Well, when you run out of valuables to sell or pawn, you lose your lease/mortgage, the utilities are shut off, and you are left with nothing you go to the homeless shelter and the soup kitchen. Those are paid for by a combination of charitable donations and government grants. Seriously, you think that’s a trick question or something?
I’m sorry - where you do live that you can get a job without transportation? Let’s see… I know you can live in New York City without a car, and in Chicago without a car (because I did so for 15 years), but outside of those places there are damn few places you can get a decent job without a motor vehicle.
So a working, reliable vehicle is an asset that in some ways is more valuable than cash, because it enables you to get MORE cash. Someone out in the suburbs sells their car and is without transportation they are really not going to get off food stamps any time soon.
Which is why I’m glad you’re not the one making the rules.
When I was laid off in 2007 I walked out the door with zero debt and an entire year’s salary in the bank. That is WAY better than the vast majority of people. I still wound up poor. I still wound up selling our wedding rings at one point to keep a roof over our heads (actually, it was worth two month’s rent, yay skippy). I did not, however, sell the car or the pickup because that’s how I was able to get to work which is what eventually got us off public benefits.
You can do everything correctly and still wind up poor, and still wind up with judgemental types questioning everything you do, everything you own, everything you eat, and everything about you.
Actually, yes, someone said that.
I live in the suburbs of DC, and there is a very adequate bus system in this entire area. You ever hear of WALKING to a bus station? Once on a Metro Bus here, you can literally go to a job anywhere in the DC area.
Actually, it’s not really a suburb of DC, but Southern Maryland, and I can take public transportation all the way to my job in DC.
Why did you need a car AND a pickup? Couldn’t you have sold one of them?
Don’t wait on anybody to start moving forward. Look all the dopes who voted for Obama thinking he was their savior. Blacks are worse off now by most measurements than they were before he took office. Take a college class now. Form a plan now. Set a goal today. Use this board as resource. They say one of the keys to success is to write down your goals. Do it here in this thread.
My disabled spouse has a hard time walking so we kept the car for him and I used the truck for working on construction sites and lawn mowing gigs when I could get them, the hauling capacity was a definite asset. Over the years I’ve made more money with that truck than what it cost me to buy it. As I said, the spouse got the car - or do you suggest a man with spinal damage and more metal than bone in one of his legs should jog to work? But hey, keep making assumptions. Or don’t you want both the adults living here to work instead of just one?
And around where we currently live mass transit sucks where it exists at all.
Both vehicles are paid off and working reliably, but neither are worth much due to age (14 and 17 years old). Couldn’t get much for either at this point, but having two vehicles paid off and working reliably is worth a great deal.
My bad… I was thinking weeks, not months. Still, that’s 2 years and a month to get a $200 emergency fund at the equivalent of about 2 hours worth of work each month. Or a year to get $100. Or, if you can afford $20 a month, which presumably is about half what self-professed poor person **Blalron **spends on beer per month, you’d have that $200 inside of a year.
All the more reason you should unload it; the car payments would be killing you in that situation, and unless you’re upside down on it, you’ll still come out ahead overall by getting rid of it for a cheaper car.
And mind you, other than my irritated outburst last post, I’m not seriously advocating punishing the poor. But I’m against rewarding bad decisions and counterproductive behaviors as well. If you’re willing to learn how to make good decisions and to engage in the behaviors and outlooks that will spell lifelong success, then I’m all for that and would happily (if it was within my power) fund such programs and people.
But I’m totally against funding anything but the barest minimum programs for people who are habitual criminals, or have multiple illegitimate children while already poor, or who act like “G” who I mentioned upthread, who spends any money he earns like it’s on fire, and on stupid stuff, all the while being paid under the table so he can avoid paying child support. I mean, I don’t quite think I’d let him starve, but I’d have to think about it. (not that he has to worry; the child support people caught him and threw his ass in prison)
It does seem to me that in a lot of ways, poverty, working class and middle class are as much states of mind as they are literal income levels. I mean, it seems like the “temporarily poor” as described in this thread are really middle-class people who have all the right behaviors and who eventually find their way out of that temporary poverty. It worked for my parents after Dad got laid off in about 1982, and didn’t find a job until about 1987. Mom went back to work, and Dad kept plugging at whatever he could find until he did get a job with the city government, where he stayed for the next 25 years. It worked for me after graduate school (granted, it was only about 6 months) when I couldn’t find a job and ended up working part-time at a sporting goods store for a chunk of it.
