How am I doing?

Asset allocation, risk, diversification and rebalancing. Pros/cons of hiring a financial advisor. Seeking advice on your portfolio?
Post Reply
User avatar
Norbert Schlenker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7960
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
Contact:

Post by Norbert Schlenker »

[ot]
bootsie wrote:Norbert, I read an article in the latest issue of Money Sense magazine that included quotes from you. Good stuff!
Oh, oh. Better run down to the newsstand and find a copy. ;)

[/ot]
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by kombat »

Shifty wrote:I'm an accountant, so I'll only comment on the charity scheme. The CRA is VERY aware of these types of thing, every year there a handful more of them, ever more creative and colourful, and I've never seen even one pass scrutiny or a court showdown with the CRA. The end result is always the same, the players (you) have their deduction denied, and have to not only pay the back taxes, but also some hard penalties. It matters not that you won't be alone.
For those who don't want to re-read the whole thread to get the context, here's what happened: My wife and I are in a financial "club" that advised us to participate in a charitable donation program that enabled us to reduce our income taxes to effectively zero. We made a cash donation of $11,200, for which we received receipts. Then, we were granted membership into a trust and received "units" of the trust. We gifted those units to a charity and received subsequent tax receipts for an additional $30,000. We were told that this was not a scam, because the charity actually received that $30,000 in cash, not shares or land or art with an inflated appraisal value - cash. We claimed $41,200 in charitable donations on our income tax return last year, which basically reduced our taxable income to 0, and I received all my pre-deducted income tax back as my refund.

Many readers, like Shifty above (and indeed, even myself) were skeptical of the legality of this scheme. The company running the charity assured us that since there was no sketchy "appraisals" involved, that this was a perfectly legal loophole. I fully expected to get audited, and to be honest, I was expecting to be asked to pay the money back. That's where things stood back in August.

Update:

Around the beginning of September, I received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency requesting supporting documentation regarding my charitable donation claims. They requested a great deal of very detailed proof, which I meticulously and punctually supplied to them.

A couple of weeks later, a got a notification saying that I'd been selected for a "detailed review" (read: "audit") of my participation in the charitable donation program, and that an agent would be contacting me.

A month went by, and I received no further contact from them.

Yesterday, I finally got a letter from them, returning my documentation, and with a note stating that based upon their review, no repayment is necessary and no further review is required. My case is basically closed, and the refund stands.

This is a huge relief for my wife and I. Now that we've been through it once and know it is legal, the thought of participating again did cross my mind. However, even though it may be legal, it is indeed still quite morally ambiguous and shady, in my opinion. My wife and I have decided not to try this again, and to simply pay our taxes and avoid the hassle and scrutiny of the CRA in the future.

I thought people might be interested in the outcome, as there was a great deal of absolute statements ("you WILL have to pay it all back, with interest, and penalties") in this thread that turned out to be incorrect.
User avatar
Norbert Schlenker
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 7960
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 09:56
Location: An Argument Surrounded By Water
Contact:

Post by Norbert Schlenker »

kombat wrote:Yesterday, I finally got a letter from them, returning my documentation, and with a note stating that based upon their review, no repayment is necessary and no further review is required. My case is basically closed, and the refund stands.

This is a huge relief for my wife and I. Now that we've been through it once and know it is legal, the thought of participating again did cross my mind. However, even though it may be legal, it is indeed still quite morally ambiguous and shady, in my opinion. My wife and I have decided not to try this again, and to simply pay our taxes and avoid the hassle and scrutiny of the CRA in the future.

I thought people might be interested in the outcome, as there was a great deal of absolute statements ("you WILL have to pay it all back, with interest, and penalties") in this thread that turned out to be incorrect.
A tentative congratulations but don't celebrate yet. This was for the 2006 tax year, right, with a notice of assessment just issued? CRA has almost until the end of 2011 to reassess you.
Nothing can protect people who want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by kombat »

Another quick update:

I received a "Notice of Reassessment" from the CRA. They've disallowed both my actual $11,200 cash charitable donation, and the $40,000 "in-kind" donation. They ordered me to repay my entire refund, plus about $3,000 in interest, for a total of $19,960. I sent them a cheque, and simultaneously filed a Notice of Objection. There is a test case going before the courts this November which will hopefully provide some closure to this troublesome chapter in our financial lives.
agraham
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 231
Joined: 20 Jan 2009 03:44

Post by agraham »

That seems more than fair. Your penalty is actually quite light: repay the money the public purse lost due to this scheme and pay some interest akin to what a credit card whould have charged you over the same period. Since there's no way any legitimate charity got any money to actually do good works with I wouldn't wanted to have seen my tax money going to people who used this "loophole".

