![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by eloaf on May 8, 2005, at 1:02:27
Money equals goods and services; without goods and services cash money and not even gold is worth a thing.
The original concept of money cannot change; when you have a good or a service and you would like to give that good or service to another and in return receive "money" which represents the value of the good or service. This is an ancient concept.
Another ancient concept is that of inheritance. however hasnt this concept gotten out of hand? Is this not where all the money is going? The US wants to fix its budget but it looks in all the wrong places for the cash to do it.Why should someone who dosent make their own money be entitled to massive sums of cash through inheritance? Shouldnt they too have to produce a good or preform a serrvice to earn what they spend? Isnt it unfair to allow huge sums of money to be shoveled at people who have done nothing for it? Dosent the imbalance create a economy in which there is less money to pay for the stuff that money actually is (access to goods and services "financial wealth").
Why would someone have so much money that they could pass on hage sums of it after their death. The reason can only be one of two either they worked producing or serving soo much in their life and spent almost nothing or they were overpaied. The fact is that its usually the latter.
Most wealthy people in America are verry overpaied. One persons wealth should be equal to their contribution to humanity. How can it be anything but this? What is the purpose of one person making soo much more money than they can possibly spend in their lifetime?
Where we go wrong first is in the idea that for some people money is free like with inheritance. Where we go wrong second is in how much people get paid for whatever good or service they produce. Some get paid too little some get paid way too much.
We need to get back to basics. Whats wrong with the economy is that the concept of money has become more of a burden that a tool making it necessary for useless "services" and disposable goods. The concept of money is becoming closer and closer to meaningless...
Im curious to hear peoples thoughts criticizims... eloaf
Posted by alexandra_k on May 8, 2005, at 17:42:00
In reply to Money, posted by eloaf on May 8, 2005, at 1:02:27
I have to say that I am a fan of taxing people more the more they earn.
(Which cuts down on the ammount that gets to be hoarded in the first place)
Where do those taxes go?
To ensure that everyone in the country has a reasonable standard of living and access to reasonable housing, education, health, etc etc.
But that seems fairly un-american ;-)
I would rather live in a society where everyone gets their basic needs met without having to resort to guns and drugs and prostitution etc etc.
I suppose you could kind of get them living in certain areas so that the wealthy never have to look at them in the usual course of their lives...
But of course they will come and get you in the end.
Mug you
Steal from you
Hate you
Rape you.Yuk.
Tax isn't theft anyways.
It is in virtue of living in certain countries that the dollar gets its value.IMO government shouldn't just be about enforcing law and order.
It should be about providing services for the welfare of its citizens too.I forget the stats...
Something like 16% of the population control 85% (or maybe its even more than that) of the wealth.
But then we are all wealthy solely in virtue of the country we were born too.
Hmm.
Posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2005, at 18:04:00
In reply to Re: Money » eloaf, posted by alexandra_k on May 8, 2005, at 17:42:00
Okay I posted for him but I don't know what he's talking about. I'm not politically minded. I say those that are able to inherit money are lucky. Someone up their chain must have worked really hard. And one of my issues is that we shouldn't have to pay what we do for medical insurance and drugs. I would prefer a system such as socialized medicine. I think. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2005, at 18:06:20
In reply to Re: Money, posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2005, at 18:04:00
Since my husband can't post since we only have one computer I'm posting this for him. In no way does what he thinks reflect on my thoughts.Phillipa, Here goes. Gold and money can be used for trading, true, however the artifacts that were constructed years ago constructed of gold wouldn't be here if they were constructed with paper. Electricity would not flow effortlessly through paper but gold is one of the best conductors. In my opinion only, I disagree with the rest of your post because that is the premise that has made the USA the most powerful in the World with the best standard of living. This country was based on equal opportunity for all it never says that we are all created equal. If this was true we'd all be the same without variety. As far as taxes I don't like them and oppose the way our money is spent. That is how our government choses to spend the money.The taxes you pay are the dues you pay to live in this country. A flat tax would bring a more simple and fair way to collect taxes. The crooks would lose a lot of business. Greg
Posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2005, at 18:09:57
In reply to Re: Money, posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2005, at 18:06:20
Ha, Ha, Ha,. I forgot to submit his post so he had to retrieve it and post it after mine. I guess it was a "Freudian" slip! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2005, at 1:36:51
In reply to Re: Money, posted by Phillipa on May 8, 2005, at 18:06:20
> made the USA the most powerful in the World with the best standard of living.
