RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
No Starbucks budget
Have you lost your job? Has the recession hit you in some other way? If so, what are you doing to deal with it? If you’re like most Americans, according to a recent Harris Interactive poll, you’re doing some common sense things like foregoing your morning cup of Starbucks on the way to work.
If you’re like me, you’ve already made some of the cuts in this Huffington Post slide show, based on the Harris Interactive poll, to improve your budget:
- Stopped buying a morning cup of coffee.
- Started packing your lunch.
- Started using refillable water bottles.
- Stopped seeing a hairdresser or stylist.
- Canceled magazine subscriptions (but not WORLD!).
- Cut back on TV cable services.
- Cut down on using dry cleaners.
- Canceled newspaper subscriptions.
- Bought more generic brands.
I’ve done Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7. What about you and your family? Americans instinctively do practical things to balance family budgets. We cut expenses and do what we can to generate more revenue. I’m about to turn 50 and learned a few weeks ago that my pension was effectively cut in half—time to find ways to generate more income. Finance isn’t rocket science for the average citizen, but why does it seem to be so difficult for our federal officials? Democrats and Republicans had yet another meeting yesterday to try to trim the deficit and they don’t appear to be any closer to a deal.
What would happen if President Obama and Speaker Boehner were to call some of the Harris Interactive poll respondents to Washington, lock them in a room, and ask them to come up with a budget deal? Could they cut a deal easier than their elected officials? After all, they wouldn’t have to worry about getting reelected. But it wouldn’t be long until they ran into that nasty problem of ideology. Eventually, they would begin debating the proper role of government. They might ask things like, “Should we provide Medicare and Social Security? And why and when did we start doing those things anyway? Should we raise taxes? Should we cut tax rates?” They’d probably get around to debating these issues in light of the nation’s founding documents (they’re rather straightforward writings).
It wouldn’t be easy for the Harris Interactive survey respondents to generate a bargain, but I think they’d do it and do it rather well. They might be up all night negotiating . . . but they’d brew their own coffee because they know they can’t afford Starbucks.
back to top73 Comments to “No Starbucks budget”
We have not experienced a lay off…yet. We have made cuts however. No more Starbucks coffee….10 dollars for 12 oz bag…no more of that nonsense! No more bottled water…we are packing lunches…I do get my hair cut…but my stylist works at Cost Cutters and I spend 20 dollars about every 6 months. We never have used the cleaners to clean our clothes. I subscribed to WORLD when I saw it not only would be a welcome addition to our home, it benefited Ryan Dobson’s ministry, Grounded. Also, I continue to subscribe to Country Living magazine! We have no cable…I purchase more generic and on sale items only. Bottom line, I totally trust the Lord will continue to watch over us and provide for our needs….and I strive to be a good steward of the resources He provides.
Report comment to moderator
I shave my noggin.
Depending on your age I now resemble:
Yul Brenner
Mr Clean
KOJAK
Daddy Warbucks
Self barbering lets me save money to spend on the hot coconut mocha.
Give up my hot coconut mocha?
Paraphrasing Charlton Heston “From my cold dead fingers, Mr Wishing!”
Report comment to moderator
The only one I need is #4 but that can be stretched. Don’t drink coffee, never had cable, use internet for news. Don’t go to movies – pay for Netflix intead. Rarely buy clothes, except winter skirts, that need dry cleaning. Walk when I can rather than drive, rarely buy ice cream when years ago in the summer I had ice cream every day. Eat at home.
Report comment to moderator
We haven’t had to make any cuts now, except that I now cut my husband’s hair. The reason — we’d already made them. For the years that I was working, we lived on my husband’s income and saved all or most of mine. It meant that we — and our kids — did without things that “everyone else” had, but in the end that frugality paid off.
Report comment to moderator
Cable TV and 2 newspaper subscriptions are the only things I still keep. I’ve also stopped buying books and still can’t see my way clear to adopting another cat since I have an dog in-law upstairs. Being retired on SS and a pension keeps me more frugal than I already was.
Report comment to moderator
Other than cable tv which is part of my condo fee, i’ve never done anything on the above list. On the sacrilegious side i’m one of the the very few people in my city who doesn’t line up at Tim Horton’s every morning. Neglecting my patriotic duty.
The thrust of the article was to compare household and gov’t budgeting. Instead of cutting spending, has anyone here attempted to get a raise or a second job to increase income? Just as we may need to cut spending we should also attempt to increase our income.
Similarly, the present US federal gov’t decide in 2001 to cut back on their income (in household terms, they decide they didn’t need the second job and perhaps even offered to cut back their wages) and for some strange reason has for the last decade refuse to consider that perhaps they need to go back to work and earn more money.
When faced with a income shortfall, we normally response by cutting spending AND increasing income and befuddles me why the latter isn’t even considered. If someone working 3/4 time can’t pay the rent, I think most of us would tell him to go to full time not move into his car or a cardboard box.
Report comment to moderator
“Just as we may need to cut spending we should also attempt to increase our income.”
Another way of immediately increasing our income, is a lower tax rate.
Doesn’t even take the populace new jobs or a pay raise either, as much as we all try.
So while the people continue to try new jobs and raises, the government can and should use their ability to immediately increase our income.
