Author Topic: Overheard on Facebook  (Read 2827590 times)

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1864
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7500 on: March 29, 2018, 07:40:06 PM »
That's the weird thing about lotteries, though. Everyone who plays has a plan about what they would do if they won big, and a plan to continue business as usual if they don't win at all. But nobody has a plan of what to do when they win relatively little. Even a windfall of a few thousand dollars can put a real kink in the finances of a person on social assistance and cause more havoc than it's worth if it costs them their benefits.
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

Imma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7501 on: March 30, 2018, 09:23:00 AM »
I worked in the local benefits department for a couple of years some time ago and we actually had a windfall policy. It happens more often than you'd think, althouh in most cases it's an inheritance, not a lottery win.The receipients are allowed to draw down the money at the rate of the minimum wage (while benefits level is 70% of the minimum wage, so their income increases for a while!) and then we calculate the earliest date at which they'd be allowed to collect benefits again. As long as they're off benefits, they don't need to fill in any paperwork so they are generally really happy and often try to stretch the money so they can be off benefits for a longer period of time.

We were allowed to make exceptions, for example, allow people to use a certain amount for "reasonable spending" like replace some old furniture or buying a cheap car, or when someone wanted to use the money to get an education or start a business. In my experience, a part of the receipients were indeed so bad with money they ended up in trouble, but quite a lot of people managed their money pretty well.

I don't think it's unfair at all to expect people to pay their own way after a windfall. Benefits are there for people in need, and if you inherit half a house or win the lottery, then you're not in need, at least not for a while.

FIRE47

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 263
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7502 on: March 30, 2018, 09:54:46 AM »
I worked in the local benefits department for a couple of years some time ago and we actually had a windfall policy. It happens more often than you'd think, althouh in most cases it's an inheritance, not a lottery win.The receipients are allowed to draw down the money at the rate of the minimum wage (while benefits level is 70% of the minimum wage, so their income increases for a while!) and then we calculate the earliest date at which they'd be allowed to collect benefits again. As long as they're off benefits, they don't need to fill in any paperwork so they are generally really happy and often try to stretch the money so they can be off benefits for a longer period of time.

We were allowed to make exceptions, for example, allow people to use a certain amount for "reasonable spending" like replace some old furniture or buying a cheap car, or when someone wanted to use the money to get an education or start a business. In my experience, a part of the receipients were indeed so bad with money they ended up in trouble, but quite a lot of people managed their money pretty well.

I don't think it's unfair at all to expect people to pay their own way after a windfall. Benefits are there for people in need, and if you inherit half a house or win the lottery, then you're not in need, at least not for a while.

It's not unfair no - there is no other solution really other than to cut them off as they temporarily have their own money.

All I was saying to the one poster is not to be so quick to judge someone in this situation who has found themselves caught in a bad place for a few months ensnared in red tape due to a lottery (or other) windfall - this is a real problem for some of these people.

The system where you are seems to make much more sense. Here you have to prove that the money is gone and not tied up in assets of value which as you can imagine can get quite messy.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1864
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7503 on: March 30, 2018, 06:39:16 PM »
I worked in the local benefits department for a couple of years some time ago and we actually had a windfall policy. It happens more often than you'd think, althouh in most cases it's an inheritance, not a lottery win.The receipients are allowed to draw down the money at the rate of the minimum wage (while benefits level is 70% of the minimum wage, so their income increases for a while!) and then we calculate the earliest date at which they'd be allowed to collect benefits again. As long as they're off benefits, they don't need to fill in any paperwork so they are generally really happy and often try to stretch the money so they can be off benefits for a longer period of time.

We were allowed to make exceptions, for example, allow people to use a certain amount for "reasonable spending" like replace some old furniture or buying a cheap car, or when someone wanted to use the money to get an education or start a business. In my experience, a part of the receipients were indeed so bad with money they ended up in trouble, but quite a lot of people managed their money pretty well.

I don't think it's unfair at all to expect people to pay their own way after a windfall. Benefits are there for people in need, and if you inherit half a house or win the lottery, then you're not in need, at least not for a while.

How does that get enforced?

I'm only really familiar with lottery systems in Canada and the USA. There, the winnings are simply paid out to the winner and reported to the appropriate tax authority; there is sometimes a means to withhold income tax if income tax is due. In your system, how is it that people draw down their assets at only the minimum wage rate? That would take a lot of discipline especially if there are relatives and friends pressing for a slice of that money. Some individuals could manage it anyway but I expect they'd be in the minority.
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

Imma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7504 on: March 31, 2018, 07:02:07 AM »
I worked in the local benefits department for a couple of years some time ago and we actually had a windfall policy. It happens more often than you'd think, althouh in most cases it's an inheritance, not a lottery win.The receipients are allowed to draw down the money at the rate of the minimum wage (while benefits level is 70% of the minimum wage, so their income increases for a while!) and then we calculate the earliest date at which they'd be allowed to collect benefits again. As long as they're off benefits, they don't need to fill in any paperwork so they are generally really happy and often try to stretch the money so they can be off benefits for a longer period of time.

We were allowed to make exceptions, for example, allow people to use a certain amount for "reasonable spending" like replace some old furniture or buying a cheap car, or when someone wanted to use the money to get an education or start a business. In my experience, a part of the receipients were indeed so bad with money they ended up in trouble, but quite a lot of people managed their money pretty well.

I don't think it's unfair at all to expect people to pay their own way after a windfall. Benefits are there for people in need, and if you inherit half a house or win the lottery, then you're not in need, at least not for a while.

How does that get enforced?

I'm only really familiar with lottery systems in Canada and the USA. There, the winnings are simply paid out to the winner and reported to the appropriate tax authority; there is sometimes a means to withhold income tax if income tax is due. In your system, how is it that people draw down their assets at only the minimum wage rate? That would take a lot of discipline especially if there are relatives and friends pressing for a slice of that money. Some individuals could manage it anyway but I expect they'd be in the minority.

