Author Topic: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege  (Read 11938 times)

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1472
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #100 on: May 26, 2016, 11:26:16 AM »
If the government got out of the marriage business, and allowed couples to call themselves whatever they wanted, that would be equal, I think.

But then lots of things would have to change to allow that to work.  Tax code, child support, inheritances, medical power of attorney issues, etc.

I think this way would be a bigger mess.
Allow couples to incorporate.

Even with equal gay-marriage there are other unfairnesses.
What about a pair of old "spinster" sisters living together. Should they get tax treated differently than an old married couple?

« Last Edit: May 26, 2016, 07:00:46 PM by nobodyspecial »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #101 on: May 26, 2016, 12:00:42 PM »
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid.  As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government".  That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind. 

I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.

Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.

Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage.  Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.'  OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.

Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal.  So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage.  Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong.  Saying that is not spite.

I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3600
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #102 on: May 26, 2016, 12:02:22 PM »
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Then why is there anyone at all who cares so much about the label itself that they'd fight to have civil unions instead of marriage for (gay/other/etc) people who want those right?
I am not a cog. I am an organizational lubricant.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #103 on: May 26, 2016, 12:07:39 PM »
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid.  As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government".  That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind. 

I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.

Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.

Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage.  Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.'  OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.

Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Full equality and forcing "the other side", or anyone in general, to do what you want, are distinct things. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying that full equality is achievable via civil unions or some other "separate but equal" program?
Is it ever possible to provide full equality through a separate legal avenue with a different name? Doesn't that, at a bare minimum, allow the historically accepted group to maintain an air of superiority?

**EDIT** I meant to also say, I meant these as exploratory questions to understand your position better, but it's all rhetorical, or moot if you prefer, since SCOTUS held SBE invalid several decades ago and seems unlikely to reverse course.

Rejecting SBE when it's things like schools where you're literally keeping someone SEPARATE from someone else, and it's demonstrably not equal, I completely get and agree with.

Rejecting SBE because it's literally just a different word that refers to the same set of rights is not, in my opinion, a valid concept.  It's just semantics.  It's not ACTUALLY separate.  I also think saying the gay marriage fight is the same as the fight to integrate public schools is petty and worlds apart.  I don't think the fight to use the word "marriage" instead of the phrase "civil union" is even the same fucking sport as fighting for the right for an adequate education. 


But, as I've said, I really have no interest in telling anyone what word they and the government can and can't use to describe their legal joining, nor do I think there is any justification for a law to prevent it, so whatever. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #104 on: May 26, 2016, 12:10:19 PM »
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Then why is there anyone at all who cares so much about the label itself that they'd fight to have civil unions instead of marriage for (gay/other/etc) people who want those right?

I would say you can argue that both directions.  Truly, I don't know.  If you mix orange juice and vodka, you get a screw driver.  If you mix lemonade and vodka you get something else, which happens to be delicious.  I don't get why on one hand, someone would insist on calling it a screwdriver, or on the other hand, someone would be happy to give it to you but insist you don't call it a screwdriver and get mad if you did.  Like I said, seems petty on both sides.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4777
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #105 on: May 26, 2016, 01:35:40 PM »
Quote
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Social security benefits?

runningthroughFIRE

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Age: 24
  • Location: Northwest Indiana
  • Ask for broader shoulders.
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #106 on: May 26, 2016, 02:18:17 PM »
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Then why is there anyone at all who cares so much about the label itself that they'd fight to have civil unions instead of marriage for (gay/other/etc) people who want those right?

I would say you can argue that both directions.  Truly, I don't know.  If you mix orange juice and vodka, you get a screw driver.  If you mix lemonade and vodka you get something else, which happens to be delicious.  I don't get why on one hand, someone would insist on calling it a screwdriver, or on the other hand, someone would be happy to give it to you but insist you don't call it a screwdriver and get mad if you did.  Like I said, seems petty on both sides.
As far as I understand it, the religious folks see a distinction between marriage and civil unions because marriage = matrimony, which is a religious event.  The thought is that the government shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever, and until relatively recently governemnt definitions have alligned with religious practices, so no one raised a stink.  The word is important because it refers to a specific religious rite, and gay marriage is seen as an oxymoron.

The pro-gay marriage folks want total equality, which for many means that the word marriage is important because it carries with it generations of societal values and expectations with it.  Calling it a civil union wouldn't be equal, because saying "I'm married" carries a different societal weight than saying "I'm in a civil union".

I'm not a theologist, nor can I speak for the swaths of people involved in the issue, but that is how I see the two sides of it.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 650
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #107 on: May 26, 2016, 02:18:29 PM »
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views.  Sigh. 

Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.

Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this.  That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.

