Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Info Guy,
I read all of Robert Kiyosaki's books. I wished I had read them earlier on in life but better late than never. His books put it all together for me, and with the change in mindset changed my life for the better (except for being taxed to death to pay for welfare, the bridge to nowhere etc). I advise his books to anyone but from what I hear not his seminars.
Assets:
Things you own that put money in your pocket
Liabilities:
Things that you own that take money out.
Needless to say, the beanie baby theory did not work.
Sorry to go off topic
I don't really care for Kiyosaki's manifesto on Real Estate but his simple formula for acquiring wealth presented here is "priceless".
If someone is broke because they buy all the latest gadgets, it's none of my business if they are not getting public assistance. I couldn't care less.
BUT, if they are on public assistance, I have a HUGE problem with it. I see people all the time in the store with their fancy purses, expensive salon hair and nails, on their expensive phone paying with FOOD STAMPS! They buy cart loads of junk food and then expect hardworking tax payers to pay for it. If people can afford thier luxeries in life, we shouldn't be buying their necessities. So many people believe that all thier money should go for luxeries and let the tax payers foot the bill for the necessities.
I have facebook friends brag all the time about going out to eat, showing off their new toys, ect. Yet they complain when they can't get Mediciad. One friend whined and whined about not being able to get on Medicaid when she got pregnant yet was ALWAYS going out to eat and traveling. So many comments about "poor you", "that's not fair", ect. No, what is not fair is tax dollars supporting you and your unborn child when you have money for lots of fun things in life.
I worked with a girl when I was pregnant with our 2nd child. She kept encouraging me to get WIC and welfare cause she did. Between her and and her hubby, they made over 100K but she just claimed to NOT be married. She said all her friends do it that way. My hubby was is school and we didn't even make half of what she did yet I refused to get help. I made better choices about my money and didn't need the help.
My husband and I grew up in struggling families. Our families never received welfare. We have been married for 17 years and have put ourselves through school with 2 children. It hasn't been easy at times yet we NEVER got public assistance. It hasn't been until the last couple of years that we could afford these "luxeries" that everyone does but we waited until we could afford them. To us, buying our groceries, paying for our own healthcare, and paying our own mortgage or rent was more important.
I do belive the public assistance should be available to those that need, and usually short term while they get back on their feet. But it shouldn't be a way of life, a lifelong choice, and shouldn't be used if you can afford the latest gadgets, purses, hair, ect.
Perhaps these people are smarter than you think? I got my iPhone 3gs for free and pay $60 a month for service. I don't have internet where I live (ya know, out in the sticks because it's cheaper to live) and it would be more expensive to drive out to our college library to use the internet there (and busses don't run where I live). In addition, I've purchased an $800 Coach purse for $50 at an estate sale, I've purchased many pairs of high quality, designer jeans at goodwill for under $20 a pair, I own a ps3 that I got for $50 at a garage sale (with 2 controllers and a bunch of games) and got a great deal on my 42" Sony Aquos ($200) because it had a dark spot in the corner and was a shelf model.
So yeah, one can get nice 'luxury' items for pennies on the dollar if they shop correctly. I wonder how many of those people you demonize paid full price for anything they have? Well-off people pay full price for things, who's the stupid one now?
I agree that there are a lot of good deals to be had if a) you take the time to look, b) you have a good understanding of value, and c)you don't necessarily mind secondhand or slight imperfection. Between eBay, Craigslist, Freecycle, discount stores, sales, pawn shops, and any number of ways that you can buy things on the cheap, yes, you can amass a nice wardrobe as well as furnish a whole house for a fraction of what these items cost when they retailed new. I don't think these are the people that are constantly pleading poverty, though.
If I'm understanding the OP correctly, she seems to be referring to the people that are constantly poor-mouthing yet have to have the latest - BRAND NEW - this, that, or the other. There's no shortage of short-sighted children in adult bodies that will max out their credit cards, buy their furniture at one of those rent-to own places, thereby ultimately paying far more than the said furniture is worth, and so on. I had one of these rent-to-own places banging on my door looking for a neighbor who apparently got a flat-screen and a computer, took off in the middle of the night to God-knows-where, and didn't pay the bill.
At first glance, it's hard to tell the difference between the two, but the complaining and entitlement attitude from the second group seems to be the differentiating factor there.
Too bad you werent in the service now right? Bet that $1,000 a month housing allowance would have helped out big time.
However, in the long run it paid off to stay in the Army. I got an education (Masters) since I had only elementary education from Mexico, and after 32 years I am retired getting retirement and VA checks. Take care.
Then the gov't should make the person report what they are buying right?
You can pay phones with food stamps?
Facebook friends brag and then the next day they complain about no money lol
If you have a kid or more then you don't need welfare. You have a kid because you could afford the child for the next 18 years atleast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halcamcin
If someone is broke because they buy all the latest gadgets, it's none of my business if they are not getting public assistance. I couldn't care less.
BUT, if they are on public assistance, I have a HUGE problem with it. I see people all the time in the store with their fancy purses, expensive salon hair and nails, on their expensive phone paying with FOOD STAMPS! They buy cart loads of junk food and then expect hardworking tax payers to pay for it. If people can afford thier luxeries in life, we shouldn't be buying their necessities. So many people believe that all thier money should go for luxeries and let the tax payers foot the bill for the necessities.
