These 27 Extremely Common Purchases Are Actually Complete Wastes Of Money, According To People On The Internet Who Learned The Hard Way
Here are some of the top responses:
1. "Giving money to Televangelists."
2. "Movies in theaters."
Klaus Vedfelt / Getty Images
"That shit is released on streaming platforms in a month nowadays, and I don't have to be price gouged for popcorn in my own home. Nor do I have to ask an annoying stranger to stop a solar flare in my face by taking out his phone on full brightness every few minutes."
— pineapplesuit7
3. "Over-blown weddings..."
— a_08-
"I had a coworker that spent over $100K on their wedding and was divorced with 16 months. Put it towards a house. Hell, put it towards an amazing year-long vacation."
— howard2112
4. "...and funerals."
— Pinorckle
"My father-in-law passed away last year. We had him cremated. Instead of having a funeral, we had friends and family over at our house. We talked about how wonderful and helpful he was. It cost us nothing.
I don't plan on ever having a regular funeral again."
— hated_n8
5. "Brand-name ibuprofen or paracetamol vs. generic stuff. It's exactly the same stuff."
6. "Subscriptions, and forgetting to cancel before the free trial ends."
7. "Grilled cheese at a restaurant."
— Prestigious_Ant_4366
"If you're going to a restaurant, you might as well buy something that you can't make at home or yourself."
— Putrid-Cockroach1497
8. "Antivirus software."
Courtneyk / Getty Images
— aphadon7
"Windows Defender has been good enough for the average Joe for years, and if it is configured correctly, it is just fine for businesses, too."
— LightCharacter8382
9. "AOL."
— Reverse-Recruiterman
"Remember there is a baby boomer crowd out there above the age of 75 that was in the prime of their career when AOL came out. About a year ago, now 77, she told me she still pays for it.
You would be shocked how hard it was to convince her that she didn't have to do that anymore."
— Reverse-Recruiterman
10. "ATM fees."
Oscar Wong / Getty Images
— Militia_Kitty13
"For whatever reason I got an ATM card before I had a debit card. Long story short, I wish I had never bothered getting an ATM card. Almost every ATM I used charged a fee, and I don't even want to know how much money I wasted on ATM fees."
— idratherchangemyold1
11. "Bottle service."
— w0ke_brrr_4444
"$500 for a bottle of Grey Goose because someone saw a rapper do it at an Atlanta strip club. Give me Belvedere at $25 a bottle instead."
— malarkeyBS
12. "Pyramid schemes."
Maskot / Getty Images
— a_08-
"So easy to spot. It's funny because they get so butthurt when I tell people they don't actually sell anything."
— dadabkilla
13. "Blue checkmarks."
AlexSecret / Getty Images
14. "Tanning."
15. "Video games early access content."
Westend61 / Getty Images
16. "'Alkaline' water."
Chris Rogers / Getty Images
17. "I smoke cigarettes. So, cigarettes. Paying to die faster."
"Because I'm a dumbass."
— nauticalcummins
18. "The latest cell phone, when the current one works perfectly."
D3sign / Getty Images
— a_08-
"I bought my phone in 2019, and I get a weird amount of comments from people asking me when I'm going to upgrade. When I say I'm going to upgrade when my phone breaks, it's like they weren't expecting it.
It's not even an old phone — it's an iPhone 11. There's literally nothing wrong with it."
— eugeneugene
19. "Giving money to politicians."
Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images
20. "Uber Eats. Especially for fast food."
"Crazy to me."
— degoba
21. "Daily expensive coffee drinks. You know, you can make it yourself for 10% of the price."
22. "Lottery tickets."
Dave Kotinsky / Getty Images / Bacardi Rum
— Majestic_Bet6187
"Should never be viewed as an investment; should be viewed as gambling."
— sunnbeta
23. "Fake nails."
Christopher Polk / Variety / Getty Images
— Longjumping-Mouse-61
"I would like to add false eyelashes."
