The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: effigy98 on May 04, 2020, 10:10:38 AM
-
Is it ironic to see gull wing doors open to have the food tossed in? I find it fun to count the luxury cars in the food line.
-
I don't. I think seeing anyone in a food line is sad. Plus, it's not that hard to realize how close a lot of people are to that reality. Likely not a lot of people on this board, perhaps, but lots of others.
-
I wonder if the pandemic will have the same effect on people that the Great Depression had on people who lived through it - a general return to thrift.
-
Plenty of people were thrifty all along, though probably not the Tesla crowd. I have never seen a Tesla locally, as a matter of fact.
-
It’s definitely regional - I see plenty of them in Madison, WI, where the grocery stores have charging stations.
-
Teslas are all over Amsterdam.
-
No teslas but I did see people lined up in trucks.
-
Is it ironic to see gull wing doors open to have the food tossed in? I find it fun to count the luxury cars in the food line.
Not sure what you mean by food line. Are you in the US?
Earlier this year I spent a few days at a local food distribution site. They had some designated volunteers grabbing food for the homebound, who stood in line with everyone else. Not that people with fancy cars can't have their own problems, but they could be volunteers.
There was also a big food give-away for out of work people in the restaurant industry here to keep a bunch of produce from being wasted. If I fit the bill, I probably would have shown up and taken some food from that one - even if I technically had savings that I could draw on and wouldn't be in trouble yet.
I've seen a few Teslas in my area over the past few (6?) months or so. I'm not sure if it's because they are slowly getting more popular here, or if I just finally knew what they looked like after one was pointed out to me.
-
Bit strange to focus your attention on Teslas in particular. I don't know why they're a lightning rod for financial criticism.
I also think this site has a strange antipathy towards cars. Yeah, cars can be expensive, but if you do it right (buy 2nd hand after the warranty expires, buy as a business deduction, get it serviced at an independent) then even an "expensive" car can be quite modest to run.
-
Honestly, I volunteered at a food pantry for a short while, and the food there isn't great. It's not like there an incentive to get it if you don't need it. Plus, the food pantry that I volunteered at had income requirements, and they also required you to have a vehicle (or some way) to transport the food home. Most people had vehicles, although one had a cart.
-
I've been helping out a fellow single parent with groceries and supplies. Last week, our local farmers market had a curbside giveaway box of fresh produce, eggs and cheese. I volunteered to pick it up for my friend; she'd called in and explained her circumstance and was given a pick up number. It seems they were taking people at their word without lots of red tape and jumping through hoops, which is great. I then dropped the box off at her door with some toilet paper, wipes and pull-ups I'd purchased for her. My vehicle is a Volvo wagon. Ten years old, but still looks pretty nice.
Should I be shamed for this? Should she? She's furloughed and has no day care in any case.
I get that it's a blood sport here to make fun of those who didn't plan ahead, but the reality is we never know the full and actual details of every situation. So please think before you judge.
-
Bit strange to focus your attention on Teslas in particular. I don't know why they're a lightning rod for financial criticism.
I also think this site has a strange antipathy towards cars. Yeah, cars can be expensive, but if you do it right (buy 2nd hand after the warranty expires, buy as a business deduction, get it serviced at an independent) then even an "expensive" car can be quite modest to run.
Seriously? https://www.truecar.com/prices-new/tesla/
The cheapest tesla is twice the price of a similarly equipped gasoline car. Im not saying tesla's are bad, or even a bad value, its just that they are a luxury item. I own lots of luxury items that I can afford.
Buying a luxury automobile is a choice, its not like paying for chemotherapy. There is nothing wrong with critical thinking about financial choices. If you bought a luxury automobile and then were laid off due to covid and 2 months later you cant afford to feed yourself you obviously are making poor personal finance decisions. Failure to admit that is what I would call insanity. Smart people accept criticism and talk openly about their mistakes.
-
Bit strange to focus your attention on Teslas in particular. I don't know why they're a lightning rod for financial criticism.
I also think this site has a strange antipathy towards cars. Yeah, cars can be expensive, but if you do it right (buy 2nd hand after the warranty expires, buy as a business deduction, get it serviced at an independent) then even an "expensive" car can be quite modest to run.
Seriously? https://www.truecar.com/prices-new/tesla/
The cheapest tesla is twice the price of a similarly equipped gasoline car. Im not saying tesla's are bad, or even a bad value, its just that they are a luxury item. I own lots of luxury items that I can afford.
Buying a luxury automobile is a choice, its not like paying for chemotherapy. There is nothing wrong with critical thinking about financial choices. If you bought a luxury automobile and then were laid off due to covid and 2 months later you cant afford to feed yourself you obviously are making poor personal finance decisions. Failure to admit that is what I would call insanity. Smart people accept criticism and talk openly about their mistakes.
Everything other than eating and drinking is a choice, and most choices are luxuries. Having a house instead of a small flat is a luxury. Eating organic is a luxury. Having children is a luxury. I don't understand why cars attract such particular ire.
How does the OP know it was a new Tesla? It could have been a second-hand Tesla. It could have been a work vehicle (in my country, that would mean you get a 10% GST offset and a 47% income tax deduction). Etc, etc.
No need to be so judgmental of folks' spending...or if you're going to be that judgmental, be consistent and judge all the 40% (or whatever it is) of Americans who live paycheque to paycheque. How many people are getting government assistance because they can't afford to pay for the children they chose to have?
-
If you bought a 100k Tesla or even a used 60k Tesla but can't live a couple months without going to the food bank, you should sell that Tesla and get face punched like 100 times to beat the stupid out. Could be any luxury car, but model x are crazy expensive and seeing those at the food bank is crazy.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
-
Thread subject slots nicely into Elton John's "Tiny Dancer" (count the headlights on the hiiiighwaaaaaaay)
-
I don’t care if people buy Teslas, though I admit that I don’t get the whole fancy car thing. But if you buy a really, really expensive car without having enough emergency fund to get you through 2 months without going to the food bank, you probably should learn a lesson from that experience.
-
Not a lot of Teslas in my area, but wthe other night watching the news about the food lines I was amazed to see how many high end SUVs / pickups were in that line. Models from the last year or so, and not exactly entry level...
Some people choose to have an emergency fund so they can take care of themselves. Some people struggle to get by at all and can't get emergency funds together even though they want to. Others apparently spend all their money recklessly and then expect others to bail them out if anything goes wrong.
-
Is it ironic to see gull wing doors open to have the food tossed in? I find it fun to count the luxury cars in the food line.
Do you have nothing better to do than watch people in need and make assumptions about them? Or are you actually in the food line yourself?
-
I have no idea about the cars in the food line locally. It is sad that people are so clueless about money.
-
Is it ironic to see gull wing doors open to have the food tossed in? I find it fun to count the luxury cars in the food line.
Do you have nothing better to do than watch people in need and make assumptions about them? Or are you actually in the food line yourself?
I was sort of thinking this too. It's a mean-spirited thing to say. Maybe I should put a sticker on the back of my frivolous sports car - "I paid for this with cash...also it's a business vehicle so I get to deduct its running costs" in case OP sees it and makes unwarranted assumptions about my lifestyle.
-
Is it ironic to see gull wing doors open to have the food tossed in? I find it fun to count the luxury cars in the food line.
Do you have nothing better to do than watch people in need and make assumptions about them? Or are you actually in the food line yourself?
I was sort of thinking this too. It's a mean-spirited thing to say. Maybe I should put a sticker on the back of my frivolous sports car - "I paid for this with cash...also it's a business vehicle so I get to deduct its running costs" in case OP sees it and makes unwarranted assumptions about my lifestyle.
I just got off the phone with my beloved aunt. I mentioned this story to her, because she has always been involved in feeding the poor. A group she and my late uncle started at their church is still going strong and helping people in need, more than forty-five years later, which is both cool and poignant. Today, she told me about the first time she went out to give food to people in need (at a different church, before this group was formed). She said the last house they visited was a rather large house, with a nice car outside. Mentally, she compared it to her own small house and much older car. When she asked about that visit later, she was told that the husband was an alcoholic and drank all his wages, leaving his wife to fend for herself and their children. So you never know. She said she learned a lifelong lesson from that woman in the fancy house.
I just remembered that this same aunt taught me about how to give food. You never give people whole turkeys, for example, because of the likelihood that the receiver might not have an oven to cook it in, or if their utilities were turned off, or if they even owned a large enough pan to cook it in. A small cooked turkey breast or even sliced turkey was much more appropriate. She also said that cooked canned ham was also a good choice, but to be sure to buy the kind that came with a key to open it. I was a sales rep at the time, calling on food stores, so I was always on the lookout for deals on 1- or 2-pound canned hams, complete with key. Whenever I found a good deal, I would call her (via pay phone!) and she would tell me how many to buy. She's the last of my parent's generation. I'm going to miss her, and the many people of her caliber, when she's gone.
-
Is it ironic to see gull wing doors open to have the food tossed in? I find it fun to count the luxury cars in the food line.
Do you have nothing better to do than watch people in need and make assumptions about them? Or are you actually in the food line yourself?
I was sort of thinking this too. It's a mean-spirited thing to say. Maybe I should put a sticker on the back of my frivolous sports car - "I paid for this with cash...also it's a business vehicle so I get to deduct its running costs" in case OP sees it and makes unwarranted assumptions about my lifestyle.
I just got off the phone with my beloved aunt. I mentioned this story to her, because she has always been involved in feeding the poor. A group she and my late uncle started at their church is still going strong and helping people in need, more than forty-five years later, which is both cool and poignant. Today, she told me about the first time she went out to give food to people in need (at a different church, before this group was formed). She said the last house they visited was a rather large house, with a nice car outside. Mentally, she compared it to her own small house and much older car. When she asked about that visit later, she was told that the husband was an alcoholic and drank all his wages, leaving his wife to fend for herself and their children. So you never know. She said she learned a lifelong lesson from that woman in the fancy house.
I just remembered that this same aunt taught me about how to give food. You never give people whole turkeys, for example, because of the likelihood that the receiver might not have an oven to cook it in, or if their utilities were turned off, or if they even owned a large enough pan to cook it in. A small cooked turkey breast or even sliced turkey was much more appropriate. She also said that cooked canned ham was also a good choice, but to be sure to buy the kind that came with a key to open it. I was a sales rep at the time, calling on food stores, so I was always on the lookout for deals on 1- or 2-pound canned hams, complete with key. Whenever I found a good deal, I would call her (via pay phone!) and she would tell me how many to buy. She's the last of my parent's generation. I'm going to miss her, and the many people of her caliber, when she's gone.
