What budget? Why worry? How do people do it?

[Colleen27]

I am glad that I read the recent posts on this thread. Something very enlightening was posted

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
5. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

So good, I wanted to read it again.

That last one is patently false, though. Wealth multiplies most effectively when divided/spread out, and grows more slowly when concentrated. That's why the economic trends in our society right now are so troubling - because a one household with a 7-figure income doesn't generate as much economic activity as 20 households earning 50K, and as real wealth and income growth become more concentrated at the upper end of the spectrum the rest of us see less and less growth, jobs, and economic benefit.

 

[leahjade]

You're not missing anything. It's the montly "my life is hell because I'm supporting everyone on welfare who are all lazy, fat bumbs" rant.

I can't speak for everyone but I am very blessed by God for all I have, and my husband has worked very hard usually at two jobs to support his family. I saved my salary early in our marriage so I could stay home with my kids when they were small. When they were older I went back to work to help pay for college tuition. We paid off our mortgage in 7 years and put 3 kids to college debt free so I'm certainly not saying "my life is hell because I'm supporting everyone on welfare." However, there is a large group of people in this country who would like to see things changed. The number of people in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has soared to 44.7 million in 2011, up 33% from 2009. There are even radio and billboard ads in our area encouraging senior citizens and new families to sign up. If you don't see anything wrong with that then nothing anyone can say or do
will ever get your head out of the sand.
And before you jump on me saying I'm selfish, our family has ALWAYS given 10% or more of our salary to charity even when our entire family income was below $30,000 a year. Can you honestly say the same thing? But throwing money at problems has never solved anything and continuing generations of families dependent upon the government has never helped anyone.

 

[ilovemk76]

That last one is patently false, though. Wealth multiplies most effectively when divided/spread out, and grows more slowly when concentrated. That's why the economic trends in our society right now are so troubling - because a one household with a 7-figure income doesn't generate as much economic activity as 20 households earning 50K, and as real wealth and income growth become more concentrated at the upper end of the spectrum the rest of us see less and less growth, jobs, and economic benefit.

We have a person on this page, who makes 7 figures. She always rails about how we need to help. Maybe she can enlighten us to how her making that much is better for all those poor. Maybe she could hire some of them rather than feel them from the food bank.

 

[Planogirl]

I can't read all of the replies in this thread. It makes me sad.

I learned a lot from my mother before she died. The biggest and best lesson I ever learned was live your life. It is not productive to be concerned with what goes on in someone elses life or what you perceive it to be. You will never know what their story is...even if they tell you!

I am thankful for the life I have and that is all I need.

I love what you posted. It's not judgmental at all which is refreshing.

 

[Muushka]

That last one is patently false, though. Wealth multiplies most effectively when divided/spread out, and grows more slowly when concentrated. That's why the economic trends in our society right now are so troubling - because a one household with a 7-figure income doesn't generate as much economic activity as 20 households earning 50K, and as real wealth and income growth become more concentrated at the upper end of the spectrum the rest of us see less and less growth, jobs, and economic benefit.

Actually, I believe the way wealth multiplies most effectively is not by spreading it around (where else have I heard that theory?) but by producing something.

Pure capitalism (as opposed to pure Socialism).

 

[Robindianne]

Sorry I really never understand the purpose of these vents. Pretty much they are simply "every body on public assistance is stealing my hard earned cash, while I live in a 2X4 shoebox and ride a 10 year old car"

Do you really worry about the "Joneses" that much? there have always been poor people, there always will be? Do you know all these folks who you say are getting fancy degrees and then not moving to where the jobs are?

you're tired of hearing about them? turn off your tv. stop watching the news. Hang out on the dis boards.

I think it's a bit ironic that you are tired of hearing about them yet you spread the very same information.

So now will have 20 pages of budgeters patting themselves on the back for being master of the universe and whining about how unfair life is.

Do they make you feel better?