Yes, people need a lot of discipline and not everyone is able to. They sometimes end up in trouble. But quite a lot of people weren't doing badly at all: I remember a lady who was a carer for her ex-husband and two adult children, all with the same mental illness. She received an inheritance and was told to spend it over 3 years, instead she stretched it over 5 years. All the time she was living from her own assets, she was free of paperwork and visits to our office and she had enough on her plate already.

But of course, especially for people struggling with mental illness or have had little education, receiving a inheritance or a lottery win could end up being a nightmare. In case of an inheritance, it's possible to appoint a conservator in your will and if I wanted to leave money to a vulnerable person, I would certainly consider that.

It's almost impossible to hide assets in here, because a lot of things are linked in a database through your social security number (benefits, social security, tax records, bank accounts, ownership of cars or houses) so we always have up to date information about people's finances. Say someone receiving benefits would get a €100.000 inheritance, and minimum wage is about €1400 after taxes. Unless it is agreed upon that they can spend money on other things, they would get a letter from us that it has been decided that they should make that money last for about 70 months, which is almost 6 years. They can't apply again before date X and a note is made in their file.

If they do apply earlier than that date, they need to provide bank statements over that entire period to prove they didn't waste their money, but unexpected emergencies came up. If they did waste their money, in the worst case scenario they would not qualify for benefits at all and they would end up destitute. In many cases, they will be punished by getting a lower monthy payment for a while (depending on how they spent it) .

Roe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7505 on: March 31, 2018, 05:05:59 PM »


It's almost impossible to hide assets in here, because a lot of things are linked in a database through your social security number (benefits, social security, tax records, bank accounts, ownership of cars or houses) so we always have up to date information about people's finances. Say someone receiving benefits would get a €100.000 inheritance, and minimum wage is about €1400 after taxes. Unless it is agreed upon that they can spend money on other things, they would get a letter from us that it has been decided that they should make that money last for about 70 months, which is almost 6 years. They can't apply again before date X and a note is made in their file.


Am I reading this correctly, that someone evaluating their need for social security has full access to their bank statements?
Beans&rice, my love!

Hirondelle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7506 on: April 01, 2018, 01:31:56 AM »
Talking with a friend on fb about Easter plans:
Friend: "Oh I've just been window shopping"
Me: "you're so broke you can't buy stuff?"
Friend: "No not broke, just trying to save up for overspending on Christmas"
Me: "Oh wow, that's some die-hard early planning!"
Friend: "No I mean last christmas"

So this guy still has to compensate for his excessive Christmas spending after 3 months...

Imma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7507 on: April 01, 2018, 11:27:52 AM »


It's almost impossible to hide assets in here, because a lot of things are linked in a database through your social security number (benefits, social security, tax records, bank accounts, ownership of cars or houses) so we always have up to date information about people's finances. Say someone receiving benefits would get a €100.000 inheritance, and minimum wage is about €1400 after taxes. Unless it is agreed upon that they can spend money on other things, they would get a letter from us that it has been decided that they should make that money last for about 70 months, which is almost 6 years. They can't apply again before date X and a note is made in their file.


Am I reading this correctly, that someone evaluating their need for social security has full access to their bank statements?

Yes, you are reading that correctly. You need to provide 3 months of bank statements of all accounts when you initially apply for benefits, but in case of doubt, they can ask for more bank statements.

Also, once you are on benefits, at any point you can be requested to provide 3 months of bank statements. This is to make sure you do not have any other legal source of income outside of work (they can access income tax and social security records, so they know if you're legally employed or not) and also to see if there's anything in your outgoings that doesn't add up that might mean you have some non-legal cash income.

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7508 on: April 02, 2018, 09:49:39 AM »


It's almost impossible to hide assets in here, because a lot of things are linked in a database through your social security number (benefits, social security, tax records, bank accounts, ownership of cars or houses) so we always have up to date information about people's finances. Say someone receiving benefits would get a €100.000 inheritance, and minimum wage is about €1400 after taxes. Unless it is agreed upon that they can spend money on other things, they would get a letter from us that it has been decided that they should make that money last for about 70 months, which is almost 6 years. They can't apply again before date X and a note is made in their file.


Am I reading this correctly, that someone evaluating their need for social security has full access to their bank statements?

Yes, you are reading that correctly. You need to provide 3 months of bank statements of all accounts when you initially apply for benefits, but in case of doubt, they can ask for more bank statements.

Also, once you are on benefits, at any point you can be requested to provide 3 months of bank statements. This is to make sure you do not have any other legal source of income outside of work (they can access income tax and social security records, so they know if you're legally employed or not) and also to see if there's anything in your outgoings that doesn't add up that might mean you have some non-legal cash income.

I work in public benefits too. There's something called "mandatory reporting" which is when you have to report significant changes to your financial outlook. So if you get a new job you have a window to report it before you are considered to be committing fraud. If you don't report then you'll get asked when you need to be re-evaluated for benefits which usually happens once a year. What your assets are is a pretty major question, you can't miss it and you have to bring a bank statement to prove the balance is correct. So they can't log in to your bank account online or whatever, but the government does need to be told.
See my journal

Catbert

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1443
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7509 on: April 02, 2018, 03:43:43 PM »


It's almost impossible to hide assets in here, because a lot of things are linked in a database through your social security number (benefits, social security, tax records, bank accounts, ownership of cars or houses) so we always have up to date information about people's finances. Say someone receiving benefits would get a €100.000 inheritance, and minimum wage is about €1400 after taxes. Unless it is agreed upon that they can spend money on other things, they would get a letter from us that it has been decided that they should make that money last for about 70 months, which is almost 6 years. They can't apply again before date X and a note is made in their file.


Am I reading this correctly, that someone evaluating their need for social security has full access to their bank statements?

Rowe - If you're in the US, its important to note that Imma is in a European country.

Kyle Schuant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7510 on: April 02, 2018, 07:24:09 PM »
The assets test is a funny thing. Now, I get why they do it: assistance is based on need, and if you have a lot of assets then you need less than someone who does. That's completely fair and reasonable.


But... this means that if I were unemployed and applied for benefit, with (say) $20,000 saved up in the bank, they'd tell me I can access help in 6 months. "Well done, go away." If I went to the pub and put that $20,000 through the pokies and went back tomorrow, they'd give me assistance straight away. "You're an idiot, here's your cheque."


