Live Real, Now

The no-pants guide to spending, saving, and thriving in the real world.

Search Results for: slow-carb-diet-how-to-avoid-going-bat-crazy/INGDirect/subscribe-by-email/first-3-things-to-do-in-the-new-year/medical-costs-and-choices

Nigella Lawson and the High Cost of divorce

Celebrities

Nigella Lawson Eats A Banana
Nigella Lawson Eats A Banana (Photo credit: Kaptain Kobold)

Heartache and heartbreak are hard enough to endure but imagine having to go through the loss of a relationship while the world looks on. Such is the high price of celebrity divorce and the latest victim is the beautiful and talented television chef, Nigella Lawson. Shocking photos of Nigella apparently being choked by her husband, Charles Saatchi, surfaced in the media following the June 9th dinner at Scott’s restaurant in Mayfair, London, where the incident occurred. Saatchi’s advisors urged him to humble himself and admit a public apology for the assault. Saatchi denied any wrongdoing, saying he never assaulted her and in fact, was actually removing mucous from his wife’s nose. Nigella was stunned by the admonition of “nose-picking” and his refusal to apologize. She left Saatchi and their family home in Chelsea.

The two sides continued to disagree about the pictures; Saatchi claiming it was just a “playful tiff” and Lawson hurt and humiliated by the public’s assumption of her as victim of domestic violence and her husband as her tormentor. Insult was added to injury on July 7th, when Saatchi announced his intent to divorce his wife in the media instead of directly to her. Lawson, who had been waiting for a public apology, was blind-sided by his cruel divorce announcement. Lawson and Saatchi have been married for 10 years; Saatchi has claimed that the couple had become “estranged” the last few years. Saatchi claims that he had no choice but to act publicly since his wife “failed to defend” him with a statement to the media. In fact, Lawson has remained silent at the advice of her publicist so as not to further affect their children. Lawson (53) and Saatchi (70) have three teenage children from previous marriages that they were raising together.In addition to the “he said, she said” controversy, Lawson and Saatchi will have to fight over $150 million in shared assets, including their $12 million Chelsea, West London home. Both brought substantial assets into the marriage. Charles Saatchi is worth $100 million from the high-profile, highly-successful New York advertising firm, Saatchi and Saatchi. Nigella Lawson is a celebrity chef, bestselling author and television star with a net worth of $15 million. By the time lawyers for both sides duke it out in court and attempt to untangle the shared assets, those net worths will be considerably less.But it’s not just a monetary cost to this celebrity divorce. Saatchi had grown increasingly resentful of his wife’s high-profile career that he helped established. It’s a common theme in celebrity couples; one partner becomes the higher earner or the more recognized celebrity and the other gets bit by that green-eyed monster, jealousy. In Nigella’s case, there is the public humiliation at the hands of someone she loves to endure. It seems that Saatchi is determined to do whatever he can to make her suffer in the media. And then there are the children; children always suffer in a divorce. It can be lessened when parents work together to keep it private and amicable. But it’s incredibly painful to have your lives dragged through the media. In this case, it is Nigella and Saatchi’s children that are paying the ultimate price.

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-05-22

Misc

Charity is Selfish

Finance, Life

I try to give 10% of my income to charity.   I don’t succeed every year, but I do try.

I don’t give because I’m generous.  I give because I’m selfish.

If you give to charity, you are too.

I’m not talking about people who give to charity strictly for the tax deduction, though that is selfish too.   I’m referring specifically to the people who give to charity out of the goodness of their hearts.

If I give a thousand dollars worth of clothes to a homeless shelter, I get a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that I helped people stay warm.

If I send $100 to the Red Cross for whatever terrible disaster happened shortly before I made the donation, it makes me feel good to have contributed to saving those lives.

The put-the-inner-city-kids-on-a-horse thing we do?  Makes me happy to get those kids into a positive situation.

Donating blood?  Yay, me!  I’m saving lives!

