[ SECRET POST #2725 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2725 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #389.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[ansela_jonla]

I came across this image the other day (not for the first time, but I usually lose the link).

And the attitude being complained about... it's exactly the attitude that British tabloids have towards those on benefits. "Look at this family that's living on housing benefit, child benefits, child tax credits and jobseeker's allowance! Rage at how much money they get a month, how many bedrooms their house has, how many luxury goods they own!"

Okay, I do think that child benefit and child tax credits should only be given for the first two children, because there is some abuse of the system. But at the same time... why should kids be deprived of luxuries because of the choices their parents have made, or have had made for them?

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[(Anonymous)]

all I hear when people say that is "poor people don't deserve nice things"

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[nyxelestia]

Given how most of those "If I were poor I'd do THIS" types whine if they so much as have to live without Internet for a few days for local repairs, I wonder how they think they'd go months or years without any kind of entertainment or connection to the digital world at all. They seem to see "being poor" as some kind of ~condition~ and not a state of life that can go on for months or years with no end in sight, that it's something people can't just "whether through" but have to actually live through.

What's especially hilarious is that some of the people who I've heard this attitude from are people in one form of debt or another. If you really believe people shouldn't have nice things until they are stable, then why the hell are you spending that money on getting a new phone instead of putting it to pay off your credit card debt, or your college loan? >.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[nyxelestia]

And of course, if you get assaulted because you were walking to or from your job late at night, then clearly it's your own damn fault for being out so late. >.<

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[darkmanifest]

I remember when I used to rely on the library for my internet access...all those job applications that take half an hour or more to finish when you get a maximum of forty-five minutes a day of access. It was exciting and marvelous.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[kallanda_lee]

I can tell you for a fact jobhunting would be way harder without a car.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[dethtoll]

+1

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[(Anonymous)]

this x1000

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[nyxelestia]

I think a few people abusing the system is a reasonable price to pay for making sure all kids have good food, an education, healthcare, and a decent place to sleep.

People with the "why do they have THAT nice thing if they have no money?" attitude are one of the most blaring signs of someone who has never been poor, and likely never even knew someone who was poor (that they knew of, anyway).

There is a difference between having some nice things and living in luxury. People are not machines, they should not spend all their time scraping by to survive and they shouldn't have to, either.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[(Anonymous)]

The message I get is "Wait, this lesser scum can have something better than me? NO, unfair, I'm going to stomp and scream like a toddler until they feel so bad about having it that they get rid of it. If I can't have it, they can't either! BAAAAW!"

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[iceyred]

Kids can have luxuries when they (or someone who knows them) can afford to pay for them. They are nice to have, but they are not essential for life and public money should not be spent on them.

The attitude of entitlement is why a lot of people are poor to begin with.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[(Anonymous)]

In what sense is entitlement a cause of poverty? That is, frankly, utter rot.

I can see where you're coming from with the first part, although I don't quite agree, but the idea that it's "why a lot of people are poor to being with" seems pretty ridiculous. The roots of poverty lie mostly in the economic situation.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[iceyred]

"There is an item out there and I want it and I deserve it whether I can afford it or not." Is entitlement and it is far more damaging than an economic situation. Economic situations can change. New jobs, loss of a job, medical emergency, death in the family, windfall, etc. can all change the economic situation. I'm related people who made gobs of money and who blew it on cars, houses, lawyers, bail, drugs (mostly drugs), and stupid shit. Now they're on welfare.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[darkmanifest]

People on benefits still get gifts from friends and family, plus money they earn working - not enough to live on, of course, but enough to get their kid a little something nice (gift money is often factored into how much assistance people get, as well). The automatic assumption that it must be public money that being spent on frivolities is a flawed one.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[iceyred]

The original post mentioned benefits which come from public coffers. People who are not on assistance have the right to spend their money however they want because its their money.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[darkmanifest]

I swear to god it's like some people seriously think any poor person with a few nice things blew hundreds of dollars on them, because, many of them never being recently poor themselves, they've apparently never heard of a sale, or Ebay, or a thrift store, or any of the other various methods you can use to find bargains, before. None of my "luxury" shit was purchased at premium amounts, because I know how to fucking save, wait, and shop around. Arrgh.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[kallanda_lee]

I personally can't justify (to myself) buying a smartphone or flat-screen TV or whatever on my income, but that's me. I do believe people can spend money as they want it. If they want to buy an Iphone and eat ramen for three months, that's their business. Once you accept the concept of a social state, and that you will give money to poor unemployed people, you need to accept it's their money even if they make bad choices with it.

[(Anonymous)]

The problem with making judgements like this is that every individual or family who is receiving assistance has their own unique circumstances, and every "luxury" item has a story behind it. If you don't have all of that information, you can't be sure of anything.

People inherit and are gifted things, hold onto stuff from better times, find amazing bargains on used goods, save for months or years to buy that one special item they will treasure, and yes, they may even occasionally splurge for some special occasion. A family which has had all of these things happen over time may acquire a sizeable stack of nice things, all while working hard but still making only a very little money and qualifying for income-based assistance fair and square.

I suppose some people will be mean-spirited enough to say that anyone on assistance should sell any nice stuff they do have regardless of what it is or where it came from (as though that would be likely to get them off assistance for any length of time...unlikely, unless we're talking about truly mind-bogglingly extravagant items, which I'm not.) I don't really know what to say to people like that.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[(Anonymous)]

I think the thing that gets me about smartphones is that it's not a one time payment. There's a monthly bill that can be nuts if your not careful. There's treating yourself to nice shoes and there's buying things that require a commitment.

As far as stuff for kids I don't see how a smart phone or tablet is even on that list. Bikes, toys, good clothes and school supplies. Yes.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Oh noes, don't give the poor responsibility over money things!

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[(Anonymous)]

Personally I'd much rather see a poor person with a smartphone than expensive shoes. It's a hell of a lot more useful.

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion

[(Anonymous)]

This is the reason I don't have a smartphone even though I'm not poor. I'd rather not spend that much money on a phone, thanks.