quote:A student group at Roger Williams University is offering a new scholarship for which only white students are eligible, a move they say is designed to protest affirmative action.
The application for the $250 award requires an essay on "why you are proud of your white heritage" and a recent picture to "confirm whiteness."
I'm opposed to the idea of racially discriminatory affirmative action programs at schools, so I don't think I can condone this. However, if such programs are going to exist, it's at least nice to see this school is willing to unfairly discriminate more equally. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
*shrug*
If you're going to give money away in a scholarship you can set whatever requirements you want. If I wanted to set up "Bob's Big Boob Bursary" and give it to the up-and-coming woman who I felt was best endowed I would be within my rights to so.
I see no problem with it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't think tacky is illegal, nor should it be. Just ... sniffed at with the proper mix of astonishment and ewww!-cat-pee face.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If you're going to give money away in a scholarship you can set whatever requirements you want.
I am in total agreement with this statement. The problem is that the government is giving away other people's wealth, as it has none of it's own. So will we allow it to promote racial, gender, or wealth based favoritism?
(edit) This case just points out how the government acts to those who refuse to see it. Those students are protesting government racism, by showing people what it truly is.
[ February 16, 2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
YES! A scholarship I qualify for!
*runs off to apply*
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
White-only scholarships are hardly new. Heck, I've even seen scholarships that were limited to Anglo-Saxons. Like Tresopax said, I don't like rewards for ethnicity, but as long as they exist, I think they should exist for everyone.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The idea behind ethnically centered endowments is that non-white students have not had as much opportunity academically, and thus merit more assistance.
I have no problem with my taxes being used to support scholarships that my children (and myself) will never be able to qualify for.
CAVEAT: As long as those scholarships are regulated strictly and honestly.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I have no problem with my taxes being used to support scholarships that my children (and myself) will never be able to qualify for.
Do you have a problem with those who do not wish to support such racism not supporting it? Is it okay to use the force of government to take wealth from one group, and give it to another, based on a majority vote?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
But Robespierre, that's what my money goes to:
-public school funding even though I never attended a public school. -social security, even though I may not live to see it. -roads in places I never drive -activities for children younger than me etc
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> The problem is that the government is giving away other people's wealth, as it has none of it's own. <<
You know, the government does foster an environment in which people can generate wealth. Without government, I have a hard time believing that most people could generate any wealth. So I don't view taxation as "the government taking part of my paycheque," because I never considered those tax dollars mine to start with.
I think a lot of people would feel much better about taxes if they thought about it that way.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
"but you could access those things if you wanted to" as the retort may be.
okay. given time I'm sure I could trounce up a half dozen other benefits that the government gives people that would never apply to me. However, that alone does not mean that the government should not be giving those benefits.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I think a lot of people would feel much better about taxes if they thought about it that way.
That is likely to be correct. However, in the USA, we have a constitution that forbids most of this type of spending. The 9th and 10th amendments basically say that if you don't see something specifcally mentioned in the constitution, the government has no business being involved with that something. Taking money from people, in order to "right past wrongs", is not included in the duties allowed the US government.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But Robespierre, that's what my money goes to:
-public school funding even though I never attended a public school. -social security, even though I may not live to see it. -roads in places I never drive -activities for children younger than me etc
A good point. There MANY things that the government need not be involved in. All of those are perfect examples of government overstepping its bounds.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
While I think it is interesting as a conversation piece, this "whites only" scholarship is not really saying or doing anything new.
In fact, I think the "different prices for donuts" thing on Boston Public was a far more apt analogy to the affirmative action issue.
Scholarships offerred by private organizations can do what they like. I, myself, applied for the (no joke) Moonraker's Tall Club scholarship - for which you had to be 6' 3" or taller (for men, not sure the height for women).
Scholarships are intentionally discriminatory so they can limit their pool of potential candidates. Children of police officers, children of veterens, children of certain cultural backgroudns (italian, irish, etc), children of certain race, etc, etc.
Out of the hundred or so scholarships I looked through in high school, the only one I actually qualified for was the Tall Club.
...
Now, if a public university offered a scholarship based on race (i.e. a scholarship for those of latino descent, or something) and the student group proposed a "whites only" scholarship to be offered by the school, and then took it to court or something, that would have been more poignant.
As it is, I'm going to put in to be a judge for Bob's scholarship. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you have a problem with those who do not wish to support such racism not supporting it?
Well, when you spin it that way. . .
Yeah, I do. Education affects everyone in society-- so everyone in society should have a financial interest in making sure that it is run optimally.
Hey, Robespierre-- can you create a new thread detaling exactly WHO is responsible for the distribution of funds for public services (roads, public education, etc) if not the government?
[ February 16, 2004, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm torn on the issue of such scholarships, because ethnicity is a bonding trait that can build communities. For example, a scholarship set up by Hatian refugees who have become successful and want to help others in their situation seems like it makes sense to me. But the idea is "icky" to me because I am suspicious of most racial distinctions.
However, my firm belief is that government funding should not acknolwedge the race of the recipients. If the government is trying to help people who have "have not had as much opportunity academically, and thus merit more assistance," they should establish criteria that really determine if the applicant has had less opportunity than most.
Since I believe firmly in the right of people to spend their money with as little interference as possible, I don't think such scholarships should be prohibited. But it's OK to call them tacky, racist, or whatever.
Dagonee P.S., What is "white heritage," exactly. Is there really that much common to the mere fact of being white? The majority of blacks in America are descendants of slaves and have a common heritage of official oppression that only began to end 50 years ago. Is there anything that powerful at the core of "white heritage?"
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Yeah, I do. Education affects everyone in society-- so everyone in society should have a financial interest in making sure that it is run optimally.
So does housing. Does everyone have a financial interest in providing housing to everyone in society? How about food? How about healthcare? How about nutrition? How about Exercise? How about transportation? Do we have a financial interest in buy everyone a car or a treadmill or a juicer or a house?
Is it okay to teach our children not to rely on the government to solve our problems?
[ February 16, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote: -public school funding even though I never attended a public school. -social security, even though I may not live to see it. -roads in places I never drive -activities for children younger than me etc
quote:All of those are perfect examples of government overstepping its bounds.
You're kidding, right? Really?
'Cause the US gives every child a free education. Social Security covers many things, not just old folks in retirement. The upkeep of roads does impact people even if they don't drive on them personally--what about trucks that transport goods that a person may purchase/use? Activities for children younger than a said person? You were young once, yourself and people older than you funded them. Why? Children can't exactly fund those activities themselves.
The view that the government should supply no social services is one that is is called "residual" by sociologists. Residual how? Those people that must access those services are not the "norm" they are the "residue" of the rest of society. This philosophy is part of a larger problem. Welfare to work requires that single mothers receiving welfare work off the money...to do so, many work two jobs at 70 hours a week up to an hour away from their home and still don't make ends meet. While they are working those long hours, the child is left without a parent around.
The society DOES have a responsibility to take care of the sick, poor, and needy. The government provides that through funds from taxes. Social security is not only retirement supplement and Medicare to old folks.
People pay into the social security system--you get out of it what you contribute. One issue arising from this is that women by and large did not work for as much or as long as men in the generation currently receiving social security. The men die first and when the spouse dies, the woman received much, much less and hits below the poverty line if she has no other income.
Social security also funds medicaid--insurance to those people who cannot afford health insurance or have a job that does not offer health insurance or are out of work for a significant amount of time. Social security gives people a stipend if they are significantly disable and unable to work.
Even with that stipend, welfare, full time job, and trying to finish a GED, an 18 year old kid with schizoaffective disorder STILL cannot make ends meet. And he isn't sitting around on his ass. Instead, he's working his ass off and the social "security" net falls far, far short.
The government has backed too far off its bounds.
Another illustration is the issue of medicaid paying for psychotropic medications. The new atypical antipsychotics have far less side effects and allow those with a mental illness to become far more productive, live out of a state hospital, secure jobs, etc. However, these newer medications cost more than the first-generation antipsychotics. So the government in New Hampshire is considering only covering the first-gen antipsychotics.
This is quite short sighted. These antipsychotics have severe and long lasting side effects--tardive dyskinesia (TKD) is one of them.
Afflicted by this disorder, those people who were once productive are relegated back to hospitals at much GREATER cost to the state.
But the first-gen medications are cheaper in the here and now.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: can you create a new thread detaling exactly WHO is responsible for the distribution of funds for public services (roads, public education, etc) if not the government?
