Learn to control money but do not allow it to control you

ani_26

Firewalker wrote: »

The rest of the day was fine although a bit boring – but I did earn £500 which is exciting but then I am going to pay substantial proportion of it in tax. I did say some time ago though that I am one of these people who really want to pay loads of tax – and not because this will mean that I am earning loads as well but because the ability of a state to look after its weaker members is a measure of its culture and civilisation.
After a splendid but rather expensive dinner – tune with anchovy, asparagus and potato and olive ragout – we plaid a game of monopoly. OH and I wiped out friend and Little Boy again. We do make a great partnership in all that – it is true of life as well.

If you are out – have great time; if you are in – sleep well; wherever you are have a very, very nice weekend.

Firewalker

Thats very kind of you to help others with your payments of tax ,fw, and appreciated. x


' The ability of a state to look after its weaker members ' . Does this necessarily mean, those members are weak?



This one really has me thinking now, as i stand to be late for work.

Who is a weaker member of soceity? Are'nt all men equal? I know i always treat, everyone exactly the same, whoever they are. Well, i try, anyway. With respect, and as a human being. Mind you, i've never met a member of the royal family, but i'd still class them the same as everyone else. A human being.


Late, late, late, must go.

MrsMoo2U

Cheery_Daff wrote: »

With Getting Things Done - I like the idea of gathering everything together in a giant pile, then going through and doing the things that wil take less than 2 mins, and 'processing' the rest, adding to various lists etc, but you're right, it does sound rather regimented! Will see what I think when I've got to the end... D

Cheery, thanks for this. You reminded me of one of the things that I used to always do and I have gotten out of the habit without even knowing it. Such a simple thing. When I worked in my last job there were certain things that needed to be done but were tedious and fiddly but when done didnt take long at all. Lots of people I worked with left this until last or carried it over and it would become overwhelming. I learned pretty quickly that if I did this job first every day it would take 5 minutes and I could think clearly for the rest of the day. Such a timely reminder for me. Thanks By the way - what is that book of which you speak? I probably know how to "get things done" but your post was an indication that sometimes we need a gentle reminder of how to organise ourselves

ani_26 wrote: »

Thats very kind of you to help others with your payments of tax ,fw, and appreciated. x


' The ability of a state to look after its weaker members ' . Does this necessarily mean, those members are weak?



This one really has me thinking now, as i stand to be late for work.

Who is a weaker member of soceity? Are'nt all men equal? I know i always treat, everyone exactly the same, whoever they are. Well, i try, anyway. With respect, and as a human being. Mind you, i've never met a member of the royal family, but i'd still class them the same as everyone else. A human being.


Late, late, late, must go.

Good point here Ani. I think that perhaps the word weaker is often used to describe the most vulnerable in society. People often like to use the word weaker rather than vulnerable and I often wonder why that might be. Any one of us can become vulnerable at some point in our lives for very many reasons. Is this not what the welfare state was meant to be for? Rather than it becoming the crutch that it has it was meant to help people through a vulnerable time in their lives. I wonder sometimes if the idea became a tool to "keep people down" in a very subtle way. So subtle that even the people supporting the system didn't realise this was happening until too late. Taxes are a good thing when used in the correct way, I think that, for example, people who become unemployed should be supported in much more useful ways than just handing them welfare benefits. Now before you all get annoyed with me, I support the welfare system 100% and I do believe that people on benefits should be given a decent amount of money to allow them to live and not simply survive. What I mean about more support is counselling (when needed) to boost their self esteem and moral.All too often people are handed a paltry amount of money and left to deteriorate until they are so vulnerable they have no idea of how to get out of the situation they are in. I would love my taxes to be used in this manner but sadly no government will ever actually do this. I have noticed that the language of people who are unemployed is returning to the that of the 80s and 90s, "wasters, leeches" and it really makes me angry. I get angry with the tv programmes such as Saints and Sinners. Having worked in that field I know that the number of people who are "true" "sinners" are few and far between. Most people who are overpaid benefits have just tried to make ends meet by doing little things for a few extra pounds. Not the way that this programme shows them to be. In my mind it is propoganda and it is this type of thing that stops people from wanting to pay their taxes. Add to this the way that the elderly are treated when it comes time for them to need care and support and I fully understand why people are reluctant to pay taxes.

Sorry for the rant but your question got me thinking about Weak and Vulnerable and how we see people directly relates to how we treat them I believe.

Firewalker

ani_26 wrote: »

Thats very kind of you to help others with your payments of tax ,fw, and appreciated. x

' The ability of a state to look after its weaker members ' . Does this necessarily mean, those members are weak?

Hi Ani, good, provocative questions as usual. First, the tax thing is interesting - I think that we all should do that; pay tax and when people need to be supported not to be-little them but support them with dignity. And please note - I believe that people need support, not help. Help keeps one where they are; support helps them become what they want to be.

One of my greatest concerns at the moment (apart from personal stuff which is not imporntant in the larger view, really) is that the neo-liberal state continues to tax us but want to withdraw from public services. It is not going to make much sense if we continue to be average tax country and no public services country as the same time. So, paying taxes and paying for healthcare is not on!

