I need some honest help with finding a job now...

[Broker]

Add nasty, judgmental to that list of "credentials"

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

 

[jackskellingtonsgirl]

Be aware that you will take a big tax hit for taking money out of a 401K. The penalty may be more than it is worth to withdraw the money.

 

[BelleWDW]

Be aware that you will take a big tax hit for taking money out of a 401K. The penalty may be more than it is worth to withdraw the money.

 

[Broker]

Be aware that you will take a big tax hit for taking money out of a 401K. The penalty may be more than it is worth to withdraw the money.

The IRS penalty for early withdrawal is 10%. If she isn't making any income then her taxable amount would be fairly low. So tax + penalty. In my guesstimation it wouldn't exceed 15%.

 

[wdwfan16]

The IRS penalty for early withdrawal is 10%. If she isn't making any income then her taxable amount would be fairly low. So tax + penalty. In my guesstimation it wouldn't exceed 15%.

And she NEEDS the job.

 

[bumbershoot]

Gotta say this....

!!!

I don't think Kari is being horrible to you. She has let you stay in the apartment and use her truck.

OK, they have been together longer than DH and I have been married, and he's been the sole breadwinner since we were only engaged. If suddenly he broke up with me, took up with someone else, and "let me" stay here until I got a job and got out, NO ONE would think that he had NOT been horrible to me. In fact, we did break up for a time while engaged (while I still had a job), and he continued paying his half of the lease (though he moved back to his mom's) and gave me his computer so I'd have a "lifeline" to my online friends, and most people I tell that to think it's disgusting that he left the computer (and shocked that he paid his half of the lease). (I personally understand the computer thing, and it was actually VERY helpful and I'm glad he did it)

So IMO, Kari is being rotten, even though she could be worse.

 

[wdwfan16]

Gotta say this....



OK, they have been together longer than DH and I have been married, and he's been the sole breadwinner since we were only engaged. If suddenly he broke up with me, took up with someone else, and "let me" stay here until I got a job and got out, NO ONE would think that he had NOT been horrible to me. In fact, we did break up for a time while engaged (while I still had a job), and he continued paying his half of the lease (though he moved back to his mom's) and gave me his computer so I'd have a "lifeline" to my online friends, and most people I tell that to think it's disgusting that he left the computer (and shocked that he paid his half of the lease). (I personally understand the computer thing, and it was actually VERY helpful and I'm glad he did it)

So IMO, Kari is being rotten, even though she could be worse.

Kari finding another while they were still a couple was rotten. The difference with you now and Sandra is that you are legally married (please don't start with the they can't marry stuff. I am all for gay marriage but as of right now it is not legal in FL) so you do own a % of the assets. When you were just engaged he or you could have left or walked out and be owed nothing.

Kari is being nice in that Sandra can still live there and still use the truck. Sandra cannot use Kari's CCs like she use to. I can totally see that. What stops her from buying the pants and shoes and so much more? Kari is on the hook for that new debt.

 

[rosiep]

Kari finding another while they were still a couple was rotten. The difference with you now and Sandra is that you are legally married (please don't start with the they can't marry stuff. I am all for gay marriage but as of right now it is not legal in FL) so you do own a % of the assets. When you were just engaged he or you could have left or walked out and be owed nothing.

.

That's pretty nervy of you to come to these boards and argue that point!

 

[zeitzeuge]

That's pretty nervy of you to come to these boards and argue that point!

Honey, after what I've been reading, there's a LOT of nervy people coming to our forum when it comes to this thread.

 

[rpmdfw]

Kari finding another while they were still a couple was rotten. The difference with you now and Sandra is that you are legally married (please don't start with the they can't marry stuff. I am all for gay marriage but as of right now it is not legal in FL) so you do own a % of the assets. When you were just engaged he or you could have left or walked out and be owed nothing.

Kari is being nice in that Sandra can still live there and still use the truck. Sandra cannot use Kari's CCs like she use to. I can totally see that. What stops her from buying the pants and shoes and so much more? Kari is on the hook for that new debt.

