Quote:
Originally Posted by masraum
Income and a propensity for savings are 2 entirely different things.
You could have a guy/gal/family-of-4 making $50k per year that is uber frugal and saves every penny. They may only pay cash for everything (except their home, which they pay extra principal on).
You could have a guy/gal/family-of-4 making $149k per year that has no savings, but lives in a cool place full of trendy furniture and clothes and has a really cool car that gets traded in every 3-4 years, and has a handful of maxed out credit cards.
Both of those scenarios would result in the same stimulus check. It's income based NOT how a person lives above or below their means or how good they are at saving for the future.
Just curious which issue you are most concerned about, income-based stimulus or spending habits.
|
My understanding is that both of those scenarios would NOT result in the same stimulus check, the amount is a sliding scale based on income so a guy or gal making $149k would not get the same amount as a couple or family making $50k.
But I haven't done the math or dug into it that deeply.
(Ir)regardless:
Wealth redistribution by the gubmint is wrong. Both philosophically and in actual practice. It almost never solves the underlying problem it is intended for and usually exacerbates it.
IOW it's a temporary solution that creates a permanent problem.
No one should get a gubmint handout period, but especially just because because they are living paycheck to paycheck.
That creates a false security, a safety net that encourages poor decision-making.
It doesn't matter if they are spending too much or if they don't make enough to get by, to a certain extent those are the exact same thing.
There are some people in this country who are limited in their productivity due to diminished mental capacity or physical limitations. They aren't capable of earning good money through no fault of their own. And those people definitely should be helped, through PRIVATE charities.
For the rest of us:
When we were young we were told to study, pay attention, work hard, and get good grades so we could get a good job and live a comfortable life.
They said don't be lazy or drink or use drugs, don't lie or cheat or steal, make good responsible decisions.
Our parents told us that.
Our teachers told us that.
EVERYONE told us that.
They told us that so we wouldn't end up making minimum wage or close to it.
When we got out on our own, they told us to save some money for a rainy day.
Don't spend money you don't have.
Save up enough money to cover six months worth of expenses, BEFORE you buy that nice car, or get cable TV, or go out to dinner, or get that fast food, or go on that vacation, or get that I-phone or nice computer, etc etc etc.
Don't buy a house you can't afford, or maybe buy a smaller fixer-upper in a less desirable neighborhood. Don't over-extend.
It goes on and on.
I also seem to recall them telling us to breed responsibly, don't have kids you can't afford.
But that's another rant.
Some people listened and got relatively decent-paying jobs and they did without those nice things for a while at least, in order to save money for that rainy day.
They did the right things and made the right decisions. They should be applauded.
Others did not and need a gubmint handout after missing one or two paychecks.
But it doesn't matter, they know they'll get bailed out no matter what so why work hard? Why do without, why sacrifice anything? The sun is out, let's play!!!!!!
Rewarding those who make the wrong decisions is counter-intuitive. It encourages more of the bad behavior, more of the irresponsibility, more of the questionable decision making.
It sends the wrong message and it sets the wrong example.
And it weakens our society.
It creates an new generation of bad decision-makers until half the ****ing country is living off the gubmint in one form or the other.
Which brings us to where we are today.