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.
he already listed all his reasons for us in other posts so that isn't the case. you want to feel sympathy for him go ahead no one is stopping you . the rest of us see things differently when it comes to freemkt.
most other opinions here are his life was created by himself through lack of motivation ,trying , creativity and poor choices.
if you don't like the opinions of others there is always ignore.
For me this exchange should shed some light on what is meant when people use emotionally laden but nebulous terms like "the most vulnerable among us."
There are children of drug addicts, and then there are, well, drug addicts.
There are people who worked and planned well and perhaps experienced a health-related catastrophe or natural disaster that took them down financially, and then there are those who made choices for years and decades at a time not to better their situation.
I am happy to support the former, both personally and "societally." (with time, money, moral support--it's not JUST about money, and with social programs--I wish some social programs, like the foster system, were much better funded.). I am happy to support the latter too, but with advice, a list of agencies where they can find help making better choices--with my time and encouragement, perhaps. I'm not willing to engage in the enabling of self-destructive (and society-destructive) behavior by handing these people checks while they continue making bad decisions.
Some people are going to have the wherewithal to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Others won't, no matter what is given to them. The people in the middle are the ones we can choose to condition to be satisfied making crappy choices with their lives because it's easy and relatively comfortable, or instead to encourage to do the hard work of making something of themselves and creating a real plan for their own future(s).
To me it's like the panhandlers discussed on so many C-D threads. ANYONE who works with the homeless will tell you in absolute terms, NEVER give them money. All that does is stroke the giver's ego, makes them feel great about themselves for a bit. I am guilty of this from time to time--it's like I can't resist! But most of the time I hear the words of our local homeless shelter director (and everyone else who volunteer regularly) in my head, "If you want to help homeless people, give the shelter the money. I am helping people who want to turn their lives around. No question that the money you give to a panhandler will be spent feeding the addiction, whatever it is." He gets angry that so many people pat themselves on the back for "giving" to homeless people but refuse to come down and support the shelter (which helps people get on their feet long-term) either with time or money. It's just a quick "fix" for us to throw money at a problem but never address the core issues which invariably include a person's character. In the view of those closest to the homeless issue (and who would know better what "most vulnerable" means?), giving to panhandlers is a HARMFUL and self-indulgent act.
If someone chooses a certain level lifestyle, I am fine with that. But don't expect someone else to foot the bill later for your lack of initiative.
If someone wants a way out of the life they are living, I want programs in place that teach them the way--not excuses made for them or incentives to hover in comfort without ever breaking through to real success and self-determination.
I will feed you, I will clothe you, I will shelter you--myself if I have to, through local charities, etc. and ultimately through the safety nets provided by the government and paid for by the taxpayers. But I won't do your work for you, and I don't think it's kind of anyone else to do so.
But don't expect me to stroke a check so that your lifestyle can more closely approximate that of someone who busted his/her butt for a lifetime, who saw the writing on the wall and worked to make sure they would live the way they desired. You'd better believe those people had the discipline to tell themselves "NO," when they saw something they wanted or thought they'd just take a day or a year off of school. But they are cruel for telling you "no" when you want a lifestyle you didn't bother to plan or work for?
There's a difference between vulnerability and indolence. I just happen to believe we can care for the first without enabling the second.
Oh, so you weighed the risks of an illegal action, and they didn't pay off.
As for "had to pay" obviously you were responsible since you were found to owe the tax. Did you even "argue", or do you just reserve that for the internet?
FYI - you are only a criminal if you are found to be guilty, which your employer was not. Guilt isn't decided by a disgruntled independent contractor with income envy that got caught cheating on taxes.
Sigh. Think about it...should a person argue or should they keep their job? You seem to casually assume that everyone has lots of options available. People without better options probably shouldn't argue.
Sigh. Think about it...should a person argue or should they keep their job? You seem to casually assume that everyone has lots of options available. People without better options probably shouldn't argue.
I don't think it's a casual assumption at all. We are all born with a certain level of "options" that are a given-- somewhat dictated by our circumstances. The beauty of this country is that we all have access to MORE options than what we're born with if we decide to identify and work toward those options. For some it's more work than for others, (depending on financial resources, talent, familial support, intelligence, etc.) but we are all allowed to access them and achieve success.
So yes, everyone has lots of options. Not everyone has lots of confidence, motivation, willpower, etc. Not everyone has the wherewithal to do the work to reach out and grab the options. I'm not saying it's easy or that there's no risk involved--for some more risk than others that's true. But what does one risk by not making the effort?
