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.
I'm not talking about "small pleasures." I am indeed saying that people with no savings in the bank should deny themselves the latest iPhone, expensive vacations, and fully-loaded new cars they trade in every five years.
And your comment about it sounding like a depression-era argument? Nobody is complaining about someone buying an ice cream cone. The complaints are about people WITH NO SAVINGS buying expensive electronic gadgets when there are much cheaper versions available (as one example).
They have these places called Casinos. Billionaires buy them because they know people will throw their money away. You can blow your last $400.00 in a casino and then turn around and ask for a job there to make it back because they are probably hiring. Once unemployment gets above 6% I might change my tune but for now turn your money into something else. That million dollars that people put up for retirement would be better spent on a farm and you can live on lease payments or PIK when you retire.
Finn, you've mentioned "study" and "studies" many times in this thread, showing the real reason folks can't save. Thanks in advance for actually sharing the study, rather than merely referring to it's existence.
Let alone actually reading and <gasp!> scrutinizing said study.
People can choose to have children or not to have children. If people make the choice to be children why should the cost of that choice be "on me"?
Why do you feel it is on you?
In the other hand, anyone who owns a house today, pays property tax, and it is used to fund schools even if you don't have kids. Do you find this unfair?
There are other ways to reduce costs like preventing Pharmacy Benefit Managers from raking in hundreds of millions of profits out of thin air.
In the other hand, anyone who owns a house today, pays property tax, and it is used to fund schools even if you don't have kids. Do you find this unfair?
There are other ways to reduce costs like preventing Pharmacy Benefit Managers from raking in hundreds of millions of profits out of thin air.
Just to be clear, you're advocating increased taxes to cover those who do not have $400 in the bank right? That is the crux of the argument here - that somehow those who do not have $400 are victims of those who do.
Just to be clear, you're advocating increased taxes to cover those who do not have $400 in the bank right? That is the crux of the argument here - that somehow those who do not have $400 are victims of those who do.
Can you quote the post which gave you that idea? I have no idea what you are talking about.
In the very post you quoted, I offered a simple solution which would reduce the cost, and would not have any impact on taxes, so I find it weird you'd come back with the "crux of the argument" again.
Can you quote the post which gave you that idea? I have no idea what you are talking about.
In the very post you quoted, I offered a simple solution which would reduce the cost, and would not have any impact on taxes, so I find it weird you'd come back with the "crux of the argument" again.
After you edited it - I had already responded, so. You mentioned taxes in your post in response to someone asking about how it is his fault that someone has children. One can reason that you want to apply the same solution of taxation across the board. You've certainly done enough assuming for those of us on the other side, including assuming we want to put barrels around people to shame them.
People should have to crunch the numbers with the random internet posters before making purchases.
If they do not, then they have no one to blame but themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
And I will repeat this one final time
What is the main cause : Studies show that #1 reason (by far) for inability to save is big ticket living expenses (housing, health care, education, child care etc).
Housing costs can be reduced.
You have no moral, ethical or legal right to live in a particular place simply because you wanna.
If you cannot afford it, then move.
Seek room-mates or share housing with other similarly situated people.
The impoverished suck on the Medicaid teat, so they have little to no healthcare costs.
The majority of Americans are over-insured with respect to healthcare.
It is not necessary for both working spouses to pay for healthcare and if it is, then you may thank your federal and State governments who, with hot-n-heavy help from the American Hospital Association, created the nightmare healthcare system you enjoy.
Few Americans have educational expenses.
Do you understand 6th Grade Math?
People all over the US can get free education through Pell Grants and State educational grants that never have to be repaid.
Cincinnati State is $158/credit hour. $3,792 for one year. Everyone in poverty automatically qualifies for a combined Pell Grant/Ohio Educational Opportunity Grant of $6,095/year.
Do the math:
$6,095
$3,792 less
--------
$2,303 profit per year
50 Million excuses why people cannot do that in 3....2....1....
You have no moral, ethical or legal right to attend a particular college just because you wanna.
If you cannot afford it, then find a cheaper alternative.
There are alternatives to child-care.
It's not my fault people are too stupid to explore them.
As I said, I will go to any household in the US and within 6 months they'll have $400 in the bank, but it won't last long, because that $400 will just be burning a hole in their pocket and they'll be dying to spend it.
If you didn't want to have a high deductible plan, you should have paid more for one that wasn't. Issue of course is cost. Most people don't see it as they get coverage through employer. It's 7,000 a year for the average individual. That includes younger people though. In my 30s the high deductible plan ifor me is 345 a month. In a group plan, the young in effect subsidize the old which happens less in the individual market
Do you realize that to "pay more" for a plan with a lower deductible would probably cost between $500 and $1000 more a month?
She's already paying nearly $1000 a month (we're paying $1100).
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.