When discussing two couples in long term relationships who have merged their finances and both have one "breadwinner" and one "stay at home" partner; to say that the same exact behavior is "horrible" if the couple is straight but "acceptable" if the couple is gay reinforces a double standard and keeps gays and lesbians relegated to second class status in our society. If the behavior is "bad" for legally recognized couples, it's is equally "bad" for those of us whose relationships are recognized only by those who know and respect us.

The thinking that only "legal" recognition is valid recognition and therefore worthy of respectful treatment of our partners (even as the partnership is ending) is reprehensible in my option.

You say that you're "all for gay marriage" but you've indicated that you veiw our relationships as "lesser" than those of straight people.

 

[wdwfan16]

That's pretty nervy of you to come to these boards and argue that point!

Honey, after what I've been reading, there's a LOT of nervy people coming to our forum when it comes to this thread.

When discussing two couples in long term relationships who have merged their finances and both have one "breadwinner" and one "stay at home" partner; to say that the same exact behavior is "horrible" if the couple is straight but "acceptable" if the couple is gay reinforces a double standard and keeps gays and lesbians relegated to second class status in our society. If the behavior is "bad" for legally recognized couples, it's is equally "bad" for those of us whose relationships are recognized only by those who know and respect us.

The thinking that only "legal" recognition is valid recognition and therefore worthy of respectful treatment of our partners (even as the partnership is ending) is reprehensible in my option.

You say that you're "all for gay marriage" but you've indicated that you veiw our relationships as "lesser" than those of straight people.

I do not view your relationship as lesser but at this time the laws are different.

In this relationship is Kari has all the CCs in her name (per something that Sandra posted a while ago). She gets all the debt from spending on them. If they were legally married, and yes I am for it but the fact remains they are not legally married, both would own that debt and the stuff it bought. If they both owned the debt then denying the other access to the money to buy something is wrong. If one gets all the debt then she has protect herself from a financial point of view.

Sandra has money to eat out but not to buy shoes. This particular meal was a lucky break in that it leads to a job but that is not why she went there. Actually she went twice.

From a financial point of view they are like two engaged people. I do not condone cheating, for that Kari was wrong. If two engaged people broke up and the other chose not to give away their CC I would agree with them too. It is a financial decision only.

Sandra has previously said that all the debt is in Kari's name and they don't know how to separate it. One way is for Kari to keep all the debt and all the stuff that the debt bought.

You would really be OK with your exSO eating out when you are at work and then asking you to buy her clothes to go to work? I know I would not. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but finances only.

 

[rosiep]

I do not view your relationship as lesser but at this time the laws are different.

.

Hiding behind the "law" does not make your post any more palatable. Segregation laws gave people license to treat other people as inferior to themselves....that's what current laws in our state do today. Using them in any way to support your arguement is reprehensible.

 

[wdwfan16]

Hiding behind the "law" does not make your post any more palatable. Segregation laws gave people license to treat other people as inferior to themselves....that's what current laws in our state do today. Using them in any way to support your arguement is reprehensible.

I would change the law today if I could but this is the law today and the law will be enforced. Kari could be nicer but she does not have to be. I could kick my DH out today and want to keep everything but the law will not let me. If there was no marriage law of any kind and everything was in my name then I could kick him out and keep everything.

 

[ms.yt]

I do not view your relationship as lesser but at this time the laws are different.

In this relationship is Kari has all the CCs in her name (per something that Sandra posted a while ago). She gets all the debt from spending on them. If they were legally married, and yes I am for it but the fact remains they are not legally married, both would own that debt and the stuff it bought. If they both owned the debt then denying the other access to the money to buy something is wrong. If one gets all the debt then she has protect herself from a financial point of view.

Sandra has money to eat out but not to buy shoes. This particular meal was a lucky break in that it leads to a job but that is not why she went there. Actually she went twice.

From a financial point of view they are like two engaged people. I do not condone cheating, for that Kari was wrong. If two engaged people broke up and the other chose not to give away their CC I would agree with them too. It is a financial decision only.

Sandra has previously said that all the debt is in Kari's name and they don't know how to separate it. One way is for Kari to keep all the debt and all the stuff that the debt bought.

You would really be OK with your exSO eating out when you are at work and then asking you to buy her clothes to go to work? I know I would not. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but finances only.