Report comment to moderator
HRW. last year with the Dems in control of all three branches, 0bama decided to keep the current tax rates, not increase them for more income. If more people were working we’d have more income, bur the high rate of corporate taxes make them cautious when they don’t know how much else they’ll have to pay next year.
Just exactly what is your snarky problem with American Christian conservatives anyway. Everything’s perfect in your own country?
Report comment to moderator
Thank you THORN!
Report comment to moderator
I haven’t done much. I should probably do some of these cost-saving things just on general principle, but nothing specifically motivated by the recession.
That said, I’m not really in the demographic (i.e. the poorly educated) that’s suffered most. I also live in a community that has the second highest projected job growth of any large metro area over the next twenty years. So it’s not hard to find a job.
In case anyone is curious, here are unemployment rates by level of education (for 2010).
Current data from the BLS for June 2011:
Less than a High School diploma: 14.3%
High School but no College: 10.0%
Some college or associate’s degree: 8.4%
Bachelor’s degree or higher: 4.4%
Here are unemployment rates for different metro areas. Folks in the areas with fewer jobs might consider relocating. There’s a pretty wide disparity between the most job-poor and job-rich areas.
Report comment to moderator
And that is where the analogy falls short. We can’t go to full time or get a second job by voting for it or by the stroke of a pen. I’ve said it before, and I still believe that taking anymore than 1/3 of what people earn from them is criminal. Make the tax system more honest by closing loopholes, but don’t discourage people by taking half (or more) of what they earn.
Report comment to moderator
BUDDY, one of the things that galls me is the complaints I hear about having to relocate to find a job. I just sucked it up, shut up and did that – twice. It was extremely difficult and life-changing, but such is life. I didn’t have interminable unemployment benefits and actually felt I was lucky that I could find a job elsewhere. Of course, these days, even more people are leaving NYS entirely in order to find work. And they’ll never go back. Democrat and liberal GOP control of governments have been destroying the economy of what used to be a state that encouraged entrenpreneurs. Forget those days. Sad.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve said it before, and I still believe that taking anymore than 1/3 of what people earn from them is criminal.
You’ll be happy to know that hardly anyone pays that much in federal taxes. The top 1% of earners paid approximately 23% of their adjusted gross income in federal income tax in 2008. The top 0.1% of earners paid about the same rate.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, kind of hard to get a second job when many people can’t find a first.
Report comment to moderator
Note: the above doesn’t include payroll taxes. Though, the top 1% of earners probably don’t pay a large percentage of their AGI in payroll taxes since those are only applied to the lowest ~$100,000 of income. When all federal taxes are taken into account, including the corporate income tax since it eventually falls on individuals in the form of higher prices for goods, taxes on dividends, capital gains, etc., the highest 1% of households does pay at a rate of approximately 31% per the CBO’s estimates. Notably this is lower than the rate they paid in 2001. All other groups pay a higher rate. All income groups below the top 5% saw a rate increase over that same period.
Report comment to moderator
13. It is quite common for a freelance employee to pay 40%.
Report comment to moderator
When you add in state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes and federal income taxes, some people pay more than 1/3 of their income in taxes . . .
A lot of people can’t move because they can’t sell their houses. Or, maybe it’s better to say they can’t afford to sell their houses at the prices they can get–which means they are inflexible and stuck. That’s happening where we are.
And for some reason, the young people I know don’t want to chase down the jobs and move. My sons and their friends, however, have all picked up stakes and followed work.
A lot of it is a mindset. Like the government, sometimes you just need to do the hard thing and change your life. I’d be interested in hearing how some of the Katrina folks are doing–the ones who never went back to Louisiana. We might be able to learn something from what they’ve learned.
Report comment to moderator
I seldom do most of the things on the list. We do have Cable and we do get our hair cut but not styled. The only things we take to the dry cleaners are the winter coats once a year and Hubby’s funeral suit when someone dies.
Report comment to moderator
MICHELLE, I do empathize with those who can’t get into the mindset of picking up stakes for a drastic move, especially if it means taking a loss on the equity in your house. My oldest son did that in moving from FL to TN. Re the Katrina folks, I’d guess that the stories are mixed, but compared to what? It provided the perfect motivation to get out of a place that wasn’t good for them in the first place. I’d like some of those first-hand stories, though. Maybe KIM can point us in the right direction.
Report comment to moderator
I paid down all the debt I could. I had a garage sale and told people to make me an offer. $400 to debt reduction. I sold my father’s boat. $2,700 to debt reduction. I sold several of his guns. $1,000 to debt reduction.
God has blessed me this year and I have managed to pay off more. I was feeling pretty good about how I was budgeted out through the rest of the year until last Friday when my accountant sent my estimated tax bill. Now I’m not looking so good.
I also got rid of some of the cable channels I had. Baby Girl was not happy when she didn’t have some of the channels she wanted but it shaved off $20. I subscribe to e-mealz.com to keep my grocery bill in line.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, you wouldn’t like some of the stories I know…like the government helping some folks get into a nice house in a nice subdivision. Now half the relatives are living with them, and cars are parked all over the yard. Property values in the neighborhood has dropped and they can’t be evicted. They have RIGHTS.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know how to phrase what I am trying to say. A lot of the displaced people didn’t (perhaps they didn’t know HOW) use the opportunity of being in a new place to start over and better themselves. They just relocated with the same mindset and set of problems.
