As is not Uncommon with me, I was Responding to Someone's Comment on another Blog and the Comment was Long Enough and Interesting Enough, that I decided to Make it into a Post on my Own Blog. This Time my Post is Written in Response to the Comment "Money isn't Everything.", which is not Unlike another Common Saying, as is Mentioned in the Title of this Post, "It's Just Money!!"
This Statement is not Untrue in that Money (that is Excess) isn't Everything, yet the Lack of Money (That is the Bear Essentials that One Needs) is Enormously Stressful and can Even Cause Marital Strife.
You See, I was Raised with Money and it Never Mattered to me that much. In Fact, I Actually Disliked the Envy because of the Walls it Produces between People.
I can Actually Recall a Time in which someone Walked in to Our House and said "Wow! It must be Nice!" and I Actually Felt like Slugging the Guy. I was Feeling sort of Distanced from my Father at the Time and was Wishing for so many Things that have nothing to do with Money.
Later in Life, I Learned Something Entirely Different, though. My Husband Bought a Bran New Camero, Bright Red, and I thought it was too Showy and Actually didn't Like the Attention that I Got, yet Later Understood that this was the First Bran New Car that he had Ever Owned and it was something that he had Wanted all his Life.
The Poor and the Rich do not at all Think the Same. Mostly it is the Rich who will say "It's just Money". The Poor Man will not say this. Instead he Desires to Teach his Children "The Value of Money", that is that we have to Work Hard for it and so we should Appreciate it and do not Take it for Granted.
Only the Rich man will say "Oh, No Biggie. They are just Things." The Poor Man, though, desires to Teach his Children "the Value of Things". Once again, that we have to Work Hard for what we have and therefore, should Take Care of what we Possess, Not Take it for Granted and not Treat it too Lightly.
To Illustrate this Point, my Father Once had a Lincoln Town Car that, Believe it or not, he Actually would Put his Contractor Supplies in the Trunk of. People Used to Tease him for it and say that they Really Liked his New "Work Truck". They just couldn't Understand how he could Abuse something so Valuable.
The Poor Man, though, Values what he has and Takes Care of it, so it will Last. It's a Whole Different Perspective and it is not Right for the Rich Man to Belittle it.
Anyway, these are a Few of the Reason's Why, though Republican, I will not go so Far as to be a Libertarian. I Understand Both Sides and Feel that the Poor and the Rich Need to Make Compromises with Each Other.
This Post was Inspired by Silverfiddle, Beneath his Post, How to Save a Life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
I am sometimes guilty of what your young friend did upon entering your parents' house.
I'm not rich, but I'm also not envious. My daughter used to go over to these rich people's house and bake cookies and stuff with the daughter who was in her grade, but she would not reciprocate the invitation because our house pales in comparison to theirs.
I went over to their house once, and it's a mansion with a huge carved door and big windows overlooking the town.
I said, "Nice little place ya got here."
It just so Happens that the Statement "Wow! It must be Nice!" was said with Considerable Intensity. Your Statement, "Nice little place ya' got here." sounds much more Mellow, so I guess I won't Hit you. lol.
It's Funny because my Dad Built Expensive Custom Homes and you could always Tell the Look-i-loos from the Potential Buyers because the Look-i-loos would be so Amazed and Impressed, but the Potential Buyers were more Critical and would say, "Well, doesn't this house have This?", or "Doesn't it have That?" and "I'm not sure if I Like this or that."
My Parents were Rather Unique, though, because they Shared what they had with Others. The Youth Group was Entertained there Often and Things got Broken at Times, thus, the Statement "Oh, they're just Things."
We Owned a Speed Boat, but it's most Common Use was when we Took the Youth Group to the River or Lake. People Liked my Parents. They were Good People. They Still are Good People, yet don't have quite as much as they Used to. Dad Took a Few Really Bad Hits from the Bad Economy and well, "Bad Politics".
All I Know, Silverfiddle, is that even though the Rich are not all Bad People, Being Broke is no Picnic. Somehow I Developed an Understanding and Compassion for People on Both Sides of the Financial Spectrum.
You have a good, balanced perspective on things.
Why Thank You, Silverfiddle. So Glad you Dropped by.
Anyone notice that with all the wonderful tax cuts, gov't at all levels is going broke?
Gates, Soros, Buffet and other billionaires would like their taxes increased
(sure, dumb libs, right?)
So, what are we to make of it when a rock solid conservative like Ben Stein
[of the Intelligent Design movie] writes-
"But whom to tax? The poor are, well, poor. The middle class is struggling to pay for its middle-class life. That leaves the rich. It would be lovely if we did not have to tax them. Many have worked hard for their money. Many have created useful businesses. Many of them are fine people.
