What’s the difference between a 12.9% interest rate and a 239,238.9% interest rate? Nothing.

This post originally appeared in a different form on Credit Card Chaser in June. Well, it originally appeared in an even more different form in our book. Either way, the post is especially valid today. Happy Thanksgiving, and happy shopping.

Read the fine print

If you can't read English, nor put a baseball cap on straight, maybe a credit card is not for you.

The average American household receives a credit card offer every 10 days. (If you’re on Capital One’s mailing list, more like every 10 hours.) That average American household accepts a lot of those offers, and carries a balance of about $10,000 on an average of 12 cards, which is at least 10 too many. The average interest rate on credit cards is around 18%. Twenty percent of those cards are maxed out, and 35% of their holders pay a monthly late charge.

A helpful rule in your economic life is to think about every transaction from the other party’s perspective. In this case, look at the handsome annuity that your credit card balance becomes in the eyes of the card issuer. If you can find an investment that pays a consistent 18%, let us know. Not only will we refund you the price of my book, we’ll retire from creating personal finance books and put all our money in that investment instead.

If you couldn’t pay your bills in 18th century England, you didn’t get to “call and work something out,” nor could you sue in civil court because your bank made its credit card application so pretty and the envelope so easy to open that you couldn’t say no. Instead, you went to debtor’s prison. Sometimes it seems as though the threat of incarceration might be the only way to get modern Americans to spend with discretion. You’re carrying more debt now than when you were 15 and working at Hot Dog On A Stick. Ever wonder why?

Money is a commodity, but it’s also a tool. A tool that can help you build a house, a career, a life. Lose control of your money, and it’s the credit card issuer that’ll determine how hard your nails will be hammered and how frequently. So when you get a mailer that reads:

“Instead of 18.9%, apply now and we’ll give you a fabulously low rate of 14.9%!”

understand that means

“We’d like an investment that pays 18.9%, but then we’d also like it to rain beer. An investment that pays 14.9% is still fantastic, though. Almost no investment in the world can guarantee that, besides the atrocious saving habits of the American public.”

Never carry a credit card balance. Sacrifice a month’s groceries and beg for orange peels if you have to. Regard paying your bill in full every month as an imperative no less important than locking your door every time you leave home. Depending on what neighborhood you live in, doing the former could save you more money than doing the latter.

If you carry no balance, it costs the issuer to keep you around. You’re a low-revenue customer. (Or better yet, a non-revenue customer.) Let the irresponsible borrowers with the $25,000 balances pay the salary of the MasterCard CEO and put the fuel in VISA’s corporate jets.

With a zero balance, you can look at the issuer/borrower relationship in a new light. You’ll notice that credit card companies plug their low interest rates and balance transfer rates like they’re being eleemosynary bighearts. “Act now, and pay just 9.9% on balance transfers!”

In other words, if you’re irresponsible enough to have rung up debt on a competitor’s card, come to us. You’ve proven yourself to be a juicy fish. You’re actually far better than that, because a 50-pound chinook salmon can only be eaten once. We can feed off your bloated carcass again and again. The issuer is saying, “Hooked on cocaine? That’s for losers. Instead, give our pure crystal meth a taste and you’ll never go back.”

If you pay in full, annual percentage rates and interest-free introductory periods become meaningless. The credit card company has to profit off someone. Let it be the ill-prepared next person, not you.

The longer your record of paying your balance in full, the bigger the limits your issuer should allow. Most introductory credit cards will only let you charge up to, say, $3,000. After you’ve paid in full for a few months, they’ll increase your limits. This isn’t to reward you for being a profitable customer, as you’re anything but. It’s in the hope you’ll slip up, charge more than you can afford, and that’s when they’ve got you. Another debtor on the hook.

This is not a condemnation of credit cards, says a man who would use his Hilton Honors AmEx at the neighbor girl’s lemonade stand if she’d only accept it (62,760 points and counting!) Credit cards are wonderful. They’re convenient, discreet, trackable, replaceable and inconspicuous in ways cash can never be. But if you use them without regard to their possible consequences, you’re the equivalent of a parent who thinks her baby’s nursery has just the right mix of temperature and humidity for storing loaded firearms.

**This post is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance #286-Check Your Math Edition**

Debunkery, yet again

Vertical stripes make you look young

 

I hate writing about this topic, so much so that I can’t even be bothered to downshift and transfer this post to the third person like I always do. The only challenge this week will be seeing if I can write 800 words without including anything that could be construed as a double entendre.

