"Live within your means": a loaded phrase that seems to be biased in the favor of those more well-off? (financing, apartments)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I'm sure the rest of us will appreciate it when you turn your social security check back over to the government to pay for everyone else's entitlements. Or is it not an entitlement when you are the one getting it?
And Romney's effective tax rate in 2011 was 14%. Mine was higher, was yours?
Is that on INCOME or on INVESTMENTS? You can't say "effective" because we both know that the Government has established that Capital Gains are taxed at 15% and Income is taxed at a higher rate.
This is just a regurgitation of the Warren Buffett canard that he pays less in income tax than he secretary. That is because Buffett takes a salary of $100K from Berkshire Hathaway and his secretary earns over $200K. Based on INCOME alone, of course she pays more, she makes more!
In more than half the metros of the U.S., rental rates are more than mortgages for equivalent homes.
My metro is terrible on this. My mortgage is about $650 but I put down $750-800 on it.
To rent an equivalent house is $1000 minimum.
Again that principle holds. If you have money, you save money. If you don't have it, you spend more.
Not if you have roommates. Even absent that you are neglecting repairs and opportunity cost and immobility cost. Repair cost must be figured to include your own time if you DIY, you can't say your time is free because it represents a lost opportunity to earn more money by working another job elsewhere.
ALL I wanted once - was a comb to comb my hair -after losing everything in a house fire {some years earlier}.
I was checked into a hotel the night after the fire, and took my morning shower the next morning after the fire, lathered up my hair with the bar soap {they didn't provide much in supplies at that time} and than stepped out and dried my "mop'..and HAD NO COMB to comb my hair before going to work!
It was then that I first cried over what all I had lost then.
So now I make SURE i have a comb with me always!
P.S. RED Cross SAYS they help those displaced by a fire, BUT did NOTHING for me! SO I don't "give" to them anymore!
Wow, how horrible for you. That really brought tears to my eyes. I truly cannot imaging losing everything in a fire. I am happy that you weren't injured in the fire.
And I second your statement about the Red Cross, they use way too much of their donations to pay huge salaries and administrative costs!
If you need the government to pay your bills, then you don't need a big screen TV. Sell it, cancel cable and figure out ways to make money for yourself. When you have no debt and don't need other people's money to live, THEN you have a big screen TV.
I remember coming home from a sleep over in 6th grade to a "new" used 21" color TV. The biggest TV we had ever had. I was thrilled because I could watch SNL in color.
I agree. When I received services, I had a giant 20" console B&W TV {'memba them?} THAT I FOUND CURBSIDE On garbage collection day AND CARRIED home! Then the picture gave out but sound stayed, and I found another color tv..only no SOUND...so I WATCHED the Color TV and LISTENED to the B&W one tuned to the same chanel for quite a while....on Analog antenna..with only 4 local channels! I felt elated!
TO this Day, I only have a 20" flat screen, and it only because the "big 21" CRT" tv died in an electrical surge, even on surge suppressor.
BUT I, too, am amazed at the number of people on services who have large flat screen tvs..of course sometimes they "rent to own" at just $9.99/week for 15 years to get it....Or who have expensive "smart phones'...I JUST RECENTLY {4 months ago} got one and STILL barely know how to make calls on it! And it was the "freebie" to boot! And they smoke like chimneys {"gotta have soeme stress relief" they say...HA!}/
This is an excerpt of what you had claimed, in your earlier post (your words, not mine):
How is a continual or constant diet of fried bologna, potato soup, and powdered milk for years considered healthy and balanced, nutritionally? Bologna is not necessarily junk food per se, but a person could also put forward the legitimate point that bologna is in any event also a highly-processed food, and thus, possibly close to junk-food status as it is? How it "crazy", for me to point out that this kind of meager and limited fare could potentially represent border-line starvation? (Not to mention that another poster I had quoted had mentioned eating a lot of miracle-whip, etc., sometimes wholly without bread?)
The fact that your family *wasn't* provided with a living wage was a failure by society as a whole, to your family. A fair, inflation-adjusted living wage would have only ensured that your family was compensated fairly for the hard work that you yourself had attested that they worked at, while lifting them out of poverty. Why is it considered as "shameful" or "wrong", to ask for what is just, fair, and reasonable (i.e., fair compensation for a family's hard work and labor), in the first place?
Did you ever stop to consider, though, that if your family had been provided with adequate wages to afford more nutritionally-generous food, as compensation for their hard labor, that you and your siblings might have been in better health today -- instead of having to make due with years of eating highly-processed food?
Surely society can afford to be a little bit more generous and compassionate though, on its least well-off citizens? What is so bad about poor- and middle-class Americans getting more of their fair share of the economic pie, every year? I'm not saying that hard work is bad, I'm just saying the fruits of everyone's labors should be more equitably-allocated, and not just weighed heavily in favor of the wealthy?