Report comment to moderator
I never did buy a morning cup of coffee, or buy bottled water. We cut out cable TV years ago and dropped all newspaper and magazine subscriptions (including WORLD) except for the educational one for my son that is related to his primary career interest. I go to the hairdresser maybe once every couple years (I wear my hair long), but we do pay for the boys and my husband to go, because their cowlicks are so bad it takes someone with a good deal of skill to do it right.
I’ve always packed my lunch, with occasional exceptions when there’s not much in the house to take or if I’m in a hurry (I’m typing this while eating a $5 Mexican meal from a local restaurant that brings lunch on site at our workplace). I’ve always bought generic brands except for a few brand names my husband insists on (such as diet pop and Kraft mac&cheese).
I’ve never used the dry cleaner for cleaning anything except dry-clean-only clothes, and I do my best to avoid buying those. I also buy clothes from Goodwill as much as possible, and I bought a cheap pair of reading glasses rather than get a new pair of bifocals (which are no longer strong enough for me to read using them).
I just wish I could find more ways to save.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry to say, that doesn’t exactly surprise me KIM. What I had in mind was hearing some success stories from people who did not return but started a good new life elsewhere. Welfare housing never seems to actually help the recipients. I did some work with summer jobs for youth who lived in the abysmally failed Model Cities Neighborhoods in the ’60s. And the Sec. 8 tenants I’ve dealt with don’t give much of a darn either.
Report comment to moderator
When you add in state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes and federal income taxes, some people pay more than 1/3 of their income in taxes…
Sure. Blame your state and local government; not the feds. Federal revenue hasn’t increased substantially. If anything it has decreased.
A lot of people can’t move because they can’t sell their houses. Or, maybe it’s better to say they can’t afford to sell their houses at the prices they can get–which means they are inflexible and stuck. That’s happening where we are.
I empathize with those people. At the same time, one might argue that if you’re a person whose education makes you susceptible to unemployment then maybe you should never have taken out a mortgage in the first place because it limits your mobility.
There’s also bankruptcy. I’m unsure what the law is now, but if you’re “underwater” on your house then that seems like a reasonable option. Get rid of the debt, get rid of the house, then move somewhere with jobs and start earning money again.
If you’re in a position to sell your house and at least break even, even if it means you will have lost lots of equity, then I would think “selling the house and getting a job” would be preferable to “keeping the house and not having a job”.
Property values in the neighborhood has dropped and they can’t be evicted. They have RIGHTS.
Yes. They do have rights. Or do you think neighbors should be able to evict people “just because”, even when they own their own property?
That’s what HOAs are for. If you want the power to enforce rules like that then choose to live somewhere with an HOA and pay the fees. If you don’t have an HOA then you get to suck it up.
Report comment to moderator
KIM, just read your 22. That is really depressing. ONe wonders what we’ve done to the character of those who need a little more than a hand up. It’s a sorry story of government-run public assistance.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t know what an HOA is, but I do know people who have sold their homes at a loss and at least got it off their back. It has to be an incredibly hard decision to make, but people do it.
We don’t even have to go back to Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. Politics in NYS intimidated many banks to dole out those bad mortgages under accusations from civil rights groups on red-lining. They’ll never recover. And now Clinton’s HUD Sec’y is governor of NYS and Spitzer (client #9) has his own tv show.
Report comment to moderator
HOA = Home Owner’s Association. They usually have restrictive covenants, meaning when you buy the house you agree to pay them a yearly fee and abide by their rules. Rules like you have to have X many trees in your front yard, you can’t put up unsightly satellite dishes, you can only park one car in your driveway, etc.
Personally I hate them, and would never live somewhere with an HOA. But they’re designed to handle the exact situation you describe.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you BUDDY, my brain didn’t even come close to that definition, and I’m usually pretty clever dreaming up what those aslphabet-soup monikers mean. And, now I get that part of what you wrote above. However, these HOAs remind me of the bylaws of urban neighborhood associations and trailer park communities in FL. My mother had a mini-fit when I washed a blouse and hung it outside on a hanger to dry. Reasonable city zoning laws everywhere else at least seem to more reasonable for living a non-stepford life. Here in Northern VA, my son has had excellent dealings with the city zoning and development, etc., regs. I’ll pray with my fingers crossed
Report comment to moderator
Louise #8
The worst mistake Obama made was to not rescind the Bush tax cuts when he had the chance. It left him with zero financial room.
The effective rate of corporate taxation in the US is zero as opposed to the posted rate which is in the upper teens if I remember correctly. Clean up the corporate tax code so the gov’t actually collects something would be a start. If not eliminate corporate tax altogether so there’s clarity and certainty to the question of taxation.
I didn’t know WORLD had an American citizenship requirement to comment. Almost everything is fine in Canada thanks for asking – unfortunately we keep electing conservative gov’ts who are financially incompetent and can’t balance a budget unlike their Liberal predecessor.
