Think Outside The Piggy Bank

permanent hiatus?

As you may have noticed, I haven't posted anything for more than two months, so I've decided that it might be time to retire this blog. It's certainly not because I'm no longer interested in money, or am no longer a "frugality freak", snort, but I suppose my energy has gone in different directions. My two passions these days can be summed up in the words vintage and vegan, and of course because money is tied to just about everything, finance is not far away from these two areas either. My latest vintage obsession is Pyrex, and you can be sure that I delight in finding thrift store deals as much as ever. But what I'm also doing is trying to sell some of the treasures I find in my Etsy shop Tins And Things, and you're welcome to visit me there.

As some of you know, I've been vegan for two years this summer (almost as long as I've had this blog), and in that time I've come to believe that if the love of money isn't the root of most evil, then certainly greed (whether for wealth, status or power) is the likeliest contender. Whether it's the grinding up of male chicks at birth because they're economic liabilities, or the skinning of cows while they're still alive because it's not cost effective to make sure they're all unconscious first, money is at the heart of a lot of animal cruelty. And when this cruelty is ignored, condoned, or even actively encouraged by both individuals and institutions representing commerce, science, medicine and entertainment, then as far as I'm concerned the acquisition of money can no longer be viewed as a positive or even neutral endeavour. And it's not just related to how we view and treat animals as property. Common to how we treat the environment (think BP), and each other, many if not most of the social injustices continue to exist because of the economic gains from them. As you can no doubt tell by my indignation, animal rights (which I view as an extension of human rights) is where a lot of my energy goes these days, so if interested, you can read more at my So I'm Thinking of Going Vegan blog.

But I'm straying from what I originally wanted to say. This blog is most likely ending, but for those of you who ended up here Googling Bell Canada (I'm now with Teksavvy by the way) or any other topic for that matter, I've put a search bar in the right hand column underneath the subscriptions, so search away! Also, there are separate pages for Maxine, money quote posts, etc., that you can access in the line underneath the banner. 

And in case this IS the last blog post, many thanks to everyone for visiting, reading, and commenting. It's been a fun ride! :)

Monday's money question 7

What is your very first memory of money?

I'll let you think about that while I dig deep into my own memory bank.

My first memory? Well, I must have been about six, and I've never admitted this to anyone before, but I climbed onto a kitchen counter, stole a coin from a jar in the cupboard (nickel or dime probably), and bought some candy at the store down the block. Isn't that terrible? My first memory of money involves criminal activity! Makes you wonder how (or if) that affected my relationship with money at all, snort. How about you?

moneymoon: marriage and money

After the Honeymoon comes the "Moneymoon".

This phrase was part of an ad I saw for a marriage and money seminar held by a local church last month. I didn't go, in part because I'm marriage-phobic, LOL, and because I hope I already have the common-sense approach to money matters that they promised. But I wish I had as I think it would have been interesting, and I'm curious as to what they advocated.

I'm assuming of course that they talked about the need for planning, budgeting, saving, avoiding or reducing debt, and how to distinguish between needs and wants. They probably covered the importance of talking about money (which can sometimes be even more awkward than talking about sex), and the difficulty that arises when one party is more of a "saver" and the other more of a "spender". Money is one of the biggest sources of conflict in relationships, and no wonder as it's often much more than just about money itself.

I'm hoping though that what they particularly stressed is the importance of women having access to their own account even if married. While I imagine that few contemporary relationships are still based on the sexist model of men being in charge of the finances, I'm sure that they still exist, and that's pretty scary. All women in any type of relationship need to have access to their own credit card, personal and joint accounts, bills, and knowledge of all financial and legal issues that pertain to the couple. Anything else is an invitation to a control and power imbalance, and potential financial abuse.

money, veganism, and animal rights

As some of you know I turned vegan this past summer (no meat, fish, eggs or dairy), and am increasingly focused on trying to clarify where I stand when it comes to animal welfare and animal rights. That may help explain why posting has become more infrequent of late as some of my time has gone into developing blogs on those two topics (see sidebar for links if interested.)

But what does that have to do with money you ask? Why am I talking about that here on TOTPB? Well, money has more to do with it than you may realize. First, and to my delight, I've discovered that veganism has greatly lowered my grocery bills. Although it cost a bit to initially stock my cupboards with vegan fare, the basic staples of beans, rice, pasta, bread, fruits and vegetables (I picked up a 10lb bag of carrots for $1.50 the other day) are relatively inexpensive when you compare them to processed foods. Plus you don't have to buy them as often. Items like soymilk and soymilk coffee cream do cost more than regular milk and cream, but overall I definitely don't spend as much on groceries as I used to. And on a more macro level I'm convinced that if most people switched to a plant-based diet, then a lot of money could be redirected by feeding grains to hungry people rather than trying to fatten up about-to-be slaughtered animals first. Veganism could be one pivotal way to help combat both hunger and poverty. But more about that in later posts or on my other blogs.