I worked with a young lady once (she was about 10) and she said she hated raisins and would never eat them again. When she a bit younger, she was living with her dad, but they couldn't pay the electric bill, so they didn't have any electricity. They had food from the food pantry, but a lot of that required cooking (mac and cheese, etc) so it wasn't useful to them. They had given them a big thing of raisins, and so that's what she ate for several days until they could find another alternative.
-
I worked with a young lady once (she was about 10) and she said she hated raisins and would never eat them again. When she a bit younger, she was living with her dad, but they couldn't pay the electric bill, so they didn't have any electricity. They had food from the food pantry, but a lot of that required cooking (mac and cheese, etc) so it wasn't useful to them. They had given them a big thing of raisins, and so that's what she ate for several days until they could find another alternative.
Wow.
-
Bit strange to focus your attention on Teslas in particular. I don't know why they're a lightning rod for financial criticism.
I also think this site has a strange antipathy towards cars. Yeah, cars can be expensive, but if you do it right (buy 2nd hand after the warranty expires, buy as a business deduction, get it serviced at an independent) then even an "expensive" car can be quite modest to run.
I think this is a good point. I have a cousin (age 25) that works at a Mercedes dealership in L.A. He loves cars and is especially passionate about Mercedes. Because of his deep knowledge base of cars and Mercedes in particular, he can routinely buy a Mercedes for 20% under market value. He drives it for one year and then sells it for 10% more than want he paid for it.
I understand that his behavior is not typical. However, I wouldn't assume that someone is bad with money because they have a status symbol car that typically loses value.
-
I just saw one here in Dallas, TX once. I just hope this pandemic will pass already.
-
Bit strange to focus your attention on Teslas in particular. I don't know why they're a lightning rod for financial criticism.
I also think this site has a strange antipathy towards cars. Yeah, cars can be expensive, but if you do it right (buy 2nd hand after the warranty expires, buy as a business deduction, get it serviced at an independent) then even an "expensive" car can be quite modest to run.
Seriously? https://www.truecar.com/prices-new/tesla/
The cheapest tesla is twice the price of a similarly equipped gasoline car. Im not saying tesla's are bad, or even a bad value, its just that they are a luxury item. I own lots of luxury items that I can afford.
Buying a luxury automobile is a choice, its not like paying for chemotherapy. There is nothing wrong with critical thinking about financial choices. If you bought a luxury automobile and then were laid off due to covid and 2 months later you cant afford to feed yourself you obviously are making poor personal finance decisions. Failure to admit that is what I would call insanity. Smart people accept criticism and talk openly about their mistakes.
Everything other than eating and drinking is a choice, and most choices are luxuries. Having a house instead of a small flat is a luxury. Eating organic is a luxury. Having children is a luxury. I don't understand why cars attract such particular ire.
How does the OP know it was a new Tesla? It could have been a second-hand Tesla. It could have been a work vehicle (in my country, that would mean you get a 10% GST offset and a 47% income tax deduction). Etc, etc.
No need to be so judgmental of folks' spending...or if you're going to be that judgmental, be consistent and judge all the 40% (or whatever it is) of Americans who live paycheque to paycheque. How many people are getting government assistance because they can't afford to pay for the children they chose to have?
Gull wing doors would be a Model X, which is over $100k and even the oldest are only what, a couple years old, and still extremely expensive.
I think there is some valid criticism. People blow $100k on a car and then sit in food lines for free food to feed themselves and their family. Which brings up a couple of thoughts. That they spent all that money on a car, frivolously, and now need taxpayers to give them food to eat. It's unfair to taxpayers. And more importantly, their spending has caused them to be in need of supplies for the TRULY unfortunate that don't have $100k to blow on a car, and really do need these services to feed their families. Or, they are just greedy and happy to take anything free. In any scenario, it just doesn't look good.
-
Bit strange to focus your attention on Teslas in particular. I don't know why they're a lightning rod for financial criticism.
I also think this site has a strange antipathy towards cars. Yeah, cars can be expensive, but if you do it right (buy 2nd hand after the warranty expires, buy as a business deduction, get it serviced at an independent) then even an "expensive" car can be quite modest to run.
Seriously? https://www.truecar.com/prices-new/tesla/
The cheapest tesla is twice the price of a similarly equipped gasoline car. Im not saying tesla's are bad, or even a bad value, its just that they are a luxury item. I own lots of luxury items that I can afford.
Buying a luxury automobile is a choice, its not like paying for chemotherapy. There is nothing wrong with critical thinking about financial choices. If you bought a luxury automobile and then were laid off due to covid and 2 months later you cant afford to feed yourself you obviously are making poor personal finance decisions. Failure to admit that is what I would call insanity. Smart people accept criticism and talk openly about their mistakes.
Everything other than eating and drinking is a choice, and most choices are luxuries. Having a house instead of a small flat is a luxury. Eating organic is a luxury. Having children is a luxury. I don't understand why cars attract such particular ire.
How does the OP know it was a new Tesla? It could have been a second-hand Tesla. It could have been a work vehicle (in my country, that would mean you get a 10% GST offset and a 47% income tax deduction). Etc, etc.
No need to be so judgmental of folks' spending...or if you're going to be that judgmental, be consistent and judge all the 40% (or whatever it is) of Americans who live paycheque to paycheque. How many people are getting government assistance because they can't afford to pay for the children they chose to have?
Gull wing doors would be a Model X, which is over $100k and even the oldest are only what, a couple years old, and still extremely expensive.
I think there is some valid criticism. People blow $100k on a car and then sit in food lines for free food to feed themselves and their family. Which brings up a couple of thoughts. That they spent all that money on a car, frivolously, and now need taxpayers to give them food to eat. It's unfair to taxpayers. And more importantly, their spending has caused them to be in need of supplies for the TRULY unfortunate that don't have $100k to blow on a car, and really do need these services to feed their families. Or, they are just greedy and happy to take anything free. In any scenario, it just doesn't look good.
Or they work for Tesla, the car is a job perk, and their and their spouse's jobs have both gone up in smoke. In the Bay Area, where Tesla is located (for the time being, lol), this is entirely plausible.
-
I dont get this "they got it at a discount" argument.
If you got it at a discount and are living on the edge (if you lost your income you'd be in the food line in 2 months) then would'nt it make sense to sell it, save the profit, and buy a more economical car?
I really dont see anything wrong with being critical about spending decisions, it is the whole theme of MMM. If anyone is so sensitive about this, why would they be here? We cant really learn from others mistakes if we cant discuss them.
-
I dont get this "they got it at a discount" argument.
If you got it at a discount and are living on the edge (if you lost your income you'd be in the food line in 2 months) then would'nt it make sense to sell it, save the profit, and buy a more economical car?
I really dont see anything wrong with being critical about spending decisions, it is the whole theme of MMM. If anyone is so sensitive about this, why would they be here? We cant really learn from others mistakes if we cant discuss them.
I didn't say anything about a discount. For some, the car is provided by their company as part of their compensation. If the company were to take them back when their employees were temporarily furloughed, it would be a massive headache and expense, so it's more expedient to let the employees take care of them. My local Tesla dealer's showroom is empty - who has those vehicles? Probably employees. And yes, for a good chunk of my career, I did drive a company car. Even when I was on a medical LOA, I kept the car and was allowed to use it.
To your second paragraph, especially the bolded: We don't really know the circumstances of the people the OP is asking us to make fun of. There are a LOT of high wage earners who have unexpectedly lost their income in this pandemic. One might say they are wise, even somewhat mustachian, to take what help is available now so they can stay afloat. How many of us will be receiving and cashing stimulus checks we don't need?
And I see your point about being critical of other's spending decisions here, but we're in the middle of an unprecedented pandemic. Would it kill us to show some fucking grace? I think not.
-
You're right, we should all probably get in the food line regardless of our financial situation but Id feel bad if I thought I might be taking food away from someone that really needed it...
-
Is it ironic to see gull wing doors open to have the food tossed in? I find it fun to count the luxury cars in the food line.
What's ironic is seeing this posted by someone planning to use unemployment to retire (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/is-it-possible-for-someone-on-fire-to-collect-the-fed's-$600week-unemployment/msg2616660/#msg2616660).
-
You're right, we should all probably get in the food line regardless of our financial situation but Id feel bad if I thought I might be taking food away from someone that really needed it...
So you're not stockpiling toilet paper or cleaning supplies or food staples, you're continuing to make the payments on your (theoretical) student loans, and you're returning that stimulus check, right? ;-)
And...my family used to make fun of my well-stocked pantry. I always saw it as a hedge against hunger and a way to assuage my Inner Bag Lady. Only now do I see it for the privilege it actually is.
-
@Dicey you're right, I probably should get in the food line to get my fair share even though i dont need it. I dont think my wife will allow it though...
-
Tesla dealer? I don't think they exist. There are Tesla stores, some of which are in malls with one or 2 cars to show off.
If I were to go drive anywhere near me for half an hour, I'd see at least a couple dozen Teslas. I live in the suburbs of Boston.
Food lines? Sorry.....haven't seen or heard of these either.
I did see a neighbor last week. Loud, high frequency engine noise. Blue Ferrari convertible of some kind. Maybe a California (the peon of Ferrari models). Watched, then went back to splitting firewood.
-
Tesla dealer? I don't think they exist. There are Tesla stores, some of which are in malls with one or 2 cars to show off.
If I were to go drive anywhere near me for half an hour, I'd see at least a couple dozen Teslas. I live in the suburbs of Boston.
Food lines? Sorry.....haven't seen or heard of these either.
I did see a neighbor last week. Loud, high frequency engine noise. Blue Ferrari convertible of some kind. Maybe a California (the peon of Ferrari models). Watched, then went back to splitting firewood.
I'm assuming food line is the regional term for food bank. Not that I hang around them that often either, although I have volunteered at one and plan to do so again when the pandemic is over.
-
Tesla dealer? I don't think they exist. There are Tesla stores, some of which are in malls with one or 2 cars to show off.
If I were to go drive anywhere near me for half an hour, I'd see at least a couple dozen Teslas. I live in the suburbs of Boston.
Food lines? Sorry.....haven't seen or heard of these either.
I did see a neighbor last week. Loud, high frequency engine noise. Blue Ferrari convertible of some kind. Maybe a California (the peon of Ferrari models). Watched, then went back to splitting firewood.
