Umm, I apologized for having the wrong stat. It doesn’t change any of my ideals or beliefs. It’s a moot point that you would rather focus on than the real facts. I’ve addressed this mis quote, in 3 posts now. I can see that you are actually the one with zero empathy and insist on beating me over the head about it … which is fine.
This stat changes nothing about the fact that it’s better to save up and pay cash for things, it’s better to be 100% financially prepared before having any children, it’s better for families to decide family business about their own families rather than the state, the state’s job of protecting citizens, and maintaining infrastructure suffers when it has to focus on educating children or sorting out marital affairs - something I contend it does a terrible job of. You don’t have to agree with any of that and you can call me any name you like. My principles, which I personally live by (putting my money where my mouth is), are extremely doable and reasonable.
The point you seem to be missing is that many of the facts you seem to be basing your arguments on, are completely, flat out wrong. It’s like building a house. If the wood is rotten, the house isn’t going to hold up well.
The truth is I’m getting my MBA in Strategic Management. I have 12 years of experience in budgeting/reconciliation for commercial portfolios. So, I have a lot of experience in economics, finance, numbers in general. I have zero debt, insurance on everything, have been putting $500/month in my 401K for as long as it was possible, and drive a paid for car. I save save save, pay cash for things, including my education.
In my life experience and what I’ve seen, I think we are throwing good money after bad and hurting Liberty and Freedom by jacking people’s paychecks at extortion rates to fund the black hole of education created by the belief that “have as many kids as you like the state will educate them.” We can’t truly be an ownership society if senior citizens, on fixed incomes, living in homes they paid off decades ago have to continue paying the state property taxes to keep what is already theirs… And why do they have to pay such high property taxes?
What I say is that, the people who created all these children (and continue to do so) should be held responsible for disciplining, feeding, entertaining, and educating them - everything.
Again, you don’t have to agree. You can even take me to task over misquoted stats (and I apologize for misquoting them) but it doesn’t change the core principles of the ideals I have shared and what I believe in … not one bit. In fact, your continuing to focus on the minutia is a very clear statement that you have no real refute to what I am actually sharing.
I’m saying it costs $120K to educate a single child in America. America has become extremely competative and kids need things that cost money to not only start out even, but get ahead and succeed in this world. I contend that people should have the majority of those things in order and be ready to provide them before they have kids. My position is much more kid-friendly then “have as many kids as you like, the state will provide a “standard” education to each of them” wherein your child is subject to the beliefs of the state and what they feel is worth teaching.
Again, you don’t have to agree. I know I am right.
Close … I think it’s unfair for people who have no kids to be forced to pay property taxes to school districts when they have no children while the young woman in the apartment one neighborhood over pays $500/month in rent, no property taxes, and has 2, going on 3 kids in the school system.
The system is unfair the way it is set up … not just with income taxes, but also property taxes. Let’s not forget those.
One misquote, made on the fly does not undermine every ideal I have. But don’t let that stop you from kicking the dead dog… By all means, your refute to my personal responsibility notions are insightful?
“Americans represent 5% of the world population but 25% of the world’s prisoners” - I misquoted this. I’ve apologized for it. It was wrong. I have no excuse for it. It was an idiotic mistake that won’t be made again …
Still doesn’t change the fact that people who chose to bring children into the world should be financially prepared to provide for them.
No… no that’s not true at all. I misquoted one stat. That does not undermine any of my personal responsibility or individual liberty ideals whatsoever.
Everyone should save up to pay cash for a house. Right. That would work out just fine for the economy. Can’t see anything wrong with that plan.
120K to educate each child. I guess that should be in the bank too before anyone starts a family.
You are a victim of magical thinking. By the way, I seriously doubt you’re going to recoup the cost of your MBA, since they’re a dime a dozen these days. Good luck with that though.