Best standard of living??????
Ahem.
For who???
The wealthy???
Been to any ghetto's lately?
Maybe they aren't on your bus route ;-)
Posted by AuntieMel on May 9, 2005, at 13:57:33
In reply to Money, posted by eloaf on May 8, 2005, at 1:02:27
"Why would someone have so much money that they could pass on hage sums of it after their death. The reason can only be one of two either they worked producing or serving soo much in their life and spent almost nothing or they were overpaied. The fact is that its usually the latter."
Fact is that most millionaires in this country got that way by spending much less than they earn.
Try reading "The Millionaire Next Door"
Another interesting bit I heard, but I don't remember where: if all the money in a country were redistributed equally in a fairly short amount of time those who have it now woud have it again and those who don't have any now wouldn't then.
So, while an inheritance might get a person started if they don't do something with it they will lose (spend) it all.
You only need to look at lottery winners for proof of this.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2005, at 15:46:05
In reply to Re: I beg to differ » eloaf, posted by AuntieMel on May 9, 2005, at 13:57:33
> Fact is that most millionaires in this country got that way by spending much less than they earn.
It is easier to spend less than you earn if you earn so much you don't 'need' to spend it all.
Much harder if you only earn enough to meet your basic needs in the first place...
> Another interesting bit I heard, but I don't remember where: if all the money in a country were redistributed equally in a fairly short amount of time those who have it now woud have it again and those who don't have any now wouldn't then.Why? That is important. I don't know that that would be right... Though there is something to the never having had any money so then when you do going banana's idea. Bit like if you have always had too little food then you tend to become a bit of a pig when food is available. The body takes a while to forget its former state of deprivation...
> So, while an inheritance might get a person started if they don't do something with it they will lose (spend) it all.Sure.
> You only need to look at lottery winners for proof of this.Sure.
I think the issue is bigger than merely inheritance.
But I do think redistribution is in order.Do you think there should be free access to healthcare, education, reasonable food and housing etc?
Would you be prepared to pay more tax so that that could happen?
Why is it so many people say 'yes' to the first question and 'no' to the second.
Sorry peoples but I simply do not believe that the 'average' standard of living is higher in the US than anywhere else in the world! No offence, but the very idea is laughable!!!
What happens if you are out of a job?
How many weeks or months do you qualify for assistance?
Then what happens to you?
Bit of a bugger if you don't have family to support you, huh.In NZ you are entitled to the dole for as long as you are unable to find work.
Forever if you need it forever.
You can get the sickness benefit forever if you need to.But NZ isn't perfect.
But nobody starves in NZ.
Nobody can say they can't afford to live or to eat.
There is a small number of street kids.
They CHOOSE to live there.
There are other options but they choose to be there.
IMO they need to send a psychologist or youth worker to 'hang' with them...
But anyways.There are a couple of countries...
Norway?
Switzerland?
They have the best standard of living for everyone in the world.
(Sorry to disillusion you peoples).
They have the best welfare benefits in the world.
The best maternity leave
The most respect for children
(You can't hit a child just like you can't hit an adult).
Posted by gromit on May 9, 2005, at 19:39:34
In reply to Re: I beg to differ » eloaf, posted by AuntieMel on May 9, 2005, at 13:57:33
> Another interesting bit I heard, but I don't remember where: if all the money in a country were redistributed equally in a fairly short amount of time those who have it now woud have it again and those who don't have any now wouldn't then.
I don't think you're right but I am willing to be proven wrong. If anyone has a large sum of money they would like to give me please send a babble mail so we can discuss the details of the experiment.