Again: assistance based on need, this is right and proper. But it does have the unintended consequence of rewarding people who fail to plan ahead, and penalising those who have their shit together. I'm not sure if that should be changed, or if so, how. But it's still funny.
Athletic Club East - curing iron deficiency

barbaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7511 on: April 03, 2018, 12:42:51 AM »
Again: assistance based on need, this is right and proper. But it does have the unintended consequence of rewarding people who fail to plan ahead, and penalising those who have their shit together.
That has always been the problem with assistance based on need and I doubt there’s a good solution to it without going all fascist.

shelivesthedream

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3196
  • Location: London, UK
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7512 on: April 03, 2018, 01:26:21 AM »
We rehash this problem in Britain every so often. You don't have to be down to £0 in the bank to get benefits, and I believe different kinds of benefits have different asset limits, but yep, it's a tough one with no good answer to balancing people's general freedom to do what they want with their money with providing a safety net so people aren't starving to death. But in Europe generally and to some extent in Britain I think we're comfortable with the idea that if you need something from the state (money) then the state can require something of you (information, applying to jobs...) The extent of that and how it's managed is debated but the principle is acceptable.

marcela

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 524
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7513 on: April 03, 2018, 07:27:58 AM »
In the US, Medicaid also has asset testing. In most states, you can have at most $2,000 in assets to qualify. Your home is generally excluded and so is 1 car used for transport.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1864
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
    • The Live-In Landlord
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7514 on: April 03, 2018, 08:44:40 AM »


It's almost impossible to hide assets in here, because a lot of things are linked in a database through your social security number (benefits, social security, tax records, bank accounts, ownership of cars or houses) so we always have up to date information about people's finances. Say someone receiving benefits would get a €100.000 inheritance, and minimum wage is about €1400 after taxes. Unless it is agreed upon that they can spend money on other things, they would get a letter from us that it has been decided that they should make that money last for about 70 months, which is almost 6 years. They can't apply again before date X and a note is made in their file.


Am I reading this correctly, that someone evaluating their need for social security has full access to their bank statements?

Rowe - If you're in the US, its important to note that Imma is in a European country.

Indeed. How banking and finance works, industry-wise, varies a *lot* across the globe. Differences range from the technology adopted to the amount of communication permitted between banks and the government.

Many people do consider the US model to be quite antiquated and Byzantine, consisting as it does of a hodgepodge of mostly unrelated companies that are subject to a bit of regulation but no real transparency. It used to be quite a powerhouse because of the competition between the different banks, trust companies, and credit unions. But the benefit of competition has pretty much been exhausted and now it's just a bunch of squabbling rent-seekers in a zero-sum game, since the people running the corporations are too busy maxing out revenues and cutting expenses each quarter to pay an iota of attention to providing necessary services to the customer in exchange for fair fees. Although investment bankers are doing quite well (for themselves, not necessarily for their customers) consumer banking really hasn't progressed much over the last 30 years. Even basic transactions like postdated check handling, real-time ATM transactions, or chip card transactions with at least rudimentary encryption are frequently not available here.
I squeak softly, but carry a big schtick.

Imma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7515 on: April 03, 2018, 04:03:29 PM »


But... this means that if I were unemployed and applied for benefit, with (say) $20,000 saved up in the bank, they'd tell me I can access help in 6 months. "Well done, go away." If I went to the pub and put that $20,000 through the pokies and went back tomorrow, they'd give me assistance straight away. "You're an idiot, here's your cheque."



Which is why you need to provide bank statements in this country (the Netherlands, by the way). The government can't log into our bank accounts (thankfully) but through your social security number they can see all the bank accounts you have. So if you have accounts in your name that you haven't provided statements for, you're not going to receive any money.

I left that job around 2012 as I had a gut feeling this system was going too far, and I'm sure rules are even stricter these days. But I understand the need for stricter rules too, because I've seen so many people trying to win the benefits system.

I strongly believe in a welfare state and providing for people in need, but it's a fact that you're always going to have a minority of people who would rather not work even though they can. I did notice that those stricter rules actually don't work like they should: people who I felt deserved assistence didn't want to go through the bureaucratic process, while the people they were trying to weed out happily filled in form after form and jumped through every hoop to get what they wanted. They know how to go around the rules.

Kyle Schuant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7516 on: April 03, 2018, 08:42:59 PM »
I strongly believe in a welfare state and providing for people in need, but it's a fact that you're always going to have a minority of people who would rather not work even though they can.
Of course. However, I believe it is important to give lazy people money. My reasoning is that a lazy person will always be a lazy person.

1. Lazy person + dole = produces nothing at $10k pa cost to society
2. Lazy person + no dole = becomes a criminal, not only produces nothing but actually destroys things + $50k cost to society in paying for their imprisonment
3. Lazy person + forced into a job = $50k cost to society in wages, and since there are not enough jobs for everyone, a hardworking person misses out on a job.

The first is overall the cheapest option for society. The second is more expensive and leads to suffering for all concerned. The last is unjust to hardworking people. So I say: give them the dole, it's the least hassle and drama and cost for all concerned.

Quote
I did notice that those stricter rules actually don't work like they should: people who I felt deserved assistence didn't want to go through the bureaucratic process, while the people they were trying to weed out happily filled in form after form and jumped through every hoop to get what they wanted. They know how to go around the rules.
The first group of people would, I think, have sorted something out for themselves. Family or friends helped them and they eventually got some paid employment, where they worked hard and produced goods and services for the rest of society, and spent their money so that other people could be productively employed.

Every society, Adam Smith said, has a certain portion of the population who produce nothing but draw an income anyway. He meant the rentier class - which, broadly-speaking, is what people on this forum aspire to be. But the same applies to most managers, and to a minority of people on welfare. It's simply part of the friction of the machine of society, friction producing waste heat, energy going to nothing productive or useful. That's our aspiration. As Wendell Berry said, the ultimate aspiration of the United States - and I would argue, the West generally - seems to be unemployment. Always saying "thank god it's Friday", and looking forward to lunch, then knock-off time, then the weekend, then public holidays, then annual leave, and finally retirement.