No need, there already is one. If you have any questions, pose them in here. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Robespierre, have you even run across the idea of a "minimum necessary condition?" So, for example, individual juicers may not be necessary to meet a minimum threahold of health, but perhaps childhood vaccinations are.
(You can reduce any requirement to absurdity, you know. The "reducible to absurdity" part provides no distinctions.)
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
(Hey Suneun, check your email!)
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: have you even run across the idea of a "minimum necessary condition?"
No I have not.
The question becomes one of right. Does the government have the right, moral or legal, to take from the majority, to benefit the minority? According to the constitution, I say that the government has no legal right to do so. I do not stop there, I also say that the government has no moral right to loot the productive and dispense goodies to those with political clout, be they minority groups, corporations, or vague causes.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
The Highest literacy level in the history of the United States was before the Govt got into the school business. Back then if you did not know Latin, Greek, Spanish, French, and Calculus coming out of High School you were not fit for University.
The Social Security System does somthing all right, it wastes money. If you put the same amount into a mandetory savings plan all you life you would make 50,000 a year instead of 300 a month or whatever it is.
As for the race issue, the question started out with the hidden question, is affirmitive action racism, or should schools have black scholarships, or black frat houses, or black pride week.
Well I think Government Supported afferimitive action is lethal, but if the black community wants to create the other things, its a free county.
My Two Cents
BC
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Taking money from people, in order to "right past wrongs", is not included in the duties allowed the US government. <<
My point is that it's not "taking." The money was never yours. If there were no taxes, your employer would pay you that much less.
Not that there would be any jobs, or money, or even a country at all, were it not for government.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Highest literacy level in the history of the United States was before the Govt got into the school business. Back then if you did not know Latin, Greek, Spanish, French, and Calculus coming out of High School you were not fit for University.
You mean for those few people lucky enough to be able to afford private tutors, not to mention the leisure time to not start working at age 10?
Dagonee
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
The minority pay taxes, too.
ThePoverty lineFor a family of four, it's $18,850.
I'd recommend you read the book Nickle and Dimed to get a true sense of what the working poor go through to KEEP from having to receive government benefits. And these government benefits still don't raise people above the poverty line.
[ February 16, 2004, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: If there were no taxes, your employer would pay you that much less.
Are you saying that minimun wage is raised in order to accomodate higher income tax? If they got rid of income tax right now, there'd be no legal grounds for an employer to lower wages.
(I'm not in the least in favor of getting rid of income tax. I just question this particular statement.)
I do agree that the government should get LESS money, since they are not a money maker, but a spender, whereas money in the hands of business owners will generate more money. But I don't think that's the topic being discussed here.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The Highest literacy level in the history of the United States was before the Govt got into the school business.
By highest level, do you mean "Those that could read knew Latin, Greek, and French," or, "There were more people who were literate before public schooling was available."
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Not that there would be any jobs, or money, or even a country at all, were it not for government.
So when we have an economic downturn, there must be someone in a government bunker fiddling with the economic dials, right? Since they are responsible for all wealth in the country? Why then, don't they just crank up the dial to full blown bonanza and reap the rewards?
You will find that the answer is that the government is NOT the source of wealth. It only has the ability to confiscate this wealth, and redistribute it. The government exists to at the pleasure of the governed, it is not the source of all the it governs.
Bean Counter, you are spot on.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: And these government benefits still don't raise people above the poverty line.
Of course not! They never will. But you can bet we will be asked to spend more money on them in the near future.
quote: If they got rid of income tax right now, there'd be no legal grounds for an employer to lower wages.
The government should in no way interfere with people's right to enter into contracts. An employer should not need "legal grounds" to lower or raise an employee's wage. The relationship between employer and employed should be purely volountary.
Posted by Anthro (Member # 6087) on :
YES! Finally!
Momma, we's a-goin' to Harvard.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: The relationship between employer and employed should be purely volountary.
I agree with this in some instances. But the government is what squashed child labor, unfair wages, and I'm pretty sure unions depend on some government (yes or no?) etc. It has done some good for the working class.
Living in a right-to-work state is no picnic. It's as close as you'll get to the ideal you mentioned above. You're lucky if you can find a job that gives you better than a 15-minute break on an eight-hour shift, or even bothers to pay overtime.
We have few rights here. I for one wouldn't mind a tad more governing in some situations, although I agree it should be cut back quite a bit in others.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Last month during the snows the roads were cleared by a combination of city, and state government.
they did not clear roads of the rich first, though those in richer communities had better equipment.
They cleared the main highways so that business could go on.
If they did not clear the main highways, but relied on private plows to do so, I would not have gotten to work.
My company would have had few people to work for it and production would have fallen.
But then, they probably would have not paid me for that day, so they would have saved some money.
Or they could have rented trucks to clear the roads to all of their employees.
Of course doing that whenever needed would have been much more expensive than thier present taxes.
Or I could have paid to have the roads cleared. I don't make that kind of money. I could have grouped together with all my local neighbors to pay to have the roads cleared, but that is done with some efficiancy now--its called City and State government.
Of course by now the roads would be privately owned anyway. The costs of transporting goods would increase as the cost of road upkeep, and profit, would be paid per mile of used roads instead of in the present gas taxes and other taxes. Places with a lot of traffic would have good roads, and places like North Dakota and Kansas would be mostly abandoned. Farmers out there could just by rough vehicles to cross the remnants of our highway system.
It would be best if I moved next to my work. That way I could work no matter what the weather, and get the check I would be owed.
It would be best for the company if their workers lived nearby too. That way they would have a steady supply of workers without having to pay travel charges or road cleanings.
Hence Company Towns are rebuilt.
Without a house and property of my own, I certainly wouldn't need most of the stuff I now own. What savigns, no cars or insurance or lawnmowers or patio furniture.
Of course, those people who make cars and lawnmowers and auto insureance will be out of jobs. Profits from those companies will decline.
But hey, the Government does not create wealth. Not even when it clears my roads so I can get to work.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dan, word.
[That is, it seems to me that reaping the benefits of something -- say, government -- obligates one in some way. One may disagree over the details, Robespierre, but if you partake of the communal pot (such as cleared roads), you incur some obligation. Now, run your operation completely outside governmentally-accrued benefits (including protection from war), and you've got a much stronger claim that you are solely entitled to the profits of that enterprise.]
[ February 16, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: and I'm pretty sure unions depend on some government (yes or no?) etc
They do depend on government guns to enforce their whims.
Dan, your mello-drama is nice, but state and local governments have their own consitiutions and scope. We are talking about the federal government.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But hey, the Government does not create wealth. Not even when it clears my roads so I can get to work.
Put emotion aside for a second and examine this sentence. You will find it to be literally true. Yet I assume your intent was snarky sarcasm. A state or local government does NOT create wealth when it plows the roads. It must first TAKE wealth from those who consent by living in said location in order to pay for the snow plowing service.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Robes, did you mean Bean Counter was spot-on in his assertion that there was greater literacy before public schools?
I so rarely find libertarians I can respect; please tell me you don't agree with this blatant falsehood.
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Dags, I don't know about that number. I recently read something about that in the John Stossel book, but he didn't source it, as far as I can see. My opinion is that it could likely be done better by the private sector, but I have not done much rigorous reading in this area, so I won't comment too much about it.
I agreed with his sentiments about social security, race, and non-intervention.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So Rob, just to be clear, your opinion regarding labor is: city and state government, good. Federal government, bad.
Did I get this right?
And I laugh at your generalization is that all unions are good for is fulfilling "whims".
Oh I have to add this.
quote: It must first TAKE wealth from those who consent by living in said location in order to pay for the snow plowing service.
No, that's not how government works (or is supposed to): We GIVE our wealth to someone WE VOTE FOR who will do what we don't have time or the resources to, and that's make it so that WE can get to work, so that our families don't starve. WE (should) technically own the government to work for our benefit. It's not the other way around.
[ February 16, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: (including protection from war)
BTW, without central banking and income taxes, governments would find it very difficult to wage wars of choice. The biggest mechanism for transfering wealth to the government is the Federal Reserve. If countries had not discovered this magical source of funds, many of the last century's wars would have been either not fought, or much much smaller in scope and casualties.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
But now you're arguing something different, which is whether wars were even necessary. Many people would say that they were, many wouldn't. But without the Federal reserve, we wouldn't have even had a choice.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: city and state government, good. Federal government, bad.