As for the land banking thing I think people may have been too hard on you. Even tho it was a slightly risky and obviously sales-driven venture, if S&D is be believed, some people have done very well during the RE boom by investing in S&D

http://www.sdintlgroup.net/properties-info.php?id=56
S&D wrote:This project was SOLD OUT to individual land owners who purchased from S & D in a five month time frame. As of March 2007, Spruce Creek Estates was then SOLD to another developer. Each land owner made a significant return of approximately 27% per year in a five year time frame for this project.
http://www.sdintlgroup.net/properties-info.php?id=54
S&D wrote:This project was SOLD to another developer in May 2007 with each land owner making a excellent return of approximately 30% per year in a five year time frame for this project.
Of course there are another couple dozen projects still on the go - some of which are getting quite stale since I assume today's goals are the same as they ever were: "maximize the land's value in 3 to 5 years". The current economy being what it is S&D probably has around 20x500=10,000 investors that are unlikely come out ahead. Unfortunately it looks like you are going to be one of them - but doesn't mean you made a mistake, just that you took a big risk and this time it didn't pan out.

I'm sure the 1000 people that invested in those first two projects are slapping each other on the back and calling themselves geniuses now (unless they tried to parlay their winnings by investing back in S&D).

kombat, I have to say you have amazing fortitude. Even when many people were down on your investment, you didn't get your hackles up - you stayed objective - and you've continued to post about how it's gone to educate others.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by kombat »

agraham wrote:That seems more than fair. Your penalty is actually quite light: repay the money the public purse lost due to this scheme and pay some interest akin to what a credit card whould have charged you over the same period.
I disagree that it's either "fair" or "light." For one thing, we donated $11,200 of actual cold hard cash from our pockets. We were told this money went to the charities we selected - registered Canadian charities with legitimate tax numbers and everything. Yet CRA disallowed even this deduction. So we're still out the $11,200 that is presumeably helping youth athletic groups, yet we have not been given credit for this donation.

I can understand why the "in-kind" donation was disallowed, but that $11,200 came out of our actual bank account and went to a registered charity with a valid charity number. If we were mislead or lied to, I don't see how disallowing this contribution, and then charging us 3 years of back-interest on the refund could be considered at all "fair."

Furthermore, I'm a little miffed that we were assessed the 3 years of back-interest while the CRA took it's sweet time reviewing and auditing our returns. If at the end of the day they decided to disallow the whole amount and ordered us to repay, then I could understand interest accruing from that point. But to go back in time and punish us for the past 3 years while the CRA wheels slowly turned seems excessive and unnecessarily punitive.
agraham wrote: Since there's no way any legitimate charity got any money to actually do good works with
We were told the charities actually did receive our money. If we were lied to, then why are we being punished so severely?
agraham wrote: I wouldn't wanted to have seen my tax money going to people who used this "loophole".
Don't worry, we didn't get a nickel of "your" tax money. It was merely a a refund of our own income taxes. We didn't receive back any more than had already been deducted from our paycheques all year.
agraham wrote: As for the land banking thing I think people may have been too hard on you. Even tho it was a slightly risky and obviously sales-driven venture, if S&D is be believed, some people have done very well during the RE boom by investing in S&D
We're invested in the "Royal Links Point" project. According to their website, they're still projecting a 3 - 5 year turnaround. Well, it's been 3 years as of this month, and I haven't received any updates at all in over a year. Even when I did receive updates, it was only after I contacted them and prodded them for information (another reason I'm displeased with the whole venture and won't be investing again).
agraham wrote: kombat, I have to say you have amazing fortitude. Even when many people were down on your investment, you didn't get your hackles up - you stayed objective - and you've continued to post about how it's gone to educate others.
Heh, thanks, I guess. :) Other members here have been helpful in giving me suggestions about how to follow up on these investments, as well as providing me with on-the-ground information from Edmonton itself, so I wanted to keep them informed on how these things are progressing for me.
Germack
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 79
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 18:37
Location: Montreal