The only difference between FIREs and the dole bludger is that FIREs expect to do a few years' work first, but they also expect to draw more money than the unemployment benefit, so there you go.

And this is why I don't think many of us are in a position to judge dole bludgers.
Athletic Club East - curing iron deficiency

zolotiyeruki

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2551
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7517 on: April 03, 2018, 09:17:57 PM »
1. Lazy person + dole = produces nothing at $10k pa cost to society
2. Lazy person + no dole = becomes a criminal, not only produces nothing but actually destroys things + $50k cost to society in paying for their imprisonment
3. Lazy person + forced into a job = $50k cost to society in wages, and since there are not enough jobs for everyone, a hardworking person misses out on a job.
I think there are a number of shaky assumptions there:
1) lazy people only cost $10k if they're on the dole
2) all lazy people, absent the dole, will become criminals
3) there's a shortage of work to be done, and that the labor market is a zero-sum game
Quote
The only difference between FIREs and the dole bludger is that FIREs expect to do a few years' work first, but they also expect to draw more money than the unemployment benefit, so there you go.

And this is why I don't think many of us are in a position to judge dole bludgers.
I strongly disagree here.  I won't presume to speak for everyone else here, but in my opinion, there's a world of difference.  The money that a FIREd person has represents an accumulated unpaid debt that society owes that person for the value they have contributed to the economy by their work.  They have chosen (or in some cases, been forced) to set aside some of their compensation, so that when the time comes that they either cannot or do not wish to work longer, society owes them enough that they can call in that debt and live comfortably.  A dole bludger, roundly speaking, has not contributed to society and therefore is owed nothing, from a purely economic perspective.

Kyle Schuant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7518 on: April 03, 2018, 10:41:02 PM »
I think there are a number of shaky assumptions there:
1) lazy people only cost $10k if they're on the dole
2) all lazy people, absent the dole, will become criminals
3) there's a shortage of work to be done, and that the labor market is a zero-sum game
The expense of #1 is typically greater than $10k because of the vast array of bureaucracy to see whether or not they "deserve" the $10k. I would suggest this could be reduced by harassing them less and just giving them money.

#2 is a reasonable assumption since lazy or not, people have to eat. Absent a government subsidy, they'll seek other sources of income. In the modern West, that is mostly burglary, robbery and illicit drugs. If the alternative is starving and/or dying of exposure, they'll become criminals. Unless you suppose that necessity stops people being lazy? Experience does not suggest that this is the case.

The labour market need not be a zero-sum game, and of course we get the multiplier effect and so on. But broadly-speaking, there are far more unemployed than there are job vacancies. There are 729,000 registered unemployed in Australia, and 220,000 job vacancies. Of course, not all vacancies are advertised, but not all people seeking jobs are officially unemployed - some are uni students, some are getting disability pensions or the like, some are working part-time and would like to work more hours, and so on, and this is roughly the same number of people again, depending how you count it, at least half to more than a million. And of course, many vacancies require higher qualifications or experience which are typically found in people already employed full-time, rather than in the long-term unemployed.

But roughly-speaking, there are 4 people for every vacancy. So a job given to A means B, C and D miss out. If one of the four is hardworking, and one is lazy, I would rather the hardworking one got the opportunity. They'll make more of it, and will be better for the rest of the people in the workplace to work with.

Quote
I strongly disagree here.  I won't presume to speak for everyone else here, but in my opinion, there's a world of difference.  The money that a FIREd person has represents an accumulated unpaid debt that society owes that person for the value they have contributed to the economy by their work.  They have chosen (or in some cases, been forced) to set aside some of their compensation, so that when the time comes that they either cannot or do not wish to work longer, society owes them enough that they can call in that debt and live comfortably.  A dole bludger, roundly speaking, has not contributed to society and therefore is owed nothing, from a purely economic perspective.
Of course you disagree. The mentality of we wealthy is by necessity, "We deserve our wealth, and the poor deserve their poverty."

The increased wealth you and I have are not solely from our own work. Someone else built the roads, the railways, the power lines, someone helped take our mothers safely through childbirth, and so on. Other people's work has enabled and multiplied our wealth. Some of us may pay this back in the form of taxes, but most of us try to minimise this. Our wealth is built on the backs of poorer people.

"More than anyone else, perhaps, the miner can stand as the type of the manual worker, not only because his work is so exaggeratedly awful, but also because it is so vitally necessary and yet so remote from our experience, so invisible, as it were, that we are capable of forgetting it as we forget the blood in our veins. In a way it is even humiliating to watch coal-miners working. It raises in you a momentary doubt about your own status as an ‘intellectual’ and a superior person generally. For it is brought home to you, at least while you are watching, that it is only because miners sweat their guts out that superior persons can remain superior. You and I and the editor of the Times Lit. Supp., and the poets and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Comrade X, author ofMarxism for Infants— all of us really owe the comparative decency of our lives to poor drudges underground, blackened to the eyes, with their throats full of coal dust, driving their shovels forward with arms and belly muscles of steel." - Down The Mine, George Orwell

Nowadays the "poor drudges" are mostly not in the West, but in China and India, in the deserts of the oilfields of the Middle East. Our wealth is not solely due to ourselves, but borrowed from their labour. We don't like to think about this too much, it's bad for our "pulled myself up by my own bootstraps!" narrative. But there it is.

Society is not indebted to us. We are indebted to society.

We apply double standards. This is why Australia's Foreign Minister can claim her boyfriend as her spouse while claiming $32k in benefits for him, but is not obliged to call him her spouse when declaring his financial interests. [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/04/welfare-crackdown-on-relationships-a-double-standard-not-applied-to-mps] Still less is her income means-tested based on his, the way it would be if she were drawing a sole parent's benefit. We have high standards and careful scrutiny of the people receiving $10,000 of public money, but are lax and indifferent to those getting $500,000 of public money.