> You only need to look at lottery winners for proof of this.Hehe, a while ago I saw a special on lottery winners who are now in debt or bankrupt. There was one woman who had won over 100 million and insisted it was the worst thing that ever happened to her. I can't understand how you could throw away so much money! Buy a nice house, cars, take some trips, but save like 20 million and no matter what don't spend it, live off part of the earnings and watch it grow. It's not rocket science. Then maybe you can QUIETLY do some nice things for your community.
I think the original point was good, some changes would be good for the world. Having huge amounts of money in one family over time leads to de-evolution, loss of ambition and ultimately Paris Hilton, or worse.
If you're working class you should be able to inherit the house your parents maybe fought their whole lives to pay for, free and clear. Enough to make a start sure, but beyond a certain amount take it all and give it to the schools, scholarships, research, medical care for those who can't afford it. Something to make this a better place instead of million dollar parties and private jets.
My prediction: this will happen 2 days after hell freezes over.
Rick
Posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2005, at 22:33:48
In reply to Re: I beg to differ, posted by gromit on May 9, 2005, at 19:39:34
It seems to be part of American ideology or whatever that people are wealthy because they have deserved it somehow. And people are poor because they deserve it somehow too.
The idea that everyone is on a level playing field to start with. That everyone has equal opportunities and then it is completely up to you what you 'choose' to do with your life. If you 'choose' to work hard then you will earn money. If you 'choose' to be a slacker then you will not. Why on earth should those with money help those without? They chose to slack around and they deserve what they get.
That seems to be the general idea.
But the playing field is not level.
As an example...
It isn't enough to simply free the slaves and then say 'they are free now - the playing field has been leveled' and then let them 'fend for themselves' and expect them to be able to compete fairly with people who do not have that background.
Oh no, it is not.
Not just because of continuing racisism etc which continues to shackle them but because in the race of life they were shackled from the starting line. It isn't enough to simply remove the shackles and expect them to catch up with their competitors who were never shackled.
To thieve someone or others shackled runner analogy which they use as an argument for affirmative action.
We do not choose who we are born to.
It isn't our fault if we are born into nothing
And it isn't because we are deserving that we are born into money.If money was solely a function of whether people were deserving or not then you would expect some people to 'climb the ranks' and other people to 'fall through the ranks'.
But what makes it most likely that you will get an education?
The fact that your parents did.
What makes it most likely that you will have money?
The fact that your parents did.
What makes it most likely that you will marry into money?
The fact that one of your parents did.
What makes it most likely that you will get a high paying job?
The fact that at least one of your parents did.Thats not because ones deserving is inherited.
Its because some people have an advantage from birth.
And other people have a disadvantage from birth.
The playing field isn't level peoples.IMO
Saying people are poor 'cause they 'choose' to be is just a way of justifying not having to worry about them.To say they deserve it because the playing field is level is simply false.
The playing field is not level.
And that is not fair.
I think it was Robert Nozick... Something about Anarchy, the State, and Utopia who wrote about this idea:
Imagine that somehow or other you are able to contemplate the world from a completely objective viewpoint.
Lets simplify... Just consider America. Consider all the people living there and imagine some people with money and some people without. Some people working good jobs, and some slogging their guts out for sh*t pay.
Now the point of the 'objective viewpoint' is that you have to develop a policy.
Should you let the rich keep their inheritance?
Should welfare be available?
Healthcare?
Should education be available for all?
Should people pay more tax to make such things feasible?The point of the 'objective view' is that you have to decide the policy. You have to decide all this WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF WHO YOU ARE.
You will have to go back and live in the country.
But you don't know whether you will be rich or poor.Now decide whether high taxes for the wealthy are worth it for the benefits of the improvement in the quality of life for the poor.
If you may be one of the rich...
But you may be one of the poor...But then if you get what you deserve maybe it won't matter if you end up with nothing. No welfare. No education. I mean if you get what you deserve, you will be able to climb your own way up - right?
Personally.
I'd rather things be levelled.
Sure you want to have more for working than you get for not working.
But either way you want enough to be able to have an education. To be able to eat healthily. To have medical care available to you.But even then...
Even then...
The playing field isn't level.
Not by a long shot.
Posted by eloaf on May 10, 2005, at 11:21:11
In reply to Re: I beg to differ, posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2005, at 22:33:48
But what makes it most likely that you will get an education?
