their employees alive and working;

(5) Telling people to "live within your means" is another way of saying, "I should get to enjoy life more than you so please continue suffering so that I can maintain my enjoyment." While I live well below my means, I don't begrudge anyone who feels he should have no less than the greatest glutton;

(6) You pay the state when you work to support you when you cannot. If taxation were at the level of, say, the US 150 years ago, then you might have an argument. It is not and you do not.

Re:Whoops

[techwrench]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in the same group as yourself. It is difficult to find a good job when businesses are performing credit checks, and hiring partially based on the criteria derived from the result. I have been not hired due to a poor credit score, but was hired by a company that doesn't take that information into account when hiring.

Re:Whoops

[Will.Woodhull]

Facts are right in parent post, but it is presented from a very limited point of view.

For someone starting out with no credit history, these "no credit, no problem" retailers are often the least expensive way of establishing that all important credit history in a short time span. Buy a computer from Aaron's, pay it off in full after making 12 monthly payments on time, and then apply for a credit card that will give you a reasonable maximum, a reasonable APR, and none of the unreasonable extra fees that so many banks are now using as major revenue streams.

A good credit history is critical to having a good life in the USA. If parents are in an underwater mortgage or otherwise unable to cosign on a decent credit card account, "no credit, no problem" deals on durable goods can make long term financial sense.

Re:Whoops

[wildstoo]

Until the manager shows up at your door with a picture of you taken surreptitiously on your own webcam.

Seriously, how dumb is this company?

Re:Whoops

[jimicus]

I don't know how things work in the US, but in the UK there are all sorts of ways of establishing a credit history which don't involve dealing with scummy companies like this.

You can sign up for a credit card from a company offering cards explicitly for people with bad credit histories. There's always someone prepared to offer credit cards to people with less-than-stellar credit and you don't have to buy a big item (with associated huge interest payments) with it. Simply buying a few small things and making the payments is a good start.

You can self-certify for a mortgage. Essentially you sign a form saying "I confirm I can make the payments on this". Again, you'll pay a higher interest rate - but there's nothing to stop you re-financing a couple of years down the line.

By the time you have to go to a company like this, your credit must really be shot to hell.

Re:Whoops

[DarkOx]

There are other ways of looking at it.

1. If places like Aaron's did not exist as you say the choices left to people at that income level would be go without the laptop or save for 12 months, there would be no option to have it now period.

2. Usury is not actually limited to victimizing the poor. Plenty of people of superior economic means manage to get into all sorts of trouble with credit cards that have rates darn close to Aaron's and Cash Advance, and many get suckered into other things like variable rate interest only mortgages and similar financial instruments that many simply don't understand; again though these can be very useful to *some* customers in some situations.

Re:Whoops

[Will.Woodhull]

The UK is offering more useful assistance to its poorer citizens than the USA is doing. I do not think that is a surprise to anyone.

The USA is still crippled by a social Darwinism view of economics. That anyone with a bit of intelligence and self-discipline could significantly improve their circumstances; rise to the top. The unfortunate flip side of this world view is that anyone in poorer circumstances than your own is unfit for survival in a progressive economy and deserves whatever exploitation you can come up with that would benefit you.

An alternative world view is that through cooperation and better exploitation of current and emerging technologies, we can make the whole pie bigger,. That the appropriate way to measure one's success is not by comparing what you've got with what other people have, but by comparing what you've got now with what you had yesterday, and what would be possible tomorrow if people will work to make that happen.

Re:Whoops

[the unbeliever]

Aaron's neither checks your credit rating, nor reports to the agencies that determine your credit rating. At least not according to the paperwork my idiot brother has from renting nearly his entire home theater from them.

Re:Whoops

[realityimpaired]

Not an American, but I usually keep a float of about $1000 (CAD) in my bank account to pay for incidentals, the rest of the overage in my monthly budget goes towards paying my car loan and mortgage off faster. If I wanted to, I could easily put away more (there's a little over $600/mo surplus in my monthly budget), but it makes better economic sense to pay off those large loans faster, in order to reduce the interest that I'm paying overall: if I pay my car loan off 2 years early, I only pay 0.9% interest on the thing (it goes up to 1.9% in the final two years). The mortgage is a higher interest rate anyway, and for now, that's what I'm overpaying.

It's well and good to suggest that people should be saving more money, but there's times where building up your savings is a bad idea. Most poor people aren't even in a position where building up their savings is an option because they simply aren't paid enough, and many if not most middle class people are in the same situation that I am: putting away money is possible, but it's bad economic sense in the long run, because they can save thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars by paying off their debt faster.

Re:Whoops

[GaryOlson]

...we PC repairmen are like plumbers...

While working you give out free views of your ass crack? No thanks.

Re:Whoops

[realityimpaired]

Second, if you are getting a 4.65% APR on a credit card this year, that's basically a miracle. My credit rating is very good, and despite the fact that I pay my cards off at the end of the month every month, if I didn't, I'd owe over 25% APR on pretty much every card I have. The banks have used the credit crunch as an excuse to double or triple credit card APRs. Heck, here in California, you can barely even get home mortgages at 4.65%.

If your credit card carries an interest rate of 25% then you are absolutely and unequivocably the last person I would *ever* want to listen to for financial advice. That's almost the maximum allowed by law. (anti-usury laws limit it to 29.99%/year max) Even when I was a poor student with an income measured by how many extra shifts I could pull waitressing tables, I was only paying 18% interest on my credit cards. Now that I actually have a pretty good credit rating and pay off my cards every month, I am only paying 9% interest on my credit card, and if I was willing to shift from a no-fees card to one that carries an annual cost, I could halve that interest rate. ... you do know you can call your credit card company and ask them to lower your interest, right?

Re:Whoops

[Lehk228]

So drop dox on the store if they are still in business

Re:Whoops

[jimbolauski]

Yes you can get a 2 or 3 year old refurbished computer from dell for $300.

Re:Whoops

[Attila Dimedici]

There is something to what you say. However, I have yet to meet someone who was struggling to make ends meet who did not have cable TV, an air conditioner and a game system. I am sure there are some, but most Americans could reduce their expenses to some degree if they were willing to sacrifice some of their entertainment choices.

Re:Whoops

[Grizzley9]

The average savings account in the U.S. contains somewhere on the order $20,000.

Sure, if you take a few with a bunch of millions or hundreds of thousands and average that with those that have $5 or 0. But what does the average show for the real 97% of people?

Re:Whoops

[Sabalon]

Not all schools have labs. With laptops and netbooks costing less than some textbooks, the schools realize why should they pay all the money for lab upkeep when it's easier just to push that out onto the students, charge them a fee and put some wifi in.

Re:Whoops

[turtledawn]

Are you including retirement savings in your estimate of average savings account value? I certainly have more than 20k in my retirement accounts, but due to some recent medical crap I'm happy to have a few hundred in my day-to-day savings and heck yeah I put the cat's most recent vet bill on my credit card to preserve that little cash cushion (though my interest rate on that card is under 10%).

Re:Whoops

[box4831]

You sure about that?

I'd wager a bet that this LED is actually software controlled, and turned on by the camera's device driver.

I'd wager, from a hardware perspective, it would be easier just to put an LED and resistor across the power lines of the webcam rather than hook it to some I/O pin and document it for the software guys for them to implement and test. Cheaper and easier. But I haven't cracked open my macbook to check so who knows.

(for the record i am also a webcam taper)

Re:Whoops

[i kan reed]

Been to a middle school or high school lately? Pretty much the only places not under constant video surveylance are the bathrooms.

Re:Whoops

[box4831]

No we're not. We don't star in computer games and we don't appear in cheezy porn.

They may not 'appear' in it but are often involved with cheezy porn. (cheetos and youporn anyone?)

Re:Whoops

[mayberry42]

These stupid companies think they can treat their customers like children and in the process shoot themselves in the foot.

Correction: they didn't treat them like children: Harrington High School did. Still, I'm surprised how they think they can get away with these kinds of things. Could you imagine the charges that would be brought upon them if, say, a 15 yo girl had the laptop on while, say, undressing? It's appalling and seriously makes me wonder what's going on in their heads.

In the mean time, i expect an "oops, my bad" apology in a futile attempt to save face and not get sued out of existence.

Re:Whoops

[Grizzley9]

I was with you until #5. Then you made it into a class warfare or fairness argument and that's where I'll disagree. Because it's at that point where people fall into the debt trap by feeling they deserve to have the things the Jones have next door that have more money. It doesn't matter how or when you get money, people with less money should not try to live as those that have more else they get in that trap, then get bitter when things fall apart. It's greed and coveting and it does nothing but hurt you in the long run.

Re:Whoops

[anegg]

Some things never change. A couple thousand years ago a guy said something along the lines of "those who have will have more, those who don't will lose what they have".

I think it's pathetic that the rich are complaining about taxes. It's the poor who pay a substantial percentage of their incomes in taxes. I saw a thing on Fox yesterday about how the very rich are paying more and more in taxes -- well, duh. They're the only ones whose incomes are rising, of course their tax bill will (and should) rise as well.

The poor get screwed by everyone. It's a lot easier to steal with a pen than it is with a gun, provided you have the resources.

Interesting. I saw an article in a newspaper last week claiming that 45% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes, mostly those with lower incomes. I'm not sure how that reconciles with the claim that the poor "pay a substantial percentage of their incomes in taxes." Sure, in the United States there are other taxes, including state income taxes and sales taxes, but sales taxes generally top out at 6% to 8% or so, and those not paying federal income taxes probably pay little or no state income taxes. High income tax payers who receive their income as long-term capital gains might pay as low as 17% to 22% or so (see VP Biden's tax returns), while those with non-capital gain income who play the game well have the AMT to catch them at about 26% (see Pres. Obama's tax returns). [I calculated these tax rates by dividing federal tax paid by adjusted gross income to achieve an overall tax percentage.] I welcome factually information that helps explore/explain your position, as I have a genuine interest in understanding the situation.

I also read an article last week talking about how the "poor" were now likely to have only one phone, a cell phone, at an average cost of $75/month instead of maintaining both a land line and a cell phone (because that was "too expensive"). I was puzzled at the implied choice, as a land line can be had in most places at a cost much lower than $75/month (more like $15 to $20 for a "lifeline" no-frills phone service). Is someone really poor if they can afford a $75/month cell phone instead of a $15-$20/month land line?

There are, of course, a wide range of incomes for people in the United States. But I suspect that the standard of living among even much of what is considered "poor" in the United States (and other developed countries) is far advanced from what it was 40 years ago (when I was poor and growing up on welfare in a single-parent, "working mom" household) and from what it is in other parts of the world today. I think we need to differentiate "poor" that results in a threat of malnutrition and death due to conditions of inadequate shelter from "poor" that translates into "I can't buy everything my neighbors can buy."

Re:Whoops

[w_dragon]

Who cares what the interest rate on a credit card is? Why would you ever pay it? Anyone who gives a cent of interest to a credit card company doesn't know what they're doing with money.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

I have yet to meet someone who was struggling to make ends meet who did not have cable TV, an air conditioner and a game system.

You have a very homogenised social circle - fine in itself, but don't generalise from it! There are certainly some people I know who spend a lot of money on entertainment and then complain about having no cash, but it's outweighed by people who try to be frugal but - sometimes through physical or mental health difficulties - struggle with education and work. And there's an awful lot of hoodwinking in business which can catch out the consumer who isn't completely alert, leaving him out of pocket: from the smallprint and the lying salesman to the crook who runs off with the pension fund. Compound that with some very unreasonable employment practices (e.g. an arrest record is often used to deny employment in the UK, even if no charges were brought) and some people can have a lot of trouble wading through modern society.

The people who are genuinely needy tend IME not to be lazy, while those who whine the loudest probably aren't that needy and could more easily get their house in order. Unfortunately, it's the loudest who are remembered and generalised from. This latter group also tends to wander more in affluent circles, giving the impression to the better off that this is what needy people are like.

Re:Whoops

[Machtyn]

I agree with you. Though, I think I agree with those that advocate a 3 month bumper in savings. That is, if you lose your job, will you be able to pay the minimum on all your bills for 3 months from savings? If not, back off paying down the debts of those loans until the savings is "full".

Re:Whoops

[AshtangiMan]

You come across as an ignorant elitist bastard who would walk around telling poor people to pull themselves up by their boot straps. You should come out of your ivory tower more often.

Re:Whoops

[g0bshiTe]

Anyone one else catch that the school incident and this were both in PA?

Re:Whoops

[Attila Dimedici]

I agree that only a limited number of the needy are lazy. However, a majority of them have either never learned, or never mastered, the types of behavior that are necessary to survive on limited means. For the vast majority of the needy, this is not a matter of personal failing but actual lack of knowledge. Many of them do not realize that if they were to suffer in the short term by denying themselves something that provides comfort, they would be much better off in the long run. Those assistance programs which do not also provide education on the value of delayed gratification (including some kind of punishment/reward system) are not gong to ever improve the lot of those in need.

Re:Whoops

[Machtyn]

Perhaps. But as a citizen of the USA, I notice that Americans are very giving people of both time and money to charities and those in need. Churches and other charities abound that assist those in need and the poor in pulling themselves out of the dredges of being poor, if at all possible. Certainly, there are circumstances where a person is completely unable to financially take care of themselves through no fault of their own. Unfortunately, the government will give money away for "free" and the charities usually require effort from the person so that that person can gain upward mobility. The freeloaders are usually not the ones that will want to put in any effort.

Re:Whoops

[ProfanityHead]

I put tape over my work laptop's webcam. A little paranoid... perhaps... but it makes me feel better.

Might consider the mic also...

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

My (2) was an anecdote to add to other anecdotes about one's circle of friends. There was a bit of logic in it, though: no man gets rich by giving everything away, whether that's money or opportunity.

Your (3) and (4) aren't actually addressing the problem.

(5) is the Protestant work ethic fallacy.

(6) is the libertarian fallacy. If people didn't pay their taxes then the first person with bigger guns than you would take everything you believe to be yours. But since people do pay taxes, they will pay it on their terms. You're quite right that money is misappropriated by government, but paying out on unemployment insurance is not how.

Re:Whoops

[Machtyn]

Granted, it would be difficult for this to go unnoticed, but what happens when you get rooted, and the pwner recompiles the kernel module for it?

Re:Whoops

[Curunir_wolf]

A temporarily or formerly "poor person" - or a "not poor person" with common sense - would point out that you can buy a second-hand laptop for $200-$300.

Buy one from where? Actual physical second-hand PC stores are quite rare these days, and an awful lot of poor Americans don't have access to the banking system in order to buy stuff online (even if they did somehow manage to get access to a PC to do it from). Then there are the unbudgeted consequences when your old, out-of-warranty second hand laptop suffers from a hardware fault...

You can go to the local library and find something on CraigsList. Everybody knows how to do that - there's that "free" category where lots of people get stuff.

Re:Whoops

[Machtyn]

I'd bet that when you have that $6000 in cash to pay off, plus, maybe $150 extra for servicing the loan, the loan company would take that and clear your name of the loan. Loan companies realize that getting something from the loan, even if it is breaking even or losing a little, is better than getting nothing at all. All it really takes is writing a few letters and/or talking with a loan company agent.

Granted, this is assuming that you can earn and save for that $6150.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

I agree that only a limited number of the needy are lazy. However, a majority of them have either never learned, or never mastered, the types of behavior that are necessary to survive on limited means.

Again, I think you're identifying those who do have various luxuries but claim to be devoid of cash, rather than a large number who are needy in the developed world sense - i.e. those who spend little to nothing beyond rent, food and utilities, yet still fall behind on payments. The only reason such people aren't already on the street is because they do know how to survive on limited means, but they are held back by a combination of factors: their own health or the health of a dependant; lack of (marketable) intelligence; a difficult job market; etc.

assistance programs which do not also provide education on the value of delayed gratification (including some kind of punishment/reward system)

No-one ever learns from being patronised like this. Those who are simply in a difficult situation (health etc.) already are doing the right things within context, and simply need more support. Those who need money management skills may certainly benefit from money management skills, but more money is its own reward: "punishment" has never educated anyone. And the state does not support people simply for being bad with money, contrary to certain propaganda.

Re:Whoops

[jonbryce]

Self cert mortgages no longer exist, or at least a search for them on emoneyfacts returns a null set.

Re:Whoops

[pyrr]

Same here.

Saying people should "Live within their means" is not unreasonable. When someone starts talking about how people should live it up even if that means not living within their means, well that money has to come from somewhere. This is where the poor (or ANYONE) really tend to get jacked. All those credit cards telling them to take a vacation on credit, to treat themselves and worry about the consequences later. That's what financial ruin is made of. There's no free money, there's always a price to pay later, whether it's shitty credit that makes it extremely difficult to qualify for prime home or auto loans, or paying back the money slowly and living below one's actual means for a long time to make those payments.

This culture of instant gratification and entitlement is frankly a bit shocking. It's like people have lost touch with the value they produce and with money itself. So many folks treat credit cards like magical plastic objects that just make the things they want appear. I think credit cards are a great invention, don't get me wrong, but people still need to be conscious of how they work and avoid spending money they don't have. There's also a need to put in the work to earn the standard of living you want. That includes sacrifices such as getting a job and working one's way up or going to college rather than being a self-indulgent brat until one hits 30 and realizes he or she is still living in mom's basement, has no career, and really not much of a future. I feel more for the people who tried hard and had setbacks, but I kind of see those who just kicked-back, partied, and played video games and never held down a job for more than a few months at a time as making their own bed, which they now have to sleep in.

Re:Whoops

[torgis]

Indeed, let's not forget that 1% of the population controls around 42% of the the wealth in the US. (source here and various other sites, just google it.) A savings account with half a billion dollars in it makes up for a whole lot of people with $1.23 in savings, to help push that average up to $20,000.

I wonder what the average bank account would look like if you removed, say, the top 10% and the bottom 10% of the income curve. I'd like to see a source on that $20,000 figure. Also keep in mind that total savings (stocks, bonds, retirement accounts, etc...) does NOT equal savings account.

Re:Whoops

[jonbryce]

If they are anything like http://www.brighthouse.co.uk/ , that probably is what they charge for a $300 netbook.

Re:Whoops

[torgis]

I'm sure that anyone posting AC about buying a Cadillac Escalade EXT and house in cash is full of crap. Or they really are a drug dealer and have something to hide. But I don't buy that for a second.

Re:Whoops

[MarkvW]

It's called USURY. Our legislators permit it. It exploits the poor and the stupid. The Republicans hate usury legislation. They think that the poor and the stupid should be freely exploited.

Rent-to-own is one of the biggest ripoffs on the face of the universe.

Re:Whoops

[operagost]

But teh intarweb and Keith Olbermann told me that right-wing fanatics like Glenn Beck want us to buy gold??? And MSNBC says it's bad to own real estate??? WHAT DO I DO???

Re:Whoops

[pyrr]

EXACTLY. YES. THANK YOU.

Too many people fail to run their finances like a business. They tend not to plan to any significant degree. See something you want? Buy it! Earned a little money? Spend it! Didn't you forget to pay off that other thing you bought, or maybe you have rent due in a week or two? So what! Just pay later!

And most failed dot-bomb companies tended to run their business finances like personal ones. Sweet! We just got a bunch of money from investors! Let's go on a spending-spree and buy an office-full of Herman Miller Aeron chairs! And a huge coffee machine! And big TVs EVERYWHERE! And hire a designer to set us up with edgy decor! Business plan? Who needs one, we have money now, might as well spend it!

Re:Whoops

[operagost]

Any fiat currency-- which currently is probably all of them-- can become worthless in a short time. You should always hold real assets. If you think gold is tainted because Glenn Beck hawks it, then buy silver and real estate (and consider a course in logic).

Re:Whoops

[operagost]

I have no idea how you got modded up "Insightful" with anecdotal comments like, "I've never met a decent rich guy." As for number 6, right now 47% of the US does not pay taxes. Either the President is lying, and we are in deep poopy, or a lot of people are simply NOT in dire straights and rewarding the political sources of their largess.