None of us "deserve" our wealth, still less do we "deserve" to be idle. We are idle or not, according to our nature. And this is why I say: just give them the money and leave them alone. Just not, that ye be judged, some dude said.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 10:44:28 PM by Kyle Schuant »
Athletic Club East - curing iron deficiency

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3152
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7519 on: April 04, 2018, 05:23:04 AM »
Yes to the previous post.

Another thing that gets my goat is the smugness of those who have accumulated wealth not by earnings but by general increases in the value of real estate and the stock market.  Yes, well done for getting a bit of capital together and investing it wisely, possibly taking advantage of the gearing available on real estate.

But the real increase in wealth by these methods is a result of society as a whole increasing the wealth of the country as a whole.  Which is down to innovation and productivity and trading.   The tide has risen and people have floated upwards on top of it.

Too often those people seem to think that it's all down to their own efforts, when it is not.  Or they think it happens as a matter of course, when it only happens because there is good governance and a society ruled by law that allows economic activity to flourish.  The same investments in Somalia, or Syria, or Zimbabwe would have left the same people impoverished and struggling.  Most of all those people complain about the taxes without which good governance and the rule of law are impossible.

Gah!
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7520 on: April 04, 2018, 07:16:33 AM »
A couple weeks ago a friend posted a picture of a new car.  It was followed by a lot of "wows" and "congrats".   They detailed all the awesome features including stuff that can get paired to their phone.  From reading the comments, the friend revealed the last 8 cars they have "owned" were leases, including this one.

On one hand they are exactly the type of people leases are made for, people that have to the newest and latest, on the other hand 8 leased cars is almost 2 decades of car payments!  I can't wrap my head around that.
~~Mrs. D.

marielle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 863
  • Age: 25
  • Location: South Carolina
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7521 on: April 04, 2018, 07:20:34 AM »
A couple weeks ago a friend posted a picture of a new car.  It was followed by a lot of "wows" and "congrats".   They detailed all the awesome features including stuff that can get paired to their phone.  From reading the comments, the friend revealed the last 8 cars they have "owned" were leases, including this one.

On one hand they are exactly the type of people leases are made for, people that have to the newest and latest, on the other hand 8 leased cars is almost 2 decades of car payments!  I can't wrap my head around that.

Isn't a lease 3 years? So that's 24 years (after the current one) of likely $500+/month payments. Even worse!

VaCPA

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7522 on: April 04, 2018, 07:46:11 AM »
"More than anyone else, perhaps, the miner can stand as the type of the manual worker, not only because his work is so exaggeratedly awful, but also because it is so vitally necessary and yet so remote from our experience, so invisible, as it were, that we are capable of forgetting it as we forget the blood in our veins. In a way it is even humiliating to watch coal-miners working. It raises in you a momentary doubt about your own status as an ‘intellectual’ and a superior person generally. For it is brought home to you, at least while you are watching, that it is only because miners sweat their guts out that superior persons can remain superior. You and I and the editor of the Times Lit. Supp., and the poets and the Archbishop of Canterbury and Comrade X, author ofMarxism for Infants— all of us really owe the comparative decency of our lives to poor drudges underground, blackened to the eyes, with their throats full of coal dust, driving their shovels forward with arms and belly muscles of steel." - Down The Mine, George Orwell

That is a really great passage from Orwell. We recently had some landscaping work done which took the guy we hired 2 days to finish. I was having a conversation with my wife afterwards, about how I feel guilty and even a little embarrassed hiring people often older than myself to do this backbreaking work while I just hand them a check and go to my cushy office job. She didn't really feel the same way, since they were eager for the work and wanted the money.

Obviously my landscaping isn't critical to the functioning of society like mining or other types of blue collar work, but that sentiment still resonates with me.

MrsDinero

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7523 on: April 04, 2018, 08:28:39 AM »
A couple weeks ago a friend posted a picture of a new car.  It was followed by a lot of "wows" and "congrats".   They detailed all the awesome features including stuff that can get paired to their phone.  From reading the comments, the friend revealed the last 8 cars they have "owned" were leases, including this one.

On one hand they are exactly the type of people leases are made for, people that have to the newest and latest, on the other hand 8 leased cars is almost 2 decades of car payments!  I can't wrap my head around that.


Isn't a lease 3 years? So that's 24 years (after the current one) of likely $500+/month payments. Even worse!

I should have added, between her and her husband, but I know she tends to trade in the car before the lease is up, so the majority are hers.
~~Mrs. D.

Kyle Schuant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7524 on: April 05, 2018, 05:33:28 AM »
I was having a conversation with my wife afterwards, about how I feel guilty and even a little embarrassed hiring people often older than myself to do this backbreaking work while I just hand them a check and go to my cushy office job.
Pay him more, then.

Today we had a window cleaner come. He'd looked at the place last week, counted the windows and quoted $78 and "about an hour." I assumed he'd be here on his own. But today he did the outside, his wife the inside. A lot of glass. About 1hr45' work. S, under $20 an hour for each of them. By comparison, the minimum wage here is about $17, and we expect to pay more since a lot of their "work" is travel time, refilling bottles and cleaning their cloths and all that. I said, "You undercharged us, double it." He said, "No, there's a formula" - he'd come to us from a franchise company, and my impression was that it was $X per window. I suppose that sometimes that many windows would be 2 hours and many times only 20 minutes, so it'd even out, but I still felt bad. I said, "At least give me your business cards so I can refer you people." He did so.

But if you think the guy is underpaid, pay him more - or at least refer him more business.
Athletic Club East - curing iron deficiency

VaCPA

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 219
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7525 on: April 05, 2018, 07:06:58 AM »
I was having a conversation with my wife afterwards, about how I feel guilty and even a little embarrassed hiring people often older than myself to do this backbreaking work while I just hand them a check and go to my cushy office job.
Pay him more, then.

But if you think the guy is underpaid, pay him more - or at least refer him more business.

I don't think he was underpaid. We paid him a good chunk of change for what he did. If I'd aggressively shopped around I'm sure I could've gotten it done cheaper but I liked him and he was eager for the work.

I think the feeling has more to do with how much more I presumably make than him, for doing work that is far less difficult, at least physically.