The fact that your parents did.
What makes it most likely that you will have money?
The fact that your parents did.
What makes it most likely that you will marry into money?
The fact that one of your parents did.
What makes it most likely that you will get a high paying job?
The fact that at least one of your parents did.Thats not because ones deserving is inherited.
Its because some people have an advantage from birth.
And other people have a disadvantage from birth.
The playing field isn't level peoples.Yeah, and what kills me is we are all individuals; not attatched to our parents and we do all deserve equal chances especially from the beginning of our lives.
If you look at a human lfe as having a certain amount of energy from begining to end of life; if someone starts with massive obsticals in front of them then they can try as hard as someone who started of better than them and nver even come close to the same amount of success.
Also, whats this crap about wanting to work but not being able to because there is too much job competition, or not enough jobs.
Searching and competing for jobs... What a bunch of wasted effort. And the stupid thing is that the job market is set up to be this way. Why not if you want to work, you can work.
More people working = more goods and services; more goods and services = more access to goods and services for the whole = richer country.
I know alot of really educated folks that are either working no-where jobs or cant get work at all because there isnt enough jobs or the jobs in their field dont exist.
Hey all you guys in the White House whats the problem with job creation. Why is this such a problem? Dose not more jobs mean more wealth for the country?Also if there is a big problem with overly educated folks these days not getting jobs in their fields these days maybe its because jobs in those specific fields dont exist. Its like some future sci-fi script of something. We got people with some crazy exalted degrees for these futureistic jobs that just dont exist. Why dosent the job market and the education system comunicate a little better and either create the jobs that the people being educated are being educated for or only educate people or the jobs they know are going to be out there??
Id say the biggest problem is with the basic principals America has decided define itself by financially. We need a recap guys. eloaf
Posted by AuntieMel on May 10, 2005, at 13:13:00
In reply to Re: I beg to differ » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 9, 2005, at 15:46:05
I understand your points, but .....
>>>It is easier to spend less than you earn if you earn so much you don't 'need' to spend it all.
>>>Much harder if you only earn enough to meet your basic needs in the first place...
That was exactly the point. Most of the people that manage to amass a million don't make any more than those that don't. 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.
>>>>Though there is something to the never having had any money so then when you do going banana's idea. Bit like if you have always had too little food then you tend to become a bit of a pig when food is available. The body takes a while to forget its former state of deprivation...
Or maybe it takes a state of mind that spending all you have is a bad thing.
>>>>But I do think redistribution is in order.
I wish they had done that 15-20 years ago!
>>>>Do you think there should be free access to healthcare, education, reasonable food and housing etc?
>>>>Would you be prepared to pay more tax so that that could happen?
The second part of your question answers the first one - nothing is free. But yes, I would pay more in taxes to increase access to education and healthcare. Free food and housing is a maybe.
>>>>What happens if you are out of a job?
>>>>How many weeks or months do you qualify for assistance?
>>>>Then what happens to you?In the state where I live (one of the least out-of-work friendly ones) you get 6 months of a pittance for unemployment.
What happens is you find a way to survive. Hubby and I *both* lost jobs in the '86 downturn of the oil biz - along with hundred of thousands of other people (and the jobs are still shrinking. last count 1.1 million jobs lost in the industry)
But we made it somehow. Renegotiated the mortgate, took what work we cound find, etc, until we got something more reasonable. Thankfully because of our 'always put something away' thinking we did have some savings and no debt besides the house.
>>>>They have the best standard of living for everyone in the world.
>>>>(Sorry to disillusion you peoples).
>>>>They have the best welfare benefits in the world.I, myself, don't equate best welfare with best standard of living. I think we could use more welfare, but it should be geared towards re-education.
You are right >>> the playing field is not level. But I'm not sure the rest of your argument is true. Or maybe it's statistically true, but ....
>>>But what makes it most likely that you will get an education?
>>>The fact that your parents did.My father went to a couple of years of college and didn't do well so he dropped out. He spent the rest of his life in chemical plants. My mother started nursing school but quit when she got married.
>>>What makes it most likely that you will have money?
