wiredlynx28 said:Look, it’s a complicated situation. If you have credit lines tied to an account that isn't operating according to its terms, closing that account triggers the closure of those linked credit lines, making the entire balance due immediately. 👍
There are always people who try to fight everything—even their own best interests—only to end up screwing themselves over in the end.
When opening an account at JPMorgan Chase, they will ask for FATCA information. Usually, it's just a simple "yes or no" regarding US citizenship, and that's the end of it.
Don't overthink it, because that’s just not how it works.
They just ask if you’re a US citizen, and that’s really it. This whole thing doesn't even relate to the topic at hand, and honestly, I don't see what you have to do with these nonsense arguments anyway.
As for the other people asking questions... did any of you actually see anything related to this? Because none of that has anything to do with what you're saying.
So, they want to call in the entire loan just because you closed your account? I mean, that’s pretty much the end of the discussion right there. That's wild. 🤣
When you're actually opening an account, they don't really grill you on anything besides your ID. I know, because I literally just went through it yesterday at JPMorgan Chase. 🍿
I mean, I know there were actually way better options out there too... like, maybe 30 miles outside of San Diego, I can't remember the exact spot, but they had this one plant or factory that was looking for workers, so they ended up picking up a huge chunk of people that way. And honestly, I don't think there was even a strict limit on what kind of stuff you needed, it was mostly just about how many people were living in your house. I guess they were mainly focusing on families with three or more kids, if I recall correctly.
I mean, I usually don't bother replying to people who just post stuff to be contrarian, but honestly, there are ways to handle this. It feels like you're moving in the exact opposite direction lately—like, if things were actually booming and we needed more workers because there were so many jobs, that makes sense, but now we’re looking at a contraction, which basically means... well, I guess it means things aren't multiplying the way they used to.
Michelle Davis15 said:Tell me about it. Did you ever read about how they just dumped Iskon into AT&T? It was obvious they stood no chance against the heavy hitters, so they were headed for the scrap heap just like their old rival Globalnet. By acquiring them, AT&T basically decided which one would survive and which one would die. That’s a much more interesting story, though obviously, nobody talks about it publicly because it's not exactly something you brag about. If we're talking about actual success from back then, Nenad Bakić over at Indeed was a way more effective player. He played the game exactly how it needed to be played—sure, there was plenty of self-promotion and throwing shade at the competition, but you have to hand it to him.
While these "success gurus" in the newspapers don't have to worry about losing their platforms.🙂
Then there's the guy who accidentally registered the ".business" domain and somehow stumbled into a multi-billion dollar deal by pure luck, only for it to be shut down immediately. Now he's just chilling and enjoying life for the last 15 years => Mark Cuban
Or look at my buddy who bought shares in Zabka during the early days without even knowing what a stock was or what Zabka even did. He made a killing on that.
I mean, I don't think his success is actually that simple, and I really doubt he's just sitting around doing nothing. If anything, there's always something going on with the Mavericks. 😁
wiredlynx28 said:A lot of folks shuffle money between accounts, sure, but that leaves a paper trail that's easy to track. Even they'll notice the red flags. The real issue arises when someone spends what looks like four salaries, pays all their bills, but there's no clear origin for the funds or any proof that taxes were paid on that money. If you aren't cheating, you've got nothing to fear. 👍
Actually, I think it's the exact opposite... the people doing exactly what they've always done are the ones who should be looking over their shoulders.
I mean, my take on this... I guess the future is just going to be Apple Pay, though honestly, it feels like it's already here, even if we're talking about all different kinds of currencies.
So, like, some kind of digital wallet that maybe just reacts to a fingerprint or an iris scan to activate, and it probably won't even be constantly linked to the banks at every single second.
How on earth were you even able to rent out a house that doesn't have a certificate of occupancy? Like, off the books or something?
Here’s what it says for ones that actually have them:
"The Department, or the relevant governing agency, is required to conduct a technical inspection of the building within thirty, or fifteen days, from the date they receive an official request for a certificate of occupancy.
A certificate of occupancy for a building constructed—or works completed—based on the master project will be issued within eight days following the technical inspection if it is determined that:"
Just... take a look and read it. I mean, I get it, what's written on paper and how things actually work in the real world are two different stories, but, honestly, I don't know a single person who built up some vacation apartments or a house, finished everything by June, and then didn't rent it out illegally that summer. I guess.