The big question I suppose, is how do you teach that strata of permanently poor people that education DOES pay dividends, and so does saving money, etc… I’m not sure you can really, without somehow breaking up the poor communities and not letting them congregate together.
That is simply untrue. In fact, the US has some of the highest personal income tax rates in the world, maxing out at 55.9% combined Federal/State/Local. The only countries that are higher are Aruba, Finland, Sweden, and Belgium.
But nobody actually pays 55.9% on all of their income; that’s the rate on the last dollar earned, not on all earnings. Moreover, with the various deductions and tax strategies available in the U.S., effective tax rates are well below headline rates.
For average workers in the U.S, the total tax burden (income and payroll taxes) is the 24th highest in the OECD. As a percentage of GDP, the total tax burden in the U.S. is about 24%, versus an average of 34% among developed nations. For somebody earning $100K/year, the U.S. effective tax rate is the 55th highest in the world; at $300K/year, we move all the way up to 53rd. (cite)
That cite only includes labor income, not total income, which is the bigger picture.
Even if, for sake of argument, we accept that measure, look at the countries that have lower rates than we do. With the exceptions of neutral Switzerland and Chile, all of the countries with lower taxes on labor income are our closest neighbors, trading partners, allies, and friends. We shouldn’t have the highest rate amongst our peer group.
That’s assuming no emergencies arise during those 2 years.
I get it. Having worked in social services many years ago now (before my current brush with poverty) I got to experience frustration of the sort where you want to grab the person in front of you by the shoulders, shake, and yell “WTF were you THINKING?”. However, I also learned that dysfunctional people don’t get better overnight. It’s three steps forward and two back for years until they get better.
“G”'s problem wasn’t being poor, it was being criminal. Clearly he had, or was capable, of a higher income than he reported, he was deliberately holding out as poor to avoid obeying a court order. Jail is indeed where he belongs.
Yes, but the not-poor don’t want the poor living next to them.
As far as the bare minimums - shouldn’t the most destitute poor have at least what we give to prisoners, which is basic food clothing and shelter? (Minus the guards and bars, of course) Perhaps an 8x8 room with a bed and some storage, three nutritious if not exciting meals a day, and a few sets of clothes a year, nothing fancy, maybe even out of a donation box for the outer wear. There is, of course, the problem of providing security in such a place but that’s an issue no matter what we do with them. Make counseling/training available for anyone who gets a sudden inspiration to get their act together. I suspect most of the takers will be either addicts or mentally ill, as those do seem to be the most intractable problem people.
Let’s have a word about religion and its role in poverty.
Religion for the poor is different than religion for the wealthy. It’s not always bad, but there are some things I’ve seen over and over that I think are detrimental.
Tithing practices: sure, the church needs funds, especially the tiny storefront ones, but some of the practices get to be coercive. I know of several people who belong to churches that not only insist you tithe your 10%, but if you’re employed they require you to direct deposit that 10% in the church coffers. Meaning they get their money before you get yours. I asked “what if you need that money that week?”. The reactions ranged from horror at denying God his money (wait - isn’t it the pastor that signs the checks?) to a belief that the church would come through for them no matter what. If the latter is true then maybe it isn’t so bad, it’s sort of a disaster/emergency insurance, but I see a lot of potential for problems here. And if the church can’t convince people to chuck money in the collection plate of their own accord rather than compelling them to set up a paycheck extraction is it really that good an institution? (Note that I am not opposed to voluntary paycheck deductions, it’s the required ones I object to).
Socially isolating attendance policies: I’m not talking about every Sunday plus holidays here. Some small churches wind up requiring attendance at Bible study and other “classes” all but one or two days per week. This can seriously interfere with things like education (if you work all day and church every evening there’s no room for night school) and other things needed outside of work hours. At least they usually provide child care for these evenings. Such churches usually demand that members not associated with non-members and particularly not non-Christians outside of the minimum required for work. This can seriously impair things like networking, as well as cause problems in the workplace with people who either can’t or aren’t able to deal with people of differing beliefs or who aren’t believers.
Disempowerment: Making people dependent on Jesus is not going to to make them independent in anything. Attributing everything to “God’s will” can sap personal ambition, without which you’re not going to climb out of poverty.
Sin competition: Honestly, this one floored me the first time I encountered it: a bunch of people sitting around bragging about what horrible people they were before finding Jesus. I think it gives young people the impression they have to sin big so they can be redeemed.