— jeanvelde
24. "A life coach."
Luca Sage / Getty Images
25. "For sure Tinder!"
Willie B. Thomas / Getty Images
— FatihDurukan187
"Some dudes need to pay for a month so they can stop blaming algorithms on their lack of matches."
— Everythangs4sale
26. "I can't believe I haven't seen vitamins on this list yet. You're literally pissing away your money."
Prostock-Studio / Getty Images
— mr_poopie_butt-hole
"Of all the great medical scams in the modern world, vitamins have to be the biggest overlooked obsession that doesn't do much good at all for most people."
— dumpitdog
27. "I think designer baby clothes are a total waste since kids grow out of them so fast."
Flavia Morlachetti / Getty Images
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
5 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Fewer Than 1,000 Trump Gold Cards Will Be Sold—Experts
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Trump administration officials have said that more than 70,000 people have expressed interest in the Trump "gold card" visa, some industry experts suggest the number of sales may be significantly lower. Latitude Managing Director Chris Willis told Newsweek, "In the end, less than 1,000 Trump Cards will be sold—far below the standards for a golden visa program." Newsweek has contacted the U.S. Commerce Department for comment. Why It Matters The gold card proposal, introduced in February, would grant U.S. residency to foreign nationals who invest $5 million in the United States. The fast-track pathway targets high-net-worth individuals looking for a route to American citizenship. Since returning to office on January 20, President Donald Trump has enacted sweeping changes to U.S. immigration policy and has moved to limit other immigration pathways, with his administration pausing the processing of some green card applications and ending the temporary legal status of certain migrant groups. A person in Shanghai, China, holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new U.S. gold card visa on June 12. A person in Shanghai, China, holds a smartphone displaying the website for registering interest in the new U.S. gold card visa on June 12. Wang Gang/VCG via AP What To Know Since Trump announced the gold card visa program, it has drawn criticism, with experts calling it too expensive. "The key flaw with the Trump Card is that it's overpriced. The Trump administration is overestimating the value of American citizenship," said Latitude CEO Eric Major, who founded HSBC's Global Investor Immigration Services. Latitude, a global advisory firm, advises wealthy clients on dual passports and gold visas worldwide. "A required $5 million donation—not even an investment—is at least five times higher than comparable pathways in Europe," Major told Newsweek. "Without a proper legal basis, the Trump Card lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the market," he added. A key feature of the proposed visa is that recipients would be taxed solely on income they earn in the U.S., rather than on their worldwide income. The program faces several obstacles, Major said. To create such a pathway, the U.S. would need to significantly revise the Internal Revenue Code. This would include establishing a new classification of taxpayers that is separate from citizens, green card holders and those meeting the substantial presence test. These groups are currently taxed on worldwide income. Such changes cannot be made through executive order. It would require legislation passed by both chambers of Congress. According to the global investment migration firm Henley & Partners, interest in U.S. residency programs among wealthy individuals has increased, driven in part by renewed attention to established initiatives such as the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program following the gold card announcement. The EB-5 program, created in 1990, requires applicants to pay fees ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, invest between $800,000 and $1 million, and create a minimum of 10 jobs for American workers. In June, the administration launched a website where foreign nationals can register their interest in the program. Registration is open to anyone. What People Are Saying Latitude CEO Eric Major told Newsweek: "The Trump Card, as currently presented, appears to have been launched for political branding. Even though they appear to have received close to 70,000 registrations, this reflects expressions of interest only. No formal applications have been processed, and the scheme still faces severe legal and legislative uncertainty, including whether Congress will approve the new visa category." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "President Trump is a businessman and innovator who is always looking for new ways to bring investment back to the United States and encourage legal immigration." David Lesperance, the managing partner at Lesperance & Associates, told Newsweek: "I doubt if the Trump Card will ever see the light of day." What Happens Next While individuals and businesses can register their interest in the visa on details about official application procedures and the vetting and approval processes have not been announced.