So, yeah... I suppose that part of the bureaucracy actually functions.
Michelle Davis15 said:I honestly think this whole debate about worker exploitation is a bit overblown. If a nation votes for capitalism instead of socialism, they are making a conscious choice to enter those kinds of dynamics. So, if a capitalist wants to pay a worker $0.50—well, that’s just their prerogative as a capitalist. I don't see the issue. It isn't their job to run the country's social welfare programs. A worker's right is simply to turn down that wage and find a better one, or just go out and start their own business. Even a worker will choose to buy detergent wherever it's cheaper. I really don't get how you can vote for capitalism and then complain when your boss isn't being "generous" to you. Capitalism is literally a system designed for the owner to look out for themselves, not you. And let's be real, workers look out for themselves too, not the company (at least 90% of them do). In capitalism, everyone grabs what they can, and once you actually hit it big, maybe you eventually share the wealth like Gates.
If a capitalist can't find anyone to take $0.50, they'll end up increasing the offer for $0.67, and so on. Can someone please explain what the problem is there? Just please, spare me the moralizing, because in capitalism, "morality" isn't really a functional category. If a capitalist sees that people working for $2,000 are doing a subpar job, they might bump that up to $3,000 or $4,000. If someone is truly indispensable and they can't find anyone else with that profile for $4,000, they might end up paying them $15,000. It's just basic math.
Why should there even be a minimum wage in a capitalist system? If someone is willing to work for $167, then let them work. That's essentially the engine behind the entire economic revolution in China—a country we love to criticize, yet we all love buying their cheap TVs and smartphones. We get annoyed that a worker there is working for peanuts, but none of us would pay double for that TV just so that specific worker could have a better life. So, what's the actual difference between a worker in China and a worker in the US? Why should an American capitalist care if a worker lives better?
Take me, for example. Today, I have to pay an average programmer three to five times more than I was paying seven or eight years ago. He doesn't give a damn whether it's profitable for me; he's looking out for himself. And I am doing the exact same thing—looking out for myself—and I'm forced to pay because I can't find anyone cheaper who actually does good work. If it stops being profitable for me, I fail in this industry and I have to try something else. That is just capitalism.
If the majority of people actually want workers to live better, then they should vote for a socialized version of capitalism, like they have in Sweden. But people don't complain, which means they're fine with the status quo. You just have to be honest with yourself and everyone else.
Look, why don't you start by actually defining what "morality" means to you first? 🍿
I mean, is it really considered moral if someone who's actually killing it at work gets paid the exact same amount as the guy who spends his whole shift sleeping on the job? 🍿
If it’s state-run, I guess everyone in the company and the government just ends up looting the place. But if it’s private? Then it feels like everyone is just trying to bend the rules or score deals with the government through bribing politicians.
It’s honestly dangerous either way if things spiral out of control, and let's be real, they usually do. 😁
I don't think capitalism was actually the issue from back in the 1930s until maybe somewhere around 1975 or 1985—that’s when things just went off the rails because everyone stopped regulating everything.
I mean, any system needs some kind of guardrails, right? You can't just have investment banks out there being allowed to leverage themselves at a 33:1 ratio... I guess they just end up creating massive bubbles wherever they go.
There was this one documentary that explained it all really well, actually. It also talked about how much of a complete joke those credit rating agencies are.
But then again, looking at the big picture, neither capitalism nor communism or even socialism are really long-term solutions on their own, mostly because of just... well, human nature, I suppose. Most parts of capitalism are actually pretty good, but those few bad parts? They just ruin everything else.
And honestly, no system is ever going to be able to fix the oldest problems in human relationships—you know, stuff like stealing, lying, and corruption.
My take is that we're probably never going to solve those issues anyway, but I guess it doesn't even matter, since nothing is ever going to be perfect.
Like, where is the apartment located and what’s the market value? Is there a lien on the property or anything? Does he actually own it outright?
How much does he owe Chase and the other banks?