As has been pointed out, there is more than one fact you’ve gotten wrong. That said, even ignoring all the others and looking just at the 25% incarceration rate, with a population of approximately 300 million, that would be 75 million in jail. Where would they even be housed? The amount of money to look after that many inmates would be astronomical. You obviously didn’t employ any critical thinking skills when swallowing that statistic. Why should I assume you did so when coming to any of the other conclusions you made?
someday, you may end up living in a nursing home. maybe in your 90s, maybe next year. terrible brain injuries happen; rare neurological diseases happen
at any time, any number of things could cause this and no amount of money or smarts or anything else will mean as much as those “nursing assistants” who take care of you.
they are other people’s children, they did not have private education, and they have not made the best choices in their lives. many of them smoke and have children they have trouble supporting!
but those people - more than anyone or anything else - will determine how your day goes. maybe they will care if you are stuck in one position too long, if you get cleaned well after a BM, if you are given an extra blanket when cold.
you think this could never be, but you are wrong. I hope they care more for you than you do for them.
It would be very helpful for the economy if American households weren’t in so much debt. Debt is an economical blight and actually contributes to societal and economic woes.
Absolutely. Yes, I completely agree that parents should save up X dollars that it will cost to educate their children before they have them.
I’m extremely practical and living the very principles I tout. I am already recouping the cost of my MBA, they are not a dime a dozen in my organization. My boss doesn’t have one and neither does his boss.
However, if you are really concerned about my ability to recoup my MBA investment, let me set your mind at ease. I’m already doing it. No luck needed sir… Good ole fashioned hard work, planning, living below my means, and doing without have set me on a very successful track. How is that even a suprises is all I’m asking?
If I’m so lacking in critical thinking and your continuing to point out that ONE misquoted fact that I have now corrected is all you have - why are you still here? Isn’t your job done? Why do you even bother with my drivel if I don’t have any valid points?
Clearly your brilliance is far beyond my own. I’ve completely missed the mark. Uneducated, in debted people should very clearly continue reproducing at neck breaking speed while the state jacks people’s paychecks to bail them and their financiers out and educate the progeny of the masses. I should continue to fork over as much as they ask for, unquestioning in my financial devotion to “the state” and their ability to educate and train. Your plan is so much more valid and headed for unbridled success. You should go share it with others instead of wasting your time here with me.
Yawn, another Lib’tarian outraged at all those poor moochers who we spend a tiny fraction of our money on while big banks are getting paid orders of magnitude more of our money to rob pension funds. How novel and interesting.
In your opinion SillyBean, only people who have over120 K in the bank should even have children. That would mean most people even with excellent educations, etc should not have children until they are in at least their mid/late thirties. ( Or their 40s, which increases the risk of various birth defects, trisomy 21 (Down’s Syndrome) etc. Which will be even more expensive …would you fault someone with 120 K in the bank the day their child is born who needs 200 000 dollars of medical care the first year?) The argument falls apart if only the rich are allowed to reproduce, then where is the tax base going to come from. The birth rate is declining since the 1960s, so if less and less people have children your taxes are going to increase.
No, you should not go on, because everything you just said is either false or overly simplistic. Doesn’t matter if you pay cash, you will still have closing costs, etc. I still don’t see where you are getting your 10-20% number. If you stay in a house a full 30 years, you will pay about about 280k in interest on a 300k loan at 5%. Obviously, the interest rate is nowhere near what you implied in your previous post. Furthermore, you are ignoring inflation in your calculations. The premium you pay by not having a mortgage is only equal to the delta between your mortgage interest rate (minus deductions, etc.) and the return you could get from other investments. That number is nowhere near 10-20%. More importantly, you are also forgetting that most people, who would need to rent in order to save money for their house are paying rents which increase year after year rather than being locked into a fixed mortgage. Either way, it seems like you just pulled more numbers from your ass.
I find this very, very, very hard to believe. I would have to think profound innumeracy would prevent you from excelling at anything finance related.
And? First, I don’t necessarily agree with you because more people, in all likelihood, also means more scientists who create more drugs to treat various mental illnesses. It also means more doctors, therapists, and (often) a greater social safety net to deal with mental illness.