The second part is right on. The first part, not so much. City and state governments are more directly answerable to those they govern.
quote: We GIVE our wealth to someone WE VOTE FOR who will do what we don't have time or the resources to, and that's make it so that WE can get to work, so that our families don't starve. WE (should) technically own the government to work for our benefit. It's not the other way around.
Is it GIVING when they can come to my house with guns and make me pay up if I choose not to GIVE?
quote: And I laugh at your generalization is that all unions are good for is fulfilling "whims".
Government backed Unions allow the employed to dictate all the terms of employment. They are not subject to market forces. Their demands may be seen as whims of the workers, backed by government guns. I have no problem with volountary unionism. The problem comes when we allow the government to benefit the few, those working in union jobs, at the expense of the many, those whose right to choose is limited by this force.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Robespierre, but when you accept that protection, you incur obligation. If you do not wish to obligate yourself, then don't set up your enterprise in a country which provides such protection.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But without the Federal reserve, we wouldn't have even had a choice.
This is a false choice, which removes the whole point of my statement. Some wars ARE necessary, I agree. However, when they require more resources than the government currently has, it should then be forced to make people pay for their own defense in an open and fair way, not through the trickery of inflation. I have no problem with levying income taxes to pay for the defense of the country from an invader. However, when the government levies these taxes, they cause people to evaluate the war situation. When the war may not be necessary, they don't want such attention called on their actions.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Rob, I'm getting the idea that you hate most government, but are you aware that if we had none, it's very likely that one much worse than we have would spring up in its place?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If you do not wish to obligate yourself, then don't set up your enterprise in a country which provides such protection.
I choose to live here because the constitution outlines a form of government which I agree to be governed by. When those in power mis-interpret that constitution and go wrong, I do not gain by fleeing the country. Personally, my best option is to promote political change through libertarian reforms. Even though I realize its an uphill battle(read dang near impossible).
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: However, when they require more resources than the government currently has, it should then be forced to make people pay for their own defense in an open and fair way, not through the trickery of inflation. I have no problem with levying income taxes to pay for the defense of the country from an invader.
This statement doesn't jive very well with a previous one you made:
quote:BTW, without central banking and income taxes, governments would find it very difficult to wage wars of choice. The biggest mechanism for transfering wealth to the government is the Federal Reserve. If countries had not discovered this magical source of funds, many of the last century's wars would have been either not fought, or much much smaller in scope and casualties.
[emphasis mine]
First, you blame the problem partially on income tax, then you say you have no problem with RAISING income tax to pay for wars. I think I sorta know where you're trying to go with this, but it seems like you are hopping back and forth a bit to justify each point you make individually.
Is income tax good or not?
Is the federal government allowed to "take" money or not?
[ February 16, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: but are you aware that if we had none, it's very likely that one much worse than we have would spring up in its place?
I do not advocate anarchy, merely jeffersonian democracy.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I choose to live here because the constitution outlines a form of government which I agree to be governed by. When those in power mis-interpret that constitution and go wrong, I do not gain by fleeing the country.
Why not? I mean, it seems that you realize you are fighting against a juggernaut of sorts, so why not take your resources and start an enterprise in a place effectively under no federal government at all?
What on earth do you gain by staying? I'm serious: why stay here if it doesn't help you at all?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Is income tax good or not?
You are absolutely right, you have caught me in a slip up.
I hold that the only purpose that can justify an income tax is the threat of physical force being used against the governed. If it were only allowed during times of war, the citizenry would be much much less likely to consent to government funded adventures.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: why stay here if it doesn't help you at all?
I totally agree with you. As far as I know, the USA is my best option. If I knew of an english speaking country where I could live freer from government, say australia, canada, new zeeland, etc, I would go there. But such places do not offer any additional freedoms above and beyond those I currently enjoy here.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Rob, if you spent a few minutes considering it, I'm sure you could think of more benefits to income tax than just "waging war".
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Benefits to whom?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
You yourself just said you enjoy many freedoms in the states. How do you think those freedoms are enforced? Who pays for it?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:If I knew of an english speaking country where I could live freer from government, say australia, canada, new zeeland, etc, I would go there. But such places do not offer any additional freedoms above and beyond those I currently enjoy here.
Surely learning another language is no real deterrent, if you are serious. Or you could go to a little-populated region and fight it out locally, right? Some place that has little effective federal government but is run by, say, local militias?
Why would that not be preferable?
[ February 16, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Why would that not be preferable?
Where on earth do I have a better chance of living under something similar to Jeffersonian Democracy?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'd love to know why you think those tax dollars were ever yours. So much so that I've asked the question more than once already.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Where on earth do I have a better chance of living under something similar to Jeffersonian Democracy?
What does the US give you that Suriname does not?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I'd love to know why you think those tax dollars were ever yours.
Does an individual actually have a right to any of his/her own labor? If so, how much?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Twinky:
I don't really understand the question.
I agree to work for 10 dollars an hour.
When I go home, I have 7 dollars an hour.
I may have never touched that money, but I worked for it. It goes to support my lifestyle and freedoms.
Sounds like MY money working for ME.
(Let's save social security and welfare for other discussions...I know that doesn't directly help me.)
[ February 16, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: What does the US give you that Suriname does not?
An opportunity to change the system.
(Are they even an independent country? Or are they still a colony?)
[ February 16, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Does an individual actually have a right to any of his/her own labor? If so, how much? << (Robes)
The amount they actually earn. i.e., the amount that you have in your bank account at the end of the day.
Not to mention that the government physically makes the money itself.
>> I agree to work for 10 dollars an hour.
When I go home, I have 7 dollars an hour. << (PSI)
Then I'd say you agreed to work for 7 dollars an hour.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Back to the original question, not that I'm not enjoying this tangent.
quote:However, my firm belief is that government funding should not acknolwedge the race of the recipients. If the government is trying to help people who have "have not had as much opportunity academically, and thus merit more assistance," they should establish criteria that really determine if the applicant has had less opportunity than most.
This quote by Dagonee was sort of lost in the shuffle but I think it's an important point. There is no reason why a private organization can't set up whatever requirements it sees fit for a scholarship. My children will get a scholarship because their grandfather was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam. That's it - there's no essay, there's no anything, all they have to do is show they are the child or grandchild of a member of the VHPA (Vietnam Helicopters Pilots Assn.) and they get $1000 scholarship.
The government, however, isn't a private organization. The money it spends comes from taxpayers, and is it fair to tax tax dollars and use it in a racially discrimnatory way?
I don't think so. If the government wants to offer scholaships to students that didn't have access to a good education or a good learning opportunity, then it should offer those scholarships to anyone who qualifies, without race as a qualifying factor. Base it on need, and I have no problem with it. Base it on skin color, and I do.
For example, should you have a scholarship that a black kid raised by an upper middle class family in a good neighborhood with an excellent school qualifies for, but a kid from West Virginia in an impoverished neighborhood where school was a lot less important that where his next meal came from doesn't qualify?
You're essentially saying "You don't qualify for benefits, son, because you're white and you have a lot more opportunity in this country than this black kid does."
In this case it's completely opposite, the white kid needs the help, the black kid doesn't. So, if my tax dollars are going to help poor kids get an education, I want to know that those tax dollars are being spent to help kids that need help, be they white, black, latino, asian, whatever.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You know, I just want to say that I really appreciate the fact that Rob answers questions politely and without snarkism. At least as far as I can tell. I know it's something that I fail to do myself quite frequently.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hmmm.
Why do you think there isn't an opportunity to change the system in Suriname? (It is a constitutional democracy.) CIA factsheet on Suriname
Really, what do you gain by staying here, in a place that functions abhorrently to you? Why bother to fight against a juggernaut (or are you an altruist)?
[ February 16, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
PSI, it doesn't help you directly NOW.
What if you got laid off and couldn't find work? And if you found work, it wouldn't be enough to sustain you. Starve or food stamps? Unemployment or no housing?
It's easy for us to say from a place of relative safety that we don't need these safety net services.
Then it happens to you. And it CAN.
It happened in Flint, Michigan, the once thriving city sustained by major car factories.
Then they closed.
All of them.
Evictions. Ridiculously high unemployment rate. Homelessness. Hungry kids.
Our scant system of social safety net services did barely anything to sustain them as they searched frantically for any time of employment.
It wasn't a fault in character. They worked hard every day in a factory. Then they got laid off for no fault on their part.
I wonder if, while they were securely employed, if they thought we didn't need any social services served from the state and federal government? I wonder, when they lost their jobs, if their opinions changed?