Yes, the Tesla "dealer" is the store. Ours always had at least three vehicles in it, now there are none. My town has a number of high-end dealerships. We see tons of Teslas, Masteratis, Ferraris, Bentleys and more. Once I went to a restaurant to work on an event I was planning. They have a small "secret" parking lot. There were NINE Teslas parked in a lot that holds about fifteen cars.
Funny, DH and I just ran some errands together and I told him about this thread. He laughed and said, "What's the big deal?" Yeah, we're used to fancy cars here.
As to food lines, I completely agree. How would the OP even see such a thing unless they were in one themselves?
-
When I read the OP, I thought they were talking about the grocery store pick-up lane (much more popular during COVID-19) and not like a food pantry for the indigent.
If it was the former, I don't understand the gripe. Everybody eats food including Tesla owners. If it was indeed the latter, then whatever (I didn't even know those places had automobile lines, I've only seen humans standing in line). I've seen the amount of food waste and have minimal qualms about who has their hand out (or car door open) for that. In the future it will be utilitarian rather than a luxury to have an electric conveyance anyway. I imagine there was a complaint decades ago about seeing a disheveled looking person assumed to be homeless riding on a bicycle.
-
Due to CV, people are staying in their vehicles. I've seen pictures of long lines of cars snaked around parking lots waiting for their turn. Don't know if this is standard operating procedure these days, but it certainly is an effective way to maintain social distancing and keeping anyone from cutting a line. Dunno what the folks without cars do.
-
Due to CV, people are staying in their vehicles. I've seen pictures of long lines of cars snaked around parking lots waiting for their turn. Don't know if this is standard operating procedure these days, but it certainly is an effective way to maintain social distancing and keeping anyone from cutting a line. Dunno what the folks without cars do.
Oh that's interesting. I didn't even think of that. The food pantry I volunteered at told people they pretty much had to have a car to bring the stuff home. They did give out a good amount of stuff. I think the people without cars usually got a ride from a friend or family member.
-
I worked with a young lady once (she was about 10) and she said she hated raisins and would never eat them again. When she a bit younger, she was living with her dad, but they couldn't pay the electric bill, so they didn't have any electricity. They had food from the food pantry, but a lot of that required cooking (mac and cheese, etc) so it wasn't useful to them. They had given them a big thing of raisins, and so that's what she ate for several days until they could find another alternative.
Wow.
My grandfather was Dutch and lived thru the Second World War. He says the same thing about tulips. Of course, we don't think of tulips as food. But when it's the only alternative for months on end...
-
The reality is we don't know the actual circumstance. The Tesla in question could belong to the owner in the NYT article who lives in a Silicon Valley park next door to an elderly neighbor who doesn't drive and has a low income and qualifies for assistance. She could have bought her mobile home years ago and inflation has eaten away her buying power. The neighbor could be doing a good deed for a friend:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/business/mountain-view-california-confronts-housing-crisis.html
-
I agree with some of the other posters that think it’s a disgrace to take handouts and drive a luxury car.
I guess I was brought up differently. My grandparents came over from Italy with nothing. My grandfather worked two jobs and would be embarrassed to take handouts unless absolutely necessary. He would sell an expensive car before taking a handout.
There is a family in our town, wife drives a newer Suburban, expensive purse, nails and hair done( no she doesn’t do them herself, we know her hairdresser, yet she in the handout line at school for the less fortunate 😝
-
There's no doubt its poor decision making that leads to owning a luxury car and ending up in the food line......but......maybe its smart thinking, is it really worse than billionaires using complicated and only legal due to expensive lawyering tax loopholes to "save" much larger amounts of money? Or corporations using obviously immoral tactics to mislead consumers? I think bottom line, if its legal and you're not doing it you're leaving money on the table/working longer than you have to/etc... So, id say the tesla could be in the food line due to being smart or due to being dumb.
-
Just because something is legal, that doesn’t make it ethical or right. There are literally a million different ways to cheat any system legally, doesn’t make it right or smart for doing it.
-
I agree with some of the other posters that think it’s a disgrace to take handouts and drive a luxury car.
Agree. There's hardship and there's hardship.
How does the OP know it was a new Tesla? It could have been a second-hand Tesla. It could have been a work vehicle (in my country, that would mean you get a 10% GST offset and a 47% income tax deduction). Etc, etc.
I find it odd that high performance cars can be claimed as business deductions by lawyers who work from home....
Do you use it solely to drive to clients? Do you apportion it for private use? There's no way in hell you can justify a full top marginal rate deduction. The tax office will enjoy auditing you ;)
-
When I was on food stamps and visiting food pantries I didn't have a car. But sometimes my mom would let me borrow her car. How do you know it is their car?
-
Our local schools sent out a call for drivers to deliver meals to students on food aid. There's a decent chance one of those cars was a tesla. This isn't a big town, but it is a university town and there's unusually many tesla tooling around here for us otherwise being "small-city midwest".
-
I agree with some of the other posters that think it’s a disgrace to take handouts and drive a luxury car.
I guess I was brought up differently. My grandparents came over from Italy with nothing. My grandfather worked two jobs and would be embarrassed to take handouts unless absolutely necessary. He would sell an expensive car before taking a handout.
There is a family in our town, wife drives a newer Suburban, expensive purse, nails and hair done( no she doesn’t do them herself, we know her hairdresser, yet she in the handout line at school for the less fortunate 😝
In my area, they are encouraging all students to get the food packages at school. They have a "food line" to ensure no contact. And this comment is why I don't go. One, because I don't need it, and two because I feel I would be judged, even though they are saying it's for everyone and there are no income/need requirements. My understanding is that a lot of these programs need to be used in order to be funded. (And no I don't drive a suburban and get my hair and nails done. My husband actually just cut my hair for me yesterday. But I am still working and have a good job, and I assume people know that since we live in a small town.)
-
I agree with some of the other posters that think it’s a disgrace to take handouts and drive a luxury car.
I guess I was brought up differently. My grandparents came over from Italy with nothing. My grandfather worked two jobs and would be embarrassed to take handouts unless absolutely necessary. He would sell an expensive car before taking a handout.
There is a family in our town, wife drives a newer Suburban, expensive purse, nails and hair done( no she doesn’t do them herself, we know her hairdresser, yet she in the handout line at school for the less fortunate 😝
In my area, they are encouraging all students to get the food packages at school. They have a "food line" to ensure no contact. And this comment is why I don't go. One, because I don't need it, and two because I feel I would be judged, even though they are saying it's for everyone and there are no income/need requirements. My understanding is that a lot of these programs need to be used in order to be funded. (And no I don't drive a suburban and get my hair and nails done. My husband actually just cut my hair for me yesterday. But I am still working and have a good job, and I assume people know that since we live in a small town.)
Yes, my understanding is that if the school has enough free lunch kids normally that free food pickup has been extended to all kids and it actually helps them maintain funding if more people take the food and the food gets thrown out if not taken. I ran across a link to this website (https://www.twincitiesfrugalmom.com/2020/04/5-reasons-to-pick-up-the-free-food-at-your-childs-school-district/) on @PhysicianOnFIRE's blog that explains it.
-
I agree with some of the other posters that think it’s a disgrace to take handouts and drive a luxury car.
I guess I was brought up differently. My grandparents came over from Italy with nothing. My grandfather worked two jobs and would be embarrassed to take handouts unless absolutely necessary. He would sell an expensive car before taking a handout.
There is a family in our town, wife drives a newer Suburban, expensive purse, nails and hair done( no she doesn’t do them herself, we know her hairdresser, yet she in the handout line at school for the less fortunate 😝
In my area, they are encouraging all students to get the food packages at school. They have a "food line" to ensure no contact. And this comment is why I don't go. One, because I don't need it, and two because I feel I would be judged, even though they are saying it's for everyone and there are no income/need requirements. My understanding is that a lot of these programs need to be used in order to be funded. (And no I don't drive a suburban and get my hair and nails done. My husband actually just cut my hair for me yesterday. But I am still working and have a good job, and I assume people know that since we live in a small town.)
Yes, my understanding is that if the school has enough free lunch kids normally that free food pickup has been extended to all kids and it actually helps them maintain funding if more people take the food and the food gets thrown out if not taken. I ran across a link to this website (https://www.twincitiesfrugalmom.com/2020/04/5-reasons-to-pick-up-the-free-food-at-your-childs-school-district/) on @PhysicianOnFIRE's blog that explains it.
Our school district is unfortunately talking about laying off 20 food service employees because the school is currently out. They are still providing free breakfast and lunch (at the same time) at many locations. We have only gone once to get it (it overlapped with the "pick up next packet" for home school). I wonder if the layoffs are related to fewer students eating the lunches.
While we don't qualify, both of my kids attend schools where 70-90% of kids are eligible for free or reduced lunch, so the district provides them free to everyone. There is literally no way to pay.
-
Just finished my Phd Dissertation. Food Insecurity and Empathy. I'm a Registered Dietitian as well and specialize in Community Nutrition. My research showed that women show more empathy towards food insecure individuals than men and that married folks are more empathetic than singles. Are you a single fellow by chance?
-
Just finished my Phd Dissertation. Food Insecurity and Empathy. I'm a Registered Dietitian as well and specialize in Community Nutrition. My research showed that women show more empathy towards food insecure individuals than men and that married folks are more empathetic than singles. Are you a single fellow by chance?
That sounds like a really interesting paper.
-
I see both sides of this. The Tesla might be the means to pick up the food in the food line. Most people aren't going to take advantage of the system. But I just shake my head sometimes at people. My brother in law's brother is schiophrenic. He relies on the food banks. When we have Christmas dinner leftovers and offer them to him, he refuses. My brotherinlaw volunteered/ worked for food banks and would often give us food that the food line people wouldn't take/ didn't want. Not talking about stuff you couldn't cook because you didn't have a stove. More like bags of avacados and a huge bag of frozen blueberries. I took it because otherwise it would go into the trash. I go to the local salvage stores which sell expired food. Not allowed in food banks.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
In this case, a lot of these job losses are temporary. Selling a house in the middle of a pandemic may not be the best idea ever, particularly if you're pretty sure your job will come back. That's the problem with those doomsday unemployment numbers. During the Great Depression, there were no jobs for people to get. This time around, a lot of these job losses are strategic, government mandates or both. Hell, my kid is on unemployment, because his place of work is shut down. Eventually, it will reopen and he will get his job back. In the interim, his employer is still keeping his health insurance in force. He's as unemployed as anyone else, but it won't last forever.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
In this case, a lot of these job losses are temporary. Selling a house in the middle of a pandemic may not be the best idea ever, particularly if you're pretty sure your job will come back. That's the problem with those doomsday unemployment numbers. During the Great Depression, there were no jobs for people to get. This time around, a lot of these job losses are strategic, government mandates or both. Hell, my kid is on unemployment, because his place of work is shut down. Eventually, it will reopen and he will get his job back. In the interim, his employer is still keeping his health insurance in force. He's as unemployed as anyone else, but it won't last forever.
