Sunday, May 22, 2016

Retirement Saving Methods

Since Laurie like Kevin Drum and I am at the airport heading for China again. (my blogging "blackhole")


401K's are Good, but They could be Better
What's Great About 401K's


After decades of saving/investing hard, 401K's done wonders for my family's net worth.  Of course the challenge is getting people to stop buying the newest cell phone, and start using the payroll automatic withdrawal.  Thoughts?

85 comments:

Laurie said...

I use iphone 4 and have very little in the way of retirement savings. I think it is much easier of those who make more than $50,000 a year to save and invest. I do have TRA however, to supplement my social security when I retire.

John said...

Laurie,
I agree that folks who make more should be able to save and invest more. However often many people seem to be able spend as much or more than they make.

Or they become "comfortable" at an income level, and cut back on the hours worked by the members of the household. Too much "stopping to smell the roses and too little building a nest egg for the future".

I think many 21 year olds have a hard time saying no to that vacation, phone, data plan, car, private apartment, new bike, etc with the rational that they should be saving for retirement.

Thankfully I was repeatedly reminded by my Father about the power of compounding, company matches, time and a tax deferred 401K.

jerrye92002 said...

We already have payroll automatic withdrawal, but the difference is that "that guy FICA" gets the money instead of you. Everybody is saving for retirement, just not their own. Convert that to private "401K" type plans and you have an economic bonanza.

Anonymous said...

"stopping to smell the roses and too little building a nest egg for the future"

The roses are much too beautiful and smell much too sweet to ignore for a future that may or may not come.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, I agree. So why would we inflict upon ourselves massive economic and social pain by giving up fossil fuels, just on the slim chance that something awful will happen 100 years from now if we don't?

Anonymous said...

If you're blind to the current challenges caused by the warming climate, nothing I say will make you see.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, I see just fine. I see that the climate is not warming significantly and that a little warming is actually beneficial. I see irrefutable evidence that significantly curbing fossil fuel use will have essentially ZERO effect on the global temperature 100 years from now, let alone over the next 20 years when I would like to be able to heat my home, drive my car to work, and have a job to drive to, all needing fossil fuels.

You are simply pulling that old "bait and switch" the climate alarmists always use. You say the climate is warming and immediately jump to the conclusion that it is caused by fossil fuel burning AND we can control the weather by reducing CO2. Do you know that the most radical proposals in Congress will change CO2 in the atmosphere by less than 4 parts per million, while you are concerned about 400?

Anonymous said...

"...a little warming is actually beneficial."

How do you plan on getting the warming to stop at a beneficial level?

Joel

John said...

Hi Joel,
"The roses are much too beautiful and smell much too sweet to ignore for a future that may or may not come."

That is exactly the problem... What are the people who believe this thinking? The USA has been chugging along for centuries, and the "civilized world" has been chugging along for many millennia.

Or were you truly alluding to an "end of the world" disaster? Please remember that 25 year olds will likely be dead by 2075. I am pretty sure the earth will hold out until then.

jerrye92002 said...

"How do you plan on getting the warming to stop at a beneficial level?" --Joel

Exactly the point. Nothing you or I or all mankind can do will stop global warming, or even affect it by more than a negligible amount. The IPCC and EPA both confirm this, by the way. Global temperatures have gone up and down for millions of years, and will continue to do so. Even if you believe CO2 is the principal driver of temperature (which it isn't by a long shot) the Earth is rapidly greening and absorbing that CO2 in a natural cycle. It will "stop itself." So, smell the roses. Enjoy. It may be the best thing you can do for global warming.

Anonymous said...

"Global temperatures have gone up and down for millions of years, and will continue to do so."

Logical fallacy. Just because it has occurred naturally in the past does not mean that it is occurring naturally now.

"the Earth is rapidly greening and absorbing that CO2 in a natural cycle."

As we continue to tear down forests to produce meat and the ocean absorbs most of the CO2 at the expense of the ocean ecosystem.

'It will "stop itself."'

Of that I have no doubt. But will the human race survive? You know what? I don't care. I most likely will be long gone by then myself. We've misused and abused and treated our home like the narcissistic species we are. We'll have no one to blame but ourselves for our demise.

Joel

Anonymous said...