Hirondelle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7526 on: April 05, 2018, 07:35:10 AM »
A couple weeks ago a friend posted a picture of a new car.  It was followed by a lot of "wows" and "congrats".   They detailed all the awesome features including stuff that can get paired to their phone.  From reading the comments, the friend revealed the last 8 cars they have "owned" were leases, including this one.

On one hand they are exactly the type of people leases are made for, people that have to the newest and latest, on the other hand 8 leased cars is almost 2 decades of car payments!  I can't wrap my head around that.

I'm really hoping/waiting for the day where a new car will NOT be followed by wows and congrats anymore. That it's the default to not own a car yourself and that needing one is a form of discomfort. Seems like that day is still far far away though.

PrairieBeardstache

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7527 on: April 05, 2018, 09:02:51 AM »
A couple weeks ago a friend posted a picture of a new car.  It was followed by a lot of "wows" and "congrats".   They detailed all the awesome features including stuff that can get paired to their phone.  From reading the comments, the friend revealed the last 8 cars they have "owned" were leases, including this one.

On one hand they are exactly the type of people leases are made for, people that have to the newest and latest, on the other hand 8 leased cars is almost 2 decades of car payments!  I can't wrap my head around that.

I'm really hoping/waiting for the day where a new car will NOT be followed by wows and congrats anymore. That it's the default to not own a car yourself and that needing one is a form of discomfort. Seems like that day is still far far away though.

I feel like I've found my tribe - I'm a pretty serious car enthusiast (I used to compete in motorsports and ran my local club) and have always felt like an outsider by thinking it was strange and even uncouth of people to give congratulations for purchases, especially for car purchases. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone.

From my anecdata it's unlikely that this will change anytime soon - people still come to me for car purchase advice and resist the advice I give: Unless you care about cars as much as I do, buy a cheap Civic or Corolla and be done with cars forever. They seem to want congrats for buying status. *shrug*

RidetheRain

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • Age: 26
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7528 on: April 05, 2018, 09:59:29 AM »
A couple weeks ago a friend posted a picture of a new car.  It was followed by a lot of "wows" and "congrats".   They detailed all the awesome features including stuff that can get paired to their phone.  From reading the comments, the friend revealed the last 8 cars they have "owned" were leases, including this one.

On one hand they are exactly the type of people leases are made for, people that have to the newest and latest, on the other hand 8 leased cars is almost 2 decades of car payments!  I can't wrap my head around that.

I'm really hoping/waiting for the day where a new car will NOT be followed by wows and congrats anymore. That it's the default to not own a car yourself and that needing one is a form of discomfort. Seems like that day is still far far away though.

I feel like I've found my tribe - I'm a pretty serious car enthusiast (I used to compete in motorsports and ran my local club) and have always felt like an outsider by thinking it was strange and even uncouth of people to give congratulations for purchases, especially for car purchases. I'm glad to see that I'm not alone.

From my anecdata it's unlikely that this will change anytime soon - people still come to me for car purchase advice and resist the advice I give: Unless you care about cars as much as I do, buy a cheap Civic or Corolla and be done with cars forever. They seem to want congrats for buying status. *shrug*

I remember being severely weirded out by this congratulatory behavior when I got my first car. I was a teenager so I guess the adults of my family were really trying to say that it was good that I was responsible enough to save the money for a car? My teenaged friends were much more what I would consider "correct" behavior which basically boiled down to "lucky you!"
See my journal

Imma

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Location: Europe
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7529 on: April 05, 2018, 02:18:41 PM »
@Kyle Schuant I kind of get what you mean. And I agree with quite some of the things you write; for example how we scrutinize poor people that get 10k in benefits and couldn't care less about rich people claiming massive benefits. As someone with a degree in law, few things get me as pissed off as seeing how a poor person can get into extremely serious trouble for a very minor offence, like possession of a very small amount of drugs. The consequences include possible time in jail, loss of custody of children and loss of a roof over there head, while a rich person can get away with a community service sentence and a fine for a 7-figure fraud. I actually researched white and blue collar crime while at university. I don't think criminals are lazy, by the way, they are often enterprising, clever people, maybe except for crime by desperate drug addicts, which isn't extremely common in this country. They just happen to work in a field that's been outlawed.

I know from experience in that job and in real life that there's a category of people that's just not capable of being a fully functioning member of society. You'll find them in all the social classes, but the wealthier families generally take care of their own. In lower classes, these people end up getting support from the state at some point. In my country, many of these people end up on social security disability benefits (because of low IQ or mental health issues). I worked in what in the US is called welfare. About 80% of those I encountered in my job needed temporary financial support in a difficult season of their life: after divorce, death of a spouse, recovering from serious illness, caring for dependent relatives, returning from prison, newly arriving in this country as a refugee. Most of them were able to get their life back together and were off benefits within 2 years. Then we had the "lifers" and there were three distinct categories:
- Refugees who came from a seriously deprived country like Somalia and just lacking any skills to survive in the western world on their own, even after extensive training.
- People who should have been on disability benefits but aren't for some reason, that have severe mental health issues, low IQ and often also debts and addictions.
- People who gamble the system because they can't be bothered to work.

I agree with you it's by far the cheapest option to give the 3rd category of people a monthly check and be done with it. But I also think it's morally wrong to feel so entitled to society that you think it's OK you don't have to put in any effort or do anything useful at all and live off other people's work for life. By the way, I don't just have this feeling about useless people on benefits. There are plenty of useless rich people too. You can't help being born into wealth, but if you are born into such immense privilege but it's a choice to live a useless life. I don't think that has to be paid employment, but I do feel that as a member of society you have a moral obligation to do something for this society. It doesn't matter if you're the prime minister, a school teacher, a carer for a disabled person or a fundraiser for charity. 

Kyle Schuant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7530 on: April 05, 2018, 09:57:12 PM »
I agree that morally you should contribute something of yourself to others. But some people never will. Here I make a division between what is moral, and what should public policy be. Public policy should be about promoting the public good, which means the greatest good for the greatest number of people while minimising harm to the rest; obviously people will argue the best mechanism for that, whether welfare or "trickle down", and so on; but most will agree that government should be for the public good. And as I said before, the machinery of society will always have its friction, all we can do is minimise it. Friction in machines is heat and sound, friction in society is money spent largely unproductively.

