Posted by AuntieMel on May 11, 2005, at 15:42:23
In reply to Re: I beg to differ » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 10, 2005, at 23:55:24
> >No matter how tight things are, I believe that anyone can make do on 5% to 10% less - and save the rest. Putting away that little bit regularly has to be a top priority.
>
> Anyone earning more than 5-10% more than what they need to meet their basic needs can save that money, sure.
>I will grant that there are some folks in extreme poverty that would find it hard to do. But think about it - how hard is it really to do that?
It's a mind set. And rigid discipline.
Take a month and write down everything you spend. Look at it at the end of the month and ask yourself - did I NEED that? Did I really need that pack of gum, that smoke, that cd, that magazine? Did I really need to take that bus, or could I have walked it? I bet you could find 5-10% there that wouldn't diminish your quality of living.
>
> >But yes, I would pay more in taxes to increase access to education and healthcare. Free food and housing is a maybe.
>
> Hmm. That sounds a bit back to front to me. I would have thought food and housing would be considered to be more 'basic' needs.
>Obviously while a person is getting skills he also needs to eat. To me that's not free food and housing. Free food and housing for means getting it forever and having to do nothing in return.
As for healthcare - at least in the state I live (and I think the entire country) - in it is illegal for public hospitals to turn people away for lack of funds. And the best hospitals in my city - with the best trama units, cancer care, cardiac care, women's care, children's care - are all public.
Providing more free clinics would actually save the taxpayers money.
>
> Wow. But what if you can't actually get a job in the first place? If you have no mortgage to renegotiate? If you haven't even made any earnings that you hopefully managed to save a little of?
>
> Then what happens to you?
>There is always a job of some sort. Some people just can't put away their pride and accept a lesser job than they think they should have.
If I needed to eat, I'd pump gas, bag groceries, clean toilets - anything to bring in money.
I've always believed there is no such thing as a bad job.
> > I, myself, don't equate best welfare with best standard of living.
>
> Fair point. It is hard to figure out how to cash out 'best standard of living'. I guess what I think of when I consider the best standard of living is the people who live with the worst standard of living. That is the 'worst case scenario' for living in that country, if you like. When I consider that situation, well, that is pretty much my situation so that is probably why I like to imagine it that way. To put myself, my childhood in different places round the world and figure out where I would have been best off.
>I know it's not true in some of the older, more compact cities with tenements, but in most of the country even the poorest person has some type of small house, either owned or rented. They look like little shacks, but they have their own bathroom and a bit of land around, so there is room for the kiddies to run - and room for vegie gardens.
> >I think we could use more welfare, but it should be geared towards re-education.
>
> And if people starve or freeze first then there are less to re-educate ;-)see answer above.
> Till I was 14 and I was taken out of her care and put in a social welfare home.
> Thats govt. assistance again.That would only happen here if the mother was proven unfit.
> Yeah. I guess you have to marry unless you have money or unless your parents do... Or unless you manage to pull a good job for yourself.Or know more about the world than I did at that age. It turns out there were plenty of other options that I didn't know of.
But that was a time when it was still new for women to go to college (or at least coed ones) and in the small town I was stuck in marriage at that age was more common than not.
>
> Left the home at 16
> (Basically an adult in NZ)
> I stayed in school.
> Independent Youth Benefit.
> Thats welfare again.
> Went from there to university.
> Student allowance.
> Welfare again.
> We can borrow the full cost of tuition
> Money for books and stationary
> And enough money to scrape by
> (If we don't qualify for a benefit)
> Off the government.
> You get a big student loan.
> But if you make the minimum repayments forever it ain't too bad. Just think of it as another form of taxation :-)We have that, too. In fact, these days money should never be a reason not to go to college.
We don't qualify for *subsidized* loans, but for my daughter we got the unsubsidized ones. {cash flow reasons...} They're still at a really low interest rate, but the interest is either paid as you go or adds to the loan. The amount is enough to pay for school, books, fees and living.