Because, I mean, if his place is only worth $40,000 and he's already sitting on $30,000 in debt, then anyone lending him money isn't going to see a dime in three years unless they plan on harvesting his kidney or something.
silverhawk9 said:Honestly, there is nothing more distasteful to me than people who just sit around waiting for their parents to pass away so they can move into the family estate with their spouse and kids.😵 Look, if you’re single, fine—maybe it makes sense. But once you’ve started a family and gotten married, then just hovering around waiting for your folks to kick the bucket so you can take over the house?🙄 It’s completely baffling to me, and frankly, it feels incredibly irresponsible. After all, parents have every right to sell everything and leave nothing behind; they aren't obligated to pass the torch to you. And don't even get me started on the absolute gutter behavior of dragging families through the courts, contesting wills, and fighting over assets. If I ever found myself in a position where I was suing my own kin over an inheritance, I’d be too embarrassed to show my face in public. If they wanted to leave you something, they would have. Personally, I’m an only child, but I don't spend my time dwelling on it or expecting a windfall. I’m focused on building my own life and acquiring my own things from scratch.
Well, obviously you wouldn't get it since you're an only child. You'll never feel like someone is screwing you over in this scenario because there's no one else to compete with.
I guess if you don't obsess over your parents, if you don't push too hard, you'll end up with everything anyway. It's not worth the stress.
But then you imagine three kids being manipulated by their parents, being dragged through every emotional hoop imaginable while they're being mentally toyed with? Yeah, that happens. Of course, it depends on how much they allow it, but the excuse is always the same: "You aren't getting a dime."
I suppose that's possible, but not after five or ten years of misery. Everything needs to be crystal clear right from the start.
feraljackal2 said:Beyond the moral issues being discussed, there’s another practical side to this that puzzles me. Let's say the average person has kids around age 30, and let's assume a life expectancy of about 75. That child—assuming they aren't one of many siblings—won't actually inherit that property until they're 45. And if the situation is different—say, my grandmother lived to be 95—they might not see that inheritance until they're 60.
That's a hell of a long time to be holding your breath, isn't it?
That isn't even the main issue, really. If people just understood that it's a problem and realized they won't be able to do anything about it at that age, they'd just pass it down immediately.
My grandfather inherited his estate when he was 70. His mother lived to be 99—nearly a century—and only then did the will finally kick in.
But they handled it smartly; he just passed it straight to his father, so his dad got it around age 50. But even then, things haven't been fully settled yet because of some ongoing legal battles.
Man, so many of these old properties have multiple owners, and by the time everyone is suing each other and arguing over who gets which third, years go by.
I think a better way would be the direct grandparent-to-grandchild route, or maybe some sort of complex trust setup.
You’ve got 800 square meters of buildable land just 100 meters from the beach and you’re telling me that’s nothing? You know that old saying about "having it all and realizing you have nothing"? Maybe try that sometime. Look, I'm not wishing that on you, but seriously—a little humility wouldn't hurt.
I mean, it kind of depends on how you look at it. Like, does everyone who has a million count as a millionaire? And if they spend one more dollar, suddenly they aren't? I guess... 🤣
Drew Gonzalez12 said:That property isn't something I'll ever sell. If I end up having children one day, that's where the family home will be built, so I won't ever see a dime from its sale.
For instance, I have a neighbor—he moved back to the States after working abroad—who is so wealthy he makes Jerry Jones look modest.😁 He owns two villas practically touching the ocean worth upwards of $11 million, a massive estate spanning over 100,000 square feet with five apartments, and his businesses in Germany are valued at over $55 million. That’s just what’s on the surface; who knows what else he has tucked away? I heard he even invested in some oil ventures in Venezuela, and his fleet of vehicles alone is worth millions.😁
He has an only daughter around my age, so she’s the sole heir to everything. It’s something one should aim for, though I imagine the competition will be quite fierce.😁
You're young, you'll figure it out. Just don't ever say "never" in your life, seriously, remember that. My old man used to say "never" about so many things, and then he’d totally change his mind because the situation shifted. 😁
Honestly, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me. 🍿
I guess... maybe I should just say it? Betting. Or, like, gambling. It’s all kind of the same thing, isn't it? I don't know. I've been thinking about it lately, just how much people love the rush, I suppose. It's intense. Really intense. says: Nancy Howard4, I had this one former coworker who used to always say something about this... I guess he’d just tell you, you know, that you're only actually wealthy if your grandfather was wealthy. That's how he saw it, anyway. Maybe he was right? I don't know.