I challenge you to read Nicke and Dimed. I challenge you to watch the film Roger and Me. I challenge you to go out and face the people whom you would condemn without the scant services already supplied.
State government receives matching funds from the federal government. No federal support, budgets cut in half.
And Robespierre, if you disagree so strongly about paying income tax...why do you continue to do so?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Agreed, Storm Saxon. He's a very cool Hatracker.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> You know, I just want to say that I really appreciate the fact that Rob answers questions politely and without snarkism. At least as far as I can tell. I know it's something that I fail to do myself quite frequently. << (SS)
Indeed.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
My problem with Robes' brand of Jeffersonian democracy is that it requires an educated electorate to function at all, let alone well.
Actually, that's my problem with democracy in general.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And as for the tangent discussion....
PSI does agree to work for $10 an hour. You're saying she agrees to work for 7 - well, that's well and good but please keep in mind that her employer IS paying her $10 an hour. And that employer is paying her entire salary, deducting her taxes, and then submitting the 1/2 of her FICA requirement.
She may not see the $10 at the end of the day, but it is getting paid. The employers is paying more than $10 an hour for her labor, and if the employer also pays for benefits, then he may be paying substantially more than $10. Add in workman's compensation insurance and unemployment, and that $10 an hour increases rapidly.
So we can't pretend the $3 missing from her paycheck is no harm/no foul - someone is paying it.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
CT, if there is some point that you are waiting to spring upon me, or are waiting for me to stumble across, please reveal it soon. How many ways do you want me to answer your question? Because I believe I have the best chance at getting what I want, here in the USA. If I had a better shot somewhere else, you better believe I would head there quickly.
Please make some suggestions of places that closely approximate Laissez-Faire democracy.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: My problem with Robes' brand of Jeffersonian democracy is that it requires an educated electorate to function at all, let alone well.
Don't let the title fool you, Jeffersonian Democracy is much more of a republic than a democracy. It does not require that its voters have perfect knowledge. It only imposes itself in the sphere of private property rights. This works whether or not the voting public understands it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Belle, my point is that the $3+ is not "taken" from the employee. If it were taken from the employee, it would have had to belong to the employee at some point.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Actually, that's my problem with democracy in general.
I am curious, what form of government do you advocate?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Robespierre, I'm just not sure why you think it is reasonable to want the benefits of citizenship in a particular country while denying that this incurs any obligation.
You say that the federal government has no right to withhold any of your money.
I say, well, isn't it true by accessing the benefits of being under that government, you accept some obligation? Maybe we quibble about the details, but some is very different from none.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If it were taken from the employee, it would have had to belong to the employee at some point.
I repeat the question, does an individual have ANY claim over benefits of his/her labor? If so, how much? What percent is the individual entitled to, and how did you reach that number?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I am curious, what form of government do you advocate? <<
In a perfect world? A benign dictatorship. In an imperfect world? Social democracy.
>> I repeat the question, does an individual have ANY claim over benefits of his/her labor? If so, how much? What percent is the individual entitled to, and how did you reach that number? <<
I've already answered it, but I'll elaborate.
In my view, the benefits of the employee's labour are $7 per hour, to which the employee is entitled for having agreed to work. The company pays $10 per hour for the employee, but $10 per hour is not the value of the benefits associated with the labour – $10 per hour is $7 plus the $3+ that the government is entitled to for creating the environment in which the transaction can occur.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You say that the federal government has no right to withhold any of your money.
I say, well, isn't it true by accessing the benefits of being under that government, you accept some obligation? Maybe we quibble about the details, but some is very different from none.
I have NOT said that the government has no right to withhold any of my money. What I have said is that the 16th amendment should be repealed, taking away the government's right to claim a share of my income. I believe the government should be funded by tariffs and excise taxes. Most government services should operate on a pay-as-you-use philosophy. How did our government function before it started collecting income taxes?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Okay, Robespierre, that makes more sense to me. I need to go puzzle through this perspective before I probe you further.
So to speak.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: The company pays $10 per hour for the employee, but $10 per hour is not the value of the benefits associated with the labour – $10 per hour is $7 plus the $3+ that the government is entitled to for creating the environment in which the transaction can occur.
Thankyou for clarifying.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
CT!
...enjoy your... um... probing.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
But it's okay that it's taken from the employer?
Who do you think employers are if not taxpayers?
Do you know how much it costs to run a business, to keep people on payroll? We have four part time employees. The unemployment and worker's comp alone are more than the salary of any of our employees. We could hire an additional person if we didn't have to pay them.
Everyone of our employees has health insurance. None of them have ever had a workman's comp claim. None of them have ever filed unemployment. Yet, we pay the highest rates for workman's comp and unemployment possible.
Why? Because of the business we're in. Not to mention that we paid out more than $10,000 last year to municipalities for permits and fees. Municipalities we DON'T vote in.
We also paid occupational tax in a county and a city. That's a tax on salary, we paid them taxes on what we paid our employees even though our business is not located in that county or city and we cannot and do not vote there. But if our employees worked there, say for four hours, we owed them four hours of occupational tax. The bookeeping alone is a nightmare that we have to hire a payroll service and a CPA to keep track of where everyone works and how much occupational tax we owe.
We also had to pay a usage tax on any of our equipment used in that county and city. Since we have well over $50,000 worth of equipment, that came to be a hefty amount. Again, we were only paying them because some times, during the year, our equipment went into their municipality. We don't vote there.
Two of the people working for us used to own their own businesses but gave it up because the amount of taxes and the paperwork they had to keep up with for their taxes was too much for them.
The government is slowly running small businesses into the ground. Our tax burden is immense, and our tax relief is non existent. The state gave Mercedes a $10 million dollar break on taxes so they would put their plant in our state, but a small business gets zero relief.
So, if you want to say people shouldn't rant about the taxes they pay - try looking at the other side once in a while. Somebody, somewhere, is paying for it. The business owners that employ the vast majority of people in this country are bearing a huge amount of the overall tax burden.
[/rant]
Sorry bout that, but any tax discussion gets me riled up. By the way, a few years back doctors and lawyers protested the "occupational" tax and said it was taxation without representation. The response was to exempt them from paying it on the basis that attorneys and doctors are licensed through the state, and pay a state license fee. In other words, the city and county didn't want all the physician offfices and lawyers firms moving out to another county.
When plumbers, electricians, and other tradesmen asked for the same exemption because they too are state licensed (I just renewed hubby's license and sent in the check, matter of fact) they were denied. One of the unions sued, but it was thrown out by the judge.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: In a perfect world? A benign dictatorship. In an imperfect world? Social democracy.
In my opinion, those two forms of government are the same. But playing along, what would that perfect world be?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Belle, power gets wielded in such sucky ways. That was most unfair.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI, it doesn't help you directly NOW.
Mack, my point had nothing at all to do with the usefulness of welfare, etc. My point was this:
quote: I may have never touched that money, but I worked for it. It goes to support my lifestyle and freedoms.
Sounds like MY money working for ME.
I was just trying to block the direction that I guessed someone might go, which was that not all things that my taxes pay for will immediately benefit me.
Please don't assume I'm against welfare, or that I think I will never need it.
I have to learn that if I argue some else's point, even in trying to refute it, someone will attempt to refute ME even though I don't hold that position at all.
And twinky, PLEASE:
quote: Then I'd say you agreed to work for 7 dollars an hour.
quote: Belle, my point is that the $3+ is not "taken" from the employee. If it were taken from the employee, it would have had to belong to the employee at some point
Using this skewed logic, Wal-Mart could deduct $200 from my paycheck for toilet paper and things I buy over the week, and say that it was never mine because it's going to Wal-Mart to pay for goods I need.
This is what happens with the government. They use a portion of my paycheck to pay for SERVICES I use. It doesn't matter if they get their cut first or last, I paid for it.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
In a social democracy you get to elect your benign dictator Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I didn't finish my thought...
added: Twinky:
You have made a big mistake about the relationship between government and citizen. By saying my money belongs to them, you have made me the possession, along with my work and goods I produce.
By definition, a democracy is a government owned by THE PEOPLE, therefore everything the government produces and does belongs in part to ME. So it doesn't matter if my money is in the government's hands...it's mine and will remain so.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
::loves her some CT::
Ni!
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Not to mention that the government physically makes the money itself.
