Mandatory Direct deposit?

[David Merrill]

It is endorsement that opens the door to a taxable event - income.

Good thing nobody is listening to you here Bill Smith. At the very best you are costing people having to have two bank accounts. Aside from the invitation of jurisdiction under the Patriot Act of laundering.

Is there a reason you are encouraging this? You do not consider the people here your friends, do you Bill?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Bill Smith]

Stay poor, see if I care. Justify it anyway you want.

[David Merrill]

Where did you get the notion that $3.6q is poor?

[Bill Smith]

Where did you get the notion that $3.60 is poor?

$3.60 will barely buy you a Big Mac combo deal these days, and certainly not super-sized.

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by Bill Smith

Stay poor, see if I care. Justify it anyway you want.

Bill, I have seen this type of statement from you before and have often wondered the following:

According to your standards, what is poor and what qualifies as the opposite (success)?

Name the quantity, unit of measure, and time period please.

And is this standard relative or absolute?

I am trying to determine if I am poor or not, according to your standards. If these standards were absolute, I guess I would already know...

[weishaupt1776]

http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/mp3...s=barkbite.mp3

[Bill Smith]

According to your standards, what is poor and what qualifies as the opposite (success)?

While concepts of "poor" and "success" -- and indeed there is a wide range of what would constitute "success" which is not necessarily even measured from a monetary perspective -- are quite subjective, it seems that there are some bare minimums that we can identify:

Poor: Required to request subsistance from others to meet daily needs.

Successful: Not required to request subsistance from others to meet daily needs.

In other words, while everyone could reasonably disagree based on their personal standards as to whether a car is going "fast" or not, at some point everybody would agree that it is stopped and not going at all, which rather perfectly describes David Merrill's situation.

[suijuris]

Originally Posted by Bill Smith

While concepts of "poor" and "success" -- and indeed there is a wide range of what would constitute "success" which is not necessarily even measured from a monetary perspective -- are quite subjective....

...at some point everybody would agree that it is stopped and not going at all, which rather perfectly describes David Merrill's situation.

First, I am not here regarding David Merrill's situation. I raised my questions because I have seen you use this poor/success logic on other threads and want to know your definition of the terms.

At least we agree the terms poor/success are subjective.

Originally Posted by Bill Smith

...it seems that there are some bare minimums that we can identify:

Poor: Required to request subsistance from others to meet daily needs.

Successful: Not required to request subsistance from others to meet daily needs.

I think your definition of 'Poor' is about right.

However, when followed through, the definition of 'Success' does not factor in the moral issues of what someone is willing to do in order to avoid being required to request subsistance; he could be robbing/defrauding to gain that status. Is he still successfull, or just a successfull thief? Is there any difference?

Also, I believe "requesting subsistance" would cover more than somebody making a direct verbal request for subsistance, and it does not need to be done on a daily basis. For example, requesting welfare, a loan, a job, or bankruptcy status would put one in the 'unsuccessful' class for the duration of the welfare/loan/job/bankruptcy, would it not?

At any rate, I am happy to learn that by your definition I am quite successful. Thanks for clearing that up Bill!

[Bill Smith]

For example, requesting welfare, a loan, a job, or bankruptcy status would put one in the 'unsuccessful' class for the duration of the welfare/loan/job/bankruptcy, would it not?

The welfare and bankruptcy would seem to fall into this category. As to the loan and job parts, that is more subjective. A real estate developer might take a loan instead of investing his own money, because he can borrow the money at 6% interest and make 40% on the project. A corporate executive making $10 million a year might not "need" his job in a sense, but continues to work it anyhow because he enjoys it. Some people continue to work jobs long after their strict need for money has been surpassed.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by suijuris

...For example, requesting welfare, a loan, a job, or bankruptcy status would put one in the 'unsuccessful' class for the duration of the welfare/loan/job/bankruptcy, would it not?...

Several issues to address here, not the least of which is that the stigma of bankruptcy for successfully discharged Chapter 13 cases is minimal compared to dismissal or discharge in Chapter 7.

Thousands of Chapter 11 (business reorganization) cases are in process at any given time, and some companies can emerge from those reorganizations and prosper.

Finding a job is hardly something only the poor do; very few people today have the same job they had ten years ago, let alone the same career.

Requesting a loan is a very practical matter for acquiring really needed things before one has the time to collect the necessary amounts, or in situations where the party has limited liquid assets.

There are even ideal scenarios for using a credit card to buy certain items even if you have the funds on hand to buy them. I know one small leasing business that used their Corporate AMEX cards to buy the equipment they were turning around and putting into leases. Those transactions built up hundreds of thousands of miles the company could use for travel.

But the real problem with debt is that people who seem to think they're poor want to make themselves appear more wealthy by acquiring things. They are the perfect targets for the loan sharks who prey on their emotionally-derrived, rapid-gratification mindset. The victims end up only temporarily happy and all-too-often on the scale of things, worse off.

While many people can rely on the fact that things often "get better" in their future, that can also lead to unmet expectations for some.

This mindset permeates families with school-aged children to the degree that too many of them will buy way too much house to get their kids into "good schools." It takes two moderate/middle incomes to pull this off in a lot of cases. Then when one of those incomes goes away (from uninsured illness, job loss, etc.), it's only a matter of weeks or months at the most before trouble starts.

That doesn't make someone unsuccessful; it makes them physically ill; it makes them desperate; some reach out for anything, including scams. In the bankrupcty research done by Professor Elizabeth Warren, among families with children, one in seven will end up in bankruptcy, frequently in an effort to stave off a foreclosure. Only about a third of Chapter 13 cases complete to discharge so for two thirds, it's only a temporary delay until they either sell the property or "mail in the keys," or deal with an eviction.

There needs to be balance in terms of people's expectations about what lies in store for them financially. There will be ups and downs so I guess "success" is being able to get through the downs by getting ready during the ups.