Brett Favre might be the most reported-upon athlete of my lifetime. Regrettably, little of that media coverage focuses on his powerful arm, his speedy setup and release, his ability to overcome average mechanics to consistently find receivers downfield, or his superlative longevity.

No, the coverage focuses on his first retirement. His father dying hours before a Monday night game and Brett eking out a win. His grandchild. His second retirement. His enthusiasm for Vicodin, as if a guy whose job includes regularly getting the wind knocked out of him by fast and gigantic men should just play through the pain. His third and fourth retirements. His childlike enthusiasm, just a kid having fun out there! His final comeback, spurred by his daughter saying (I swear to God I saw Favre say this or something close to it on TV), “’Daddy, do you think you could win one more Super Bowl for me?’” (As long as he was concocting folklore, why not give her leukemia while he was at it?) And yes, maybe a story or 2 on the penis shots.

I tweeted earlier this week that Babe Ruth wouldn’t have made it to 714 home runs today. He would have incurred a 2,000-game suspension somewhere along the line for defiling a willing groupie with a champagne bottle. What about the first time Wilt Chamberlain mailed a Polaroid of the Little Dipper to a receptive white woman? Forget about it. David Stern would have ordered sensitivity training with a licensed therapist, whom Wilt would have almost certainly ended up bedding.

What does this have to do with personal finance? A fanciful Forbes post that I refuse to link to claims that Favre’s 2-year old texts to a woman who looks uncannily like his wife will cost him $100 million in lost salary, endorsements and speaking fees. Just for the record, those texts went to a woman who exposed her own genitalia to anyone willing to buy the relevant issue of Playboy.

It’s that kind of innumerate nonsense that doesn’t deserve a response, but to summarize:

  • He’s 41. His playing career’s almost over, this time for real. He’s going to get paid through the year, and likely wasn’t going to find a contract for 2011 anyway.
  • There was no breakdown between retirement-era speaking fees and endorsements in the Forbes estimate, but let’s say half and half? That’d be roughly 4 billion speaking appearances. (What, I can’t play fast and loose with numbers, too?) However many appearances it is, that sort of schedule would defeat the purpose of being retired.
  • Does Jenn Sterger really want to claim harassment? She hasn’t done so formally. Hopefully she’d appreciate the irony of someone whose fame derives exclusively from exploiting her own sexuality painting herself as a victim. Even if she is that mercenary, a couple hundred thousand ought to shut her up.
  • Favre isn’t Roman Polanski. Or Mike Tyson. Or even Ben Roethlisberger. Or even Zeke Mowatt. Favre is a sexual harasser like Deion Sanders is a felon (he got arrested once. For fishing out of season.)

The worst part about the “$100 million” figure, aside from its basis in something other than reality, is that it reignites the tired catcalling about how athletes are overpaid. I’d do his job for nothing, how does being able to throw a tight spiral benefit society, teachers should get more than quarterbacks (well, maybe JaMarcus Russell), etc.

Favre will take home 8 digits this year, and that must have some nefarious connection to the small hourly wage that Metrodome game-day personnel make. Or to the starting salary for a teacher in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.

No, Favre’s riches derive from one thing: how much revenue he can generate: or more accurately, his employers’ assessment of how much revenue he can generate.

Having Favre in the backfield means Vikings center John Sullivan isn’t snapping the ball to empty space, which would result in an 0-16 season. More practically speaking, having Favre around means Tarvaris Jackson isn’t the Vikings’ starting quarterback. (Granted, starting Favre at quarterback this season has resulted in only 1 victory. But again, Vikings’ ownership was projecting from what Favre had done throughout his nonpareil career, culminating in taking his team to within a couple of plays of the Super Bowl the previous season.)

Favre’s fame and longevity make whatever personal charisma he has more visible. That means that if he can recite a line and look at a camera somewhat convincingly, Sears can hire him to sell TVs. Or VFC, parent of Wrangler, can hire Favre to sell jeans. We don’t know how many TV or jeans sales to attribute to Favre being on camera, but presumably they’re enough to make it worthwhile to have him on the payroll.

The teacher who keeps the peace in an elementary school classroom, staying in the ultimate professional comfort zone while finishing work at 3:00 every afternoon and getting summers off, has skills that are easy to find and replicate. Same with the retiree who takes tickets at the Metrodome entrance. If that teacher can get 64,111 students into her class, at prices ranging from $39 to $143, and sell the broadcast rights to her classes for a few million, then she can start complaining about being underpaid.