This is the point that needs to be emphasized. Bringing gay marriage into the situation doesn't change the fact that it's ridiculous for Sandra to expect Kari to buy her shoes & clothes for this job. Marriage or no, Kari is being more than generous to her right now. I hope bringing this up isn't going to be Sandra's excuse as to why she couldn't make it to her first day of work.

 

[rosiep]

I would change the law today if I could but this is the law today and the law will be enforced. Kari could be nicer but she does not have to be. I could kick my DH out today and want to keep everything but the law will not let me. If there was no marriage law of any kind and everything was in my name then I could kick him out and keep everything.

My point is: The OP and her situation aside, evoking the law to prove your point was in very poor taste. You do realize WHERE you're posting right??????

 

[pudge the fish]

I do know you had a bad experience with workforce in a different county, but things have really changed.
In my job, I am the "help people type" job description & I know we send people there (again not in Orlando, but close and they have been able to get vouchers for uniforms and shoes, bus passes, etc.
same place-different county- just one is called workforce and the other onestop. I am glad you found a job!
Just cause one visit was bad.. try them again if you need to!
Best wishes and way to go!

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

My point is: The OP and her situation aside, evoking the law to prove your point was in very poor taste. You do realize WHERE you're posting right??????

Valid point Rosie. Yet again, we have people defining marriage as a union sanctioned by law. FWWWWT!

Marriage is a state of togetherness, period. If one couple can stand before a third person and end up with a piece of paper certifying their union that makes that union NO MORE VALID OR LOVING than the couple who are NOT allowed to have that same piece of stinking paper.

Unfortunately, it's the rights that go along with that paper that do make a difference and do hurt those couples who cannot share in those same rights.

This whole thread is really nothing more than thinly veiled insults for the most part. There is a companion thread on that other stupid board where people have nothing better to do than insult others (and like to hide behind the word sarcasm. Unfortunately not one of them would understand true sarcasm if it bit them in the butt).

There are some here who genuinely tried to provide good advice and suggestions. You'll recognize them by the lack of insults in their posts.

If you intend to come here and insult our relationships by delcaring them less than het relationships because they are not "legal" then do expect to have a counterpoint to that argument.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

I do know you had a bad experience with workforce in a different county, but things have really changed.
In my job, I am the "help people type" job description & I know we send people there (again not in Orlando, but close and they have been able to get vouchers for uniforms and shoes, bus passes, etc.
same place-different county- just one is called workforce and the other onestop. I am glad you found a job!
Just cause one visit was bad.. try them again if you need to!
Best wishes and way to go!

Good info pudge the fish. Nice of you to provide constructive encouragement. Thank you!

 

[crashbb]

I do know you had a bad experience with workforce in a different county, but things have really changed.
In my job, I am the "help people type" job description & I know we send people there (again not in Orlando, but close and they have been able to get vouchers for uniforms and shoes, bus passes, etc.
same place-different county- just one is called workforce and the other onestop. I am glad you found a job!
Just cause one visit was bad.. try them again if you need to!
Best wishes and way to go!

Good suggestion. Heck, sometimes even just talking to a different person at the same place can give you a very different experience.

Sandra - congratulations on the new job.

I know you've had job issues in the past (you've stated it in this thread - I'm not dragging anything up), but hopefully you'll be able to make this one work for you. And, hopefully, the confidence you gain by taking care of yourself, will help you move on from Kari.

 

[TagsMissy]

And here I thought as the mean man, my responses would not be well received.

I agree too. It's a difficult task to look in the mirror but each of us has to do it at some point in our career/life. Negative feelings only bring negative results.

The job market is tight out there, like others have said you need to be out the door 9-5 networking/applying/researching. It's a full time job finding a job; I've told my friends this as much as I will say it here. There's no shame in flipping burgers, mopping floors or washing dishes; there is however lack of respect for someone watching TV all day moaning they can't find work.

Find what you can find in these times of economic times; it doesn't mean it's a career but at least money will come in and you can continue to search for other employment. And please stick with a job; even if you don't like it until you find and sign on the dotted line for a better job. Even the best jobs in the world, at the best companies in the world aren't always peaches and cream so don't run away then things get tough.