Money Games

In these times of penny-pinching, belt-tightening and hatch batten-downing we’re all suddenly obsessed with the price of things. Moreover, we’re turning into a population of individual price comparison services and I fear the day when we’re all Pseudo-Russian rodents may soon be upon us. My wife will automatically quote, and compare, the price of diesel at every petrol station we drive by like she’s got oil-based Tourette’s.

Eventually we all end up drawing the same conclusion- it’s too much. We state, categorically, that everything is too much like we’re some kind of global procurement guru. It’s not worth that much! We say as we roll everything from a chocolate orange to a mobile phone around in our searching little grasp.

My father-in-law just happens to be a global procurement guru. Now retired, he was the global head of procurement for some of the biggest companies in the world as well as our very own treasury. He’s had to establish the actual worth of everything from office-sized mining machines to tiny electrical components so that when he signed off on a couple of million quids worth, he knew he was getting value for money.

His view on ‘value’ is the same as mine, which was forged from a lifetime of selling shit to anyone that will stand still for ten seconds: Something is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it.
That iPad you just bought. Do you care that it cost a few pence to manufacture? No. It’s cost you several hundred pounds because somebody else was willing to pay that much for it. If they weren’t… it wouldn’t.

Our professional footballers are always in for a world of grief because they get paid more in a week than I get paid in… my own dreams. The loudest and most agreed-upon chant from the terraces is always, “he’s not worth twenty million!”, or, “He’s not worth two hundred grand a week!” Well he is, because that’s what somebody is paying him. If he wasn’t… they wouldn’t.

Here’s the biggie: Damien Hirst spent fifty grand putting a shark in a tank and sold it for eight million dollars. His diamond-encrusted platinum skull had fifteen million pounds worth of diamonds on it and went on the market for fifty million. It was titled, “for the love of God” and it is, to my mind, the most aptly named piece of art since “bowl of fruit with wine glass.”

Hopefully, by now, you’re not shouting, “How can a shark in a tank be worth eight million?” because you’ve got my point. If there’s someone out there willing to pay that much for it, then that’s how much it’s worth.

People with a lot of money aren’t in the business of throwing it away and those paying footballers’ wages, organizing parking spaces for dead sharks and even, dare I say it, buying iPads are doing it because, for them, it’s worth the money. It’s their money and they will almost always get more out than they spend, either in direct profits or the benefits of use.

The problem comes when it’s not their money they’re spending. It gets even worse when it’s your money- our money.

For me it becomes about as painful as space-hopper hemorrhoids when the decisions to spend the money you were about to fork out on that iPad or, say, a new school, is thrown at two weeks of spot-light sports partying and it costs seven and a quarter BILLION pounds.

This isn’t the folly of some mega-rich Oligarch and it’s certainly not good business sense. Anybody spending their own money or that of the company they worked for wouldn’t entertain such a suggestion longer than the time it would take to guffaw loudly and call security.

The public money being spent on the Olympics will NOT make a profit in any real sense even though the money being spent on it is as real as it gets, regardless of projections of associated benefits to business and local economy. In 2006 Ken Livingstone predicted that the games would make a profit, after ten years, and that they would cost less than five billion and that the resale of the land would generate seven hundred million back. Well the games has come in at fifty percent more than that, the price of land has plummeted, and we don’t have ten prosperous years to frolic in, waiting for pay day.
As for the sheer benefits of use? How many speed cyclists do you think will be paying to hurtle round that Velodrome once the dust has settled? Enough to cover the cost of building it? There’s one in Manchester they built for the Commonwealth games and it’s just a big, empty, curvy-topped warehouse most of the time.

Like I said, something is worth whatever somebody is willing to pay for it and, in spite of the inevitable feel-good factor that 17 days of international attention will give us, the Olympics will never be worth seven and a quarter billion pounds to me. Simples!

How to Get Out of Debt and Avoid Fraud

Be careful with credit counseling agencies that don’t always deliver what they promise

More than one and a half million people file for bankruptcy every year. Many people fall behind on their bills because they’ve lost their jobs, suffered from a long-term illness, or because they were unable to manage their personal finances properly.

Fortunately, there are many resources out there that can help you put together a plan to pay off your debt, including credit counseling agencies.

