Vindicated

[belgareth]

Let me begin

by saying that I agree with everyone is saying (I want world peace and an end to world hunger like everyone else),

but I do want to bring another side to the discussion because people start to take everything for granted or as

necessary when it is not.

There are a few things we are assuming every American is entitled to that is not

necessarily so...which I find to be ironic since I'm considered the "naive youngin'" compared to the other posters

on here. Some food for thought:

1. Using a basic economic model, raising the minimum wage would simply cause

employers to raise their prices accordingly, leading to inflation. What does that mean? Higher wages would lead to

higher prices, which would negate the point of giving higher wages in the first place.

True but do you have

an alternate suggestion? Food stamps and subsidised housing? We have that already and it is a crime ridden

disaster.

2. A lot of our estimates are assuming that several things are basic necessities

that simply cannot be.

a. A car - I have worked my whole career (outside of a 2-month period when my mom moved,

I came back from college, and I worked at my old job) without the use of an automobile. I use the Metro in DC, and I

walked to work/school every day since I was 15. You could also buy a nice bike and ride to work.

There

is no bus or transit system in the city I live in. Owning or at least having access to a car is a necessity here. In

large metro areas you are probably better off without a car. I've been in Washington DC and New York City many

times and I wouldn't even consider driving there. However, those transit systems are funded in all or a major part

by tax dollars. The more riders the more tax dollars needed.

b. Health insurance - Although

most countries have a socialized healthcare system, the US does not. What does this say about our government? They

must believe that health insurance is a privilege, not a right. After all, they won't fit the bill (I am

exaggerating here for effect; I know many Republicans' stands usually reflect the fact that the health system would

weaken or crumble if supported by the government - a valid worry). I have a neighbor that pays for her health

insurance, and I have a colleague whose parents are not covered at all and are hoping they get by until their

Medicare kicks in. Another point: health insurance is just that - insurance. The big insurance companies are betting

that you won't get sick, while you are protecting yourself in case you do. Instead of giving these companies

hundreds of dollars per month, put that money into a Health Savings Account or some other account and save it for

when you actually do get sick and have to pay a $1XX or $1XXX bill. Remember: insurance companies wouldn't be in

business if they weren't making money. They are just taking my money because I never get sick, and therefore they

are laughing at me because I give them money for no reason (for now, of course; I do agree that health insurance is

a good thing - I am just giving a different perspective).

who considers qhat the government decides as a

valid point? You do have a good point about the health savings acocunt but that is gambling too. I had cancer when I

was 21, the cost was astronomical. Without insurance I'd still be paying for it. I guess with insurance I am

too.

c. Independent residence - People seem to assume that everyone has the right to live by

themselves, one roomate, or a nuclear family. This is not the case. Once again, it is a privilege and not a right.

Most cultures have huge families living under one roof, and many countries are so overpopulated that dozens of

people live together and never get any time alone. In fact, in many Arab countries, it is perfectly natural for

someone to just space out and not talk to anyone for hours even though they have 10 people around them (introverted

time, anyone?) simply because they have no alone time - ever. If people would just group together, that rent

would go from $1,200 per month to $600 to $400 to $300, etc. This was true in the United States as well in the early

20th century. My history books in high school contained several pictures of a 3-person family living in a house no

bigger than my living room while the man worked 14-hour days 7 days a week in a polluted factory that was slowly

killing him to keep their home and put food on the table. These apartment units had no sewage, and the smell from

excrement flooded the building. Apparently, we as a society feel we deserve much more than that even for the poorest

workers (and I am sure that we do, but we must remember what things were like before so we don't take everything

for granted).

That's a good point but I can't really imagine anybody willing going back to those

conditions. Even if the government tried to force it, I don't think it would happen quickly. However, economic

factors may be forcing those type living conditions on us over a period of time.

3. Using the

4.01% inflation rate and a 25% tax rate (it is 30% for capital gains, but I'm using 25% because it fits easier in

my example as you'll see in a moment), an 8% return after taxes would be 6%, minus inflation would be about a 2%

real return. If inflation is higher (slightly lower than 6% at a 30% tax rate), your panhandler is right.

Ironically, the return on most investments (Savings accounts: almost 0% until the ING account, which is sitting high

at 3.X%; CDs, bonds, etc.: can vary from 2-5% give or take) is a lot lower than that. In other words: Are you saving

money or losing money? You're better off buying a house and letting the price increase offset inflation. Maybe

people shouldn't laugh at people with coin collecting hobbies... :-P


There's probably more, but I'll wait

until someone counters this because I'm getting tired.


Mtnjim: Thank you! It's been a while, and I

thought I'd come back and do some writing. I need a little escape from the stress of recent life events.