The weaker members? My first reaction was - I did not call this properly. But the second one is - yes, there are weaker members of society. They are elderly people, ill people, young people, children. And there are also people who are temporarily down on their luck. I will certainly put you in the second category; for that matter until recently I would have put me in the same category. Then looked at some statistics, did some research and realised that I am not - I just have been terribly irresponsible and immature; and stuborn to boot.

So you are right - there is a sizable group (unfortunately growing at present) the members of which are not 'weaker members'; but again they don't need looking after either. This group needs support - and if the state is not going to do it I think it is our moral duty to do it in the neo-liberal way: each of us offers the suppoirt we can offer. Some can offer a good word; others - a good word and advice; yet other can add some financial support to this.

I have made offering support my mission - I want to give back. Through MSE, through the Money principle and through my latest obsession with building wealth. I don't lust after things any longer (I never did, really) - what I want to be able to do is to offer support in a really big and meaningful way.

And this is what you do - you make me write a long essay on human nature and social relationships when I should be going shopping for food and cooking lunch for all my men. Hope you were not late for work.

And, my friends, hope that what I said doen't sound pathetic - this is how I feel and this is what I decided to work towards about nine-ten months ago. It is all documented here btw!

Firewalker

Firewalker

cherisong wrote: »

late. Taxes are a good thing when used in the correct way, I think that, for example, people who become unemployed should be supported in much more useful ways than just handing them welfare benefits.
Sorry for the rant but your question got me thinking about Weak and Vulnerable and how we see people directly relates to how we treat them I believe.

Cheri, agree. This is what I mean by support - wrote the post above before reading yours. 'Weaker' was an unfortunate word to use, may be....but the distinction has to be made. There are different groups of people who need different kinds of support.

FW

ani_26

Firewalker wrote: »

The weaker members? My first reaction was - I did not call this properly. But the second one is - yes, there are weaker members of society. They are elderly people, ill people, young people, children. And there are also people who are temporarily down on their luck. I will certainly put you in the second category; for that matter until recently I would have put me in the same category. Then looked at some statistics, did some research and realised that I am not - I just have been terribly irresponsible and immature; and stuborn to boot.

So you are right - there is a sizable group (unfortunately growing at present) the members of which are not 'weaker members'; but again they don't need looking after either. This group needs support - and if the state is not going to do it I think it is our moral duty to do it in the neo-liberal way: each of us offers the suppoirt we can offer. Some can offer a good word; others - a good word and advice; yet other can add some financial support to this.

I have made offering support my mission - I want to give back. Through MSE, through the Money principle and through my latest obsession with building wealth. I don't lust after things any longer (I never did, really) - what I want to be able to do is to offer support in a really big and meaningful way.

And this is what you do - you make me write a long essay on human nature and social relationships when I should be going shopping for food and cooking lunch for all my men. Hope you were not late for work.



Firewalker

Hmmm. I disagree that elderly people, ill people, young people, children, people down on their luck, all belong to this category of weak people. Thats a huge chunk of soceity, that are all weak people. You just can't categorise people in this way.


Its interesting you place me in the second category, that of the weak people. In what way am i a weak person? Maybe i would'nt like the answer to this question. But strangely, i don't see myself as a weak person. Far from it.



Maybe soceity as a whole's, obsession with building wealth has led to the global state of economy?


Incidently, i am not currently receiving any form of benefits or help, from the welfare state, ( i've been too busy working, to fill in my form for wtc, which i must do today).


No, i was'nt late for work, thanks. I'm glad this gives you another viewpoint to consider. Its not my intention to be antagonistic.

ani_26

cherisong wrote: »

Good point here Ani. I think that perhaps the word weaker is often used to describe the most vulnerable in society. People often like to use the word weaker rather than vulnerable and I often wonder why that might be. Any one of us can become vulnerable at some point in our lives for very many reasons. Is this not what the welfare state was meant to be for? Rather than it becoming the crutch that it has it was meant to help people through a vulnerable time in their lives. I wonder sometimes if the idea became a tool to "keep people down" in a very subtle way. So subtle that even the people supporting the system didn't realise this was happening until too late. Taxes are a good thing when used in the correct way, I think that, for example, people who become unemployed should be supported in much more useful ways than just handing them welfare benefits. Now before you all get annoyed with me, I support the welfare system 100% and I do believe that people on benefits should be given a decent amount of money to allow them to live and not simply survive. What I mean about more support is counselling (when needed) to boost their self esteem and moral.All too often people are handed a paltry amount of money and left to deteriorate until they are so vulnerable they have no idea of how to get out of the situation they are in. I would love my taxes to be used in this manner but sadly no government will ever actually do this. I have noticed that the language of people who are unemployed is returning to the that of the 80s and 90s, "wasters, leeches" and it really makes me angry. I get angry with the tv programmes such as Saints and Sinners. Having worked in that field I know that the number of people who are "true" "sinners" are few and far between. Most people who are overpaid benefits have just tried to make ends meet by doing little things for a few extra pounds. Not the way that this programme shows them to be. In my mind it is propoganda and it is this type of thing that stops people from wanting to pay their taxes. Add to this the way that the elderly are treated when it comes time for them to need care and support and I fully understand why people are reluctant to pay taxes.