 

[Colleen27]

Actually, I believe the way wealth multiplies most effectively is not by spreading it around (where else have I heard that theory?) but by producing something.

Pure capitalism (as opposed to pure Socialism).

No pure -ism works in real life. Pure capitalism offers little for the worker and pure socialism offers little to the entrepreneur; an effective and thriving economy lies in the gray area between pure ideologies, where sensible regulation reins in the extremes of human nature and limits the "externalized costs" of capitalism while allowing the risk-reward mechanism and market forces to continue to function. But we haven't had that in a long time; what we have is sponsored lawmaking where the big players get to write the rules they play by and massive externalized costs that impact us all.

 

[SaraJayne]

Finally someone here who gets it & thinks like me. There are so many times I visit this Budget Board & have to bite my tongue & walk away. I often think it should be called the Spending Board. Its certainly not a board about how to save money. Save as in put it into the bank. Not save as in here is a coupon code to save $1 on something you were not going to buy in the first place or something you really do not need.

SAVE as in pay off all your debt & obligations FIRST. THEN you can go buy the toys & huge trips, while you are still putting money in the bank.

People think we live strangely, but we are 48. I put myself thru college & paid that off early. Paid for our own wedding & honeymoon. Have been debt free & mortgage free for 4 years now. Have a very nice savings & retirement balance. Now down to 1 income by choice. And we take 1 nice trip somewhere each year. Nice but not expensive. Usually somewhere across the country & for 2 wks. I think the smartest move we ever did was buy a townhome instead of a house. We were able to pay it off fast. Friends are still struggling to make their house payments, have car loans, credit card debt & don't do anything fun or go anywhere because they are always broke. And I highly doubt they have much saved if anything. No good as we all are approaching 50. I worry for them. I don't know how they are going to make it into retirement.

This is how I was raised. I know the difference between needs & wants. We aren't wasteful. We don't sign up for duplicate services. We have a budget & know what we are allowed to splurge on & what we shouldn't splurge on. I thank my dad even though I though he was a cheap guy growing up. I GET IT NOW! Thanks dad! You taught me really well.

Only thing different in Dad, a product of the Great Depression, he is wicked tight because he is afraid of spending it & going without again. I bet most of them are. Since I haven't lived that experience, I spend a bit more freely than he does, but I understand the importance of saving. I just don't save every penny & scrap the pan clean & wash out zip lock bags or use 1 ply TP.

You forgot to mention you don't have kids. DH and I would live much better than we already do if we didn't have kids.

 

[Muushka]

No pure -ism works in real life. Pure capitalism offers little for the worker and pure socialism offers little to the entrepreneur; an effective and thriving economy lies in the gray area between pure ideologies, where sensible regulation reins in the extremes of human nature and limits the "externalized costs" of capitalism while allowing the risk-reward mechanism and market forces to continue to function. But we haven't had that in a long time; what we have is sponsored lawmaking where the big players get to write the rules they play by and massive externalized costs that impact us all.

I agree that what we have now is not what pure capitalism is. Government has interfered with the process and indeed, sponsored lawmakers have made for a very unlevel playing field. The government has chosen to not allow certain companies to fail and closed the doors on others. They have taken everyone's tax dollars and pumped them into businesses that they believe should succeed, regardless if they are worthy of these dollars or not. (Green energy comes to mind).

While you are correct that it is not what it should be, at the same time I do not believing taking money (or stealing it, which is what it is) from one to give to another is not the answer. This country needs to produce more, allow the businesses to run unencumbered by useless red tape and everyone will win.

 

[usd2bmd]

Just like there is abuse of the system, there is abuse on the other end. Is it ok that their are people that hide their money in accounts in Switzerland or accounts in that Caymans. How is this different. Because they can afford to pay someone to hide their earnings. If we could all do that what would happen?

 

[pamkev]

It amazes me that we go after the people who lost there jobs and need help cause were sending them overseas or to Mexico and we think nothing of a ceo who makes millions to shut down that company.

