Poor people living outside their means unappreciation

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by MurdaMilJoker

In reality some of these people are not living outside their means I mean if you think about it people on welfare actually have a very comfortable way of life you see where I live a mother of 2 can get $650 in TANF(Cash Assitance) she also qualifies for $527 in SNAP(Food stamps) and at the end of the year she can pay some hood +!% tax people to file some phony +!% taxes for her and get a return of about $5-$7k. Now do the math or I'll do it for you $650x12=$7800+$527x12=$6324+$7,000=$21,124/12=$1,760.33 a month. Now thats some pretty decent money for just sitting on your lazy +!% doing ++$@ don't get me wrong if I didn't love money so much I'd proly do the same thing. But now don't forget their expenses probably slim to none you see most people on welfare live in Section 8 apartments (low income housing), and probablly only pay around $10-$50 for rent and they probably on energy assistance as well so more than likely thats another $50-$75 so thats a total expenses of about $100-$125 dollars so a car not of about $300 is actually still living within their means.Not to mention she's probably getting money from baby daddy or other tricks so she can get her hair did and look proper for the next trick or sucker out there. Thats why I always look for me a dumb !%% around tax time so I get some of that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Explain to me how this is not living beyond YOUR means? Everything stated is relying on someone else to support that person. Thus, they have gone from living within their means, to encroachment into someone elses means through government assistance. Thus why I am a firm believer that if you want government assistance, you do some kind of work to help the government/a non-profit that will give you some type of dignity and job skills to make you more valuable in the market so you're not just sitting at home getting a check.

 

[1chainz]

It's sad, but the first impression girls get of you is not whether or not you have lights in your house.

 

[ediaz411]

Originally Posted by Slicknick951

Living comfortably while flossin w/ material things >


/thread

 

[obeahmyal]

I think the biggest problem is not so much poor people living beyond their means through the conspicuous consumption of superficial items. We should instead take issue with the extremely wealthy who abuse their purchasing power and exploit the world's natural resources. First off, I don't buy the assumption some of you have made that the wealthy in this country have "earned" their wealth. Indeed, the days of landed independence and self-made achievement are over and have been for close to 125 years. It is far more likely that the wealthy in this country have inherited their wealth. And from that inheritance, the elite purchase extravagant cars, multiple homes, and consume voraciously. If we view land ownership as a zero sum-game, possessing a country home in which you spend only a few weeks at a time is a waste of space; space that can be appropriated and transformed into some far more productive. I'm not necessarily talking about land redistribution to those of lower socio-economic backgrounds. What I am suggesting is that the ELITE who live beyond their means are causing way more havoc that someone using WIC checks for jordans.

 

[mojodmonky1]

Originally Posted by ObeahMyal

I think the biggest problem is not so much poor people living beyond their means through the conspicuous consumption of superficial items. We should instead take issue with the extremely wealthy who abuse their purchasing power and exploit the world's natural resources. First off, I don't buy the assumption some of you have made that the wealthy in this country have "earned" their wealth. Indeed, the days of landed independence and self-made achievement are over and have been for close to 125 years. It is far more likely that the wealthy in this country have inherited their wealth. And from that inheritance, the elite purchase extravagant cars, multiple homes, and consume voraciously. If we view land ownership as a zero sum-game, possessing a country home in which you spend only a few weeks at a time is a waste of space; space that can be appropriated and transformed into some far more productive. I'm not necessarily talking about land redistribution to those of lower socio-economic backgrounds. What I am suggesting is that the ELITE who live beyond their means are causing way more havoc that someone using WIC checks for jordans.

completely different topic.