Report comment to moderator
Social Worker;
I have a hard time believing the effective federal tax rate in the US is 33%. I pay less than 25% combined provincial/federal taxes and there is no mortgage deduction in Canada and I’m in the third tax bracket (out of four). Even with property tax added I wouldn’t come close to the 33% figure only when the regressive goods and service tax is added do I reach 33%. Its regressive taxation — a sales tax — which increase the tax burden for the middle class not income tax. And remember I get free health care from these taxes — add your insurance premiums to your taxes in order to compare our taxes properly.
Report comment to moderator
Louise, a lot of people owe more than their house is worth and feel morally obligated to pay off what they signed up to pay for. Others own two houses, one they can’t sell, or are otherwise in a position of not being able to move easily. (Their whole family, including elderly parents, live close, that sort of thing.) “I did it, and you can too” doesn’t always work. If a person is young and doesn’t own a house, sure, move. But not everyone can do that.
A few magazine subscriptions are the only thing on the list I’ve ever paid for (other than an occasional haircut–and I’m actually getting more expensive ones right now)–generally I subscribe to 2-4 magazines a year. Yes, WORLD got cut this year; I’ve subscribed for maybe 15 years, but am not renewing much right now.
Report comment to moderator
kbells — in a household budget we can’t simply add more income or a job (although I would argue that in my area its entirely possible for the average person to get a job within a week – not a great job but serving coffee at Tim Horton’s for $10/hour is not bad) However, the gov’t can add more income (it may have side effects but they can still do it). On the spending side, gov’ts are far more constrained than a household — If I want to cut back on my daughter’s back to school spending in August I can do that but gov’ts have contracts they need to respect, mandated spending, entitlements, etc. Thus the analogy that Wishing uses and I continued with in my comment isn’t the best and may not be applicable. Comparing household and gov’t budgeting isn’t always effective and I’ll admit it doesn’t entirely work if the right would stop using the analogy themselves.
Report comment to moderator
” At the same time, one might argue that if you’re a person whose education makes you susceptible to unemployment then maybe you should never have taken out a mortgage in the first place because it limits your mobility.”
Now now Buddy, your starting to sound like those insensitive conservatives that actually expect one to live within one’s means…
Report comment to moderator
“in a household budget we can’t simply add more income or a job”
You can when either the State or Fed reduce your income taxes
Automatic income boost!!
Report comment to moderator
“Comparing household and gov’t budgeting isn’t always effective and I’ll admit it doesn’t entirely work if the right would stop using the analogy themselves.”
What works on the small scale in science, has a tendency to work on the large scale as well.
Government contracts can be phased out, not renewed or new ones generated. This is like if you’ve contracted yourself to a cell phone company. You can’t immediately cut ties, but you don’t have to renew later.
Frankly, they both should be constrained to the same principles. No debt, building wealth. When you can’t afford coffee, you drink water. When you can’t afford a war or a new welfare program, you don’t go jumping into one.
When you have wealth, you can buy a big tv or you can give to Africa.
Same principles HRW. I dunno why its so hard.
Report comment to moderator
Now now Buddy, your starting to sound like those insensitive conservatives that actually expect one to live within one’s means…
That trait is not exclusive to conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with you CHERYL, been there, done that, is not universal advice. Sometimes the experience of others before them help them see that all is not lost by losing some of what they already have. I used to work in the foreclosure section of a bank and I know how that goes, too. None of it’s easy.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn— There’s a TOE in science and they didn’t tell me. Often things on the quantum level don’t match things on the astro level.
There are similar principles at work if you stay at the general level — no vacation/no war if you don’t have the money. But at the more specific level, the analogy will fail.
A reduction in taxes is not an increase in income. Quite often, a cut in taxes is met through reduced services and more user fees, thus most of our income tax cuts are spent trying to maintain the same level of service and goods.
Report comment to moderator
As for moving with and away from family, that’s nothing new either. You know this, too. Individual situations demand individual and personal support and care. Some people need more than others. And that’s where Christians step in to help.
Report comment to moderator
HRW, 0bama wants to keep the reduction in payroll taxes. You can explain to him how that will not help the pocket books of “workers.”
Week after next I’ll be meeting some inlaws from BC. They are both college professors. What questions can I ask them to help me understand the superiority of the Canadian governing system? I’m serious, hrw.
Report comment to moderator
#25 – that post is what is wrong with the Left. They have no ability to deal with reality.
So, when you are unemployed and can’t pay to even file for bankruptcy, where do you get the money to move? Really. Where?
Report comment to moderator
HRW- No there isn’t a requirement to be a US citizen to post on World but we do get rather weary of hearing how wonderful it is in the Great White North when we are discussing our problems. Perhaps if we ship you some of our citizens you can help us out?
Report comment to moderator
#42 Little known fact. Did you know that moving lowers your credit score. Lower income people move more frequently than higher income people and the credit bureau looks for that pattern. If you move once a year it will lower your score. (I learned this in my brief career in the secondary sales market in a car dealership). People with lower credit scores have to pay higher security deposits, higher insurance, and higher interest rates. I handled a condo development that part of it acted as apartments. They would get someone’s SS# and enter it into a program and the system would tell them how much security deposit a person had to pay. So even if they were able to move to another area for a job they would have trouble finding houseing. We are experiencing a way of living right now that few of us are familiar with.
