No, that is not what I’m saying. It is easier to eat better, cook from scratch, and so forth if a household can dedicate one member to taking care of these things full time. Unfortunately, our society does not regard running a household frugally and efficiently as either work or a legitimate job. Therefore, the homemaker is considered “unemployed” even if that person devotes 40 or more hours a week to running the household for the benefit of all.
It’s a LOT easier to eat better when you come home from a long shift and someone has already prepared the food and all you have to do is sit down and eat. I don’t know why that’s puzzling for anyone.
Without that, eating well is yet another layer of time, effort, and energy. Since none of us have infinite supplies of any of those it should not be surprising if someone working long hours under financial stress might choose a different allocation of those items than someone for whom work is not physically stressful and finances aren’t such a source of stress and frustration.
Again, these problems cut across all socio-economic strata.
At one point I DID, in fact, have six months income in the bank. Actually, slightly more once all the frills were eliminated - $30k in cash. In the bank. That was my emergency fund. WAY more than the average. Then I was laid off and it took years to find steady work again. Thank goodness I had that nest egg! Problem is, the money eventually runs out no matter how frugal you are.
Why do you assume I am “staying” in such a system, or that I’d somehow prefer it, or that I’m not building a nest egg again or advancing at my current employment (two raises and a promotion in less than 8 months, which is not bad for an old hag, ay?)
The difference between me and a lot of other people with my current financial situation is that I climbed out of the hole once before and I know what needs to be done. So I’m doing it. It takes awhile, though.
Just sucks if you aren’t able-bodied, right? Which may have nothing to do with being overweight - my spouse, for example, has been disabled since birth. It really does make it harder for him to find work or hold down a job, through no fault of his own.
Did you read where I said access was ONE FACTOR AMONG MANY?
Please. I am not FROM Indiana. I just live here.
And you asked what could interfere with someone running a business when there was demand for a product or service. There you go - “government interference”.
Again, the problems cut across all socio-economic strata. If wealthy people, who have always had access to good food, have weight problems why would you expect giving the poor access to better food would somehow magically solve their weight and nutritional issues?
Access is the FIRST STEP. We didn’t get into this problem overnight, we won’t solve it in a day.
The problem is that wealthier people don’t suffer the same penalties, therefore, they either aren’t judged when they make dumbass decisions, or else it’s handwaved as “their money, they can do what they want”.
When the household was earning close to 6k a month we could easily recover from a 2k mistake. About 10-12 days wages and we’d have that money back. Whee! Now, though - a 2k mistake would take at least a year to recover from, if that soon. You don’t see a difference there? Even for small decisions, small mistakes, it has a much bigger impact now than it did 10 years ago.
That’s what I mean - what would be a small mistake for someone middle-class is a MAJOR problem for someone at the poverty level. It’s the equivalent of a $100k mistake for someone middle class.
It used to be that new tires for my vehicles would be, oh, about 2 days wages. Now it’s about 10 days wages. Everything costs 5 times as much in that sense, that it takes 5 times long to earn that money.
Let’s assume someone - hey, let’s say YOU - currently earn $100k a year.
Imagine if instead of gas being $2/gallon it was $10/gallon.
Imagine if instead of a $1,200 mortgage you suddenly have to pay $6,000/month for your home (that’s $72k a year right there, or roughly 70% of your gross. Just for housing.)
A loaf of bread is now $10 instead of $2.
Rinse and repeat for everything you buy - multiple it by five. Now try to balance your budget. Have fun! That’s the reality of living at the poverty line (actually, a little above it). It takes you five times as long to earn anything you buy. Any error you make will cost 5 times as much, or take 5 times as long to recover from it.
You don’t think that would affect your choices? Your stress levels? What you eat, what you do, what you value?
I agree that eating well is much easier with a dedicated homemaker. I also think the fact that - as you pointed out - being a homemaker isn’t considered a real job in some situations is wrong.