The idea that you can always "save the remaining 10%" is inherently irrational and contrary to basic market theory: if it's an employers' market, employers will pay the absolute minimum to keep their employees alive and working;

In an EMPLOYER'S market. Number one, it's not always an employer's market. Number two, that's why we have to encourage entrepreneurship instead of continuing to tell people to get jobs and act surprised and angry when they lose them.

Re:Whoops

[number11]

all that is a diversion, most people in debt are not in debt due to medical bills.

Perhaps true. But in the USA, most (62%) personal bankruptcies are due to excessive medical bills (and three-quarters of those people did have insurance). Not that there's anything wrong with the US medical care system, or anything.

Re:Whoops

[pyrr]

Discipline and planning are also key components of financial success.

Re:Whoops

[operagost]

He lost me at #1 with the anecdotal crap. How can anyone believe that no one who is wealthy is "nice"? I'm sure once you point out such a person's favorite heroes who are rich-- athletes, actors, musicians, politicians-- they'll have to backpedal.

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

Or maybe it just proves, further, that the poor get screwed.

There's also this little thing called delayed gratification. Also, if you "need" one for higher education, chances are the school has computer labs available for use, and that's only if you couldn't get something as part of your school loans. If they don't (highly unlikely) than your local public library probably has something.

Places like Aaron's are not the enemy (though in this case, that was definitely inappropriate). Charging interest is not a crime, and you're not getting screwed because you're the one who agreed to it. Anybody who can rent-to-own a computer is perfectly capable of saving-to-own. It's just a fact of life that if you have more money, you're going to be less inconvenienced if you spend it. That doesn't make rich people bad, and it doesn't make poor people victims. Quit painting a false picture.

Re:Whoops

[operagost]

Maybe you should offer your own ideas instead of being a defeatist. Protip: Marxism doesn't work.

Re:Whoops

[HornWumpus]

You are thinking of Sears not Aarons (or any other 'rent to own').

There is nothing good about any RTO except they separate fools from their money.

Re:Whoops

[operagost]

The unfortunate flip side of this world view is that anyone in poorer circumstances than your own is unfit for survival in a progressive economy and deserves whatever exploitation you can come up with that would benefit you.

No, the difference is that in the US those with means are expected to be charitable (and most are), while in more socialist states those with means are supposed to give all their income to the state for it to dispose of as the current regime sees fit.

Re:Whoops

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, since I believe that government assistance programs will never make a significant positive impact on poverty, we are obviously never going to agree. I have worked with several organizations that help the impoverished, both in the U.S. and in third world countries. Even in third world countries, where the majority of the poor are poor through no fault of their own, I observed that the majority of the poor did not know the types of behavior that would help them get out of their situation. In the parts of one third world country where I worked with an organization, the poor would not have been able to get themselves out of their poverty without the pressure on the government from the organization. However, the changes that the government made (allowing the residents to obtain property rights, extending the public sewer system, improving the local roads, etc) had been tried in nearby areas and failed, because there had not been a concurrent effort working with the poor showing them how to make long term improvements in their lives rather than squandering the improvements on short term pleasures. Of course the reason that the poor in that area had a tendency to squander on short term pleasures was a history in that country of these advances being temporary and if you did not cash out right away, the government was likely to undo the opportunity in a short time. The organization I worked with was able to make changes because they were able to show the people how they could consolidate their gains in ways that the government would have difficulty rescinding and they were able to show government officials improvements in the situation that outweighed the benefits the officials might get from corrupt deals that reversed it (partly by making it clear that they would publicize it thoroughly throughout both that third world country and to elected officials in Washington, DC...since the people doing this were American citizens who could not easily be dismissed as terrorists or terrorist sympanthizers, there was no easy way for local government officials to threaten them or otherwise nuetralize them).

Re:Whoops

[GameboyRMH]

Car loan. Ugh. Avoid buying newer cars as much as possible - Definitely never buy a new one off the showroom floor unless you're very wealthy. At least let some sucker drive it around for a year or two and bleed off a huge chunk of the value, then you can get it almost good-as-new at a great big discount, especially in first-world countries where idiots never keep a car for more than 5 years.

It isn't worth 4-5 digits for the privilege of "deflowering" the car. You can have a much better experience for less anyways: rent a Mercedes or BMW and a nice suit for a day, then cruise the sports car dealerships and take any one you want for a ride ;)

Re:Whoops

[GameboyRMH]

Most newer laptops have a hardwired LED that lights up whenever the webcam is powered on, so there's no need for tape.

Re:Whoops

[GameboyRMH]

Or just about any laptop manufactured since 2008 including cheapo netbooks...

Re:Whoops

[GameboyRMH]

Aw man I don't get it :-(

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

2) I'm going to assume you're biased or you haven't been exposed to that many people. Does assuming make me just as bad as you? Maybe.

3) People with medical bills who can't afford them can always negotiate their monthly bills with the hospital in question. As long as you're paying something they won't bother you that much. While you might be paying that almost nothing bill the rest of your life, that alone won't cause you to go broke. Don't even try claiming otherwise. If you earn that little, you have all sorts of government assistance for basic needs, and you end up not spending that much any more on actual needs.

4) "Surviving" in the US nowadays has a totally different meaning than in an actual poor country. You're not in poverty if you use a cell phone, live in a house, have cable, have an xbox, or just bought that TV on sale at Walmart with your tax credits. If you literally can't save a dime when you have anything like this, 99% chance it's your own fault.

5) Yes, you should live within your means. When you go broke by enjoying spendy things, it's your own damned fault. People who make more money will get to enjoy life more - that's a fact. It doesn't necessarily mean they deserve it more as a human on the purely philosophical level, but life's not fair, they made their money, they're going to spend it because they can. Don't begrudge them for it just because they don't wanna give you a handout one day. Make your own way if you don't like your situation. Your opportunities can be limited by others, but it's not like they ever end. There's always opportunities, and if you work hard you significantly increase your chances of landing a good opportunity. Why the hell does everyone think they're entitled?

6) People making below a decent wage don't pay shit for federal taxes when everything is considered.

Re:Whoops

[CrowdedBrainzzzsand9]

Their computer rentals are (probably) their only product with a means of disablement for non-payment, other than repossession. Their living room furniture doesn't automatically eject the customer from the seat for non-payment. It seems specious to add spyware to one and only one of their products just because they can and may.

Re:Whoops

[Coren22]

I have seen these cool things you plug into a laptop's microphone port which shorts out the plug which also has the side benefit of disabling the built in microphones. I just wish I could find where they are sold, as I need to buy a few...

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

I built my "ivory tower" as you put it with my own two hands out of mud. So yes, I don't see why somebody else who's poor and capable shouldn't do the same. It helps if you stop being bitter.

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

Some things never change. A couple thousand years ago a guy said something along the lines of "those who have will have more, those who don't will lose what they have".

I think it's pathetic that the rich are complaining about taxes. It's the poor who pay a substantial percentage of their incomes in taxes. I saw a thing on Fox yesterday about how the very rich are paying more and more in taxes -- well, duh. They're the only ones whose incomes are rising, of course their tax bill will (and should) rise as well.

The poor get screwed by everyone. It's a lot easier to steal with a pen than it is with a gun, provided you have the resources.

You must be slow. "Rich" people pay a substantially larger percentage in taxes. Your tax bracket changes as you earn more. Once someone who earns $20k a year pays $8k in taxes, come back and talk to me.

Re:Whoops

[pedropolis]

People making below your decent wage pay more proportionally than the rich do for FICA. It's a regressive tax that draws more from the middle class and poor on a percentage basis.

Also, if Warren Buffett is scratching his head over why his tax rate was lower than that of his secretary, then something is wrong with the system. That shouldn't happen.

Re:Whoops

[AshtangiMan]

I'm not bitter, and never accused you of being in an ivory tower. The poster I responded to claimed that "anyone should be able to reduce their cost of living". Do you want to defend that statement? I work with a lot of people who can't reduce their cost of living, are desperate to do whatever it takes to sustain themselves, and are still not able to do that. That you could is a testament to your own hard work, will, and perhaps a bit of luck or at least some good circumstances. Congratulations. It doesn't always work that way, and does not indicate any less effort on the part of those that are suffering.

Re:Whoops

[ildon]

Rent to own is the biggest bullshit on earth. I'd rather have no furniture and have to take the bus to the library to use a computer than rent anything from one of those people.

Re:Whoops

[The Archon V2.0]

You need to widen your circle of friends then - or teach them how to start saving. Anyone should be able to reduce their cost of living to that it is 90% of their income, and save the remaining 10%.

I'm saving 10% - 15% of what I make, so I'm already doing better than your standard, and I've been doing so for the past three years. I still don't have near $20,000.

I'd suggest widening your circle of friends as well, to include people who are affected by the current economy, or at least people who aren't over 40 who've been in stable jobs for the past 15 years.

Re:Whoops

[AshtangiMan]

Marxism? Perhaps you are reading more into what I said than is there. Pro-tip: saying "anyone should be able to reduce their cost of living" is an absurdity. Perhaps there are quite a few in the middle class who have cable internet and a new car who could indeed reduce their cost of living. There are a lot of people whose cost of living is less than $8000 per year who may not be able to reduce it further. To those people what would vivian say? There are a lot of people in this country (the US) who do not have the means to save, and who are not spending on anything beyond what is necessary to live. Be clear: I am not saying that they do or do not deserve anything other than what they have. I am saying that to tell those people that they should be able to save some of their money would be an insult to them. But if you told me that I could reduce my expenses to afford more savings I would certainly agree.

Re:Whoops

[fadethepolice]

There are many people in this country who cannot buy enough food with 100% of their income. You have been brainwashed into living in a fantasy world. Let me give you one example. People that I have observed making comments similar to yours are against a one payer system for health care and support employer based healthcare. This is illogical, and allows corporations to walk off with the money you paid for insurance and then dump you when you get sick and cost them money. In an employer based healthcare system you will get laid off and put on disability when you get very sick. Very soon after that you will lose your employer based health care because you no longer work. When you get too old, you will also lose your employer based healthcare, and will be shifted to medicare. All the years of healthy living will not count towards the insurance you need at the end of your life because the private insurance company has walked away with the premiums, and has left you to be taken care of by taxpayers. The truth of the matter is that many people in this country have to compete with people being worked to death in thailand for wages, and the wages paid to them because of world wide free market economies that seek the lowest common denominator for employee costs DO NOT PAY ENOUGH MONEY FOR THEM TO EAT. The free market is skewed by lax labor laws in developing companies so regulation is needed here to prevent having people die in the streets from lack of healthcare and food, just like in india and sudan. You should take a look at your situation and contemplate what would happen to you if you develeped multiple sclerosis or leukemia, and were unable to work anymore. How would you feel about the state helping you out then? Should YOU be left to die so that someone else can buy a new lexus?

Re:Whoops

[scot4875]

The median amount stored in savings accounts would be a much more telling statistic than the mean in this case.

--Jeremy

Re:Whoops

[rtb61]

Dumb enough for that manager to spend a few months cooling his heels in jail. The first thing these people should do with regard to that civil suit is get press criminal charges and simply let the government prove their case, it will save quite a chunk of money in their claim.

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

You're forgetting he also gave a shitload to charities. Yes, it may be a "tax loophole" but it still helps the public. It's tax-deductible, and without that status charities would suffer. It's not a tax credit. So what would you rather have? Furthemore FICA has a cap, as it should, since people earning more don't tend to use the social services that came out of it. It draws more from people earning less than six figures because that's what the cap is. Lastly, what you put into FICA is taken into consideration when it comes time to pay federal income taxes.

Re:Whoops

[cdrguru]

The problem with that thinking is that when the US Dollar goes down, so will every other currency that is linked to it. There is no "safe" currency that is traded or even reasonably accessible.

I guess you might be OK if you put your money into Mongolian tugriks. Maybe, but I don't know how you might do that. And there is no assurance that Mongolia doesn't have closer ties to the US financial system than most people believe. I can't believe any currency that is tied any closer is going to survive without a lot of damage.

Re:Whoops

[scot4875]

You are the type of poster that *really* makes me wish Slashdot had a "hide" option.

Your snarky, holier-than-thou, barely informed posts really add nothing to the discussion. You've been pissing all over this thread with nothing but bullshit unfounded opinion.

--Jeremy

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

I'm ready to defend that statement to a point. It clearly doesn't apply to everyone, but the majority of people who claim to be "poor" I'm betting can sacrifice one thing or another, and I think that's more along the lines of what the original poster meant. Yes, I know the poster said 'everyone' but I'm reading between the lines here.

Re:Whoops

[scot4875]

and being able to work with your study group in the library is pretty handy

Maybe it's different in a non-CS-related curriculum, but when I was in school, there was absolutely no need for anybody to bring a laptop to a study group. We brought pencils, paper, and books, and worked out algorithms by hand when necessary.

Most of the time, when I see laptops around campus (or in classrooms), their owners are using Facebook or browsing some random celebrity gossip site. They seem to be more of a distraction than an instrument of learning. Not that they *can't* be used as an effective tool in education, they just typically *aren't*.

--Jeremy

Re:Whoops

[cusco]

"When" the US dollar goes down? It's been dropping for a decade at least. In the last five years it's lost at least ten percent against the Peruvian Nuevo Sol (the only foreign currency that I pay attention to). Think about that for a moment; the US's currency is losing value faster than a Third World country's. Thanks a lot, supply-siders.

Re:Whoops

[DigiTechGuy]

Well, I don't know about $20k, but that is actually my savings goal which I should reach by this year. I have around $15k in savings now, and for several years now I've been nervous if my savings ever dipped below $10k. Out of high school my comfortable savings amount was $1000, but back then my job was even crappier than it is now.

I don't believe I'm the norm though. Most of my friends live paycheck to paycheck and on a good year might crest $100 in savings. Of course they're always buying new phones every couple months, have big flat screen TVs and cable packages with every channel, all drive new cars (on high interest long term loans of course), and all sorts of other things I find ridiculous given most of them make significantly less than I do. As soon as they get a dollar in their pocket they spend it, usually on things they don't really need.

The kicker is when I ask some people out for dinner, or to have some drinks, or whatever... They never have money to do any of that stuff so they don't go out... Not that I go out all that often. But the worst is when they do come out, but they get the cheapest thing on the menu, or just an appetizer and a water, then won't let me buy them a proper meal and a beer because "it would be taking advantage".

Then they'll whine about how they want to buy a house, but can't fathom saving enough to put 20% down. They think "If only someone would loan me that money without wanting anything down on it". It's insanity. I tell them to add up all the interest they've ever paid on car loans, credit cards, and any other frivolous purchases and they could probably put well over 20% down on whatever houses they were looking at. They get mad, because they know it's true.

I've seen this with regard to buying a house in people my age, mid 20s, all the way up to 40s and making six figures. When I have more savings than someone making several timeswhat I do, something is wrong... And I doubt it's something wrong with me. People don't understand the value of saving for emergencies, for large purchases, the savings in not paying interest. It must be a culture thing because in most people I know, except SOME (not all) of my 50+ year old friends, being broke and living paycheck to paycheck while have lots of fancy toys seems to be the norm.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

(2) 'sjust another anecdote. But no-one got rich by giving away their money and opportunity to others.

(3) "The hospital in question" may be several different places, each wanting their cut and each expecting what to you may be a trivial amount but to someone on the bread line is not. Moreover, well-known acute problems handled by the local hospital may be happy to take a very small amount, but conditions requiring specialists or ongoing treatment certainly will not. It may not cause you to go broke but it will certainly affect your ability to save, since the outcome of such negotiations will be partly based on your savings such that it is expected that you pay your debts in lieu of saving. I've been treated privately in the US (paying out of pocket) and by the national health service in the UK (via taxation). IME the former won't even consider some procedures unless you provide payment means up front. I've always had the means available. I am fortunate.

(4) Where do you live? Perhaps you are so privileged that even the less well-off around you have a cable and a new TV, but the poor in developed countries have neither of these things. Even if they had, say, an xbox - because poverty isn't a lifetime state and some people may have been well-off once but fallen on hard times - the ability to save up for one toy costing a few hundred dollars wouldn't say anything about ability to build up useful savings. And living in a house? No-one anywhere near the bread line can afford a house of his own, although house sharing is a completely rational option. You're injected with a worrying combination of prejudice and ignorance.

(5) The "content owner" believes he is entitled to protection by the government of his expressions; the commercial banker believes he is entitled to protection by the government of the loaning of non-existent money by fractional reserve; the investment banker believes he is entitled to bailouts when he has made enough profit he felt entitled to hoodwink; the regular store owner believes he is entitled to protection by the government against thieves. Everyone believes they are entitled to the government's working in their interests. The only government which isn't quickly overthrown is one where everyone gets a little of what they feel is in their interest, but no-one gets precisely what they want. If you can think of a better method, implement it and call me when it works out for you.

(6) People who make "below a decent wage" haven't necessarily always made a low wage and won't always be making a low wage. And they're involved in the tax system through taxes paid by their employer (not just payroll taxes) and every business they buy anything from (not just sales taxes). Insurance doesn't work by everyone paying out precisely what he puts in, if that's what you're worried about.

Of course, the least tax in terms of proportion of wealth is paid by the richest. It's not just due to income tax structure - the more you hoard the less money moves around to be taxed.

Re:Whoops

[cdrguru]

You have to understand that in the US the progression is pretty much that you get some credit cards when you are in school, you max them out and default. Maybe declare bankruptcy. Get some burger-flipping job and find a way to qualify for food stamps. Learn how to buy beer and lottery tickets with food stamps. Get on a waiting list for Section 8 housing. Wait for government support.

In the end, you get Medicaid (government support), subsidized housing (government support), food stamps (government support) and other free stuff. You won't be a burden on your offspring because once again, you will be on government support when you retire.

The unemployment situation in the US makes this even more apparent. We have 8 million people that were recently working who are not and will never have a job again because the economy changed. The government will end up supporting them as well.

We have embarked down a road where no matter what level of finacial responsibility you might have, it will work out better if you spend every dime on beer, DVDs, games and lottery tickets. Because the government is going to support the people that do this.

If you are more responsible maybe you won't need the government support. You might have some more dignity, but your neighbors will be better off.

Re:Whoops

[cusco]

Probably not. I've worked for/with quite a number of rich people, including "heroes" such as actors, musicians, and politicians, and they have almost universally been assholes in person. There are exceptions of course, but every one started out much lower on the social pyramid and got rich by a combination of talent and luck. As a general rule, rich people suck and I'd much rather have friends who are poor.

Re:Whoops

[scot4875]

I'm not sure how that reconciles with the claim that the poor "pay a substantial percentage of their incomes in taxes."

Sales taxes. Gas taxes. Property taxes. (If you're renting, you're indirectly paying your landlord's property taxes.) Sin taxes. "Regulatory fees" on cable, phone, and internet connections. State income taxes. All those "hidden" taxes that everyone bitches about all the time.

There are more taxes than just federal income tax. None of those sound like very much to you? You're obviously not poor. Try adding it all up and seeing what percentage comes out of your take-home pay when you're on minimum wage, with no benefits -- and you have the option of paying $200/month for insurance, or $140 per visit to the doctor. The state of Washington has no income tax -- yet it somehow has the most effectively regressive tax structure in the nation; the rich pay roughly 20% in various taxes, and the poor also pay roughly 20% in taxes.

But no, of course, according to you everybody who is "poor" is really just fine, their only problem is that they can't afford the 56" plasma TV that their neighbor has. If some percentage of the poor have a cell phone that they're paying $75/month for, then obviously they aren't *really* poor, because they could instead use that $75/month ($870/year) to buy groceries and quit whining. Nevermind that even if they saved that $870/year for 10 years, it still wouldn't even be worth enough to have any sort of real financial independence.

What's that? Invest it you say? And then have their entire meager savings wiped out when the next bubble pops? That sounds like a *great* idea.