Sigh. Think about it...should a person argue or should they keep their job? You seem to casually assume that everyone has lots of options available. People without better options probably shouldn't argue.
Did you even try? My employer tried to tag me as an independent contractor, which I caught on my first check. I immediately "argued", by giving the facts about why I was an employee, not a contractor. It was my first job, which I had finally landed after tons of interviews. Once I laid out the facts to him, he not only changed my classification to employee, but I kept my job for years, until I decided to leave.
"You can buy a home in many places in the US on minimum wage. Maybe you can’t buy a $250,000 4,400 sq ft McMansion, but you can get a 3-bedroom ranch on half acre or acre of land."
Ummmm......I'm not sure where one can buy a 3 bedroom ranch on a half acre for under $250K. And certainly a 4400 SF home will cost far more than 250 most anywhere.
I'm not sure where one can buy a 3 bedroom ranch on a half acre for under $250K.
Lot's and lots of places have low house prices. Right here in Winston Salem f'rinstance.
A 3BR ranch can be had for whole lot less than $250K. About half will do it.
Have a look: http://tinyurl.com/pbjqecf
It doesn't even have to require remodeling or repairs like I've done with mine.
Still... when all is done (including roof, HVAC and the K&B work) mine will top out under $160K.
I call that affordable. My Zip: http://tinyurl.com/ol33yw6
Quote:
What's up?
If Mom and Dad EACH clock 1800 RT hours at their MW jobs...
and between them they ALSO clock another 500 OT hours (or similar)
1800 x 2 x $7.25 ($26,100) + 500 x 1.5 x $7.25 ($5,400) ... they'll have $31,500 gross.
$31,500 x 25% (x 30 year amortization) = $236,250.
Deduct for tax, insurance, misc ~$2000/yr = $176,000 for P&I
At 4%... 30 years pays off a $100,000 mortgage.
But the point is that the same monthly (31,500 x25% /12)...
about $650 is LESS than they'll have to pay in rent for a crap shack.
The sticky part:
Let's pretend that they can save enough (or have a rich uncle) to provide
the money needed for down, closing, repairs, and emergencies...
and that they have some other unpaid person around for all the kiddo work...
and that their lives are generally stable enough to keep up with it all.
Last edited by MrRational; 10-05-2014 at 05:45 AM..
Lot's and lots of places have low house prices. Right here in Winston Salem f'rinstance.
A 3BR ranch can be had for whole lot less than $250K. About half will do it.
Have a look: http://tinyurl.com/pbjqecf
It doesn't even have to require remodeling or repairs like I've done with mine.
Still... when all is done (including roof, HVAC and the K&B work) mine will top out under $160K.
I call that affordable. My Zip: 27104 3 bedrooms Single-Family Homes For Sale — Trulia.com
If Mom and Dad EACH clock 1800 RT hours at their MW jobs...
and between them they ALSO clock another 500 OT hours (or similar)
1800 x 2 x $7.25 ($26,100) + 500 x 1.5 x $7.25 ($5,400) ... they'll have $31,500 gross.
$31,500 x 25% (x 30 year amortization) = $236,250.
Deduct for tax, insurance, misc ~$2000/yr = $176,000 for P&I
At 4%... 30 years pays off a $100,000 mortgage.
But the point is that the same monthly (31,500 x25% /12)...
about $650 is LESS than they'll have to pay in rent for a crap shack.
The sticky part:
Let's pretend that they can save enough (or have a rich uncle) to provide
the money needed for down, closing, repairs, and emergencies...
and that they have some other unpaid person around for all the kiddo work...
and that their lives are generally stable enough to keep up with it all.
,
The FAIL in your reasoning is readily apparent; you either are not grasping the concept of marriageability or you are casually disregarding it.
Men who earn minimum wage in this country are generally considered inadequate as marriage material, or unmarriageable, i.e. very few have a partner to earn that second income crucial to buying a home.
"Women marry providers. Men marry anything." - Margaret Mead
Again, it's illustrative. Is this mindset indicative of "the most vulnerable among us" or of someone making a particular set of choices, finding every way they can to justify those choices, and then expect not only their basic needs be met but to be kept at a middle-class level by others who have tried everything they can to reveal alternatives and a pathway to better success?
Who is responsible for the situation?
What lifestyle should a person making such choices expect to have handed to him/her, when they have rejected every path forward?
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.