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by ObeahMyal

I think the biggest problem is not so much poor people living beyond their means through the conspicuous consumption of superficial items. We should instead take issue with the extremely wealthy who abuse their purchasing power and exploit the world's natural resources. First off, I don't buy the assumption some of you have made that the wealthy in this country have "earned" their wealth. Indeed, the days of landed independence and self-made achievement are over and have been for close to 125 years. It is far more likely that the wealthy in this country have inherited their wealth. And from that inheritance, the elite purchase extravagant cars, multiple homes, and consume voraciously. If we view land ownership as a zero sum-game, possessing a country home in which you spend only a few weeks at a time is a waste of space; space that can be appropriated and transformed into some far more productive. I'm not necessarily talking about land redistribution to those of lower socio-economic backgrounds. What I am suggesting is that the ELITE who live beyond their means are causing way more havoc that someone using WIC checks for jordans.

Data that the wealthy didn't earn their money?

 

[obeahmyal]

From the perspective of liberal capitalists see an entry from Robert Frank of the WSJ who argues that since 2001,"inherited wealth accounted for only 9% of their net worth in 2001, down from 23% in 1989."(link:http://blogs.wsj.com/weal...ine-of-inherited-money/) That said, ten years is a small window from which to assess the issue of inheritance. Far more credible, I think, is the Fair Economy's report on the sources of wealth among members of the Forbes 400. For an assessment of the 1997 Forbes list see: http://www.faireconomy.or...ealth_of_1997_forbes_400

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by ObeahMyal

I think the biggest problem is not so much poor people living beyond their means through the conspicuous consumption of superficial items. We should instead take issue with the extremely wealthy who abuse their purchasing power and exploit the world's natural resources. First off, I don't buy the assumption some of you have made that the wealthy in this country have "earned" their wealth. Indeed, the days of landed independence and self-made achievement are over and have been for close to 125 years. It is far more likely that the wealthy in this country have inherited their wealth. And from that inheritance, the elite purchase extravagant cars, multiple homes, and consume voraciously. If we view land ownership as a zero sum-game, possessing a country home in which you spend only a few weeks at a time is a waste of space; space that can be appropriated and transformed into some far more productive. I'm not necessarily talking about land redistribution to those of lower socio-economic backgrounds. What I am suggesting is that the ELITE who live beyond their means are causing way more havoc that someone using WIC checks for jordans.

Most millionaires are first generation rich so how did they not earn their money?

 

[the boss don]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by MurdaMilJoker

In reality some of these people are not living outside their means I mean if you think about it people on welfare actually have a very comfortable way of life you see where I live a mother of 2 can get $650 in TANF(Cash Assitance) she also qualifies for $527 in SNAP(Food stamps) and at the end of the year she can pay some hood +!% tax people to file some phony +!% taxes for her and get a return of about $5-$7k. Now do the math or I'll do it for you $650x12=$7800+$527x12=$6324+$7,000=$21,124/12=$1,760.33 a month. Now thats some pretty decent money for just sitting on your lazy +!% doing ++$@ don't get me wrong if I didn't love money so much I'd proly do the same thing. But now don't forget their expenses probably slim to none you see most people on welfare live in Section 8 apartments (low income housing), and probablly only pay around $10-$50 for rent and they probably on energy assistance as well so more than likely thats another $50-$75 so thats a total expenses of about $100-$125 dollars so a car not of about $300 is actually still living within their means.Not to mention she's probably getting money from baby daddy or other tricks so she can get her hair did and look proper for the next trick or sucker out there. Thats why I always look for me a dumb !%% around tax time so I get some of that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Explain to me how this is not living beyond YOUR means? Everything stated is relying on someone else to support that person. Thus, they have gone from living within their means, to encroachment into someone elses means through government assistance. Thus why I am a firm believer that if you want government assistance, you do some kind of work to help the government/a non-profit that will give you some type of dignity and job skills to make you more valuable in the market so you're not just sitting at home getting a check.