While it’s nice to help other people, that’s not the ultimate reason I’m doing it.  I do it because it makes me feel good about myself to help other people, particularly people who–for whatever reason–can’t help themselves.

That’s the basis of altruism.   It’s not about helping others, it’s about feeling good about helping others.

The truly selfish, the evil dogooders, are the ones who want to raise taxes to give it away as “charity”.   They get to feel like they are doing something and helping others while not actually contributing themselves and, at the same time, stealing that warm fuzzy feeling from the people who are providing the money to start with.

Evil.

Charity has to be done at  a personal, local level or the benefits to the giver are eliminated while the benefits to the receiver are lessened.  Bureaucracy doesn’t create efficiency.

For the record, if it’s taken by force, by tax, it isn’t charity.  Charity cannot be forced.   Forcing charity is, at best, a fraudulent way for petty politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and activists to feel they have power over others.

Again, evil.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Shattering Taboos

Finance, Relationships

Taboo
Image via Wikipedia

ta·boo

-adjective

1.  proscribed by society as improper or unacceptable: taboo words.

There is a societal prohibition against talking about money, especially actual money.  Talking about a deal, or the hypothetical bundle you lost on the Super Bowl is  ok, but discussing how much money you make, or how much you have saved for retirement is almost as bad as talking about sex.  In many social circles, it’s far worse.

Money is one of the primary causes of divorce, second only to infidelity.   It can cause myriad problems, including anxiety, depression, paranoia, impotence, impulse spending, gambling, social isolation, suicide,  and murder.   Yet even therapists hesitate to discuss finance with their patients.

Occasionally to the chagrin of my family and friends, I’ve almost completely destroyed that taboo in myself.   After spending a year and a half writing about everything I do financially, I’ve found myself with very little hesitation to talk about my finances in real life.   I don’t mind discussing my credit card debt, my projections on paying off my mortgage, or almost anything else, with the exception of my salary.   I’ve never seen anything good come from coworkers comparing paystubs.   Somebody always gets hurt feelings.

Aside from that one exception, I think it’s healthy to talk about money.  How many kids launch into adulthood financially clueless because their parents wouldn’t talk about money?    How many marriages could be saved if couples would talk about their financial problems before they became financial disasters?

How can you go about breaking down the mental barrier to talking about money? Starting a personal finance blog and writing three to four times per week for a couple of years isn’t a practical solution for everyone.

Start small.

Mention the fact that you have a credit card balance(assuming you do) when you are talking to a friend.   Suggest a coworker appeal his property taxes, or offer a couple of tips to help your cousin negotiate her rent.

Most importantly, start having these conversations with your spouse/significant other/life partner.   If you can plan to spend the rest of your life with someone, you can certainly plan to discuss one of the most important topics in your life with her.   If you can’t, are you really a good fit?

Try it.  Break down that taboo. Your life will be better for it.

Are you afraid to talk about money?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Vacation, Shmaycation, Staycation?

Finance, Parenting

Indoor kart racing
Image via Wikipedia

Last week was our family vacation.   This year, we decided to keep it cheap, since we raided our savings a few months ago to cover my son’s vision therapy.

Here’s what we did:

Friday (Yes, I started vacation on a Friday): My wife worked a half day, then we drove to visit my parents, roughly 120 miles north of our house. $110 for gas, round-trip, and $10 for drive-through lunch. $120 total.

Saturday:  We went to the county fair and Dairy Queen.  $18 for admission.  $30 for ride tickets.  $35 for food and ice cream.   The ride tickets were totally worth it.   My son and I discovered that he can handle the fun rides, which thrills me.  $83 total.

Sunday: We had a picnic at the bottom of Inspiration Peak, the third highest point in Minnesota, followed by a hike to the top.   That evening, my brother, his wife, my wife, and I tricked my parents into babysitting and escaped for several hours of adult time.     After a couple of overpriced drinks at a crap restaurant, we went somewhere nicer and cheaper.   A nice dinner, a few drinks, and a round of drunken go-karts later, we spent $90 for the evening.