TL;DR: the reason you can't reconcile how the poor have a significant amount of their income go to taxes -- even without paying a cent in federal income tax -- is because you're ignorant.

--Jeremy

Re:Whoops

[steveg]

Inflation will wipe out your cash value. Deflation will put big savers on top of the world.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

As for number 6, right now 47% of the US does not pay taxes.

That's highly simplistic. Even if you ignore payroll and sales tax, various business taxes paid by every employer you work for and business you buy from are only payable because you are respectively doing the work and buying the product. The tax respectively reduces your wage increases the price of the product you buy.

In an EMPLOYER'S market. Number one, it's not always an employer's market.

If your health is bad and your intelligence is low and you're in the middle of recession, it's the employers' market. It doesn't matter how hard you try.

Number two, that's why we have to encourage entrepreneurship instead of continuing to tell people to get jobs and act surprised and angry when they lose them.

Entrepreneurship requires intelligence, money and customers. Appropriate intelligence is not as common as people assume (or like to think they have) - the best minds are swept up by academia or high-paying positions in existing firms. To get money you need investors or banks giving loans. To get customers you need people with money who also care to buy shit - this latter problem is increasingly hard now technology exists and is deployed by various large corporations to bring all of life's universal comforts to your doorstep. Let's see... go to the trouble of finding something that n sufficiently well-off people want to buy in order to pay m new workers and require more useless work to be done producing shiny toys, or just tax the even more well-off? Well, the latter's half way there, but even better if people need work is to just reduce working hours across the board.

And the majority of new businesses fail, leaving the business owner in even more debt. But as long as you support the social safety net, I guess that's not so bad.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

I have no heroes, and even if I admired a wealthy celebrity it wouldn't mean I thought he was nice and would make a good friend.

Re:Whoops

[_0xd0ad]

The average savings account in the U.S. contains somewhere on the order $20,000. Therefore, if you're buying anything on credit that costs more than an order of magnitude less than that, you are basically declaring yourself to be poor, complete with a giant, flashing neon sign. [blah blah blah about interest rates]

Therefore, in general, unless what you are buying costs... I don't know, say 25% of the U.S. median annual income (about $12,500), you should not even consider buying it on credit.

That's nice, but if I'm buying a $500 TV and they offer zero-percent financing for the first 6 months and I can pay it off without a penny of interest a few days before the zero-percent financing ends, that generalization you made about low loan amounts coming with high interest rates sort of doesn't apply to me. Meanwhile I have an extra $500 that can be left in an account where it bears interest.

Re:Whoops

[_0xd0ad]

(2) I've never met a decent rich guy, and I was brought up in a significantly privileged environment - while I've never used money to decide on my friends, I've never been able to form a lasting friendship with anyone of significant means as they have all failed at demonstrating kindness/selflessness/generosity/etc and end up taking advantage of me when I try to demonstrate same. Causation no, but correlation certainly;

Um, most of them probably would never tell you in person that they have ~$50,000 in savings and investments. I know I wouldn't. And they probably have that much because they don't spend a lot, so again you wouldn't really notice. Thus I'd say it's entirely possible you know a few of them.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

You really ought to check the requirements for each of those programmes. Not only is it fairly difficult to get on them, but you'll end up with a miserable life if you continue with so little income that you continue to qualify.

If you are more responsible maybe you won't need the government support.

Bad health, lack of intelligence and workers >> available jobs.

But if you like you can ignore all this and assume it's about not being responsible.

You might have some more dignity, but your neighbors will be better off.

"Dignity" is one of those quasi-religious terms, like "faith", instilled by the prejudice of your parents. There's nothing "undignified" about asking for and receiving help. Life would be a lot worse if everyone considered it "undignified" not to lie in the streets and die.

Re:Whoops

[Ltap]

"When I give the poor food they call me a saint, when I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist." - Dom Hélder Câmara

Re:Whoops

[_0xd0ad]

Cashier's check, obviously. As good as the bank it's drawn from, and as good as cash as long as the bank is good.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

So many folks treat credit cards like magical plastic objects that just make the things they want appear.

No, they don't. It's just convenient for your argument to paint a picture in which they do. Some people get into debt they were unlikely to ever be able to afford. Most people either never reach unmanageable levels of debt or simply had a significant downturn in their employment luck - just as applies to many small business owners, who couldn't even have set up without being in debt for a while and who would be fucked the moment a couple of large customers decide not to pay an invoice on time.

There's also a need to put in the work to earn the standard of living you want.

Those with the best standard of living haven't needed to put much work in at all, having either inherited it or being very smart. Hard work is a very small component of financial success.

That includes sacrifices such as getting a job and working one's way up or going to college rather than being a self-indulgent brat until one hits 30 and realizes he or she is still living in mom's basement, has no career, and really not much of a future.

Most college programmes are overrated and you'd be better off paying $100,000 on an advertisement campaign for someone to hire you. And I say this as a mathematics graduate who performed well.

Re:Whoops

[_0xd0ad]

from the they-learned-it-from-school-in-pennsylvania dept.

Re:Whoops

[Xyrus]

Ah, but we can take on pale colors and spherical shapes, smell like feet, and have the consistency of a soggy cheese ball! Some of us can even do a really good impression of melted soft-serve vanilla ice cream with sprinkles if we wear our crumpled tan pants low and take off our shirts in the sun!

Re:Whoops

[HornWumpus]

Except the Earned income tax credit pretty much wipes out all their social security taxes (as it was intended to do.)

Also note that the poor receive a much better ROI based on taxes in vs payments out. Further the rich will no doubt be further means tested out of their negative rate of return.

Re:Whoops

[orgelspieler]

I have thought about this as well, whether to put more towards the mortgage or keep more in savings. While it makes more sense mathematically to have less in savings and more equity in the house, the problem is also one of liquidity. If I lose my job, I'd rather tap into savings than take out a second mortgage.

But it's amazing how many people pay off the smaller loans first rather than the highest interest rates first. Lets say you have $4000 left on your car at 2%, and $150,000 left on your house at 6%. Your great-aunt Matilda kicks the bucket and leaves you $4000. Most people would spend that money on a new big screen TV. A smaller portion would pay off that pesky car note. Very few would put it towards the mortgage, though.

Re:Whoops

[Golddess]

Seriously, how dumb is this company?

Depends. What's the contract say that the Wyoming couple signed when they rented the computer, and are there any laws that supersedes any contract language that would allow such actions?

If they are legally in the clear... ok, maybe they're still dumb because now who's going to rent from them knowing they may be spied on at any moment?

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

I don't have any friends whose financial situation I'm not at least vaguely aware of. Close friends we share in detail with. Friends help you achieve good things for yourself or others, and to help someone you have to know what they have to work with... so it just seems to come up naturally in conversation.

The people I know and get along with who have higher incomes tend to give away their money a lot to help others, whether to fund something - like a small business start-up grant or the welfare of a family in some far-off third-world country they happen to have done business in - or simply to help people out of shit. For example, two people I know might each make, say, $100/hour, one of them is ploughing it into helping extended and adopted family and continuously doing favours for people; the other spends it on gadgets and holidays. The former is very relaxing to be around, full of good humour and advice; the latter is insufferable.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

And that was my point.

Re:Whoops

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Or perhaps the problem will be better solved by giving them easier access to credit - from reputable sources such as banks that don't charge ursurous amounts of interest, coupled with sound financial advice designed to prevent them getting into a debt spiral as a result of trying to give their children a chance to get out of the poverty trap.

Most people have access to it--once. You typically don't end up at a payday lender/rent-to-own shop/etc. until you have demonstrated through action that you can't be trusted to reliably pay your bills. The "usurious" interest (which almost certainly isn't, given that most states have usury laws, and would shut down violators) goes to pay the costs of servicing bad debt (that's where people take the product and don't pay as promised). After you fail to pay your bills, you have to earn your good name back in order to get more favourable credit terms.

Giving people with minimal income and a poor history "easier access to credit" sounds like a remarkably bad idea; in fact, it sounds like the kind of idea that could lead to, say, a collapse of the housing market.

Re:Whoops

[HornWumpus]

Tell that to the youth of today, and they won't believe you.

Re:Whoops

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Such companies are vultures, they prey on a section of society that wants the latest toys but cannot hope to afford them.

I guess I don't see where giving people what they want as "predatory." Or do you figure that people have a right to "the latest toys" even though they "cannot hope to afford them?"

Personal responsibility goes a long way. Earn the money for your toys, or do without, or accept the costs associated with choosing to live past your means. Don't come whining when a contract you signed of your own free will turns out to be unfavourable.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

Also note that the poor receive a much better ROI based on taxes in vs payments out.

Except that society and the government which supports it isn't "taxes in vs payments out" - it's a whole infrastructure to protect and serve the people. If a poor man is still poor while a rich man is still rich, the rich man has received a better RoI.

A rich man who thinks taxation gives him a poor RoI is welcome to try to stop paying tax at every stage it's taken from him. He will soon find he can do barely any business and, what is more, society which has previously protected his big house and his nice car will take them both from him.

Whereas a poor man with no assets for society to protect enjoys exactly the same indirect taxes.

Re:Whoops

[sortadan]

They claim it was the franchisee that did it, and it wasn't SOP for the company. Sounds like a branch manager and tech department is going to take the fall.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Aarons-Inc-Responds-to-prnews-1949739725.html?x=0&.v=1

Re:Whoops

[hoboroadie]

This is why I use an old-old cellphone that doesn't have a camera. BTW when I RTFA, then googled pcrentalagent and DesignerWare LLC, &c. I still couldn't find any information about the enhanced spyware. pcrentalagent just seems to be a remote disabling tool for deadbeat "skips" who quit paying. What am I missing here?

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Those who are simply in a difficult situation (health etc.) already are doing the right things within context, and simply need more support.

From what I've seen, a sizable percentage of the poor show remarkably bad money management skills, and even when they get jobs that pay remarkably well, they still fail to build up any sort of cash reserve. Then, when trouble strikes as it inevitably does every so often, they aren't prepared to deal with it. I'm not saying that this is true for every person who is struggling to get by, just for a sizable percentage. If you're struggling to get by at 23 or 24, it's because your job sucks. However, unless you've been unemployment for over a year or you've experienced a medical disaster, earthquake, tornado, fire, flood, etc., if you're still struggling to get by at 50, it's because you didn't save enough money when you were 23 or 24. Period.

Of course, it's not entirely their fault. The existence of poverty inherently points to the U.S. education system being a complete failure. Our children are never taught even the most basic money management skills in school, so unless their parents have good money management skills, they're pretty much screwed. This keeps the poor poor and the rich rich, offering only limited opportunities for advancement. And that is what we most need to fix about our nation's education system.

Re:Whoops

[d6]

Wish I could mod this +5. If even one person spending 110% of their pay reads it and "gets" i, you've helped them out.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

From what I've seen, a sizable percentage of the poor show remarkably bad money management skills, and even when they get jobs that pay remarkably well,

There are very few people who jump from poverty to getting jobs "that pay remarkably well" - you're talking about the outliers who are smart enough to be demonstrably in high demand but who for some reason can or will not apply that to money management.

Reality is that most people simply aren't ever going to be in much demand: there are so many people who can do what they can and who can be educated to the highest level they can reach. It is this pool which makes up the majority of the poor in a developed country - not the quirky genius who fails at life skills.

Of course, it's not entirely their fault. The existence of poverty inherently points to the U.S. education system being a complete failure.

Yes, this is a contributing problem, and not just in the US. But you can only go so far teaching people to be careful with money they don't have, and no-one is going to be satisfied for very long with barely enough to put food on the table.

Re:Whoops

[LunaticTippy]

Depends on the car. I like the Toyota Echo (cheap, >35mpg, surprisingly good headroom) and it was always worth roughly the same new and used. I had one get totaled by a texting driver and was shocked at the market for new vs. used. I ended up with a used one because I couldn't find a new one with the features I wanted/didn't want.

The Yaris, (replacement for the Echo) seemed to have a similar situation when I last checked.

Re:Whoops

[anegg]

I do appreciate your enlightening me, as I try to work my way out of my ignorant state. I'm not sure what you mean by "financial independence" not being achievable even if one saved the savings from not having a $75/month cell phone for 10 years - if you mean "not having to work" financial independence, then of course that wouldn't be achievable in that fashion. But that kind of financial independence isn't achievable for most people. Spending $75/month on a cell phone when much of that money could be saved (or spent on other necessities like food) is irresponsible in my book, whether it will or will not achieve financial independence. The attitude that one might well as not try to economize because the result is too small an amount to add up to anything is a defeatist attitude that will get one nowhere.

As for gas taxes, property taxes for renters, so-called sin taxes, and regulatory fees - I consider them all part of the cost of the good or service, for better or worse. When I look at the average cost of gas across the US, for example, as being $3.95/gallon (or whatever it is today) I don't look at the non-tax portion as one price, and then look at the tax separately. I doubt many people do, as the manner in which these taxes are paid is structured so as to be undifferentiated from the purchase price. It is true that these are taxes, however, and since a greater portion of a smaller income goes towards buying necessities, I can see that the taxes on these necessities, although not usually exceeding 8% to 10% of the purchase price, will add up to a greater percentage of income overall assuming that the higher income person doesn't spend all of their income but rather saves some. However, its not clear to me where that break point is, or to what extent the higher income people are spending all of their income anyway (making them pay just as high a percentage of tax) especially given the rather low average rate of savings that is often quoted for citizens of the US. How does that affect your argument?

I don't appreciate your putting words in my mouth, however. I did not say that everyone who is "poor" is just fine. I said that many who are considered "poor" today aren't as poor as those who were considered "poor" 40 years ago, or in developing as opposed to developed countries. I didn't even bring up the subject of investing - I'm not sure who put that chip on your shoulder. However, since you brought it up: There are ways to invest money that don't wipe out the amount saved when the "next bubble pops." In fact, for most people who saw precipitous declines in their investments after the housing bubble popped, they also saw their balances regain their previous levels after a couple of years, assuming that they didn't sell off the investments in a panic when the fecal matter hit the fan. Although their investments didn't increase in value over that couple of years, they weren't wiped out, either. In fact, if they continued to put their hard-won savings (even just a little bit) into their investments while prices were depressed, they saw a tremendous increase in value as those investments recovered all of their former values and then some. I'm not arguing that investing is for everyone, just against your premise that anyone investing will be wiped out by bubbles. If that were true, why aren't all the rich folks who receive most of their income from capital gains (in order to avoid as much income tax as possible) wiped out?

My family was poor when I was a child. I'm not poor now. I live in a nice house and don't worry about where the money for next month's bills will come from, although I do drive an 11-year old car and don't have a cell phone or cable TV. Out of my 4 siblings, two would be considered poor by today's measure. One is truly poor; he has consistently spurned work and chased after "get rich quick" schemes, leaving him with not much at all. He and his wife scrape by. The other is poor by measured income for his size household, yet owns a decent house, is warm in the

Re:Whoops

[GameboyRMH]

Yeah I've noticed that with the Echo/Yaris, they hardly lose any value, but they're very cheap anyways. They're really good econoboxes - compact but not cramped inside, lightweight, simple, efficient, and not hard on the eyes - which in recent vehicles is as rare as being lightweight.

Re:Whoops

[mcgrew]

The poor can't invest. They can barely survive, let alone invest.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Only because it's a lot harder to declare personal bankruptcy since 2005. As a result of the increased difficulty, the attorney fees involved increased dramatically. Now, nobody can afford to declare bankruptcy for a few thousand dollars in debt because they would end up owing more to the lawyers than they would get out from under.

Because of that, it stands to reason that the most expensive debts (houses and medical expenses) would be the only real drivers of personal bankruptcy. This isn't an indication that those are the primary drivers of poverty in the U.S., but rather an indictment of the high cost of filing for bankruptcy protection.

Re:Whoops

[LunaticTippy]

Interest rates on credit cards are weird. I have excellent credit, always pay everything on time, have zero revolving balance, own a house I can easily make the payments on.

All of my credit cards have raised my rates to 24.99%. I don't know why, and if it mattered I could probably call them and have it changed. Perhaps they are angry that I never give them finance charges, just the usurious merchant fees minus their cash back.

Re:Whoops

[mcgrew]

In Illinois we have a flat 3% income tax, and for those poor sods up in Chicago they're paying close to 15% in combined state, county, and municipal sales taxes (IINM the state sales tax is 7.5% by itself, and there are county and municipal taxes. That's an 18% tax on their income right there, while a rich man, who's not going to spend anywhere near 100% of his money like a poor man must, might be paying 5% of his income in combined state and local taxes at most.

The poor rent. They're paying the property tax when they pay rent, and they're paying the interest on the landlord's mortgage in their rent, while the landlord gets to deduct the mortgage interest from his state and federal income taxes.

As to the phone, I live in a bad neighborhood (by choice; I'm a cheapass) and know a lot of poor people. They use "minute phones" that cost around $20 per month if you watch your minutes, or BOOST Mobile (As I do) for $50/month unlimited everything (including internet and text). Those poor enough to get a LINK card get phones for free! I don't know if that's a state or federal program.

I agree that almost all Americans are rich in comparison to someone in, say, Etheopia. But even there you can't go by strict dollar amounts. When I was stationed in Thailand in 1974, the average Thai earned about $1k/year, but otoh I could take three women to a restaraunt and have the bill come to less than a dollar. A bus ride anywhere in the country was five cents (a "bhat"). I rented a bungalow for $30/month. I was incredibly rich compared to the average Thai, while I was in Thailand, but back home my standard of living wasn't much better than theirs at all (servicepeople don't get well paid).

Re:Whoops

[Scarletdown]

The average savings account is $20,000? I don't know anyone with more than $5000 in savings, and the average people in the US save per year is less than $500.

I believe the GP's comment was on the concept of "People grew exceedingly rich. But that was nothing to be ashamed of, because no one was actually poor; at least, no one worth speaking of."

Re:Whoops

[dohnut]

Building up your savings to a reasonable level is never a bad idea.

By your logic you should not be paying for insurance on your auto, home, health or possessions since that money should be spent on paying down loans. Well, that's what having a source of liquidity is all about -- insurance. It's great that you will save a few grand on interest if you pay something off sooner. It's not so great that the first time you lose your job you are starving and on the streets because you had nothing saved.

To each his own, but you will regret making that double mortgage payment for the last year if now you become unemployed and realize that if you had saved that money you wouldn't be worrying about your mortgage for another 12 months (a simplified scenario, granted).

I'm all for paying off loans early, but I'm also for building up 3-6 months of cash (or other fairly liquid assets). You have to balance it. It's not all about paying the least amount possible. If that were the case you'd be living with your parents, eating rice and beans for every meal and walking/biking to work (not a bad lifestyle really, but it's probably not the one you've chosen). Building a buffer of cash gives you security and piece of mind which can go very far into reducing stress and therefore making life (and yourself) more pleasant and enjoyable.

Re:Whoops

[cusco]

If I were dumb enough to buy an Escalade I'd post as AC as well.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Actually, I was being sloppy with terminology. $20,000 was the median.

Re:Whoops

[cusco]

Banks don't offer sound financial advice, they offer the advice designed to maximize the bank's revenue. They make huge profits from overdrafts and late fees, and they were the ones who crashed the economy with their financial mismanagement. I'd trust my dog's financial advice ("invest in Purina, meat markets and tennis ball factories") before I'd ask Chase or CitiCorp.

Re:Whoops

[Golddess]

He shouldn't be allowed to sign a contract that involves math in any way whatsoever.

You mean like for a car or house loan?

When I bought my car, I knew I was going to pay more over the life of the loan I was getting vs if I had just bought the car outright. Unfortunately, that wasn't something I was able to afford. And I couldn't just wait till I had saved up enough to buy it outright because I still needed a car during that time. So I signed.