Report comment to moderator
In 2008 when I ran the secondary call center we worked off of scripts. They were in the process of revising the scripts because they foresaw doctors, lawers, and Indian chiefs moving into the secondary market. You have to talk to certain groups of people in certain ways. Since I didn’t smoke, I couldn’t walk outside with a customer and tell them they were going to have to “kick the trade” and in order to buy.
Report comment to moderator
So, when you are unemployed and can’t pay to even file for bankruptcy
Borrow it from a friend or family. Or a church. Save up some portion of your unemployment checks. Sell some of your stuff on Craig’s List.
where do you get the money to move? Really. Where?
Same as above. If you don’t have much stuff then moving expenses are trivial. You need enough for a bus ticket and a rental deposit. Maybe not even that if you move somewhere where you can live temporarily with a friend or family member.
I’m not saying there aren’t difficulties involved if you’re absolutely broke. I’m saying that if the choice is between “staying where you are without a job for an extended period of time and collecting unemployment” or “making a short-term sacrifice in order to move somewhere there are actually mobs” then maybe you should opt for #2.
Report comment to moderator
41 Lousie — I don’t think the Cdn system is superior. In practice it may have worked out that way but theoretically the American system is better. However, both systems have structural problems related to first past the post, concentration of power in the executive and party governance.
Canada was lucky in the last recession in that the former PM refused to deregulate and merge banks only because he wanted to annoy his rival within his own party; because of this we missed most of the banking crisis plaguing the western world.
Sometimes its sheer accident or personality politics ….
Report comment to moderator
Kim
I try to stay away from direct comparisons except when asked — see above. I think the health care debate is the only time direct comparisons are brought up and in many cases its because the Cdn system gets slagged by US right wing pundits. The 2008 crash which barely affected Canada may be an other issue I use direct comparisons but only to flog the benefits of regulation – its coincidence that it was Canada which kept out of the banking fiasco — if it was an other country I would flog that country’s banking regulations.
on the topic of credit ranking, you reminded me of this Cracked article
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor_p2/
#3 talks about credit ranking warning some may not like the language
Report comment to moderator
This is a SORE SUBJECT.
There was a photo of a guy in the newspaper. He was waiting in line to get his FREE MEDICAID. He was upset that he might not qualify. He was holding a STARBUCKS.
Last night ABC was interviewing an OBESE woman about only getting $98/mo. for food. She had a large pkg of pork chops that she included in her “I don’t have enough money for food” purchase. She also purchased red meat on previous purchases. The other person shopping with her was VERY large, but not quite as large as her. Would you believe her former job had something to do with advising people on health? That’s like your doctor who smokes telling you to eat healthy.
She said she also gets food from food banks. WHAT is WRONG with this picture?! I wonder if she has cable TV, cell phones, etc.
They accompanied her to the store. It looked like she picked out what she wanted and quit when she hit her limit in food stamps. (If you don’t have much money, you need to plan ahead.)
A high school class should be “HOW TO LIVE FRUGALLY”. I don’t think many people know how to live on very little money.
Report comment to moderator
I am already wondering if and where I can get a job to supplement SS. We aren’t one of the elite who get special retirement on the backs of taxpayers. We will most likely have to live on SS, if it still exists by the time we reach the elusive retirement age. I have been shopping sales and making a buck stretch for a long time. I guess I am in training.
I know we would NOT be able to live in our house, even though it is paid off. Our city council is raising taxes left and right; raising water/refuse/trash charges and taxing us to use it; raising property taxes, even though property values went WAY DOWN; they tax landphones, internet, cell phones; anything you buy in our city; they even put a tax on food (”temporary” tax a few years ago). People voted for more money for “education”. They closed schools this year. Do you think they spent money on schools? They bought a home for 3-4 elderly people. WHAT!? They have free bus shuttles around certain areas (mostly around the university). WHAT!? They spend money for parties in the downtown area (next to ASU). WHAT!? They cut some of the regular buses that taxpayers pay to ride, in the name of “cutting spending.” They are going to spend money to fix up a delapitated old flour mill/eye-sore. WHAT!? WHERE are they getting the money? They claim the city is broke! Oh-wait they are raising property taxes, they said, just if they “NEED” more money.
Report comment to moderator
She had a large pkg of pork chops…
Not to disagree with your overall point, but pork chops may not necessarily be a bad purchase. You need to get protein somewhere. Cheap meat options may be pretty competitive in terms of cost per gram protein.
We will most likely have to live on SS…
Meaning you didn’t save anything for your own retirement? Should you be so quick to criticize others for their irresponsibility?
Report comment to moderator
Should we ask them WHAT they spent the SocSec money on?
Should we send them to jail for spending the money?
If there is NO SS, what will happen to all the people that receive SS now, who are not elderly nor retired?
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER 2
I have been making my own hot or cold MOCHA for years.
When the coconut mocha came out I went out and bought some coconut flavoring to add a dash (not every day).
1 pkt Swiss Cocoa (purchased in winter when on sale)
2 heaping teaspoons Nescafe Taster’s Choice Instant Gourmet Roast (purchased on sale)
mix in small amt of heated water – stir until dissolved
add coconut flavoring to taste (about 1/4 tsp.)
pour over ice – stir
add whole milk – stir
you have to experiment to your taste – enjoy
Report comment to moderator
#6 HRW
“If someone working 3/4 time can’t pay the rent, I think most of us would tell him to go to full time not move into his car or a cardboard box.”