Post by Germack »

kombat wrote: I can understand why the "in-kind" donation was disallowed, but that $11,200 came out of our actual bank account and went to a registered charity with a valid charity number. If we were mislead or lied to, I don't see how disallowing this contribution, and then charging us 3 years of back-interest on the refund could be considered at all "fair."
You were told that you contributed to a charity but you probably never did. A scam artist took your money and the charity never saw anything of it. Why should the government give you a tax credit for transferring money to a scam artist?
agraham
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 231
Joined: 20 Jan 2009 03:44

Post by agraham »

kombat wrote: We were told this money went to the charities we selected - registered Canadian charities with legitimate tax numbers and everything. I can understand why the "in-kind" donation was disallowed, but that $11,200 came out of our actual bank account and went to a registered charity with a valid charity number. If we were mislead or lied to, I don't see how disallowing this contribution, and then charging us 3 years of back-interest on the refund could be considered at all "fair."
If the charity was real then you deserve the deduction. If it wasn't then you don't. If the money was stolen by a fake charity then no donation was made. That has nothing to do with taxpayers like me. If someone stole $11,200 from you, you need to take it up with them as a civil matter.

Charging interest is absolutely fair because because you got to keep and invest public money for three years while the fraud was investigated.
kombat wrote:
agraham wrote: Since there's no way any legitimate charity got any money to actually do good works with
We were told the charities actually did receive our money. If we were lied to, then why are we being punished so severely?
Let's be honest - did you donate money because you feel strongly about youth sports? I wouldn't call your punishment especially severe. I went a few years without paying my taxes and when I finally filed I was assessed penalties and interest and I payed them without complaint because fair is fair. I kept money that other people were putting in the public kitty because I wanted a motorcycle. Money has an opportunity cost.

Again, if you're coming out short the one you should be suing is the people who scammed you.
kombat wrote:
agraham wrote: I wouldn't wanted to have seen my tax money going to people who used this "loophole".
Don't worry, we didn't get a nickel of "your" tax money. It was merely a a refund of our own income taxes. We didn't receive back any more than had already been deducted from our paycheques all year.
When one person pays less taxes all the other people pay more. Plain and simple: you took my money.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by kombat »

Germack wrote: You were told that you contributed to a charity but you probably never did. A scam artist took your money and the charity never saw anything of it.
I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a "scam artist." It was Parklane Financial, based in Toronto, Ontario. The money was invested through Trafalgar Trading Group in Bermuda with Ed Furtak. It was a convoluted scheme to take advantage of a legal tax loophole. I wouldn't call it an outright "scam." A portion of the money did in fact make it to the charities.
Germack wrote:Why should the government give you a tax credit for transferring money to a scam artist?
I can understand why we would not be permitted to claim a tax deduction for a donation that turned out not to be legitimate (if that is indeed the case - note that it is still before the courts and has not yet been officially decided. The CRA doesn't get to make tax law). However, it's the interest they've assessed us that I'm a little bitter about, and that seems a little excessive. It seems akin to kicking us while we're down. Not only did we receive no benefit at all for participating in the program, but we're still out the $11,200 cash that we contributed (again - to a legal charity with a valid charity registration number), and we have to pay $3,000 in interest that accrued while the CRA dragged its heels in reassessing us.
User avatar
Nemo2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9670
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 14:27
Location: Belleville

Post by Nemo2 »

kombat wrote:Trafalgar Trading Group in Bermuda with Ed Furtak.
This guy?
Exit, pursued by a bear.
William Shakespeare, Stage direction in "The Winter's Tale"
Germack
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 79
Joined: 15 Nov 2008 18:37
Location: Montreal

Post by Germack »

kombat wrote:
I wouldn't go as far as to say it was a "scam artist." It was Parklane Financial, based in Toronto, Ontario. The money was invested through Trafalgar Trading Group in Bermuda with Ed Furtak. It was a convoluted scheme to take advantage of a legal tax loophole. I wouldn't call it an outright "scam." A portion of the money did in fact make it to the charities.