But, if you want to eat well, you will. It’s harder for poor people, no doubt. But still very doable
The argument made was that if you have more than $2,000 in the bank you loose benefits, and therefore the system disincentivizes savings. Therefore the system has a serious flaw.
I agree. But that flaw presents a person with a clear choice. To wit, keep saving and lose benefits, or don’t. I said if that’s your choice, so be it. I don’t know what choice you did, are or will make. But you do have a choice to make. I know how I would decide.
I sympathize with your husbands situation. But most poor people aren’t eating bad food because they’re not able bodied. It’s a choice.
I did read that. Did you read the articles I linked?
Touché
Except the government doesn’t interfere with folks selling vegetables to poor people. The Let’s Move program does just the opposite.
I don’t expect that giving people, rich or poor, good food will cure obesity. That’s because people, rich and poor, typically prefer eating shitty food.
My point, and the point of the study that I linked to, is that food deserts aren’t why poor people are obese.
Wealthier people do face the same penalties. If a rich person persistently squanders a large percentage of their money, they will face negative consequences. Same is true of a poor person.
And “their money, they can do what they want” isn’t a hand wave, it’s a valid point.
You might not like it, but it’s an undeniable fact. If you rely on help from other people, those other people will have an interest in how you spend the money they gave you.
It’s about proportionality. Don’t make decisions that will stress your resources. Everybody is subject to that rule.
Of course it would affect my choices, stress levels, etc. But I can make 3 to 5 servings of beans and brown rice (a complete protein, a complex carb, and with some olive oil, a source of quality fat) for what I can get a value meal for. I’ll still eat well.
One of my favorite books is Pride and Prejudice - and in part for this reason. Lydia buys a hat - she knows its ugly, but there were three or four much uglier ones in the shop and she’ll pull it apart and redo it when she gets home. She is completely unaware of the financial strain her family is under (as is her mother). She has taken a short trip to a different town where there is a hat shop, so she must buy a hat. When the girls marry, the two who married wealthy men practice little economies in their own lives in order to send Lydia money and keep her and Wickham afloat. It illustrates that this sort of silly behavior is certainly nothing new.
Vacations are an awesome time for this. The Caribbean and Hawaii tends to sell a ton of jewelry and clothing that really seldom look good outside the Caribbean or Hawaii - unless you are Wallis Simpson most of us can’t pull off a jeweled parrot in our day to day lives.
And when you can afford to buy candy you don’t NEED, hats you don’t even want and jeweled parrots you’ll seldom again wear - it puts money into the economy and who cares. But the vast majority of people can afford relatively few of these sorts of purchases - whether poor or middle class - and still purchase the things higher on their priority list (whether wants or needs). With the poor, make too many of them and you can’t keep a roof over your head - its a stressful day to day situation. The middle classes problems don’t tend to hit until they do their FAFSA or try and retire - or face a life changing event like job loss - they can often just kick the can down the road and ignore their own bad habits.
I’m having a horrible time finding typical savings. There are lots of ways to look at this. Median savings account, retirement account, net worth, overall savings. I don’t even use a savings account.
I do have this:
[QUOTE=http://finance.zacks.com/much-money-average-american-family-savings-7304.html]
The average savings account balance in the U.S. was $5,923 in 2011, according to a 2012 report by Pitney Bowes, a document-management services company. This represented an increase of just under 3 percent from the $5,753 balance in 2010. New Jersey residents saved the most, with average savings account balances of $7,872, while those in New Mexico had accounts averaging just $4,119, the lowest in the U.S.
Savings accounts aren’t the only way to sock money away for a rainy day. Pitney Bowes says the average checking account balance in 2011 was $3,100, up from $2,947 in 2010. As with savings accounts, checking account balances were also highest in New Jersey, with an average balance of $4,465. New Mexico residents maintained the lowest checking balances, averaging $2,206.
[/QUOTE]
But what about all the people without bank accounts? I’m not sure they averaged in all those zeroes.