John-

My comment was only meant to say that there is no such thing as "too much stopping to smell the roses". The current moment is the only one we have.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Logical fallacy? The fact that temperatures have gone up and down for millions of years without a single SUV extant tells me the likelihood is that the current warming is almost entirely natural, until someone can PROVE that SUVs make it unnatural and that simply has not been done. The ONLY things suggesting otherwise are computer models that start with the premise that manmade CO2 drives global temperatures. Lo and behold, the models predict that manmade CO2 drives global temperatures. That is proof??? /That/ sounds like the logical fallacy "Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Let us consider this another way. If the cost of prevention is 100 times the cost of adaptation, (which it is) and prevention requires us to first know for certain the exact cause, timing and magnitude of what is to be prevented while adaptation does not require anything at all until when and if, what is the most sensible course of action?

Anonymous said...

CO2 increased in the past without human involvement, therefore CO2 is now increasing without human involvement.

...is a textbook logical fallacy.

I am no longer interested in trying to make the blind see.

Joel

Anonymous said...

Increase in CO2 lagged warming in the past; therefore, CO2 is not the current forcing mechanism.

Also a logical fallacy.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Now I am a big fan of:
- learn from the past
- plan for the future
- but live in today
The Present by Spencer Johnson

However this must be one of the strangest philosophies I have heard of.

"there is no such thing as "too much stopping to smell the roses". The current moment is the only one we have."

Now if you are enjoying every moment and not saving for retirement, periods of unemployment, surprise expenses, kid expense, etc. Who do you think should pay if/when these things happen?

Anonymous said...

If your only concern is whether or not your future (a future you have no assurance of) is set, you will never enjoy the moment. Stop counting beans and start smelling roses.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"Now if you are enjoying every moment and not saving for retirement, periods of unemployment, surprise expenses, kid expense, etc. Who do you think should pay if/when these things happen?"

One difference b/w you and me is that it doesn't bother me that some of my money goes to other people, just as I know that I have been the recipient of the help of other people's money. Your concern is misplaced, in my opinion. You worry about the $1 taken from you to help those who've "made poor choices", yet don't give a thought to the much larger amounts of help you've received in your life due to other people's money.

Joel

John said...

Actually I happily give away about $7,000 /year plus all the taxes I pay... I have no problem helping people who have made bad choices, however I am not a fan of funding their continued bad choices via an ineffective government welfare system. Please remember that this blog's name is Give2Attain for a reason...

So again, if you spend as you go walking through the garden... Who do you expect to pay your bills if you become injured, unemployed, etc?

Ironically it is the "bean counters" like me who the "wealth transfer" advocates like you count on to fund the government programs they support. Even as they complain about our working, saving, investing, wealth building, "bean counting", etc.

As Hiram reminds us often, the wealthy need to pay the taxes because the poor have little money.

Or as my Father says: "Wealthy people provide many more jobs/paychecks to people than poor people do"

Anonymous said...

You continue exaggerating your own importance to make yourself feel better.

"...this blog's name is Give2Attain for a reason..."

And I've always felt that such a philosophy is very narcissistic and self-serving. I prefer "Give2Give". If you're giving in order to attain something, you're not really giving.

"bean counters"

It's like Art. The value of Art is not in how much it costs or how much money it's worth. There are things that can be quantified, which is what bean counters do to the exclusion of things that most likely are much more important and un-quantifiable.

So, I'm not going to place a monetary value on the life and well-being of other people. You are free to do so, as you have done.

I notice you don't mention how fortunate you are to live in a place that gives you the opportunity to amass your wealth and have $7,000+ per year to give away.

Joel

Laurie said...

back to transgender - with and off topic link to help John become more empathetic

The child I love

If this was one of your daughters (or son), John, I don't think you would be so flippant in demanding that the continue to use the woman's restroom.

jerrye92002 said...

"Increase in CO2 lagged warming in the past; therefore, CO2 is not the current forcing mechanism. Also a logical fallacy." -- Joel

And to say that CO2 IS the principal forcing mechanism simply denies science. You have no evidence. Not even blind people can see evidence which does not exist.

jerrye92002 said...

