You're viewing a single thread.
I don't want to be filthy rich because I think I'd do a lot of dumb things more than I would doing charitable things.
I just want to be paid enough so it doesn't feel like I look at how little I have left to play around going "eh, I'm okay with this" when I know I'm not okay with this in the back of my mind.
Time to build a massive mansion and a literal castle and an underground train system connecting them able to be operated by one person (ie me) because fuck other people.
The wealthy make charity necessary. Never praise them for appearing to make it possible.
You don't have to "spend" all your money. Live frugally, invest the rest, then retire early or donate it or something. Spending your whole paycheck is very bad at any income level, but it turns out when you're poor you don't get a choice.
When you don't make enough to survive, spending your whole paycheck is not bad because that is all you have.
Yeah that's why I wrote that.
Spending your whole paycheck is very bad at any income level, but it turns out when you’re poor you don’t get a choice.
It is NOT bad though. That is very judgemental.
It is objectively bad. Spending your whole paycheck means you live month-to-month, and any unexpected expenses can and will sink you and send you into further poverty. It is not financially healthy to live without an emergency fund or investment savings for the future. Just because you do not have enough money to accomplish this doesn't mean it's not bad.
I'm not intending to be "judgmental" while saying this - it's important to recognize the problems that poverty causes.
They ARE living paycheck to paycheck, and most likely not by choice.
Not having enough income to save is a bad situation. The act of spending all of your paycheck so you can eat and survive IS NOT BAD.
Saying someone that is forced to live paycheck to paycheck that they are making a bad decision by eating is a very dickish thing to do.
At this point you are intentionally misreading the word "bad" to mean "bad decision" instead of "bad situation". I've already explicitly explained that's not what I meant so I don't know what you want me to reply with.
One thing that conservatives like to do is act like poor people who spend all their money and don't save are making the decision to do so instead of acknowledging the situation. They equate any level of income and whether or not all of the money is spent, using the same phrasing that you are using to say that spending all the money is bad. Adding a qualifier at the end that they don't have a choice but still saying it is bad implies that they are making a choice which just opens up more room for nitpicking on how they spend their money.
"Being forced to live paycheck to paycheck is bad because there is no ability to save for emergencies" means they are not doing a bad thing because it is about the situation. Focus on the inability to save, not that they spent all their money.
Put the bad label on the situation, not the action that is the result of the situation.
Your specific strawman of how you choose to read what I wrote is what you're fighting right now. I've clarified myself a non-zero number of times, which is more than necessary. If you want to write about this topic start a new post, because it's not related to what I said.
Not listening to constructive criticism is bad.
You don’t have to “spend” all your money
.
Spending your whole paycheck is very bad at any income level, but it turns out when you’re poor you don’t get a choice.
Hi, the first snippet is in response to the commenter's quote: "I don’t want to be filthy rich because I think I’d do a lot of dumb things more than I would doing charitable things."
To which I replied that being rich doesn't mean they need to spend all their money.