>>>The fact that your parents did.My father was a lousy money manager. He never asked how much something cost, just how much the payment was. While he made a "decent" lower middle/middle class income we had no extra cash. I made all my own clothes for school and bought used jeans for $2.00. No money for college.
>>>What makes it most likely that you will get a high paying job?
>>>The fact that at least one of your parents did.Neither of my parents made much money. I was ashamed to have friends over - no curtains, no rugs, etc. The only decorative items were given to us. Neither took pride in the exterior of the house - if anything got weeded or planted I was the one doing it.
So - sure the playing field doesn't start out level.
But...
I got married young to get out of my miserable surroundings - and got divorsed not too long after. At that point I:
1) Went to the local (25 miles away) community college to get a technical degree. I was so poor I qualified for every government grant, loan, workstudy that was out there. In addition to that I worked three part time jobs (at the same time!) and took care of my son.
When I finished that bit (in the 2 years it's supposed to take) I had enough training to get me a job in the 'big city.' So I packed up and moved and enrolled in night school. I was lucky - my job was early (I got out at 3:30) and I could arrange my 10-12 semester hours of school to only take 2 days a week so I still had plenty of time to spend with the munchkin.
Five years of night school and the downturn hit and I was made redundant. Somehow I managed to get back to school - making money tutoring on campus. Then my old job wanted me back, so I went there part time which eased up the cash flow. Meanwhile hubby got a new job - but it paid commission so that was impossible to count on.
So, yes the playing field isn't level. But I wouldn't trade those years of struggle for the dole for anything.
And one more thing:
>>>>Not just because of continuing racisism etc which continues to shackle them but because in the race of life they were shackled from the starting line. It isn't enough to simply remove the shackles and expect them to catch up with their competitors who were never shackled.
I read last week that over 75% of black Americans have middle class or better incomes. I'm just guessing, but I think it would probably be about the same percentage of whites.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 10, 2005, at 23:55:24
In reply to Re: I beg to differ » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 10, 2005, at 13:13:00
> That was exactly the point. Most of the people that manage to amass a million don't make any more than those that don't.
Yeah. There is something to the notion of saving and learning the value of a dollar with respect to saving.
>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.
> >>>>Do you think there should be free access to healthcare, education, reasonable food and housing etc?
> >>>>Would you be prepared to pay more tax so that that could happen?
> The second part of your question answers the first one - nothing is free.Okay. Tax the rich so the poor get free access to health care etc etc. The poor get something for free.
>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.
> >>>>What happens if you are out of a job?
> >>>>How many weeks or months do you qualify for assistance?
> >>>>Then what happens to you?
> In the state where I live (one of the least out-of-work friendly ones) you get 6 months of a pittance for unemployment.Sh*t.
> What happens is you find a way to survive.Or not...
>Hubby and I *both* lost jobs in the '86 downturn of the oil biz - along with hundred of thousands of other people (and the jobs are still shrinking. last count 1.1 million jobs lost in the industry)
> But we made it somehow. Renegotiated the mortgate, took what work we cound find, etc, until we got something more reasonable. Thankfully because of our 'always put something away' thinking we did have some savings and no debt besides the house.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?
> 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 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 ;-)
> >>>But what makes it most likely that you will get an education?
> >>>The fact that your parents did.> My father went to a couple of years of college and didn't do well so he dropped out. He spent the rest of his life in chemical plants. My mother started nursing school but quit when she got married.
My mother started nursing school too, but quit (as she was expected to do) when she got married too :-)
My father was a builder.But I beat the stats :-)
> >>>What makes it most likely that you will have money?
> >>>The fact that your parents did.
> My father was a lousy money manager. He never asked how much something cost, just how much the payment was. While he made a "decent" lower middle/middle class income we had no extra cash. I made all my own clothes for school and bought used jeans for $2.00. No money for college.My father walked when I was 7.
My mother went on welfare.
We didn't receive financial support from him.
The way that works over here is that he pays the govt. a certain amount. And the govt. pays my mother a benefit.
Till I was 14 and I was taken out of her care and put in a social welfare home.
Thats govt. assistance again.