Some years back, the Democrats decided that everyone needed Health Care, so they made a law that says that everyone who works more than 30 hours a week must get company paid Health Care.
How many people at WalMart get more than 30 hours a week? Helpful law, wasn’t it?
If you have a job at WalMart, just try and get another job with hours that don’t conflict.
I wonder just how hard it would have been for our lawmakers to have thought through just what the results would be for many lower paid workers under this new law.
If Democrats are so FOR the “Working Class” why did they force lower end workers to get only 30 hours of paycheck a week?
Report comment to moderator
Notice that Bob blames the government’s effort to extend health coverage for the situation described in #54.
He could just as well blame WalMart for being indifferent to the health of its employees and going out of its way to avoid providing them health coverage.
But no. Corporations can never be to blame, in right-wing America. It’s always the government’s fault.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, having worked at Wal-Mart for a brief period of time in college I can tell you…In a perfect world I HATE them and would never darken their doors. In the real world I have to. At that time the store closed at 10pm, everyone clocked out and worked on “zone detail” until the manager was satisfied the store looked good. I had a 7am class and couldn’t get my schedule changed. Our parting came when exams came up and I asked for a day off to study. I was told I needed to decide if I was going to be a college student or a Wal-Mart cashier. Hmmm. THAT was a touch decision. I really do feel for those who have no other option than to work there.
Report comment to moderator
“Often things on the quantum level don’t match things on the astro level.”
Gravity still works between molecules, it’s just the molecular forces are far stronger.
But my point is more geared to how a company will do lab tests, then pilot scale, then full size.
IF it doesn’t work on the first two, it won’t work on the full size.
This is why the general household budget, which we have example after example of how it can’t be maintained while steeped in debt, should give you enough sense not to try it on a government scale.
Individual/family budgets build wealth by staying out of debt. They handle emergencies and poor economies by having savings.
Take this to the pilot scale – Mississippi has a “rainy day” fund. Instead of spending our excess years ago, we chose to save it. So Mississippi, despite poor revenue, has maintained a balanced budget, because we had savings, not debt.
“A reduction in taxes is not an increase in income. Quite often, a cut in taxes is met through reduced services and more user fees, thus most of our income tax cuts are spent trying to maintain the same level of service and goods.”
It is for me. It is for you. You cut my taxes 50%, I get another 2k to spend. That’s almost my gasoline cost for the year. The thing about other “user fees” is that I can avoid them.
And if we are being fee’d to death, or there isn’t a reduction in government spending, then your right, it won’t do us much good. (At least it goes where I need it)
That’s my whole point though. The consumer, the people, the american base needs revenue first and foremost if you ever want to come out of this stable enough to begin generating revenue to pay off the government debt. You can always reraise taxes later, once people are on their feet again.
Doing it when they are already hurting, is like kicking a child on the ground and telling him to get up while doing it.
Report comment to moderator
He could just as well blame WalMart for being indifferent to the health of its employees and going out of its way to avoid providing them health coverage.
It’s not, and it shouldn’t be, WalMart’s responsibility to negatively impact its bottom line in order to go “above and beyond” to provide its hourly employees healthcare. I don’t blame them for responding to the law this way. It highlights why designating employers be the nation’s “health insurance providers” is such a stupid idea.
Report comment to moderator
#55 Conan
“Notice that Bob blames the government’s effort to extend health coverage for the situation described in #54.”
Well, yes!
Under ObamaCare, businesses will have a choice of providing health care or paying a penalty, $2,500 maybe? Last time I looked, my Kaiser health plan (a true Cadillac plan) was over $700 a month. Hmmm. I wonder which my former employer will choose?
I would rather have my Kaiser health plan than my coming Medicare. My father had both knees replaced, twice and his carotid cleaned through Kaiser. Easily over $100,000. Will people get this kind of care under ObamaCare? Is the Pope Baptist?
I don’t need a crystal ball to forsee unending problems with government mandated/government run health care.
Report comment to moderator
#55 Conan
“Notice that Bob blames the government’s effort to extend health coverage for the situation described in #54.”
Another thing, I ask myself “Where does it say in the US Constitution anything about Health Care? Is this the government’s business?” The answer that pops into my head is “Butt out! MYOB!”
Congress has mandated getting rid of incandescent light bulbs. Is that the business of government? I think not.
Governments are grabbing powers for themselves that they have no business grabbing.
Report comment to moderator
I would rather have my Kaiser health plan than my coming Medicare.
I doubt you could afford it as a senior. Your “expected cost” goes through the roof compared to a younger person. Hence the entire point of Medicare.
Where does it say in the US Constitution anything about Health Care?
General welfare.
Congress has mandated getting rid of incandescent light bulbs.
No it hasn’t. It established efficiency standards. There are currently incandescent bulbs (halogen) that meet those standards. I should point out the 2007 bill passed with bipartisan support (in the Senate at least) and was signed into law by Bush.
Republican senators Sam Brownback, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, Elizabeth Dole, Lindsey Graham, John Thune and John Cornyn all voted for it. Notably, the hard-core guys didn’t: DeMint, Coburn, Inhofe, Kyl.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass: It’s not, and it shouldn’t be, WalMart’s responsibility to negatively impact its bottom line in order to go “above and beyond” to provide its hourly employees healthcare.