why help the government? they pocket the real money anyway...milk they @+! b

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by THE BOSS DON

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by MurdaMilJoker

In reality some of these people are not living outside their means I mean if you think about it people on welfare actually have a very comfortable way of life you see where I live a mother of 2 can get $650 in TANF(Cash Assitance) she also qualifies for $527 in SNAP(Food stamps) and at the end of the year she can pay some hood +!% tax people to file some phony +!% taxes for her and get a return of about $5-$7k. Now do the math or I'll do it for you $650x12=$7800+$527x12=$6324+$7,000=$21,124/12=$1,760.33 a month. Now thats some pretty decent money for just sitting on your lazy +!% doing ++$@ don't get me wrong if I didn't love money so much I'd proly do the same thing. But now don't forget their expenses probably slim to none you see most people on welfare live in Section 8 apartments (low income housing), and probablly only pay around $10-$50 for rent and they probably on energy assistance as well so more than likely thats another $50-$75 so thats a total expenses of about $100-$125 dollars so a car not of about $300 is actually still living within their means.Not to mention she's probably getting money from baby daddy or other tricks so she can get her hair did and look proper for the next trick or sucker out there. Thats why I always look for me a dumb !%% around tax time so I get some of that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Explain to me how this is not living beyond YOUR means? Everything stated is relying on someone else to support that person. Thus, they have gone from living within their means, to encroachment into someone elses means through government assistance. Thus why I am a firm believer that if you want government assistance, you do some kind of work to help the government/a non-profit that will give you some type of dignity and job skills to make you more valuable in the market so you're not just sitting at home getting a check.

why help the government? they pocket the real money anyway...milk they @+! b

Money from the government is actually money taken from the people. So therefore, people on welfare are spending other people's money. If it weren't for that (and pork barrel projects) we wouldn't have this debate about raising taxes to fund government programs.

 

[pricankid9]

I have a close friend who did this. Dude lives with his parents, works at dominos and was in college chillin. Then decides to buy a brand new top of the line altima on a whim, against all of everyone's advice. Dude quit school, now works 80+ hours a week at two jobs, and lives check by check, all for a car. He regrets it now, but is too proud to admit it

Society is about instant gratification and fronting money that most people don't have, even if it involves more suffering than necessary.

 

[ogmikey]

Originally Posted by MurdaMilJoker

In reality some of these people are not living outside their means I mean if you think about it people on welfare actually have a very comfortable way of life you see where I live a mother of 2 can get $650 in TANF(Cash Assitance) she also qualifies for $527 in SNAP(Food stamps) and at the end of the year she can pay some hood #%@ tax people to file some phony #%@ taxes for her and get a return of about $5-$7k. Now do the math or I'll do it for you $650x12=$7800+$527x12=$6324+$7,000=$21,124/12=$1,760.33 a month. Now thats some pretty decent money for just sitting on your lazy #%@ doing *$%* don't get me wrong if I didn't love money so much I'd proly do the same thing. But now don't forget their expenses probably slim to none you see most people on welfare live in Section 8 apartments (low income housing), and probablly only pay around $10-$50 for rent and they probably on energy assistance as well so more than likely thats another $50-$75 so thats a total expenses of about $100-$125 dollars so a car not of about $300 is actually still living within their means.Not to mention she's probably getting money from baby daddy or other tricks so she can get her hair did and look proper for the next trick or sucker out there. Thats why I always look for me a dumb @%@ around tax time so I get some of that $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The second they get assistance they are already out of their means

 

[villansfinest]

i've said this a few times before, but i've never really had an answer that satisfies my curiosity.

what do poor people do? what do unemployed people do? what do people on assistance do? 

what is life like for somebody that earned less than $15,000 in the span of 5 years?

i've had vacations before, like 3 weeks at a time. i've been unemployed for about 4 months a few times. i was bored out of my mind. i made getting a job my job until i actually got a job. towards the end i was losing my wits. i just have difficulty picturing somebody sitting on a couch watching tv for 18 hours a day for more than a few weeks. i understand there are daily things like grocery shopping, housekeeping and child rearing. but i just can't picture what else somebody in those situations would do. 

now, mega-rich folk that don't have to work? fine, i get it, you don't have to work, but they seem to end up doing things that cost money, like travelling, shopping and decorating. regardless of how they earned it, it's theirs, and that's their choice of how to spend it.

but i don't like that people that i know who are on assistance, spend money on things that aren't necessities. if you have the money, you should be spending it on necessities and returning/turning down your assistance money. 