You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda.   Let' see:

*  not give more to the rich
*  affordable college and healthcare
*  medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
*  increase taxes

The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is

*  not make college free for liberal arts majors

So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message

To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas.  New ideas that offer something to both sides.  And a willingness to compromise.
Actually I think it is closer to Clinton.  Sander's would flip over the college issue and he is not known to compromise.

The right's ideas are so tainted that they think that what benefits 99% of the population is extremely liberal.  I don't think free college is a good idea because you have no skin in the game. I don't think giving more to those who won't work is a good idea because it encourages laziness.


I can't tell if  you mean that or it's sarcasm.

Quote
It's only the ultra right that would call someone extremely liberal who thinks everyone who's willing to participate in our society should be out of poverty,have health insurance and should be able to attend college without mortgaging their future. Those are massively centrist opinions but the right is so tainted that they think it's far left.  God save us all.

I think you are over generalizing.  You perceive that because they don't agree with the *solutions* of the left that they are against the *goals*.  In reality, both right and left share many (not all) goals.  Both want to increase prosperity, increase access to health care, increase access to college.  Just because they don't think raising taxes and giving people freebies is the solution doesn't mean they don't agree on the goals.

Show me the conservative ideas to achieve those goals that possess any evidence their policies could actually achieve them.  Trickle down economics was blatantly disproven under W. The 2009/2010 job creators argument failed when companies started earning record profits and wages didn't go up. Face it. A business' goal is profit to the highest degree possible. Part of doing this is paying as little as possible.  Only regulation destroyed child labor abuse and starvation wages.  Conservatism is a sham. Progressivism goes to far. At least the progressives care about the powerless.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #108 on: May 26, 2016, 02:31:37 PM »
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Then why is there anyone at all who cares so much about the label itself that they'd fight to have civil unions instead of marriage for (gay/other/etc) people who want those right?

I would say you can argue that both directions.  Truly, I don't know.  If you mix orange juice and vodka, you get a screw driver.  If you mix lemonade and vodka you get something else, which happens to be delicious.  I don't get why on one hand, someone would insist on calling it a screwdriver, or on the other hand, someone would be happy to give it to you but insist you don't call it a screwdriver and get mad if you did.  Like I said, seems petty on both sides.
As far as I understand it, the religious folks see a distinction between marriage and civil unions because marriage = matrimony, which is a religious event.  The thought is that the government shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever, and until relatively recently governemnt definitions have alligned with religious practices, so no one raised a stink.  The word is important because it refers to a specific religious rite, and gay marriage is seen as an oxymoron.

The pro-gay marriage folks want total equality, which for many means that the word marriage is important because it carries with it generations of societal values and expectations with it.  Calling it a civil union wouldn't be equal, because saying "I'm married" carries a different societal weight than saying "I'm in a civil union".

I'm not a theologist, nor can I speak for the swaths of people involved in the issue, but that is how I see the two sides of it.

I understand (sorta) the arguments on both sides.  I just think that if we're going to all agree that gay couples who have formed a legal partnership and straight couples who have formed a legal partnership all deserve exactly the same rights, either side freaking out just because they dislike what the other side wants to call it is dumb.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4397
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #109 on: May 26, 2016, 02:53:23 PM »
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid.  As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government".  That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind. 

I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.

Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.

Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage.  Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.'  OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.

Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal.  So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage.  Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong.  Saying that is not spite.

I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
In the states that enacted it, it did. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #110 on: May 26, 2016, 03:04:05 PM »
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid.  As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government".  That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind. 

I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.

Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.

Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage.  Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.'  OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.

Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal.  So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage.  Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong.  Saying that is not spite.

I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
In the states that enacted it, it did.

Okay, if that's the case I understand the issue.  I was under the impression that civil unions = marriage in every single aspect except name.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #111 on: May 26, 2016, 03:32:12 PM »
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid.  As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government".  That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind. 

I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.

Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.

Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage.  Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.'  OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.

Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal.  So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage.  Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong.  Saying that is not spite.

I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
In the states that enacted it, it did.

Okay, if that's the case I understand the issue.  I was under the impression that civil unions = marriage in every single aspect except name.
The way I heard it explained which makes sense to me is this: "marriage" as a word, a concept, and a legal status is deeply intrenched in laws at all levels of government. We cannot simply pass a law saying same sex couples can be joined in civil unions with all of the same rights and responsibilites as with marriage because the phrase "civil union" does not exist in these thousands of laws.

To me, its a practical argument. I dont have to listen to hysterical crying about civil rights or the oppostie hysterica about sanctity to f marriage  in order t be convnced that gay couples do need to be "married" in order to be covered by all laws.

I do think its interesting  that other countries hold out civil unions as separate  from marriage. I dnt know what is accomlished fr M that, unless "marriage" is entirely a religious status.