Twinky, does this mean that the government has a right to all production in this country? Because the government passed a law requiring people to use the phoney-baloney currency it prints?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> You have made a big mistake about the relationship between government and citizen. By saying my money belongs to them, you have made me the possession, along with my work and goods I produce. << (PSI)
No. It's their money, you're just using it. The base salary is yours, the tax and other stuff is theirs. Basically, you are participating in the environment that they have created, and you are helping to perpetuate the existence of that environment by doing so.
>> But it's okay that it's taken from the employer? << (Belle)
The employer pays for the right to hire citizens. How is that "taking?" Now, I agree that government can go too far – particularly if it is not keeping up its end of the bargain, which is to say creating an environment in which citizens can accrue wealth.
>> In my opinion, those two forms of government are the same. But playing along, what would that perfect world be? <<
A world where the benign dictator could be trusted to always be benign and never abuse his or her power.
>> Twinky, does this mean that the government has a right to all production in this country? Because the government passed a law requiring people to use the phoney-baloney currency it prints? << (Robes)
Oh no no no. But it certainly has a right to a portion of it. What exactly that portion should be is determined by agreement between the government and the citizens; if the citizens don't like the agreement then they can vote the government out of office and elect a new one.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But it certainly has a right to a portion of it.
Keep in mind, I am speaking soley about the USA. Before the 16th amendment, the government did NOT have the right to take any portion of an individual's income. As I stated before, I am in favor of recinding this amendment. However, there are no such amendments which cover education or social security. These are actions which our government FUNDS with income taxes, but which are not allowed it by the constitution.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
twinky,
Why are there different standards for employers and employees?
quote: The employer pays for the right to hire citizens.
but...
quote: No. It's their money, you're just using it.
I'm using the money to pay for things like roadways that I use, police protection, etc. They're using it to be able to hire employees. How are these situations different? It's money that belongs to a person, that they use to fund the government that they created/support.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: A world where the benign dictator could be trusted to always be benign and never abuse his or her power.
I understand that you likely didn't want me to take this seriously, but lets consider it. I find the concept of autocracy to be disgusting. I am of the opinion that individual freedom is the only moral concept to base a society on.
Obviously we start from two very different back grounds regarding the role of the state in our lives.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, well, Belle. Hatrack wouldn't be nearly as much fun if we stayed on topic all the time:).
Dagonee
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: No. It's their money, you're just using it.
This is true, but only because they FORCE you to use it. Take out a dollar and read the little clause on it that says:
quote: This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.
This means that if you run a business, you may not demand that customers pay in gold, or whatever else you please. You are required to use the Federal Reserve's rags. And since they have the power to print as many as they wish, to fund their rampant spending, those rags constantly drop in value. Basically, you are forced to fund the government's spending if you choose to hold cash in any form for any length of time.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Keep in mind, I am speaking soley about the USA. <<
Ah. I'm speaking generally, given that I'm not American. Never mind, then.
>> I understand that you likely didn't want me to take this seriously, but lets consider it. I find the concept of autocracy to be disgusting. I am of the opinion that individual freedom is the only moral concept to base a society on. << (Robes)
...and I think the only functional way to create an environment that can allow individual freedom is with a strong, centralized government; ideally a perfectly benign dictator. Of course, there's no such thing, so I'm not actually an autocrat. But my perfectly benign dictator would have the people's interest as motivation and would act only in the people's interest. Being perfect, he or she would naturally know what that is.
In this idealized case, "the people" would actually be everyone in the entire world.
>> Obviously we start from two very different back grounds regarding the role of the state in our lives. << (Robes)
Yes. Possibly because I grew up mostly in Canada, and that's where I live.
>> I'm using the money to pay for things like roadways that I use, police protection, etc. They're using it to be able to hire employees. How are these situations different? It's money that belongs to a person, that they use to fund the government that they created/support. << (PSI)
I don't think of the employee as the one who pays the income taxes, since the employee never had that money to give to anyone.
What you do pay is sales tax.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
No, I don't think so twinky. I was just holding that money in my wallet for the government, who needed me to transport it from my employer to the place of business.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
But I think you've misread my posts.
Let's take the employee again. The company pays $10 per hour of that employee's work. The employee receives $7, the other $3+ go to the government. Those $3+ never belonged to the employee, but the $7 does.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think of the employee as the one who pays the income taxes, since the employee never had that money to give to anyone.
This is one of the great deceptions perpetrated on the American public. I'm not against income tax per se, but if people had to write a check each month to the government I bet they'd care a lot more about how their money was spent. Right now, income taxes make no real financial impresson on most people because they track their money on a cash, not accrual basis.
It's the same reason casinos use chips instead of cash.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm having a hard time understanding why you think the money isn't mine. Is it because I never touched it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Twink, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with the conservatives on this one. As somebody who's going to actually wind up owing some taxes this year, I'm writing out a fairly big check come April. This is money that I "owe," despite the fact it was clearly mine; it'll be in my bank account until the check is transferred.
Taxes are a fee, NOT an imaginary cost.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Being perfect, he or she would naturally know what that is.
This is it right here. For centralized control of the economy to work, the government must be omnipotent. Since this is clearly not the case, and never can be the case, what is the next best way?
Look at nature. Imagine if there was a central committee that controlled the number of squirels born each year. Would you say that the population is likely represent a sustainable level after a few years of central control? I would say not.
The same is true of the economy. The only person who knows how best to allocate an individual's resources to suit their interests, is that individual. The afor mentioned individual need not have perfect knowledge of his/her surroundings to make the best decision possible. To believe otherwise is to believe that a politician, even if he/she were actually acting in the best interests of all the constituents, can know better how to run the individual's life than the individual.
I say that I am the only person qualified to decide whether or not I am happy with the wage I earn. I am the only person with the right to decide where I will live.
[edited for spellink]
[ February 16, 2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Wow Tom brings up a good point. What about the people who claim zero exemptions on their w-4's and invest that money over the year, then pay it at tax time? They clearly made THEIR money work for them.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:This means that if you run a business, you may not demand that customers pay in gold, or whatever else you please. You are required to use the Federal Reserve's rags. And since they have the power to print as many as they wish, to fund their rampant spending, those rags constantly drop in value. Basically, you are forced to fund the government's spending if you choose to hold cash in any form for any length of time.
Interesting... are you one of these guys who believes that there should be private currency corporations?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> I'm having a hard time understanding why you think the money isn't mine. Is it because I never touched it? << (PSI)
Yes.
You could rephrase what I'm saying as "income taxes are paid by employers." Sales taxes are paid by consumers.
>> As somebody who's going to actually wind up owing some taxes this year, I'm writing out a fairly big check come April. << (Tom)
That's because of an error of some kind, though, isn't it? I mean, it's not normal to write the government a monthly cheque, as Dagonee says.
____________________
>> For centralized control of the economy to work, the government must be omnipotent. Since this is clearly not the case, and never can be the case, what is the next best way? << (Robes)
To approximate what's best, if you ask me. Not to just leave it alone and hope it all works out.
>> Look at nature. Imagine if there was a central committee that controlled the number of squirels born each year. Would you say that the population is likely represent a sustainable level after a few years of central control? I would say not. <<
If that central committee knew a thing or two about the environment in which those squirrels lived and was able to estimate what the necessary number of offspring per squirrel had to be in order to sustain the population, then I would say that central control could certainly work.
The thing about economies is that they are not forces of nature. Markets and market forces are created by people. While they have certainly grown sufficiently complex that individuals can no longer comprehend them in their entirety, that doesn't imply that they should be left alone.
>> The same is true of the economy. The only person who knows how best to allocate an individual's resources to suit their interests, is that individual. The afor mentioned individual need not have perfect knowledge of his/her surroundings to make the best decision possible. To believe otherwise is to believe that a politian, even if he/she were actually acting in the best interests of all the constituents, can know better how to run the individual's life than the individual. <<
Well, if you happen to make the best possible decisions all the time without perfect information, I'd say you're pretty lucky.
I'm certainly not saying that the government should dictate everything. But I think laissez-faire is going much too far.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Twinky, I CHOOSE to pay that money before I get my paycheck. I could just as easily pay it at the end of the year.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: are you one of these guys
I don't know what a private currency corporation is, but I do believe that market forces should be the only forces controlling the money supply. I find the fractional reserve system and our current fiat money system to be destructive and unconstitutional. It is specifically stated that the congress may not issue bills of credit. It is only allowed to coin money, which means it is allowed to take precious metals like gold and silver, and certify their weight and purity. The dollar as originally defined by a weight and purity of silver. Now it is defined by how many Treasury-Bonds are issued, among numerous other things.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That's because of an error of some kind, though, isn't it?"