Sorry for the rant but your question got me thinking about Weak and Vulnerable and how we see people directly relates to how we treat them I believe.

I'm sure this is true. How we see people, for most people, does directly relate to how we treat them. Or how we stereotype people. But then you could turn this round on itself and say there are stereotypes who will always view things in a certain way, and treat certain people in a certain way. But then, that is really out of order. Maybe the so called weak and vulnerable,( whoever they may be), would too, have their say? Maybe the weak / vulnerable, have more of a strength than anyone would ever give them credit for?

Firewalker

ani_26 wrote: »

Its interesting you place me in the second category, that of the weak people. In what way am i a weak person? Maybe i would'nt like the answer to this question. But strangely, i don't see myself as a weak person. Far from it.

Ani26, small correction - you, and many of us, I place under 'temporary down on my luck' category.

As to the 'weak' thing - Cheri is correct. This is more about vulnerability and contains no other judgement apart from the one that distinguishes between people who 'could' and who for some reason 'couldn't'. Children 'could't' but will get there; very elderly people used to but 'could't'.

This is not about benefits at all - this is also about the NHS (this is for all of us but the question is what will happen if we didn't have it); it is about education (what will happen if public funding for education declines so much that some people cannot afford it) etc.

As I have said before, I never think - ot will ever think - of you as 'weak' or anything else. Quite the reverse - you have been through a lot and will yet come on the other side.

And remember - this is the 'discussion tread'. Different view points welcome. I am, however, trying to clarify mine. I still don't mind paying tax and would like to be able to offer support directly.

And, for what it is worth, I think that you should fill in the documents and get some support. My feeling is that this will enable you to recover - in all senses - faster.

FW

gilligansyle

Some really thought provoking stuff here, and initially I did wonder too about the term 'weak' as a lot of people would take issue with being classified as weak. But cheri is right, its more about vulnerable and where possible resources should be channelled to support people to get out of that vulnerable state.

That said, its not always going to be possible. I am thinking in this instance of my own mother who would never have allowed herself to be classed as either weak or vulnerable until a few recent bouts of illness have left her very vulnerable and dependent on support. Society today doesn't deal very well with carers, for example, so although there is extended family who are willing to assist mum, the financial cost is too great. For either my sister or myself to give more support would mean a substantial drop in income which neither of us can cope with at the moment. She therefore is on a waiting list for even the most basic of assessment of her needs by the local authority/NHS. This is where the system fails and I agree, as a lifelong socialist, I would pay more if I thought the money was being used wisely.

Sorry, rant over.

Firewalker

gilligansyle wrote: »

until a few recent bouts of illness have left her very vulnerable and dependent on support. Society today doesn't deal very well with carers, for example, so although there is extended family who are willing to assist mum, the financial cost is too great. For either my sister or myself to give more support would mean a substantial drop in income which neither of us can cope with at the moment. She therefore is on a waiting list for even the most basic of assessment of her needs by the local authority/NHS. This is where the system fails and I agree, as a lifelong socialist, I would pay more if I thought the money was being used wisely.

Sorry, rant over.

Yes, Gilli, this is pretty much what I meant - most older people are fine; but when the time comes and they (we one day) need support and assisstance, it ought to be there.

FW

Triciaxx

‘Weak; vulnerable’. Two words with emotive connotations. Let’s try and look at this a different way. We are inclined to attribute moral values to physical and mental states which don’t warrant such an ethical value judgement.

Patient : “I’ve still got pain in my stomach, Doctor.”

Doctor : “Well you shouldn’t have. We’ve removed your appendix.”

The potential problem is due, in part, to semantics. The patient personalised the pain with “I’ve got pain” rather than objectifying it with “My stomach hurts.”

The Doctor has used the emotive word ‘shouldn’t’ – as if the patient has made a deliberate choice. S/he is probably reacting, unconsciously to feeling inadequate because s/he doesn’t know what is wrong and doesn’t want to lose face/status by admitting it. Therefore, s/he feels weak and vulnerable.

The patient hears ‘shouldn’t’ and feels (equally unconsciously) guilty. S/he ‘hears’ “You have chosen to feel pain because you are weak.” S/he may well become defensive and the situation may escalate.

Oh, the mind is a tricky thing!;)

On a more practical note. We pay our taxes to keep society running smoothly. At various times in our lives, we may become weak and vulnerable due to circumstances beyond our control. If we do not take our rightful benefits which the state provides, we may prolong our recovery period and so delay returning to our strength. I would suggest that is the equivalent of delaying getting medical help.

Some members of our society will remain unable to provide for themselves because of physical or mental problems. They have a right to expect care and help – they, too, are part of our society.

The situation our more vulnerable members of society find themselves in – Gilli has given an example – are wrong and infuriating and , ultimately, scary.

BTW : The example with the doctor/patient exchange was taken from personal experience.