And Joel, you are still missing the point. You want to smell the roses today, while you expect all the rest of us to be concerned about climate catastrophe 100 years hence, but for which you have ZERO evidence. I prefer to grow roses now-- the extra CO2 makes them grow better.

John said...

Joel,
So again, if you spend as you go walking through the garden... Who do you expect to pay your bills if you become injured, unemployed, etc?

As for Give2Attain. Some of the things attained by giving are happiness, fulfillment, humanity, etc. All of which I think are good for the giver, recipient and our society. Do you disagree?

How does your concept of Give2Give work? Is one to give out of a sense of duty, guilt, other?

By the way, of course I feel grateful for my country, family, Church, health and many things that have helped to make me successful. This is part of why I share so much through charitable giving. I am thankful and happy to help others.

However I also acknowledge that I have done well and made good decisions.
- I have been married to the same woman for 24+ yrs and dated her for almost 6 years before that.
- I bought a nice home, have been it for ~20 years and have done many updates myself.
- I dedicated myself to continuous learning and working hard.
- I drove old cars until I could pay cash for a newer one.
- etc

John said...

"how fortunate you are to live in a place that gives you the opportunity"

One more thought about this. So ~320,000,000 people live in this wonderful country full of opportunities, however a very large number of people fail to take advantage of this blessing. What are they doing wrong?

Should successful people have to pay more for our excellent society because they seized the wonderful opportunities it offered instead of squandering them?

And were the non-successful people just too busy smelling those roses, and assuming the "bean counters" would cover their expenses when necessary?

jerrye92002 said...

Off topic, but "link to help John become more empathetic" is probably correct, because I am hopeless on the subject. I notice that this story was about parents "letting" their girl behave as a boy until time to actually become trans-gender. I simply note the fine lines here among good parenting on the one hand, enabling mental dysfunction on the other, and child abuse-- forcing the girl to live as a boy-- on the third hand.
And I still find it unacceptable that 41% of post-op transgenders attempt suicide. I don't see why we would enthuse about such a mental health risk.

Anonymous said...

"And I still find it unacceptable that 41% of post-op transgenders attempt suicide. I don't see why we would enthuse about such a mental health risk."

Again, you are blind to the cause and your own culpability in it. Hopeless and desperate people commit suicide. Now, what on earth could be causing these people such pain and to feel they have nowhere to turn?

Joel

Anonymous said...

Look, John, if you don't know how to stop and smell the roses, I can't help you.
At the end of life, do you suppose most people look back on their life and wish they had worked more?

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"what on earth could be causing these people such pain"

Maybe a mental illness called gender dysphoria?

Anonymous said...

"Is one to give out of a sense of duty, guilt, other?"

Common humanity. You give because the other person is a human, just as you are.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"Maybe a mental illness called gender dysphoria?"

And how should that be treated?

Joel

Anonymous said...

FYI, gender dysphoria is not considered a mental illness.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria

What else would you call a mental condition in which one does not recognize simple biological fact?

jerrye92002 said...

I'm not without sympathy for the mentally ill, mind you, I just hope they could be helped rather than encouraged to continue.

Anonymous said...

"I just hope they could be helped rather than encouraged to continue."

So, you're not aware of the recommended treatment.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"What else would you call a mental condition in which one does not recognize simple biological fact?"

You think life is simple. How cute.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Yes, it's called psychotherapy.

You think life is complicated. How odd. "Just smell the roses."
http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-Kindergarten/dp/034546639X

jerrye92002 said...

Back on topic. I want to know who you believe is responsible for sustaining you in your golden years? Do you even have the right to retire if you do not have enough money to live at least at the basics? Who do you believe has the bigger stake in ensuring a financially worry-free retirement of your own choosing, you yourself or that guy FICA?

When you near the end of your life, will you look back with satisfaction on the number of people you have helped, or will you be content to have simply paid your taxes so that nameless, faceless welfare recipients could be maintained in their dismal dependency?

Anonymous said...

"I want to know who you believe is responsible for sustaining you in your golden years?"

It is none of your concern.

"Do you even have the right to retire if you do not have enough money to live at least at the basics?"

Typical Republican nonsense, telling people how they should live.

"Who do you believe has the bigger stake in ensuring a financially worry-free retirement of your own choosing, you yourself or that guy FICA?"