However, if there is a law in place that says they must, they have the choice of absorbing the cost of obeying it, or mucking over their employees by ensuring they don’t get enough hours to qualify.
We are not talking a struggling small business here. Wal Mart’s net profit for the first quarter of this year was $3.43 billion.
They can easily afford to treat their employees better than they do.
Report comment to moderator
However, if there is a law in place that says they must, they have the choice of absorbing the cost of obeying it, or mucking over their employees by ensuring they don’t get enough hours to qualify.
Sure. Those are their options. I don’t really fault them for choosing to have all their employees work 29.5 hours a week, just like I don’t fault them for taking advantage of existing loopholes in the corporate tax code. Both options are perfectly legal and do no direct harm to anyone.
Your rationale is like saying, “Well, I know Company X can hire workers for minimum wage, but they should really pay them more than that. Just because.”
That’s not how the market works. I don’t want to pay more at WalMart because WalMart compensates its employees at a higher rate than what’s necessary to retain them.
We are not talking a struggling small business here. Wal Mart’s net profit for the first quarter of this year was $3.43 billion.
Sure. And they didn’t reach that level of profitability by paying above-market wages.
Ultimately it’s dumb to lay this at the feet of businesses:
1. It creates more HR overhead for employers.
2. It makes it harder for workers to compare compensation between prospective employers. Less information = labor market doesn’t function as well as it might otherwise.
3. It creates a divided society where salaried workers have health insurance and hourly workers get screwed (unless they qualify for Medicaid, which many do.)
4. It locks employees into a small set of health insurance options, reducing competition between insurers.
5. It results in insurers offering discounts to employee group plans at the expense of their individual customers.
6. It creates unnecessary hassle for employees who have to switch insurers (and potentially doctors) whenever they change jobs.
It’s just a bad way to handle it.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy Glass: I don’t want to pay more at WalMart because WalMart compensates its employees at a higher rate than what’s necessary to retain them.
Yeah, that is what it comes down to for most American consumers. We’re all for treating working people better, until it makes the t-shirts cost a nickel more.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, that is what it comes down to for most American consumers. We’re all for treating working people better, until it makes the t-shirts cost a nickel more.
Personally I’m not for “expecting corporate entities to voluntarily subsidize a higher standard of living for their employees at the expense of their own competitiveness”.
Market’s work because employers pay employees as little as they need to in order to get the service they need. Employees charge as much as they can get for the services they provide. That’s a good system.
However, it doesn’t provide a very good life for people whose services aren’t worth a whole lot. Rather than discard the entire notion of labor markets and expect corporations to dole out charity to their low-wage employees I’d prefer a state solution.
If WalMart (or whoever) wants to provide health insurance as part of their compensation package they should be allowed to do so. I just don’t think they should get a tax break for doing so. (Meaning, of course, that most of them won’t offer it.)
Report comment to moderator
54 Bob —– what Conan said plus the actions of Walmart and your comments are one more reason that universal single payer health care is the way to go not some half-a___ Democratic reform.
56 Kim
I once had a supervisor say something similar when I was working my way through univerisity — my only reply was to say; “you’re kidding?” he looked at me, realized how dumb that sounded and never mentioned it again.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn
Individual/family budgets build wealth by staying out of debt. They handle emergencies and poor economies by having savings.
thats not how corporations build wealth nor how nations build the infrastructure to support wealth building nor for that matter how families build equity in the family home. Its done by borrowing money at an appropriate time and investing it wisely.
Take this to the pilot scale – Mississippi has a “rainy day” fund. Instead of spending our excess years ago, we chose to save it. So Mississippi, despite poor revenue, has maintained a balanced budget, because we had savings, not debt.
But where has this frugallity gotten Mississippi? Compare its life expectancy, infant mortality rate, income per capita to others.
On a household level, if I insist on balancing the budget I would have never gone to university which means I would never become a teacher. If I never had a car loan, I wouldn’t be able to get to work. If I didn’t take out a mortgage, I wouldn’t have any equity.
In a modern economy, households need to borrow money as does the state.
Report comment to moderator
59 Bob
Sounds like a good plan, mine’s better. Without paying premiums, without my doctors consulting any corporate accountant, my family accessed millions of dollars of health care in the late 90s. And not a single question about pre-existing conditions.
BTW I hope you thanked your teacher’s union for negotiating excellent health care insurance for you.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass is right — the markets don’t work to provide health covereage hence the gov’t should.
Report comment to moderator
There are many creative ways to cut back and I have done most on the list at various times. Also, people decide to not take vacations away from home if necessary. And for going out to eat, you can always split the dollar meal at a drive-thru.
Once I heard a pastor’s kid say that his dad was so cost conscious that when people rolled their yard with toilet paper that the dad sent the children out to roll up the toilet paper so the family could use it. I don’t really believe it but who knows?
Report comment to moderator
“thats not how corporations build wealth.”
Sure they do, ask Dave Ramsey.
Ask Nintendo, that has operated out of a surplus of billions for years and years, even when they weren’t top in sales.