 

[flipnkraut]

Originally Posted by ksteezy

at the end of the day you cant control how others spend their money or that of the governments aka tax payers....at the end of the day is all the systems fault, you should just worry about how you spend your money.

Because the government takes my money in the form of taxes to "help" these people pay for food and whatever else, it is my concern and should be yours too. If they didnt spend their money trying to buy the newest TV or have the newest iPhone/iPad/car they would have the money to pay for their own damn food instead of taking my money by means of the government. Everytime I see someone paying for %#+! with food stamps while their texting on the iPhone it straight pisses me off. The +#@! are you doing with a brand new iPhone paying with food stamps. You need a phone, get a free phone with the cheapest plan, anything else is a luxury that you don't need because you cant afford it.

You know why the poor stay poor? It's because they do #+*@ like this that keeps them poor. Instead of being smart with their money, they're out buying the newest thing to be the ballingest person in the hood. smdh

 

[scientific method]

You know why the poor stay poor? It's because they do #+*@ like this that keeps them poor. Instead of being smart with their money, they're out buying the newest thing to be the ballingest person in the hood. smdh

and they could argue being smart with their money is buying all the new ipads, Jordans, tvs, etc. while paying $20 rent and allowing the tax payer to subsidize their living expenses like rent, food, daycare, unemployment, etc. If I only had to pay for luxuries and my living expenses were subsidized by everyone else,

I'd be ballin'

By the way, rich people do it too.

 

[flipnkraut]

Originally Posted by Scientific Method

You know why the poor stay poor? It's because they do #+*@ like this that keeps them poor. Instead of being smart with their money, they're out buying the newest thing to be the ballingest person in the hood. smdh

and they could argue being smart with their money is buying all the new ipads, Jordans, tvs, etc. while paying $20 rent and allowing the tax payer to subsidize their living expenses like rent, food, daycare, unemployment, etc. If I only had to pay for luxuries and my living expenses were subsidized by everyone else,

I'd be ballin'

By the way, rich people do it too.


And I'd call you a thief and a parasite on humanity.

At least when the rich do it, they're usually part of a company that does provide a service (banks/manufacturing/etc). Any generally those same rich people did have to do something to get to where they are, you're not born into being the CEO of a company. The poor just sit there, never contributing anything to society except more poor people.

 

[keif sweat]

Many wealthy people got that way by raping the system, and they did it way worse than any project tenant ever could. But people will continue to blame the issues on those with the least power; poor people. Which is exactly what "they" want

 

[keif sweat]

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut

Originally Posted by Scientific Method

You know why the poor stay poor? It's because they do #+*@ like this that keeps them poor. Instead of being smart with their money, they're out buying the newest thing to be the ballingest person in the hood. smdh

and they could argue being smart with their money is buying all the new ipads, Jordans, tvs, etc. while paying $20 rent and allowing the tax payer to subsidize their living expenses like rent, food, daycare, unemployment, etc. If I only had to pay for luxuries and my living expenses were subsidized by everyone else,

I'd be ballin'

By the way, rich people do it too.

And I'd call you a thief and a parasite on humanity.

At least when the rich do it, they're usually part of a company that does provide a service (banks/manufacturing/etc). Any generally those same rich people did have to do something to get to where they are, you're not born into being the CEO of a company. The poor just sit there, never contributing anything to society except more poor people.
The sad thing is you probably have more in common with those "parasites", yet you defend the ivory tower like they give a single $%*! about your work ethic

 

[crcballer55]

Originally Posted by Keif Sweat

Many wealthy people got that way by raping the system, and they did it way worse than any project tenant ever could. But people will continue to blame the issues on those with the least power; poor people. Which is exactly what "they" want

Yes, many wealthy people did get to the top by stealing. However, I will contend that it's the minority that got there from stealing/taking advantage of others. If you look at the Forbes 400, I think you might be hard pressed to find many people who got there from less than honorable means and are first generation wealthy.

