poverty and unisured numbers up

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
What income level do you think it is appropriate for a couple to be "able" to have children at?

An income level where they would not need any "help" from the government (ie other folks money) to feed, clothe, educate, and provide medical care for their family.

[CamB]

I suspect that this is a level higher than the median wage ($40k) (if you took govt assistance out of it). Lets say 20% goes on tax, about the same on heath insurance, another 40% on living costs, the other 20% (only $8k pa) on transport, food etc.

You still ok with that (less than half the population have kids)?

[turbo6bar]

Originally posted by CamB
Jurgen - what did that Vietnamese family do to earn the cash to put their children through school, etc.

Fellow started at FEDEX 20 years ago, starting as a package handler. He still works night shift and drives an old Nissan Maxima. From what I gather, he saves and saves. Also, you don't need tons of cash to go to college. Pell grants, scholarships, and college loans make it possible, if you put forth the effort in high school.

Another Vietnamese man (old family friend) started work as a typesetter for a printshop. He has 3 children. All children went to college and are leading productive lives.

Today, I chatted with the first fellow. Here are some choice words he had for me:"Vietnamese man buy 1 chicken, and he eats for four days. American man buy 1 piece of chicken, and he eats for only one meal. Same price." "Vietnamese man earn $1, and he spends 10 cents. He saves the rest of the money" "America spends too little on education."

I can go on and on with success stories.

My dad (immigrant from post WWII Germany) said regarding American standard of living. "It's not a higher standard of living. It's a higher standard of waste."

Again, it is not about dollars and cents, in my opinion. It is about a mentality--a desire to succeed and advance in life. Sure, there are always tough breaks, but I find it hard to believe an individual has tough breaks for their entire lifetime. Of course, the question is how does the person break their stride. A defeated person must find a way to break out. $15/hr does not change the mind of such a person.

Now, if one proposed programs to change the mind of one living in poverty, you have my vote. Teach the child he/she can have dreams and reach. Don't give them handouts and pat them on the head. What good does this accomplishment?

I'm not criticizing those in poverty, but I don't feel raising wages should be the primary solution. What good is $15/hr to a child, when his parent doesn't teach the value of a buck, the value of an education, or open the door to some dreams.

[CamB]

Jurgen - we fundamentally agree - I wouldn't raise the minimum wage either, and I couldn't agree more with the fact that lower socio-economic people often (but not always) have poor budgeting skills and bad spending habits.

My reaction is that this warrants more money being spent on education. Handouts are never much more than a stopgap (more on this later).

Another thought thouw = for all those people who think that the allure of being wealthy is what will pull people out of poverty (aspiration).

If someone aspires to a middle class lifestyle, but starts enjoying aspects of it on a lower class wage, they aren't going to get ahead. In fact, chances are the hire purchase will get them behind. The consumer society will get them one way or the other (unless willpower is immense).

What am I saying? Good question! Basically, I think that human nature means that unless people live in abject (as opposed to relative) poverty, then the survival instinct is never going to be strong enough. I think the state needs to help - I think that abject poverty for some is a far greater evil.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
I suspect that this is a level higher than the median wage ($40k) (if you took govt assistance out of it). Lets say 20% goes on tax, about the same on heath insurance, another 40% on living costs, the other 20% (only $8k pa) on transport, food etc.

You still ok with that (less than half the population have kids)?

Yes I am fine with that. You are assuming that they start having the children with only current income. If they really want children, they have many years to invest and save to prepare.

[power]

I agree with Mark

1. Forced labour for the Ba$tards.
2. Sterilization for those who fail to meet the poverty line.

...now back to work on my master plan....

[CamB]

Originally posted by fintstone
Yes I am fine with that. You are assuming that they start having the children with only current income. If they really want children, they have many years to invest and save to prepare.

And what about if they already have kids and bad luck befalls them? Should they give them back?

Or do we need to have "them" having (further) money in the bank to cover this eventuality?

[Moneyguy1]

Cam, that is one of the problems the right especially have got to deal with, and that is bad things can happen to good people. Charley is an excellent example. I suppose some of those folks who lost home and place of work somehow (other than choosing FLA as a home) have themselves to blame for their plight.

At least our president is astute enough to go there, offer solace and promise aid. Even Kerry did "the right thing" by not showing up and make it a photo op. Such tragedies should not be politicized.

fint, if something untoward happened to you, I would hope someone would be there to help you get back on your feet. Charity and compassion are the finest attributes our flawed race have to offer.

[CamB]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
At least our president is astute enough to go there, offer solace and promise aid.

Ooooh, I forgot that one in my "feel good about Bush post". And I remembered another - I think he (and Powell in particular) are trying pretty hard on Sudan.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
And what about if they already have kids and bad luck befalls them? Should they give them back?

Or do we need to have "them" having (further) money in the bank to cover this eventuality?

Sorry, but I really don't believe in bad luck. The difference between one man's good fortune and another's bad luck is planning.

[fintstone]

Yes, folks should have money in the bank and insurance. Those seem to cover most "bad luck."