401k balances are up near $100k. But again, lots of folks don’t have those.
At what point of “harder” will you concede it starts to become nearly impossible?
It’s not just one thing that makes for long term poverty or long term poor nutrition, it’s many. You can’t fix just one of those things and expect instant results.
If you have a minimal income then get a sudden windfall you lose benefits, the windfall may not last long, then you have to reapply for benefits.
There’s a thread around here where I point out that some friends kindly replacing my air conditioner one summer not only threatened to get me cut off, but the public aid office threatened me with accusations of fraud. For a lousy air conditioner. The system assumes malice on the part of the benefit recipients and the burden of proof is on the accused - who by definition lacks resources.
It puts you in a position where there can be a perverse incentive. Unless a jump in income propels you over a certain level of income it will harm a household to loose benefits. That should not happen in a well designed system. Benefits should taper off in a manner where you are always better off saving money, or accepting a raise, or earning a few extra bucks.
When I was last on unemployment I got a certain base amount per week. If I earned money during the week, but wasn’t “fully” employed, my benefits were reduced by half the earned amount, until eventually that wiped out the unemployment benefit. Thus, it was always in my interest to earn any amount of money in a given week, even if the work was temporary or only minimum wage or only a few hours. The incentives all ran in a positive direction. And one week of really good wages in a temp job wouldn’t cut me off for the following week, only a permanent job would do that.
This is in contrast to being on food stamps, where a holiday bonus might put you just a couple of dollars over the asset limit and entirely cut you off the program, after which you have to re-apply all over again. Thus, there is an incentive to hide money, to lie, to avoid an interruption in food the next month when you won’t have that bonus.
Let’s look at Section 8 - last I inquired the waiting list is ten years long in my area. (I have no clue where these people are expected to live in the meanwhile). And the waiting lists are closed - if you aren’t on them already you can’t get on, which means effectively the wait list is even longer. If you lose eligibility you go back to the bottom of the list.
How about health insurance - my spouse needs it due to his chronic health problems. Out of pocket uninsured costs for him are twice our housing costs. For many years we have been on a state-subsidized health program. The rule for that used to be that if your employer offered ANY health insurance you were off the program and had to take whatever the employer offered - no matter how crappy. This meant that if an employer offered me a job I had to ask about health coverage because if the premiums for employees were too high it wasn’t economically feasible for to take that job. High deductible programs are particularly problematic - not only would we have to pay out-of-pocket for the spouse’s maintenance, we’d have premiums on top of that. It would be financially disastrous for us. Yet some benefit programs mandate that you MUST accept any job offer that comes your way. Do you see a potential problem there? Accepting a full time job at a corporation should not result in bankruptcy, but for us that was indeed a potential risk. Which is terrible.
Fortunately (for us) the rules changed on that program. So when my current employer offered me a full time position I could take it without being forced into a high deductible health plan where, between my spouse’s needs and the premiums it would have exceeded our gross monthly income. The ACA also would have been option for us, although not as good as what we’ve been able to keep.
Oh, and if I had lost that state program? Even for a month? (Let’s say I was hired then laid off) Back to the bottom of a waiting list, with NO insurance whatsoever, crushing medical costs…
For years I was in a situation where I had a very strong disincentive to take on a full time job at a large corporation. Which is stupid. It’s wasteful. It’s crushing.
Thankfully, that has changed. But for awhile it was battle because people couldn’t understand why I wouldn’t consider certain jobs. It wasn’t because I was stupid, stubborn, enjoyed being poor, or “choosing the system”, it was because those jobs would have been financially disastrous and left us worse off than before. When Donald Trump turns down what would be a bad deal for him he’s applauded for him financial savvy. When a poor person does the same thing they’re condemned for it. That’s just wrong.
My spouse doesn’t cook because it’s a “choice”, it’s because we got tired of rushing him to the doctor with cuts and burns. It’s not cost-effective.