So, I mean, you've got your great-grandfather right there with you, I guess... but yeah, that's pretty much it. 😉
I mean, it doesn't have to be perfectly accurate, I guess... lots of people were flipping coastal land along the Amalfi Coast back in the day, like between '99 and '07, making absolute fortunes. But looking at things now? It's pretty much a coin toss. Some folks probably blew through all that cash immediately, while others were smart enough to actually invest it properly. There isn't really one set rule for how it played out, I suppose.
Drew Gonzalez12 said:Back home in the States, everything was settled for me once I hit my eighteenth birthday. I ended up inheriting two apartments within our family home, along with about 8,000 square feet of land, which I suppose is decent, though I can't say I'm exactly thrilled about it. I am just incredibly grateful that it’s located on the California coast, just a stone's throw from the ocean, rather than being tucked away somewhere deep in the Midwest.
Everything I have came down through my father's side. My mother didn't leave much behind, of course—she grew up in the Midwest with five siblings, and they all have to share a single house. To be honest, I don't lose much sleep over that house; at this point, my little patch of land near the coast feels far more valuable than any property out in the heartland.🤣
That is why I always tell people you should marry someone from the coast; those girls from the interior rarely come with any assets to speak of.🤣
I mean, if they actually had something to pass down... and assuming things didn't just go completely sideways for all the men out there, I guess. Maybe.
So, I guess in my family, everything was pretty much split up evenly... like, every single plot of land was divided into equal parts and all that stuff. But, well, there was this one thing—the house itself always went to the male heir, you know? And then the women would get other plots instead. But honestly, looking back, it all worked out to be totally fair in the end, because those plots were actually worth a decent amount too, since they were zoned for building and things like that. It just balanced out, I suppose.
It’s just such a shame they handled things that way. I mean, I guess since I come from the father's side of the family, and my mom is basically the glue holding everything together, it really makes a difference... maybe? It just feels like a missed opportunity, honestly. 😁
So, I guess there’s this area near Dresden, right on the Amalfi Coast, where you get those massive stretches of coastline. It’s pretty wild how things worked out there. The sons ended up inheriting all these plots up in the hills, just above the main highway, while the daughters got the spots right by the water. Which means, I suppose, that all the most expensive property actually ended up in the hands of the sons-in-law. Kind of crazy when you think about it, right? 🤣
I mean, honestly, as far as you're concerned... that train has pretty much already left the station. I guess. Maybe. 🍿
I guess I might have jumped the gun a bit with my last reply, so maybe I don't have everything totally straight yet, but honestly, we're still just in the very early stages of negotiations.
Of course, this is going to cost me something, you know? Financially speaking, and I probably won't be able to talk them out of it easily, because I have zero intention of moving to where they live, and they aren't planning on relocating either, so our interests just don't really align.
But, hey, it’s not really an issue, I suppose. The main thing is reaching an agreement where everyone walks away happy, and making sure my dad doesn't have to keep working all the way until retirement.
As for the assets, let's say they're pretty typical for someone from California. There's a house, maybe around 3,700 square feet, sitting on a lot that's about 7,000 square feet... oh, and there's a larger 22,000 square foot plot in a small town near the coast, plus a few smaller, less valuable parcels—some of which can only be sold to the neighbors unless we find a buyer for one specific one, which is currently in progress. There's also an old, semi-dilapidated house in that same town, another plot a bit further from the coast, and a house over in Mexico.
They seem to be overvaluing everything, though. I'm trying to stay grounded and realistic here; if I had to guess, the current value is somewhere between $1.6 to $2.1 million.
So, look, if we settle on a deal where I pay $1,300 a month, and I factor in average life expectancy, it would basically cost me about $390,000 in total economic terms. So, yeah, strictly looking at the math, it actually makes sense. 🍿
P.S. Oh, right, they also have a loan. It's not some massive mountain of debt or anything, but it would end up costing me a little bit more if we decided to pay it off all at once.
So I’m just sitting here looking over all the replies now... I think I mentioned earlier that I was expecting this, but honestly, seeing everything under the "hard work" category? I don't even know what to say about it. 😁