Twinky, this is actually because the government is cunning. One of the dreams of the Libertarian Party is to disassociate the income tax from payroll, because then people would realize how much they're actually paying.
When you file your W2, you tell your employer how much money to set aside every pay period for your taxes; your employer then handles the hassle of sending the money in to the government. Since W2s only approximate your overall income that year, they're designed to guess a little high; consequently, most people get a small bit back every year as a "refund."
This "refund" is in fact a terrible thing, because it constitutes a loan to the government without any interest paid to you; for this reason, most financial advisors suggest that you do other things with each paycheck in order to maximize your tax dollars while you're waiting for them to come due.
In my case, I try to cut my exemptions as close as possible to the actual taxes owed so that I don't get any refund, but don't have to go through the annoyance of writing a check. This year, though, it looks like my wife's employer drastically cut her automatic payment for some reason, meaning that she paid about half the tax she normally would -- and leaving us owing quite a lot.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If that central committee knew a thing or two about the environment in which those squirrels lived and was able to estimate what the necessary number of offspring per squirrel had to be in order to sustain the population, then I would say that central control could certainly work.
Doesn't nature have a perfect understanding of how many squirrels should be born though? If too many are born, some die. If too few, they have abundant food and quickly multiply. The central committee, even if it know much about the nature of squirrels, could not possibly know all the local conditions governing the lives of each individual squirrel.
quote: While they have certainly grown sufficiently complex that individuals can no longer comprehend them in their entirety, that doesn't imply that they should be left alone.
Then if they cannot be completely understood, who is qualified to make decisions that will impact each individual participating in that economy?
quote: Well, if you happen to make the best possible decisions all the time without perfect information, I'd say you're pretty lucky.
Who, if not me, is best qualified to make the decision of whether I continue at my current job or not? Who, if not me, can better decide whether or not I should drink some whiskey when I get home from work? Who, if not me, is better qualified to decide how much I value my house?
quote: I'm certainly not saying that the government should dictate everything.
Then what, are you saying it should dictate? And of those areas where it need not dictate everything, WHY should it not?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: One of the dreams of the Libertarian Party is to disassociate the income tax from payroll, because then people would realize how much they're actually paying.
Tom, you are right on the mark with that statement.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think that's a good idea, too.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Twinky, I CHOOSE to pay that money before I get my paycheck. I could just as easily pay it at the end of the year. << (PSI)
Whoops. Good point.
Well, I guess the thing just sort of comes apart at the seams, and my irritation with people complaining about the government taking their money is unfounded.. but it still annoys me. I thought I'd come up with a reason why – i.e., that the money paid in tax didn't actually belong to the person – but I suppose it has to, at least in part and/or for a period of time.
I wonder why that bugs me, then?
___________________________________
>> Doesn't nature have a perfect understanding of how many squirrels should be born though? If too many are born, some die. If too few, they have abundant food and quickly multiply. The central committee, even if it know much about the nature of squirrels, could not possibly know all the local conditions governing the lives of each individual squirrel. << (Robes)
No, if nature had a perfect understanding of how many squirrels should be born, squirrels would never die of anything other than natural causes and possibly some predation. The fact that there are sometimes squirrel population problems – too many or too few – shows clearly that nature adjusts when things go amok, not that things can't go amok.
The central committee approximates what is not known as best it can.
>> Who, if not me, is best qualified to make the decision of whether I continue at my current job or not? <<
Your employer, if you're a slacker.
>> Who, if not me, can better decide whether or not I should drink some whiskey when I get home from work? <<
Your spouse, if you're an abusive alcoholic.
>> Who, if not me, is better qualified to decide how much I value my house? <<
A real estate agent who has valued many houses in the past and can appraise yours as well. But you can probably do that too.
>> Then what, are you saying it should dictate? And of those areas where it need not dictate everything, WHY should it not? <<
The government and the citizens should agree on it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I wonder why that bugs me, then?"
I suspect it's for the same reason that ClaudiaTherese considers taxes a necessary evil: you regard them a price paid for the benefits provided by our country and society.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
See, I don't even consider them evil. I don't mind paying my taxes (and yes, I pay taxes).
...I figure it's a small price to pay for getting to live in the First World, among other things. I really don't object to it.
[ February 16, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I get annoyed by that too, Twinky. I don't mind fighting to pay less taxes, but you should see a quality of government programs comparable to what gets paid in. I think people who use the government shouldn't complain about paying taxes, unless it's an obscene amount, which is another discussion.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I don't have any problem with people complaining about the quality of government programs, that's fine. Just taxes.
I think part of it is that I most often hear that argument coupled with the suggestion that the private sector could do it better, which is something I vehemently oppose in most cases. Perhaps I link the two together in my mind and that's the cause of my irritation.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm glad Robes has the patience to type these posts, as I don't.
My namesake and I agree wholeheartedly.
------------
And man, twink...sounds like they've had to brainwash you Canadians to get you to pay your 80% or whatever income tax. Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I'm glad Robes has the patience to type these posts, as I don't.
I get more enjoyment out of Hatrack than I ever thought possible from a web community.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> And man, twink...sounds like they've had to brainwash you Canadians to get you to pay your 80% or whatever income tax. <<
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Robespierre, did you ignore my post entirely?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Robespierre, did you ignore my post entirely?
Apparently so, was there something you wanted to say?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:What if you got laid off and couldn't find work? And if you found work, it wouldn't be enough to sustain you. Starve or food stamps? Unemployment or no housing?
It's easy for us to say from a place of relative safety that we don't need these safety net services.
Then it happens to you. And it CAN.
It happened in Flint, Michigan, the once thriving city sustained by major car factories.
Then they closed.
All of them.
Evictions. Ridiculously high unemployment rate. Homelessness. Hungry kids.
Our scant system of social safety net services did barely anything to sustain them as they searched frantically for any time of employment.
It wasn't a fault in character. They worked hard every day in a factory. Then they got laid off for no fault on their part.
I wonder if, while they were securely employed, if they thought we didn't need any social services served from the state and federal government? I wonder, when they lost their jobs, if their opinions changed?
I challenge you to read Nicke and Dimed. I challenge you to watch the film Roger and Me. I challenge you to go out and face the people whom you would condemn without the scant services already supplied.
State government receives matching funds from the federal government. No federal support, budgets cut in half.
And Robespierre, if you disagree so strongly about paying income tax...why do you continue to do so?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Evictions. Ridiculously high unemployment rate. Homelessness. Hungry kids.
Labor Unions are RAD aren't they?
quote: Our scant system of social safety net services did barely anything to sustain them as they searched frantically for any time of employment.
I agree. The services we pay so much for, don't even work, and have no chance of ever working.
quote: I wonder if, while they were securely employed, if they thought we didn't need any social services served from the state and federal government? I wonder, when they lost their jobs, if their opinions changed?
I wonder.
quote: I challenge you to read Nicke and Dimed. I challenge you to watch the film Roger and Me. I challenge you to go out and face the people whom you would condemn without the scant services already supplied.
Well, I am not going to read the book, but I have the other two done. What do I do now that I am more convinced than ever that I am right? Perhaps I should watch "Bowling for Columbine".
quote: And Robespierre, if you disagree so strongly about paying income tax...why do you continue to do so?
Because the government can use their guns to make me comply, and I choose to attempt to change the system in a civilized way, not through anarchy.
Was that a satisfactory response?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
That was good for me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:One of the dreams of the Libertarian Party is to disassociate the income tax from payroll, because then people would realize how much they're actually paying.
See, this is why a business owner like myself gets pretty riled up when discussion turns to taxes - because we DO pay our taxes as we go, we do write that check and send it monthly or quarterly depending on what type of tax it is.
Last year we paid more in taxes than we made. Lets take for example (and I'm making these numbers up, though the proportionate values are very similar) we had $30,000 in profit last year. Our total taxes paid when you combine federal income tax, self-employment tax, and all the cute little municipal taxes like occupational and equipment taxes, plus our burden of payroll taxes (not the employees burden, just the stuff we paid) was about $38,000.
It's very frustrating to work as hard as my husband does, only to see that he made the government a whole lot more money than he got to keep.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote: Labor Unions are RAD aren't they?
Rob, are you objecting to labor unions?
