Here we also have really cheap and also free medicines too if you use the public health care. I will suck the system tits forever and ever.
Family of 3 Lives on $20,000 per year
@catanduva
The problem is the Health System they are using is NOT available equally to all citizens.
I can have access to it but only after I have spent every penny I have worked hard to save so I can be FI....in other words be like them....one toothache or blown alternator away from financial disaster and homelessness.
And on a $20,000 income I doubt they pay any taxes other than sales taxes and may even qaulify for the Earned Income Tax Credit which is for all intents and purposes a NEGATIVE income tax...meaning they get back all the taxes they paid in and more.
The problem is the Health System they are using is NOT available equally to all citizens.
I can have access to it but only after I have spent every penny I have worked hard to save so I can be FI....in other words be like them....one toothache or blown alternator away from financial disaster and homelessness.
And on a $20,000 income I doubt they pay any taxes other than sales taxes and may even qaulify for the Earned Income Tax Credit which is for all intents and purposes a NEGATIVE income tax...meaning they get back all the taxes they paid in and more.
Sure, they are imperfect, but I think there is still a lot to be learned from a family like this. They may be collecting some state benefits, but it is clear that they have also gotten very good at frugality and it seems also like they have figured out how to have some things that are very important to them (time with family and a beautiful home). I wouldn't say they are total lifestyle models, but it's clear that there are some things at which they can beat the pants off your average joe, so huzzah to them for that!
@tac
It may be my curmudgeonly miserliness but I don't care how "frugal" they may be or "how nice their home and lifestyle are".
Because they need state benefits and pay no taxes they are FREELOADERS using MY hard work and taxes to live it up.
Unfortunately this is now true for more than 50% of the population.
Now those of us who are FI can't even escape to another country...they passed an "Exit Tax" ('09 I think). In the US now if you want to leave you must pay taxes on all your property as if you sold it and recieved the gains even if you haven't...can't take it with you until they claw a good chunk of it away from you.
Just like Castro did..."OK you can leave but you can't take anything with you...no money, jewelry (even wedding rings), no documents that prove you have an advanced degree" I know people who left Cuba and all Castro allowed them to take was what they were wearing.
It may be my curmudgeonly miserliness but I don't care how "frugal" they may be or "how nice their home and lifestyle are".
Because they need state benefits and pay no taxes they are FREELOADERS using MY hard work and taxes to live it up.
Unfortunately this is now true for more than 50% of the population.
Now those of us who are FI can't even escape to another country...they passed an "Exit Tax" ('09 I think). In the US now if you want to leave you must pay taxes on all your property as if you sold it and recieved the gains even if you haven't...can't take it with you until they claw a good chunk of it away from you.
Just like Castro did..."OK you can leave but you can't take anything with you...no money, jewelry (even wedding rings), no documents that prove you have an advanced degree" I know people who left Cuba and all Castro allowed them to take was what they were wearing.
Jeez, I spend a month away from the forums and come back to such a judgmental thread...
My opinion on this story and this family's philosophy is the same as with anyone else's story: Take what you want and leave the rest.
There are things about their lifestyle I can learn from and feel inspired by, and other parts that I deliberately would choose against. The same is true for what I learned from Jacob's book, what I learned from my parents, peers at work, my wife, my kids, and anyone else. Applying a general pass/fail judgment is the fastest way to stop learning and growing IMHO.
My opinion on this story and this family's philosophy is the same as with anyone else's story: Take what you want and leave the rest.
There are things about their lifestyle I can learn from and feel inspired by, and other parts that I deliberately would choose against. The same is true for what I learned from Jacob's book, what I learned from my parents, peers at work, my wife, my kids, and anyone else. Applying a general pass/fail judgment is the fastest way to stop learning and growing IMHO.
Unfortunately this is now true for more than 50% of the population.
This reminds me of a Ron Paul line. "What do you have to say about the fact that only about 50% of Americans pay income taxes?"
"I'd say it's a good start!"
=============================
Because they need state benefits and pay no taxes they are FREELOADERS using MY hard work and taxes to live it up.
I see this is an inevitable result of industrialization. Giant machinery has made individual workers so productive, we no longer need as many people to produce the stuff we need. The result: Some people will choose to just enjoy the abundant, cheap stuff and live simply; others, who either just love their jobs, or who we can lure into the trap of consumerism, will continue to man the machines.