Even if I accepted your supposition at face value, it’s quite pessimistic to just focus on the greater absolute number of mentally ill people without noting that that also means more “sane” people as well. That is unless you think 50 metally ill people in a population of 10k are less “dangerous” than 200 ill people in a population of 40k. Plus, as I said before, even a strict definition of mentally ill does not imply those people are dangerous to themselves or others, as you implied earlier.
Honestly, I don’t think you get it. Yes, some of what I, and others, have focused on is minor (eg. the global pop.). But fact that you could think 25% of people in the US were in jail at any given time is SO far off the mark it makes people question your basic competency on any related issue. It’s like if you asked someone what the weather was gonna be like tomorrow, and they told you it was supposed to be 275 degrees. Would you trust anything that person has to about the weather, climate, or earth science? Again, it’s not JUST that you were wrong. What you stated was basically an impossibility. It’s so glaringly wrong that one would think you would say to yourself that cannot be correct BEFORE you wrote it. It would be like thinking someone was 25 feet tall, or 300 years old. Even if something like that did slip by, you would think your attitude would be less of this:
And more, holy shit, I cannot believe my estimate was that far off, maybe I need to rethink things. Instead, you basically double down, and berate people for bringing up your mistake. Your initial statement, and your reaction to being called on it, basically disqualifies you from meaningfully contributing to a conversation on these matters with adults.
In this thread you have made numerous disqualifying statements, yet you still expect people to take you seriously. Even beyond the merits of your policy opinions, do you not see why this is a hard sell given how wrong you have been on many very basic, easily verifiable facts? It’s not like it would have taken more than 5 minutes to find all those figures via google. Why should anyone trust someone who proudly and willfully exhibits such laziness and incompetence?
Let’s just dissect this for a second. You rightfully point out that we are in an extremely competitive world. Do you know if ANY other successful country where your beliefs on education predominate? I know you are certain that your way is a better way of doing things, but I wonder why you think it is that no other competitive country seems to have any desire to establish your system? Why do you think that is?
Is it fair that she subsidized your (typically) tax-deferred income you put into your 401k? Is it fair that your employer-provided healthcare is subsidized by others? Is it fair that your capital gains are taxed differently than her income? Is it fair that you likely take advantage of a number of programs that disproportionately benefit you? Do you really want to play that game?
Renters pay property taxes indirectly via their rent. Rents will be higher in areas with high property taxes because of this fact. There is not free lunch in this case.
Again. Your COMPLETE misunderstanding of a fairly basic economic concept. Debt is not an economic blight, although it can be for individuals and companies. Debt is a tool that can be used in good and bad ways. The concept of debt, on the whole, is GREAT for societies. This is a very basic idea here. What do you think debt is? Do you not understand that nearly every company (and individual) relies on debt? Why do you think they do that? More importantly, what do you think would happen if they couldn’t? For someone who seems to be all about preventing government intrusion, and maximizing individual freedom, do you not realize that debt only exists because 2 sides agreed to a deal? Why are you so intent on suggesting to others what they do with their money?
Exactly. If somebody was claiming that the social security system was going to go bankrupt and one of the “facts” they threw in was that the average American lifespan was 90, I’d correct them (it’s 78) but I’d be willing to move on with the discussion. But if this person claimed that the average American lifespan was 150, I’d call a time-out and tell them they need to do some fundamental learning.
Why on Earth would they need to save up the cost of educating their child before having a kid?
Let’s say you have cable TV. Did you save up the entire cost of your cable bill for the rest of your lifetime before having it installed? No, you probably looked at your income and saw that you could afford to make a monthly cable payment.
I’m assuming most parents make the same calculation. They don’t save up for all the expenses of having a child before having it. They just look to see if they can afford a child within their income.
Government is not a la carte. I know plenty of folks who don’t think we need a military that is capable of operating outside our borders and that acounts for a lot more of my overall tax burden than my real estate, social security and medicare taxes combined.
Well its a goiod thing that the tax code also provides all sortsd of tax benefits for retirement savings and charitable giving.
(BTW as others have pointed out, its not 9Billion yet.)
We have about the lowest tax environment we have had in the country in almost a century.
Thats because you don’t get to take home that money you put into your 401K and if the tax benefits of having children gives her a higher take home pay than you, then you are not making all that much more than her.