Axios
5 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: The AI super-stimulant
AI and its blood and oxygen — chips, data, energy — are producing an economic super-stimulant strong enough to prop up the entire country. Wall Street and retail investors are enabling and encouraging more ... more ... more. More chips, more data centers, more energy, more investment. The big companies and big investors are the early winners. Why it matters: A wild cycle is unfolding. The biggest companies in history are spending a stunning amount of money to fuel the AI revolution, driving demand for more chips, more energy and more capital. This dynamic is basically powerful enough to cover for an economy that otherwise looks like it's weakening by the day. The big (Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet/Google, Amazon and Meta) are getting bigger, and burrowing deeper into direct investment and ownership of the products feeding into their AI. They're buying up land, building data centers, sucking up chips, investing in energy sources. Microsoft and Nvidia together are worth about $2.5 trillion more today than they were a year ago. Alphabet, Google, Amazon and Meta together will spend nearly $400 billion this year on capital expenditures, largely to build AI infrastructure — more than the EU spent on defense last year, The Wall Street Journal notes. Investors are getting comfortable with the mammoth spending on this "capex war," as shown by Big Tech's runaway results last week, the Financial Times reports. The big picture: The Wall Street Journal's Christopher Mims captured the tectonic impact of the AI arms race in a must-read column, "Silicon Valley's New Strategy: Move Slow and Build Things." "Call it an 'age of infrastructure,' in which companies spend vast sums on actual stuff," Mims wrote. "It's reminiscent of the age of business titans and 'robber barons' who dominated railroads, steel and other enterprises." Paul Kedrosky — a Ph.D. and trained engineer who became a tech founder, investor and pundit — found that capital expenditures on AI data centers have passed the peak of telecom spending during the dot-com bubble (1995-2000) — and are second only to railroads in the 1880s. "In a sense," Kedrosky writes, "there is a massive private sector stimulus program underway in the U.S." Think about that: A small number of companies — some nearly the size of Germany's economy — are spending more than the 340 million American consumers, whose status as the engine of the U.S. economy has always been all but gospel. As Derek Thompson, co-author of the bestselling book " Abundance," put it after Friday's disappointing jobs report: "GDP is only growing because of AI capex." Zoom in: Investment in information processing equipment and in software increased at a 25% annual rate in the first half of the year — while overall GDP rose at a paltry 1.2%, Axios chief economic correspondent Neil Irwin notes. Neil Dutta of Renaissance Macro notes on X that this measure of AI capital spending has contributed more to growth this year than consumer spending. The big questions: Will U.S. workers — not just tech giants and big shareholders — benefit with better jobs and higher salaries? Will this boom ever bust? The Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip points to"hidden risks from the AI boom": "No one doubts its potential to raise growth and productivity in the long run. But financing that boom is straining the companies and capital markets." Econ blogger Noah Smith has an even more dire warning: With a "large and increasing amount of debt being used to fund one single sector of the economy (data centers)," a data-center bust could trigger a financial crisis. Between the lines: Theoretically, heavy investment backed by generous government incentives should, over time, create a new class of higher-end work to build, operate and maintain data, chips and energy centers. But these jobs need to more than offset the jobs AI wipes out. "The AI layer is just the newest, the latest layer," Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, tells Axios' managing editor for business Ben Berkowitz. "We have to be able to make sure we're ready for today with those skills." Reality check: Tech in general, and semiconductors in particular, have always been cyclical businesses. First, you overbuild, then you suffer through a glut, then there's a shortage — and then you overbuild again, Axios managing editor for tech Scott Rosenberg notes. It happened with memory chips at the start of the '90s. It happened with internet connectivity during the dot-com boom and bust. Plenty of people in the AI industry — many of whom never lived through those cycles — believe this time is different. And data centers generate more direct jobs in their construction phase than once they're built. The bottom line: No one disputes that the vast majority of America's growth right now flows from AI investment competition. And it's only accelerating.