Taxing the workers to provide for the freeloaders is really just a solution to a distribution problem (how to get all that cheap abundant stuff into people's hands). The elegant thing about this solution is that (able and capable) people get to choose which side they want to be on depending upon which best suits their temperament. And they can switch back and forth between the groups whenever they like.
I mean, it used to be just about everyone was a farmer. Then, in the 19th century in the US about 1 in 10 people were farmers. Today about 1 in 100 are farmers. In another hundred years, with further automation, it might be only 1 in 10,000 people are farmers.
I see "freeloaders" as part of an economic phase change into an economy that just doesn't need as many workers.
This reminds me of a Ron Paul line. "What do you have to say about the fact that only about 50% of Americans pay income taxes?"
"I'd say it's a good start!"
=============================
Because they need state benefits and pay no taxes they are FREELOADERS using MY hard work and taxes to live it up.
I see this is an inevitable result of industrialization. Giant machinery has made individual workers so productive, we no longer need as many people to produce the stuff we need. The result: Some people will choose to just enjoy the abundant, cheap stuff and live simply; others, who either just love their jobs, or who we can lure into the trap of consumerism, will continue to man the machines.
Taxing the workers to provide for the freeloaders is really just a solution to a distribution problem (how to get all that cheap abundant stuff into people's hands). The elegant thing about this solution is that (able and capable) people get to choose which side they want to be on depending upon which best suits their temperament. And they can switch back and forth between the groups whenever they like.
I mean, it used to be just about everyone was a farmer. Then, in the 19th century in the US about 1 in 10 people were farmers. Today about 1 in 100 are farmers. In another hundred years, with further automation, it might be only 1 in 10,000 people are farmers.
I see "freeloaders" as part of an economic phase change into an economy that just doesn't need as many workers.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
@jack14, I don't know, I'm just not that bothered by the use of a public health subsidy. I would guess that in some ways this couple is saving the tax payer money--for example, all that stuff they salvage from the dump is stuff the dump doesn't have to "store" or unload elsewhere. I also got the impression (from the NYT article, the NBC link doesn't go anywhere for me) that they are not planning for this to be their permanent lifestyle--she is taking some time off from teaching to stay home with their son while he is young. I would imagine that once the kid is in kindergarten, she will be rejoining the workforce. The article does mention that they have aspirations of doing things like buying their own home (which will probably require more income than they have now, public health subsidy or not), and it is clear that she does have a history of working.
Ideally, yes, it would be nice if this couple did not take advantage of a subsidy. But, I am much less concerned about individuals taking advantage of a subsidy for a few years (as appears to be the case here) than I am about things like corporations getting massive, permanent subsidies, which cost me (as a taxpayer) a whole helluva lot more.
Ideally, yes, it would be nice if this couple did not take advantage of a subsidy. But, I am much less concerned about individuals taking advantage of a subsidy for a few years (as appears to be the case here) than I am about things like corporations getting massive, permanent subsidies, which cost me (as a taxpayer) a whole helluva lot more.
A public health care system that provides for people so they can get preventative care while they are still in relatively good health tends to be cheaper and place less burden on taxpayers than waiting until they are riddled with cancer and heart disease and stuck in a public hospital until they die with no way to pay the bill. I think it's a sound economic decision to have a functioning and efficient public health care system in place. It's just too bad the one we have is inefficient and borderline non-functional.
Personally, I have no problem subsidizing people who can't earn their own way. Taking care of them is our duty as a civilized society, and people who cannot do for themselves are very welcome to my tax dollars. But I get extremely irritated with people who CAN pull their own weight financially but choose not to. Their choice forces the rest of us to work harder when that would not be our choice at all.
The worst part is, about the only way to opt out of supporting freeloaders is to become one.
The worst part is, about the only way to opt out of supporting freeloaders is to become one.
At the risk of being completely bashed.... I think I will say some things about my own situation. I am the husband in a family of five. For the last several years i have been keeping record of all our cash expenses. We have always been between $10-12,000 for the year. Yes we apparently are one of those families who take food and medical subsidies.... however, in my state they are not tied to assets, just total income... Regardless of that, I'd really like to see some of the morality police in here QUIT their jobs and start taking these benefits and just try to live on so little.