I agree that selling a house in a pandemic is not a good idea. I think that people should live off of their savings if they lose their jobs. Don't have savings? Then yes, sell all your luxurious crap before you look for government or private handouts.
-
Due to CV, people are staying in their vehicles. I've seen pictures of long lines of cars snaked around parking lots waiting for their turn. Don't know if this is standard operating procedure these days, but it certainly is an effective way to maintain social distancing and keeping anyone from cutting a line. Dunno what the folks without cars do.
At least where I live, the lines can be miles long. People were getting in the lines the night before, camping out. You drive through with your trunk open, slowly, and as you get to each station, the volunteers load stuff in your trunk. Eggs, meat, veggies, rice, etc. etc.
https://miami.cbslocal.com/2020/04/29/food-distribution-south-florida-long-lines/
They are running out of food. So yes, someone there in a $100k car, certainly brings up valid questions. Many of the cars in the lines are the opposite of Mustachian. Though I guess you could argue that's how they ended up in food lines... But still. I think it bugs some of us when they see a $100k Tesla in these lines because there are desperate families, extremely poor, who are being left without food when they run out... but someone gets a full share in their Tesla...
-
In the late 80s I worked admin in the court office where bankruptcies were filed. First little job out of school. I remember seeing beautifully dressed people driving expensive cars, way beyond what I could afford, coming in to file. Kind of puts things in perspective seeing that so young.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
In this case, a lot of these job losses are temporary. Selling a house in the middle of a pandemic may not be the best idea ever, particularly if you're pretty sure your job will come back. That's the problem with those doomsday unemployment numbers. During the Great Depression, there were no jobs for people to get. This time around, a lot of these job losses are strategic, government mandates or both. Hell, my kid is on unemployment, because his place of work is shut down. Eventually, it will reopen and he will get his job back. In the interim, his employer is still keeping his health insurance in force. He's as unemployed as anyone else, but it won't last forever.
I agree that selling a house in a pandemic is not a good idea. I think that people should live off of their savings if they lose their jobs. Don't have savings? Then yes, sell all your luxurious crap before you look for government or private handouts.
Hope you're wrong as we just put ours on the market (not because we have to - because we want to.)
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.
-
Reading over this thread it does seem like a number of posters believe that a person
- should not take charity unless they are truly without other options (e.g. sell their homes, cars, non-essential items first; exhaust savings and lines of credit)
- ought to have their previous financial decisions applied to whether or not they should be taking charity now
I'm not certain that placing charity as the last option is the best course of action for assisting people and helping them get out of their situation, and I suspect the number of people who have never been frivolous with their money is vanishingly small. Regardless, this thread indicates that the stigma of taking assistance is quite real.
-
How is the market for used Teslas these days, anyway? I don't know that you would clear more than you owe on it fast enough to make a trip to the grocery store. So again, it's probably evidence of some poor financial planning from which we can hope people will learn some useful life lessons, but you really can't move from that life lesson to the grocery store in time to feed your kids dinner.
Evidently, demand for houses in my area remains strong because relatively few people want to list their house and have strangers wander through. I hope this remains the case in a year when we start the process of selling ours.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.
And just like cars losing value so that selling the new fully financed Tesla will mean you'll owe more on it then you can sell it for (then you'll be car less AND still in big debt), the same thing is likely to happen to your house. In the 2008 recession housing prices in my HCOL area dropped by 55% over the first few years. Many foreclosures and short sales and no job or money. And no way to rent even a shared studio apt. So keeping the house and car while temporarily unemployed is likely a much better alternative for a (hopefully) short term job loss. My hope is that people who live max out on credit for cars and houses and consumer luxuries rather than saving will learn just how close to the edge they are if they lose their job and will change their behavior about spending vs saving.
Oh, I remember those days well... At one point we walked around our neighborhood and counted over 40 homes either for sale or under eviction. Lots of people who thought they had 'safe' jobs and a substantial amount of equity in their homes discovered they needed to bring >$50k they no longer had to sell the house they no longer could pay in the hopes of getting their heads back above water. Cemented in me the idea that one shouldn't count on home equity to save them in a downturn, and further prioritized saving and spending below our means.
-
Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.
You must live in a very low property tax area. I pay about $800 a month on a $500k house. (26 miles, 385 yards west of Boston)
-
RE: what is a luxury? If you cant tell that a tesla car is a luxury and your best comparison is a $1M house in a HCOL then you need to think about it more...
There are at least half a dozen automobile options that do the same thing as the tesla for half or a quarter of the the money. Obviously the tesla is a luxury automobile. It is not a frugal transportation choice. To compare it to a bicycle doesnt make sense either.
The $1M house in a HCOL area could be a frugal option for the area. Obviously you cant compare house prices between mountain view, ca and eastbublefuck, kansas. The largest determiner for home prices are incomes in the area.
-
Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.
You must live in a very low property tax area. I pay about $800 a month on a $500k house. (26 miles, 385 yards west of Boston)
How do you like living in Hopkinton?
-
RE: what is a luxury? If you cant tell that a tesla car is a luxury and your best comparison is a $1M house in a HCOL then you need to think about it more...
There are at least half a dozen automobile options that do the same thing as the tesla for half or a quarter of the the money. Obviously the tesla is a luxury automobile. It is not a frugal transportation choice. To compare it to a bicycle doesnt make sense either.
The $1M house in a HCOL area could be a frugal option for the area. Obviously you cant compare house prices between mountain view, ca and eastbublefuck, kansas. The largest determiner for home prices are incomes in the area.
There absolutely are not, but this is a discussion for a different thread.
How is the market for used Teslas these days, anyway? I don't know that you would clear more than you owe on it fast enough to make a trip to the grocery store. So again, it's probably evidence of some poor financial planning from which we can hope people will learn some useful life lessons, but you really can't move from that life lesson to the grocery store in time to feed your kids dinner.
Evidently, demand for houses in my area remains strong because relatively few people want to list their house and have strangers wander through. I hope this remains the case in a year when we start the process of selling ours.
There are 3 used 2018 Model 3 Long Range / dual motor cars for sale within 50 miles of me, and every one of them is more expensive than buying a brand new 2020 after my state's EV incentives.
-
RE: what is a luxury? If you cant tell that a tesla car is a luxury and your best comparison is a $1M house in a HCOL then you need to think about it more...
There are at least half a dozen automobile options that do the same thing as the tesla for half or a quarter of the the money. Obviously the tesla is a luxury automobile. It is not a frugal transportation choice. To compare it to a bicycle doesnt make sense either.
The $1M house in a HCOL area could be a frugal option for the area. Obviously you cant compare house prices between mountain view, ca and eastbublefuck, kansas. The largest determiner for home prices are incomes in the area.
There absolutely are not, but this is a discussion for a different thread.
How is the market for used Teslas these days, anyway? I don't know that you would clear more than you owe on it fast enough to make a trip to the grocery store. So again, it's probably evidence of some poor financial planning from which we can hope people will learn some useful life lessons, but you really can't move from that life lesson to the grocery store in time to feed your kids dinner.
Evidently, demand for houses in my area remains strong because relatively few people want to list their house and have strangers wander through. I hope this remains the case in a year when we start the process of selling ours.
There are 3 used 2018 Model 3 Long Range / dual motor cars for sale within 50 miles of me, and every one of them is more expensive than buying a brand new 2020 after my state's EV incentives.
by "do the same thing" I mean a similarly sized automobile that also gets you from point a to point b.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.
And just like cars losing value so that selling the new fully financed Tesla will mean you'll owe more on it then you can sell it for (then you'll be car less AND still in big debt), the same thing is likely to happen to your house. In the 2008 recession housing prices in my HCOL area dropped by 55% over the first few years. Many foreclosures and short sales and no job or money. And no way to rent even a shared studio apt. So keeping the house and car while temporarily unemployed is likely a much better alternative for a (hopefully) short term job loss. My hope is that people who live max out on credit for cars and houses and consumer luxuries rather than saving will learn just how close to the edge they are if they lose their job and will change their behavior about spending vs saving.
Yup. We bought our house in 2004. Bad timing, but could have been worse. Next door house sold in 2006.
Our house started dropping in value in 2007 and it did not reach the purchase price until August of 2017.
The house next door was well into 2018. (They got foreclosed on. New guy bought it in 2012.)
We were never underwater because we put 20% down and were aggressively paying the mortgage, so that in 2012 when it was worth the minimum ($493k), we owed about that amount exactly. My coworker kept telling me to "WALK AWAY". Dude, we aren't under water.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.
Does owning a luxury preclude someone from using charity?
(note: by your definition nearly everyone owns a great deal of luxuries. cell-phones, computers, microwaves, AC, etc)
nevermind - seems you've already stated your position that people should only get asssistence with no car, no luxuries and living in a tiny apartment
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
-
RE: what is a luxury? If you cant tell that a tesla car is a luxury and your best comparison is a $1M house in a HCOL then you need to think about it more...
There are at least half a dozen automobile options that do the same thing as the tesla for half or a quarter of the the money. Obviously the tesla is a luxury automobile. It is not a frugal transportation choice. To compare it to a bicycle doesnt make sense either.
The $1M house in a HCOL area could be a frugal option for the area. Obviously you cant compare house prices between mountain view, ca and eastbublefuck, kansas. The largest determiner for home prices are incomes in the area.
There absolutely are not, but this is a discussion for a different thread.
How is the market for used Teslas these days, anyway? I don't know that you would clear more than you owe on it fast enough to make a trip to the grocery store. So again, it's probably evidence of some poor financial planning from which we can hope people will learn some useful life lessons, but you really can't move from that life lesson to the grocery store in time to feed your kids dinner.
Evidently, demand for houses in my area remains strong because relatively few people want to list their house and have strangers wander through. I hope this remains the case in a year when we start the process of selling ours.
There are 3 used 2018 Model 3 Long Range / dual motor cars for sale within 50 miles of me, and every one of them is more expensive than buying a brand new 2020 after my state's EV incentives.
by "do the same thing" I mean a similarly sized automobile that also gets you from point a to point b.
You're still missing the point.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.
Selling houses costs a lot. Moving to a 1br apartment (nevermind the three adults living in my house right now) would "save" some money per month but after paying first/last rent and the nearly-mandatory 1mo realtor fee for rentals, it would take me about a year to break even from my "savings", and then I have no house. In other words, it's cheaper for me to not move even if I did lose my job.