[CamB]

What if it runs out? How much is prudent?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Cam, that is one of the problems the right especially have got to deal with, and that is bad things can happen to good people. Charley is an excellent example. I suppose some of those folks who lost home and place of work somehow (other than choosing FLA as a home) have themselves to blame for their plight.
....................
fint, if something untoward happened to you, I would hope someone would be there to help you get back on your feet. Charity and compassion are the finest attributes our flawed race have to offer.

If they lived in a hurricane prone area and did not purchase insurance to cover any possible losses...they can indeed blame themselves.

There is a big difference between "charity and passion" and the redistribution of wealth at gunpoint via taxes. The difference is that charity is voluntary. I have no problem for guys who want to give more money to the poor...giving their own money. I resent them giving away mine also. I prefer to choose my charities myself.

[CamB]

If they lived in a hurricane prone area and did not purchase insurance to cover any possible losses...they can indeed blame themselves.

However (and this is the point of the discussion), they doend up in that position (or poor and with kids, or just plain poor). Society - through charity alone - is not going to provide them with what they need in this circumstance.

I'm happy paying taxes - what would your solution be?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
What if it runs out? How much is prudent?

If it runs out...it was not enough. Simple as that. Everyone has a different situation to plan around so there is no set amount. There will always be charity for the truly needy.

[CamB]

Originally posted by fintstone
If it runs out...it was not enough. Simple as that. Everyone has a different situation to plan around so there is no set amount. There will always be charity for the truly needy.

I'm gonna keep at this.

And how is that charity given out? Is it withheld if they didn't behave prudently? I can see the foodbank now - "I'm sorry sir, but I understand that you only had $10k in the bank and given your circumstances you should have had $20k. I'm afraid you will have to starve on the street today".

Another way to think of it - if you were taxed a minimum (say 10%) to cover military/police/certain infrastructure, etc, would you give to charity as much as you pay on top of that 10% in tax now?

Would your neighbours?

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
If they lived in a hurricane prone area and did not purchase insurance to cover any possible losses...they can indeed blame themselves.

However (and this is the point of the discussion), they doend up in that position (or poor and with kids, or just plain poor). Society - through charity alone - is not going to provide them with what they need in this circumstance.

I'm happy paying taxes - what would your solution be?

I believe society would provide a subsistence via charity..although perhaps not what the "think" they "need."

I have no problem with you or anyone else voluntarily paying extra taxes for social welfare....I just don't believe people should be forced to. If liberals were really as compassionate as they claim to be, we would not need to raise taxes to pay for welfare, they would voluntarily pay extra..."to help the children."

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
I'm gonna keep at this.

And how is that charity given out? Is it withheld if they didn't behave prudently? I can see the foodbank now - "I'm sorry sir, but I understand that you only had $10k in the bank and given your circumstances you should have had $20k. I'm afraid you will have to starve on the street today".

Another way to think of it - if you were taxed a minimum (say 10%) to cover military/police/certain infrastructure, etc, would you give to charity as much as you pay on top of that 10% in tax now?

Would your neighbours?

It would be given out as the charity saw fit....just as charities do now. I don't believe anyone would starve, but I would expect that many charities would look at the circumstances surrounding one's financial problems...might even make one earn their keep via work programs.

I would indeed give more because I would know it is going to a worthy cause and most would not be wasted on govt apparatus to collect and distribute the money.

[CamB]

Yeah. The same problem applies now as it would if taxes were low and charity was the major source of protection for the poor.

People are selfish -- any system rapidly evolves to a point where it favours the lowest common denominator (the people who wouldn't pay anything to charity).

I'm a pretty good example - I have high aspirations for donating to charity (incl church) which I don't meet. And I don't meet it because I'm selfish (don't want to cut back on stuff, basically, and the money never seems to be there). However, I still give more than most (people I know), so I feel like I'm doing a good job. However, when I'm honest, I know I'm not - I'm not meeting my goals.

(edit) unfortunately charitable apparatus to distribute the money wouldn't be a huge amount better. Buireaucracy is bureaucracy.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by CamB
Yeah. The same problem applies now as it would if taxes were low and charity was the major source of protection for the poor.

People are selfish -- any system rapidly evolves to a point where it favours the lowest common denominator (the people who wouldn't pay anything to charity).

I'm a pretty good example - I have high aspirations for donating to charity (incl church) which I don't meet. And I don't meet it because I'm selfish (don't want to cut back on stuff, basically, and the money never seems to be there). However, I still give more than most (people I know), so I feel like I'm doing a good job (when I'm honest, I know I'm not).

(edit) unfortunately charitable apparatus to distribute the money wouldn't be a huge amount better. Buireaucracy is bureaucracy.

Since you know that regardless of how much you give to charity, the govt will always step in and bail people out...it is natural to withhold from charity. If you thought a family would starve without your help (that is the premise, correct?).....I think you would be a bit more likely to open your wallet.

Most small local charities have very little or no overhead and waste very little since they know what the local needs are (case-by-case). The government makes "one size fits all" decisions.