Originally posted by: Tarrant64
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I think trying to use exclusively one or the other is a bad idea; it needs to be a combination of both. However, if I had to lean one way, I'd lean bottom up. My primary reason is selfish; I am not in the wealthy elite, nor employed in a profession where I am likely to ever make huge amounts of money, so it's in my economic best interest to keep my own taxes low. However, for a practical reason, I must say that poor people are much worse at saving money than the wealthy. Wealthy people invest (which is important in driving our economy forward) and save; they hoard money. I have noticed that the poorer people are, the worse they get with money, spending it on countless items they simply do not need. If they were better at hoarding money, they probably wouldn't be as poor, yes? Since customers purchasing items is important for our economy as well, I think we need to have money in the hands of low-income earners, who are so quick to spend that money and get it back in circulation in the economy.
We agree about not exclusively using either economic strategy, however I largely disagree with the statements on poor people.
Poor people have no money. Often times it may be because they spend it on things they don't need. However I think most of the time it's because they are underpaid, have no work, or at some point ran into a life crisis that put them out of home and onto the street.
I also believe that poor people just don't have the money to invest. They are too busy trying to stay afloat in this sh!t world that we leave in. People, typically with money, are always saying poor people don't put any money away. I say WTF.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that poor people are poor simply because they spend their money irresponsibly; with low wages and the high cost of food, shelter, utilities, health insurance, and other necessities, it would be ludicrous to make so bold a statement. However, I will make a statement about something I've observed in the real world that I think has real bearing on the argument; drugs and alcohol.
I come from a middle class background. My family is generally well-educated, white collar professionals; lots of teachers and librarians. Virtually no one in my family is a smoker, and they generally only drink when they are having a glass of wine with dinner once a week at most. They're generally sober and generally content in life; comfortable.
My friends are a different story. I divide them into two categories; those that I knew pre-college, and those that I met in college. My friends I met in college were from lower class backgrounds; they were often the first people in their family to pursue higher education. College was a path of upwards mobility for them, a chance to enter the professional world with opportunities their parents never had. They eschew drugs and alcohol, even though their parents were almost universally alcoholics and smokers.
My pre-college friends came from lower and middle class backgrounds, but decided to forego higher education. They are now low wage earners themselves, struggling to get by. They have to scrimp and save to make ends meet. The money they do save largely goes to drugs and alcohol; smoking a pack a day, getting drunk every night, smoking pot, doing cocaine, mushrooms, whatever they can find, with the friends that they've made at their low paying jobs who are in the exact same boat as them. They are generally not content with life and try to spend as little time sober as possible.
What's my point with this? By and large, everyone I know who is middle class is clean and sober. Virtually everyone I know from the lower class is not. In my own estimation, it is because people in the middle class are working hard, striving for better lives for themselves, and they get a sense of contentment from that. They are not rich, but they are comfortable (and in most cases, have done better than their parents). My friends in the lower class believe that they are failing; they are unhappy, they have to save just to make ends meet, and what little they save goes towards mind-altering substances to make them forget about the situation they are living in.
I think this sense of depression, despair and hopelessness keeps people in the lower class and lower middle class locked into a sense that they need to buy things to forget about the situation they are living in. It's not just substances (alcohol and tobacco are heavily taxed, so there's additional revenue stream for the government to have by keeping people buying these products), but TVs, DVDs, music, video games, musical instruments, pornography, clothing... you name it, they will buy it. People who are content in their lives don't feel the need to run and spend copious amounts of money on frivolities. It is the depressed masses, who feel that the American dream is out of reach, they are the ones who, if given additional disposable income, will spend it on things they simply do not need.
This issue has often been lampooned in the media as one of race (Chappelle's Show did a sketch on black people being given reparations for slavery spending the money immediately after receiving it, dumping billions back into the system; Drawn Together had an episode on keeping black people down by keeping them poorly educated, which would convince them that buying tacky bling and sound systems for cheap cars was a good use of their money), but it's more one of class. Ultimately, people want to feel rich; the rich do this by investing and watching their money grow. The poor do this by spending their money on anything they can to feel wealthy, or forget their lamentable situation. Personally, I'd rather see the money spread out between people who know the value of investing and people who want to consume like mad; without either, the system fails.
Facebook
Twitter