**This post is featured in the Carnival of Personal Finance #281**

Relax, You’re Swimming In It

Iguazu Falls, where $231 worth of water flows per second

Do you know how much that dripping faucet in your kitchen is costing you? If it drips once a second, 24 hours a day, it’ll cost you…

So little that a standard 8-digit calculator can have trouble measuring it.

When you go to other personal finance blogs that give useless “money-saving tips” like “use less water”, you’re wasting your time. And possibly some water, but that shouldn’t matter. The overzealous conservation of water is pseudoscientific, pseudoeconomic nonsense.

Kids were getting indoctrinated with screeds about the scarcity of water at least in the 1970s, and probably earlier. Here’s a gem that social studies textbooks still use:

Of all the water on earth, <3% of it is freshwater, and almost all of that is in glaciers. Only .01% is in surface water – lakes and rivers.

OMG we’re running out! We’re going to be a desert planet soon! Either that, or we’ll have to develop gills!

Congratulations, you just fell victim to a mathematical parlor trick. Percentages don’t mean a thing, only raw numbers do. The 310 million cubic miles of seawater on the planet are irrelevant to the discussion of fresh water. The only purpose they serve is to make the amount of fresh water on the planet look relatively small. If the entire Sahara turned to seawater tomorrow, the percentage of the earth’s water that’s fresh would fall but the amount of fresh water wouldn’t change. The earth’s surface water works out to about 100,000 cubic yards per person. You’re not going to die of thirst.

It’s Control Your Cash’s sacred duty to tear into other bloggers’ hogwash – especially after reading something as ludicrous as the following indefensible feel-good comments that sound great but signify nothing.

We asked the author of the following italicized lines if she wanted attribution. She politely declined. Remember, this is an attack on the post, not the person. Still, someone’s probably going to end up crying:

 

We use water every day for a number of reasons, but the bottom line is that water is a necessity.

Thank you. These are the kind of incisive, groundbreaking research findings that make most blogs such a pleasure to read. What are your feelings on air: necessity, or luxury? How about food?

Everyone likes to unwind in the shower after a hard day at work, but taking long unnecessary showers will definitely rack up that water bill.

 

No it won’t. Soon, we’re going to watch math work its magic.

Instead of taking a twenty minute (sic) shower try taking a ten minute (sic) one.

Also, a 9-minute shower will use less water than a 10-minute one. And if you want to use less water than a 20-minute shower, but aren’t quite ready for a 10-minute one, you might want to try a 15-minute shower. Other acceptable shower lengths in this range include 11-minute, 12-minute, and 17-minute.

20 gallons of water cost 1¢ in Control Your Cash’s neighborhood. A typical low-flow showerhead expels 1.5 gallons per minute, so by showering for 10 fewer minutes a day, you’d save 23¢ a month. Assuming you can shorten your shower by 10 minutes in the first place.

When we go into the bathroom to brush our teeth we just let the water run. Try turning it off while you brush your teeth.

Turning the water off while brushing your teeth will save significantly less than a penny. 1 gallon per minute is standard for bathroom faucets, and that’s at full power. Let’s assume half power, and even that seems liberal. The Sonicare Flexcare toothbrush cleans your teeth in exactly 2 minutes, or enough time to use .05¢ worth of water.

Many of us like to wash our vehicles at home, but this could be costly.

 

Nope. Just proved that. 5-gallon bucket = ¼¢. If your vehicle is a Los Angeles-class submarine, maybe washing it could be costly. Then again, you probably don’t keep it at home. Plus submarines stay wet as a matter of course.

It will be much cheaper in the long run to…collect rain water (sic, does anyone here understand compound words or hyphens?) to use when washing your vehicle.

This is the last refuge of the desperate blogger: a logically sound statement that makes zero practical sense. Yes, the clouds don’t charge for water. But unless you live in Cherrapunji, it’s going to take you a while to collect the raw material for your next car wash.

(In case you’re not getting it: no one is encouraging you to waste water. But unless you’re hiking Zion Canyon in the middle of summer, discarding a few ounces isn’t going to kill you.)

Dripping faucets are an annoyance. They’re not a financial drain, to coin a phrase, that’ll bankrupt you if you don’t immediately fix them. (Heck, one hour of a plumber’s labor would already put you in a hole impossible to dig out of in your lifetime, if you’re weighing it against the water you save.) If you want to collect rainwater to wash your car with, knock yourself out. If you want to take showers that are shorter than the average Ramones song, fine. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that there’s an economic rationale for it.