You can scrutinize other people because of little holes, or you can realize that everyone has to find a way. I don't know if in Maine these benefits are tied to assets or not, but just because they get medical does not mean they are 'one incident away' from disaster. I certainly am not.
As for the 'what if everybody started taking benefits' its the same as if everybody did ERE. THE SYSTEM WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. If everybody took benefits, sure it would collapse... and who'd be better off, the one who got the free shit, learning to live of ridiculously small sums of money, or the one who blindly paid away and ignored how the world actually works.
I really feel people need to realize what they are complaining about... you tax dollar is not as simple as person A pays for medical and person B doesn't so person A pays their share too... This is ridiculous, person A might pay .0000005% of person B's cost for state medical... and you might not even say that, since person B still pays sales taxes and the whole spectrum of other taxes. Depending on the actually costs of person B, his tax dollar may still be doing its work.
It may strike a nerve with some of you about people on these programs, but not for me. If you don't think its fair than quit willingly taking jobs that permit the gov. to transfer your wealth to them. The person receiving has a moral choice, sure, but the reality is, the gov, and the taxpayer made the choice to allow it. Get over it. Go find something positive to think about....
You can scrutinize other people because of little holes, or you can realize that everyone has to find a way. I don't know if in Maine these benefits are tied to assets or not, but just because they get medical does not mean they are 'one incident away' from disaster. I certainly am not.
As for the 'what if everybody started taking benefits' its the same as if everybody did ERE. THE SYSTEM WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE. If everybody took benefits, sure it would collapse... and who'd be better off, the one who got the free shit, learning to live of ridiculously small sums of money, or the one who blindly paid away and ignored how the world actually works.
I really feel people need to realize what they are complaining about... you tax dollar is not as simple as person A pays for medical and person B doesn't so person A pays their share too... This is ridiculous, person A might pay .0000005% of person B's cost for state medical... and you might not even say that, since person B still pays sales taxes and the whole spectrum of other taxes. Depending on the actually costs of person B, his tax dollar may still be doing its work.
It may strike a nerve with some of you about people on these programs, but not for me. If you don't think its fair than quit willingly taking jobs that permit the gov. to transfer your wealth to them. The person receiving has a moral choice, sure, but the reality is, the gov, and the taxpayer made the choice to allow it. Get over it. Go find something positive to think about....
Please explain what argument you feel is false. I suppose my post does sound a bit angry. However, it seems its easy for you or anyone else to make a heated post as well. I do feel this makes a good argument in not paying taxes... as long as your doing it legally. The social security thing def. is another issue altogether... people bitch about foodstamps and medicare, but if they only knew what goes on with those collecting SSI, well they might be sick. I have met some who had quite the game going on..
Out of curiosity, have you ever been in a situation that you could have/did accept these benefits? Have you ever filled out the paperwork to apply for them? Do you know many people personally who use them? Or the ways some manipulate them? Many working families qualify for this stuff and don't know it.
I just think that its silly for a person who has a high paying job to complain about this stuff. The laws are what they are, if you don't like it, stop making so much money. It is the strongest way to cast your vote against it.
Out of curiosity, have you ever been in a situation that you could have/did accept these benefits? Have you ever filled out the paperwork to apply for them? Do you know many people personally who use them? Or the ways some manipulate them? Many working families qualify for this stuff and don't know it.
I just think that its silly for a person who has a high paying job to complain about this stuff. The laws are what they are, if you don't like it, stop making so much money. It is the strongest way to cast your vote against it.
-
aussierogue
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:02 pm
Jeffs arguement is that "false arguements" never wins wthe day refers to just because someone else is doing it doesnt mean you should.
I think Jeff is a little of the mark here personally because that is not the crux of the reasoning especially when it relates to the rich avoidning taxes which far outweights the amount of avoidance from lower socioecnomic areas.
Somehow conveineintly ignoring this moral issue does jeffs arguement no good. Jeff is doing what lawyers do. Dont get sidetracked and just state the facts. But this is a socioeconoic and moral issue. Whats good for one (elite) can not then be derided for another (the poor).
Its also a question of efficiency. Sped more time getting money from the big knobs then going after the small guys. Its like the so called war against drugs...we get the mules but the big daddys run free...