Monday:  Back to the go-kart park for the afternoon, and the return drive home in the evening.  The go-kart park included 3 rounds of go-karts, mini-golf, and a round of bumper boats.  $40.

Tuesday:  A hands-on kids museum, a natural history museum that was hosting a portable planetarium, and a teppenyaki restaurant.  We used museum passes for the museums, so this cost a total of $160.   By far, the most expensive part was the restaurant.  The museums cost a combined $30.

Wednesday: We spent the day at the Monster Mall’s indoor theme park, Nickelodean Universe, where we tested my son’s ability to handle the fun rides for $70.   Then we ate at the Rainforest Cafe for $116, and we got my wife’s anniversary present, a family portrait at an “old time” photo studio.   We chose a 1920s theme.  I must say, I look dashing in a zoot suit.   $260 total.

Thursday:  My wife had to work on Thursday because she was short of vacation time, so I had the brats to myself.  We went to a pick-your-own apple orchard where we picked a large bag of apples, a bottle of real, locally-made maple syrup and 3 cookies-on-a-stick.   Afterwards, Brat #1 and I went to a Chinese buffet and the comic book store while the women-folk went to a saddle-club meeting. $60 total.

Friday:    We had a fried chicken picnic at the largest playground in the area, and otherwise took it easy.   $12.

Saturday:   On Saturday, my girls rode in a horse show for the saddle club while my wife put in her volunteer work hours.   Registration and the food for the potluck ran $40.

Sunday:  I had to teach a gun class, so I made money, instead of spending it.   My wife and kids played around the house.

Total, our vacation cost us $865, for 10 days of memories.   If we would have skipped the restaurants, it would have cost $465, but we wanted those experiences, too.   Our vacation fund has $906 in it, so we did all right.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Winning the Mortgage Game

Finance

There’s a game that’s often mistakenly called “The American Dream”.   This game is expensive to play and fraught with risk.   It single-handedly ties up more resources for most people than anything else they ever do.

Conway's Game of Life
Image via Wikipedia

The game is called Home Ownership.

At some point, most people consider buying a house.   On the traditional, idealized life-path, this step comes somewhere between marriage and kids.   That’s usually the easiest way to organize it.   If you have kids first, you’re much less likely to buy a home.  This is a game with handicaps.

Once you get to the point where you are emotionally ready to invest in the 30-year commitment that is a house, your first impulse tends to be to rush to the bank to find out how much money you can borrow.

That’s a mistake.  If you take as much as the bank will qualify you for, you’re most likely to overextend yourself and end up losing your house.   That’s the quick way to lose the home ownership game.

The best thing you could do is figure out how much you can afford before you visit a bank.   Conventional wisdom says that your mortgage payment should be no more than 28% of your gross income, but that’s absurd.   Who builds their budget on their gross income?  I like 28%, but only of your net income.    To make the numbers easier to remember, I’d round it to 30%.   If you take home $3000 per month, your mortgage payment should be no more than $900 per month.

From there, it pretty easy to figure out how much house you can afford.  Using this e mortgage calculator, you’d be able to afford a mortgage of $175,000 if we assume an interest rate of 4.5%.  Throughout most of the United States, that will buy you a reasonably sized home, though certainly nothing ostentatious.    Clydesdale Bank also has an excellent loan calculator.

Some people like to start out with an interest-only loan.   That same emortgage calculator shows that an income of $3000 per month would be able to afford a $240,000 with almost the same payment.  That seems like a good plan, but eventually, you’ll have to pay more than just the interest.   Taking out a loan that will one day be more than you can afford on the assumption that you’ll be making more money by then is not sound financial planning.    That’s the same logic that helped me bury myself in debt.

When you buy a house, make sure to base your payments and your mortgage on what you can realistically afford.  Anything else, and you’ll only end up poorer and less happy than when you started.

Enhanced by Zemanta