-
You're still missing the point.
please explain!
-
selling a luxury vehicle (or a home) quickly (read: "motivated seller") is rarely the best way of going about it. As others have mentioned it may not be optimal or even possible to sell a vehicle quickly if it is leased or financed. At the same the need for food is fairly immediate.
If someone was suddenly in a financial bind for whatever reason (be it Covid or something else) I would advise them to get what assistance they can now, and then spend the next few months developing a plan to be more financially stable and secure in the future.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.
cell phone (needed for work)
internet (needed for school and work, especially now)
second car (needed if 2 people work)
In 1950, approximately 1/3 of all homes did not have complete indoor plumbing.
-
You're still missing the point.
please explain!
I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas. They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper. THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla.
In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.
cell phone (needed for work)
internet (needed for school and work, especially now)
second car (needed if 2 people work)
In 1950, approximately 1/3 of all homes did not have complete indoor plumbing.
+1. Many thing that we didn't have back in the '50's are necessary now. I don't think that test applies for the real world.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
Excellent point. Nearly every "starter" single family home in my area sells for about $1M. Most people would expect a mansion for that much money. Hahaha... Property taxes on a $1M home purchase are going to be over $1k/month.
And just like cars losing value so that selling the new fully financed Tesla will mean you'll owe more on it then you can sell it for (then you'll be car less AND still in big debt), the same thing is likely to happen to your house. In the 2008 recession housing prices in my HCOL area dropped by 55% over the first few years. Many foreclosures and short sales and no job or money. And no way to rent even a shared studio apt. So keeping the house and car while temporarily unemployed is likely a much better alternative for a (hopefully) short term job loss. My hope is that people who live max out on credit for cars and houses and consumer luxuries rather than saving will learn just how close to the edge they are if they lose their job and will change their behavior about spending vs saving.
Oh, I remember those days well... At one point we walked around our neighborhood and counted over 40 homes either for sale or under eviction. Lots of people who thought they had 'safe' jobs and a substantial amount of equity in their homes discovered they needed to bring >$50k they no longer had to sell the house they no longer could pay in the hopes of getting their heads back above water. Cemented in me the idea that one shouldn't count on home equity to save them in a downturn, and further prioritized saving and spending below our means.
Just watched the movie "Fun with Dick and Jane" on Netflix recently. It was about a VP who had a bunch of savings (all in company stock) only to have the company go bankrupt and the house he thought he had equity in decline in value significantly. It was interesting to watch it now, compared to years ago when I first watched it. I certainly have a much better understanding of the financial issues the guy found himself faced with. He thought he had a safe job and equity, and it turned out that was far from the truth.
-
I do think that we are all living incredibly luxurious lives, even without Tesla’s. (Which reallybare fancy cars built by someone who seems chronically obnoxious, but I do digress.)
Just because we are used to luxury, doesn’t make it non-luxurious. We live in a society where you can never catch up because luxuries are rebranded as necessities.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.
cell phone (needed for work)
internet (needed for school and work, especially now)
second car (needed if 2 people work)
In 1950, approximately 1/3 of all homes did not have complete indoor plumbing.
+1. Many thing that we didn't have back in the '50's are necessary now. I don't think that test applies for the real world.
My house is asbestos-free and there are a lot of things I consume in the economic sense that do not have 1950s levels of lead in them. I do think my life is full of fancy things but I've never thought to include these, a lot more to be grateful for!
-
You're still missing the point.
please explain!
I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas. They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper. THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla.
In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.
ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.
-
You're still missing the point.
please explain!
I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas. They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper. THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla.
In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.
ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.
Cheaper TCO than a new Camry. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/27/tesla-model-3-vs-toyota-camry-5-year-cost-to-own/
It's easy to be judgey of a badge without knowing what's behind the decision. It'd be more accurate to be uppity about any new car than specifically targeting Tesla.
-
You're still missing the point.
please explain!
I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas. They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper. THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla.
In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.
ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
-
I think the core problem is everyone expects their lifestyle to remain the same even if their finances crumble.
Why shouldn't people have to sell their big homes and get smaller ones or rent? Why shouldn't people have to sell their cars/tvs/etc. for food?
I think food and other programs should be for people who actually need them after they're in a bachelor apartment with no car and no luxuries.
Who gets to decide what is a luxury?
I can decide. I like to use the "1950" test. Was it common for people to have in 1950? If so it's not a luxury. If it didn't exist, it's a luxury.
cell phone (needed for work)
internet (needed for school and work, especially now)
second car (needed if 2 people work)
In 1950, approximately 1/3 of all homes did not have complete indoor plumbing.
Yeah, obviously it's not exact. My point is people survived then on much less than what we have now. People think having expensive (read: over 8k for a car) is a necessity, i'ts not. People are just unwilling to do what they need to do to live within their means.
If you "need" a cell phone and internet for work, then you have work and payment isn't a problem.
Cars aren't needed for most work - work a lower paying job that doesn't need a car if you can't afford a car.
Ride a bike. Walk. Takes an hour to walk to work? Suck it up buttercup.
-
You're still missing the point.
please explain!
I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas. They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper. THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla.
In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.
ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
Yes, I think there should be some degree of moral hazard. I dont think we should let people starve because they made a poor financial decision or mock them, that is unlikely to be helpful. I dont have the answer but some degree of moral hazard is necessary to prevent people from making poor decisions.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Okay, let's run this hypothetical out.
Let's say I lost my HCOL-salary job in my HCOL area and I am running out of food and money. How many months should I go without food in order to prep, list, show, go under contract, and sell my house (all in the midst of a global financial crisis) before resorting to charity to eat?
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Okay, let's run this hypothetical out.
Let's say I lost my HCOL-salary job in my HCOL area and I am running out of food and money. How many months should I go without food in order to prep, list, show, go under contract, and sell my house (all in the midst of a global financial crisis) before resorting to charity to eat?
So you had a HCOL-salary job and didn't save any money... ok...
But anyway, if you sell at enough of a discount it should be fast. That's not the only option. Take a loan out against the equity. Rent a room. Get a part time job even if it's low paying. Sell all the expensive crap you bought with your HCOL salary to pay for food.
Lots of options.
-
You're still missing the point.
please explain!
I think the point Dicey is trying to make is that these Tesla owners are underwater on their Teslas. They are listed (most likely) at what they owe on the car, but new ones are actually cheaper. THUS, there is no reason for anyone shopping for a Tesla to buy their used Tesla.
In other words, they can't actually sell the Tesla.
ah, yes i understand that. my point all along was that the tesla was a bad purchase in the first place for someone without the long term savings.
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
Yes, I think there should be some degree of moral hazard. I dont think we should let people starve because they made a poor financial decision or mock them, that is unlikely to be helpful. I dont have the answer but some degree of moral hazard is necessary to prevent people from making poor decisions.
Well, then going back to what I said earlier I think the number of people who have never squandered a significant sum or money (either all at once or over time), or that have no made a large “bad purchase” is very close to zero. Those that are consistently “good” with their money (as may be defined by people on this forum) rarely need charity.
Further, this believe in a “moral hazard” to prevent unsound financial situations isn’t upheld in real life. People living in regions with robust social safety nets are not more likely to make larger financial blunders than those with no safety net at all. This has been looked at with unemployment insurance, bankruptcy laws and SNAP benefits. Frankly the concept seems to be used primarily to make people feel superior to others, and is frequently evoked for why we need more robust requirements for receiving assistance.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food). As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.
I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food). As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.
I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.
You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Okay, let's run this hypothetical out.
Let's say I lost my HCOL-salary job in my HCOL area and I am running out of food and money. How many months should I go without food in order to prep, list, show, go under contract, and sell my house (all in the midst of a global financial crisis) before resorting to charity to eat?
So you had a HCOL-salary job and didn't save any money... ok...
But anyway, if you sell at enough of a discount it should be fast. That's not the only option. Take a loan out against the equity. Rent a room. Get a part time job even if it's low paying. Sell all the expensive crap you bought with your HCOL salary to pay for food.
Lots of options.
So your primary solution is to do something that costs tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars (fire sale on a house) instead?
You just might be delusional here.
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food). As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.
I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.
You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?
I'm sorry, I thought this was the "person with Tesla getting food" thread, not the "person with Tesla lining up for free HDTV" thread.
Unless you think food is a luxury, in which case we have a different conversation to have.
-
I might be unusual but the moral hazard works for me.
I dont overspend and I have a large cash/savings cushion because I dont want to end up in the food line, bankrupt, working any longer than I *need* to, etc...im a frugalist moustachian.
We're not talking about people that only make enough to eat here. We're talking about people that can "afford" luxuries. I can afford luxuries like teslas but I choose not to buy them because Id rather have the savings.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food). As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.
I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.
You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?
I agree to a certain extent people should make tough choices if the situation warrants, and most people aren't willing to make those choices. Have you considered that it may be easier to for people to have the mental bandwidth to make tough choices if they don't have fear of where their next meal is coming from?
-
I might be unusual but the moral hazard works for me.
I dont overspend and I have a large cash/savings cushion because I dont want to end up in the food line, bankrupt, working any longer than I *need* to, etc...im a frugalist moustachian.
We're not talking about people that only make enough to eat here. We're talking about people that can "afford" luxuries. I can afford luxuries like teslas but I choose not to buy them because Id rather have the savings.
So how about if you go ahead and do you and stop being so critical of others who aren't you? As has been stated a number of times, you don't know anything about the people you're being so critical of.
Oh, wait! Unless it's actually you in the food line in a Tesla...
-
Most people make financial mistakes sometime in their lives. Fire selling a car or house is probably not the best choice. We have used unemployment when young but luckily never needed food banks. I was a social worker and what it taught me is unless you are very wealthy most people are one serious accident or disability away from not being able to work and their lives going down the crapper pretty fast. Some people lack empathy.
-
Most people make financial mistakes sometime in their lives. Fire selling a car or house is probably not the best choice. We have used unemployment when young but luckily never needed food banks. I was a social worker and what it taught me is unless you are very wealthy most people are one serious accident or disability away from not being able to work and their lives going down the crapper pretty fast. Some people lack empathy.
Yeah, it is about lack of empathy, but for the actual poor.
People have more empathy to keep the people with rich/luxurious lives in those conditions, than to help lift up the destitute. I guess because we generally have luxurious lives so we can relate to losing it.
We should be focused on the destitute and bringing them up to the bare minimum (like having a roof and some rice) rather than keeping folks in their teslas, fancy phones, fancy homes, etc.