You got scammed big time. They told you that you took advantage of a legal tax loophole, but this loophole never existed. They lied to you!

I am an accountant and have seen a couple of cases like this and every single one of them ended with the same results. (Deduction denied) You got lucky that they did not charge you any penalties.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by kombat »

agraham wrote:I went a few years without paying my taxes and when I finally filed I was assessed penalties and interest and I payed them without complaint because fair is fair.
OK, but you knew you were supposed to be paying taxes on that.

What's happening here to me is akin to investing money in an RRSP with TD Waterhouse for several years and taking the tax deduction, then finding out TDW wasn't actually allowed to operate RRSP shelters, so the CRA demands you repay all your refunds plus interest. Is it fair that you pay thousands in interest because TDW lied to you and you believed what you were told?
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by kombat »

Germack wrote:They told you that you took advantage of a legal tax loophole, but this loophole never existed.
Actually, it definitely did exist. However, the Conservative government recently passed legislation closing the loophole, several years after we participated in the program. But they made the legislation retroactive. There's currently a case before the courts to decide whether or not it's legal to go back in time and retroactively disallow loopholes that were legal at the time.

So the jury is still out regarding whether or not the loophole is legal.

Anyway, the bottom line is, I've repaid all the money and filed a Notice of Objection, so if by some stroke of luck, the court case actually goes our way, I'll be entitled to get my money back from the CRA. However, personally, we've written it off as the cost of a very expensive lesson. We're pursuing our options with the organization who encouraged us to participate in this program (Home Equity Investment Rewards, HEIR, owned by Archie Robertson right here in Ottawa), so I'm hopeful we can get some money back from them. But if not, then it was a $20,000 life lesson. It's not going to break our budget, it's a temporary setback.

One thing that disappoints me about this whole experience is that it's turned me into a very jaded, skeptical, distrustful person. I now view everyone in the finance industry as slimy scamming scumbags, trying to get their hands on my money. It's possible this attitude will prevent me from capitalizing on legitimate opportunities in the future, and I don't like being a cynical, distrustful person. But apparently, the alternative is too expensive. Such is life, I guess. Nice people get taken advantage of, so the only way to protect yourself is to become a distrustful cynic.
couponstrip
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 552
Joined: 14 Jan 2007 15:20

Post by couponstrip »

kombat wrote:...the only way to protect yourself is to become a distrustful cynic.
I think this is a valuable summary of your experience. If it only costs you $20k tuition for you to come away with this critical lesson, I think you are probably doing better than most, certainly better than a lot of people I know.

For the most part, people are out there to look after themselves (many individual exceptions to this generalization). This is especially true when it comes to money.

I think someone on this forum once said "Don't trust anyone. Look out for #1". Good advice it would seem.
User avatar
Pickles
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4215
Joined: 27 Sep 2006 09:44
Location: Toronto

Post by Pickles »

kombat wrote:
agraham wrote:I went a few years without paying my taxes and when I finally filed I was assessed penalties and interest and I payed them without complaint because fair is fair.
OK, but you knew you were supposed to be paying taxes on that.

What's happening here to me is akin to investing money in an RRSP with TD Waterhouse for several years and taking the tax deduction, then finding out TDW wasn't actually allowed to operate RRSP shelters, so the CRA demands you repay all your refunds plus interest. Is it fair that you pay thousands in interest because TDW lied to you and you believed what you were told?
First of all, Kombat, I deeply appreciate your candour in sharing your experiences about this charity issue and the land banking venture. You have provided quite a detailed picture of what you were promised, what your feelings and views were at the time, the subsequent events (or, in the case of the land bank thus far, non-event) and your current feelings and views.

By doing so, I believe you have helped many people to avoid making an ill-considered investment, armed with the information you lacked at the time you invested.

Second, my advice is to stop echoing legal advice you have received from lawyers associated with this charity scam. Instead, ask yourself: "Did the government intend that I should be able to claim a tax deduction for more money than I donated? Was my motive in participating in this scheme the fervent desire to maximize funds advanced to a youth group I had never previously heard of or was it to reduce my taxes? If the latter, do I admit that if the line between tax planning and tax avoidance is crossed, that I am ultimately responsible?"