But as Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, “Because that’s where the money is.” By definition, the truly rich have a lot more money than they need. If they don’t, then they are not rich by my standards. The first step toward putting our house in order, once we are past the seemingly looming recession, is much higher taxes on the truly rich and serious enforcement to prevent offshore tax evasion.
To put it even more starkly, the government — which is us — needs the money to keep old people alive, to pay for their dialysis, to build fighter jets and to pay our troops and pay interest on the debt. We can get it by indenturing our children, selling ourselves into peonage to foreigners, making ourselves a colony again, generating inflation — or we can have some integrity and levy taxes equal to what we spend."
Ben Stein..go figure.
I'll let some of the Others Respond to this. Unfortunately, I have to Go for now, but I'll be back later.
I'm a little Surprised that No One Responded to you, BB, but Oh Well. Here is my Response...
Get your Facts Straight, BB. There were no Tax Cuts. All we've done is Avoided a Few of the Tax Increases, yet Unfortunately, not all of them. I am a Bit Concerned about Inflation, though. It wouldn't Surprise me one Bit if the Government got Desperate and Started Printing Excessive Amounts of Money.
I don't Know, BB. What you are Saying Appears to Make Sense, yet there is One more Thing that Needs to be Considered. Rich Men do not Get Benefits from a Business that they Work for. They are that Business.
If a Rich Man Decides to Insure Himself, rather than Buying Insurance, he will Need a Large Storage of Emergency Money. Some Rich Men have their Entire Retirement Tied Up either in their Possessions or in the Bank and if they Lose that, they Lose their Retirement. Perhaps Forcing this Money into an Ira Account in Order to Avoid Taxes may not be such a Bad Thing, yet...
Actually, Since I am Into Balance, Rather than Extremes, I may just admit that a Slight Tax Increase on the Most Rich of the Rich might be a Compromise that the Republicans should be Making. All I'm Asking is that Retirement Moneys are Protected somehow and this Includes Capital Gains Tax, cause some of the so called "Wealthy" have their Retirement Tied up in their Businesses and Possessions and this is why, some of the "Excess" is not Really Excess to the Extent that we Might Think.
Reading your Comment a Second Time, BB, I Realize that any Rich Person who "Would Like their Taxes Increased" are not at all Forbidden from Donating the Amount that they Think they should be Taxed. The Competition would be Kept more Level, though, if the Tax was Also Applied to the Rest of the Wealthy.
We also Need to Get the Spending Problem Under Control in Washington.
Here's another Thought to Think about. Which is Financially Wiser in Relation to the Over All Economy. A Bunch of Rich People Trying to Individually Insure Themselves, thus Each Individually Placing Large Amounts of Emergency Money Aside, or is it more Economical, for Large Groups to Buy Insurance and to Only have the Amount Needed Set Aside in Order to Take Care of those who Happen to have Need of the Money.
Which of these Two Options Places Larger Amounts of Money in the Bank and Which of them Allows more Money to Flow, thus Stimulating the Economy. To Me, Buying Insurance is the Better Thing to do for the Sake of the Well Being of the Economy.
Were it even possible to tax the rich at 100% there would still cease to be enough revenue to pay all of of the nations and/or the world's debt.
To infer, as many do, that the solution to our problem is simply levying more taxes on the wealthy completely ignores the fundamental problem of how governments got to this point to begin with.
That's Right! It's a Spending Problem. Yet I Still do Believe that some Small Level of Compromise Offered by the Republicans on the Tax Issue is not Going to Kill us and then the Liberals are Going to have to Compromise in Relation to Cuts to the Budget.
It Scares me a little, Soap. If they don't Tax, then they are just going to Start Printing Money and Causing Inflation. Inflation Hurts Everyone and is definitely not the Way to go. Lack of Compromise, though, is not very Persuasive and Only Adds Fuel to the Fire.
It's easy to call for compromise with someone else's money.
In terms of real dollars, the "rich" shoulder enough of the burden already.
If someone wants fairness in taxation then make it a flat tax or a fair tax (consumption tax) but don't you dare let me hear you call for higher taxes on the well to do under the guise of "fairness".
"Get your Facts Straight, BB. There were no Tax Cuts." Oh. I guess the
argument over 'extending the Bush tax cuts' was a figment of my overactive
imagination. :) As for
Ben Stein, he speaks for himself. Either we pay for ourselves our our kids and grandkids will. Soap is right; Stein is right, IMO.
If I am in debt, I cut my spending and get a second job, right?
There is a Verse in the Bible that says, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required, and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48, KJV)
God is the One Who Gives us the Ability to Earn what we have Earned, so He is the One who has the Right to Make the Rules. The Truth is, though, Soap, that the Burden of Poverty is and always will be much Heavier than the "Burden" of Wealth.