I think at one point they had at least 8 to 9 billion just sitting there. It’s why, unlike Sega, they can maintain their company during sub par products.
“or how nations build the infrastructure to support wealth building nor for that matter how families build equity in the family home. Its done by borrowing money at an appropriate time and investing it wisely.”
Take the guessing game out of it. Which is what your suggesting families have to be. That is proven false considering Ramsey avoids debt entirely, even on real estate, and was once bankrupt from doing what your suggesting.
And having more equity in a home, during trouble times, only encourages banks to foreclose faster. Why? Because you’ve paid more of it back already, but you still DON’T OWN THE HOME.
That’s why equity being simply the difference between what you owe on your home and the home’s worth isn’t necessarily a great thing always, and I fail to see how it gives you any help if you lose your home.
If I invested 1k for the next 10 years, instead of my mortgage on my house (which is about 1k a month), that would equal the cost of my home, without even counting interest. Tacking on 8% interest I’d have made another 86,000 dollars. I could buy my home out right, or, have plenty of savings should I need to and spend far less than a 15/30 year loan charging me interest and not having the title.
“Compare its life expectancy, infant mortality rate, income per capita to others.”
Your just going to leave out the fact we are the fattest state as well? That’s hardly a government monetary policy there. And it’s far more contributing to life expectancy and health expenditures.
By the way, since we are not saddled with debt, many companies are looking our direction as well. We’ve got a balanced budget, while building a new port on the coast too. So the “poorest” state could be generating quite competitively in the coming years.
“On a household level, if I insist on balancing the budget I would have never gone to university which means I would never become a teacher. If I never had a car loan, I wouldn’t be able to get to work. If I didn’t take out a mortgage, I wouldn’t have any equity.”
Is it better to wait a few years, build money, in order to do these things? Or is it better to saddle yourself with debt, esp should you not get a job later?
I worked, and had scholarships to attend university, 0 debt coming out. If you can’t afford a car loan, it costs relatively little to get a clunker to go from A to B. Try craigslist. Also, living near work is a possibility.
You chose to do things the way you did, that does not mean it was not possible to be done another way or that it was somehow the best way.
Such argument is poor.
The principle stands, that if you are not in debt, then your money is always available to work for you. Not someone else. Investing it makes money, borrowing loses money.
Pretty simple.
Report comment to moderator
If I invested 1k for the next 10 years, instead of my mortgage on my house (which is about 1k a month), that would equal the cost of my home, without even counting interest. Tacking on 8% interest I’d have made another 86,000 dollars. I could buy my home out right, or, have plenty of savings should I need to and spend far less than a 15/30 year loan charging me interest and not having the title.
8% interest?? where? You will be lucky to receive 2% on a long term deposit
$1000 mortgage payment??? Why would you overextend yourself? I’m paying $635. I was offered a bigger mortgage to buy a bigger home but why? I took a mortgage because its cheaper than rent here and if I’m lucky there’s some appreciation in value. My interest is 2.2%. Since inflation is approx 2%, the banks are giving it away so why not take advantage of it?
True you could save the money and buy outright but where would you live in the meantime? Your parent’s basement? Not all of us are that lucky.
Sometimes the cost of borrowing is less than the cost not borrowing — paying rent while saving to buy outright may cost more than the interest of a mortgage. You work low paying jobs while saving to go to school for a better paying job — you borrow for a year so you can have a better paying job quicker.
As for Mississippi — I doubt the obesity rate caused the low income rather its the other way around. If Mississippi’s frugality was such a strength why hasn’t it paid dividends already?
Report comment to moderator
My mortgage is like 650, but escrow is another 300.
You can thank my property taxes for that.
8% interest is what has always been what you want to make, to counter inflation. It’s the only reason I used it, and I used it after already mentioning I could have paid for my house if I saved for 10 years flat out. So any interest is bonus.
“True you could save the money and buy outright but where would you live in the meantime?”
An apt. A small apartment is 400, a 2 bedroom is 600 in decent neighborhoods, and considering I wouldn’t need as much emergency fund, no escrow, no maintenance…
“Sometimes the cost of borrowing is less than the cost not borrowing”
In some markets it is more expensive to rent. But let’s take your 2% interest. If I have 120k now, 2% interest is 2400 bucks. My interest can now pay my monthly housing payment.
People who forgo the now, for later, are typically those who end up quite rich. I can see how it works, but I suck at applying it to my own life.
“I doubt the obesity rate caused the low income rather its the other way around.”
I didn’t say it causes low income. I said life expectancy and health are effected.
It is paying dividends. The budget has only really been balanced within the last ten years I believe. Alot of government was streamlined and reduced (like the Ag dept.) when Barbour came in. He’s also given tax free incentives to companies like Nissan to get them here. Those tax incentives are temporary though.
We’ve had some down times, with hurricanes, tornados, flooding, and the oil spill, hitting our revenue pretty hard as well.
But as other states struggle in the red, and have no room to budge. Mississippi stands to gain alot because we have lots of room to open our doors to businesses that wish to relocate or begin. Being right between Atlanta, Dallas, N.O., Birmingham, Memphis, Nashville is quite marketable.
My only quibble is that this last round, they approved a new museum…putting us over budget. Museums can wait, or be funded privately.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!