I have facebook friends brag all the time about going out to eat, showing off their new toys, ect. Yet they complain when they can't get Mediciad. One friend whined and whined about not being able to get on Medicaid when she got pregnant yet was ALWAYS going out to eat and traveling. So many comments about "poor you", "that's not fair", ect. No, what is not fair is tax dollars supporting you and your unborn child when you have money for lots of fun things in life.
I worked with a girl when I was pregnant with our 2nd child. She kept encouraging me to get WIC and welfare cause she did. Between her and and her hubby, they made over 100K but she just claimed to NOT be married. She said all her friends do it that way. My hubby was is school and we didn't even make half of what she did yet I refused to get help. I made better choices about my money and didn't need the help.
My husband and I grew up in struggling families. Our families never received welfare. We have been married for 17 years and have put ourselves through school with 2 children. It hasn't been easy at times yet we NEVER got public assistance. It hasn't been until the last couple of years that we could afford these "luxeries" that everyone does but we waited until we could afford them. To us, buying our groceries, paying for our own healthcare, and paying our own mortgage or rent was more important.
I do belive the public assistance should be available to those that need, and usually short term while they get back on their feet. But it shouldn't be a way of life, a lifelong choice, and shouldn't be used if you can afford the latest gadgets, purses, hair, ect.
Then the gov't should make the person report what they are buying right?
They should but then they'd just lie about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Info Guy
You can pay phones with food stamps?
No, I meant they have these items then paying for their food with food stamps. If they can afford to pay for these luxuries items with cash, then they should be able to afford their food. And I don't consider a basic cell phone a luxury. I consider a smart phone with all the data plans and apps, ect a luxury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Info Guy
Facebook friends brag and then the next day they complain about no money lol
All the time. Always "checking in" at food places (multiple times a week) then complain about not being able to afford diapers is just one example. Bragging about their movie package on their cable/directv, then whine about being broke. It goes on and on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Info Guy
If you have a kid or more then you don't need welfare. You have a kid because you could afford the child for the next 18 years atleast.
Never said that people with kids don't need welfare. People fall into hard times and need help. But it should be temporary. Unfortunately, it becomes expected and a way of life for so many.
For one thing, if you really think about it, "gadgets" are not that expensive today. Mobile carriers virtually give away older iPhones and new ones can be bought inexpensively ($200?) on contract plans, which are often less than $100 per month. Tablets can be purchased for less than $200. A large flat-screen HDTV? Under $1,000, some (depending on your definition of "large") under $500. Video game systems? What are those now, $150 to $300? A mobile GPS? Less than $100 at Wal-Mart.
Perhaps people are amazed and shocked because they think of gadgets as luxuries reserved for the wealthy, and they are not unjustified in thinking so. Ten to fifteen years ago, a flat-screen plasma HDTV cost $30,000, a mobile GPS $1,000, and cellular phones and their plans were considerably more expensive than land lines. Compare this to other "luxury" purchases (large houses, pools, jacuzzis, second homes, luxury / sports cars, etc.), which have remained at the same price over the years or have gone up in price. Even non-luxury items - food, used cars, etc. - have went up in price. My friend got a used but running beater for his first car back in 2002 for $500, which would buy 5% of a flat-screen HDTV then or two progressive-scan DVD players; now it's hard to find anything for under $1,000-$2,000 in the used car world. Let's say that same beater could be obtained for $1,000 today; that would buy two flat-screen HDTVs and twenty progressive-scan DVD players. The same with food, rent, and health care. Call it the democratization of gadgets.
....though I wouldn't deny that patterns of instant gratification and conspicuous consumption exist among the poor, especially among certain subsets of the poor. I think this has been studied extensively.
If you're low-income and you've grown up that way, and neither your family nor your peers have shown any interest in investing for their future (or their future at all), it's unlikely that you're going to. Also, many poor people live rather eventful lives: Cousin Jamal is arrested for drug dealing again and will serve 10 years in federal prison; Uncle Henry dies of coronary heart failure at 45; etc. Witnessing such events may encourage a person to live in the moment, because they view such negative events as more likely to happen in their future than their richer counterparts. They intuitively perceive spending money soon upon getting it as in their self-interest. Saving for a rainy day or retirement never occurs to them, because that rainy day may be spent in the gaol, and they may very likely die before retirement. Also, many public assistance programs place caps on one's assets. For example, you cannot receive food stamps and own more than $3,000 (or was it $2,000?) in most kinds of financial assets. The recipient may see it in her benefit - or her necessity - to continue receiving food stamps, and it could really be in her best interest to NOT accumulate more than the program's asset limit, as that savings will be quickly eaten up by the expenses formerly paid by the government. Hence the asset limits of certain programs provide a disincentive for saving, and thus moving out of reliance on the dole.
Also, many public assistance programs place caps on one's assets. For example, you cannot receive food stamps and own more than $3,000 (or was it $2,000?) in most kinds of financial assets. The recipient may see it in her benefit - or her necessity - to continue receiving food stamps, and it could really be in her best interest to NOT accumulate more than the program's asset limit, as that savings will be quickly eaten up by the expenses formerly paid by the government. Hence the asset limits of certain programs provide a disincentive for saving, and thus moving out of reliance on the dole.
See of course welfare has rules but the people in this thread would have you believe that everyone on food stamps also drives a 2014 Lamborghini when that is simply impossible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