When he “cooks” he uses a microwave on food where the prep work has already been done. When our microwave died last spring he was no longer doing any of the cooking. So, in addition to my working full time, looking for a better job, and doing a lot of other stuff I was now forced to do ALL the cooking. Oh, yeah, that impacted our diet, don’t you think?
Fortunately, we got a new one for Christmas. What a relief. Not only that, but when I get home from work he can have my dinner heated and ready to go. And, like I said, microwave cooking isn’t necessarily just open a box and heat it up. It can be healthy, and at our house it is. (Due to food allergies, I can’t eat most processed food so I have no choice, I do most of my cooking from scratch and our frozen dinners are mostly ones I cooked and froze myself)
Yes, that’s just us, our unique situation, our household… but every situation is unique on some level. As people have pointed out, there are situations where grabbing the bucket of KFC makes sense. There are perverse incentives in everyone’s life. Poor people are no exception.
Yes, actually, it does. There are all sorts of health regulations involved in selling food, even on a casual level. There are regulations on giving away food in situations like soup kitchens and food pantries. Now, most of those exist as a safety measure, but they do form a barrier to entry and they do add costs.
Really, one of the best options is to get people involved in gardening - but that’s not always feasible for a variety of reasons (disability, lack of space, regulations regarding land around public housing, unsafe locations, contaminated ground in cities, and so on). But that’s one of my points - there is no ONE solution here, and progress is likely to be incremental. Get poor people with problems accessing fresh foods to grow their own tomatoes and peppers in a pot on the back porch and you incrementally improved things. It’s progress, even if it’s small.
No, it’s because they’ve been trained to eat shitty food. Look at TV ads - lots for processed crap, frozen dinner, donuts, candy, sugar-laden cereals… how many for raw carrots? Collard greens? Plain (not fried) potatoes? Tap water?
Advertising works. That’s why it’s a multi-billion dollar industry. Nothing wrong with the occasional PopTart or soft drink - the *occasional *one, not constant. People are bombarded with ads for this or that and they wind up wanting it. This is has been known for decades. Then they get used to eating it.
People are not born craving a Big Mac, they have to be taught to eat them (though it doesn’t help that foods like that have been tailored to hit all our primitive craving buttons). Lots of kids like vegetables given a chance to try them when young. Lots of kids like fruits even more than vegetables. That’s why the grocery area of my store has a constant trickle of things like raided berry containers and tiny juicy handprints. No one is forcing the four year olds to eat the fresh raspberries, if anything, there adults trying to keep the kids away from them, at least until they are paid for.
That’s the cultural element - the early training to eat this rather than that, to add sugar and/or salt to everything, to deep fry the chicken instead of grilling it. That’s the idea behind “nutritious school lunches”, although it’s an uphill battle against what is already a lifetime of training in bad habits by the time the kids get to school. When I was in school we never had pizza or chicken nuggets in the school lunches. Yes, the meat was mystery and the vegetables tended to be overboiled but the meals were still healthier than what I’ve seen offered these days on the rare occasion I’ve been in a public school. We didn’t have student-accessible vending machines full of candy and pop, either. When did all that happen?
I still think you’re looking for a single answer. There isn’t one. Food deserts are one factor in obesity.
The fact the break room vending machine where I work only offers candy is not why some of my coworkers are obese, but since grabbing a candy bar is sooooo much easier than getting a banana when pressed for time guess what gets grabbed more often than not? When someone has put a platter of fruit or vegetables in the break room (usually after a meeting someone has had over lunch) they go every bit as fast as a slab of cake. SOMEONE is eating them. If the healthy stuff isn’t available, or much more difficult to get to, it’s a lot less likely to be chosen.
Making it easier to get healthy food is the first step. If it’s not there, if it can’t be reached, it definitely won’t be eaten.