Matthew 6:25-34

"When you near the end of your life, will you look back with satisfaction on the number of people you have helped..."

I don't give and help others so that I may be satisfied.

Joel

Anonymous said...

"You think life is complicated. How odd."

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I should have capitalized it: Life.

Joel

John said...

"So again, if you spend as you go walking through the garden... Who do you expect to pay your bills if you become injured, unemployed, etc?" G2A

"It is none of your concern." "Typical Republican nonsense, telling people how they should live." Joel

So let me understand your perspective, you are arguing that citizens should be FREE to wander through life maximizing their personal experiences and not working/saving/investing for the future.

And that people who spent time working, saving, investing growing wealth, etc should be FORCED to pay higher taxes to help pay for the care and expenses of the above mentioned "free folk".

As comparison, "free" squirrels who spend the Fall watching the leaves fall and playing in them, must be allowed to raid the food stores of "foraging/storing" squirrels during Winter.

That is an interesting philosophy. You want the Freedom to live as you wish. And yet you want to Force others to pay for the consequences of your choices...

Anonymous said...

"So let me understand your perspective, you are arguing that citizens should be FREE to wander through life maximizing their personal experiences and not working/saving/investing for the future."

It's an interesting perspective YOU have, claiming to want personal freedom, but finding it hard to believe others should want and expect it, too.

"And that people who spent time working, saving, investing growing wealth, etc should be FORCED to pay higher taxes to help pay for the care and expenses of the above mentioned "free folk"."

When did I say that?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
"Look, John, if you don't know how to stop and smell the roses, I can't help you.
At the end of life, do you suppose most people look back on their life and wish they had worked more?"

You really should read this book sometime. I am not sure if the movie is as good or not. The Ultimate Gift

Please remember the classic words. There is a Time

Also, please remember that my efforts and sacrifices have allowed my family and I to be quite the happy travelers. We have been in a submarine, flown in a helicopter, climbed /skied on mountains, visited the Mayan ruins, hiked on a volcano, played with belugas and dolphins, cross country skied in the wilderness, snorkeled with sea turtles, experienced rugby, learned several instruments and hundreds of other activities.

So yes there is a time to work and a time to play.

John said...

Joel,
Okay, I'll bite... Do you support Bernie Sanders for President?

I am happy with people being free to smell the roses as long as they incur the consequences of their choices (positive and negative) and do not pass them on to the other tax payers.

Anonymous said...

"Also, please remember that my efforts and sacrifices have allowed my family and I to be quite the happy travelers. We have been in a submarine, flown in a helicopter, climbed /skied on mountains, visited the Mayan ruins, hiked on a volcano, played with belugas and dolphins, cross country skied in the wilderness, snorkeled with sea turtles, experienced rugby, learned several instruments and hundreds of other activities."

Am I supposed to be impressed?

What you're saying is that if people are "not working/saving/investing for the future" that they should not do those things and that it's only because you are "working/saving/investing for the future" that you allow yourself those experiences. That's kinda sad.

What is it to you if a person uses the money only for those experiences and doesn't save or invest to the level that you think is best for them?

Joel

Anonymous said...

"Okay, I'll bite... Do you support Bernie Sanders for President?"

Yes, I do. But I am not going to debate his policy positions with someone who doesn't even comprehend the philosophy behind them.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
You asked... "When did I say that?"

"And that people who spent time working, saving, investing growing wealth, etc should be FORCED to pay higher taxes to help pay for the care and expenses of the above mentioned "free folk"."

And you support a Democratic Socialist who preaches this daily. He wants aggressively progressive taxes on the financially successful to pay for many programs and subsidies for the not financially successful.

John said...

As usual, I am fine if people live for the day and spend every penny as they make it. That is if they are willing to except the natural consequences that go along with that life style. (ie lower wealth levels, higher risk of being financially destitute, etc)

The idea that people choose to live like that and then complain that they are "financially poor" and that it is unfair that the workers/ savers/ investors have more and should pay more is simply illogical and sad.

Kind of like that fun loving squirrel who complains that he is hungry after spending the Fall playing instead of collecting nuts. Then feel jealous of the squirrels who prepared for Winter...

jerrye92002 said...

John, so long as you insist on facts and logic you are never going to understand.

