banktime.com

Many dentists will offer you a healthcare credit card to cover the cost of your necessary work. These cards seem tempting: your work will be paid for, over time, with flexible repayment terms, and no up-front costs. You might be thinking, ‘sign me up!’ But you really should think twice. Or three times, even. Make sure that you really understand what you are signing up for.

It’s logical to assume that, at Target, you will have your credit card ready to go. Need to pick up some diapers, a few kids’ t-shirts that are on sale, a handful of notebooks, and maybe a quick bite for dinner? Those – and more! – are all available to you at the big red dot, but there’s one more, completely nonsensical thing that you can find at Target these days… Facebook credits. Yes, you heard that right.

Most consumers know by now that mortgage rates are approaching all-time lows. With the national average for a thirty-year, fixed-rate mortgage hanging just under four and a half percent, there has never been a better time to buy a new home – or to refinance your home loan on a property your already own. It’s ironic that, when so many people are terrified of losing their homes to foreclosure, it’s easier than ever for consumers to afford their own residences. With rates so low, many consumers are finding that their closing costs are either nonexistent or ridiculously low. In terms of refinancing, the experts say that if you stand to save more than a quarter point, it is worth giving it a try.

I’ve heard of some off reasons to borrow against the equity in one’s home, but this surely must take the cake as the strangest one I’ve read recently. There’s no doubt that nice landscaping will take you far if you are looking to see your home, don’t get me wrong. A few nicely-maintained flower beds and green grass will instantly look inviting and attractive to browsing buyers, and add curb appeal value to your home. On the other hand, borrowing against your home equity to fund a landscaping project is a little bizarre – to say the very least! I’m not trying to be judgmental, of course… just realistic.

In exchange for charging lower fees for reverse mortgages, homeowners seeking one of these “Saver” loans would be eligible to cash in ten to eighteen percent less equity on their homes. This is intended to keep the FHA from losing money the way it has been doing on current reverse mortgages.

The city of Phoenix, Arizona is fed up with scofflaws who ignore parking tickets and refuse to pay up. The city reportedly is owed around two million dollars in unpaid fines, and it recently compiled a “boot-and-tow” list for police officers to assist authorities in immobilizing and impounding cars that have been involved in unpaid fines. The only problem? The great majority of those fines are attached to rental cars.

The once-popular Smart ForTwo microcar seems to have lost a lot of its initial luster. Once upon a time, Daimler could barely keep enough of these teeny-tiny, sporty cars in stock. To obtain a Smart car, you needed to go on a lengthy waiting list and all put beg and grovel for the first car that became available. Not anymore. According to a German publication, worldwide sales of the vehicles manufactured by Mercedes-Benz’s parent company are tanking.

People tend to do well with easy-to-read labels on things. A price sticker on eggs in the grocery store, an “ORGANIC” label on meat, a red or green stop light – these are all effective, because they convey vital information without too much fuss or necessary thinking on the part of the customer. If the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has its way, cars will soon be labeled with a letter grade that lets the world know at a glance how environmentally-friendly it is. A much-touted proposal issued jointly to the government by the EPA and Transportation Department would grade new cars with a rating of “A” (for excellent) through “D” (poor) on the basis of fuel economy and emissions as a means of promoting greener passenger cars and advanced auto technology on a larger scale. The measure, endorsed by President Obama, would mark what’s being called the biggest change in over three decades to the familiar dealer price and mileage stickers that appear in the windows of cars for sale on auto lots in the United States at present.

Right now, dealer labels are only required to display the auto’s fuel efficiency in terms of miles per gallon and the estimated average fuel cost for driving the car or truck in question. The proposal would slap a prominent letter grade alongside that information that we have come to expect. As of right now, the government says, only electric and plug-in hybrid autos would qualify for grades anywhere in the “A” range (as the grades will include plus and minus symbols, just like in school!). Compact- to mid-sized passenger vehicles would most likely score in the “B” range under proposed standards. Larger vehicles like pickup trucks and SUVs would likely get “C’s.” I shudder to think at what Hummers would get! The cars getting lower ratings would be marked down for greedier consumption of petroleum and higher output of environmentally-hazardous carbon monoxide.

It’s believed that the labels would help consumers make “the right decision for their wallets and the environment,” said Gina McCarthy, the EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation. McCarthy noted that the rating system would hopefully make citizens of the United States not only more aware of the potential environmental impact of the vehicles they choose to drive, but would also reflect and reward tremendous advancements in the fields of auto technology. Environmental groups are hugely excited about the proposal, naturally. Many have said for a long time that it’s due time for consukers to be forced to take responsibility for their choices if they put fuel hogs on the road.

Not surprisingly, the auto industry is already dead-set against the proposal, and firing back on why they think it’s a bad idea. Of course, it’s not hard to understand why… if you made a product, would you really want it labeled with a scarlet letter telling the world that it was deficient in some way? I doubt that the makers of fancy SUVs want to have a glaring “C-“ taped in the glossy windows of their tricked-out mommy-mobiles! The car industry claims that the proposal would cross an ethical line between responsible consumer disclosure and making what the AP called “value judgments about vehicles.” The industry is already acting beleaguered over President Obama’s relentless pursuit of stronger rules concerning minimum fuel economy of new cars coming out. If passed, the new grading system would doubtlessly add an extra, unfair aspect of judgment to the makers of bigger cars that use more gas, say auto industry members.