It’s NOT the same because a poor person doesn’t have the same resources. A smaller “squander” has a much bigger impact and take much longer to recover from. Any mistake of any size is much, much more penalizing, which makes people much more risk averse, and much less likely to change what is sort-of-working for something new - because if the new is NOT better the consequences are much worse for the poor than the wealthy.
Middle class people making crap decisions leading to financial ruin and poor health, even if it’s with “their money”, is just as stupid and just as draining to society as the bad decisions of the poor. If being obese is a moral failing (and many people view it as such) it’s a moral failing regardless of a person’s income.
Well, then since my taxes (yes, I do pay taxes) subsidize middle-class homeowners and their mortgage deductions I demand that they only eat healthy food that I dictate for them. No alcohol or tobacco for them if they want government assistance in the form of tax deductions, public schools, and so forth.
It’s a hell of a lot easier to do that if you HAVE resources. By definition, poor people don’t have the resources of better off people. What do you do if no matter what your income for the month won’t cover even the most minimal expenses? If you’re middle-class or higher you probably can weather a month or two of that. If you’re poor that could make you homeless.
There was a time a few years ago when buying a pair of shoes - not fancy, just practical basic shoes - would “stress” my resources. That’s NOT a situation the middle class ever faces.
I don’t see any fruits or vegetables in that diet. That’s not eating well.
TV ads don’t (or at least shouldn’t) teach people how to eat, that’s what parents are for. I saw the same number of McDonald’s commercials when I was a kid as you did. But you know why I didn’t eat McDonalds all of the time? Because I was a kid! My parents determined where, when, and for the most part, what I ate. Guess why? Because they bought the food.
We had fast food a couple times per year, not per week, or per day. Fast food was considered a very occasional treat, not a “way of eating” that we learned from television ads.
What about the cites others provided earlier in the thread showing that food deserts a largely a myth?
What if those middle class folks rent? Do you still get to decide what they eat?
Also, do you even pay federal income tax? I ask because more than 40% of the population does not.
Not true, and you have persistently ignored the points I raised that answer aspects of this. Businesses do not all have perfect freedom in locating themselves, and different businesses have different incentives and constraints relative to various sitings. Real life business is not an exercise of theoretical pure capitalism, with supply elegantly moving to meet demand.
I haven’t seen one yet. The link I followed, purported to be such, was not. If you don’t mind, could you provide not only a link, but quote the part that you think is showing this. Thanks.
They are held to the same standard - don’t waste your money - and warned that the consequences of failing that standard are greater if you have no reserves. It is more important to be careful if you don’t have a safety net.
[QUOTE=Dangerosa]
Those people are in a place where they don’t make financial decisions other than day to day survival. There aren’t good decisions, there aren’t bad decisions. There is simply “what do I need to do today to keep a roof over my head and enough food in me.”
[/QUOTE]
I was with you in the rest of your post, but this still doesn’t make sense. Spending your money at McDonald’s instead of on fresh food is indded a bad decision, because it does less to keep a roof over your head and food inside you. You can get more and better food inside you, and even have some money left over to keep a roof over your head, if you don’t waste your money.
“A fool and his money soon are parted” is not a lifestyle that helps you live from day to day.
Waymore has ably posted multiple cites. Your response has been “but, but, I’ve seen food deserts and lived in them.” I don’t know why you think that the readers here should believe you, a random person on the internet, over NPR, the USDA, and the JAMA.
No, that is not what I’m saying. It is easier to eat better, cook from scratch, and so forth if a household can dedicate one member to taking care of these things full time.
[/quote]
That’s entirely true, and everyone with any sense agrees with it. However -
[ul][li]Somehow or other, most households where both adult partners work manage to cook their own food. I am a member of such a household - both my wife and I work, and we don’t go to fast food restaurants as more than an occasional treat. [/li][li]We also clean without a maid, do our own laundry, shovel our own driveway, and even do minor repairs and upkeep all on our lonesome. Because adults are expected to do their own chores even if it isn’t easy. [/li]
Asking poor people to cook for themselves is not some huge burden that is way out of reach for the average working person. Taking care of yourself and your family without spending more than you have is what adults do.[/ul]
It’s not puzzling to anyone I know. What’s puzzling is why “I am exhausted from working 6 hours at Wal-Mart so I can’t be expected to put a chicken in the oven so let’s go spend more than we have at a crappy restaurant” sounds like it makes sense on any level.