To liberals, one can smell the roses for 50 years, and then magically retire with all the wealth needed to smell the roses some more. There is no world so magical as their imaginations.

Anonymous said...

John, what you quoted is what YOU said. Don't put words in my mouth.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"'Do you even have the right to retire if you do not have enough money to live at least at the basics?' Typical Republican nonsense, telling people how they should live."

That's a pretty flip response, Joel. It tells me you don't Understand what a "right" is. A right is something that you can exercise without infringing on anyone else. Therefore a "right to retire" would require that you have enough financial resources to sustain yourself, and without government taking money from others on your behalf. Your answer suggests that government should step in and give everybody a plush retirement whether they have done anything to earn it or NOT. THAT is telling people who believe it they can be irresponsible as they like, AND it is telling everybody else, those who have been responsible, that they must pay for it. Typical Democrat nonsense.

Anonymous said...

"A right is something that you can exercise without infringing on anyone else."

I have a right to free speech. I cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Why is that?

Joel

Anonymous said...

The problem here is that both of you are attempting to turn a philosophical discussion into a bean counting exercise.

I'm not interested.

Joel

Anonymous said...

A right is something that you can exercise without infringing on anyone else.

Well, I don't think that's true. The exercise of rights infringes on folks all the time. The right of Donald Trump to prattle on endlessly certainly on my ability to avoid coming into contacts with a lot of mindless garbage. The exercise of rights is often intrusive and burdening on others, and while that is a price we pay for living in a free society, let's not kid ourselves, there is a price.

==Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"I have a right to free speech. I cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Why is that?"

Because that infringes on the right of others to be safe and not be trampled. Rights are not unlimited. Your right to retire is limited by the resources you have available. It is NOT a bean-counting exercise unless you are one of those wastrels who just assumes the world owes you a living. Everybody else carefully looks at their financial plan and decides when and how to retire. Some do not, and some can not. Do you see anything wrong with that freedom?

jerrye92002 said...

The Constitution guarantees a right to free speech. It does not guarantee you that anybody will listen.

Anonymous said...

Rights are not unlimited.

Surely not. But the accommodation of the rights of some can surely be a burden to others. Think of Donald Trump babbling his nonsense on TV taking up time that could be better used by someone else. And note his right to impose on me is limited only by the size of his bank account.

"The Constitution guarantees a right to free speech. It does not guarantee you that anybody will listen."

Tell that to the guy with a bullhorn outside your house.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

Here is an example where the free speech rights of one individual are used to stifle the speech of other individuals.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/business/revenge-and-the-future-of-media-finances.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-1&action=click&contentCollection=Business%20Day&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

"Because that infringes on the right of others to be safe and not be trampled. Rights are not unlimited. Your right to retire is limited by the resources you have available. It is NOT a bean-counting exercise unless you are one of those wastrels who just assumes the world owes you a living. Everybody else carefully looks at their financial plan and decides when and how to retire. Some do not, and some can not. Do you see anything wrong with that freedom?"

So...You're not actually interesting in letting people be free to live their lives the way THEY see fit, but the way YOU think they should. Got it.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

"So...You're not actually interesting in letting people be free to live their lives the way THEY see fit, but the way YOU think they should. Got it."

I don't think you get it at all and fail to see how you can possibly twist what I've said into your interpretation. I believe I have said exactly the opposite. You are absolutely free to spend your lifetime doing whatever you wish, so long as you pay for it yourself. You are absolutely free to retire (from smelling roses) whenever you like, to do whatever you like (smelling zinnias, perhaps) so long as you pay for it yourself. But if you expect me or any other taxpayer to subsidize you in any of it, you are infringing on OUR freedoms. Now would I give you some advice about how I think you could better provide for your retirement? Maybe, but it sounds like you would consider that an intrusion on your freedom rather than friendly advice. Why?

Anonymous said...

"...you are infringing on OUR freedoms."

You are free to vote for whatever legislators and executives you wish. As is everyone else. If you don't like how they run the country, then you vote for someone else. That other people have a say, and you don't agree with it, is the real problem.

You don't know anything about how I live my life, and you do not have any right at all to tell me whether I am living my life the "proper" way or not...in ANY aspect except that which breaks the law.