Life isn't Fair, Soap. That's just the way it is. God Created some with Greater Potential than Others and that's not Fair either, yet Life is what it is and I don't happen to Feel Sorry for those who are more Interested in that which is "MINE", than in Who it is that in Reality Gave them the Ability to Earn all that they have, as if such is some Kind of an Entitlement.
She Smiles. It's Funny how BB comes on the Scene right at the Time in Which I Need to Get Off the Computer. Nothing Personal. It's just Coincidence. Honest!!
Funny thing about those Bush tax cuts. They revived the economy after the double whammy of a Clinton recession and 9/11.
Starting in 2003, revenue went up and so did GDP. So a tax cut increased economic output and in turn produced more revenue going into government coffers.
Of course, both went off a cliff in the great crash of 08. Alas, parts of our economy were built with a house of cards supported by smoke and mirrors, but that is not the fault of the tax cuts.
Hi you Guys,
Starting Back Up there with Soap Again, if I was to Agree to Something more "Fair", I would Vote more for the "Fair Tax", as Described by Huckabee, than for the Flat Tax and the Reason is Because in a "Fair Tax" System, Necessities would not be Taxed and Since Poor People Spend a Larger Percentage of their Money on Necessities, this would Give them the Tax Break that they Need.
The Flat Tax, However, Places a Heavier Burden on the Poor than they may be Able to Handle and this is Why I would Never Vote for that.
Thanks Silverfiddle,
You have Saved the Day for me, because I am not as Familiar with the History as I should be. I Understand the Theory behind the Republican Low Tax Philosophy, but do not Know the History Well Enough to Defend the Position when I Receive Two Separate Interpretations of the History, or Worse yet, Only the Liberal Interpretation of the History and not the Other. So Thanks so Much for Being here to Assist in the Area of my Lack.
What I was going to say, though, BB, is that there is always more than One Factor Involved in Everything that Occurs and that is why the Interpretation of History can be Twisted to Support any Position and also just the Threat of Raising Taxes again is Enough to Stifle the Economy because Economic Growth is Based on People's Hopes and Fears, not just on what is Actually in Effect at any Given Time.
Backing up to "Money isn't everything." Perhaps the
gist of that is in the old
Yiddish curse: 'May you inherit a million dollars-and have to spend it all on medical bills.'
She just Smiles. :)
"If I am in debt, I cut my spending and get a second job, right?"
Yep. But far too many people think they just simply need a second job. Problem is, more money coming in simply means that much more money to spend.
"Problem is, more money coming in simply means that much more money to spend." True enough, but
unfortunately, folks spend more money than comes in.
We Amercians are bigger spenders than our gov't. ..and we spend it on stuff we don't need,
stuff made overseas. We are the ultimate consumer
society, but that me be our downfall....
Yeh, but at Least we are Spending Our Own Money. The Government is Spending Tax Payer Money and therefore should do so Responsibly. Also, when has it ever been True that because someone Else is also doing it, that Somehow Makes it Ok?
Also, Shouldn't Those who we Elect to be our "Leaders", Lead by Good Example? Chuckle. Boy is that Ever not Happening!!
Money. How come a bottle
of water costs $1.59? If it is that valuable, how come we don't used those bottles of water for our lawn? Having worked with the city lab, I have a good idea of what comes from my tap. On the other hand, I once received a
semi-truck of chemicals,
mostly lead nitrate (poison, Mr. Yuk!) and had to have a fork lift move
6 pallets of bottled water out to get to my chemicals.
Money...go figure.
I don't Know about the Price of Bottled Water, BB. I Guess some People are Paranoid and I guess too that there are some Areas that do have Bad Tap Water. Whatever.
The people drinking bottled water or filtered water aren't paranoid Lista, they're informed.
It's not "some" areas having bad tap water. It's most if not all having bad tap water.
Well, I Guess that Answers BB's Question about Why Bottled Water Costs so much.
Heh, all A is A...and Evian spelled backwards is naive.:) Bottled water is
10,000 times more expensive than tap water and is cleverly marketed as being better, safer, etc. Like I said, I've never tried it, am not likly to, but its your money. Drink up!
It depends on which bottled water you're buying. Municipal water is laced with flouride and in some instances lithium and/or uranium.
I should think wanting to avoid any or all of the three is a perfectly sensible thing to do.
I Wonder how this Became a Bottled Water Discussion. Oh well. It's Ok. We have 4-3 Gallon Jugs that we Fill Up at $.35 a Gallon. That's the Cheapest way to do it.
Yes, bottled water varies in its content..good luck ...tap water is regulated by the EPA and bottled water by the FDA , the former being a bit more stringent. (Sorry for all the data charts, but old chemists never die!)
(even from tap water..:)
Well, I wasn't Sure what to say about the Water Issue, so I just Asked the Penguin, a Couple of Posts Down, and he Says that he Likes Tap Water because it Can Be Sprayed all Over him when he is Hot. :)
Post a Comment