Which is what makes it (no offense) kind of frustrating to discuss this with you. You know perfectly well how to not be poor. Yet you say you understand the actions of those who, apparently, don’t. I don’t, at least not on an emotional level, and I’ve been poor.
Once site showed that Indianapolis had increased the stores available to the poor - great, so now it’s not a food desert. That doesn’t prove it never happened in the past, and even if food deserts are rare they shouldn’t exist at all.
“Largely a myth” is not the same as “nonexistent”.
If they benefit from any state or Federal government benefit, yes. Are their bank accounts FDIC insured? Are they eligible for SS and Medicaid when they retire?
If sounds like I’m saying everyone gets government benefits in one form or another yes, I am. Aside from some guy living in a self-built shack in Alaska digging up his own lead ore to make his own bullets to shoot his own food and using leaves on his ass instead of commercial toilet paper, we ALL derive benefits from the government. I’ve yet to meet anyone in life who is truly independent of all other people and doesn’t utilize government programs of one sort or another.
Thus, if we impose conditions on poor people who make use of such programs then we should impose conditions on everyone.
Ah, the canard that if you don’t pay a Federal income tax you’re somehow not a citizen or full human being…
Yes, I do pay Federal taxes. They are deducted from every paycheck I get from my employer.
And why *doesn’t *our nation have a decent safety net? It’s truly shameful the way we discard people.
Right… let’s say you’ve just worked a double-shift, you have to be in early to work the next day, you got hungry, whining kids, do you take an hour to cook dinner (listening to complaining, hungry children the whole time) and all the clean up time, or do you say “screw it”, pick up the bucket of food, shove it in front of the kids, and get an extra 30 or 40 minutes of sleep? Because getting sleep is important, too.
Or, you’ve finally managed to pull some over time to (you hope) give yourself some extra cushion but your spouse is injured or ill in the hospital, so you’re working 70 or 80 hours that week, but you also want to see your loved on/keep an eye on the doctors and nurses - do you go to the hospital, picking up a taco or a burger on the way, or say, screw my family, I’m cooking a meal at home tonight?
It took you an hour to dig out your driveway after that surprise snowstorm, you have to leave NOW to get to work on time at a job where you risk being fired for being late, do you stop and eat a nutritious breakfast anyway or say “screw it, I NEED this job and the money” and pick up an egg McMuffin on the way in to work, and then buy lunch from the nearest location because you only have 30 minutes, or just make do with two candy bars from the vending machine in the breakroom?
There’s more to life and more to obligations than just eating.
If you prioritize anything enough, you can usually achieve it. In the US, even the poorest could probably afford a Louis Vuitton or a trip to Bali if they made they prioritized it above all else. I was buddies with a band of Freegans way back in the day, and they managed to live quite well eating out of garbage cans and living in squats, and if any of them had cared to work they would have had ample money to spend on anything they wanted. When I was young I worked for minimum wage, lived low, and saved enough for lengthy overseas vacations.
But just like you said, everything is a choice. And every choice involves a trade-off. And the trade-offs the poor have to make are a lot more disruptive than those of the poor.
It’s just a reality that many poor families are not willing to make the necessary trade-offs to eat healthily. It cuts too many other important things too deeply.
There are only two ways to make choices: rational and insane. Most of us make rational choices, choosing what we feel is the best option based on available information.
A small number of us make insane choices, due to inborn or acquired mental disfunction. These people may make choice based on delusions or distorted logic.
I personally don’t believe the poor are mostly insane. And for those that are-- well what are you going to do? Some people do have genuine mental disabilities. I’m not sure what value it adds to ridicule them.