 

[keif sweat]

Originally Posted by crcballer55

Originally Posted by Keif Sweat

Many wealthy people got that way by raping the system, and they did it way worse than any project tenant ever could. But people will continue to blame the issues on those with the least power; poor people. Which is exactly what "they" want

Yes, many wealthy people did get to the top by stealing. However, I will contend that it's the minority that got there from stealing/taking advantage of others. If you look at the Forbes 400, I think you might be hard pressed to find many people who got there from less than honorable means and are first generation wealthy.

You act like its all gonna be posted right there in their Forbes bio

Fortune 500 companies spend millions on millions in legal fees alone to sweep stuff under the rug, and thats IF it ever gets to that point. I'd venture to say the best businessmen are the ones who are able to take advantage of you and leave you thinking you got a fair shake. Detachment and apathy are qualities that are lauded the higher you go in the business world.

 

[obeahmyal]

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut

 And I'd call you a thief and a parasite on humanity.

At least when the rich do it, they're usually part of a company that does provide a service (banks/manufacturing/etc). Any generally those same rich people did have to do something to get to where they are, you're not born into being the CEO of a company. The poor just sit there, never contributing anything to society except more poor people.
Your justification of the exorbitant spending habits of the rich by pointing to their service in banking is laughable. Exactly what service is someone working in Finance providing besides specializing in the realm of hyper-speculation, placing bets on mobile pieces of property, paper currency and virtual data stored on computers? What kind of service and on behalf of whom? The idea of a CEO having "to do something to get to where they are," is true from a very basic standpoint. But the fundamental issues are, what had to be done in order to become a CEO and how do these particular actions relate to the increasing stratification in this country. 


Please, save your protestant work-ethic ideology for someone else. Your claim that the "poor just sit there, never contributing anything to society except more poor people," I take it, is at once a reification of this ideology and another variation of the "Welfare queen," a non-gendered critique of the "poor" who collect government assistance and produce illegitimate children who themselves will be on welfare. But again, you ignore the fact that as of 2011, up to $5million can be passed down from an individual without incurring the "wrath" of  federal estate tax. You make no mention of the emerging Dynasty Trusts which at best(or worse) provide a head start to those lucky enough to inherit these trusts, and at worst create generations of people who themselves don't know the meaning of work. So who, FlipnKraut, just sits there? 

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by ObeahMyal

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut

 And I'd call you a thief and a parasite on humanity.

At least when the rich do it, they're usually part of a company that does provide a service (banks/manufacturing/etc). Any generally those same rich people did have to do something to get to where they are, you're not born into being the CEO of a company. The poor just sit there, never contributing anything to society except more poor people.

Your justification of the exorbitant spending habits of the rich by pointing to their service in banking is laughable. Exactly what service is someone working in Finance providing besides specializing in the realm of hyper-speculation, placing bets on mobile pieces of property, paper currency and virtual data stored on computers? What kind of service and on behalf of whom? The idea of a CEO having "to do something to get to where they are," is true from a very basic standpoint. But the fundamental issues are, what had to be done in order to become a CEO and how do these particular actions relate to the increasing stratification in this country. 


Please, save your protestant work-ethic ideology for someone else. Your claim that the "poor just sit there, never contributing anything to society except more poor people," I take it, is at once a reification of this ideology and another variation of the "Welfare queen," a non-gendered critique of the "poor" who collect government assistance and produce illegitimate children who themselves will be on welfare. But again, you ignore the fact that as of 2011, up to $5million can be pa8ssed down from an individual without incurring the "wrath" of  federal estate tax. You make no mention of the emerging Dynasty Trusts which at best(or worse) provide a head start to those lucky enough to inherit these trusts, and at worst create generations of people who themselves don't know the meaning of work. So who, FlipnKraut, just sits there? 