Unfortunately the way the world works is that we try and exploit eachother and our institutions for our own benefit. Doesnt mean we should all now lay down our shovels and sit lazilly under the palm trees. But it does call for many of us to drop the "naive" gene and play the system as it plays us.
I think Jeff is a little of the mark here personally because that is not the crux of the reasoning especially when it relates to the rich avoidning taxes which far outweights the amount of avoidance from lower socioecnomic areas.
Somehow conveineintly ignoring this moral issue does jeffs arguement no good. Jeff is doing what lawyers do. Dont get sidetracked and just state the facts. But this is a socioeconoic and moral issue. Whats good for one (elite) can not then be derided for another (the poor).
Its also a question of efficiency. Sped more time getting money from the big knobs then going after the small guys. Its like the so called war against drugs...we get the mules but the big daddys run free...
Unfortunately the way the world works is that we try and exploit eachother and our institutions for our own benefit. Doesnt mean we should all now lay down our shovels and sit lazilly under the palm trees. But it does call for many of us to drop the "naive" gene and play the system as it plays us.
@aussierogue: "Unfortunately the way the world works is that we try and exploit eachother and our institutions for our own benefit. Doesnt mean we should all now lay down our shovels and sit lazilly under the palm trees. But it does call for many of us to drop the "naive" gene and play the system as it plays us."
Yikes! I would describe most human societies as trade-based, tit-for-tat. I would not describe them as exploitative... I think there are some people who are exploitative in every society, but I'm not ready to call everyone connivers just yet.
If we want to boil this down to pure capitalism: as a taxpayer (read: buyer), I don't want to pay for services that I feel are not a good value. I feel confident that no one here does. Providing services for those who cannot do for themselves IS a good buy, generally, but providing services for those who can but choose not to is NOT a good buy. I would not make that purchase myself, and I don't want my government making it for me. Plain and simple.
Do I sit around and get upset over people who IMO claim benefits that were never designed for them? Absolutely not. What a waste of energy that would be. Do I vote for people who want to limit benefits to those who truly need them? Absolutely.
Yikes! I would describe most human societies as trade-based, tit-for-tat. I would not describe them as exploitative... I think there are some people who are exploitative in every society, but I'm not ready to call everyone connivers just yet.
If we want to boil this down to pure capitalism: as a taxpayer (read: buyer), I don't want to pay for services that I feel are not a good value. I feel confident that no one here does. Providing services for those who cannot do for themselves IS a good buy, generally, but providing services for those who can but choose not to is NOT a good buy. I would not make that purchase myself, and I don't want my government making it for me. Plain and simple.
Do I sit around and get upset over people who IMO claim benefits that were never designed for them? Absolutely not. What a waste of energy that would be. Do I vote for people who want to limit benefits to those who truly need them? Absolutely.
@gandk
I think your post brings up a point about all this. The grey area. For example, my state has medical benefits available for families making under $40,000/year. Federal Eic is also cut off just under that. Food stamps in my state is not far behind, around that number is also the cut off point for those. If you get food stamps, you qualify for free/reduced lunch for the kids in school. Typically just having food stamps qualifies many other things, liheap for example.
So, lets say we have a person who is making just under the 40,000 mark for their household, that takes these benefits, but also lives on very little, saving much of their income so they may retire earlier than most. Are you saying its morally wrong for them to take these benefits? I mean, they do qualify... they are just better at saving/not spending than others in their income level. Maybe they should just forget about saving and live like everyone else, just because they qualify? Should they just not take the benefits, thus slowing their savings? What do you all think?
I think your post brings up a point about all this. The grey area. For example, my state has medical benefits available for families making under $40,000/year. Federal Eic is also cut off just under that. Food stamps in my state is not far behind, around that number is also the cut off point for those. If you get food stamps, you qualify for free/reduced lunch for the kids in school. Typically just having food stamps qualifies many other things, liheap for example.
So, lets say we have a person who is making just under the 40,000 mark for their household, that takes these benefits, but also lives on very little, saving much of their income so they may retire earlier than most. Are you saying its morally wrong for them to take these benefits? I mean, they do qualify... they are just better at saving/not spending than others in their income level. Maybe they should just forget about saving and live like everyone else, just because they qualify? Should they just not take the benefits, thus slowing their savings? What do you all think?