-
I might be unusual but the moral hazard works for me.
I dont overspend and I have a large cash/savings cushion because I dont want to end up in the food line, bankrupt, working any longer than I *need* to, etc...im a frugalist moustachian.
We're not talking about people that only make enough to eat here. We're talking about people that can "afford" luxuries. I can afford luxuries like teslas but I choose not to buy them because Id rather have the savings.
So how about if you go ahead and do you and stop being so critical of others who aren't you? As has been stated a number of times, you don't know anything about the people you're being so critical of.
Oh, wait! Unless it's actually you in the food line in a Tesla...
Jeez, tough crowd! There is a better way than overspending and getting in the food line though! You too can LBYM (Live Below Your Means) and not have to worry about where your next meal is going to come from. LBYM will mean different things to different people and be impossible for some but I cant think of any scenario where someone could'nt have swapped the tesla for a large chuck of savings that would feed them for months....
-
Dman, I don’t disagree with you. The most extreme poverty I saw was when we took a cruise in the Caribbean and did a island tour.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food). As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.
I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.
You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?
I agree to a certain extent people should make tough choices if the situation warrants, and most people aren't willing to make those choices. Have you considered that it may be easier to for people to have the mental bandwidth to make tough choices if they don't have fear of where their next meal is coming from?
Yes, I agree with that. But, I guess my point that I was trying to make in my last post is say there are a few standard of living tiers:
1) Destitute - no roof over head, no food
2) Basic - essentials but not comfortable - i.e. food and a roof, but might be renting a room in a house or sharing a room, public transport/walk, etc.
3) Middle - own living space, cars, tvs, more luxury foods, eating at restaurants, spending on all sorts of optional entertainment
4) Wealthy - 3) + more assets/income streams, fancier stuff
5) Rich - can't really move down significantly in category unless something crazy happens
Now, I feel that this thread is about preventing people from going from 4) or 3) to 2). Which i think is ridiculous, because 2) is still "fine".
We should be focused on raising people from 1) to 2).
But I think people feel 3) is the "basic" one and we should make sure people don't go from 4 or 3 to 2. Which I think is sad since we have so many at 1).
If that makes any sense. haha.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food). As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.
I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.
You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?
I’m not advocating giving them more luxuries; I’m advocating providing them with food and other necessities. No one who buys a Tesla ever wants to wind up in a food line - they know their financial life is in bad shape. You may wish to read the response I gave to afox regarding charity and the deterrence/“better0outcome” myth.
-
So you had a HCOL-salary job and didn't save any money... ok...
But anyway, if you sell at enough of a discount it should be fast. That's not the only option. Take a loan out against the equity. Rent a room. Get a part time job even if it's low paying. Sell all the expensive crap you bought with your HCOL salary to pay for food.
Lots of options.
So your primary solution is to do something that costs tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars (fire sale on a house) instead?
You just might be delusional here.
Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.
You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?
I'm sorry, I thought this was the "person with Tesla getting food" thread, not the "person with Tesla lining up for free HDTV" thread.
Unless you think food is a luxury, in which case we have a different conversation to have.
For the house part - yes it sucks, but it frees up cash for essential purchases (assuming you're not underwater on the house). But the other options are also there with such a large asset.
For the Tesla getting food part - I guess I equate the Tesla as 30k of cash. Why are you going into the food line with 30k cash? Shouldn't you exchange your 30k cash for food first?
It falls into my lifestyle tier thinking above.
-
I think what @nereo and others are saying is that moral hazard does not work if the person is poor. I agree!
Its a strawman argument though in this case. The tesla purchaser most certainly was not poor at the time of tesla purchase and could have used the tesla purchase money to boost their savings. I argue that they SHOULD HAVE saved the tesla money and that if they had saved the money they would likely not be in the food line.
If you dont have the ability to save then this isn't the website for you, I know people dont like to hear that but we all know its the truth. I mean I guess you could be doing research for the future when you have the ability to save. The whole moustachian schtick is about changing consumer decision making to LBYM and save money to create financial independence. Saving money really is a choice. Lots of us do it daily and watch our account balances grow exponentially. I have the ability to spend much more money than I make, instead I save much more money than I make, that is a conscious decision. If you think you have no choice but to buy a tesla for your commute then I suggest going back and reading the blog on this website.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food). As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.
I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.
You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?
I’m not advocating giving them more luxuries; I’m advocating providing them with food and other necessities. No one who buys a Tesla ever wants to wind up in a food line - they know their financial life is in bad shape. You may wish to read the response I gave to afox regarding charity and the deterrence/“better0outcome” myth.
Money is fungible though, if they have luxuries but are still being provided the necessities, you are providing them with the luxuries.
-
[For the Tesla getting food part - I guess I equate the Tesla as 30k of cash. Why are you going into the food line with 30k cash? Shouldn't you exchange your 30k cash for food first?[/quote]
Haven’t we covered this enough?
A person needs to eat daily. It’s unrealistic ( and frequently a poor financial decision) to liquidate such assets immediately after a financial hardship. Usually that is the worst time to do such things. Payday lenders and pawn shops prey upon people so make such snap decisions.
-
But this gets us back to my earlier question: Should anyone who’s made a “bad purchase” be precluded from using charity if/when they need it?
You seem to be arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to... or at the very least that they be stigmatized (mocked) for doing so.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
Well, what you seem to be advocating here is that people who might not have been great with their money should be forced to make even more bad choices in exchange for the necessities (e.g. food). As we’ve discussed in this thread, being obligated to sell your possessions during an emergency will often make your situation temporarily worse.
I believe a far better plan is to help those who request it immediately, and then work with them to try to avoid a similar situation in the future.
Yes that is what I'm advocating. It will be tough choices, not "bad" choices. It will lower their lifestyle expectations and maybe make them spend less in the future because their lifestyle requires. I don't know why we are trying to avoid having to make some tough choices.
You believe that's a far better plan to help people who already have luxurious lives to keep up that level of luxury, why do you believe this? Don't you think you're just supporting additional bad choices/consumerism?
I’m not advocating giving them more luxuries; I’m advocating providing them with food and other necessities. No one who buys a Tesla ever wants to wind up in a food line - they know their financial life is in bad shape. You may wish to read the response I gave to afox regarding charity and the deterrence/“better0outcome” myth.
Money is fungible though, if they have luxuries but are still being provided the necessities, you are providing them with the luxuries.
You'd rather someone make a terrible financial decision and lose a hundred thousand dollars to have a fire-sale on their house than have a food bank give them $30 in groceries?
No, I don't expect someone to do that when in all likelihood they need a brief boost to keep them afloat until financial recovery happens.
I think what @nereo and others are saying is that moral hazard does not work if the person is poor. I agree!
Its a strawman argument though in this case. The tesla purchaser most certainly was not poor at the time of tesla purchase and could have used the tesla purchase money to boost their savings. I argue that they SHOULD HAVE saved the tesla money and that if they had saved the money they would likely not be in the food line.
If you dont have the ability to save then this isn't the website for you, I know people dont like to hear that but we all know its the truth. I mean I guess you could be doing research for the future when you have the ability to save. The whole moustachian schtick is about changing consumer decision making to LBYM and save money to create financial independence. Saving money really is a choice. Lots of us do it daily and watch our account balances grow exponentially. I have the ability to spend much more money than I make, instead I save much more money than I make, that is a conscious decision. If you think you have no choice but to buy a tesla for your commute then I suggest going back and reading the blog on this website.
The point
____
Your head
You're right about a strawman argument, but it's yours that's the strawman. Nobody on this forum is saying that they're living off charity while driving an expensive car (although the original poster of this thread does plan on retiring by leveraging unemployment benefits, which IMO is worse). We are explaining that there are ways for ordinary people to end up in such circumstances.
The capacity for empathy does not make me irresponsible.
-
Haven’t we covered this enough?
A person needs to eat daily. It’s unrealistic ( and frequently a poor financial decision) to liquidate such assets immediately after a financial hardship. Usually that is the worst time to do such things. Payday lenders and pawn shops prey upon people so make such snap decisions.
Let's say I lost my job but I saved money: I have 50k in stocks, but little to no cash. It's March and the markets tank 30+% but I need money for food/mortgage/car payment/etc. Is it reasonable for me to use the decline in asset value to look for/expect external assistance since liquidating these assets at this time is bad for me financially?
Same reply to @JLee
-
We are explaining that there are ways for ordinary people to end up in such circumstances.
Like what? Can you give me an example?
I contend that "ordinary" people should not buy luxury cars if they do not have enough cash savings to feed themselves for a few months. I guess its possible that a lot of bad things happened at once like losing a job, major health expenses, house burning down, that could exhaust one's emergency savings but this does not appear to be an isolated and rare situation in the U.S.
Note that I also think people deserve to have food even if they made poor financial decisions/had very bad luck. We have so much food in the world that there is no reason for people to go hungry for any reason. We can still admit
-
Haven’t we covered this enough?
A person needs to eat daily. It’s unrealistic ( and frequently a poor financial decision) to liquidate such assets immediately after a financial hardship. Usually that is the worst time to do such things. Payday lenders and pawn shops prey upon people so make such snap decisions.
Let's say I lost my job but I saved money: I have 50k in stocks, but little to no cash. It's March and the markets tank 30+% but I need money for food/mortgage/car payment/etc. Is it reasonable for me to use the decline in asset value to look for external assistance since liquidating these assets at this time is bad for me financially?
Same reply to @JLee
Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.
-
Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.
No but you could get a roommate, get a HELOC, reduce your utility bill, etc, etc...
-
Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.
No but you could get a roommate, get a HELOC, reduce your utility bill, etc, etc...
I can't say I've ever tried applying for a HELOC with no income, but I don't imagine that would go all that well. You're also assuming that someone is in an oversized house and able to accommodate a roommate.
-
Haven’t we covered this enough?
A person needs to eat daily. It’s unrealistic ( and frequently a poor financial decision) to liquidate such assets immediately after a financial hardship. Usually that is the worst time to do such things. Payday lenders and pawn shops prey upon people so make such snap decisions.
Let's say I lost my job but I saved money: I have 50k in stocks, but little to no cash. It's March and the markets tank 30+% but I need money for food/mortgage/car payment/etc. Is it reasonable for me to use the decline in asset value to look for external assistance since liquidating these assets at this time is bad for me financially?
Same reply to @JLee
Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.
Yeah I agree, and this gets to my larger point of how actual poor people get little compared to faux-poor folks. Million dollar house and a Tesla but short on cash? Here's a bailout/charity/etc.