> >>>What makes it most likely that you will get a high paying job?
> >>>The fact that at least one of your parents did.
> Neither of my parents made much money. I was ashamed to have friends over - no curtains, no rugs, etc. The only decorative items were given to us. Neither took pride in the exterior of the house - if anything got weeded or planted I was the one doing it.
> So - sure the playing field doesn't start out level.
> But...> I got married young to get out of my miserable surroundings - and got divorsed not too long after.
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.
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 :-)
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.
When you die the debt is wiped.I have never been married.
At that point I:
>
> 1) Went to the local (25 miles away) community college to get a technical degree. I was so poor I qualified for every government grant, loan, workstudy that was out there. In addition to that I worked three part time jobs (at the same time!) and took care of my son.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.
> When I finished that bit (in the 2 years it's supposed to take) I had enough training to get me a job in the 'big city.' So I packed up and moved and enrolled in night school. I was lucky - my job was early (I got out at 3:30) and I could arrange my 10-12 semester hours of school to only take 2 days a week so I still had plenty of time to spend with the munchkin.> Five years of night school and the downturn hit and I was made redundant. Somehow I managed to get back to school - making money tutoring on campus. Then my old job wanted me back, so I went there part time which eased up the cash flow. Meanwhile hubby got a new job - but it paid commission so that was impossible to count on.
> 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?
> And one more thing:
> >>>>Not just because of continuing racisism etc which continues to shackle them but because in the race of life they were shackled from the starting line. It isn't enough to simply remove the shackles and expect them to catch up with their competitors who were never shackled.
> I read last week that over 75% of black Americans have middle class or better incomes. I'm just guessing, but I think it would probably be about the same percentage of whites.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?
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.
Thats whats concerning.
Those at the top are really really really at the top.
But those at the bottom...
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.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.IMO
Here we have a caring society.
But yeah... Their anscestors were the vikings... They ran around stealing everyone elses gold so the countries are fairly well off. But even if the country is well off the ideology of the country has a lot to do with what the govt. is going to do with that money and what its priorities are...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.
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.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 12, 2005, at 4:48:05
In reply to Re: I beg to differ » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 11, 2005, at 15:42:23
Sorry - I'm not ignoring you.
I'm thinking about what you have said.
:-)
I'll get there...
Just a bit busy at the mo.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 21:39:55
In reply to Re: I beg to differ » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 11, 2005, at 15:42:23
> Free food and housing for means getting it forever and having to do nothing in return.
Ah.
I guess I think people have a right to have their basic needs met.
I don't believe you have to earn those rights.
> 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.Yeah. I'm sure there are other 'reasons' one can appeal to... Besides which, whats the person going to do??? Hire themselves a lawyer???
> Providing more free clinics would actually save the taxpayers money.
Well... Theres a reason to do it then ;-)
> 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.I see.
So if someone isn't working then it is their own fault.
They are too proud.
Or they are too lazy.
> I know it's not true in some of the older, more compact cities with tenements,Yup.
>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.
But is that what the poorest person has or is that what the poorest person with a house has. If you get what I mean.
> We have that, too. In fact, these days money should never be a reason not to go to college.So what would have happened to me?
Home, I suppose.
Would I have had to stay there till 18?
Till the end of school?
At which point I could get the loan thingie going and go to uni???The hardest thing... The hardest thing... Is to believe one can do school when people have a tendancy to tell you what a stupid lazy sack of sh*t you are all the time. About how you are never going to make it anyway.
It is too easy, it is natural, to just believe it. To not even try.
>They assume you will pay it back after graduation, but it is possible to make a point of low earnings.Heh heh. Like me. I'll be lucky to get a job with my PhD. Well... Pumping gas or cleaning toilets will always be an option I suppose...
> 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.
Ah.
Services deemed worthy.
> 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... When I was too sick to do varsity I'd have to do an 'education program'???
> Probably in one of the blue states. They tend to have higher taxes and more social programs.I guess I'd have to hope that I was.
Otherwise I would be in the sh*t...
> But I seriously doubt if you would starve, no matter what state you lived in. I've never heard of anyone starving here.No.