Tell me, should I help subsidize the road that leads to your home? You live better than 99% of the world does. Build your own damn road. You are absolutely free to live wherever you like, so long as you pay for it yourself. But if you expect me or any other taxpayer to subsidize you in any of it, you are infringing on OUR freedom.

You see how that works?

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Nope. Still not seeing the point you are making. When I and other taxpayers get together to build a road, we all presumably benefit either directly, by using the road, or indirectly, by the overall benefit to the economy. If, however, those same taxpayers are coerced by the government and that money is given to you, the only person who benefits is you. You say, "you do not have any right at all to tell me whether I'm living my life the 'proper' way or not…" But you are wrong. If the government is giving you the money to live, then EVERYBODY has the right to tell you how to live. If you want to do as you please then don't take the government check.

Please notice that I am not the one forcing you to set aside 15% of your income for your "retirement planning" and not promising you one thin dime of return. If it were up to me I would give you that freedom.

Anonymous said...

"When I and other taxpayers get together to build a road, we all presumably benefit either directly, by using the road, or indirectly, by the overall benefit to the economy."

I don't agree that the road to your door benefits anyone but yourself.

However, keeping people from destitution, which leads to social problems now and in the future, clearly benefits everyone.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Please explain when the "government" builds a road to a persons house for their personal benefit? Typically it is the developer and owner who pay these costs. I mean I have paid ~$80,000 in property taxes over the past 20 years while in this home, and I was still was billed and paid $2,000 when they fixed some curbs and applied new asphalt.

The good news is that <25% of the population agrees that people should be able to live as they wish, and forcing others to pay more taxes to cover their costs. I mean it seems Sanders is getting less than half of the Democratic vote !!! Hopefully this means the Dem Socialists will stay a small party with minimal impact.

Anonymous said...

You believe building a road to your front door benefits society and the economy. I don't.
I believe helping the poor benefits society and the economy. You don't.

Look, if you don't think that helping the poor helps all of us and that we should all have skin in the game, what could I possibly tell you that would change your mind?

Have a great weekend.

Joel

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, you have a funny idea about "helping" and "benefit." Think of it as math. Here we a have a resource. She happens to be a real human being. Like all creatures, she needs to eat, and most creatures must make some sort of effort to do so. IF that creature makes no such effort, it is a negative effect on the whole society, since the total wealth-- food in this case-- of the society (might be) shared among more people and thus reduced for every one. If this creature produced part or even all of their own food, the total wealth of the society would be increased by that amount, and all would benefit.

In short, paying people to not work is doubly stupid, because it reduces wealth and produces none in return. Simple math.

And you don't think roads and bridges have an economic benefit? How about a couple of cow paths where 35W now runs? Conducive to commerce?

John said...

Joel,
"I believe helping the poor benefits society and the economy. You don't."

You are so incorrect, or I wouldn't send so much money above and beyond my taxes to help them. The problem I have with your view of helping them:

- giving them more money to them with no improvement expectations/ requirements is not really helping them in many cases. It is simply using someone else's money to assuage your guilt, and to enable / reward the recipients behaviors that trap them in poverty.

- has resulted in more and more unlucky kids being raised by incapable, immature and/or negligent parents. The cycle builds on itself.

How does your method of just giving immature, poorly raised, academically challenged, socially rebellious, and/or addicted people more money help them to improve their Parenting, independence, sense of accomplishment, self image, get good jobs, etc?

Per my Enablers Post, the fastest way to generate more children who are unprepared for a productive successful life in America is to keep making it easier for the those types of Parents to propagate those children / behaviors.

Even if the intent is very good. It can cause:
Over population
Dependency
Loss of life skills
Children to learn bad behaviors
Promote unhealthy diets and obesity
Recipients to fight for more

John said...

Now I am certain you would say that these folks should be free to stay poorly educated, immature, socially rebellious, single parents, young parents, addicted, etc if they choose to. And that our society should keep sending them checks to enable their chosen lifestyle.

The reality of course is that Modern Employers Need More from their employees.

Now if you want to doom these folks and their children to a life of welfare, poverty, etc, just keep your expectations for them very low. I want these folks to be able to get good jobs, gain self confidence, raise smart capable kids, etc, so I will maintain high expectations and keep pushing them to achieve them.

jerrye92002 said...