I recognize that unions can sometimes become a problem, demanding wages or benefits that are too high for the work involved and such. But it seems to me that a union is for laborers nothing more than what a corporation is for the investors and executive officers--a grouping together of people to concentrate power. When either employers or employees gain too much power, problems result. But except in a world of mom-and-pop small businesses, the "basic" situation is one in which employers have considerably more power and need someone to watch them.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But it seems to me that a union is for laborers nothing more than what a corporation is for the investors and executive officers--a grouping together of people to concentrate power.
You are correct in this assessment. The only difference is that Unions have the government guns backing their monopoly on labor. Once a shop votes to become unionized, the corporation may not hire anyone who is not in the union. If corporations had this power of coercive monopoly, we would see what a facist economy looks like.
quote: the "basic" situation is one in which employers have considerably more power
I disagree. Employers cannot operate without employees. Just as employees cannot operate without employers. How does one have more power than the other?
Understand, I have no problem with unions. My problem is that they are given government force. If carpenters want to form a union to aide in training new members and to negotiate better wages, fine. But this requires no government intervention.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Your point about government backing is well taken. I will need some time to consider it.
quote: I disagree. Employers cannot operate without employees. Just as employees cannot operate without employers. How does one have more power than the other?
I know enough economics to answer this one--money and numbers. With some exceptions, employers (or their companies) usually have more money than the people they employ. Sometimes there is not enough to make a difference. But often the employer has enough money that it can muddle through without any specific employee until someone less demanding can be found. There is also a large labor pool; often a replacement can be found in (almost literally) no time at all.
For example, I currently work as one of only two janitors at my local Cracker Barrel. If I were to quit over low pay or benefits, Cracker Barrel would be inconvenienced, but not enough that I can hold that over their head as any real threat. Cracker Barrel has more than enough money that, even if they were forced to rely temporarily on untrained cleaning staff and they lost customers due to the mess, they could easily continue to operate until they found another janitor. Cracker Barrel is not utterly unresponsive to my desires--they have attempted to hire several other janitors as emergency replacements and found no one who lives up to their standards (in part because not many people will work all night)--but their patience with me extends only so far.
More numerous employees, such as dishwashers and servers, have even less power, as they are a dime a dozen. If one threatens to quit, or makes too much of a nuisance, it's a simple matter for Cracker Barrel to fire them and hire someone else. Only if, for instance, the servers were to strike en masse would Cracker Barrel be forced to consider their demands. Even then, there are enough broke college students in the area that the restaurant likely would not have to listen.
[ February 16, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Once a shop votes to become unionized, the corporation may not hire anyone who is not in the union.
Not in Virginia .
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: If I were to quit over low pay or benefits, Cracker Barrel would be inconvenienced, but not enough that I can hold that over their head as any real threat.
This is true, however, you also would be very likely to find similar employment, outside of your current job. Basically, you cannot threaten them, yet they cannot threaten you either, because you can just go find another similar job, because there are so many available.
quote: I know enough economics to answer this one--money and numbers.
The same relationship occurs between any buyer and seller. In this case, you are selling your labor, and the company is purchasing it. The tables are turned when you become the buyer. When you go the grocery store, if you are not pleased with the prices offered, you can just go to another store. In that case, you have the money and power.
My whole reasoning behind this is that I believe we all deserve the freedom to enter into contracts on our own terms. We should not be compelled by government or force to work for a certain wage, shop at a certain store, or hire a certain person.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Dags is correct. There are some states that have passed "right to work" laws, which I applaud. However, Missouri(where I live), is not one of this states.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote: you also would be very likely to find similar employment, outside of your current job.
Again, this makes assumptions about the size of the labor pool. There are a large number of people here (mostly college students) who will take whatever jobs they can find--more than there are jobs available. Unless the turnover rate is extremely high, with people becoming careless or bored so that they soon quit or are fired, it is entirely possible that I might never find a job here--even as unskilled labor.
This is why people are clamoring for the government to do something about the unemployment rate. With so many people out of work and so few jobs available, many people will remain jobless long enough to seriously affect their lives. Some may even lose their homes, have their children taken away (since they cannot care for them effectively)--perhaps even die. They may still be wrong, if the government has no good action it can take, but they have a case.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: This is why people are clamoring for the government to do something about the unemployment rate.
What can government do, other than relax regulations, lower taxes, and get off everyone's back, to add jobs?
The whole problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy. Politicians have made people think that it is an instrument they know how to play. The government cannot create wealth of any kind. All it can do is protect existing wealth, or shift around wealth which it loots from those who did create it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: There are some states that have passed "right to work" laws, which I applaud.
There are alot of downsides to this too, which I have previously addressed.
----------
There's been alot of talk about people being homeless and having no way to feed their families, and the government not doing enough to support them. However I hold FAST to the opinion that it's not the lack of jobs that these people face, it's a lack of jobs that they want to do.
I realize that every situation is different and I don't think welfare and government programs that are similar should be abolished or anything. But how can people be griping about the unemployment rate when, on the flipside, people are trying to legalize letting immigrants come do the "extra" work around here?
It's because the work is "undesirable".
When my husband was unemployed, he didn't go run to welfare to fix the problem. He didn't complain that the government wasn't doing enough to help him. (AGAIN, welfare has it's place...I don't think it's wrong to need it.) He cleaned toilets first. For months. Because he would rather do "degrading" work than let someone else pay his bills. And our family survived on two minimum wage jobs that way. It wasn't FUN or anything but we made ends meet.
There's quite a bit of work that needs doing out there. I would encourage unemployed people to consider those options before any other.
If they honestly can't find work, or the work they're doing doesn't meet their needs, then I think THAT's where welfare comes in.
This was a bit of a tangent...I was just reacting to Mack's post.
-----
Oh and I forgot to add...
quote: The whole problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding of the economy. Politicians have made people think that it is an instrument they know how to play. The government cannot create wealth of any kind.
Very true.
[ February 17, 2004, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
PSI, for someone who has to pay for childcare, transportation, or other significant costs involved in a job, a minimum wage job (or one close to it) is a money-LOSING proposition.
It's all very well to say that people should take any job they can find, whether it's what they want to do or not (and trust me, I've explored job possibilities in fields I never wanted to work); but in practical terms, it's often not that simple.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:There's been alot of talk about people being homeless and having no way to feed their families, and the government not doing enough to support them. However I hold FAST to the opinion that it's not the lack of jobs that these people face, it's a lack of jobs that they want to do.
I've said it before, in other threads, but PSI is 100% right on this one.
Rivka, we're not talking about $5.00 an hour jobs that people don't want to do. My husband starts people at $10.00 an hour. More than double the minimum wage. And last year, five people started working and quit after one day.
The money we were offering was good, but people wouldn't do the work. Something about it being "too hard". It didn't take skills they didn't have, it just took some physical work. And a lot of people won't do it because they think they should be able to get paid $30,000 a year to sit in an air conditioned office instead of having to actually sweat. Not all day, not every day. But, sometimes he needs some concrete busted up with a jackhammer, or a trench dug. (for really large digging jobs he rents backhoes) That's hard work, I agree. But the money is good and it's not something they have to do all the time. A large part of the job is driving to supply houses and getting supplies and bringing them to the job. Or, cutting pipe to length for the plumber they're working with. Not exactly hard manual labor.
It's not just minimum wage jobs people turn down because they don't want to do them. Considering we cover mileage and other expenses and give our employees a cell phone and offer a lot of overtime if they want it, someone could survive on what we pay them. Again, we're offering more than double minimum wage.
There are people who could work and refuse to, because they don't want to, not because the only jobs available are minimum wage.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Of course there are. And in areas with relatively low unemployment (and I have no idea what the rate is in your area), there are probably even many such people.
But there are far more people with no viable options.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"someone could survive on what we pay them."
Hm. I would be very hard-pressed indeed to survive on $10 an hour. Perhaps it's a regional difference.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
This is the $300 one, right?
Pshaw.
I got a much better one.
I got a Wheelwright Scholarship, set up by one of my hometown's old shipping mavens.
The qualifications?
-Resident of my hometown -Anglo-Saxon -Protestant -Male -Good academics/extracurriculars in High School -Going into a 4 year accredited Science undergrad program (I had to show that I was getting a B.S. in CompSci, not B.A, or I'd have been ineligible).
I got probably close to $20k from them in 2 years (my dad moved to a neighboring town my junior year, so I lost my eligibility).
I dunno why I posted this; I haven't even read the second page of this thread yet. Maybe someone else can use it.
-Bok
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: But there are far more people with no viable options.