Your principles do not stand on their own because they do not seem to be founded on facts.
Yeah and even the 1:31 is off, SillyBean is shifting the goal posts by inclkuding people who are in the juducual system but not incarcerated (e.g. parole). The original criticism was correct. the incarceration rate is more like 0.7% Incarceration in the United States - Wikipedia
“The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At year-end 2009 it was 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000 population”
What if I don’t like reading or prefer buying the books that I read (the publilc library is a communist attempt to undermine the intellectual property rights of authors by giving people access to books without paying for them)?
So you want to get rid of medicare/medicaid and social security?
bolded for emphasis. I think thats the problem. Your position is derived from your feelings and not facts.
I don’t know where you live but the highest property tax rates are under 3%. There are also places where the property tax rates are 0.13%. I’m not sure how that amounts to extortionate but you do have a choice. Vote with your feet.
Fact: You said interest. All those other things are not interest. Besides, even with all those things, you don’t hit an effective 10-20% AFR these days.
Creating an amortization schedule is a matter of putting in three variables and hitting the print button. I don’t see how that would give you any more insight than a loan officer or the guy who does leases at the auto dealership.
You seem to have a very flexible relationship with numbers. Are you involved in mortgage finance?
[quote]
Fact: The more people you have = the more crazy people you have. It’s just a fact that a certain % of the population is mentally ill/handicapped and as you increase that population an ever higher number (a % of the total) will appear. 17% of 100 people = 17. 17% of 9, excuse me 7B = X. Simple math.
[quote]
Are you saying that 17 whackos in a group of 100 is less dangerous than 170 whackos ina group of 1000? Unless these whackos learn to act in concert, I don’t see how that is the case.
It doesn’t sound like they stand even with you trying to support them.
So is scientology.
I was hoping you would set the hurdle a little higher for yourself.
If everyone else followed your theory, we would have missed out on folks like, Steve Jobs, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Andrew Carnegie, the guy who started Starbucks, Sheldon Adelson, Lloyd Blankfein, Hell, the world would have been virtually depopulated sometime shortly after Adam and Eve left Eden.
[quote]
People should save up and pay cash for things. This means you have to say “no” now to the big house, the kids, the fancy car so that you can save up and pay cash for those things later
[quote]
That is a horrible policy.
If people didn’t borrow, you would have noone to lend to. If you are criticizing irresponsible borrowing then I don’t think you are saying anything very controversial. If you are criticizing borrowing generally, then most college grads in this country would not have a college degree.
I was not aqware that our tax dollars were bailing out irresponsible borrowing to any significant degree. I was always under the impression that most of my federal tax dollars went to pay for the military, medicare/medicaid, social security, interest on the debt and stuff like veterans benefits and national security.
I think you’re drinking too much kool aid.
No but it might make them wrong.
Depends on the interest rate. I have a credit card that offered me 2% for transfers a few years back and I transferred the maximum they allowed. I could pay it back tomorrow, but I won’t. I bought a car recently and seeing how money is fungible, I paid for it with borrowed money, money I could have used to repay that 2% credit card loan.
Not if it means you don’t get to have children while you still have the energy t5o raise them. Its a time sensitive issue.
The arguments for public education are not new. When economists try to determine economic growth rates, did you know that anticipated immigration and birth rates are among the most important factors? Their level of eduation is a multiplier. There are some things that should not be distributed based on ability to pay and in a modern economy, education is one of them.
That sounds like an opinon, a wrong opinion.
Because it supports good schools that keep their property values nice and high.
All these little factual errors add up to a distorted world view.
If we limited procreation by law or social pressure to those who already had $120K in the bank, America would collapse under its own weight within a generation unless we had a LOT of immigration of well educated immigrants.
You realize that your propoerty values are directly affected by the schols in your area right? You realize that there are places that have low property taxes, right? You realize taht you are free to move to those places right?
Or do you want the benefits of a normal functional society but only pay for those parts that you directly benefit from?
How are income taxes unfair?
OR, it can be the only avenue for a college student to fund their education.