I do believe I'd steal before I'd starve.
I think most people would.
And there is too much food in the US for people to starve...
> Contrary to popular belief, we're not really heartless. [grin]I don't think Americans (as individual people) are more or less heartless than individual people from most other countries.
But I also believe that there does tend to be a fairly general ignorance about this..
The people who are poor aren't 'in your faces'.
Because they can't afford to be.
People turn to crime
Prostitution
and guns first...Thats where I'd be in America.
Drug dealing.
I'm fairly sure of that.
> There is a pretty large gap between middle class and poverty. Lots of room for most of that 25%.Hmm. And 25% is one quarter. One quarter of American residents. Thats quite a few...
> 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.Under the table work. Thats what its called over here. Prostitution used to be under the table. Not anymore. Drug dealing is. Guns tend to be. House cleaning is typically. You just ask 'will you be requiring my IRD (tax) number' to see whether it is under the table work or not. So I imagine that some of those 25% have to be doing under the table work in order to live. And I imagine some of those who aren't in the 25% are also doing this...
There is also the point that tax 'avoidance' is illegal. Tax 'evadance' on the other hand is not. You just need yourself a smart tax lawyer to tell you how to do this... Thats not seen as 'going around the system' but IMO it is a way for the wealthy... The very very very wealthy to (in effect) not pay (as much) in taxes. Who do you think benefits from these things the most? The low 25% doing under the table work in order to 'make a pretty decent living' or the rich who manage to evade their taxes?
> 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.Or maybe they are the best stats.
Maybe it is the nuclear family who has the best median income stats.
Probably two of them ARE working. So that makes it look better than it would if they considered families with 6 children. Or solo parents with 2 children. Or a single person even.> 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.
Sorry... How does millions or is it billions of dollars in their bank accounts provide thousands of jobs???? Isn't that more to do with the worth of the company or corporation or whatever it is? How much profit they make as an individual doesn't bear on that.
> 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.
We let in a certain number of refugees each year.
Refugees go straight on welfare.
Need to do English Language courses, typically.
Need social workers to assist them with supermarkets, bills, telephones, cars, all the intricacies of life in a developed country.
Need psychologists to assist them with culture shock and PTSD.We do a little bit.
Yeah, you need to make sure the country doesn't go broke.
But those refugees have kids
and their kids have kids
And in a couple generations you just have more Kiwi's.
:-)
> It sounds good on paper, I guess. But where is the incentive to work?Oh.
So paid work is the measure of contribution to society
And contribution to society (via paid work) is what gives one the right to food and shelter???Where is the incentive to work???
Believe it or not one is still a bit better off working.
Believe it or not some people derive satisfaction from a job well done.
In other words, work ain't that bad.
Most people like to feel productive.
Like to feel that they are doing something worthwhile.If people don't get this (if people don't want to work)
Then why not?
Why not?
IMO something may be going wrong there and they need HELP and EDUCATION not condemnation and being left to steal or starve.
> 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.Ok.
> 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.Right. Then I suppose there is an incentive to either (a) develop the land in some way so as to be doing something productive (ie money earning) with it. Or to (b) sell at least part of it to let someone else do the same.
Not just to sit on it...
> But even the poor can become rich if they work and manage money properly.The poor tend to be the poor because they are not working.
Or because their outgoings take up what they do earn.
It is easier to think of saving money when it comes to just worrying about you.
When there are kids, well... That makes things harder.
Sure, most people (though not typically the poorest people) can save.I do have the feeling that you are talking more what I would consider middle class and how they might be able to become rich.
Whereas I am talking about poor people and how they might be able to have a middle class life.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 2, 2005, at 16:22:09
In reply to Re: I beg to differ, posted by alexandra_k on May 14, 2005, at 21:39:55
(((Alexandra)))
For putting those points out so clearly. I felt you were speaking for me. There is no way I could get involved in a discussion like that, as a person once gainfully employed it hits way too close to home. And hurts.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2005, at 5:24:16
In reply to Thank you Alexandra, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 2, 2005, at 16:22:09
:-)
As a person who probably will never be gainfully employed it hurts me too...
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.