For some people, a computer may fall within the list of items that are needed but cannot afford to be saved up for. I suppose it could be argued that for something as cheap as a computer, no one should be in a position where they need to get a loan to buy one, but it sounds more like you are dismissing the concept of loans entirely rather than for items that you consider cheap.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Depends on a lot of factors: whether you bought a $2,500 used car or an $18,000 new car, whether you can sell your house and rent, whether you have a family that lives with you, etc. Depending on the answers to those questions, the answer may be "no way" or it may be "easily twice that."

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Then you're not saving correctly. You should be investing that money in ways that increase in value, not in savings accounts that pay a paltry one percent APY.

If you had put $1,000 in Apple stock ten years ago, you would have $20,000 now, and that stock is continuing to climb at a similar rate, so it's not too late to start.

I'm seeing a similar growth rate for MasterCard stock, although it has only been public for five years, so obviously you couldn't have put $1,000 into it ten years ago. The same principle applies, though.

Obviously past performance is not a guarantee of future results, but it's a pretty good hint.

Re:Whoops

[X0563511]

Anything over $100 is hardly "low-ticket"

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Oh, my bad. Somehow I read "three years" as "ten years". You'd have to have invested about $10,000 three years ago to have $20,000 today.

Bear in mind, though, that $20,000 is the median for everyone, not people who have been saving for only three years. The average person works for over 40 years, so that's an expected typical figure for someone who has worked half that long, or 20 years.

Re:Whoops

[fuzznutz]

Interesting. I saw an article in a newspaper last week claiming that 45% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes, mostly those with lower incomes. I'm not sure how that reconciles with the claim that the poor "pay a substantial percentage of their incomes in taxes."

Don't forget payroll taxes. Up to 15.x% if you are self employed. Of course there are sales taxes, and the poor spend larger proportions of their total income, subjecting it to more sales tax. Then there are the gasoline taxes. Don't forget all the annual state fees, such as drivers license, vehicle inspection, and car registration renewals. There are excise taxes on everything from tires and telephone service, to booze and cigarettes. And if they are lucky enough to own property, there's property taxes. And we can't forget about state, city, and school district income taxes. Of course the rich can cover their living expenses with a smaller proportion of their income. The rest go to investments and savings, which they do not pay taxes on, until the investment earns income.

In my state, income taxes are a larger bite for even middle income levels than Federal Income Taxes when you have exemptions and children.

Re:Whoops

[ebuck]

I had a college roommate who worked for Aarons as a manager.

He complained bitterly about that company, stating that his subsequent job at a dry cleaner's was much better (if not a lot more boring). Basically the complaints I remember included; selling / renting out reconditioned items as new, writing up sales plans which attempted to gain five to six times the value of the item during the terms of the lease / sale; attempting to use weasel clauses to regain near term items for maximizing profit by not allowing items to go to full sale; and preying on customers close to their terms for exchange to "upgrade" items which would reset the length of the lease.

And you're dead on about the collection "techniques", try talking down a bunch of 250+ lb 6ft+ guys with one goal in mind: to grab the item and get it in the truck before the police arrive. They'll first feed you a line of bull to delay your calling the police, but most of the time they don't even have proper paperwork to repossess the item.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Given a median 22 years worked, that's over $16,000 assuming a 5% average APY. The $20,000 was actually the median, not the mean, BTW. It may or may not be an exact figure, but it's not nearly as far off as you seem to think it is.

Re:Whoops

[realityimpaired]

Liquidity is one thing I don't need to worry about, personally... quite aside from how easy it is to borrow against the equity in your home (most banks will write you a line of credit against the equity if you need to), I also live in an area with unemployment insurance, and it only takes 2 weeks to clear before I can start collecting insurance in the event of a loss of job. This is aside from the fact that due to a few factors I don't really want to get in to, I'm basically untouchable and short of a mass layoff or a serious fuckup on my part, they can't fire me. Either way, unless I do something seriously illegal, I'd be entitled to severance, and the $1000 or so I keep in my bank account is enough liquidity to get me through until the UI starts coming in.

You are right, though. An awful lot of people would rather spend money on material things than pay down their debt, and those that would pay down the debt would rather pay off the smaller, lower interest debt first. I do see the logic in it: it removes one of your monthly payments and allows you to put a larger amount of money in to the remaining payments, but it does end up costing some money.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Even the poorest colleges with 500 students in West Tennessee have computer labs. What kind of school are we talking about here? Is it accredited? Is your degree there actually worth something?

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

The problem with those loans is that statistically speaking, most people forget to pay them off, then get charged six months of back interest. But yes, if you feel confident that you will remember to pay it off at the right date, you can make a whopping half a percent interest on that money in a typical savings account.

As for me, I don't think it's worth the hassle of remembering just to make an extra $2.50 in interest and risk getting hit with forty or fifty dollars in interest if I forget.

Re:Whoops

[X0563511]

I do! It has about $5 in it. (case in point I guess?)

Re:Whoops

[X0563511]

Debit or cashiers check. Both are considered cash I guess.

Re:Whoops

[hairyfeet]

Well I've also found that when you help folks when they are done they'll usually hook you up when they are up as well.

For example one that I knew vaguely from HS came to me when he was trying to get his HVAC business off the ground, but anyone who has bought the tools for that line of work can tell you they ain't cheap! He had come mainly hoping I could give him a little bit of advice but when I heard what he was trying to do I hooked him up with a couple of off lease office boxes I had recently acquired and told him to just pay me a little here and there when he could. hell I had already gotten my money back on the shipment so I wasn't really worried about it and I know how hard it can be just starting out.

So sure enough he or his GF drop off $10 here, $20 there for a couple of months, nothing regular (which I had already told him was fine,like I said I knew how much those tools cost) so one day he calls me and asks me to meet him at the local staples. I figured he wanted some advice on something and wanted to throw me a few bucks, kill two birds you know? So he has me look at some monitors and give him my opinion on which would be the best for his home office. I point out a nice Dell 1600x900 22 inch and tell him that's a good office monitor, with a better picture than the 20 inch CRT at my shop so he'd know about what to expect on picture quality.

So he calls over a sales guy and tells him he wants three of them and at the checkout and asks me to grab one so I carry it out to his van and when I go to put it in he says "Nope, these two are mine and that one is yours along with this" and proceeds to whip off $600 in hundred dollar bills (even though he only owed me a little over $120 on the boxes) and when I pointed that out he laughed and said "When I struggling to get my license and tools and was just hoping you'd show me how to use my old junker to make invoices you not only hooked me up with two office machines, you loaded them up with bookkeeping software and invoice generators and everything else I could need, and even took the time to teach Melissa how to run it all, and didn't charge us a dime for that extra time. Now that I have several jobs lined up I just wanted to show you I remember who looked out for me and I'll be sending Mel by next week to get us a new machine for the office, along with something I can carry with me" which he did, I got them a nice AMD netbook for him to use in the field and built them an AMD triple core for the office.

So it just goes to show if you treat folks right most of the time they'll return the favor if they can. Sure I've been burned a time or two but I find that happens VERY rarely (more likely they just pay me off $10 here, $20 there if they are struggling, which I understand, everyone goes through a bad spell now and then) and they make sure their friends and family come to you FIRST which will 9 times out of 10 keep you so swamped. I've gotten not only this nice monitor as a gift, but graphics cards, cash, chicken dinners, hell I've got half a dozen P4 machines for free from a business that upgraded sitting in front of me because I helped out the handyman that works there learn how to do his banking and shopping online so he talked them out of the whole lot. He says I have at least two more loads coming.

So while scum like Rent A Ripoff may delight in treating folks bad, I found there are plenty of rewards besides karma for treating folks decently. And sorry about the length, I just thought the guys here might like to hear one where the person treating folks right didn't finish last. I've not only always had business and gotten great perks, but I met my sweet little Cherokee princess through her being a referral at the shop, my family just adores her and I've never been happier. Treat folks right and you never know what good things will come through your door!

Re:Whoops

[_0xd0ad]

I have an account making over 1% and that's in lousy economic times; I can remember when PayPal's money market dividend was paying something like 3%. But yeah, it obviously requires the organization to somehow remind yourself to pay it off before it starts getting interest added on.

Re:Whoops

[PCM2]

Who cares what the interest rate on a credit card is? Why would you ever pay it? Anyone who gives a cent of interest to a credit card company doesn't know what they're doing with money.

And as I've said, I disagree. If I walk down to a store in my city and buy something for $1,000 cash, I will also have to pay 9.5% sales tax. If, on the other hand, I buy the same thing from Amazon.com via credit card, chances are I won't have to pay any sales tax. My APR on my credit card (assuming I have decent credit) might be 9.9% -- but I'll only pay that much if I take an entire year to pay off the $1,000. Otherwise, I can take 3-4 months to pay it off, maintain my cash flow, and still pay less than if I paid cash. And I still gain all the other advantages of credit that I have already enumerated.

Say, instead, that anybody who doesn't know what they're doing with money doesn't know what they're doing with money. For those of us who do know what we're doing with money, please allow us the freedom to make our own decisions without your sanctimonious preaching.

Re:Whoops

[PCM2]

I have heard it said that credit card companies have a name for people who pay their bills on time every month. They call them deadbeats.

I have also heard it said that when a credit card company raises your interest rate, it's a pretty hard blow against your credit score. If you maintain good credit, credit card companies will be very reluctant to raise your APR, because of the personal damage it does to you. (They'd much rather keep your business, because even if your APR is low, you're a good risk.) If I was you, I'd want to call somebody, whether it be your credit card company or one of the credit reporting agencies, to find out why your rates have gone so high. It could be something you want to know about sooner rather than later.

It also might be something as simple as, as I've mentioned elsewhere, you have the wrong products. I had a bunch of cards with low interest rates, and then I noticed one had a rate of 18% or so. I called the company and said, "What gives? Everybody else is giving me these low rates, and you're screwing me." The lady on the phone told me I would totally qualify for a different rate, but she couldn't give me a lower rate as long as I kept the same card, because mine was basically a "student card," designed for people who were bad credit risks. (BTW, there was absolutely nothing on the card or the bill that indicated such -- it was a regular old "platinum Visa" with a high credit limit.) She encouraged me to apply for a different card right there over the phone. I did, she said she'd put it through the system, and if I was approved I should receive my new card in about four weeks. I did.

Re:Whoops

[PCM2]

Second, if you are getting a 4.65% APR on a credit card this year, that's basically a miracle. My credit rating is very good, and despite the fact that I pay my cards off at the end of the month every month, if I didn't, I'd owe over 25% APR on pretty much every card I have. The banks have used the credit crunch as an excuse to double or triple credit card APRs. Heck, here in California, you can barely even get home mortgages at 4.65%.

I didn't say it wasn't an unusual rate. It is. But 9.9% isn't totally un-doable, even today. And FYI I live in California, and I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, rich.

Home mortgages are a different deal from credit cards. When you sign up for a credit card, they typically set your rate as the current Prime Rate plus XYZ amount. I got my card during the 90s, when times were more flush and the Prime Rate was high, so they set my APR as just a point or two above Prime. They've just never changed the rate on me, which is why my rate is so low, now that the Prime Rate is practically nothing. Home mortgages are financed differently, and different rules and laws apply.

On the other hand, if your typical credit card APR is 25%, you have given me new insight into why you hate credit cards so much, because (no offense) you must have seriously f'ed up at some point in the past. You cannot possibly have a credit rating that is "very good" and still have rates that high, unless you're just not trying.

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

That's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. First off, if you're not making that much, you shouldn't be spending that much. As the saying goes, the more you make the more you spend. Sales tax on non-necessities really just take care of themselves unless rich people don't spend money (yeah, right).

Groceries aren't taxed (except in what, like 4 states??). The rest of the taxes I can think of are gas (the rich will drive more because they can, thus contributing more gas taxes), utilities (larger homes = more utilities), and necessities (like toiletries). The necessities is the only area where I would see the difference. The rich will be far outspending you on everything else. Besides, if you don't make a certain amount, which is a pretty good amount, you're eligible for all kinds of government assistance, so suddenly all those taxes you complain about are completely nullified with the other assistance you get.

Payroll taxes? I assume you're talking about social security and medicare. They do have a cap. That's the only major contributing point I'll concede. But, if you don't make enough to hit that cap then you are in a far lower tax bracket. We're talking a difference of up to 25% in 2011. And to CAP ALL THAT OFF, everybody can take a standard deduction (I think it's around $11k per person) on their federal income taxes, or you can opt to do itemized deductions. If you make $20k/yr (around $10/hr - 40hr/wk) then you just got your taxed income cut in half. If your itemized deductions don't total over the standard deduction, then you're getting a much bigger break than the rich right from the start as a gimme. The lower-class are eligible left and right for all kinds of tax credits as well, so there's an extremely high chance the majority of these people are walking away with a profit when April comes around.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

I do too, but with a fairly small dollar limit and lots of strings attached (you have to use their debit card to make at least 15 purchases per month, etc.).

Most money market accounts I've seen are only paying about 1%, and my E-Trade Bank account that was once paying 5% is now paying something like 0.05%. I'm not saying you can't do better than 1%, but you have to search for it.

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

No, I am factoring all in all the data.

Deductions are there so you don't overpay in tax. If you get a deduction, that means you paid taxes somewhere else. That's an obvious. As for apartments, while you claim you pay your share of property taxes (as part of your rent) that you can't claim for deductions, you don't pay anywhere near the same as you would living in a house of the same square footage. Even if you were paying the same as in a house with the same square footage, you're still getting a far better deal with the standard deduction. If you are a homeowner, you'd have to spend quite a bit in property taxes in order to get past that standard deduction amount.

Where the rich pay in itemized deductions, the poor get the gimme standard deduction, which is in most cases a FAR LARGER portion of their income than what the rich report for itemized deductions. AKA - the income the poor actually pay taxes on at the end of the ear is much less representative of what they actually made. You make $20k, and you still get $11k in deductions right off the bat. Furthermore, the lower classes are also eligible for various credits. In most cases in the lower tax brackets people walk away with a profit in April with all things factored in.

FICA is the only obvious major difference between those earning less than $106k and those earning more than that. However, you're forgetting the earned income tax credit, which will nullify the largest difference in that (the kid credit). That's the one responsible for outright profits by the lower class come tax time.

I'll remind you that groceries are a huge chunk of your actual needs. There's only a few states that actually tax that. So no, sales taxes aren't near as large a contributing factor as you claim. People don't need liquor, cigarettes, or any of those non-necessities in order to survive. You shouldn't be spend a ton of money on absolute crap you don't need if you consider sales taxes to be a large contributing factor of your total tax burden relative to your income. Why would you even include that in the list. Besides, if your sales taxes actually total to be that much, you can claim those in your income taxes instead of the usual route.

The super rich do find loopholes. However, anybody in between doesn't get that, and can still be defined as "rich". I would argue that the upper-middle class are the ones that get most screwed because they're not eligible for any of the extra credits, deductions, etc that the lower classes get, they don't get government assistance, and their income is right around the FICA cap so they're still paying all of that. The poor, however, are very well taken care of.

Personally, I've been all over the board ranging from "poor" to upper middle class. I have personal experiences in all that, and I know that when I earned less I didn't have to worry about shit as far as expenses went. I had less to spend on the nicer things in life, but I still lived within my means, so I was fine. I now earn 3-4x more than my siblings yet they're the ones with all the fancy toys, have newer vehicles than mine, fridges are packed, and buying new furniture with their fat checks that come in April after claiming like 8 on their withholdings because of all the ridiculous tax credits. I see no evidence of suffering from taxes, and I remember no suffering from taxes when I earned considerably less. The total tax burden just wasn't that much, and it kept getting worse as I kept earning more.

Re:Whoops

[toddestan]

Nowadays, it can make sense to buy a new car in some situations. The demand for used cars is high due to people cutting back and the supply is low, which means that often the slightly used car is not that much cheaper than the new car. Then there is financing. He mentioned a 0.9% interest rate. You can get something like that on a new car, but the loan terms on a used car usually aren't nearly as good.

Re:Whoops

[toddestan]

Especially the Escalade EXT (for those that don't know, it's the ugly as fuck Chevy Avalanche with a Cadillac badge on it).

Re:Whoops

[toddestan]

By the time you notice that the light has come on, it's already too late.

Re:Whoops

[toddestan]

It's probably easier just to leave the camera powered all the time, and just grab images from it when you're interested in looking at it. On the other hand, if it's a laptop it might be worthwhile to be able to turn if off to save a minute or two of battery life.

Re:Whoops

[_0xd0ad]

Well... I might as well name names; the account I have is with CapitalOne's InterestPlus online savings. With a $1000+ balance it currently pays 1.1%, limit of 6 electronic withdrawals per calendar month, and if your average balance is $10,000+ or if you have an active CapitalOne credit card (one transaction per month) you get a quarterly bonus of an additional 1/10 of the amount of interest you earned that quarter.

They do have an online checking account too, with a slightly lower interest rate and I'd assume it has more of the strings such as you described. But the online savings seemed to be pretty good especially compared with what I had my money in before.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Okay, 1%, 1.1%. The 1% was intended as an average, not a maximum. Either way, it's paltry compared to the 10% APY we used to get when I was a kid, and half a year of interest on $500 at 1.1% is still only $2.75, and is still tiny compared with the interest they'd spank you with if you failed to pay it off before the 6 months is up. :-)

I wouldn't even cross the street for the mere opportunity to earn $2.75 in interest over the course of six months. You'd lose a sixth of those extra earnings just buying the stamp for mailing in the payment. And if you have to actually drive as much as ten miles and back to make the payment, well there went the whole amount. Sometimes credit—even ostensibly free credit—just isn't worth it.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

Ooh. I just noticed that I originally said half a percent. When I first posted that, I was debating whether to say half a percent or a percent, and went with half a percent because it's more typical, even though 1% isn't that uncommon.

I have a couple of accounts that are actually paying around 4%, albeit with low total dollar limits (above which they pay peanuts).

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

you must have seriously f'ed up at some point in the past

Nope. A couple of years ago, the federal government passed laws to limit the circumstances under which the credit card companies could raise their interest rates on a customer. Right before that was scheduled to go into effect, most of the major credit card companies, including Citi and Chase, cranked up lots of customers' rates into the stratosphere because they knew that if they didn't, they might not be able to raise them in the future.

Actually, to be fair, I'm not sure what my other credit cards have as their rates. I got my other cards (which I don't actually use) when I was still in college and had no real credit history, so IIRC, they were set at something like prime + 15% unless they have lowered the rates on the cards since then.

Hmm. Now that I think about it, I recently got a Chase Amtrak card (for the 12,000 free rail point sign-on bonus, mainly). I just checked, and it's at 13 and a fraction, so I guess one might conclude that Citi is just a bunch of wankers.

Re:Whoops

[Ol Olsoc]

Perhaps there is an assumption that when someone says that people should live within their means, it is a criticism of laziness or something like that?

I come in contact with many people of all manner of social and financial levels. There are people who are making 200K a year who have trouble making ends meet. They don't know how to live within their means. There are likewise poor people I know who are in the same situation. In either case, they don't have fiscal discipline.

So yeah, the waiter who waits on us in the morning complains about not having any money, yet his version of a savings account is having a lot of paycheck money withheld so he gets a bigger tax refund, which he then uses to go to a casino and promptly loses it all, and he and his two daughters have smartphones and spend hundreds of dollars a month on that. He always seems to be short of money.

Or the more wealthy people I know who in the past decade re-fied their house to buy a fuel sucking SUV and those who didi it to go on a nice vacation, and one who bought a house at peak real estate. All their decisions just sent money down the drain when they could have been paying the house down and saving money.

This isn't to say either group is evil, although I'd say that a stupid label isn't out of line, they are naive at best. But for obvious reasons those at the bottom of the economic scale don't have much buffer when they have money problems.

Even the decision to live outside one's means is okay, just don't bitch about it when you find that you have smartphones for all your family, but have to go to the payday advance place the day you get back from the casinos.