Perhaps, but what is the solution? The government cannot give those people a viable option without taking options away from others.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I didn't say anyone could raise a family and live in a nice home and drive new car on what we pay them, Tom I said they could survive.
And they can and do. We had one guy full-time, started working for us, moved out into his own apartment, paid his car note, paid his rent, bought food, and managed to take care of himself on his own on $10 an hour. He even had enough money left over to buy a bunch of booze, which is what got him fired eventually.
What's your definition of survive? We're talking about people whose choices are getting a job or taking public assistance. Ten bucks an hour is enough to live on, maybe not the way you want to live, but it's enough.
You might have to forego big screen TV's, high speed internet access, satellite TV and eating out every night. But you can survive.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Ten bucks an hour is enough to live on, maybe not the way you want to live, but it's enough.
Depends on where you live (meaning what part of the country, not what kind of house or apartment you choose to live in), and whether you have dependents. For some it may not be enough.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Would I qualify for this scholarship?
-o-
quote:The Highest literacy level in the history of the United States was before the Govt got into the school business.
I have studied the history of education in this country, and this claim is absolutely and completely hogwash. First of all, in many parts of the colonies, including all of New England, free public education paid for by the community (i.e., government) existed from the start. Only in the South did this come later, and the literacy level in the South was most assuredly not higher than it is now--not even for whites.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom. . . .
quote:Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation.
quote:The object [of my education bill was] to bring into action that mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every country for want of the means of development, and thus give activity to a mass of mind which in proportion to our population shall be the double or treble of what it is in most countries.
quote:This [bill] on education would [raise] the mass of the people to the high ground of moral respectability necessary to their own safety and to orderly government, and would [complete] the great object of qualifying them to secure the veritable aristoi for the trusts of government, to the exclusion of the pseudalists... I have great hope that some patriotic spirit will... call it up and make it the keystone of the arch of our government.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Very interesting Icarus. I would not have guessed that Jefferson would support public education.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, he did found the University of Virginia - a public university...
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I would be very hard-pressed indeed to survive on $10 an hour.
Up until about four weeks ago, when my husband got a buck-fifty raise, that's exactly how much we were living on.
Two adults and two children. The only government assistance we "enjoy" is low-premium healthcare that we pay for but don't use. (Not that I wouldn't be glad to use it if I needed it, I've paid a lot in.)
We are nourished, we wear comfy, even sometimes new clothes. We enjoy our time together, watch TV, and play alot of board games. Here's what we don't do:
1. Take vacations to Disney World every year. 2. Drive a brand new car, or take our car to the mechanic when it has problems. My husband and I fix what we can ourselves. 3. Buy whatever we want. 4. Eat out more than once a week, at any place that costs more than ten dollars for our family.
Plus, we always pay all our taxes (even the ones we don't "have" to claim), and pay our tithe every week. Yep, ten percent of our ten dollars a week goes to the church. And that's ten percent BEFORE taxes.
When someone says they can't live on ten dollars an hour, what they mean is they can't support the same lifestyle they are used to. But that's the same thing as saying "I don't want to." Hence:
"I don't want to do hard labor." "I don't want to clean toilets." "I'd rather let someone else pay my bills so that I can continue to buy all the things I want."
Which really bugs me because I pay for people to use welfare, and they get to have a better lifestyle than me, and they don't even have a full-time job. (The requirements for welfare are ridiculously low...it's hard to get welfare while maintaining a job.)
By the way, Jesse does masonry. He moved 2,000 pounds of flagstone yesterday. He works on Christmas Eve too. *gasp!*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I'm floored, PSI. I've sat down and down the math several times and I know that if I was supported 3 other people and working for only $9/hour (which is what you're making after 10% goes to church) I wouldn't be able to live. Not after food, hydro, gas, car payments, phone, etc. Not unless I was living in one room like I am right now. You must live in a stunningly cheap city. That, or things in America are a heck of a lot cheaper than in Canada.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We pay less in taxes. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
PSI, you live in an area where the cost of living is FAR less than it is where I live.
I also have three children and no partner. That means that any job that requires me to work more than the hours they are in school (all full-time jobs, and most part-time) will require me to hire someone to watch them -- a fairly significant expense.
I have NEVER owned a new car. The only 'vacation' I have taken in the past three years was for a sibling's wedding (and paid for by my parents). I eat out almost never.
The only reason I am not currently on welfare is that I am in debt (to my parents and other creditors) up to my eyeballs. If I ever get my divorce settlement worked out, I may actually be able to pay them off.
Don't tell me that I can live on $10/hour!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Our budget (very broken down.)
rent (includes water...cheap neighborhood, but safe) - 549 per month electricity (in summer, it's lower in winter) - 95 per month groceries - 180 Car insurance plus service (one car) about 150 clothing and diapers - 90 entertainment and vacation savings - 80 (about 50 gets spent per month, 30 gets saved) phone - 32 medical - 25 misc and allowance (including gifts) - 100 tithe- 165 business cash - 25 savings- 50 (plus all extra) other stuff that's pretty small- about 35
This is a little more than 10 per hour, because he usually works more than forty hours a week...but no overtime.
We're not in debt now, but we have been, and in those times we did things like buy a used car. Jesse delivered pizza three nights a week back then solely to pay the debt. When the debt was gone, he quit the job.
So we have a car, and we work really hard to take care of it. Nearly every weekend is spent doing something to it.
My situation isn't the same as everyone else's and I know things are harder for some people than us...although I'd love to order pizza once in a while but I can't. I'm not saying no one should ever need welfare. All I'm saying is do your best to take care of your stuff yourself, and THEN resort to welfare. That's all.
And I should point out that Jesse's skill level should be making him $16 plus dollars an hour, but he gets less because he works for family. What I'm saying is that if we moved to a more expensive city, he could probably make more too.
But in Tucson, AZ, ten dollars (or nine) gets us by very well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Most of my costs are similar, except for rent and food -- which are the big ones, natch.
As I said, the cost of living here is very high. Moving has been considered but is not currently a viable option. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
That's all you pay for rent?? Including hydro??? That's not much more than I pay, and I live in cockroach infested hell-holes and only have one room.
*kicks Toronto*
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Luckily the only roaches I get is when they bomb the apartments next to me.
The are about to start making us pay for water though. I renew my lease today...I wonder how much it will be.
Oh and rivka, I don't know if you have time/want to cook, but I can give you a whole list of cheap, easy recipes that we use every week. My food bill isn't so low because of where I live (food is expensive in the desert) it's low because I'm a kick-butt shopper.
AND we eat a lot of rice and potatoes.
But my grandma taught me this and it's true. you only need a full serving of meat once a day, no matter what the food pyramid says. You get the rest of your protein from eggs, cheese, beans, etc. And that will cut your food bill in half, I bet ya.
[ February 18, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
PSI, I have a good friend that moved from Tuscon to fairly near where rivka lives. Her grocery bill more than doubled. I don’t think her shopping skills changed any.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
We moved to Northern Virginia from Utah.
The first two years that we lived here, I made a little more than $9/hour.
We had Junebug 3 months after we moved in.
My paycheck was the only one we got. Like PSI, we gave 10% to our church-- and I was going to school part time.
We owned both our cars, which made a HUGE difference, then and now. I cannot imagine buying a new car for $20k-- we had two reliable, cheap cars, and we're proud of how we made them make do.
We did not get ANY new furniture (with the exception of a futon, which was our living room couch for the first four years of our marriage) until I got a better job. When we ate out (which was where most of our spending money went) we went to a Mexican restaurant that was cheap, quiet, and tasty.
We kept a budget.
We had virtually no television, but took advantage of AOL's free internet disks.
It's doable, rivka. I'm grateful I don't have to anymore-- but I think I could, if I had to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, PSI, but I do a lot of cooking, and rice is a huge staple in my house. We eat meat infrequently. I'm a big fan of legumes and soy protein. I clip coupons and go to supermarkets that double them. I buy things on sale.
There are many food items that I pay similar prices as you, I suspect (although many are likely slightly higher just by virtue of living in a larger city).
But the other reason my food bill is significantly higher than yours has to do with the cost of kosher food. That's not going to change.
Scott, I challenge you to live on the same amount in an area like Los Angeles, NYC, Chicago, or Boston.
Do I have to dig up the cost-of-living indices again?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: We owned both our cars, which made a HUGE difference, then and now. I cannot imagine buying a new car for $20k-- we had two reliable, cheap cars, and we're proud of how we made them make do.
It makes things a lot different when you already own cars too.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That was most unfair.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)