Admittedly, I have not been to any 3rd-world countries. At the same time, children in first-world countries like Sweden, Norway, and several other European countries have a higher standards of living and are happier overall than are we are here in the U.S., and they have greater social equality and parity between the various economic classes than us as well.
Maybe so, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. The fact that children in other countries are more impoverished than we are here at home isn't a valid excuse, IMO, to encourage or justify inequality and poverty, here in the U.S.
Let me turn that question around: why *should* Americans who are less well-off financially intentionally be deprived of having TVs, not have cars or homes, and not have mobile phones? Why does the fact that they are poor make them inherently undeserving, of any of the above?
If someone has a legitimate need for it, what is so wrong of people making use of government assistance like Social Security, food stamps, etc.? Working people pay into these systems, so why should they be ashamed of using a system that they have paid into, all of their working lives, when times are tough and they are in need?
That's the point though -- no one *should have* to live in that kind of poverty, to begin with.
I think the "giving" should start with you. Give all your income (if you have any) to the poor. Be a good example. Again, socialist drivel that doesn't and never will work.
Wow, how horrible for you. That really brought tears to my eyes. I truly cannot imaging losing everything in a fire. I am happy that you weren't injured in the fire.
And I second your statement about the Red Cross, they use way too much of their donations to pay huge salaries and administrative costs!
If that brought tears, you haven't heard the whole story:
I spent the night in the hosptial. for smoke inhalation.
It happened at night, and fortunately because I had a roomate {at his GF's thatt night or he'd have been "toast" as he put it} I kept MY BR door closed!!
I had to crawl out a window and I had nothing on but: underwear and a pair of socks on. I grabbed my winter coat {fortunately on the chair under that window} which lucklily for me had my wallet, checkbook and keys in the pockets! The neighbors weren't home when I banged on the door, I had to walk 2 blocks {in February, New England} in sock and undies to a phone booth at the convenience store nearby...in those days there was no 911 locator I punched "O'...I had to try to tell them where I was and where the fire was and I coudln't breathe!
I spent the rest of the night in the hospital treated for smoke inhalation but was safe. THey gave me hosptial scrubs to go home in.
FORTUNATELY I had a renter's insurance I thought I'd never use. That helped some.
The house? TOTAL LOSS.Along with all my belongings in it too.
BUT still, had NO COMB to comb my hair with the next morning after.
This is an excerpt of what you had claimed, in your earlier post (your words, not mine):
How is a continual or constant diet of fried bologna, potato soup, and powdered milk for years considered healthy and balanced, nutritionally? Bologna is not necessarily junk food per se, but a person could also put forward the legitimate point that bologna is in any event also a highly-processed food, and thus, possibly close to junk-food status as it is? How it "crazy", for me to point out that this kind of meager and limited fare could potentially represent border-line starvation? (Not to mention that another poster I had quoted had mentioned eating a lot of miracle-whip, etc., sometimes wholly without bread?)
The fact that your family *wasn't* provided with a living wage was a failure by society as a whole, to your family. A fair, inflation-adjusted living wage would have only ensured that your family was compensated fairly for the hard work that you yourself had attested that they worked at, while lifting them out of poverty. Why is it considered as "shameful" or "wrong", to ask for what is just, fair, and reasonable (i.e., fair compensation for a family's hard work and labor), in the first place?
Did you ever stop to consider, though, that if your family had been provided with adequate wages to afford more nutritionally-generous food, as compensation for their hard labor, that you and your siblings might have been in better health today -- instead of having to make due with years of eating highly-processed food?
Surely society can afford to be a little bit more generous and compassionate though, on its least well-off citizens? What is so bad about poor- and middle-class Americans getting more of their fair share of the economic pie, every year? I'm not saying that hard work is bad, I'm just saying the fruits of everyone's labors should be more equitably-allocated, and not just weighed heavily in favor of the wealthy?
Admittedly, I have not been to any 3rd-world countries. At the same time, children in first-world countries like Sweden, Norway, and several other European countries have a higher standards of living and are happier overall than are we are here in the U.S., and they have greater social equality and parity between the various economic classes than us as well.
Maybe so, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. The fact that children in other countries are more impoverished than we are here at home isn't a valid excuse, IMO, to encourage or justify inequality and poverty, here in the U.S.
Let me turn that question around: why *should* Americans who are less well-off financially intentionally be deprived of having TVs, not have cars or homes, and not have mobile phones? Why does the fact that they are poor make them inherently undeserving, of any of the above?
If someone has a legitimate need for it, what is so wrong of people making use of government assistance like Social Security, food stamps, etc.? Working people pay into these systems, so why should they be ashamed of using a system that they have paid into, all of their working lives, when times are tough and they are in need?
That's the point though -- no one *should have* to live in that kind of poverty, to begin with.