Imagine his situation if he just had three plain cell phones, and if he banked the extra tax witholding money instead of loaning it to the government, interest-free. Then just saved that money. He'd have hundreds more dollars to live on each month, and be saving for something, maybe retirement. He wouldn't have whatever the thrill is of losing it all at a casino. None of this includes health issues or other financial emergencies. That is a crap-shoot, and can bankrupt both rich and poor.

Re:Whoops

[mcgrew]

Deductions are there so you don't overpay in tax

A few are, but not most. Only the deductions for other taxes paid. A deduction for property tax paid is to keep you from overpaying tax, a deduction for mortgage interest is not. Note you can't deduct interest on your car loan.

I've owned and I've rented, and rents are -- must be -- more expensive than mortgages on the same property, or the landlord could make no profit. A shining example is the difference between the big two story house I lost after my divorce; the mortgage payment was less than the tiny apartment my daughter and I moved into. "My ROOM was bigger than this apartment!" she lamented.

11k deductions right off the bat? Maybe if you're married and have six kids. Not if you're single. You have to be extremely poor to get the Earned Income tax credits, and all but that one require you to have dependant children.

Food is taxed in Illinois (very regressive taxes here). Damned near everything is taxed, and taxed highly; folks on the east side of the river in the St Louis area buy their gasoline and cigarettes in Missouri because the taxes make them so uch cheaper there (while Missouri will charge you property tax on your car if you live there). And groceries aren't a very large part of my expenses, although they were when my daughters were teenagers. I probably only spend twice on food what I spend on cleaning supplies, laundry, etc., and those all have sales tax added everywhere that has a sales tax.

I agree that the middle class (especially upper middle class) pay higher income taxes, especially in states with a progressive tax system. Only the very rich and very poor get government assistance.

I get a good sized chunk back in April, but that's because I claim zero dependants on my W-4; I had a huge income tax bill one year when the ex and I lived in Florida working for starvation wages, and claimed zero ever since. It was a hardship paying that big chunk of change that April.

Those government benefits that supposedly benefit the poor are really benefiting the poor's employers, who don't have to pay a living wage like they do in most countries (link).

When you're poor you don't notice the tax burdens, because most of your taxes are invisible -- sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. Federal gasoline taxes are $.185 per gallon, Illinois gasoline taxes are an additional ninteen cents, plus 6.5% sales tax, plus .3% underground storage tax, plus local taxes on top of it. The taxes alone on a tank of gasoline will cost someone earning minimum wage an hour's work. Those taxes on someone upper middle class are equal to a few minutes' work, seconds for the rich, and so low as to be a statistical error on the very rich. The poor man, when he's paying that $4.00 for a gallon doesn't notice that over ten percent of the price is tax (more like 20 or 25 percent a year or two ago before the oil companies started raping us). He doesn't notice the property taxes he's indirectly paying, he doesn't notice the taxes on communications, utilities, and everything else he's being taxed to death on. Taxes on the poor are largely invisible, but they're there nevertheless.

Re:Whoops

[Ol Olsoc]

You really ought to check the requirements for each of those programmes. Not only is it fairly difficult to get on them, but you'll end up with a miserable life if you continue with so little income that you continue to qualify.

Yes! I know two people who spent years trying to get on disability payments. The way it works here is that if you end up qualifying, you'll get retroactive payments to when you applied. Since it took about 4 years in both cases, the amount was pretty large. problem is, after that, you get sub-poverty level checks every month. So they had a lot of cash to burn for a few months. Almost nothing later.

Re:Whoops

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, I've been told that there are bad times to save. And a case can be made to pay off all of one's debt before saving. Problem is that that outlook tends to produce no savings. There's always something to spend your money on.

I suggest that instead of an accountant type approach, look at your savings as "paying yourself". And do it first - before anything else. Of course you want to pay down your mortgage as quickly as possible. And as for credit cards, if you have the discipline to pay it off every month, you can live on it.

Re:Whoops

[Ol Olsoc]

Make sure you read the fine print in that interest free offer. If it's real and you have the discipline to pay it off in time, your method is the way to go.

Re:Whoops

[Hazel Bergeron]

Everything you say makes sense. I guess I was highlighting a couple of issues:

1. The people you describe are only "needy" in the sense that they need education on money management - there are lots of people who are genuinely trying hard and being careful with money but who remain on the bread line because of poor health/intelligence/circumstances. Unfortunately, it's the former rather than the latter sort of person who too many people think of when they refer to the "poor" as lazy/irresponsible;
2. The economy may outlast you, but you only have one life in which to delay gratification. A 20-something can learn patience and a well-paid 30-something with multiple expensive cars and mounting debt may need to pull in the reins. But if you really don't have the health or intelligence to save up after a couple of decades, it might be better just to say fuck it and get into debt, so you're not dead before you have some fun. It's easy for one well-off individual to say "don't live outside your means!", but you only have one life and why should you remain miserable until you die? No man exists merely to serve a system.

tl;dr It's OK to tell someone to be patient when they're 20. But lecturing that to a 50 year old who has been responsible but who hasn't got anywhere for it... not reasonable.

Re:Whoops

[zipn00b]

Long term unemployement thanks to our wonderful economy has wiped out my savings along with many other people. I'd love to see you try to live on 90% of what I made last year - had unemployment benefit of just over $200 a week. After unemployment has ran out most of the temp and part time jobs I've gotten have paid even less. People keep telling me I need to move someplace that has better possibilities of work but I simply can't aford to move. I went for over a year without a single interview. The economy may inded be improving as I'm starting to get occasional interviews now but if it's for a tech job especially my age is working against me.

Re:Whoops

[_0xd0ad]

Yeah; of course I'd also take into consideration whether I'd be able to pay it by phone or online, or actually be there in person; or whether I'd drive by there often anyway or have to make a special trip out of my way. So I admit I was generalizing a bit with a few favorable assumptions.

Re:Whoops

[vaporland]

Hazel, I agree 100% with your post especially #5.

I've been (privileged?) to know and work for some very wealthy folks, and the rich really are different - they couldn't give a fuck about you or me. Remember when Meg Whitman was running for Governator and threw her illegal housekeeper under the bus? "She was like family, until she was a liability"...

The majority of people in this country are only two paychecks from homelessness. "Save 10%" - that's a laugh. @vivian is the one who needs to widen her circle of friends to include people who could teach her some basic human compassion...

Re:Whoops

[vaporland]

what's your IM handle...?

Re:Whoops

[SockPuppetOfTheWeek]

There is no "safe" currency that is traded or even reasonably accessible.

Until the oil industry decides on another currency to make the standard currency for oil trading.

Of course, at that point it will probably already be a very lousy time to be buying that currency using US dollars.

Re:Whoops

[LunaticTippy]

I guess I should call them. I hesitate to allow them to open a new card for me because I know part of the credit score formula is average age of accounts and a new card would hit that with a double whammy. I already took a big credit score hit when Chase closed my 10 year old credit card without notice for inactivity. That alone dropped my score 16 points.

Re:Whoops

[Nick Ives]

I've Googled for a good 5mins to no avail. The best stats I can find suggest that the average balance for a 401K is around $20k - a pitiful amount to try and buy an annuity with - but that's not what this thread is about. I found a link from 2001 claiming that 50% of Americans have no savings whatsoever, which would easily make that the modal amount.

Also, your searchbox assumes that people have been saving at that rate constantly for 22yrs. You're ignoring inflation and how some years inflation might have eroded savings and other years low inflation allowed people to build savings.

Basically, you've yet to convince me that the average American has anywhere near $20,000 in cash they can get hold of in short order to spend on things like computers.

Re:Whoops

[PCM2]

No, on the contrary, when I say "you're not trying," I mean it. Chances are, if you got those cards when you were a student, the interest rates are capped at some ridiculously high amount. If you applied for a new card, chances are the rate could be a lot lower. There's nothing on your card that will tell you why it works the way it does -- all that information is held at the card company. But not all cards are the same, and if, as you say, there's nothing wrong with your credit, you should be able to chop up those cards and get new ones with decent rates.

Re:Whoops

[dgatwood]

You're right. I don't try; I don't particularly care what the rates are because I'm never going to use my card in a way that would incur those rates anyway. That said, I don't consider even 10% interest to be a reasonable rate. My last car loan was under 5% and the prime rate has dropped since then.

And even if the interest rate were approximately the same as the paltry 1-1.25% that most savings accounts earn, it still would be of dubious utility to not pay off those bills at the end of the month from my perspective, as it is incurring unnecessary debt with no real benefit. However, under those circumstances, it might make sense to buy moderately high ticket items (TVs, etc.) on credit if I didn't have the money to pay cash.

The bigger problem is that the people who don't have the money to pay cash will never be able to get credit that cheap as long as they can't afford to pay cash. I can qualify for decent credit card rates because they know I can afford what I spend money on. I can pretty much guarantee that people who buy a $500 TV on credit and pay it off over two years are not going to get 1%, 5%, or even 10% rates on their cards.

And that was my point: if I, as someone with a solid credit history, have to work to get a credit card with low interest, then someone living hand to mouth is going to get the maximum rate allowable by law. And it is never appropriate to pay 25% interest.

Don't get me started on payday loans that charge several thousand percent APR....

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

No, the standard deduction is available for everybody. My only correction is how much depending on the filing status. The amount is half that per individual, or roughly $11k if married and filing jointly. No need for kids, and you take this if you don't itemize. But otherwise, yes, between $5.8k and $11.6k right off the bat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deduction

You do get that giant credit though for kids and if you're in the lower tax brackets. 1 kid in 2011 gave you a credit of over $3k. That's money in the bank. 2 kids earned you over $5k. That means that in the lower brackets, especially if you have any kids at all, you're more than earning your share back with credits. Let's take a family of 4 where Dad works and earns $40k/year. Not bad at all. They take the standard $11.6k deduction... which leaves them with $28.4k left that is actually taxed. Oh wait, we forgot about the personal excemtion (to account for that sales tax you complain so much about) and that was at roughly $3,650. That leaves $24,750 to be taxed. Their tax rate for that level and tax status is 15%. Add in another 7.65% or whatever it is for FICA which is applied to the adjust gross income ($40k). So that's $3,712 + $3,060 = $6,772. Throw in those handy dandy credits of roughly $5k (and under estimate) and you have left $1,772 that you owe the government. That's an effective tax rate of 4.43%. Even removing the personal excemption leaves you with what, 5% effective tax rate? That's nothing to complain about AT ALL! So, that's why I never noticed my taxes at that level, because I effectively had none. Earn a little less and you actually MAKE money.

NOTE: The example above is over simplified as the tax rates aren't completely straight up in that tax bracket. I just assumed the highest bracket any income was taxed at. This is also strictly the Federal income tax calculations. And yes, they do account for cost of living, sales tax (aka personal excemption), and other things. It's not perfect, but you can't say it doesn't favor lower brackets.

Wikipedia has a nice example for single individuals as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Example_of_a_tax_computation

Quit complaining. You only really get screwed at the lowest portion of a median to high tax bracket, are single (or married, both working, and filing jointly), and have no kids. Those damn kids really boost everything.

Re:Whoops

[mcgrew]

I'm not the one complaining, the rich are. I already said I pay about the right amount in taxes. The rich's biggest tax burden is Federal income tax, the rest of the taxes they pay are effectively zero compared to their incomes. The poor pay little to no Federal taxes depending on just how poor they are, but the other hidden taxes eat them alive. In my tax bracket it's probably about even.

You, like the tea partiers, are concentrating on Federal income tax alone and ignoring the other taxes. Of course, since that's their biggest tax burden that's what they're going to bitch about.

Re:Whoops

[mldi]

Your "hidden taxes" are, as I've said before, completely covered by the personal exemption or other tax breaks, federal help, etc. Until you show me the actual math, or any actual evidence whatsoever beyond a few rumors, I (and apparently the tea partiers?) remain completely unconvinced. The difference between me and the tea partiers? Given legitimate evidence, I can admit I'm wrong. But I've done the math in many different scenarios (one scenario of which I've demonstrated here, another linked to from here), and for the large majority of the population your arguments just don't hold any water.

Shocking

[hinesbrad]

Wow. A company that built a fortune based on scummy financial deals is being discovered for scummy conduct on computers it sells. Shocking.

On the motherboard?

[Jonah Hex]

PC Rental Agent includes components soldered into the computer's motherboard or otherwise physically attached to the PC's electronics, the lawsuit said. It therefore cannot be uninstalled and can only be deactivated using a wand, the suit said.

Seriously, they had to go with a hardware/software solution, when they could have very easily done it in software only? And what does that do to the warranty from the original manufacturer, soldering new parts into your motherboard usually voids those.

Also, given the demographic of people who "Rent to Own", I'd hate to see some of those webcam shots...

HEX

Re:On the motherboard?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unless there are additional details not disclosed on their kinda sleazy looking; but unabashed website, the hardware component seems like it is either a mistake(perhaps referring to some sort of anti-theft tag?) or an additional feature specific to this major chain.

If you look at the company's pricing information, it only quotes software licensing fees and prices for additional/replacement/updated install media. No mention of hardware components, much less the sort of model-specific inventory mess that any deep integration would require. Obviously, the information available on the seller's site for that offering doesn't preclude a custom offering for a large customer, with more robust features; but it also isn't as though lying about the existence of super-tough hardware security in order to reduce the risk that your clueless customer tries to have their nephew who "knows computers" install a cracked copy of XP on a "bricked" machine would be a terribly unlikely strategy...

Re:On the motherboard?

[Kral_Blbec]

I only have a 1/2"x3/8" piece. Will it still work?

Re:On the motherboard?

[captainkoloth]

Unless there are additional details not disclosed on their kinda sleazy looking; but unabashed website, the hardware component seems like it is either a mistake(perhaps referring to some sort of anti-theft tag?) or an additional feature specific to this major chain.

If you look at the company's pricing information, it only quotes software licensing fees and prices for additional/replacement/updated install media. No mention of hardware components, much less the sort of model-specific inventory mess that any deep integration would require. Obviously, the information available on the seller's site for that offering doesn't preclude a custom offering for a large customer, with more robust features; but it also isn't as though lying about the existence of super-tough hardware security in order to reduce the risk that your clueless customer tries to have their nephew who "knows computers" install a cracked copy of XP on a "bricked" machine would be a terribly unlikely strategy...

Unless there are additional details not disclosed on their kinda sleazy looking; but unabashed website, the hardware component seems like it is either a mistake(perhaps referring to some sort of anti-theft tag?) or an additional feature specific to this major chain.

If you look at the company's pricing information, it only quotes software licensing fees and prices for additional/replacement/updated install media. No mention of hardware components, much less the sort of model-specific inventory mess that any deep integration would require. Obviously, the information available on the seller's site for that offering doesn't preclude a custom offering for a large customer, with more robust features; but it also isn't as though lying about the existence of super-tough hardware security in order to reduce the risk that your clueless customer tries to have their nephew who "knows computers" install a cracked copy of XP on a "bricked" machine would be a terribly unlikely strategy...

There appears to be something they add either through hardware or software than can require you to use a USB thumb drive as a key. Check out the accessories page. I'm going to say that it's both hardware and software.
"Require an unLock device like a CD or a USB Thumb Drive to always be available or the device locks. It will not work unless the unLock device is found."

Rent a computer?

[PhreakOfTime]

There was an ad around here not too long ago about something similar. While I was listening to it, they obviously mentioned the 'monthly price' and the length of the term. Before the commercial was over I had done the math in my head, and the laptop ended up costing almost 4X the amount it would have otherwise cost.

I imagine this is probably similar. Anyone who signs such a deal should immediately be enrolled in a math class that will sufficiently explain amortization costs in such a situation. They should then be able to pass an exam that proves they are aware of what the real cost is, in a single number, over the rental term.

There is a reason the phrase 'A fool and his money are soon parted' exists, I suppose.

Re:Rent a computer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blue Hippo probably. Not coincidentally, they're out of business now and a federal agency is "renting" their old building space in a Baltimore suburb. I'm sure part of the rent is offset by the free room and board we are paying for him...

Re:Rent a computer?

[demonlapin]

The people who take this deal don't qualify for better credit. If you ban rent-to-own or limit the interest rates, though, their choices actually get worse, not better. After all, the moment that it leaves the front door of the store, this laptop is a used piece of equipment owned by someone who can't swing several hundred dollars in spare cash (i.e., probably not the most fastidious owner). Shitty credit deals are all they're going to get, because nobody is going to loan them $1000 at 5% interest - the default risk is too high.

Re:Rent a computer?

[artor3]

It's like rent-a-center or payday loans. These companies exploit the poor by taking advantage of their lacking financial planning skills. Some of the blame certainly lies with the people who fall for these scams, but they are scams all the same.

It's no different from people being stupid enough to send money to Nigerian princes. You shouldn't hold the "prince" harmless.

Re:Rent a computer?

[adolf]

My math says it's not so different from paying for a new PC with a credit card at not-very-favorable rates.

And, in both cases, there is the opportunity to buy/pay off the thing at any time. Aaron's retail prices tend to be on the high side of things, but not outlandishly so (in my observation).

And for some folks, renting is a distinct advantage: Why buy a thing, just to replace it a year or two later (and fuss with selling the old one), when you can just rent the current thing and have it replaced when it is deemed old?

These aren't leases. They're just month-to-month (sometimes, week-to-week) rentals. Need a fast laptop for a project, with no foreseeable need for one after that? Just rent one.

Want an additional comfy couch for the house and a big TV to watch "the game" on with your pals, and a dedicated fridge to keep the keg cold until it runs out, but have no desire for these things to take up long-term space? Rent 'em. They even drop them off and pick them up. (Hell, with the deposit for them, even the keg+tap might be considered to be a rental...)

Of course, there's the dark side, as well: Want a new computer, long-term, but can't afford one? Rent-to-own might not be the most practical choice.

All that said: I, myself, don't rent anything. I buy my houses and have my own name on the deed, I buy my cars, and I buy my electronics and furniture. I have rented apartments before, but got out of that game as quickly as possible. The closest thing I do to renting things, these days, is Netflix.

But I'm not allergic to the concept.

YMMV.

Re:Rent a computer?

[PhreakOfTime]

their choices actually get worse, not better.

I would consider saving the money before buying it to be better, not worse. The cost is already ~$200/mo, with a few other cuts, they could easily get a laptop free and clear, FOR THEIR NEEDS, within 60 days of saving.

A laptop isnt exactly an emergency cost. In the story, it is described as being for the wife's new classes. She didn't just wake up one day with no warning whatsoever that classes were starting in 2 hours.

Re:Rent a computer?

[flimflammer]

If you ever get bored, go to the Rent-A-Center's website and check out some of the items and prices they're "renting" them for.

I remember checking out their price for a 360 a while back because I'd heard their prices after everything was said and done was a bit ridiculous. Boy was that an understatement. The final amount they wanted came to like $1400, for a $300 machine, and the monthly payments were like $120. I'm not sure how retarded people have to be to enter into deals like that, but I guess there's enough of them out there keeping that business running.

Re:Rent a computer?

[demonlapin]

You would, but you probably have savings accounts, home access to the Internet, a credit card, a stable address, nobody trying to steal your pocket money for drugs/booze/etc, and a lot more intelligence than these people. If you ban check cashing places, people go to pawn shops; if you ban pawn shops, they go to loan sharks. Rent-to-own is part of the same continuum, in which people who are bad credit risks are able to obtain things they want (but can't afford in lump sum, and won't save up enough to purchase) quickly and easily in return for paying a high cost (that covers the enormous risk of default).

Even when I made the equivalent of $22k/yr in today's money, I didn't do these things. That's one of the many reasons that I'm not still making $22k/year. These people can't delay gratification enough to save up, nor are they smart enough to earn a lot more. The best path is a tough call, because the renters-to-own aren't going to get any smarter - all we can change is whether or not it is possible to lend to them profitably.

Re:Rent a computer?

[corbettw]

You assume these people can save the money in the first place, which in my experience is an erroneous assumption.

demonlapin got it right: if you outlaw rent-to-own, you're going to force the people who use those services to go somewhere worse. You will not make their lives better in your attempt to save them from their own stupidity.