Third, I encourage you to join the class action law suit, if you are eligible. Currently, you are blaming the government for the fallout from your participation in this scheme. Instead, hold to blame the people who are responsible for encouraging you , who may have misled you and may have perpetrated a scam on you and the CRA.

Good luck in working this out. Also, I join you in hoping that your Alberta land investment may yet bear some fruit or at least leave you with your original investment intact.

edited once
Regards,
Pickles
User avatar
Nemo2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 9670
Joined: 02 Jan 2006 14:27
Location: Belleville

Post by Nemo2 »

On page #12, items 32-36, of my link upthread, CRA's position is outlined, (IF this is the same situation, and the names of the company/principals suggest it might be).
Exit, pursued by a bear.
William Shakespeare, Stage direction in "The Winter's Tale"
User avatar
Bylo Selhi
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 29494
Joined: 16 Feb 2005 10:36
Location: Waterloo, ON
Contact:

Post by Bylo Selhi »

Nemo2 wrote:
kombat wrote:Trafalgar Trading Group in Bermuda with Ed Furtak.
This guy?
Ding dong! That rings a bell. It's a small world :shock:

JetSet offers fractional ownership of microjet
Mr. Furtak is a principal in Trafalgar Securities and was president of now-defunct Conexys, an internet communications provider. Mr. Furtak and Trafalgar were censured and fined in 2003 by the Ontario Securities Commission for improper selling of Conexys shares.
(I visited Conexys' Tronno offices about a decade ago re some unified e-mail software they were developing. Good thing things didn't go any further than that.)
Sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity and prolixity.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by kombat »

Nemo: You're right, this sounds like exactly the program that my wife and I participated in.

Pickles: Thanks for the advice, I actually just fired off an email to the lawyers representing Mr. Cannon in that lawsuit, asking what our options were.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: How am I doing?

Post by kombat »

Hey guys. It's been a while, so I thought I'd post an update. As I mentioned, we got reassessed for our 2006 taxes, and were ordered to repay the refund, with interest. The total bill was $20,000. We paid it, and joined the class action lawsuit against Parklane Financial. We're also still waiting to hear the outcome of Parklane's case against the CRA (which is on hold, pending the outcome of another precedent-defining case).

Anyway, to update "how we're doing" (which was the original point of this thread):
  • Married couple, both 34 years old, no kids (and no plans for any).
  • $100,000 in home equity ($347,000 left on the mortgage, house is worth around $450,000).
  • $120,000 in RRSPs
  • $17,000 in completely liquid cash savings (emergency fund, car replacement fund, travel fund)
  • $1,000 in TFSAs
  • $80,000 in real estate in Edmonton (the land banking I've described previously)
  • Absolutely no other debt besides the mortgage.
Our current net worth is $272,000 (I'm using our 2006 home appraisal value of $400k for this figure). 1 year ago, it was $213,000. A year before that, it was $190,000.

My current plan is to build that emergency fund up to a solid 3 months of expenses ($24,000, building at a rate of $2250/month), then switch to accelerating the mortgage (up for renewal in 2011). By my calculations, we could have the mortgage completely paid off in 4 years (assuming we get our money back from that land banking investment sometime during that period). What do you think, is that a good plan? I bounce back and forth between wanting to be completely debt-free, and wanting to invest the money instead of paying off the mortgage. Our current mortgage is a 5 year term, 30-year amortization (1 year left in the term, 26 left in the amortization) fixed at 5.35%.
bones1
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 317
Joined: 23 Apr 2009 19:17

Re: How am I doing?

Post by bones1 »

kombat wrote: My current plan is to build that emergency fund up to a solid 3 months of expenses ($24,000, building at a rate of $2250/month).
3 months of expenses are $24,000? That's pretty high, isn't it? Sounds like you could cut back your lavish lifestyle and build up your net worth a lot faster. Oh well... it's your money to blow however you want.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: How am I doing?