I didn't spend 18 years of my life on fried baloney and potato soup. My mother made us eat a lettuce salad at every dinner. As my father's salary increased and as my older siblings left home, our lifestyle improved, but in middle school and junior high, our meals were more utilitarian than delicious. We had big meals for holidays, but we didn't have soda or candy, etc. We made cookies using graham crackers and powdered sugar mixed with milk to make the middle. You are way too literal. As for the other poster...when we wanted a snack at night, it would not be unusual to eat a piece of white bread with Worchestershire sauce on it. LOL
My father earned a "living wage" cause we were living. My and my siblings' health is just fine, thanks for your concern. Like I said, our meals were cheap, but well rounded and nutritious.
Our society is very generous. There are countless charitable organizations that provide food pantries, clothing, etc. to the needy, etc. There is no "compassion" in forcing people to give up the fruits of their labor so it can be redistributed to others by a government bureaucracy.
And of course, the government has no right to demand the hard earned money of one person to pay for luxuries of another person. It has nothing to do with whether someone is undeserving or not, it has to do with the fact that luxuries are not an entitlement.
I agree with Benjamin Franklin's viewpoint: “I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
Here is a couple of questions for you:
Should a teacher lower the grade of students who work hard and study and earn A's, and in turn raise the grades of C and D students? Does your answer depend on whether the student was sick the night before the test or whether he was just hanging out with friends and forgot to study?
Do you have the right to take property from your neighbor and give it to someone you think is more needy or more worthy of it. Example: Say you have a neighbor with 5 cars and 2 of them never move. They are always parked in the same spot, so obviously, in your view, your neighbor has more cars than he needs. Now, let's say that you have another neighbor whose car broke down and they can't afford to fix it, so this guy has to ride his bike, walk or find a way to get to work and run errands until he saves enough money to fix his car. Do you have the right to just take one of the 5 cars your neighbor has and just give it to the other neighbor? Because, at the very essence, that is what the government does when it takes the earning of one person and gives to someone else. If you don't think you have the right to do it, why do you think the government should have this right? Why should the government have more rights that the citizens?
SSI is NOT the same thing as other government entitlement programs (at least it is not supposed to be) for the very reason you state. The intent of SSI was for a person to pay into the fund and then upon retirement, receive his own money back in the form of monthly payments. It was basically a forced, government run savings account. Unfortunately, now people who have never paid into SSI receive benefits that others have to fund...which will ultimately result in the bankruptcy of SSI.
If that brought tears, you haven't heard the whole story:
I spent the night in the hosptial. for smoke inhalation.
It happened at night, and fortunately because I had a roomate {at his GF's thatt night or he'd have been "toast" as he put it} I kept MY BR door closed!!
I had to crawl out a window and I had nothing on but: underwear and a pair of socks on. I grabbed my winter coat {fortunately on the chair under that window} which lucklily for me had my wallet, checkbook and keys in the pockets! The neighbors weren't home when I banged on the door, I had to walk 2 blocks {in February, New England} in sock and undies to a phone booth at the convenience store nearby...in those days there was no 911 locator I punched "O'...I had to try to tell them where I was and where the fire was and I coudln't breathe!
I spent the rest of the night in the hospital treated for smoke inhalation but was safe. THey gave me hosptial scrubs to go home in.
FORTUNATELY I had a renter's insurance I thought I'd never use. That helped some.
The house? TOTAL LOSS.Along with all my belongings in it too.
BUT still, had NO COMB to comb my hair with the next morning after.
Yikes! That really is a tragic tale. Having lived in New England, I know what February is like and I can't imagine running next door in socks and underwear, much less two block (and 2 blocks in New England is NOT 2 blocks anywhere else! ;-))
Thank goodness you had renter's insurance, although, that doesn't bring back all those personal items that are irreplaceable!!
Are you single? If so, how much does it cost to rent a room in a house or share rental expenses? Everyone can save money if they are creative in how they spend their money and opt for the choice that keeps the most money in their pocket, even if that means living in a tiny room of a house or driving a $500 K car with 130K miles on it, while saving for a better car, etc.
Right now I am, although that may change soon.
To rent a room would be minimum $350 in crappy areas living in a manufactured home or mobile home up to about $650 to share a house in one of the nice areas.
For $650 I get a my own house with a .25 lot, so I think I'm getting a pretty good deal.
But I had good credit, a steady job that would be hard for me to lose and veteran status for a no down-payment VA loan. Not everyone has that.
Not if you have roommates. Even absent that you are neglecting repairs and opportunity cost and immobility cost. Repair cost must be figured to include your own time if you DIY, you can't say your time is free because it represents a lost opportunity to earn more money by working another job elsewhere.
With a 1% rental vacancy rate, I can rent the house out in heartbeat. It would probably rent for double the mortgage. The slumlord duplex units down the road nearby rent for $900 - and my house compared to that has privacy, a yard and a garage. When I was remodeling it, I turned away at least one person every day who came and asked me if I was fixing it up in order to rent it out & they wanted an application.
After I save some money I actually want to try to buy other properties & get into the landlord business based on this experience.
Repair, maintenance, and taxes are baked into rental rates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
