Knowledge is power. They don't teach much about money management in school. Many didn't learn much about it at home - as children grow, it seems to me wise to have them gain in-depth knowledge, incrementally, of how the family's financial system works. When I was a kid, we got a weekly allowance, that grew as we grew, and we were epected to buy our clothes for school and cover school expenses (which were smaller than currently). World War II began in 1939 when I was 10, the farmhands went off to war and what Dad and this 10 year old, plus a couple smaller, got done - got done: the rest ... didn't. We had lots of work in summer and Dad paid us for that, which helped us buy the things that we needed to return to school and there was an increase in our allowance, to compensate for the increased chores, year-round. We were encouraged to save some - I had a bank account when I was too young to see over the counter ... and we were expected to pay at Sunday School, church-based youth group, etc. from our allowance. In case of dire emergency, we could borrow against future allowance from Dad, which entailed some questions as to whether we might have foreseen the problem, and, even if not been able to have seen it coming, to cover the cost from savings, had we chosen to have some/(any?). And we learned early the discipline of getting along for a while on less after we'd borrowed, for Dad expected us to repay those loans earlier rather than later. Good training as to management of debt ... which would be helpful much later, when "credit" cards appeared on the scene: we knew that they didn't offer "free money". When we use someone else's money - usually they require some compensation (and, sometimes ... way too much: have you investigated the economics of the recently-arrived "payday loan" game?)! After one has stepped into a bear trap - it's a bit late to wish that one had chosen where to put one's feet more carefully! Looks as though Microsoft has cut some of our opportunity for learning about one portion of personal financial management a bit short, also. ole joyful P.S. When one guy, regardless of how central a position he holds in our economy, can become the richest man in the world in half of a generation ... ... do you figure that possibly sometimes people get overcompensated for some innovative discovery that they have made (usually, along with a number of others)? That just possibly our free-market-based economy could stand some tweaking? And the Bolsheviks and the Commuist systems aren't any better - look at all of the newly-minted millionaires ... nay, billionaires ... that have been appearing in Russia and China as their system matures (goes to seed?). And during their heyday, they arranged things so that not too many became part of the core system - didn't want to spread the largesse around too much - or it'd get too thin for each! o j

You don't. We've already established that. That was never even an issue. I was merely trying to ascertain what purpose it served to call the credit company each and every year to tell them to lower your limit back down to $35k after they unilaterally raised it. And now you've answered that question. I'm not sure why we're seemingly going around in circles here. In the post to which you responded, I stated that if you did it because it gave you some sort of piece of mind, i.e., you didn't want a higher limit, that of course was fine. I was just curious if there was some general benefit to doing so of which I am not aware. The answer, apparently, is no.

Hi breenthumb, Rumour has it that there are other insurance companies. Granted, there are fewer than there used to be, as they, like most corporations, hate competition on their own level and will go to great lengths to get rid of competitors. Some time ago I had a personal tax-deferred retirement account with a stockbrokerage, which had incurred no administration cost for years, as it had been grandfathered that way when that company took over another company. When I came to the age where I had to reverse it from an account into which I paid in, into one into which I could no longer pay in, but must withdraw a certain percentage annually, which increases from about 7% at age 71 to 20% at age 90 and beyond, a problem arose. They said that there would be an annual administration fee, and my claim that it was a continuation/reversal of a fee-free account that I'd had with them for years fell on quite deaf ears. So ... I did some checking with some other agencies, and came back to report that, since such and such a company and so and so company would agree to carry my account without an administration fee, I was considereing transferring my account ... they seemed to have a change of heart, for it appeared that they, too, could carry that account without an admin. fee. Which they've done for about 10 years, now: nice to have a little skill and effort save one well over $1,000., on occasion, right? I didn't feel it necessary to include in my report the fact that I would be somewhat less inclined to use the other companies than the one that I had been with for years ... as Grandma used to say, "One should tell the truth ... but there's no reason that one should blab and tell all that one knows". So ... ... if you don't, or haven't owed money for several recent years in several locations/circumstances ... ... they figure that your trustworthiness is suspect, do they? As I've lived in over 20 locations in my 79 years (as I discovered when they asked over on KT in how many places one had lived), I've never owned a home ... ... so never had a mortgage. As I live fairly frugally, I've had few loans. Which situation is aided by the fact that I tend to buy old cars and drive them into the ground, which usually takes 5 - 7 years ... which enables me to buy them for cash (having added a bit to emergency funds from time to time, and drawing on it to make those smallish purchases). When I have substantial debt and must pay quite a lot of interest every month, it seems to me that, since much of our debt is usually non-deductible, if I have to pay $100. monthly in interest, and make $10.00 per hour, after-tax income ... that means that I work 10 hours/month for someone else, the holder of my loan(s). I'd rather wait until I can afford to pay cash ... and pay myself, instead. Learning how money works is an interesting hobby ... that pays well ... and I hope that you're developing increasing shrewdness at managiong your income and assets effectively: to benefit you rather than the other guys (with the exception of worthy charities). Hope you're part way into a happy weekend. One nice thing about retirement is ... that every day is weekend. A nice benefit of learning skillful management of money may well be/quite likely will be ... early retirement (at your choice, not because your company downsizes when you're about 50 ... leaving you out in the cold). ole joyful P.S. I could qualify, as I've had a Line of Credit, usually unused, for about 10 years, and have had a credit (actually "debt") card for several years, which I use infrequently. I recently took on another, which offered 1.9% on transferred balances for most of this year, figuring that I'd buy some stock using the original card, then transfer the balance, as the bank, which had usually charged me bank prime on my loans (fully secured), they recently said that prime was 3.5% ... but they needed a 1.5% surcharge, to total 5%. Now, however, they say that the interest on my Line of Credit will be 2.25% ... so I'll take that, instead of jockeying on credit cards - not a good idea to shift from one horse to another while crossing a stream, I figure. Most cards charge full rate (often 18% on mainline cards: 28% or so on store-issued cards) from the date of the advance until it is paid in full, and I'd not be sure how long it would take to transfer to the second card. o j

My Husband and I just applied for a loan with mortgage broker to get a pre-approval letter for an upcoming offer we want to make. She told me all of our credit scores (6 in total, his 3 and mine.) I was actually surprised how different some scores were! My Husbands I remember specifically. His lowest was 800 and his highest was 850. He has what I would deem perfect credit, ie I don't recall him EVER making a late payment on ANYTHING and we have virtually no debt. We use a credit card for the reward points, but pay in full every month. So, I don't understand the difference in scores. However, for the purpose of the loan & terms, She explained they would use the midddle score of each borrower and then the lowest of those 2.That is the score they use to determine the rate and programs we qualify for. For us this score was 796 and she said that would qualify us for any program out there with the best rates available. Since it's new construction and the loan is 4-6 months away, we didn't get to the nitty gritty so I can't say specifics. She did tell me any score about 720 (at least with them) got you the best of the best.