> Everyone can study in NZ.
> Everyone qualifies for a loan.
> You don't have to make repayments until you earn over the threshold. Then they take x amount of cents out of every dollar you earn above the threshold.Same here - if you qualify for the unsubsidized ones. They assume you will pay it back after graduation, but it is possible to make a point of low earnings.
And if you teach or practice any medicine (doctor, nurse) in high need areas you loan can be at least partially forgiven. Same if you join the Peace Corp, or the national guard, or some volunteer service.
> When you die the debt is wiped.
>here too, or if you're 100% disabled.
>
> I can't even manage to study sometimes. Have had to have time off.
> Sickness Benefit.
> Government again.
> I can do a bit of work while I'm studying - but not too much
> Otherwise I end up getting sick again.
> And I have to go back on the sickness benefit.
>I don't know what they are right now, but we have education programs for people with disabilities. Mental illness is considered a disability.
> > So, yes the playing field isn't level. But I wouldn't trade those years of struggle for the dole for anything.
>
> Hmm.
> I don't know that I would trade my years of welfare for US residency ;-)
> Where would I be in america?
>Probably in one of the blue states. They tend to have higher taxes and more social programs.
But I seriously doubt if you would starve, no matter what state you lived in. I've never heard of anyone starving here.
Ok - serious. If you were an American and a student you would first fill out a FAFSA. That determines the amount of federal aid you would get. If you qualified, based on income, you would first get a grant (approx 3000./yr), then a subsidized loan, subsidized WorkStudy (where you work part time on campus) if you could handle it, and so on until the amount is reached for you to have room/board/tuition/books and a bit of free money. The amount you would get varies by school.
Contrary to popular belief, we're not really heartless. [grin]
> > And one more thing:
>> Interesting. Lets assume the latter. Then what interests me the most is what that other 25% are up to.
>
> Just how much poorer are those poorest people?
>There is a pretty large gap between middle class and poverty. Lots of room for most of that 25%.
It also depends on how you count income. Some of that 25% is doing things "off the books" meaning unreported. Restaraunt workers get tips that aren't counted - even yard workers and house cleaners often work off the books. And they can make a pretty decent living.
> It is the highs and lows that concern me the most. You can have the very very very very insanely rich. If you factor in their billions into the 'average income' equation then I suppose they make a fair few people who earn NOTHING look like they are 'upper middle' class.
>Right. Median income is a better number to use. The median income here varies by state, but the overall figure for a family of 4 is roughly 65K.
hmmmmm. I wonder why they say 4? Two of them probably aren't working.
But - on redistribution - the Hiltons and Gates of the world do also provide thousands of jobs. I wonder how big a mess it would make if that were to be redistributed.
>Consider the lives of the people near the bottom. People from all sorts of different developed countries. Would these people be better off in America??? No. I would say that for them the USA would be about the worst developed place in the world that they could possibly find themselves in.
I'm assuming you are talking about people from third world countries? I wonder how many countries with high welfare would even consider letting them in.
>With respect to Norway and Sweden...
>Most working families (and most of them are) have 2 cars. Comfortable homes. I think it is something like 2 years pre / post natal leave from work. Maybe something like 3 wks holiday entitlement which they HAVE to take every year.
>The highest taxes in the world.
>But look where that money goes...
>Education
>Health
>Welfare.It sounds good on paper, I guess. But where is the incentive to work?
Our company has an office in Norway. The guy in the office next to mine was thinking of going over there for a couple of years. Then he found out that over there it's your *assets* that get taxed, not your income.
His wife has some acreage that had been in the family for years. It's just land. But it's assessed to be worth a fair chunk of money. There is no way he could pay the Norwegian taxes on it.
>
> And political campaigns are expensive...
> I guess you need the big business to support that to make that feasible...
> But then you probably need to get their approval on your policies...
> And the rich get richer.
>
>But even the poor can become rich if they work and manage money properly.
poster:AuntieMel
thread:495094
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050509/msgs/496503.html