Limited Roles for Women: Between promoting submission for women to the men in their lives and being gung-ho on women as reproductive machines this is toxic. Lauding motherhood as the highest and most proper role for women is going to result in more babies, whether or not they can be squeezed into the budget. Poor women should be encouraged to limit births, not increase them. Promoting submission is going to keep women in poverty as well as in abusive relationships.
I don’t mind religion when it’s uplifting, when it promotes human dignity, education, and proper conduct but all too over poor storefront churches seem to have the opposite effect, becoming cult-like in how they restrict member actions and associations. It’s the toxic manifestations of religion that make me leery of the conservative/right wing notion that if we cut government funds for the poor the churches will take over - I’m not convinced that’s actually a good thing.
bolding mine
It’s certainly a bigger picture than what you were trying to cite, which is just the maximum possible marginal personal rate. At least slash2k’s cite includes payroll taxes, which your wiki table does as well, but not in the column you were referencing. Not that you can just add the two columns; obviously no one paying the top marginal personal income rate here is paying the top payroll rate. Maybe we shouldn’t have the highest rate amongst our peer group–move the goalposts all you want, but your attempt to show that broomstick is incorrect failed. And your objection that slash2k’s cite only includes labor income applies to your cite as well, so I don’t know what you’re complaining about.
So the answer is “NO, we did not remove aboriginal and first nation kids from their families because their parents were choosing creature comforts for themselves over feeding their children, we did it because we were bigots”
Do you really need me to cite to cases of sexual abuse by foster parents? I think there are enough cases of sexual abuse by clergy outside of orphanages for us to conclude that maybe it was a problem with the catholic church and not a problem with orphanages. Frankly we see cases of sexual abuse at boarding schools, regular schools and pretty much anywhere there are children.
But the cite I link to previously seems to indicate otherwise. That the long term success of kids coming out of the orphanage system is better than kids coming out of the foster care system. Higher high school graduation rate and lower unemployment rate than the general population.
I think the outcomes might mimic what we had in the 1960s with higher high school graduation rates and lower unemployment rates. Do you think we spend LESS money on children than we did in the 1960’s? Its about the only area where you can get Republicans to agree to more spending.
The only people that Republicans trust less with money than the government is the poor.
Mercedes are horribly unreliable cars by today’s standards. The repair and maintenance costs on a Mercedes is MUCH higher than average.
You can buy a Hyundai or Kia with a 10 year warranty for the price of that used Mercedes or pretty damn close. The bumper to bumper warranty of 5 year/60,000 miles is transferable so if you get one that is only a couple of years old (for a LOT less) you still have a significant warranty period left. That repair on a Mercedes is likely to cost LOT more than a similar repair on a Hyundai or Kia. And that Mercedes is much more likely to need a repair than the Hyundai or Kia (and don’t forget the warranty).
Who said they needed to have a fire sale?
You know there are places that will make reasonable cash offers on your car, right?
I can get onboard with smartphones, internet and Netflix as reasonable expenses (or even necessities in the case of internet)that should not draw criticism. But there is really no excuse for driving your Mercedes to the food pantry unless you are trying to sell your Mercedes.
Sure, Bernie has done an incredible job of pushing Hillary to the left. The more he pushes the more some of his better idea are gaining traction even if his candidacy doesn’t.
BUT to add a little rain to your parade:
He might do exactly the same stuff that Bernie or Hillary would do, he might to exactly what Romney would have done or he might dry hump the nuclear launch button.
Broomstick, did you intend your suggestions about the role of religious practices and poverty to be taken seriously, or are they just a throwaway assertion? If the first, I will need some actual data, like cites. Yours isn’t even at the level of anecdotes.
And it contradicts much of the evidence that practicing your religion correlates to reduced incidence of poverty (and divorce, unwed motherhood, drug abuse, and other social pathologies). Cite, cite, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
First, I want to apologize since my question came out as more of asking you personal questions than I would have liked, instead of a more general question.
Second, I didn’t make any assumptions, I only asked a question about the need for 2 cars.
Third, and you don’t have to answer, why doesn’t your husband qualify for SS disability? Wouldn’t that be a stable source of income?
Not in this thread, as far as I can tell, and it looks like you’re misrepresenting what people have actually said. But I’m sure you can cite the post, and I’m happy to be shown incorrect.