Signs Your Finances Are in Trouble

You don’t have to be close to filing for bankruptcy to realize that you are in financial trouble. These are some signs that you might have too much debt:

* You are frequently late on your payments
* You are close to your credit limit on your credit cards
* You use your credit cards to make payments on other cards
* You find it difficult to save money
* You’ve been denied credit recently

How to Get out of Debt

To get out of debt and set your finances straight, carefully analyze your income and expenses. Make sure you:

* Make a budget and stay within its limits.
* Figure out your total debt and also what you owe to each creditor, your monthly payments, interest and payment due dates.
* Prioritize repayments, focusing first on things such as your mortgage, rent, and utilities.
* Make a repayment plan for each creditor and determine how long it will take you to pay off the debt. Make sure to review your credit card statements, as they will include information about how long it will take to pay off your balance, per new credit card laws that went into effect in 2010.
* Don’t incur any additional debt.

How to Choose a Credit Counseling Agency

Consider a credit counseling agency if your debt is too much to handle. These companies offer workshops on how to manage your money and advice on how to administer your debt. They can also help you create a budget and even negotiate your debt with creditors.

Many of these companies are nonprofit organizations, however be careful, as some charge excessive fees for their services and others might not even deliver what they promise. Consider these important suggestions before choosing a credit counseling agency:

* Pick a counseling agency that offers several services. This will help you avoid organizations that promote only certain services.
* Avoid credit counseling agencies that charge you for simply providing information, or agencies that demand a percentage of the amount that you are supposedly saving. Ideally, you should request the cost of their services in advance and in writing.
* Stay away from agencies that ask you to stop making payments on your debt or ask you not to contact creditors.

The Department of Justice has a list of credit counseling agencies that are approved to provide pre-bankruptcy counseling.

SOURCE GobiernoUSA.gov/USA.gov

Recession Delays Women Having Babies

The recession is having a direct effect on birth rates, with one in four women being forced to delay or reconsider having a baby, according to the 2011 Red National Fertility Report.

The results, published in Red’s October issue out on Tuesday 6th September 2011, shows the effect the recession has had on women trying for a baby – from how much they would be prepared to pay in order to conceive, to postponing motherhood due to redundancy and the rising costs of living. The report surveyed over 2,500 Red Magazine readers aged 30-45.

Key findings include:

· The recession has resulted in a 25% drop in babies tried for, with 10% of women saying the recession had made them postpone trying for a baby, and 15% saying they’d decided not to try at all.

· Baby prices have dropped more than house prices – with the average amount women would be prepared to spend to conceive dropping from £15,000 to £12,000 – a 20% drop in just 12 months. * The average house price is down 2.65% from July 2010 to £163.981 – Halifax House Price Index.

· The percentage of women who would be prepared to spend £50,000 to guarantee them a baby has dropped even more dramatically from 10% to 6% – a 40% drop over the same period.

· Following increased financial pressure on the NHS, when it comes to offering free IVF, 62% of women don’t think it should be available for anyone who wants it – up 17% from 2007 (45%). This suggests that when funds are tight, fewer women perceive having a baby as a right for all.

· Due to lack of IVF on the NHS, 61% have paid for IVF privately, with only one in five getting all their treatment for free.

Sam Baker, Editor-in-chief of Red Magazine, said of the findings: “This report provides an incredible in-depth view on the effect the recession has had on women’s baby plans.
The comparable figures show that the last year has hit women and their families hard, with many having to postpone or reconsider trying for a baby.”

Brigid Moss, Red magazine’s Health Director added: “Fertility treatment can be expensive, and this report shows that fewer people have been able to afford it, while the NHS provision for fertility treatment remains a postcode lottery. The report shows that having problems trying to conceive and treatment is also stressful, too. Both of these factors only add to the stress of someone who’s having problems trying to conceive.”

THE REPORT IN FULL:

MONEY

· The recession has resulted in a 25% drop in babies tried for, with 10% of women saying the recession had made them postpone trying for a baby, and 15% saying they’d decided not to try at all.

· Baby prices have dropped more than house prices – with the average amount women would be prepared to conceive dropping from £15,000 to £12,000 – a 20% drop in just 12 months.