Re:Rent a computer?

[Kral_Blbec]

The point is that they don't need to save for long time. Two of their "low payments" would be enough to buy a decent system outright. If they can make the "low payments" they can save.

Re:Rent a computer?

[cloudmaster]

If you can make a $200 payment, you can buy a pretty decent laptop on eBay for around $200. And then next month, you can sell that laptop for pretty close to what you paid (because used hardware that's a few years old doesn't lose a lot of value in a month or two), and buy a $400 laptop.

Then again, I guess we've already established that these are not exactly the sharpest knives we're dealing with here.

Re:Rent a computer?

[hedwards]

At least they're giving you both the monthly payment and the duration of the loan. I've noticed a fair number of ads where they tell you the monthly fee but fail to mention in any clear way how long they expect you to keep paying.

Re:Rent a computer?

[e9th]

It's not just computers. You need a car, but don't have the cash and your credit sucks? No problem! They'll just install a "Payment Delinquency" device in it without telling you. They're cheaper than Lojacks.

At least those things aren't privacy invasive like webcams.

Re:Rent a computer?

[PhreakOfTime]

You are right, I would never call someone stupid for that.

But thats not at all what happened here.

They made two of the 'low payments' at around $160/mo. After that, they wised up and decided it would be better to pay off the balance of around $800. It's quite obvious that lack of capital was not the problem here. Lack of sense was. ergo...

Re:Rent a computer?

[makomk]

If you can make a $200 payment, you can buy a pretty decent laptop on eBay for around $200.

This requires access to a debit or credit card. An awful, awful lot of poor people in the US don't have this. What's more, by the time you take into account the fees banks charge the poor for setting up and running a prepaid card in the US - if they even manage to set one up at all - you're probably talking at least double that initial outlay. (It also requires a PC with an internet connection, preferably one that isn't infested with malware.)

Re:Rent a computer?

[demonlapin]

Would you buy a $200 laptop from a zero-star seller with no pictures, an unconfirmed address, and bad grammar throughout the description? I sure wouldn't. They might be able to do it on Craigslist, but the average Craigslist buyer isn't going to wander down into one of Those Neighborhoods to buy something for hundreds of dollars, either.

Re:Rent a computer?

[Velex]

Ok, this is what I have never understood about the poor. I've lived on ~12k per year before at a fast food job I WALKED TO, so I know what I'm talking about. Perhaps as long as they get their government check and government foodstamps they'll never understand.

All that you have to do to get a "credit card" is open an account at a credit union. You don't need credit for that. Just get a damned job, go to a credit union with your first paycheck, and open an account. Problem solved. It's not some magical thing that only rich white kids can do.

What the hell happened to personal responsibility?

Re:Rent a computer?

[StuartHankins]

I buy prepaid cards as gifts at least once or twice a year and it's not been that expensive. Setup fees have typically been in the $8-10 range; at that price I just make sure the cards are at least $100. Since the recipients use them for short-term purchases, monthly fees aren't an issue.

There are few valid excuses to being poor, and this isn't one of them. Lifestyle choices (don't buy the cigarettes, beer, fast food, cable TV, "spinner rims", large gold jewelry, car spoilers, designer clothes) would seem to result in much larger savings, enough to easily offset these bank setup fees.

Re:Rent a computer?

[T.E.D.]

So just don't buy it for 4 months, but put away the money you would have paid Rent-to-Ripoff instead. Then you can pay for it entirely.

Or more realisticly, buy a used one.

I did my time as a starving student. They had those same Rent-to-Ripoff places around way back then (mostly hawking furniture and TVs). A small amount of math quickly showed me that buying used stuff was just a way better way to go.

Not everyone is capable of college-level math courses though. This is why financial literacy should be taught in High Schools. Perhaps not even full-blown courses. Just enough for people to recognize the scams in Payday lending, Rent-to-Ripoff, Multi-level-marketing, and email Phishing schemes. There were tons of little ripoff artists out there preying on poor folk too. For instance, there's the fee-based apartment finders and job hunters. I don't know if they still exist. Hopefully things like Craigslist have killed them off (and may they rot in Hell).

Re:Rent a computer?

[balbus000]

These people can't delay gratification enough to save up

Reminds me of this.

Re:Rent a computer?

[pyrr]

There are plenty of decent computers to be had on eBay for the neighborhood of $200 or less from well rated sellers. They may be a few years old, but probably would still be more serviceable than the rubbish the rent-to-own places push. Say, something like a Thinkpad T40 series laptop would probably fit the bill quite well.

Re:Rent a computer?

[makomk]

I buy prepaid cards as gifts at least once or twice a year and it's not been that expensive. Setup fees have typically been in the $8-10 range; at that price I just make sure the cards are at least $100.

Where from and how did you pay for them? A lot of the providers are banks that require you to have an account with them already, and many of the rest have lowish limits for the total amount on the card. (I believe Wal-Mart offers one of the better reloadable cards for those without a bank account, actually.)

Re:Rent a computer?

[StuartHankins]

SunTrust was $7.95 or so; I have an account. Wal-Mart was around $10 -- you guessed that one.

Re:Rent a computer?

[demonlapin]

Spoken like someone who has a bank account, a credit card, and a stable address that doesn't carry a significant risk of package theft. Imagine trying to use eBay or craigslist without home Internet access or a car. If you live in New York, not a big problem. If you live in Monroe, LA, pretty hard.

I was really replying to the "buy one now, save another $200, sell this one and buy a better one, etc." suggestion.

Re:Rent a computer?

[dohnut]

Yeah, blue hippo had a great line in their ads that while perfectly understandable is designed to subtly confuse the customer.

"If you can afford 35 dollars a week for 12 months..."

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[metalmaster]

The percentage of people who install a vanilla OS themselves is quite small. Most consumers will rely on the preinstalled software given to them by the PC manufacturer. If something goes wrong, the mildly intelligent ones will put load the same exact software from a replacement DVD. The ones who arent as smart will take their PC to a repair shop where the tech will load the DVD for them.

Its all about things that "just work"

you can't consent to child porn

[Joe The Dragon]

you can't consent to child porn and you can't sign away your rights or have stuff in the fine print saying we can read your CC or SS or bank account numbers from the system.

"Crystal gets online before she gets a shower and checks her grades," Brian Bird said. "Who knows? They could print that stuff off there and take it home with them."

He added: "I've got a 5-year-old boy who runs around all day and sometimes he gets out of the tub running around for 20, 30 seconds while we're on the computer. What if they took a picture of that? I wouldn't want that kind of garbage floating around out there."

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[Travelsonic]

Says the cases where contracts have been rendered entirely or partially illegal/unenforcable due to such attempts.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[yakatz]

you can't consent to child porn and you can't sign away your rights or have stuff in the fine print saying we can read your CC or SS or bank account numbers from the system.

I am not really sure what child exploitation has to do with it. Since when are pictures of naked children called child porn? That is a 2/10 on the original COPINE Scale, and it does not appear at all on the SAP scale at all (note, I am not talking about posed pictures).

Now that we are past that, who said you can't have "stuff in the fine print" saying anything? Last time I checked, if you sign a contract, you have agreed to whatever it says, which includes the fine print whether you read it or not and even if you think that it does not make sense. You have the right not to sign anything that you feel will be detrimental to you.
Another point: I am sure plenty of people who agree with your comment have used public computers, lets say in the library, to check their email or their bank or some other password protected service. When you use that computer, do you have a right that there can't be something on that computer to steal your information? Why should this be any different?

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[johncandale]

http://www.solresearch.org/~SOLR/rprt/LookNow.asp#Sct_1_NakedKidPics There have been many dozen cases of people taking pics of their baby kids in a bathtub or otherwise half dressed and successfully convicted. I pulled that link in about 10 seconds of google but I'm sure /. and others have better links. Please please read the news once and awhile so you know why people are upset about privacy going bye bye and the myth of "if you have nothing to hide..." Even if you won on appeal, you still have years of your life with the added stress of a young child ruined.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[johncandale]

http://www.solresearch.org/~SOLR/rprt/LookNow.asp#Sct_1_NakedKidPics [solresearch.org] There have been many dozen cases of people taking pics of their baby kids in a bathtub or otherwise half dressed and successfully convicted. I pulled that link in about 10 seconds of google but I'm sure /. and others have better links. Please please read the news once and awhile so you know why people are upset about privacy going bye bye and the myth of "if you have nothing to hide..." Even if you won on appeal, you still have years of your life with the added stress of a young child ruined.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[yakatz]

http://www.solresearch.org/~SOLR/rprt/LookNow.asp#Sct_1_NakedKidPics [solresearch.org] There have been many dozen cases of people taking pics of their baby kids in a bathtub or otherwise half dressed and successfully convicted.

I have seen all of those stories before, but let's start with the first one:
- Accusation: Yes
- Investigation: Yes
- Annoyance: Certainly
- Conviction: No

The second link on that site is a story I have not seen before, but that is probably because it is a 404.
The third link: one convicted and overturned, one convicted which was obviously wrong (with no further sources available).
In the fourth case listed there:

Angeli was never charged with child pornography, but she was charged with disorderly conduct, malicious destruction of property under $250, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. source

Summary: No convictions.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[moderatorrater]

You're correct when you say that it's an annoyance, as long as you call thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and a ruined reputation an "annoyance".

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[haruchai]

You don't have to be convicted to have your life ruined.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[Gadget_Guy]

That is a 2/10 on the original COPINE Scale, and it does not appear at all on the SAP scale at all (note, I am not talking about posed pictures).

Surely it would have to be 3/10 since the photos were "surreptitiously taken" (especially as they were in a place where there was an expectation of privacy).

However, I agree that this is bad enough as an invasion of privacy that we don't need to start applying kiddie porn tags to make this seem worse. I can't legally give permission to film my wife in my home without her permission or knowledge, so it seems reasonable that I can't do it on behalf of my kids either.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[c6gunner]

There have been many dozen cases of people taking pics of their baby kids in a bathtub or otherwise half dressed and successfully convicted.

None of the stories linked to by the page you reference actually claim that anyone was convicted. What I found interesting was this:

There was, throughout the 1990s, an average of about one case per year that made it into the news of photo lab customers being arrested for taking innocent naked photographs of their children.

So while your odds of being hit by lightning this year are around 1 in 1 million, your odds of being arrested for taking innocent pictures of your naked kids are about 1 in 300 million. And your odds of being convicted are apparently even lower. I think I can live with those numbers.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[MaskedSlacker]

Last time I checked, if you sign a contract, you have agreed to whatever it says

Then you didn't check very hard. There are all kinds of things you cannot legally agree to (or rather, that you cannot be legally forced to comply with after having agreed to them).

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[LordLucless]

I agree with you in general, but after looking at some of the links on the site, it becomes pretty obvious they have an agenda.

SOLR Quote:

Charleston, W.Va., 2007. Melissa Hicks did not mention any sexual improprieties during the divorce proceedings against her husband, David. But after she was not granted custody of their two daughters, he became the pariah of the neighborhood and was sentenced to 30 years in prison for alleged misdeeds with various little girls.

Quote from linked FBI file:

The evidence presented at trial established that Hicks, a father of two girls under the age of 10, frequently had his older daughter’s friends spend the night as guests. Five of these juveniles, girls between the ages of nine and 12, testified at trial. During their testimony, the girls stated Hicks frequently took photos of them while they were at the home, commented on his ability to see through their clothing, walked in on them while they were changing or bathing, watched and photographed them through the blinds of the home while they were swimming in his pool, and physically touched more than one of them inappropriately. Many of the photos taken by Hicks were located on his computer in a special archive folder. The photos were of his daughter’s friends either nude or partially nude.

The evidence also established that Hicks is a trained computer expert who maintained a computer in his bedroom that had four separate hard drives. These hard drives, in addition to numerous compact disks, contained thousands of images and movies of prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Forensic analysis of this electronic media revealed Hicks searched for sexually explicit movie clips of children using a peer-to-peer file sharing program, and then downloaded the movie clips to his computer. Hicks forfeited all of his computer equipment associated with these crimes.

So yeah, SOLR's quote is technically true. It just doesn't mention that the "alleged offences" were also confirmed in a court of law, due in part to photographic evidence.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[Khyber]

I got EA's EULA nullified in court.

This forced them to settle before dangerous precedent got set against them and any other company that tries this shit.

No google needed, one of the sources is speaking directly to you.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[yakatz]

That is a 2/10 on the original COPINE Scale, and it does not appear at all on the SAP scale at all (note, I am not talking about posed pictures).

Surely it would have to be 3/10 since the photos were "surreptitiously taken" (especially as they were in a place where there was an expectation of privacy).

If it is part of the rental agreement, then it is most certainly not surreptitious.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[pairo]

You do know that's not how the numbers you're talking about work, right?

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[Gadget_Guy]

If it is part of the rental agreement, then it is most certainly not surreptitious.

And was it part of the rental agreement? I don't recall seeing that in TFA. I am sure that if it was part of the agreement then it would have been hidden away in lots of legal gobble-de-goop.

It certainly seems that the customers in this case were not aware that they would be photographed by their own computer. The boy in question would definitely have had no idea. I think that I will stand by my description of "surreptitiously taken", thanks all the same.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[c6gunner]

How so? Because I included the populace at large, rather than limiting myself to parents who take nude photos of their kids, and people who fly kites in thunderstorms?

Ok, what the hell, let's play it a different way. Assume 4 million births per year. Take an 8 year time-span during which nude photos of a child might be considered innocent. You end up with a population of 32 million. Assume 2 children per household and get 16 million families. Assume 1% of those parents took a nude photo of their kids this year and you get 160 thousand. So if you happen to be a new parent taking naked pictures of your child, your odds of being arrested for it might be 1 in 160 thousand, and the odds of being convicted are .... ? Still not high enough for me to be seriously concerned.

You know, if you walk into a bank carrying a toy gun, you'll probably be arrested for that too, assuming you don't get shot by a trigger-happy security guard. Sometimes people overreact based on incorrect perceptions, and yes, it sucks. If you're worried about the odds, don't do things which put you into that category. If you're ok with the odds, then go ahead. Either way, I don't see it as a huge issue. Though I reserve my right to sue the people responsible if/when my life is negatively impacted by such an arrest, depending on the circumstances involved, and encourage others to do likewise.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[Gadget_Guy]

Thanks for that. I will remember your message if I ever get in a discussion about changing people's names. Doesn't quite seem the same as taking naked pictures of someone without their knowledge or consent to transmit to an unknown person in the Internet.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[wmbetts]

To normal people that's not child porn. To DAs wanting to make a name for themselves it is. The world we grew up in is gone forever, because of the scaremongering of politicians.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[Aryden]

you don't have to be convicted to have something like this totally fuck your life. RE: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/arizona-couple-suing-bathtime-photos-prompt-wal-mart/story?id=8624533 The case was tossed out, however, their 3 young children were taken away for a month, they were registered as sex offenders, they spent well over $75,000, the wife was suspended from her job for a year, and then you have the added mental repercussions. Didn't you actually read the article a few days ago about the FBI spending 41% of it's manpower on child porn?

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[evanism]

its basic contract law.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[Tim C]

Slashdot it not your middle school, it is your college where EVERY SOURCE must be cited

Now it's been a long time since I did my physics degree, but I don't remember ever seeing The Principia in a list of sources.

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[_0xd0ad]

So while your odds of being hit by lightning this year are around 1 in 1 million, your odds of being arrested for taking innocent pictures of your naked kids are about 1 in 300 million.

So, about the same probability of me being the President of the United States.

Well, since I know I'm not the President of the United States, and I know I didn't take any innocent pictures of naked kids to Walgreens last year, I'm guessing my probability of both is 0%. I think people like me might be skewing your statistic slightly...

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[_0xd0ad]

Um -

(regardless of whether you think parents should be prosecuted for having bathtime pictures of their children in private family photo albums)

do you really think that some person taking pictures of your naked kids without your knowledge wouldn't be prosecuted, or that any sane court would consider those pictures to be anything but child porn?

Re:you can't consent to child porn

[_0xd0ad]

And this rental agreement remains in effect after he has bought the computer that he was previously renting?

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[Penguinshit]

even when Ma Bell owned the telephones and only leased them to private homes they still needed a warrant to eavesdrop on calls. In the case of corporate resources, those are provided with the expectation that anything done with them is work product (which the company owns).

Electrical tape over the webcam

[jtownatpunk.net]

Seriously. I own all of my hardware and do a bare-metal install on every laptop but there's no telling when some piece of malware may come out that secretly takes snapshots with the webcam. Or maybe I do a video chat then forget to turn off the camera. Heck, my current laptop doesn't even have a status light to warn me if it's on.

If I was renting/borrowing a laptop, I'd be even more inclined to be careful. Heck, I'd probably do everything on a VM.

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy to solve - just run Linux, and there's pretty much no chance of the webcam working even if you wanted it to ;)

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[jesseck]

We have some older laptops at work that have physical switches that completely cover the webcam... it's sad few computers come with anything like that these days.

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[Cryacin]

A piece of duct tape over the camera works wonders too.

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[vajorie]

Post-it is better, it leaves no traces on the laptop. Yea, I'm serious... Well...

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[Sunshinerat]

Until someone hacks your Linux computer and gets the webcam working... while you assume it is not.
Electrical tape works best.

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

UVC only came about a decade late; but it has been quite helpful. Before UVC, we had One Man....

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect that, with the downright spooky performance you can wring out of decent array mic designs(not in audiophile terms; but in 'picking perfectly audible human voices out of the background' terms) and the impressive size and relatively low price of MEMS mics, the days of unplugging the mic might be over soon in many cases(cases in both senses, in this case...)

30 seconds of googling pulls up a cute little 3x4mm package, 1mm high, SMT, pick and place compatible, mic and ADC in one package, under 650 microamps operational for the lot. If they didn't still cost $2/ea by the reel, those little bastards(or perhaps some superior competitor, I wasn't exactly comparison shopping) would be sprouting like barnacles on just about anything turing complete and intended for consumer use...

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[nprz]

They hack my computer and fix it? Sweet.
I'd think they'd rather hack it and download all my doc & images before fixing a webcam.

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[antdude]

How about microphone/mic.? Is the only way to do that is to disconnect its cable which require opening the case?

Re:Electrical tape over the webcam

[Xyrus]

Better yet, make the webcam always snapshot goatse. Guaranteed to stop them.

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[adolf]

Or is it a simple invasion of privacy, since they're using their equipment to take pictures of people (or anything else) inside of their own home, (presumably) without consent?

In terms of property rights, AFAIK, even landlords have to provide some notice before entering property they've rented out without permission.

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Given that this specific case involved a computer that had been paid off(and, unless demonstrated otherwise, strongly suggests that they don't remove their bugs upon transfer of ownership generally...) I suspect that they would likely be up shit creek under such laws in this circumstance.

More generally, I'd imagine that it depends how much the judicial/jury opinion falls under the sway of soothing babble about "legitimate digital asset management practices..." and how much it falls under the "Yeah, this is pretty much like I was renting an apartment, so my landlord decided he could install a camera in my shower" analogy.

Precedent could allow them quite substantial leeway if this case gets linked to the "the Company owns and watches everything you do while in the building" body of case law; but if it falls in with the body of precedent concerning rented dwellings and other things with long and emotively engaging histories, they could have Serious Issues.

If, of course, anybody finds a cache of kiddie porn being generated by the sorts of bored sleazeballs who would work for a rent-to-own company using the spyware, heads will probably roll.

hardware may just be a key / on / off switch / tri

[Joe The Dragon]

hardware may just be a key / on / off switch switch / trigger switch or just a usb board hidden inside. Some laptop boards have usb ports on the in side or headers / plugs for usb ports. Some systems have unused bluetooth cables / plugs that can be used for this.

seems to be software only
http://www.pcrentalagent.com/eSiteWay/Home.aspx?tabindex=5&tabid=510

are "we" really better with our money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm interested to read these comments regarding the fiscal foolishness of renting and have thought the exact same things when seen similar advertisements. I do wonder if the very rich would say the same about us in regards to buying land and houses though - how many times do we pay for our house at 7% PA over 25 years? Also how many of us have bought computers and gear on our credit cards at 15% PA or something?