And when it comes to animal welfare and rights, money actually plays a key role here as well. While I don't necessarily believe that money is the root of all evil, I do think that money is at the root of a lot of animal cruelty. Dog fighting, racing, rodeos, puppy mills, just to name a few, are all enterprises where making money regardless of the effect on animals is the bottom line (not to mention the mammoth dairy and meat industries who don't care how inhumanely animals are treated as long as they earn more dollars). Because they are "just" animals, some people believe that they can do with them what they like. Even in instances where cruelty may not always be at play, money is. Take the phenomenon known as foreclosure pets in the United States. Now while I have certain opinions about what level of commitment should be required before people provide a home for pets, the reality is that many are abandoning them because they believe they can no longer afford them. Money then, is not as unrelated to these topics as may first seem to be the case. So while I'll continue to post on the topics you've come to expect, don't be surprised if my three blogs overlap at times.

Have a good weekend everyone!

bought a Lotto 649 ticket today

Buying lottery tickets is something I rarely do as in general I consider it a waste of money, although harmless enough fun if it's something you can afford. But because tonight's draw was for $35 million, and I already had the change in my pocket, I figured why not. Then again maybe I shouldn't have as I have major misgivings about this whole lottery enterprise. [Yes, do relax and get yourself a cup of tea or something, as I'll probably outline them all, snort.]

First, I wish they would change the amount of money awarded in order to spread the wealth. I mean, what individual really needs $35 million? It's an obscene amount of money if you ask me. Wouldn't it be much nicer if they capped the award at $1 million (and no, please don't give me the "$1 million just doesn't go a long way anymore" routine), but had 35 draws so that more people or groups had a chance for this unexpected financial influx?

Secondly, I love how they include the warning "Know your limit, play within it!" on the ticket along with a telephone number to the Ontario Problem Gambling Helpline. At first glance this may seem like a decent thing to do, but somehow it just reminds me of the warnings and notices posted by various alcohol and tobacco companies. As they both have a vested interest in getting consumers to buy more of their product (i.e. drink and smoke more), it kinda strikes me as a conflict of interest. And the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who don't know their limit when it comes to gambling, which is why there's been a huge increase in people addicted to this activity, and a corresponding increase in the number of gambling-related suicides. Unfortunately I don't know the exact statistics and wish I had kept the newspaper article from a few years ago on this very topic, but I remember being disgusted at the time that the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation admitted that it could afford to pour millions into programs addressing addiction and suicide because it was a drop in the bucket in comparison to what they made!

That in turn made me look differently at their slick TV commercials with the catchy slogan "Imagine the Freedom", because certainly anyone addicted to gambling is not free by any means. And they make it look so easy too; buy a ticket and you won't have to work anymore. You can tell your boss to shove it, retire, and buy that big house. Or two or three. What they don't advertise of course is the staggering number of bankruptcies filed by lottery winners within a couple of years of winning. Again I don't know the exact statistic (will look it up and report back in an update), but I think it's close to 50 percent. Hmmm, I don't think bankruptcy offers much freedom either. On the other side of the coin it always surprises me when lottery winners announce they'll keep working at whatever job they have and while that certainly seems like the more responsible thing to do, a part of me feels that if they can afford to not work, then perhaps they should make room for someone else who really needs a job. And what galls me the most are people who win more than one large lottery! Um, in my opinion, if you've won a million or more once, then you should automatically be disqualified from all future lotteries. Like I said, we need to share the wealth.

Speaking of wealth, many people who play the lottery regularly (I'm not talking about the occasional ticket here or there) are the ones who can't always afford it. When you're making minimum wage, several different type of tickets at $2, $3 and $4 a pop really add up. I also saw this when I still worked for non-profit social service agencies, as a number of them would raise funds by selling Nevada tickets and profiting from Bingo hall games. Well, most of the people buying the tickets and playing in the halls are decidedly not rich, and it seemed questionable to me to take from them when in all probability a number of them were the very clients needing the programs offered by the agencies!

Getting back to those commercials I don't like, they also seem to me to encourage viewing the lottery as a viable way of making income (and I've known people who will spend hundreds of dollars convinced that they'll win as opposed to my philosophy that if I'm meant to win, then one ticket should do the trick) rather than as a fun game which in all likelihood will get you nothing. Except for maybe a free ticket to entice you to do it all over again. I also noticed that when I did occasionally play in the past the clerk redeeming my winning ticket always assumed I'd exchange what I'd won for another ticket or two. No thanks; I'll take the cash!

Thirdly (or is that sixthly by now?) and lastly, I have to share a lottery anecdote that always struck me as both funny and sad at the same time. Years ago when I was helping an elderly lady in her mid-eighties who was dying from COPD (a nasty lung disorder), I used to tease her about the scratch tickets she'd buy every week. What were they? Cash for Life! I mean, she knew she was dying so wouldn't have too much time to profit from this particular game, yet I could never get her to at least buy another type of ticket.