Oh, you have 10k in savings, lost your job and have no other assets? Use your savings serf!
-
I just find this whole conversation about Telsa Person insane. We have no idea about them, except they were in the food line. They could have been an asshole, getting food for free whether they needed it or not. They could have made a bad choice with their money. They could just be picking up food for a parent or a neighbor who can't venture out. We don't know and probably never will.
But I do find the 'sell everything' in a temporary emergency some of the worst advice ever.
-
Im so glad I was brought up by cheapskate parents, it might have been the best give my parents could have ever given me.
Despite never being unemployed in my life since about age 16 I didn't buy my first new car until age 40 and it was with cash and it was not a tesla. The thought of buying a tesla but not having enough savings to buy food for a few months just seems ridiculous to me, but I get that I'm not normal. Anyone know of a good internet forum for cheapskates like me?
-
But I do find the 'sell everything' in a temporary emergency some of the worst advice ever.
I think that when a risk is taken, if you reap the benefits int he positive case, you should reap the consequences when there is a bad outcome. Someone who has squandered their money on a tesla/house/etc. they can't afford, should not be able to keep all of these luxuries when things turn bad.
Why do I think that? It's like what I said above. There are others who are in much worse predicaments and have been careful with their money, but we do not "advance" them to the same state as the frivolous person with the tesla (or whatever), so why should we protect the luxuries of the tesla (or whatever) owner? They should be required to have a firesale, not because it is a great move in an emergency, because that's the risk they took by buying and enjoying all of these luxuries instead of saving money.
I'm not advocating we don't give them food. I'm advocating they lose the luxuries.
-
Im so glad I was brought up by cheapskate parents, it might have been the best give my parents could have ever given me.
Despite never being unemployed in my life since about age 16 I didn't buy my first new car until age 40 and it was with cash and it was not a tesla. The thought of buying a tesla but not having enough savings to buy food for a few months just seems ridiculous to me, but I get that I'm not normal. Anyone know of a good internet forum for cheapskates like me?
Clearly not here. Despite having an entire forum subsection dedicated to people doing stupid shit with money, this thread appears to be the one where we bend over backwards to find acceptable explanations just so we don't hurt someone's feelings. Come to think of it, it's pretty similar to threads about trucks or weight loss.
-
But I do find the 'sell everything' in a temporary emergency some of the worst advice ever.
I think that when a risk is taken, if you reap the benefits int he positive case, you should reap the consequences when there is a bad outcome. Someone who has squandered their money on a tesla/house/etc. they can't afford, should not be able to keep all of these luxuries when things turn bad.
Why do I think that? It's like what I said above. There are others who are in much worse predicaments and have been careful with their money, but we do not "advance" them to the same state as the frivolous person with the tesla (or whatever), so why should we protect the luxuries of the tesla (or whatever) owner? They should be required to have a firesale, not because it is a great move in an emergency, because that's the risk they took by buying and enjoying all of these luxuries instead of saving money.
I'm not advocating we don't give them food. I'm advocating they lose the luxuries.
THis is why I keep thinking that I should get in the food line even though I have enough savings to afford my own food for the rest of my life. Ill stick out like a sore thumb in my 1995 geo metro though, it gets over 40 mpg!
-
Let’s put it this way:
Suppose a colleague came to me and said: we hit hard times, both my wife and I lost our job just weeks after we had some big expense. Now out fridge is empty and I’m overdrawn on my credit cards
My advice to him wouldn’t be “go sell your Tesla immediately”. It wold be to go get you and your children food.
Emergency planning 101: deal with the critical stuff first. Do a system review only after everything has stabilized.
-
How is the market for used Teslas these days, anyway? I don't know that you would clear more than you owe on it fast enough to make a trip to the grocery store. So again, it's probably evidence of some poor financial planning from which we can hope people will learn some useful life lessons, but you really can't move from that life lesson to the grocery store in time to feed your kids dinner.
+1. The old adage about glass houses and stones seems to fit here. Anyone who hasn't been stupid with their money at some point in time is either very young or lacking in self-reflection. Which is exactly why empathy is so important and judgmentalism is worthless and self-defeating. I'm also laughing at the idea of the "moral hazard" of getting mocked in the food line as an incentive that will persuade people to make better choices. Shame has never been a great motivator. And really, when you're talking about someone driving his own six-figure Tesla to the food bank, you're by definition taking about someone who never thought there was a chance he'd be in that position in the first place; how's he supposed to be motivated by the shame associated with something he never thought he'd ever have to deal with?
There is no question whatsoever that a Tesla is a tremendous luxury. As is a big house. As is a computer and air conditioning and indoor plumbing and a gazillion other things we all take for granted. There is also no question that buying luxuries like that without having sufficient emergency funds to make it through several months without a job is remarkably stupid.
And yet it is also equally true that a lot of people are stupid like that -- including many, many people who later found their way here and repented of their spendthrift ways. People who think that something bad will never happen to them; who assume that their industry is recession-proof; who assume that things will always be better tomorrow than they were yesterday; who believe that This Time It's Different; or maybe who didn't even think about savings, because they were brought up by parents who either didn't know how to teach good skills or affirmatively taught bad skills.
None of that matters when the shit hits the fan and your kids are hungry. At that point, it's the sunk cost fallacy -- you can wish all you want that you did things differently, but nothing is going to change that, and so you need to figure out how to dig yourself out of wherever you are. And digging out is a combination of triage and planning. Triage means maybe you go to the damn food line, because your family is hungry and you have no food and no money to buy it. Planning is longer-term; it means cutting expenses and selling assets and re-scaling your life down to something that you can afford long-term. But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom. It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.
The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes. And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening. Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst. And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.
-
I just don't believe that every one in the food line really cannot afford buying food on their own, what about the enhanced unemployment benefits and the $1,200 checks? If there is free food and every one is getting it, why not.
Disclaimer: I have never seen a food line and do not plan to be in one.
-
I just don't believe that every one in the food line really cannot afford buying food on their own, what about the enhanced unemployment benefits and the $1,200 checks? If there is free food and every one is getting it, why not.
Disclaimer: I have never seen a food line and do not plan to be in one.
If you're single with an AGI over $75k on your latest tax return, you don't get a $1200 stimulus check even if you're currently unemployed.
-
But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom. It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.
The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes. And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening. Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst. And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.
Forget the emotional stuff, with the planned firesale others in society are taking up the slack (paying for your food) so you can make more money in the long run, not really fair. I think you should lose the truck and learn an expensive but important lesson. Plus, im not even sure if the math works out better by keeping the truck vs selling it at a low. The truck has massive ownership costs, its likely to be better to get rid of it asap even selling at a discount...its likely to be a long time before the used truck/tesla market returns to its february 2020 highs...
-
But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom. It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.
The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes. And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening. Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst. And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.
Forget the emotional stuff, with the planned firesale others in society are taking up the slack (paying for your food) so you can make more money in the long run, not really fair. I think you should lose the truck and learn an expensive but important lesson. Plus, im not even sure if the math works out better by keeping the truck vs selling it at a low. The truck has massive ownership costs, its likely to be better to get rid of it asap even selling at a discount...its likely to be a long time before the used truck/tesla market returns to its february 2020 highs...
So your solution to having insufficient savings is to burn it all at once and then have nothing?
That doesn't seem very well planned.
-
But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom. It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.
The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes. And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening. Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst. And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.
Forget the emotional stuff, with the planned firesale others in society are taking up the slack (paying for your food) so you can make more money in the long run, not really fair. I think you should lose the truck and learn an expensive but important lesson. Plus, im not even sure if the math works out better by keeping the truck vs selling it at a low. The truck has massive ownership costs, its likely to be better to get rid of it asap even selling at a discount...its likely to be a long time before the used truck/tesla market returns to its february 2020 highs...
It’s pretty clear you want people to suffer to receive any charity or welfare - that without a significantly abhorrent deterrent people will not “learn their lesson” and the systems will get abused. This contradicts what we know about social safety nets and runs contrary to the concept of Charity.
-
"Suffer" is taking it way out of context. I did say people should get food no matter what.
I think people should take some responsibility for poor financial choices and there should be negative financial consequences for poor financial decision making. I dont think its fair to make the rest of the public pay for your poor financial decisions. We dont have to agree on this.
-
I just don't believe that every one in the food line really cannot afford buying food on their own, what about the enhanced unemployment benefits and the $1,200 checks? If there is free food and every one is getting it, why not.
Disclaimer: I have never seen a food line and do not plan to be in one.
I agree with you to a certain extent but does it matter? I get the "money is fungible" argument. Maybe they will take the money they saved on food and spend it on a "luxury". I don't think it really matters. Like I mentioned before, people need to have a steady food source and be confident that basic needs will be met before they can start the planning that Laura was mentioning. Maslow's hierarchy and all that.
-
Last I checked, one couldn't sell 0.2% of a house to buy food.
No but you could get a roommate, get a HELOC, reduce your utility bill, etc, etc...
I can't say I've ever tried applying for a HELOC with no income, but I don't imagine that would go all that well. You're also assuming that someone is in an oversized house and able to accommodate a roommate.
I already have 4 people in 1100 sf. No roommates coming here...
I also know a fair number of families already living multiple families to a house. As in, parents and children sharing a single room.
-
But planning has to be fiscally responsible; if you have $5K in savings and a $700/mo. truck payment and you're $5K underwater, you're better off keeping that savings to cover necessities even if it means maintaining your stupid payment; if you can figure out how to hold on to an expensive car or house for a few more months until the economy starts to recover, that's probably smarter long-term than locking in tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by selling at the very bottom. It's planned liquidation vs. fire sale.
The problem is that the triage is visible, while the planning is invisible and behind the scenes. And the fact that you witness the former doesn't mean the latter isn't already happening. Which means that it really comes down to whether you assume the best in people or the worst. And that says more about you than it does about the people you're judging.
Forget the emotional stuff, with the planned firesale others in society are taking up the slack (paying for your food) so you can make more money in the long run, not really fair. I think you should lose the truck and learn an expensive but important lesson. Plus, im not even sure if the math works out better by keeping the truck vs selling it at a low. The truck has massive ownership costs, its likely to be better to get rid of it asap even selling at a discount...its likely to be a long time before the used truck/tesla market returns to its february 2020 highs...
You seem to be approaching this emotionally, with a desire to see people suffer. You say you don't, but otherwise "how will people learn their lesson".
The fact of the matter is, it is FAR more practical for someone to hold on to the truck in the long run, if their finances look like was mentioned. Losing the truck simply means they are suddenly broke (because they had to use their $5000 savings to get out of the loan) AND they have no transportation.