We minimise expenditure on idle poor people by just giving them benefits, and we minimise expenditure on idle rich people by a progressive taxation system. People on this forum are, for some reason, wary of the latter. ;)
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 09:59:48 PM by Kyle Schuant »
Athletic Club East - curing iron deficiency

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7531 on: April 06, 2018, 10:34:36 AM »
Yes to the previous post.

Another thing that gets my goat is the smugness of those who have accumulated wealth not by earnings but by general increases in the value of real estate and the stock market.  Yes, well done for getting a bit of capital together and investing it wisely, possibly taking advantage of the gearing available on real estate.

But the real increase in wealth by these methods is a result of society as a whole increasing the wealth of the country as a whole.

 Then why isn't everyone rich? If as you say, "society as a whole increasing the wealth of the country" everyone can take advantage of the countries growth.
 Those that benefited put the effort and work into making it happen, I give them credit. And for those that didn't, they had the opportunity and failed to make the effort.
Quote
Which is down to innovation and productivity and trading.   The tide has risen and people have floated upwards on top of it.
The didn't really float, they climbed the wall with effort and work, that many others could have but didn't.
Quote
Too often those people seem to think that it's all down to their own efforts, when it is not.

 It is do to my efforts, I didn't have to save money, I didn't have to invest that money.
About 1/2 the families in the US earned more income than my family, but as you know,
most of those spent it and didn't invest. They had the opportunity.
 Yes, society works and the economy grows, and guess what? Those people got paid, for their effort, just as my family did, but they didn't take advantage of the oppurtunity that the society gave them.

Quote
Or they think it happens as a matter of course, when it only happens because there is good governance and a society ruled by law that allows economic activity to flourish.  The same investments in would have left the same people impoverished and struggling.  Most of all those people complain about the taxes without which good governance and the rule of law are impossible.

Gah!

 I'll give you some space if your not doing well in Somalia, or Syria, or Zimbabwe.
 Every one has the opportunity in the States.
 And to restate, if it is all do to the society, Why isn't everyone rich?
 The answer, because those that are, put in the effort and work required to take advantage of the oppurtunity.
Gah!


La Bibliotecaria Feroz

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3606
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7532 on: April 06, 2018, 01:50:36 PM »
I'll give you some space if your not doing well in Somalia, or Syria, or Zimbabwe.
 Every one has the opportunity in the States.
 And to restate, if it is all do to the society, Why isn't everyone rich?
 The answer, because those that are, put in the effort and work required to take advantage of the oppurtunity.
Gah!



I firmly disagree. Everyone has SOME opportunity. Not everyone has enough or adequate opportunity.

50 years ago, black people couldn't get mortgages. That's when my grandfather was in his prime working and wealth-building years. He was a white man in a system built to benefit white men, and he took great advantage of that and made a lot of smart decisions, and the result for me was no student loans and a "divorce car." (He bought me a car after my divorce, a nice reliable used Honda.)

If your grandparents were black during those years, then not only did they not have the same opportunities to build wealth, but they were living with institutionalized racism. You think distrust of the system vanishes in a couple generations?

And how about the statistic that black children are twice as likely to be suspended from preschool as white children? Anything happening to three-year-olds is not their personal fault IMO.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/11/07/250-preschoolers-suspended-or-expelled-every-school-day-new-analysis/?utm_term=.135e439b5c5b

No, not everyone has enough opportunity. We have had for a long time and continue to have a system that exacerbates rather than minimizes racial and economic disparities.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7533 on: April 07, 2018, 06:30:19 AM »
I'll give you some space if your not doing well in Somalia, or Syria, or Zimbabwe.
 Every one has the opportunity in the States.
 And to restate, if it is all do to the society, Why isn't everyone rich?
 The answer, because those that are, put in the effort and work required to take advantage of the oppurtunity.
Gah!



I firmly disagree. Everyone has SOME opportunity. Not everyone has enough or adequate opportunity.

50 years ago, black people couldn't get mortgages. That's when my grandfather was in his prime working and wealth-building years. He was a white man in a system built to benefit white men, and he took great advantage of that and made a lot of smart decisions, and the result for me was no student loans and a "divorce car." (He bought me a car after my divorce, a nice reliable used Honda.)

If your grandparents were black during those years, then not only did they not have the same opportunities to build wealth, but they were living with institutionalized racism. You think distrust of the system vanishes in a couple generations?

And how about the statistic that black children are twice as likely to be suspended from preschool as white children? Anything happening to three-year-olds is not their personal fault IMO.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/11/07/250-preschoolers-suspended-or-expelled-every-school-day-new-analysis/?utm_term=.135e439b5c5b

No, not everyone has enough opportunity. We have had for a long time and continue to have a system that exacerbates rather than minimizes racial and economic disparities.

 OK, I just had to say my piece, there are loads of people that have all the opportunity and advantages of society that never
save a nest egg. Those that do, worked at it.
  Absolutely there is racism in society, but their is also culture among races. The Asian culture does much better financially than all other cultures in the US society, even while fight some racism.
  I'm sure the racism against blacks has caused some of the culture they have (big scale here not individual)
This chart could show part of the reason why black children are twice as likely to be suspended from preschool as white children. It's not all racism, small part, yes, maybe some caused by the war on poverty also. (breaking up families)


Just saw a report last night that said 14 to 17 year old blacks have a murder offender rate 10 times that of whites.
 That's culture that needs some fixing and I thing it needs to come from within.

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 486
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7534 on: April 07, 2018, 06:59:48 AM »
Can we please keep the political commentary to its own thread?  I come here for quick laughs at other people's purchases, not depressing discussions about race in society.

Kyle Schuant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7535 on: April 07, 2018, 07:05:23 AM »
I don't think he was underpaid. [...]