That’s entirely true, and everyone with any sense agrees with it. However -
[ul][li]Somehow or other, most households where both adult partners work manage to cook their own food. I am a member of such a household - both my wife and I work, and we don’t go to fast food restaurants as more than an occasional treat. [/li][li]We also clean without a maid, do our own laundry, shovel our own driveway, and even do minor repairs and upkeep all on our lonesome. Because adults are expected to do their own chores even if it isn’t easy. [/li][/quote]
You also have two able-bodied adults. My household doesn’t. Thank goodness I’m still strong and healthy. If I wasn’t we’d be in deep doo-doo.
It takes approximately 50 hours of work per week at minimum wage in order make the poverty line for a two person household. If there’s a single parent situation that’s crushing, because in addition to somehow getting those 50 hours there is the problem of childcare. If there are two parents either they schedule things so one is with the kids while the other works, or they have to pay for childcare. Given that most minimum wage jobs around here are only part time, that means there might need to be 2-4 jobs per household to make ends meet. That’s a far different problem than working just one job for 50 hours, because with one job you don’t have conflicting schedules and two employers both insisting you given them priority.
As some else in this thread pointed out - understanding is NOT the same as approval. Yes, I DO understand why people make some of these poor decisions. I understand their motivations. That doesn’t mean I do the same, or that I agree with their decisions. I do know that they have reasons for doing what they do, it’s not done out of stubbornness or inherent stupidity. Simply wagging your finger at them saying “Bad person!” is not going to fix the problem.
If you understand why some of these bad decisions are made then you can work on the causes and not the symptoms. Is there a trouble accessing food? Then fix the transport problem. Is there a problem with lack of cooking knowledge rather than a lack of willingness? Ignorance is curable. They don’t want to keep a lot of food in the house due to vermin in the building? Get an exterminator. The parents don’t feel it’s safe for the kids to play outside? Build a youth center - but you might also need some sort of security for it. The apartment complex doesn’t allow gardens? Either negotiate for space for a community garden, or maybe set something up at the local school district.
There are many reasons we got into this fix, it will take many solutions to address all the problems.
So?
You’re getting a benefit by not needing to pay that tax, or paying a reduced tax. The government is getting less money to spend on projects like road repair or upgrading the air traffic control system, there’s a trade off there.
You can get designer stuff like Louis Vuitton items at the local Goodwill or thrift store if you know what you’re looking for, for a remarkably low price. It’s not really a good example. In fact, that’s how a lot of poor folks get their designer clothing and accessories.
I’ve always been baffled by wealthy people who give stuff like that to charity, or just throw it out, then act shocked, SHOCKED when it shows up on some poor person. What did they think was going to happen to that item? Do they think you have to show proof of income at the Salvation Army store before they’ll let you purchase that Coach handbag?
If you have kids and try to live like that there’s a good risk the government will take your kids away from you. As soon as kids enter the equation you get a lot more rules to live under.
^ This.
Fewer resources means more trade-offs, and more drastic trade-offs.
Apparently, you don’t understand how taxes work. For example, the Indiana state sales taxes that you pay have nothing at all to do with the federal home mortgage interest deduction. Zero.
I never said that, and it’s kind of a jerk move to suggest that I did.
You realize that withholding and paying taxes are two different thing, right? If you get it all back in a refund in March or April, you haven’t paid anything.
Plus, if you are part of the approximately 55% of Americans who do have a federal income tax liability, you’re not nearly as impoverished as you like to portray on this message board.
What, it’s impossible I WAS that poor a year ago and am no longer poor? Impossible that 10 years ago I was paying Federal taxes and maybe 5 years ago, entirely unemployed, I wasn’t?
What relevance does that question have, other than to imply that people who don’t pay a particular tax should STFU and do what they’re told?
And yes, I do in fact understand how taxes work. I guess you missed the point I was trying to make.