So i take it you are in favor of a estate tax? and thus you are in favor of double taxation. Not only  do people work to build a nice estate that they initally got taxed around 30% you want that then to be taxed again at close to 50% when they pass and want to leave it to their children? Guess not amount of money is enough for the government.
With the estate tax what happens to the father who has built a small estate of approximately 2 million dollars  the majority of which is a home and land which has been in the family for generations. He wants to pass the property onto his son/daughter when he dies however the child only makes 30K a year  but the estate tax is ~800K on 2million. How is the child making 30k a year with a wife and two children supposed to pay those kind of taxes. The only way he can is to sell the property which has sentimental value to the family.

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by ObeahMyal

I think the biggest problem is not so much poor people living beyond their means through the conspicuous consumption of superficial items. We should instead take issue with the extremely wealthy who abuse their purchasing power and exploit the world's natural resources. First off, I don't buy the assumption some of you have made that the wealthy in this country have "earned" their wealth. Indeed, the days of landed independence and self-made achievement are over and have been for close to 125 years. It is far more likely that the wealthy in this country have inherited their wealth. And from that inheritance, the elite purchase extravagant cars, multiple homes, and consume voraciously. If we view land ownership as a zero sum-game, possessing a country home in which you spend only a few weeks at a time is a waste of space; space that can be appropriated and transformed into some far more productive. I'm not necessarily talking about land redistribution to those of lower socio-economic backgrounds. What I am suggesting is that the ELITE who live beyond their means are causing way more havoc that someone using WIC checks for jordans.

Most millionaires are first generation rich so how did they not earn their money?

Come again? I am sorry, but I find that hard to believe, especially with such a broad term as "rich"

 

[kix4kix]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by ObeahMyal

Originally Posted by FlipnKraut

 And I'd call you a thief and a parasite on humanity.

At least when the rich do it, they're usually part of a company that does provide a service (banks/manufacturing/etc). Any generally those same rich people did have to do something to get to where they are, you're not born into being the CEO of a company. The poor just sit there, never contributing anything to society except more poor people.

Your justification of the exorbitant spending habits of the rich by pointing to their service in banking is laughable. Exactly what service is someone working in Finance providing besides specializing in the realm of hyper-speculation, placing bets on mobile pieces of property, paper currency and virtual data stored on computers? What kind of service and on behalf of whom? The idea of a CEO having "to do something to get to where they are," is true from a very basic standpoint. But the fundamental issues are, what had to be done in order to become a CEO and how do these particular actions relate to the increasing stratification in this country. 


Please, save your protestant work-ethic ideology for someone else. Your claim that the "poor just sit there, never contributing anything to society except more poor people," I take it, is at once a reification of this ideology and another variation of the "Welfare queen," a non-gendered critique of the "poor" who collect government assistance and produce illegitimate children who themselves will be on welfare. But again, you ignore the fact that as of 2011, up to $5million can be pa8ssed down from an individual without incurring the "wrath" of  federal estate tax. You make no mention of the emerging Dynasty Trusts which at best(or worse) provide a head start to those lucky enough to inherit these trusts, and at worst create generations of people who themselves don't know the meaning of work. So who, FlipnKraut, just sits there? 

So i take it you are in favor of a estate tax? and thus you are in favor of double taxation. Not only  do people work to build a nice estate that they initally got taxed around 30% you want that then to be taxed again at close to 50% when they pass and want to leave it to their children? Guess not amount of money is enough for the government.
With the estate tax what happens to the father who has built a small estate of approximately 2 million dollars  the majority of which is a home and land which has been in the family for generations. He wants to pass the property onto his son/daughter when he dies however the child only makes 30K a year  but the estate tax is ~800K on 2million. How is the child making 30k a year with a wife and two children supposed to pay those kind of taxes. The only way he can is to sell the property which has sentimental value to the family.

The crux of your argument however, is that his original point was in response to flipnkraut, who originally made the very broad point that poor people steal tax payers money, when the exact opposite couldn't be more true. 

 

[crunchyblack9]

Originally Posted by Paycheck26

YOLO

Took 2 pages for this to be said.