Post by kombat »

I actually just had this conversation with a friend of mine tonight. Our monthly budget is $8,000, but that includes about $3,000 worth of "savings" each month (retirement, car fund, travel fund, emergency fund). My friend argued that in an "emergency" (such as double unemployment), we would suspend those savings, and thus wouldn't need such a big emergency fund. There's a case to be made for that, for sure.
bones1
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 317
Joined: 23 Apr 2009 19:17

Re: How am I doing?

Post by bones1 »

kombat wrote:I actually just had this conversation with a friend of mine tonight. Our monthly budget is $8,000, but that includes about $3,000 worth of "savings" each month (retirement, car fund, travel fund, emergency fund). My friend argued that in an "emergency" (such as double unemployment), we would suspend those savings, and thus wouldn't need such a big emergency fund. There's a case to be made for that, for sure.
Even $5000/mo sounds pretty high, although I suppose mortgage payments might take up a chunk of that, so perhaps it's reasonable.

I wouldn't consider "car fund" or "emergency fund" optional, so it still sounds like your burn rate is over $5000/mo. Car fund (for eventual replacement, I presume) and emergency fund (for major home repairs, etc.) is probably $1000/month?
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: How am I doing?

Post by kombat »

I can save you a lot of speculation and just post our budget, I don't mind sharing:

Code: Select all

$8,180  Net Income

$2,041  Mortgage
$  319  Property tax
$2,150  RRSP contribution
$  100  TFSA contribution
$  100  Emergency fund savings
$  300  Car replacement savings
$  450  Travel savings
$  260  Rogers bill (cable, home and cell phones, internet, long distance)
$   75  Electricity bill
$   30  Water/sewer bill
$  165  Natural gas bill
$  127  Home insurance
$  123  Life insurance
$   93  Car insurance
$   70  Long term disability insurance
$  250  Miscellaneous household expenses
$  530  Groceries
$  800  Personal spending cash ($400 each)
$  200  Car repairs and maintenance
$  255  Gas and bus passes
$  150  Gifts
------
$8,588
Note that at the moment, we have a monthly deficit of around $400. My wife's salary was due to increase after her probationary period ended in February, but her company's HR department has been slow with the paperwork. Once it goes through, it will cover the gap (and it will be retroactive). For now, we've been simply spending less in our "variable" categories (groceries, personal spending, household expenses, etc.).
WishingWealth
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 6701
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 10:53

Re: How am I doing?

Post by WishingWealth »

How am I doing ... for all to see.

@ the NYTimes magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magaz ... f=magazine
Net-Worth Obsession
By RON LIEBER

Joey Kincer is the kind of guy who likes to keep records. Kincer is a 32-year-old Web developer who lives in San Juan Capistrano, southeast of Los Angeles, and among the things he tracks on his personal home page at kinless.com are his collection of action figures based on the Mega Man video games (“Not for sale,” the site warns sternly), the piano awards he received as a child (“My mom kept track of them all,” he says) and a photo gallery of female celebrity crushes that he refers to as his Dream Team.

His highest achievement in record gathering, however, is contained in a Quicken file, where he has tracked his personal finances for 16 years, ever since he was in 11th grade. On a recent Wednesday evening, Kincer punched a few buttons on a keyboard and projected his entire financial history onto a giant screen hanging from the ceiling of his bedroom for me to see. There was the $3.38 he spent on chips and dip on March 16, 1996. A birthday card for a friend a few weeks later cost $3.18. Deposits arrived in small amounts every couple of weeks thanks to a job playing piano at church.

This trove of data came in handy a few years ago when Kincer happened upon a Web site called NetworthIQ, which allows people to record their net worths and display the ups and downs for anyone to view. Most people who share their data do so anonymously, but Kincer posts a link to his personal Web site, where he uses his real name. Kincer especially liked that the site allowed him to compare himself with others. It appealed to the Mega Man player in him. “NetworthIQ is kind of a game,” he said. “Can I get ahead of everyone? Can I be up there with the big shots?”
...
WW
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: How am I doing?

Post by Shakespeare »

Since it is now clear I will not catch Bill Gates, I have decided all my net worth over $z will be spent. :thumbsup:

(Where $z<<<<<$Bill Gates). :wink:
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
Post Reply