· The number of women prepared to spend over £50,000 to guarantee them a baby has dropped even more dramatically from 10% to 6 % – a 40% drop over the same period.

· Due to lack of IVF on the NHS, 61% have paid for IVF privately, with only one in five getting all their treatment for free.

· A staggering 100% of women surveyed would, or have, cut back on school fees to pay for fertility treatment. 94% of women say they would cut back on all aspects of their lives to pay for fertility treatment if they needed it (includes holidays, eating out, pensions, savings, health insurance, clothes and selling possessions).

· Most women paying for fertility treatment have said that the money came from savings (88%), but 17% received a gift or loan from their family, 13% took on extra work and 13% put fertility costs on their credit card.

· 23% would consider moving / down-grading their house to get free NHS IVF provision to help them conceive.

· 17% of women who need fertility treatment have been prevented because of the costs, and 12% said the recession has directly prevented them from having treatment or more treatment.

GOVERNMENT POLICY / NHS

· Following increased financial pressure on the NHS, when it comes to offering free IVF, 62% of women don’t think it should be available for anyone who wants it – this is up 17% from 2007 (45%). This suggests that when funds are tight, fewer women perceive having a baby as a right for all

· 74% of women believe the government should ensure women are provided with three free cycles of IVF on the NHS.

· 95% think it’s unfair that there are different NHS IVF provisions depending on where you live.

· Nearly 60% believe that women should be given IVF on the NHS even if they have a child with their current partner, rising to 90% if they have a child from a previous relationship.

· BUT 62% don’t think that IVF should be available on the NHS to anyone who wants it.

SUCCESS CONCEIVING

· 23% of the women asked have had problems conceiving.

· For those who have had IVF treatment, 38% have only had it once, and 10% have had it more than five times.

· When it comes to the success of IVF, 45% got pregnant and had a baby, 31% didn’t conceive and 5% conceived naturally.

· 18% would consider going abroad for treatment if provisions were not available at home.

STRESS

· Fertility treatment is more stressful than the recession – 59% found it more stressful than dealing with financial concerns.

· 40% find the process more distressing than the ending of a relationship.

· Three in four (71%) found it more stressful than moving house.

· Nearly two thirds (62%) found fertility treatment more stressful than being made redundant.

· A third of women (36%) said that fertility problems made them depressed with 2% even signing off work due to stress / mental health problems.

· Nearly half of women(47%) said their husbands found it hard to cope when they were not getting pregnant.

EGG FREEZING

· 27% of women have considered freezing their eggs for the future.

What You Need To Know About Divorce

Five most common misconceptions about divorce

Couples considering divorce often have a number of misconceptions about the legal process and financial settlement which can cause unnecessary stress. Caroline Bourn, solicitor at Buss Murton Law LLP, Tunbridge Wells has highlighted the five most commonly mentioned by clients to help people keep a sense of perspective on the proceedings.

Caroline Bourn comments: “You would naturally expect clients to have a number of questions about the divorce process but is seems many people confuse what they see or hear in the media. Also people need to make sure they tie up all the loose ends of their divorce as they often don’t realise that there can be ongoing financial responsibilities towards a former spouse.”

1. To allow a divorce to go ahead the Respondent signs the Divorce Petition.

No, when the court sends the Divorce Petition to the Respondent they will also send a blank form called an acknowledgment of service form which should be filled in and returned to the Court within seven days. This form asks specific questions to which the court need answers to be able to grant the divorce – simply signing the petition is not enough.

2. The Decree Nisi brings your marriage to an end.

As reported in the press recently, Liz Hurley’s marriage “ended” in divorce when the Judge pronounced their Decree Nisi. This is not the case, marriage does not end on Decree Nisi, they end on Decree Absolute. The earliest possible date you can apply for Decree Absolute, if you are the Petitioner, is 6 weeks and a day after Decree Nisi. If you are a Respondent it is a further 3 months after the Petitioner could first apply and even then there may be a hearing before a Judge. However, often neither party will apply for Decree Absolute, unless there is an agreement about the finances and that has been known to take years in some cases.