Well, wish me luck for tonight, but I guess that even if I don't win, this ticket certainly gave me a lot of material for a post.

At least two dollars worth I'd say, LOL.

FORTY billion spent on Olympics?!

Okay, now I'm TWICE as appalled.

Back tomorrow.

why I'm not watching the Olympics

And no, it's not because I get lousy reception on my cable-free TV. Although had I wanted to watch, that factor would have bummed me out considerably. I also realize that one person not tuning in will have no impact whatsoever, but I feel it's the only thing (short of writing letters to the editor I suppose) that I can do. Why China was picked to host is beyond me for starters, and their abysmal record of human rights alone should have prevented that (sadly, their equally poor record of animal welfare/rights didn't get much attention), but the main reason for me is that I think the money spent on the Olympics is a colossal waste regardless of what country is hosting. I believe the figure China is spending is about $20 billion. Twenty billion! Are you kidding me? For an event lasting less than a month? Good grief. Think of how much good could be done with that kind of dough. Cleaning up the environment and helping to eradicate child poverty are but two things that come to mind right away. They say that you can tell where your true priorities lie by looking at where you spend your time, and your money. So do we as individuals and nations really want to see mega dollars used like this?

What do you think?

my cheap hairdresser

Actually, he's fairly expensive, but after a friend of mine treated me last summer to an appointment with him, I realized that he was worth it. For years I'd gone to either barbershops or chain store franchises because I figured that with short hair it wouldn't make much of a difference, but I was wrong. Not only does he spend almost an hour cutting as opposed to ten minutes, but the cuts also grow out well, and after almost a year I have yet to be disappointed. Yep, it certainly costs more than the $10 I'm used to, but sometimes you DO get what you pay for, and I figure that by having become a member of the "graygirl" revolution in my late twenties already, I've saved oodles of money just by never having coloured it. And I certainly don't have any intention of starting now.

So when I say that my hairdresser is cheap, I don't mean frugal cheap (which to my mind is a good thing) but stingy cheap (which is not good). Apparently he lost his wallet, but when a gentleman was nice enough to return it to the shop, he inadvertently parked in the wrong spot and got a ticket. Did my hairdresser reward him for returning the (money-packed I might add) wallet by paying for the ticket? Nope. Offered him only half. Now even I wouldn't go that far! I mean, not everyone expects a reward for returning lost property, but then to lose money by trying to do the right thing? Yikes. The worst part is that I know my hairdresser is doing well enough financially because he travels (both locally and abroad) about every six weeks. We're talking Paris, France here. But did I speak up and say anything today at my appointment after having heard about this? Did I, like the two other customers I know, decide to find another hairdresser? Nope. And does that make me just (or almost) as bad?

how much money does any one person need?

I ask this after learning the other day that Oprah rakes in $260 million a year. A year! Frankly I think the only fitting word to describe that kind of money is obscene, because really, what on earth would any one person do with all that cash floating in year after year? But what personally galls me is that this apparently isn't enough as her website continues to collect revenue through advertising, thereby slowing down my old computer every time I happen to go there. Hello? I would argue that Oprah is probably the least person in the world in need of making even more money through ads. And please don't think that this is Oprah-bashing as such because I'd be leveling this criticism against anyone in that position. (I've been arguing for years for example that the type of salaries made by athletes and actors is beyond ridiculous and that if the money were capped at a reasonable rate it would maybe better indicate who is in their field for the love of their craft or sport.) Maybe it bothers me more because this is a woman who is supposed to about empowerment, betterment of oneself, and reaching out to others. And reach out she does in her charitable donations I'll admit, but still. I just can't get over the fact that $260 million just doesn't seem to quite cut it for her, and that having a finger in as many media pies as possible (is there anything this woman isn't involved in?) isn't enough either. What this also says to me is that it probably isn't money being sought after but power, and that my friend, scares me a little.

There, a bit of a rant for you on my first day back on the blog. Maybe I should have extended my mini-vacation? Snort.

Toonie Tuesday?

Here in Canada, KFC offers a two-pieces-of-chicken-and-fries for a toonie deal every Tuesday. And in the beginning it really was $2 right on the nose. Then it crept up to $2.22, which still seemed okay, but before you knew it, it rose to $2.49. Right now it sits at $2.59, but with tax the total comes to $2.72. Granted, it's still a really cheap meal, and putting aside the question for now of whether we should hand over ANY money to a chain with one of the worst animal cruelty records in the fast food industry (or whether we should be eating animals at all), can they still legitimately use the term toonie? Since it's closer now to $3, and there's no such thing as a throonie (Canada has a $1 loonie as well), shouldn't they just kill off the whole slogan?