 

[leahjade]

We have a person on this page, who makes 7 figures. She always rails about how we need to help. Maybe she can enlighten us to how her making that much is better for all those poor.

I never understood all the jealousy over someone who does well in life. How do you know this person didn't work hard to start a business.l It sounds like she gives back - since when did success become a dirty word in this country? Should she quit her job and live off the government teat to make you happy? Then who will be paying all the taxes to have all your government handouts? That money has to come from somewhere!

 

[Muushka]

since when did success become a dirty word in this country?

Oh I would say it started when politicians needed a platform to run on.

Should she quit her job and live off the government teat to make you happy?

Certainly not. But I fear that people who earn a modest living, pay their taxes and see how it is wasted (NOT BY EVERYONE! SOME PEOPLE NEED ASSISTANCE) would get to the point and think why should they bother to go to work everyday when all they have to do is lose their job and go on public assistance.

Kind of like that experiment that we all heard about when the professor decided to run the class like a socialist laboratory. Averaged out all of the grades so that everyone received the same grade regardless how hard they worked. Eventually some stopped working, didn't see the need.

 

[Muushka]

Just like there is abuse of the system, there is abuse on the other end. Is it ok that their are people that hide their money in accounts in Switzerland or accounts in that Caymans. How is this different. Because they can afford to pay someone to hide their earnings. If we could all do that what would happen?

And similar to blue collar crime I saw at H&R Block. People claiming children that they 'took care of' and ended up getting back lots more than they paid in taxes.

Everything is screwed up with our system. Sadly the honest people, the ones who can't afford a tax attorney and the ones who can't bring themselves to lie on a tax return (I volunteered at a almost homeless placement agency, I saw what people valued their in kind contributions at for tax purposes, unbelievable) are the ones paying the price. We don't have an extra $24,000 to give to our children (if we had any) and take that right off of our salary as a deduction.

Lots of people cheat on their taxes. Lots of people find loopholes. Including the ones who hide it somewhere. It isn't right. I hope these loopholes get addressed IF they ever do tax reform. They wouldn't need to raise rates, just get rid of all of these deductions that people take. That would help!

A consumption tax would be the way to go.

 

[crashbb]

Kind of like that experiment that we all heard about when the professor decided to run the class like a socialist laboratory. Averaged out all of the grades so that everyone received the same grade regardless how hard they worked. Eventually some stopped working, didn't see the need.

You mean the one that likely never actually occurred?

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

 

[Muushka]

You mean the one that likely never actually occurred?

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Oh. Well then that totally negates the concept.

 

[tasha99]

No pure -ism works in real life. Pure capitalism offers little for the worker and pure socialism offers little to the entrepreneur; an effective and thriving economy lies in the gray area between pure ideologies, where sensible regulation reins in the extremes of human nature and limits the "externalized costs" of capitalism while allowing the risk-reward mechanism and market forces to continue to function. But we haven't had that in a long time; what we have is sponsored lawmaking where the big players get to write the rules they play by and massive externalized costs that impact us all.

Want a pure ism for our country? Which would people choose--Dickens' England with huge stratification and poor little chimney sweeps or the USSR? Not that they were completely pure implementations of ideologies, but the further you get to each extreme, the uglier it gets.

 

[crisi]

Oh. Well then that totally negates the concept.

It sort of makes the story less compelling.

I could tell a similar story that actually happened over and over to me.

I would be in groups in college (for me, college wasn't that long ago, I'd done the right out of high school thing, then went back when I was close to 40 to finish). I'd be in a group where I was the A student. There was a student who didn't get it (just no capability) who on his own would get a low C or even a D, someone who was lazy (our F student), and a B student.