The president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Dave McCurdy, attacked the plan as short-sighted because it attached “school-yard memories of passing and failing” to the purchase of vehicles, and strongly implied the government’s approval and disapproval of certain models. Other members of the industry quoted in the original article say that they don’t necessarily disagree with the idea of a straightforward system of labeling that would represent a car’s relative green-ness, but want apples compared to apples and oranges with oranges. Steve Cook, an auto dealer, suggested that only cars and trucks in the same size class should be graded against one another for environmental impact and gas mileage, since obviously every single SUV is going to look poorly on those standards when compared to a compact sedan. That doesn’t mean that a smaller car is the right choice for everyone, he implies. On the other hand, comparing one SUV to another helps buyers to actually make an informed decision based on a particular model’s commitment to being the best it can be within its class. Another suggestion is to factor in more than just fuel economy as a flat grading system, and to also incorporate the size of the vehicle in the grading so that a comparatively green big vehicle could earn a better grade.

It’s interesting to note that, when gas prices are as stable as they have been in the past year, Americans purchase more big trucks and SUVs. The sales of these vehicles have risen almost twenty-one percent in the past year, whereas small cars have seen a less than eight percent increase. It’s reflective, say experts, of the fact that American car drivers like bigger vehicles and choose to purchase them when other factors aren’t an issue. Right now, Americans simply buy the cars that they want. A grading system could change that completely. Industry experts point out that the data on fuel economy and emissions is very accessible right on current dealer labels, but most would-be carbuyers simply do not know where to look. The letter grade would give them a very-accessible focal point for accessing and understanding that information. If customers knew the environmental impact of the car they wanted to buy, the implication goes, they might choose otherwise.

The EPA’s proposal also calls for taglines like “saves [x amount of money!]” in terms of how much more fuel efficient a certain vehicle is than the comparative cars in its weight class. The prospectively revamped dealer sticker also would clearly display figures reflective of how many gallons the car uses per one hundred miles of driving, its city and highway miles per gallon fuel efficiency ratings, how much carbon dioxide it emits, and the estimated annual fuel cost figured as a result of these functions. Additionally, the stickers would give the range of fuel economy for all vehicles in the same class so that buyers could make a more educated purchase based on the relative fuel economy of what they were buying based on competitors.

As per the written proposal presented to the government, the changes would not take effect until the model year 2012 vehicles came out. Right now, the government is in the midst of a two-month period for public comments on the suggested rule changes during which members of the public can make their feelings known and/or make suggestions as to amendments to the rules. The public is also being asked to consider a version of the modified labels that doesn’t include the much-contended letter grade, but simply displays the same information in a more relatable and straightforward format.

The prospective labeling changes are highly applicable to changes in the current auto industry, as many of the biggest names in domestic auto manufacturing prepare to roll out vehicles sporting the most advanced technology in fuel efficiency and the prevention of dangerous emissions. Big announced vehicles include General Motors Co.’s Chevrolet Volt, a battery-operated compact car that runs on gasoline to power a generator beyond certain distances traveled, and Nissan Motor Co.’s much-advertised, all-new, all-electric Leaf. GM caused an uproar in the industry when it proudly announced that, per the new EPA fuel efficiency standards passed by President Obama, the Volt would get around two hundred thirty miles per gallon of gas. That raised huge questions about the validity of the EPA formula, and has led the government to work in conjunction with the EPA and DOT on labeling standards for vehicles that are different from standard ones running entirely on gasoline.

One problem with the EPA’s new proposal on dealership vehicle labeling is that fact that it comes up empty-handed on the topic of forcing the labels to contain additional, comprehensive information on the environmental impact of the electricity used to charge and run electric cars. The discussion stemming from GM’s announcement of the Volt brought this to undeniable, crystal-clear light. It’s been argued by certain environmental groups that both the government and auto manufacturers need to responsibly disclose information on so-called “upstream emissions” (those associated with coal-fired power plants, the energy from which would charge electric cars) on cars powered fully or in part by electricity. McCarthy noted that the EPA was only currently required by the federal government to “specify only tailpipe emissions, not upstream emissions, be included on the label. The original article quoted Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, as claiming that the agency wouldn’t have been blocked from providing more information on emissions from power plants, implying that the EPA simply could not be bothered with disclosing this vital information.

Do you remember what you did last summer, oh car buyers of the United States? Those were glory days for those seeking new wheels. Cash for Clunkers was only the best-known of the myriad incentive programs made available to those purchasing new cars. Last summer was the climax of years of fancy deals made available to those buying new autos – employee discounts, rebates, and plenty of discounts to go around were all considered de rigueur. All good things have to come to an end, however, and the reign of car buying incentives is one of those things.

There’s a tremendous tendency among homeowners to think that every penny you sink into your home is an improvement that will reap you corresponding equity if and when it ever comes time to sell the property. Too bad that things don’t at all actually work that way. Statistics show that, for every thousand dollars that homeowners spend making their homes “better,” they can only expect to recoup around six hundred dollars. And that’s in best case scenarios.