posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> 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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> 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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
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?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
Very interesting Icarus. I would not have guessed that Jefferson would support public education.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!*
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