I think the feeling has more to do with how much more I presumably make than him, for doing work that is far less difficult
The discomfort you initially expressed comes from the contradiction between these two statements. You need to resolve this in some way.
Athletic Club East - curing iron deficiency

dmac680chi

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7536 on: April 16, 2018, 08:07:57 AM »
Guy on reddit in the Teachers subreddit was lamenting he needed a second job. He's a teacher and his wife watches the kid/baby (not sure how old) during the week. She's a weekend nurse that makes twice as much as him. Seems like they have terrible budgeting and could use an old fashioned face punch. Someone in the comments said to be drowning in student debt but has a house and is fine with "paying loans the rest of my life".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cali

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Location: SoCal
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7537 on: April 29, 2018, 01:27:00 PM »
The main mall in my hometown has a Hello Kitty truck outside. People waited in line for four hours to buy this stuff.

I've always considered myself incredibly fortunate that even if I'm interested in something trendy, I'm too lazy to stand in long lines for it. Saves me a fortune.

ptobeast

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7538 on: April 30, 2018, 05:44:59 PM »
The main mall in my hometown has a Hello Kitty truck outside. People waited in line for four hours to buy this stuff.

(Facepunch moment, but...) I visited that truck when it stopped near me, and totally bought the $12 cookies. They were not nearly as delicious as they should be for that price, but they were adorable and a friend & myself dressed up and made an outing out of the visit. No line at all for us, though. I think anything more than a 20 minute wait would have made us leave rather than stand in line (after taking the obligatory pictures in front of the truck, of course).

Finallyunderstand

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7539 on: May 03, 2018, 01:17:00 PM »
"what are your favorite things to buy on Amazon?  I need ideas.  I'm dying to spend money"...  Said by a person who just recently posted a question regarding medicaid that she's on.

ketchup

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3322
  • Age: 27
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7540 on: May 03, 2018, 01:48:52 PM »
"what are your favorite things to buy on Amazon?  I need ideas.  I'm dying to spend money"...  Said by a person who just recently posted a question regarding medicaid that she's on.
Vacuum cleaner bags, lawn sprinklers, shaving brush, dark chocolate, and a phone charger.  Those are my "favorite things" I've bought on Amazon this month.  Somehow I don't think that's what this person meant...

Dollar Slice

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2857
  • Age: 40
  • Location: New York City
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7541 on: May 03, 2018, 01:57:29 PM »
"what are your favorite things to buy on Amazon?  I need ideas.  I'm dying to spend money"...  Said by a person who just recently posted a question regarding medicaid that she's on.

Suggest this and see what they say. Make sure you point out the inexpensive used copies :-P
Referrals for...
Prolific Academic: http://www.prolific.ac/rp?ref=3PJ4H43L (Earn money by taking academic surveys - way better than mturk, I average ~$9/hr)
Robinhood: http://bit.ly/2uGXBPG (Get a free stock!)

Hirondelle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7542 on: May 03, 2018, 02:11:34 PM »
"what are your favorite things to buy on Amazon?  I need ideas.  I'm dying to spend money"...  Said by a person who just recently posted a question regarding medicaid that she's on.


Major confession: I've never bought anything from Amazon in my life. Am I even a human being?

barbaz

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7543 on: May 04, 2018, 01:20:20 AM »
"what are your favorite things to buy on Amazon?  I need ideas.  I'm dying to spend money"...  Said by a person who just recently posted a question regarding medicaid that she's on.
Not American, but isn’t Medicaid only for people who have no money? Maybe she will really die if she doesn’t spend;-)

Finallyunderstand

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7544 on: May 04, 2018, 12:56:42 PM »
"what are your favorite things to buy on Amazon?  I need ideas.  I'm dying to spend money"...  Said by a person who just recently posted a question regarding medicaid that she's on.
Not American, but isn’t Medicaid only for people who have no money? Maybe she will really die if she doesn’t spend;-)

Basically correct.  Supposed to support low asset/income people who can't afford basic health care.  Clearly it's not a perfect system if you have money to blow on frivolous things.

Sibley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2838
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7545 on: May 04, 2018, 01:32:01 PM »
"what are your favorite things to buy on Amazon?  I need ideas.  I'm dying to spend money"...  Said by a person who just recently posted a question regarding medicaid that she's on.
Not American, but isn’t Medicaid only for people who have no money? Maybe she will really die if she doesn’t spend;-)

Basically correct.  Supposed to support low asset/income people who can't afford basic health care.  Clearly it's not a perfect system if you have money to blow on frivolous things.

Or the credit card companies haven't wised up yet.

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2659
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7546 on: May 04, 2018, 04:32:19 PM »
My favorite thing I got on amazon was a new manual push mower my husband bought me as a gift. So much fun!

I’m pretty sure that isn’t the sort of suggestion that person was looking for.
"It'll be great!"

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6310
  • Location: United States
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7547 on: May 08, 2018, 08:29:26 AM »
This was an sponsored post that popped up on my page.
Quote
More than 95% of U.S. homeowners have positive equity in their home (meaning the house is worth more than their remaining mortgage amount), according to CoreLogic. Of those homeowners, nearly 83% have significant equity (more than 20%) – which creates an ideal situation for putting a down payment on anew home. Are you ready to sell? Now’s your chance! #ReadySetSell

Have positive equity?! Upgrade!!

MrMoogle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7548 on: May 08, 2018, 09:49:38 AM »
This was an sponsored post that popped up on my page.
Quote
More than 95% of U.S. homeowners have positive equity in their home (meaning the house is worth more than their remaining mortgage amount), according to CoreLogic. Of those homeowners, nearly 83% have significant equity (more than 20%) – which creates an ideal situation for putting a down payment on anew home. Are you ready to sell? Now’s your chance! #ReadySetSell

Have positive equity?! Upgrade!!
Normally I think of the face punches as symbolic, but I really want to hit the person who said that.

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Overheard on Facebook
« Reply #7549 on: May 08, 2018, 08:30:20 PM »
Major confession: I've never bought anything from Amazon in my life. Am I even a human being?

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question, but just in case, the obvious answer is no. Just like those of us who are not on Facebook...we're clearly not human.