Our children fail in schools because of "... the soft bigotry of low expectations." -- G.W. Bush

John said...

That and really incapable, irresponsible and/or negligent Parents...

Anonymous said...

Our children fail in schools because of "... the soft bigotry of low expectations."

That bigotry plays a role in the troubles our kids have in schools is something we can agree on.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"That and really incapable, irresponsible and/or negligent Parents..."

Human beings are naturally lazy, like all creatures, but will work like crazy until their basic needs are met. So before you call people lazy and irresponsible, you have to ask WHY they are not working like crazy to feed and clothe themselves? Could it be that liberal do-gooders have forced them into this dependent state? Why on Earth would they do that to these poor folks? Are they bigots with such low expectations, as in "you can't make it by yourself."

Anonymous said...

jerry-

"Think of it as math. Here we a have a resource."

I don't think of people in those terms. Perhaps you do.

"And you don't think roads and bridges have an economic benefit?"

I never made such a generalization, so...I never said that.



John-

"It is simply using someone else's money to assuage your guilt..."

False. It is also my money. I pay taxes.

"Now I am certain you would say that these folks should be free to stay poorly educated, immature, socially rebellious, single parents, young parents, addicted, etc if they choose to. And that our society should keep sending them checks to enable their chosen lifestyle."

It's not so uncommon for Republicans such as yourself to be certain of things that are false.

There will always be people who fail your worthiness tests. Perhaps you think they should suffer?

Joel

John said...

Joel,
I think Jerry was referencing this comment:

"You believe building a road to your front door benefits society and the economy. I don't. I believe helping the poor benefits society and the economy. You don't." Joel


Often you say things like this:

"You don't know anything about how I live my life, and you do not have any right at all to tell me whether I am living my life the "proper" way or not... in ANY aspect except that which breaks the law." Joel

"You're not actually interesting in letting people be free to live their lives the way THEY see fit, but the way YOU think they should. Got it." Joel

"Typical Republican nonsense, telling people how they should live." Joel

"What you're saying is that if people are "not working/saving/investing for the future" that they should not do those things and that it's only because you are "working/saving/investing for the future" that you allow yourself those experiences. What is it to you if a person uses the money only for those experiences and doesn't save or invest to the level that you think is best for them?
" Joel

So yes it does seem that you believe society should pay for the poor choices people make with no requirement that they change and improve their capabilities, beliefs, behaviors for their own good and that of their children.

Please tell me how you would state this differently? What is your belief?

"Now I am certain you would say that these folks should be free to stay poorly educated, immature, socially rebellious, single parents, young parents, addicted, etc if they choose to. And that our society should keep sending them checks to enable their chosen lifestyle." G2A

John said...

"It is simply using someone else's money to assuage your guilt..." G2A "False. It is also my money. I pay taxes." Joel

My guess is that "wealth transfer" does not really kick in until one gets to the 25+% bracket.

My logic is that most people probably only pay enough money to cover their share of the true costs to run the country. The roads we drive on, the schools we attend, the police/fire personnel, the politicians, bureaucrats, etc. It is the folks in the 25+% brackets who are truly paying most of the wealth transfer bills.

My simple math... $6 Trillion total spend divided by 134 Million households equals ~$45,000 / household. Then let's say that businesses / etc pay 1/3rd of that. So each household who pays<~$30,000 / yr is a net recipient and each household that pays >$30,000 / yr is a net payer...

jerrye92002 said...

That is very interesting math, John, but it completely leaves out the humanity complement to the financial transaction. That is, liberals like to claim the moral high ground because "otherwise the poor would starve." First of all, that means that the poor are incapable of helping themselves-- making them a class of humans far lower than the noble liberal. And second, rather than simply give THEIR money to this dependent class directly, as compassion might dictate, they insist that everybody else must give, mostly unwillingly and under penalty of law, to those these liberals deem more worthy than the people who actually worked for the money.

In short, this vaunted moral high ground consists of robbing from one to keep another in dependence, sort of like stealing your neighbor's dog food to feed your cat.

Anonymous said...

John, Im just glad that God in heaven doesn't judge people the way you do, breaking down their value to society based on how much money they're worth.

Joel

John said...

