I call them Dream Merchants. Really they are not selling a product but a dream. Went to one Amway party and the poor presenter spent an hour "explaining" to me that it was not about selling dreams. Alas, the first page in the Amway sales book says you have to "sell the dream". Pretty certain I ruined his Amway career. The scam is to sucker people into selling carp for you. You get them excited about being rich without having to actually work. Show a pyramid chart and talk about the hundred if not thousands of people that will soon be "working" for you. Stop to show some pictures of a tropical beach location. Continue by projecting huge wealth if thousands of people all sell this stuff for you everyday. End up by noting that some people deserve fabulous wealth and it can be theirs if only they cough up a hundred bucks to join your sales team. Not everyone wants to be wealthy so not everyone joins your team.... don't you want to be filthy stinking rich without working? I got sucked in by AFLAC. Fresh out of college and looking for a job anywhere. Being an "Insurance Agent" seems almost like a real job. I actually sold a few dozen policies before the reality set in. Just because you establish a customer does not mean that you own that account. No, your Regional Sales Manager has the right take over your accounts because you fail to sell them more insurance every month. Last sales meeting I was threatening to turn the RSM upside down and bounce him on his head. Had to quit before I gave into violent temptations. : ) lyra

Bank rules vary, depending on their internal policies, but it was one of the officers at my local bank that told me I could write "or" and either person could cash it, according to the Uniform Commercial Code, which governs "negotiable instruments", including checks. A quick search shows me that UCC Article 3-110 says, in pertinent part: "(d) If an instrument is payable to two or more persons alternatively, it is payable to any of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced by any or all of them in possession of the instrument. If an instrument is payable to two or more persons not alternatively, it is payable to all of them and may be negotiated, discharged, or enforced only by all of them. If an instrument payable to two or more persons is ambiguous as to whether it is payable to the persons alternatively, the instrument is payable to the persons alternatively." So, yes, you can write a check to more than one person. "And" means that both have to sign it, "or" means that either person can sign it. Your bank may have their own rules which has nothing to do with the law at all, just rules to prevent problems for them. More than you wanted to know, I'm sure, but you asked, LOL. Annie Here is a link that might be useful: UCC 3-110

ah, but you *have* actually "paid" it. You are paying for it on credit, by increasing the balance owed on your mortgage, instead of with cash, but you are paying for it all the same. I'm not 100% positive, but my guess would be it's true. The deduction is for interest accrued on your mortgage debt, not on the payments you make to pay down your debt. The IRS doesn't normally care if you "pay" for deductible expenses with cash, credit, or what. In this case, you certainly are "paying" the interest, you are just paying it on credit (adding it to your mortgage balance) instead of paying it out of your bank account. All one and the same to the IRS. Smart guys. (While I'm not one to usually praise the IRS, in this case they're right. Money spent is money spent, using credit doesn't change that.) Now, eventually, you would still have to actually start paying down your mortgage balance, and if it's true you get the tax deduction when the interest accrued, you wouldn't get it again when you actually do pay it. So at that point that you would be "paying" the mortgage company the back-accrued interest but *not* getting the deduction.

Debrak, you may want to read a bit more about vitamin D before you self medicate with a higher dose. We tend to overdo this stuff in the U.S. From the article linked below: " The US Endocrine Society guidance, for example, advises supplementation with up to 2000 IU per day, but this is overzealous, she said. "A more reasonable dose is 600 to 800 IU per day," she noted, adding that she is an author on a new guidance, soon to be published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, which will state that 2000 IU per day "is not warranted." " The uv wavelength that helps us produce vitamin D is the same that causes aging and skin cancer (with enough exposure). So limited sun exposure is the key. Right now vitamin D is the new fad--- it has replaced the megadoses of vitamins a, e and c, and other supplements that seemingly everyone has been on at one time or another. Here is a link that might be useful: Journal Article on Vitamin D from European Endocrinology Conference