April 21, 2008 / 09:31
So the Toronto Star has told us the rich people can buy things that other people can't, I am so glad for such investigative journalism like this. The article also goes on to explain that apparently poor people cannot stop themselves from the temptations of material goods. Again we seem to pass the buck and blame the retailers for making their products look so nice and not the idiot people who can't afford the things they are buying.
I understand debt and bad situations. I was laid off from my job and spent several months trying to find work. I built up a lot of debt in that time. I was poorly prepared for the job loss. I didn't blame everyone else and I paid my debts. I also didn't start buying things I didn't need and I limited things as well. Just because I was home all day didn't mean I needed the Movie Network on my cable bill.
Stop blaming other and own up to the responsibility. I am sorry that someone became disabled and couldn't make the same income as before. It sucks and it is sad. Unfortunately it means making changes and dealing with the problem. You can't live the life you once did.
April 21, 2008 / 10:29
The Star is a rag. If you are 'rich' - which means middle or upper class, male and white, the Star considers you the source of all the problems in this country.
The Star never blames these people for their lack of poor judgement. It is always the fault of someone else.
BTW Freddie, I still watch TV on an 27' old Sony that still works perfectly after many years. My family doesn't feel too disadvantaged over this.
April 21, 2008 / 10:29
The debt problem is probably worse than we think. Every second ad on 640 am is for one mortgage company or another pushing debt consolidations and comsumer proposals to creditors. My favourite is the one that has the ditsy-sounding girl cheerfully warbling "They paid off all my debts, and I went on vacation!" -paid for by going further into debt, no doubt.
April 21, 2008 / 12:32
Fred, long time listener, first time...poster...
Funny article...so many things that anger with one ray of hope at the end that I’m surprised nobody in their editorial department spotted. It was the only sane thing I read there.
I'm sure the Star intended this to anger those of us it considers rich, but they can’t seem to differentiate being rich and simply living inside our means. I mean, since I don’t worry how I’ll make my next Lexus payment, by their examples I must be rich. Actually, in the real world I live in it’s because I don’t have one as I know I can’t afford one and wouldn’t be stupid enough to try to finance one.
To their talking points:
1) "poorer" or low income Canadians have low incomes but high student loan, car loan or other debt compared to their assets. Given I know I didn't get a CEO wage the day I graduated, I would expect that I have very little other than debt and a hand me down couch coming out of school. I know I had to work year round through school to minimize that, but I'm sure I'll hear about it from some lefty about how students shouldn't sacrifice while they are in school. Well, welcome to no sacrifice up front, and enjoy your debt. Now pay it down and start saving to purchase things.
2) Easyhome and other rent to own stores are expensive. They always have been…how is this a revelation to anyone in this country more than a month or so, or that can read a price tag? 3 minutes of grade 5 math would tell you how much you will pay them in total to get the item from them and you subtract from the going rate at your favourite other store... Save your pennies and buy it outright, or lose the French Provincial lifestyle until you can afford it.
3) Peel Family Services Guy: A family was “sucked” into financing a Lexus they could not afford…damn…I don’t know how to say this nicely, but if you can get sucked into making payments that exceed what you make and can pay you deserve the bankruptcy that is coming. I give a little benefit of the doubt as he mentions recent immigrants, but even so the rest of the world knows they have to make payments out of what they earn. If the payments are too much, you just say no. Now, give the truck back, pay the penalty charge for returning it and purchase what you can afford. Again, this is nothing more than people somehow thinking they deserve the caviar dreams on a tuna salad budget, and when the house of cards collapses they expect the rest to bail them out. Further from this guy was a statement about how people feel they need to purchase items at any cost to keep their “status”...here’s a flash: get over yourselves. I’m sure bankruptcy will hurt your life and status more than not having the latest blackberry while rolling in your Escalade.
In summary, the article did offer one intelligent question toward the end, “Can someone be defined as poor if they can't afford to buy fresh fruit and vegetables every second day or go to a movie twice a year, but are making payments on a plasma TV, a stereo or a car?”
Here is the primary problem with everyone they spoke of: to a great extent they have defined this and defend it as being the result of our society. I was always taught the priorities were shelter, food and clothing, not Lexus, plasma and Rolex. Now we have to yell loud enough to keep this new definition from sticking if we don’t want to be paying for these peoples egos while we are penalized for living within our means.
April 21, 2008 / 13:58
Here is a secret from us "rich" to the "poor". Don't spend money that you don't have. That TV you had before you lost your ability to work is still good. The fact that the tube is 12 inches from the wall instead of up against it doesn't change anything of significance.
Oh and here is a suggestion for entertainment... if there is nothing on tv, go to this place called a "library". It is full of books, and you'll be shocked at the cost of borrowing one. You even have a choice of getting a thick book or a flat one.
April 21, 2008 / 14:37
I'm still too pissed off to gather my thoughts. Stafford is talking about this story right now which is adding fuel to this slow burn of mine.
Unlike those #%&^'ers, I have to get back to work.
April 21, 2008 / 16:24
Freddie, you're right.
April 22, 2008 / 00:28
What a society....
My wife and I are 40 this year. It's been 20 years of frugal living: second hand furniture, 27 inch tube tv's, used cars, dinners in, never had cable (remember antenna's?), no cell phones. No internet. etc etc. But things are finally cresting: the house is almost ours, the kids are happy and healthy - with some saving for university; we're beginning to enjoy more exotic vacations. We can hit a restaurant if we really want to...
And we have good, well paying jobs. But it's been a long time coming. A lot of hard work.
How do young couples manage? Enormous weddings. New $400,000 homes. 2 leased cars in the driveway. Wide screen tv's. Blackberries. Satellite dishes. Leather furniture in the "Breakfast Nook" to accompany the outdoor L-Z-Boy furniture.... Which gets some use after returning from the Dominican.....
I can't even begin to imagine the stress making the minimum payments on luxury must create, never mind the prospect of a 40 year mortgage to make.... Do these people not want kids? How can they ever afford them?
Am I crazy, Fred? Or, am I just a cheap b*stard? Should I approach my boss for a raise - does everyone make 100 grand a year, now-a-days???!
By the way, Fred, have you ever considered shlepping houses like Bullard? I got those guys calling me (although it was an electronic message)encouraging me to list my house. Maybe you could list tin palaces...
Well, whatever. No worries, Fred... keep on truckin'! We all look forward to your next adventure.
Dave O
It never ceases to fail, whenever you read stories about Canada's alleged poor, usually in the Toronto Star, there's always something to piss you off.
Site Feed
Recent Posts, Recent Comments & Categories