Joel, How do you evaluate one's value to our society? Let's try some examples, do all of these folks add equally to the value of our society:

- addicted street person who begs on the street

- fraudulent hedge fund manager

- 25 year old HS Dropout Single Mom with 3 children from 3 different Fathers who does a poor job of Parenting.

- HS dropout baby daddy who has made 6 babies and avoided all child rearing responsibility.

- gang member who sells drugs and/or robs people

- janitor who works 40 hours per week in a hotel

- nurse in an ER room

- professional working in an office

- inventor who creates device/software that improves the lives of millions

By the way, money is not the measure of worth to me. It is about character, effort, choices, law abiding, continuous learning, etc. How much does someone add to our society vs what do they cost it?

Unfortunately "poorly educated, immature, socially rebellious, single parents, young parents, addicted, lazy, etc" usually cost far more than they contribute. And it seems you are fine accepting their behaviors and giving them checks at the expense of everyone else...

jerrye92002 said...

I think that, unlike in school where grades OUGHT to matter, what counts in society isn't money, it's attitude and effort. Let's acknowledge that the "entitlement mentality," created by the existence of welfare as an entitlement, has created an intransigent and indolent and near-permanent underclass. At this point, no amount of money thrown at this problem will make it better and in fact will make the problem worse than its currently counterproductive state. If government hadn't created this problem, I would say the simple cure was to eliminate welfare cold turkey and go to a "root, hog or die" system where private charity picked up the truly needy. But since government has created such a monstrous mess, they need a whole new system to re-invigorate personal responsibility as a societal requirement. After we get folks working for their CURRENT needs, maybe we can talk about how they will fund their future retirement. So many feel "retired" already, with a government check every month for life, that's going to be tough.

Anonymous said...

"How do you evaluate one's value to our society?"

Their value lies in the fact that they are human. At least, that's what you say about fetuses.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
We are not talking about ending anyone's life here.

We are talking about if society should demand improvement from some of it's citizens who are costing our society more than they should? Do you really think our society should tolerate, or worse help enable these folks by sending them checks or ignoring their chosen behaviors:

- addicted street person who begs on the street

- fraudulent hedge fund manager

- 25 year old HS Dropout Single Mom with 3 children from 3 different Fathers who does a poor job of Parenting.

- HS dropout baby daddy who has made 6 babies and avoided all child rearing responsibility.

- gang member who sells drugs and/or robs people

John said...

I wonder what the value of our society would be if it consisted of only the people listed immediately above? I am thinking the USA would be looking a lot like Somalia...

jerrye92002 said...

I suppose, since government has no morality, it is impossible to look at government welfare as a moral exercise, yet we do. Liberals claim the moral high ground because they are "helping" people while keeping them from the human dignity of contributing to their own upkeep. Conservatives complain about the immorality of government stealing from one to give to another, and of those others lacking both gratitude and moral principles for taking the money and returning nothing.

Seems to me that government welfare programs could be evaluated strictly on their merits-- what is the "return on investment" of the $50 trillion or so we have spend on the "War on Poverty"? With more people on welfare now than when we started, I would say the programs should be scrapped for that reason alone. On a purely objective basis, it's counterproductive. Social Security, same issue.

Anonymous said...



I suppose, since government has no morality, it is impossible to look at government welfare as a moral exercise

Why do you think it is impossible to evaulate amoral people or institutions composed of amoral people in moral terms? And by the way, does this make sense? A rock isn't capable of morality but people are. What does that about institutions composed of people like corporations, governments or bowling leagues?

"Liberals claim the moral high ground because they are "helping" people while keeping them from the human dignity of contributing to their own upkeep."

Is that really why we claim the moral high ground? Now just about everything has two sides to it. And surely part of being both claiming and occupying moral high ground involves helping people without unduly impairing their own human dignity. That's kind of a basic thing anyone involved in charity understands, and it they don't, it's made clear to them pretty quickly.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

Really? Those I know who help the poor honestly often eschew the "credit" and take simple satisfaction in knowing they helped others. A simple "thank you" is icing on the cake. Those who promote government welfare and /claim/ to be helping the poor arrogate onto themselves the "moral high ground" and reject any claims that what they are doing is NOT helping; they want credit for good intentions and could care less about results.