3. You can get a quickie divorce like lots of celebrities seem to do.

Not even the celebrities get quickie divorces, they have to use the same system as the rest of us. Normally, if things go very smoothly, it will take around 6 to 8 weeks from the date the petition is issued by the Court to the date of Decree Nisi and as it will be a minimum of 6 weeks and a day from Decree Nisi before you can apply for Decree Absolute, and even then it may not be in your best interests to be divorced, as you may no longer benefit from death in service and pension benefits and even any inheritance from your ex.

4. Your soon to be ex can put the family home up for sale without your agreement.

Kevin Webster from Coronation Street managed to put the family home up for sale, despite his wife Sally making it clear she did not agree. In the real world any estate agents worth their salt would ensure that all the owners of the property agreed to put the property on the market for sale before marketing the property.

All the legal owners have to sign a contract and a Transfer document and without these a sale could never go through. One person can never force another person to sell a property unless there is a court order which states the property must be sold. Obtaining a Court order is an expensive and often time consuming process and would not be granted without a hearing before a Judge.

5. If you are divorced then your ex can’t make a claim on your money.

If you divorce without sorting out a financial agreement then it does not matter how long ago you divorced, either you or your ex can apply to the court to make a claim. The only bar on this would be that a person who has remarried could not make a claim on an ex, but if you have remarried, and your ex has not then your ex can still make a claim on you. All your assets and to a certain extent those of your new spouse would have to be disclosed to a court and would be considered in any court proceedings.

The only way to avoid this is to have an agreement drawn up which is then approved by a Judge. This document is called a Consent Order and it will contain an agreement that once approved by a Judge is binding upon you and your ex.

If after the divorce you inherit or win the lottery (remember Nigel Page who paid £2million of his Euromillions lottery win to his ex of 10 years last year), then you are safe in the knowledge that your ex can’t make a claim on your money. Once a Court have approved a Consent Order neither party can come back to make a claim on assets, properties or pensions, although if the Consent Order states that maintenance will be paid then the door is left open so that if circumstances change then the maintenance can be varied.

Lady Gaga would give away "every dollar" she has if she could.

 

The ‘Edge of Glory’ hitmaker – who is estimated to be worth $112.8 million – explained being wealthy and gaining worldwide recognition was never something she aspired to, and she would be happy to give it all up.

Speaking in Sydney as part of her ‘Monster’s Ball’ tour, she said: “Money and recognition were never a driving factor for me. I was driven by recognition by showbiz.

“What does come along with showbiz is recognition, but the money goes right back into the show. If I had to give it all away, every dollar that I’ve earned, I would.”

However, the 25-year-old singer might not have so much cash to splash in the future, as she recently claimed her tour had “bankrupted” her.

She said: “I put everything in the show, and I actually went bankrupt after the first extension of the ‘Monster Ball’. And it was funny because I didn’t know!

“And I remember I called everybody and said, ‘Why is everyone saying I have no money? This is ridiculous, I have five number one singles’ – and they said, ‘Well, you’re $3 million in debt.’ “

WORKING WOMEN TAKE FINANCIAL CONTROL – BUT NEGLECT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES

o Nearly half (46%) of working women describe themselves as the main earners in their family

o 44% of all working women state they are responsible for making the family financial decisions and over three in five (61%) raise money discussions in the household

o Yet over two million working females have no savings accounts in place

Almost a century after women asserted their right to vote, a new report from protection specialist, Bright Grey reveals another step forward in equality by highlighting that almost half (46%) of working women currently describe themselves as the main earner in their household. But its not all good news as the Women and Protection report* also suggests that women are actually less likely than men to have financial back-up should they suddenly be unable to work.

The ‘Women and Protection’ report – which examines the financial role of women in the household today – reveals that women are not only increasing their earning power but they are also gaining a stronger financial voice in the home. Over three in five (61%) working women state they are the most likely to raise money discussions in the home, compared to a lower 57% of working men who state they would raise them.

When it comes to crunch time, working women are also just as likely to make the financial decisions in their household with nearly half (44%) of all working female surveyed stating they predominately make the financial decisions in their household – compared to just over half (53%) of working men who state they would make them. Almost three in five (59%) of married couples say they consult each other on all financial issues.