If it were that simple, that civio union ns meant exactly the same things ng as "marriage"

I think it is interesting to see what happens with oppostie gender coules

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #112 on: May 26, 2016, 04:06:28 PM »
Since the thread has gone there, the next logical progression is for the revocation of laws that confer benefits to married couples at all.
I agree that it was unfair for homosexual couples to be excluded from benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.  But an increasing proportion of the population is not married.  Whether they are never married and not planning to be, are widowed or divorced or otherwise not part of a couple, it's conceivable that this eventual majority will no longer tolerate a set of social and legal protections that treat them as lesser beings for being unmarried. 

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #113 on: May 26, 2016, 06:34:37 PM »
Since the thread has gone there, the next logical progression is for the revocation of laws that confer benefits to married couples at all.
I agree that it was unfair for homosexual couples to be excluded from benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.  But an increasing proportion of the population is not married.  Whether they are never married and not planning to be, are widowed or divorced or otherwise not part of a couple, it's conceivable that this eventual majority will no longer tolerate a set of social and legal protections that treat them as lesser beings for being unmarried.

In your utopian world of the next logial progression, why must it be "couples?" Why are you limiting it to t to two people? Or to two humans?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 06:50:27 PM by iris lily »

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #114 on: May 27, 2016, 05:40:36 AM »
Since the thread has gone there, the next logical progression is for the revocation of laws that confer benefits to married couples at all.
I agree that it was unfair for homosexual couples to be excluded from benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.  But an increasing proportion of the population is not married.  Whether they are never married and not planning to be, are widowed or divorced or otherwise not part of a couple, it's conceivable that this eventual majority will no longer tolerate a set of social and legal protections that treat them as lesser beings for being unmarried.

In your utopian world of the next logial progression, why must it be "couples?" Wh are you limit Ng to t to two people? Or to take w humans?
Didn't say it was my utopia.
Most households used to be comprised of married couples.  The majority influence the laws for their own benefit.
The "typical" household demographic is shifting and the majority in the future is likely to be single people.  How long does any majority tolerate support for institutions that don't benefit them?

For another example, when a majority rent, either because it is better economically or because that's all they could ever afford, how long before they revolt against a tax system that favors their landlords at the expense of themselves. 


golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1418
  • Location: MA
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #115 on: May 27, 2016, 06:14:38 AM »
I listened to an interview this week with Andrew Sullivan, who is a gay man who first publicly proposed the idea that gay people should be able to get married.  At the time, he was a conservative and a lot of the people in the gay community hated him for it.  The idea was to bring gay culture and the gay community into hetrosexual norms instead of having civil unions, which he felt kept gay people in separate status.  I thought since we were on this topic, I'd add that context. 

theadvicist

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
« Reply #116 on: May 27, 2016, 06:46:33 AM »
Back to the original topic, I am often shocked at how being educated, well-spoken, and, yes, rich allows me to benefit in ways that leave poorer and less-educated people at an unfair disadvantage.

For example we are renegotiating our mortgage for a better deal. Even ignoring that I have the time to put into this, I had to get certain identity documents certified. The legal firm handling the remortgage told me any solicitor could do it - I could walk in off the street, pay a fee, and they would certify a copy of my passport.

I didn't really want to pay a solicitor for that. I did some research online. I found that the post office would do it for a fixed fee of about 8. This was not mentioned in the letter I received, but when I called to check (again, time and access to a phone and the ability to withstand call charges from being put on hold etc) I was told, yes, that was fine.

I also asked if there was anywhere else it could be done. My education was telling me if there was one cheaper method they hadn't mentioned in the letter, perhaps there were more. Well, apparently I could just walk into my local bank and get them to do it for free! Why wasn't this or the post office mentioned in the letter? Cheaper, easier and widely available.

So I go to my local bank branch, where they know me because I use it for business banking. They say they only offer that service now if I'm buying one of their mortgages. Sorry. Most people would say, okthnksbye.

But again, my well-spoken and articulate self is given a privilege because I immediately say, "I find that rather ridiculous given the amount of business I do with this bank". I leave a silence. The lady I'm dealing with says she'll look into the rules again, maybe there is something they can do, let her get a supervisor etc.

Eventually I get exactly what I want done, for free, because I pulled the, "Excuse me, don't you know who I am" card. I did nothing to earn that card (the business banking I do is not my money, I just execute if for the company I work for), I just was brought up by people with money who got their own way by being unfailingly polite but firm. 

I will save 100s a month on this mortgage. Home-ownership is a rich person's privilege in it's own right, but even so, by being a rich person with time to look into better deals, internet access to check what they are telling me, the gumption to ask for a different way and to object when I feel I am not getting the service I should, I get the whole thing cheaper again. The game is rigged.

I know this is only tangentially related to bulk-buying, but it just reminded me that things I take for granted - being able to call a number that is charged at a higher rate, or getting to a bank in business hours - all allow me to keep getting richer, while that option is not available to those who don't have my resources in the first place.