It is true that the fool and his money are easily parted but I'm not so convinced that we're that much better than those who rent computers sometimes...

I do feel for those who really struggle and I think some of these attitudes (which I'm guilty off also) are a bit harsh. They're also seemingly more vulnerable to other illogical deals (in regards to the maths) like going in lotteries and other gambling (gee how does that casino pay for all that fancy stuff?). They use pawn brokers for temporary loans at ridiculous interest rates and are more prone to buy shonky cars with limited life/value again at bad interest rates etc.

I'm not any kind of expert in socialology but I'm sure there would have been studies and research done in how the poor are more susceptible to being tricked out of their already meagre resources. Its pretty easy for us "middle class" folks to be a bit wiser and more informed in such things.

Re:are "we" really better with our money?

[Sycraft-fu]

"how many times do we pay for our house at 7% PA over 25 years?"

Depends on the loan amount, but about twice. For a 30 year fixed mortgage of a reasonable rate you generally pay a little more than double the principle total.

"Also how many of us have bought computers and gear on our credit cards at 15% PA or something?"

Not me.

"I'm not any kind of expert in socialology but I'm sure there would have been studies and research done in how the poor are more susceptible to being tricked out of their already meagre resources."

Well the flip side is that a non-trivial amount of people who are poor, are so because they make poor choices in life. They waste rather than save, spend money on stupid shit etc. Their lifestyle leads to their condition.

Take for example my roommate I had to evict last year. Guy was dead broke and always fretting over money but it was 100% his fault. He decided to quit a full time, salaried with benefits job he had because his friend owned a strip club where he could bartend part time and made him vague promises of future money (that never materialized). He got drunk on a regular basis, often at bars which of course cost a lot more. He'd do things like go and rent movies at Redbox (even though he had Netflix with a device to stream to) without checking his balance and overdraw his card, turning a couple dollar rental in to $50 in fees. He'd order pizza rather than make his own food. Finally, like many, he got stupid when he got drunk and decided he wanted to smoke and the rules didn't apply to him, and smoked in my house which is what I eventually evicted him for, requiring him to find a new place fast which ended up being like twice the rent that I charged him (which he had trouble with).

The guy just made loser choice after loser choice. So is it any wonder he was poor? I'm not saying that it is 100% in your control. I recognize that I am lucky to have kept my job during the economic downturn, and to have not had a major catastrophe hit and so on. I'm not saying you can plan for everything. But you look at a guy like my ex-roommate and you see why he was broke all the time. Circumstance played a role, but 99% of it was his own poor choices, which he kept making.

I also have little sympathy for people who make bad choices repeatedly. I can understand making a bad choice, maybe not fully understanding what you are choosing particularly since finances are complex. But once you've done so you should learn form your mistakes.

Some people don't and they will be broke their whole lives. Even if they make more money they'll likely be broke, just with more stuff, since they'll continue to make bad choices.

Re:are "we" really better with our money?

[pyrr]

I wonder if that's where my ex-roommate went after I kicked him out! I finally got tired of all the reasons he couldn't pay his share of rent & utilities and the other bad behavior, so I booted him a few years back. Smoking in my house was one of the aggravating factors, as was arguing with me about my house policies (which were simply "clean up after yourself because I'm not your mommy", and "trash goes in the trash can, no just chucked outside my front door") when he got drunk and argumentative. The dude could afford to buy 3-4 plastic 1.75l bottles of cheap vodka and several packs of cigarettes every week and new games for his console, and he could afford to go out clubbing too, but not rent? Yeah. He also was completely unable and unwilling to balance a checkbook, so much of his income went to pay bank fees. Even with a halfway decent job, he was still always broke, as you say, just with more stuff. One poor decision after another, and past a point, it wasn't so much tragic as it was really. fucking. annoying.

Sadly, there are plenty of people like this and we're probably not talking about the same idiot.

Re:are "we" really better with our money?

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Housing is a little different--it's a mandatory expense, whether you buy (and pay interest) or rent. My mortgage is actually a bit less than the rent for a comparable property (if one could be found for rent), and there's an end in sight: after 30 years, it'll be mine free and clear, with no more payments to make. Rental goes on forever.

Luxury goods are different: it's not an expense you'll incur no-matter-what, so financing them makes a lot less sense.

Re:are "we" really better with our money?

[Quirkz]

"how many times do we pay for our house at 7% PA over 25 years?"

Depends on the loan amount, but about twice. For a 30 year fixed mortgage of a reasonable rate you generally pay a little more than double the principle total.

I may misunderstand the math, but if you have an interest rate and a time period, isn't the multiplier basically a fixed number? It doesn't matter what the principle is, if you're doing a percent over a duration you'll get x times some factor every time.

I have worked on a lot of laptops there is room fo

[Joe The Dragon]

I have worked on a lot of laptops there is room for a small usb based board to be jammed in there or some systems have ports that are covered by the case or can be made to look like there is no port there. Also some system have mostly side usb ports on there own mini board that can be tied into for a hidden board.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[Local ID10T]

So yet again the same lesson: _never_ trust a computer on which you have not installed the OS yourself, and kept 100% secure from malware.

It just boggles my mind seeing people use these computers from big box stores loaded up with crapware, without having the first idea what all that shit does. Why would you use a computer like that? It's idiotic. This case is an even worse example: you trusted the OS that was there, which came complete with spyware.

You are a computer geek. It is obvious to YOU, not so obvious to the general public (aka Joe Sixpack).

Do you use a (modern) car? How about a cellphone? Do you know what all of it's components do? Do you know what data is being recorded about your daily habits? Do you know who has access to that data? Or do you just trust the engineers who designed it and the technician who maintains it for you?

Most people make a compromise between functionality and control. We don't know how to make or do everything, so we trust others to do it for us. Sometimes they fuck us. Sometimes we don't like getting fucked by anyone besides Ms Wallace... so we call in a couple of hard hitting attorneys and get medieval on their asses. (yes, that's a bad Pulp Fiction reference...)

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[artor3]

A lot of companies no longer provide install discs for the OS. You either need to buy a second copy, or borrow from a friend, (or pirate the discs and use your legit product key). Doing a clean install isn't possible for many people as a result. Really, I suspect that this is one of the reasons people view Macs as "just working". They don't come loaded down with crap.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You'd better handle the firmware, as well. While something like AMT or the assorted server management cards is (currently) unlikely to show up in a mass-market shitbox, being reserved as a Serious Corporate price discrimination feature, it does serve as a fairly adequate tech demo for what a hardware rootkit would look like.

Little embedded application processor, active whenever the computer has access to power(whether 'on' or not), integrates with the NIC, video chipset, and peripheral controllers to provide full KVM access regardless of the state of the host OS, along with other utility features, silently(from the point of view of the host OS, somebody watching the wire can of course see it) piggybacks on the host's network connection. Even handles setting up a VPN connection to a remote host for monitoring the target if they wander offsite... Your own OS won't save you from this one. Even if you pull the drive, they can observe the BIOS whining about its missing boot device precisely as easily as you can. Pulling the RAM might stop video(since intel IGPs don't have their own to work with); but even then hardware status information, GUIDs, and serial-over-LAN remain alive. Game over man. Game over.(and we haven't even begun to explore what you'll be able to do once EFI and hardware virtualization support allow you to basically shoehorn an entire second OS into the firmware, permanently under the primary one. That'll be fun.)

Because it is a(slightly oversold) feature, rather than a bug, it isn't truly designed for stealth; but some rather minor modifications would make it quite tricky for anybody who doesn't monitor there network traffic pretty seriously, from an independent host(luckily the merry world of cellular broadband and somebody else's wireless hotspot makes that easy, isn't it?) to detect it.

Again, on purely economic grounds, buyers of low end units are, for the moment, saved by the fact that spy hardware costs money that would pare away at the already razor-thin margins of that sector; but hardware seems to be getting cheaper and behavioral information seems to still be valuable. Enjoy the future, brought to you by whoever is currently renting ad space in your framebuffer...

a apartment contract can't have stuff in the contr

[Joe The Dragon]

a apartment contract can't have stuff in the contract like we have the right to have camera in the apartment or that you can't have your own satellite dish.

Re:First!

[WrongSizeGlass]

OMG FIRST!

I realize you wanted to be first but couldn't afford it. We'd be happy to rent you a comparable posting position for an outrageous interest rate and some undisclosed tracking software.

Rent To Own

[wlandman]

Many people are taking an arrogant view of these people and there math skills. Yet those same people leaving comments live in houses they couldn't afford to buy outright. They drive cars, they can't afford either. I think most people use the Rent-To-Own because of cash-flow problems, not stupidity. Remember, it only takes one major emergency to help you lose everything. Don't laugh or look down upon these people.

Re:Rent To Own

[Kral_Blbec]

Big difference between a $300 computer and a $100k house. Anyone who has any "need" for a laptop should be able to scrap together 300 in a few weeks or months, especially considering that its only two or three of the payments they would have to make for a rent-to-own deal anyway.

Re:Rent To Own

[cloudmaster]

I own my cars, but it'll be a couple of years before my house is paid for. So, as that disqualifies me from making fun of people's math skills, I'll just make fun of your inability to differentiate between "there" and "their" instead. :)

While I'm here - some advice on emergencies: Never sell your house / otherwise get into a stupid bad situation over medical bills (which are about the only probable surprise cost big enough to matter). You can almost always get a hospital to work out an acceptable payment plan, eat the cost, or just find a way out of paying for medical bills -- but living in a box is not a good trade-off for avoiding the occasional annoying bill collector phone call. As long as you're making your house payment, you're generally not going to get your house taken away by some other unpaid debt. So (ignoring annoying government bailouts) always make the house payment first, and then other stuff later. If you have to, send some money to a lawyer rather than letting someone convince you that they'll take your house. I *hate* seeing stories about someone who sold their house to pay off part of some surgery or something, and ending up still in some insurmountable amount of debt with the added inconvenience of not having a house. It's almost as bad as seeing someone pay $4K for a $300 computer. :)

Re:Rent To Own

[starfishsystems]

Many people are taking an arrogant view of these people and there math skills.

Many people are taking an arrogant view of these people and their math skills.

Yet those same people leaving comments live in houses they couldn't afford to buy outright.

Yet those same people leaving comments live in houses which they couldn't afford to buy outright.

They drive cars, they can't afford either.

They drive cars which they can't afford either.

Remember, it only takes one major emergency to help you lose everything.

Remember, it only takes one major emergency to help you loose everything.

(Sorry man, that last one was totally about messing with your mind.)

In all seriousness, I agree with your points. People in general are financially overextended. The reason is partially due to diminishing options and partially to psychology. People overextend financially in order not to appear as if they're overextended financially. It's reflexive, and the marketing machine has become expert at stimulating the reflex.

The machine also encourages people to think that they don't really have to be responsible for the choices they make. The fact is, we're each of us responsible. Let's help each other to avoid the trap.

Re:Rent To Own

[PitaBred]

If you budget, save, and have insurance, a major emergency shouldn't make you lose everything. If a problem CAN make you lose everything, you're gambling and hoping you pull the high cards.

Re:Rent To Own

[54mc]

Many people are taking an arrogant view of these people and there math skills.

Not me. I'm taking an arrogant view of your English skills.

Re:Rent To Own

[GeckoAddict]

The rule you're describing is simple, pay things in the following order of priority:
Loans and payments that can't be discharged in bankruptcy (student loans, child support, etc.)
Secured debt (house, auto)
Unsecured debt (credit card, medical, etc)

And as someone who just had to do it: my wife had a medical emergency that required surgery, and we owed a few grand that I didn't have at the time. I called them up, they asked 'can you afford $150/month? Yes, OK, that will be your payment at 0% until paid'. Medical places would much rather get paid slowly than not get paid at all.

I know times are tough but really?

[grapeape]

Who in the hell would buy a computer from Rent A Center or Aaron Rents, etc. Computer speeds these days are primarily a luxury for home users...other than hardcore gamers there is very little that a person cant do with a 6 year old hand me down computer like you can pick up at yard sales for $50. I would say its a place for people with more money than sense...but of course its for people with no money and no sense. Their current flyer on their website shows a sempron based cheapo compaq for $99 a month for 12 months...not only is it a discontinues model but Microcenter about 8 miles away has the same one as a refurb for $249. I've been "broke ass poor" before but never stooped to that kind of gouging, I guess I just dont understand why anyone does.

Re:I know times are tough but really?

[muridae]

I am broke and poor as well. But I know where to get a Linux cd, and what to do with it to make a yard sale computer usableagain. Someone who has never had a computer and now needs one, they are the targets of these rent-to-own places. They count on you not knowing what you are buying. Out in the real world, lots of people aren't geeks or nerds. Retail shops are going to turn their noses up at selling their cheapest computer, and maybe try to up-sell folks. The rent-to-own please will be friendly because they know their margin is so high.

that just makes us look bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at an Aarons Sales and Lease. . As the resident tech guy, I install the PC agent software on all computers before they are sold. If we don't hear from a customer for more than usually around ten days after their bill is due, we send a lock out message. The software pings the server and a red screen pops up asking them to call the store. When they pay or make an arrangement with us, we give them a 7 digit code that unlocks it. It provides ability to view screenshots and take webcam shots but it is only used when a computer is reported stolen and we have a copy of a police report than we utilize it. When they pay out, I go online and mark the agent for uninstall and thats that.

As far at the RTO business model criticism goes, Aaron's at least cost about as much as if you charged it. All the computers have a two year warranty and I provide damn good customer service which makes up for any more of a price difference.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[MimeticLie]

It provides ability to view screenshots and take webcam shots but it is only used when a computer is reported stolen and we have a copy of a police report than we utilize it.

Clearly that isn't the case.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, wiping the machine and installing Ubuntu should take care of this little issue. Or maybe a cheap copy of XP...

Re:that just makes us look bad

[fermion]

which is all fine and good if the customer was told about this and they initialed next to the section indicating that the capability is there and some random tech would have the ability to watch yo uhave sex so maybe the computer should go somewhere else. Of course if the customer knew, they would tape the camera. So that would defeat the purpose.

What we are talking about is is the right of a firm to have a customer sign away basic rights. For instance, would Aaron's include a cluase that if the rent was late, a rep would have the right to molest a person, child or adult, in the family of thier choice. Of course not. Then why should Aaron's have the right to watch a peep show. Sure the policy is that this feature will only be used under certain circumstances, and I am sure 99.9999% of the well paid professionals that have access to the computer will do this, but really, why take the risk that the one remaining employee is not going to be jacking off to some kid? What is the rational? To catch the customers that say the computer was stolen but in fact are still using it? Does Aarons have such equipment on furniture and TV so they can watch kids make out? I think not, yet they are doing well without it.

This is just a case where a firm is being an arrogant dumbass. If the customers were told and they initialed their consent, then I am wrong. If the customers do not know that some creppy guy is potentially watching the kids run around the trailer, then Aarons deserves to be sued for all it can be sued for. It is not because the business model is inherently bad. It is because firms all to often think they can do anything for profit. Sell drugs to kids, frisk customers on the way out, intimidate them into an upsale. As consumers, even those with just enough money to rent to own, we must assert ourselves as the powerful agents in this relationship. After all, we are the ones that have the money, and the retailers are the one's who need it. By accepting the fiction that we are the weak one's, we allow the retailers to screw us.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Is every customer told about this software and its capabilities in plain language before they sign anything? If not, you're still in the wrong.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[adolf]

s/in the wrong/wrong/

Brevity, FFS.

HTH.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[Tim C]

"In the wrong" has a particular meaning.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[adolf]

Suppose that you are right:

Please explain to me the following: How does "in the wrong" differ in meaning, in this particular context, from "wrong"?

Re:that just makes us look bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I work at another rental company. I have installed this software thousands of times. There is no hardware component and we only lock down the computer when payment hasn't been made. To the best of my knowledge we have never used the webcam feature.

I agree with you about the cost and with the constant replacing of power adapters, keyboards, lcds, dc jacks, etc and virus removal a majority of these customers actually save money by renting vs buying. Not to mention my damn good customer service as well!

Re:that just makes us look bad

[bioster]

"If not, you're still wrong" - means you were incorrect about something... perhaps you answered a question wrong or took the wrong turn. It's not specific to an action, and is much more likely to be informational. There is little to no blame attached in this context, as it's frequently just an honest mistake.

"If not, you're still in the wrong" - means you did something which is morally bad... perhaps you stole something or made racist remarks to someone. It is specifically a morally wrong action, and there is blame attached. You should have known better.

Does that clear it up?

Re:that just makes us look bad

[pyrr]

If you read the article, you'd realize it probably was the case, just not for reasons under either Aaron's or the customer's control:

"The couple had a signed receipt but later learned an employee who took their final cash payment was suspected of stealing customer payments, which is why the store manager believed they hadn't paid for the computer and came to repossess it."

So yeah, as far as Aaron's was concerned, the laptop was stolen and they were, in fact, trying to recover it. They may well have filed a police report, and showing the photo was a way of establishing that the manager knew the customer still had the computer. Having an employee who steals is obviously Aaron's problem, but the customer was just another victim of the lowlife employee.

Seems there should've been a way to avoid the confrontation simply by discussing the situation. Did Aaron's send default notices? Did the customer ignore the correspondence? Did anyone call? Or did the manager just show up a few weeks later to repo the computer?

Re:that just makes us look bad

[hoboroadie]

According to the product website, the PC should have locked down with a nagscreen to call Aaron's. None of this shit makes sense now. I'm going to check back on google tomorrow, maybe some new facts will emerge.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[adolf]

Yes, that clears it up nicely.

Thanks.

Re:that just makes us look bad

[_0xd0ad]

And how exactly do you mark the *hardware* for de-installation? After all, what can be turned OFF remotely, can be turned back ON remotely...

Uh, that's not necessarily the case. In fact, if it's really OFF, it can't be turned back ON remotely. If you want to be able to turn something ON remotely, you specifically have to leave part of it ON to receive the wake-up signal.

Re:Ouch

[frozentier]

Never mind the spying..this Aarons "deal" is a sucker punch to the wallet.

ANYTHING bought on credit is like that. Did you pay sticker price for your car, or did you make payments on it? Did you pay cash for your house, or did you get a mortgage? Did you pay cash for college, or did you get a student loan? You are getting screwed on ANYTHING you don't pay cash for. Invasion of privacy doesn't have a damned thing to do with whether or not they had to make payments for a computer.

wipe it

[erica_ann]

I think if I rented a computer from anywhere, I would wipe the drive and install linux.. or at least reinstall windows using their windows key.. and when I returned it? I would low level format it ;) talk about an ID theft opportunity...

Re:wipe it

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

An ID that is poor as shit; but legally resident, or with a reasonably clean background, is likely worth something to somebody whose ID is no wealthier; but lacks one or both of those features...

The bottom few rungs of the totem pole are Seriously Ugly.

Re:wipe it

[fibonacci8]

So you need to brick it with a failed BIOS update when you receive the item, problem solved!

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[sjames]

Actually, since Byrd DID finish paying for it, the computer didn't belong to Aaron anymore.

Even if it was still Aaron's, that doesn't allow them to invade people's privacy in their own home.

Re:a apartment contract can't have stuff in the co

[yakatz]

a apartment contract can't have stuff in the contract like we have the right to have camera in the apartment or that you can't have your own satellite dish.

Source? Why not?

Webcams are creepy

[Mike610544]

There should be a regulation that any audio/video capture device integrated into a computer can be disabled with a foolproof manual interlock. I'm thinking maybe a little cover that slides in front of the camera; I'm not sure how to do the equivalent with the mic.

Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I live in constant fear that my laptop is watching me... trying to figure out how to sap and impurify my precious bodily fluids.