Now, if you'd average out A, B, F, and C, you'd get maybe a C, and this story says that over time, you'd do worse than that - yet all my groups got As on their work - even by my senior year, my groups were still getting As. There was never any time in my college career that I said "screw this, I'm willing to accept a C because someone else won't or can't work to my standards." Moreover, often the B and C student would let me know that they learned a lot working with me on my team - they became better, not because I carried them, but because I helped them. During one class, we lifted not only my own team (who really stepped up to follow my example), but because what we were doing was group presentations and our group was scheduled to go first, the entire class was lifted to a different standard. Two years later the professor wrote me - it was the best class he'd ever taught, and he gave our group's presentation credit, and in the peer eval forms, the group gave me credit.

It seems like many of these arguments are "we shouldn't help out the B or C student, because in every set big enough, there is the lazy guy getting an F, who is managing to pass his courses off the hard work done by team projects, some whining to the professor, and a last minute cram session with a tutor provided by the school." Yet, the B and C students really don't deserve to be lumped into the F group - and sometimes, they are B and C students because...well, there was the semester I was the B student on the team because my sister was going through chemo and I was time constrained with more important things and distracted. And we still got an A on the project, because other people on the team stepped up.

My household makes a lot of money - and we pay a lot in taxes. I've never felt like I shouldn't work harder to get a bonus because I'd lose half of it to taxes - I still get half my bonus. I don't know anyone financially successful who does. I do know people who will take the time trade (less money, more time) at a certain point, and have myself - but that's good for our economy, since if the work still needs to be done, you hire someone to do it to free up your time.

 

[leahjade]

A consumption tax would be the way to go

One thing I will agree with you. That way the 151.7 million Americans who paid no income tax in 2009 will have to pay their share. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.

 

[Colleen27]

I agree that what we have now is not what pure capitalism is. Government has interfered with the process and indeed, sponsored lawmakers have made for a very unlevel playing field. The government has chosen to not allow certain companies to fail and closed the doors on others. They have taken everyone's tax dollars and pumped them into businesses that they believe should succeed, regardless if they are worthy of these dollars or not. (Green energy comes to mind).

While you are correct that it is not what it should be, at the same time I do not believing taking money (or stealing it, which is what it is) from one to give to another is not the answer. This country needs to produce more, allow the businesses to run unencumbered by useless red tape and everyone will win.

I don't think the question is one of more or less regulation; that depends on the specifics. I think the question is good regulation vs bad, and that the shift we've seen from production to services and from modest/stable growth to a series of bubbles has everything to do with the acceptance of this Randian mindset that "producers" (even - or especially - those who produce nothing physical but "create wealth" by pushing paper) must be coddled and catered to at all costs. Regulation should protect the public good, not the private profit, but too often these days it accomplishes the latter while attempting to do the former is political suicide.

Certainly not. But I fear that people who earn a modest living, pay their taxes and see how it is wasted (NOT BY EVERYONE! SOME PEOPLE NEED ASSISTANCE) would get to the point and think why should they bother to go to work everyday when all they have to do is lose their job and go on public assistance.

The only people I ever see make this argument are those who have absolutely no idea what kind of standard of living that will get you. It is a worse-than-minimum wage existence, only desirable to those with the intention of cheating the system and those who cannot command more than part-time, minimum wage work for whom it might look like the easier of two unpleasant lifestyles.

Lots of people cheat on their taxes. Lots of people find loopholes. Including the ones who hide it somewhere. It isn't right. I hope these loopholes get addressed IF they ever do tax reform. They wouldn't need to raise rates, just get rid of all of these deductions that people take. That would help!

A consumption tax would be the way to go.

One thing I will agree with you. That way the 151.7 million Americans who paid no income tax in 2009 will have to pay their share. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984.

Taxing people out of being able to make ends meet isn't a solution that benefits anyone. Close the loopholes, sure, but then we need to take a long hard look at why more people are on assistance and fewer people are paying taxes than in our past, and the answer to that lies not in 'personal responsibility' or changes to our national identity but rather in economic changes that have drastically reduced the available opportunities to earn a better lifestyle.