That may "teach them a lesson", but now you have someone who is going to be "on the dole" for a lot longer because now they have no way to even get to a job so they can earn money to eat.
It's like the people who hate free school lunches, because "we need to teach the parents responsibility" when over and over we learn that a fair % of all these social programs are cheaper in the long run than the alternative.
On one hand, yes, one might accuse people who care for others as being "too emotional", but on the other hand, the numbers generally work out in our favor. As much as the other side thinks it's practical and not emotional, they make choices to make people suffer that actually cost more money in the long run.
-
"Suffer" is taking it way out of context. I did say people should get food no matter what.
I think people should take some responsibility for poor financial choices and there should be negative financial consequences for poor financial decision making. I dont think its fair to make the rest of the public pay for your poor financial decisions. We dont have to agree on this.
Sorry dude, every comment on this thread you started has a distinctively punitive ring to it. Others have made completely well-reasoned arguments, yet you cling to your original point of view. Clearly, you are not here to learn anything. Empathy is clearly not your strong suit.
-
The people driving expensive cars to get charity food for themselves are struggling; they will have non-food related bills that they would also be having trouble paying. They may be putting bills on a credit cards or bartering away things for toilet paper. Spending on food is not the only thing they would be struggling with but it is one that they can get immediate direct free help with.
-
Does it matter if the Tesla owner donated to the food bank or other charities prior to they themselves fall on hard times? I think it does. And if not I hope that the Tesla owners (or anybody for that matter) in the food line will donate food to the food bank after they got back on their feet.
-
"Suffer" is taking it way out of context. I did say people should get food no matter what.
I think people should take some responsibility for poor financial choices and there should be negative financial consequences for poor financial decision making. I dont think its fair to make the rest of the public pay for your poor financial decisions. We dont have to agree on this.
I don’t think it is. You’ve advocated that people should be “forced to sell” their vehicles even if it is not the best financial decision, because then they might “learn a lesson”. Apparently lost on you is that these people are asking for food now. Do we give them food but make them sign a document stating they’ll sell their car and get their financial house in order? Or do we refuse them food and tell them to come back in a crappier car later? Those are rhetorical questions of course: we don’t apply punitive measures on charity, and food lines don’t turn people away based on some first impression of their assets.
You are also making a huge leap in assuming that these people have learned nothing by winding up in the situation they are in. You’re ‘evidence’ seems to be that they haven’t liquidated their most visible possessions, even when poster after poster has explained how that might be a dumb move which would compound their financial hardship. As I said before, anyone driving a Tesla or any other luxury vehicle knows they screwed up if they are asking for food. They are already evaluating their options and realizing they didn’t have the financial cushion they thought they did.
-
Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".
Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.
Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.
Also, try disagreeing with me without insulting me and frothing at the mouth. Its a really good life skill, especially in this day and age...
-
Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".
Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.
Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.
Alright, here’s a very simple question:
If someone drives a luxury vehicle to a food line and says “I dont have any money to feed my family”, should they be given food just like someone who arrived in a much crappier car?
-
Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".
Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.
Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.
Alright, here’s a very simple question:
If someone drives a luxury vehicle to a food line and says “I dont have any money to feed my family”, should they be given food just like someone who arrived in a much crappier car?
Yes they should be given the food. I said that like 10 times already but I guess its more fun for you to pretend that I want to see people starve to death.
-
Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".
Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.
Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.
Alright, here’s a very simple question:
If someone drives a luxury vehicle to a food line and says “I dont have any money to feed my family”, should they be given food just like someone who arrived in a much crappier car?
Yes they should be given the food. I said that like 10 times already but I guess its more fun for you to pretend that I want to see people starve to death.
Correct, you have said that.
Now how can you also claim that there should be punitive measures if they be given good “no matter what” (to quote you from earlier)?
Those two statements are diametrically opposed.
-
And if not I hope that the Tesla owners (or anybody for that matter) in the food line will donate food to the food bank after they got back on their feet.
The one I volunteered at (which counts on drop-in help), most of the volunteers they got were people who also needed food. They want to give back while they are taking.
I just don't believe that every one in the food line really cannot afford buying food on their own, what about the enhanced unemployment benefits and the $1,200 checks? If there is free food and every one is getting it, why not.
Disclaimer: I have never seen a food line and do not plan to be in one.
I highly recommend seeing one, by volunteering. It was easy to believe that everyone in the line really could not afford food. If you have money, it really is preferable to just go to the store and get what you want when you want - the food we were giving out - you took what was there, no choices, and a lot had to be used right away before it spoiled, some probably already was spoiled, you had to wait a long time, then were pressured to move through, and carrying everything was hard and awkward. I was offered a box, and I declined, even though I am unemployed and cheap - I would much rather get my own food.
-
Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".
Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.
Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.
Alright, here’s a very simple question:
If someone drives a luxury vehicle to a food line and says “I dont have any money to feed my family”, should they be given food just like someone who arrived in a much crappier car?
Yes they should be given the food. I said that like 10 times already but I guess its more fun for you to pretend that I want to see people starve to death.
Correct, you have said that.
Now how can you also claim that there should be punitive measures if they be given good “no matter what” (to quote you from earlier)?
Those two statements are diametrically opposed.
I already wrote what "punitive" means to me, its in the quote im replying to.
As I thought about this I realized that my "ideal" is actually the reality/current situation. We already do have a system in which if you cant pay your car payment your car will be repossessed. And while your car is getting repossessed you can still get in the food line. I guess the banks/repossessors/courts lack empathy.
-
A car in a food line may draw speculation, but condemnation without the facts is plain wrong.
Worse, it points to ignorance, self-glorification, and shows a lack of empathy.
There will always be those who use the system in their favor even if they do not need help.
It is the way of the world - some people always take more than their share.
Just like there are people who assume the worst and sit in judgment of a "perceived" financial situation without a shred of evidence.
I suspect that in the long run, this pandemic will substantially deepen the chasm between the haves and the have not's, here in the US.
But it is fascinating to see how some people have found ways to profit from the current calamity while others only wait for government assistance.
A crisis brings out both the best and the worst in people, your true character is revealed.
No, I don't think a bad purchase should preclude someone from using charity. I do think not making significant reductions in lifestyle should preclude it. Sell all your shit/downsize/etc. then get the charity.
I don't think so. Taking drastic measures while we are at the beginning of a financial meltdown does not sound like a smart choice.
Losing thousands on the sale of your car vs getting some temporary help to stay afloat "might well" be the better choice until you see where things are heading and you've had an opportunity to explore all your options.
We are talking about $30 worth of food, not thousands of undeserved charity!
Who knows, they might be a chef, selling home-cooked dinners out of their car by next week - people do find ways to keep going, even prosper.
Fools rush in - both with ill-considered decisions prompted by fear and by condemning a stranger for "possibly" having made poor financial decisions.
Sometimes we can't seem to help ourselves in having uncharitable thoughts ... I admit to having a couple recently:).
There have been many demonstrations relating to the dysfunctional, outdated unemployment system in our state that simply can't manage to pay out claims. The site keeps crashing ...
So last week I watched an outraged woman on TV being interviewed live on the streets of Tampa.
She fumed at not receiving unemployment benefits since applying over six weeks ago. She said she had to borrow $20 from her daughter because she had no money left to make a sign for the demonstration... Then went on to say she spent $13 on materials ...
WTF?
It defies common sense - our liquor stores and grocery stores are open - free cardboard - right?!
LOL - all I could think of was, "you need that $13 for food, silly!"
Besides, you better start finding ways to help yourself in the future because this pandemic is not done by a longshot.
Relying on the govt to bail you out spells trouble.
Huffing and puffing because she was trying to keep up with the march in the heat and humidity - she also was not wearing a mask.
So my next uncharitable thought was, "I wonder if she will be around in another six months?".
Interesting times we live in.
Like someone already said, unless you are quite wealthy unforeseen events can take away your life as you know it and leave you financially devastated - no matter how frugal you were or how meticulously you planned.
-
Have there been a lot of layoffs in the kind of industries that pay salaries that incline people to buy Teslas?
In my area it's mostly been low paying service jobs.
-
Skimmed the first few pages. Did anyone actually see a Tesla in a food line? This seems like made up outrage.
-
Yes, I think the consequences for making poor financial decisions that affect others should be "punitive".
Punitive to me could mean losing your toys, living with roommates, eating out less, etc.
Punitive to me does not mean starving yourself or your family.
Also, try disagreeing with me without insulting me and frothing at the mouth. Its a really good life skill, especially in this day and age...
For all you know the person driving the Tesla is living in it.
-
Have there been a lot of layoffs in the kind of industries that pay salaries that incline people to buy Teslas?
In my area it's mostly been low paying service jobs.
Somewhat ironically given this thread, my friend with a Tesla has been delivering food to a friend with a low paying service job.
-
@rachellynn99 , would you be willing to share your research? It sounds really interesting.
-
Have there been a lot of layoffs in the kind of industries that pay salaries that incline people to buy Teslas?
In my area it's mostly been low paying service jobs.
Yes. Legal industry has been laying off/cutting pay for a month. Retail companies are extremely hard-hit; while most affected workers are lower-pay, those places will also have have corporate managers and VPs and such who will be caught in the massive downsizing. And that's not even getting into what's happening in the oil and gas sector (not that those guys are going to be driving Teslas).
-
Physician practices including those owned by corporate or private equity are suffering with physician lay-offs and practice bankruptcies.
In those industries, even if you are a mustachian and prepare for a black swan, the extent of the current situation would have been so unpredictable that even I would have bought the Tesla.
-
Physician practices including those owned by corporate or private equity are suffering with physician lay-offs and practice bankruptcies.
In those industries, even if you are a mustachian and prepare for a black swan, the extent of the current situation would have been so unpredictable that even I would have bought the Tesla.
My sister is a physician for a large health care practice in a hot-spot area. Their revenue for April was down 87% and the doctors have been reassigned to COVID testing sites (where patients are not billed). It’s a giant unknown how they will get paid in the months ahead.
-
@rachellynn99 , would you be willing to share your research? It sounds really interesting.
I would love to. Let me get it published - at least through Proquest at my school then I can give it out.
-
Have there been a lot of layoffs in the kind of industries that pay salaries that incline people to buy Teslas?
In my area it's mostly been low paying service jobs.
Somewhat ironically given this thread, my friend with a Tesla has been delivering food to a friend with a low paying service job.
How can we blindly blame Tesla drivers for all of society's ills when one of them just performed an act of kindness?