Women are the family financial hub – but fail to financially protect themselves
Multi-tasking continues to remain a skill for women – even if they are at work all the time. In fact nearly three quarters of working women (72%) say they pay the bills, compared to two thirds (66%) of working men. A similar figure (71%) of working women in the UK do general day to day household budgeting, such as sorting home insurance compared to just 59% of working men who state they are responsible for this. Half of working women (50%) say they are responsible for longer-term financial decisions such as buying life insurance or organising a will.

Yet despite females bucking the traditional trend of males being the financial decision-makers it appears they are failing to financially protect themselves as over two million** working women (16%) say they do not have a savings account. Meanwhile, over a third of working females (35%) say they do not currently have a pension in place, compared to 30% of working men.

In terms of protection insurance products, over half (53%) of working women admitted that they have no life insurance cover in place, a product that is aimed at protecting their families in the event of their death. Over four in five (84%) working women do not hold income protection products, while a similar number of working women (78%) do not hold either a critical illness policy or private medical insurance (81%).

Roger Edwards, proposition director at Bright Grey said: “As earnings levels even up and the level of financial responsibility in households is more equally divided, women could be putting themselves at risk by not protecting their income – especially if a household is dependent on their salary.

Taking online accounting classes can be a great first step in really understanding financial matters.

“Bright Grey is calling for women to have adequate financial protection in place for themselves and their families. By buying a protection product that pays out if they are unable to work due to a serious illness or disability, women can ensure they protect both their household income and current lifestyle. There are various affordable protection options in the market, and it is critical that women in the UK who are increasingly running their household finances are protected.”

The Budget: to progressive what Kim Jong-il is to moderate {Carl Packman}

We’ve had the first budget by the new coalition government, called out by a small boy, nervously looking down at his sheet, behind him a Prime Minister with a face so red backbenchers thought it was daytime (it was daytime, but they didn’t know it was daytime by any other measure than David Cameron’s face, which actually isn’t a measure of time at all, allegedly) and two Liberal Democrats, whose party once called the rise in VAT (which was called today, starting in January 2011) the Tories’ ‘secret plot‘.

Though, back then, the plot referred to Tory plans to raise VAT to 19.5%. Judging by the chants of ‘here here’ today by Nick Clegg and Douglas Alexander, either we are to take it that once VAT rises to 20% it stops being a plot, or the Liberal Democrats have their hands tied in this coalition government. All such speculation has been achieved on this subject, and it doesn’t look good for the yellows.

Julian Glover of the Guardian on the day of the budget argued that it was not: “as a Thatcherite one would have done, seek[ing] to divide the nation between winners and losers. It was a one-nation one, albeit produced in desperate circumstances.” Certainly all the talk of “progressive” (that vacuous blanket term for anything not fascistic or carried out by a person over the age of 50 – Ken Clarke beware) provided the cover with which to place over our eyes, while our ears heard insistence from the Treasury that “The top income decile [consult graph 1 here for further explanation] sees the largest absolute losses, while, on average, the bottom three income deciles experience the lowest losses”.

But if the way in which Ozzy Osborne has dealt his number blow is progressives then I might as well sign myself up to that Facebook group supporting Kim Jong-il right now.

VAT always hits the lowest paid in society the hardest, though mostly what George has forgotten is proportion and scale. If figure A earns £200 a week and the government decides to take £10 more of that away, while figure B earns £2000 a week, and the government also decides to take £10, figure A feels more of a pinch in spite of the fact that both have contributed the same.

Now this is not an accurate picture of what the government are doing at the moment, but certainly the illustration holds true, that though the top income decile will see the largest amount of money taken from them on their pay packets, this is because they are earning more. This does not represent an equal distribution of the “pinch” when you consider that those on the bottom end of the income decile, though not contributing as much (as they don’t earn as much as those on the top decile) feel more of a pinch by the raise in VAT, freeze on public sector pay and freeze on benefits.

It doesn’t follow that since figure A has less on his income statement than last year, that figure A is feeling the pinch more than figure B, in fact the opposite is true. This does not represent everyone taking an equal hit. Until this is rectified, the coalition government’s budget plans are to progressive what Girls Aloud were to dignity.