Re:Webcams are creepy

[Dr Fro]

How about a piece of duct tape?

Re:Webcams are creepy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'm a bit paranoid, but I live in constant fear that my laptop is watching me... trying to figure out how to sap and impurify my precious bodily fluids.

I'm pretty sure that the "automatic" flushing toilets, really have cameras. Someone working for 10 cents a day in Vietnam is watching and triggers the toilet. After we moved into our "new" offices at work, I mentioned it to a co-worker and a day or two later, when I used the toilet it did not flush (several times that day). I think they were on to me know that they were watching. I know, that they know, that I know, they are watching me. I now usually wave to them as I take a piss...

Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean that they are not out to get me ;-)

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[TheLink]

Most people will also rely on the preinstalled software and hardware in the car they bought/rented/leased from the car dealer.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[avgjoe62]

Come on, admit it. You work for the NSA and you're actually watching me type this right now. You're just playing with us, saying that someday someone will make "...some rather minor modifications" and be able to do exactly what you're doing right now. BTW, I don't feel like getting up to check - can you tell me if the coffee's ready?

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[Chaos Incarnate]

That's feasible for a hardwired machine, but just how many modern home computers are connected to a LAN, rather than via wireless? Especially if you remove Slashdot users from the population?

Designerware

[Animats]

State of Pennsylvania Business Search:

DESIGNERWARE
Fictitious Names - Domestic
Entity Number: 2808492
Status: Active
Entity Creation Date: 3/30/1998
State of Business.: PA
Principal Place of Business: 108 HUTCHINSON
NORTH EAST (a real place, a borough of Erie County 5 miles northeast of the city of Erie) PA 16428-1710

Owners Name: TIMOTHY S KELLY

Google Maps shows that as a 2-story frame house in reasonably good condition with two cars in the driveway..

Dun and Bradstreet reports

DESIGNERWARE
Single Location: 108 HUTCHINSON DR, NORTH EAST, PA

You can buy a D&B credit report on them.

Checking Erie County property records:

Address 108 | HUTCHINSON | DR
Acreage 0.2870
Topo LEVEL
Utility ALL PUBLIC
Zoning SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Land Value / Taxable 18,000 / 18,000.00
Building Value / Taxable 120,560 / 120,560.00
Total Value / Taxable 138,560 / 138,560.00
Clean & Green: Inactive
Homestead Status: Active
Style CONVENTIONAL
Basement FULL
Year Built 1973
Exterior Wall ALUMINUM/VINYL
Total Living Area 3156
Full Baths 2, Half Baths 1
Heating GAS, CENTRAL, FORCED AIR
Stories 2.0, Total Bedrooms 3, Total Family Rooms 0, Total Rooms 7, Fireplaces 1
REINFORCED CONCRETE POOL 1992
FRAME UTILITY SHED 1990
Sales History: 1/26/1990

Re:Designerware

[aiht]

Exterior Wall ALUMINUM/VINYL

Is that normal in the USA? Here in Australia we tend to use mainly wood or bricks. Vinyl tends to be used only on floors, if anywhere.

Re:Designerware

[aXis100]

Yeah, poeple in the US build toy houses made with weird stuff like vynyl sidings, felt and pitch water barriers, etc. They are not that strong and/or degrade quickly, but are cheap to build double storey.

Re:Designerware

[mikael_j]

Yes, a lot of houses in the US are built using frames of two-by-fours with aluminum or vinyl siding (the vinyl being made to look like "authentic" wood).

Vinyl on floors is, as another poster pointed out, considered "cheap" and "white trash". Instead it is common to see people put in permanent carpets glued to the floor that get absolutely disgusting (since they don't take their shoes off indoors) and need to be cleaned using special carpet-cleaning equipment.

Of course, I'm from Sweden where you are more likely to see wood, tile or vinyl floors (the latter two mostly in bathrooms and kitchens). And around here we take our shoes off indoors because there's no point in dragging dirt and mud all over a clean floor, with or without a carpet...

Re:Designerware

[Cutriss]

In my experience (as the AC mentions), carpeting in the US is rarely glued down. They mostly use the tacking strips along the baseboards. Oftentimes there's a foam-like padding layer that goes under the carpet and if glue were being used, it'd only be gluing the padding and not the carpet. You'll note that your Wikipedia citation says "or", not "and". So it may be common practice elsewhere, but not in the US.

Also I don't know anyone that wears shoes indoors. I myself have a sizeable weather mat inside the front door and a bench with an interior compartment for storing shoes. If I'm having guests I don't usually make them take their shoes off, but I never wear my own around the house.

Re:Designerware

[onkelonkel]

Here in Canada what we call "wall to wall" carpeting (as opposed to a rug which lays loose on the floor) in homes is almost never glued down. Standard install is to use tackless strips along all the walls, carpet is stretched and hooked onto the strips. It is more or less "permanent", unlike rugs which you can pick up and clean outside. And, yes, we take our shoes off when we come in the house. I did that at my cousin's place in Santa Clara and got some strange looks. Everybody else left their shoes on.

Re:Designerware

[onkelonkel]

Just to be clear, the exterior wall framing is covered in a layer of OSB or plywood sheathing (usually 11mm) which gives the wall its shear strength. The vinyl or aluminum siding is for looks and water resistance, and is not structural.

Re:Designerware

[hoboroadie]

There's very good quality vinyl available if you pay good money. The crap you're talking about is plastic-coated cardboard.

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[telekon]

Work-for-hire. Work product (generally) refers to information produced by legal representation in the process of working on a given case, and as such cannot be subpoenaed in relation to said case. Splitting hairs, I know, but it's a significant distinction.

Work product is also based (generally) on federal legal precedent, whereas work-for-hire is based on positive laws which vary from state to state.

Re:a apartment contract can't have stuff in the co

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but

Generally, you can't be legally bound by terms in a contract that would otherwise be illegal. You can't, for example, sell yourself into slavery. For one, slavery is illegal. You can't sign away your legal rights. For another, without a fixed term, it would probably violate minimum wage and a host of other labour laws. A contract to work for less than minimum wage is invalid regardless of whether or not I knew what I was doing when I signed it.

On another tact, generally, contracts are invalid if the terms are unconscionable. This is deliberately vague to allow judges and juries to use their judgment, but I am sure a paralegal could dig up tons of case law showing what is legal and what is not.

P.S. a renter of property, while not the owner of the property, is in legal possession of it, and thus has most of the same rights in regard to the property as an owner-user would. The renter's rights prevail as long as there is no adverse affect on the owner. Thus, the owner of the computer has no rights to the data on the rented computer. The owner's rights only come into play if the computer were deliberately damaged or not returned at the end of the lease or some such. Likewise, your landlord has no more right to come into your house than he has to walk into a random strangers house except those rights granted to him by the law of the appropriate jurisdiction (usually, just enough to protect his investment).

Re:a apartment contract can't have stuff in the co

[cloudmaster]

Source:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=satelite+dish+apartment
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=apartment+hidden+camera+illegal

Why not:
They can put it in the contract, but it's not enforceable.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[iiiears]

There are quite a few operating systems under 2 megabytes in size, ARM and x-86 It is surprising to me that all malware doesn't infiltrate firmware. BIOS, NIC, Sound Card, Video Card. all have capacity to store a few extra kbytes.http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/05/04/0111229/Aaron-Computer-Rental-Firm-Spies-On-Users#

Re:I have worked on a lot of laptops there is room

[AK Marc]

That's how the bluetooth is added to my Dell. There's a USB extension to a hidden internal compartment and you buy the bluetooth adapter that's just a Dell-branded bluetooth USB dongle. Though the dongle is sized right to snap in to the compartment such that it isn't loose and rattling around, and you have to get the right part number to have the USB extension run to the empty compartment to be able to expand it, otherwise you'll have to disassemble most of the case to be able to run your own USB extension from the MB to the compartment. But at least on that one model, there was a USB extension run to an empty compartment where I put in a $15 Dell adapter and upgraded to a bluetooth laptop. But I could have put in a proprietary mouse dongle, or a flash drive or any other very small USB device.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Bad news, I'm afraid. I just sent an HTCPCP PROPFIND request to your coffee maker and recieved a response code: "418 I'm a teapot". On the plus side, that is fully standard compliant. On the minus side, you'd better get ready to like earl grey.

Re:a apartment contract can't have stuff in the co

[yakatz]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=satelite+dish+apartment

Like this quotes from the first page of results:

In order to avoid legal complications, satellite TV provider like Dish Network and DirecTV require the residents to get a “landlord permission form” filled and signed by the landlord before installation of the satellite TV system at the customers premises.

That article does mention that you can put a satellite dish anywhere inside your apartment, but that is only because of a specific FCC rule, not a law (big difference between the two).

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=apartment+hidden+camera+illegal

Like these:

Is it legal for your landlord to enter your apartment and take pictures with no notice?
In America, no it is not. The landlord is only allowed to enter your apartment with your permission, or in the event of an emergency (broken water line, fire, etc.).

If you signed a contract with that condition, that is permission.

Are hidden cameras illegal at home or work?
In general, video surveillance is lawful if the purpose is lawful. If I put up cameras to prevent theft or vandalism, that's okay. If I put up cameras in a bathroom to get footage of naked people for my porno site, that's not okay. [...]In some states, the public must be notified that they are subject video surveillance on private property. In most states, that's not the case. [.....] Overall, if you own it, you can put a camera on it and not notify anyone.

Try this one: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nanny+cam+laws

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[Penguinshit]

my first "career" experience was as a legal paraprofessional so the term stuck (and slipped out in this case). However, as I was speaking in very broad and general terms it's applicable.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

From the conversations we've recorded, I can state with 99.35% accuracy, with an N value in the millions, that 9 out of 10 onstar owners are definitely using the preinstalled hardware, and whatever firmware update we prefer. XOXOXO- GM

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The situation is a bit trickier(as I said, this feature is a bit.. oversold); but it does support wireless connections as well. For corporate network purposes, there are ways to provision auth keys to protected memory(so that the embedded management processor can strike up a wireless connection even if the HDD is currently on fire). Off site, it depends on the host OS to strike up a wireless connection(since anything from no auth, to WPA-PSK, to random captive-portal stuff could be at work); but is then capable of initiating a VPN connection back to HQ.

I've actually been a little surprised at how painful it is to use, as an IT management feature(apparently all Intel's good software people work on compilers or chip design tools...); and we've actually largely abandoned bothering with it(on occasion, it can wake a machine when WoL won't; but most of the bells and whistles are really rough around the edges) but its capabilities are a bit creepy. My understanding, as well, is that even more control excitement is Coming Real Soon for systems that have an embedded cellular broadband card: remote control/lock/HDD encryption key purge, at the BIOS level, any time the machine has some power and is near a tower.

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[n4djs]

BS. The phone company always had the right to perform 'service monitoring' on the network...what they couldn't do was provide access to the government (at least in the pre-Patriot Act days) to your line to be continuously tapped. The telcos never had to have a warrant to listen to calls.

Wikileaks

[SnarfQuest]

Now we know how wikileaks gets their documents. They must be aaron employees!

Re:kinda funny...

[aiht]

So while there might be software installed the part in the article that mentions waving a wand to deactivate is funny...

I reckon the person who said that has just been reading too much Harry Potter.
Computers are magic, aren't they?

Re:hardware may just be a key / on / off switch /

[BronsCon]

WTF is a bluetooth cable?

prshshh

[wye43]

WTF is a bluetooth cable?

It's like a Wi-Fi cable, but weaker.

Re:Carpet

[mikael_j]

You're an idiot.

First hit from google search for "carpet" is Wikipedia which states:

...affixed to a floor over a cushioned underlay (pad) using nails, tack strips (known in the UK as gripper rods), adhesives, or occasionally decorative metal stair rods, thus distinguishing it from rugs or mats, which are loose-laid floor coverings. For environmental reasons, the use of wool, natural bindings, natural padding, and formaldehyde-free glues is becoming more common. These options are almost always at a premium cost, though with no sacrifice to performance.

(Btw, "adhesive" in this context means "glue")

Re:Ouch

[TheLink]

There's opportunity cost too. Most people don't have enough money to buy their houses with cash.

So either they rent while saving up money for a house for years or even decades (which can actually mean they pay more in total or get "less house"), or they get a loan to buy a house to live in "now".

Some even buy more than one house and they rent them out to others. That's great when the cash-flow works out fine, but if everyone tries to do that and it all goes bad you end up with 2008.

And on the subject of 2008, when you can get immense enough amounts of credit, you're often not the one getting screwed ;).

I don't have to be rich, all I need is for the Federal Reserve to give me a bail-out grade loan ;).

p.s. if you buy stuff using your credit card AND pay up in full before the due date, you get to delay payment and the many benefits of using credit cards while not paying any interest.

Re:Whose consent is needed?

[Captain Hook]

Given that this specific case involved a computer that had been paid off(and, unless demonstrated otherwise, strongly suggests that they don't remove their bugs upon transfer of ownership generally...) I suspect that they would likely be up shit creek under such laws in this circumstance.

Actually you can't make that assumption from this case because the rental company got it's facts mixed up and thought the laptop was still under the rental agreement and the users had missed payment. It could be that when the laptop is signed off as having been fully paid for, a script is automatically run to remove all that sort of spyware crap.

Note: I don't actually believe that, I suspect that the rental companies programs and configurations are left in exactly the state they were in the day before the rental agreement finishes, I'm just saying that since the company thought the laptop was still their they wouldn't have removed it.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[AtomicJake]

So yet again the same lesson: _never_ trust a computer on which you have not installed the OS yourself, and kept 100% secure from malware.

I fully agree - but all recent computers that my (larger) family bought came without Windows OS disks. You could get "repair installation disks" from the manufacturer - but those would also install again all the preinstalled crapware with it (and anything else, which you might not trust).

Any way to force the vendors to give you a clean Windows installation disk?

Note: This is a European experience - not sure whether this also applies to US sales.

This was a franchise

[Shivetya]

and not Aaron Rents.

If it was the corporation I could see the need for people to pummel them, but the actions of a franchisee do not speak for a whole company. I am not keen on rent to own, especially electronics, but let us not use an overly broad brush here. Hell people seem to forget the government keeps giving itself more rights with new "xxx bill of rights" legislation which means that they don't need spyware, they just use the force of law to take your stuff.

wand

[Anonymous Coward]

PC Rental Agent includes components soldered into the computer's motherboard or otherwise physically attached to the PC's electronics, the lawsuit said. It therefore cannot be uninstalled and can only be deactivated using a wand,

well, call the fucking Dumbledore

Irony

[Drakkenmensch]

This big problem would probably not have surfaced (at least not so soon) if one of their employees hadn't been stealing from the till. Sometimes it takes a crime to uncover another crime!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:hardware may just be a key / on / off switch /

[pyrr]

I realize you were probably trying to make a funny, but just in case...some computers have either headers on the board or a cable into which an optional BT module may be plugged.

Why do you hate the poor and stupid?

[HornWumpus]

Nobody forces them to sign?

You would prefer they didn't have the option?

I freely admit: I hate the stupid. Anything that happens to them is deserved. Being poor doesn't mitigate this.

Re:Why do you hate the poor and stupid?

[MarkvW]

I've seen too many poor and stupid people who are good people. Especially in the military. America needs and depends on the poor and the stupid. The least we can do is treat them well, rather than exploit them.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[GameboyRMH]

It's the same for computers sold in the US. Most only come with a recovery partition, and in those cases, most don't give the user any way to make a recovery disc from it.

Re:Usury

[hoboroadie]

This is why we're waging a war on Islam, because Sharia Law proscribes it. It's in Leviticus, BTW, so any good follower of Mosaic Law would shun it. Why do you think we're called "The Great Satan"?

Re:TFA

[hoboroadie]

Congratulations, I was beginning to think I was in an alternate universe since nobody else was noticing this. Maybe we're missing something, or TFA is wrong about the facts. Maybe they're suing the wrong party? DesignerWare LLC has something called ShowMyPc that might actually be the enhanced spyware that was egregiously installed, but TFA doesn't mention it at all. Bueller?... Bueller?

Re:kinda funny...

[hoboroadie]

TFA mentions DesignerWare LLC and their product PC Rental Agent, which seems to be for remote disabling a rental PC. It doesn't mention their ShowMyPc product which sounds more like what was being operated here. Very misleading. I suspect that AP's Joe Mandak is passing along a dose of confusion here, and the wand is some hocus-pocus invented by the jackass that let the cat out of the bag in the first place.

Greetings AC!

[hoboroadie]

Are you still around? On the PC Rental Agent site they don't mention the enhanced spying that you say comes with that product. Is it one package or have you got a custom build? Just askin'.

Not usery

[pyrr]

No, it's not called usery. Rentals are not loans. Renting-to-own is a stupid way to buy anything. Layaway might be a better choice, or better yet, buying from a thrift store. Payday loans often do seem like usery, but in most cases, the rates that seem so outlandish if they're extended out over the course of a year & converted into an APR don't seem terribly unreasonable for a cash advance. What are their fees, something like $25 to loan a couple hundred bucks for a week or two? Would you loan a couple hundred bucks to someone you don't know for such little money? I sure wouldn't. I probably wouldn't loan that kind of money at any price, since I'd kind of figure I wouldn't be paid back on time or in full, and it would also take entirely too much of my time to deal with it.

Re:from TFA: owning it outright vs OS

[avgjoe62]

No wonder the effing coffee tasted so weird...

BTW, that response is NOT standards compliant. That's just GE's implementation of the RFC. If you read the RFC, you'll see there the response should be: "418: I'm a little teapot, short and stout. Here is my handle and here is my spout." GE just didn't want to put enough processing power in their electric teapots to properly implement the RFC.

Stop the Cycle!

[dpgolds]

While I understand that a company like Aaron's needs to track their assets. Taking a picture of the user via webcam to prove that they were using a computer that they broke their ownership contract for, is simply redundant. Just repo the PC! Also - I am not sure about the details of Designerwares offering however I would imagine their agent added some additional value to the end user and Aarons (tuning up the machine, patch management, alert monitoring etc.). Furthermore I would imagine that the agent on the machine would act as some form of lo jack to aid in the retrieval of the device in the event of it being stolen (its pretty handy to have an image of the suspect to provide to the authorities). None the less (last segway I promise) I think these loan sharkesq businesses should not be permitted in our society... the easy access to material items that catch our eye on some advertisement or special promo just perpetuates most of our societies uncontrollable need to fill whatever gaps are prevelant in their lives with shit they dont need! Going back to school? Great - get a netbook for $200. Have credit trouble - quit going to the insta loan and cheque cashers and start digging your way out rather than avoiding the issue with the easy way out. These types of services keep us in poverty and fuel our 1 in a million pipe dreams of over night wealth. Just my two (probably typo ridden) cents.

A Simple Solution

[Firefishe]

When rental computers are returned, the drives are wiped completely, and the OS reinstalled. To solve the potential problem of spyware, install GNU/Linux. Pick a mainstream distro's live cd and boot it up, see how the hardware functions with that distro, then install it from the live cd's desktop; also remember to format the entire hard disk when installing, erasing Windows altogether. It would also prove useful to edit the disk partitions in manual mode, and erase any other partitions that don't belong there; my thought here is that there could be a partition that is running some type of spyware on that separate partition, so manually erasing and formatting the entire drive would be the most secure choice. If you keep the laptop, after it's paid-in-full, download a service manual, open up the case, and dispense with any additional 'security' boards you don't need--if they are removable. If the spyware is on an EEPROM with a light-window, just use UV or IR to erase it--using proper methods. Research before doing any of this, and study your parts closely! :-) Summarizing, if you must rent a laptop from a budget center, do yourself a favor: Install GNU/Linux. During install, manually format the partitions, deleting any unnecessary partitions you find on the disk. Format the entire disk, erasing Windows--the primary problem--and free yourself from the shackles of spyware that function only that OS, anyway. You're now set for the rest of the semester with GNU/Linux, no Windows, and, best of all, no spyware! Best To Everyone, Firefishe