BellaOnline Forums Money Frugal Living From $70k Salary to Food Bank in 1 month

That is really my biggest concern. There is a limited amount of money for food banks. We already have starving people that we cannot feed. Someone who has the means to sell a Tiffany bracelet and get food should not take from that "limited supply" and mean that a *real* homeless person without Tiffany bracelets to sell is going to starve ...

Lisa you have a good point.

Depending on how each particular food bank is stocked, I've even gone and bought canned or boxed food for their food drives. It's kind of unnerving that my purchased and then donated food was given to someone with a situation similar to this woman. I mean I should've just gone out to dinner then. Maybe we could trade, she could give me her Tiffany bracelet and I'll give her the canned ravioli I bought.

This to me is a hard subject to broach because it can bring up many other issues. I am in the mind set too that the children should come first and not the tiffany bracelet. I would get rid of that thing and much more just to make sure my children had what they needed. Food, clothing, shelter come first. Everything else is just wants and desires.

And at the same time, I know how frustrated I get at watching people suck off of the government assistance program when they are more than capable of working and doing their part.

Right I think both of your points are extremely valid Bahrain. People who lose a job should focus on essentials, and not cling to luxuries. If you have lost your job you shouldn't be playing with expensive jewelry - you should be evaluating your necessities in life. When I had money troubles, I went through everything and ebayed or cut corners in every way I could.

And yes, the other aspect is that our safety net is meant for people who really are doing everything they can and still need the help. It exists as a last stop measure to prevent starvation. It doesn't exist so that people who could get a temporary job decide instead to keep their Tiffany bracelets and fine manicures and not sully themselves by looking for temporary work ...

Again, social money is not limitless. There is only so much to go around. If people who COULD work take money out of the system, then the people who honestly can NOT work will not have any funds for basic food items.

Yes, I agree with you Lisa. Social money was meant to help give people a lift up but instead we have created a huge monster of nothing but dependency, and people know this. But yet, when it comes to real people who really need it desperately, they are turned away.

Just like I've watched people with long criminal histories work the system. They know how it works, they know even if they go to jail that they can get their sentenced reduced for good behavior and then maybe get placed in a very comfortable halfway house till their time to get out and then when they do, they just get into trouble all over again.

The same goes for people on governmental assistance for the most part. They know if it's coming in for free, why shoot the horse.

I'm sorry to say, but it all sickens me to death.

I have a friend who grew up and was on welfare at one point. She said she thinks welfare should be demeaning -- that it helps motivate the recipient to get off assistance. Certainly, she is motivated to stay off!

I really think there is a bigger issue to be concerned with here... if anyone has yahoo, have you notice the "Luxury For Rent" purse advertisement? You can rent these thousand dollar purses.

We live in a consumer driven society. Consume... consume... consume... It is how we are raised from childhood.

Thankfully I came to this conclusion before financial ruin LOL, but obviously, this woman with her tiffany bracelet and coach bag seems to believe that her situation is not permanent, and that she will be back in business like nothing ever happened.

She will probably continue to believe this until the day she has to sell that Tiffany bracelet to pay for utilities.

I can see where you all are coming from. I don't condone this woman's behavior of clinging to her expensive jewlery and handbag when she can't even feed her kids, but to say that she should downsize her home and lifestyle to meet her needs, I think that shows a lack of understanding of her situation. Sure, it's easy to say she should sell her house, move to a less expensive area, etc. But the reality is those things aren't that easy to do. With the housing market the way it is right now, she'd be hard pressed to find a buyer for her house. And it's even more unlikely that she could rent it out to someone, at least to someone willing to pay enough in rent to cover the cost of the mortgage. And it's not that easy to pick up and move.

Cost of living is different in different areas of the country. $70k a year may be a lot of money in some places, but in others, it is middle class. And it's not like she could just go work at McDonald's until she finds another job, because then she wouldn't receive her unemployment, which I'm sure provides more than the McDonald's job would anyway.
I hate to say it, but in a lot of ways, when the going gets tough, the middle class are often screwed. There are plenty of programs available for the poor, but when it comes to middle class people falling on hard times, there's no where to turn, becuase many people are of the mindset that, "She should have planned for that." or "She's middle class, she can take care of herself." Another thing I want to add - this woman paid taxes when she was working, to fund programs like welfare, and when she needed it, she was denied. But there are many people who take advantage of the system, feed off of it, and never pay it back. Sorry to rant, but once I started typing it all came out.

I am aware that different areas of the country have vastly different costs of housing, etc. However, she got herself into this position by purchasing a house she couldn't afford -- and should have known better in the first place. She couldn't afford it when she was employed -- that's why she had an interest-only loan.

>this woman paid taxes when she was working, to fund programs like welfare, and when she needed it, she was denied.

But she probably had unemployment benefits, which she also paid into. That isn't enough to cover mortgage and food and utilities, I know, but it is more than many on welfare have to start with.

I think the crux of the issue is that she chose to over-extend herself with things she couldn't really afford when she was working, without saving anything for emergencies, yet feels that others should pay for her necessities, when she never bothered denying herself anything earlier, in order to stash away that emergency fund that is recommended to all.

She was a loan processor -- she SHOULD have known better. It was a matter of choice on her part. Obviously, it wasn't a matter of choice for her to get laid off. And hopefully, she will find a new job soon. But if she had been more prudent earlier, she would not be in dire straits now.

To be honest, I don't think the welfare system *should* help keep middle class people at a middle class income any more than it should keep wealthy people at a wealthy income. Its whole purpose is to save the poorest of the poor from starvation, not to keep anybody "in a lifestyle to which we have been accustomed to". Welfare is not alimony.

If you are middle class, you *are* already making more than a subsistence income and should be saving money. You should be living within your means. That is part of the definition of middle class. You are not down in the poor class where there simply is not any extra money to save. If you are middle class and you *choose* to spend your extra income on Tiffany bracelets and Coach handbags and buying houses that are too much for your income - and then you want society to save you, how is that fair? How about all the other middle class people who DID save and plan for the future and who can handle being laid off. They are now in a way being "penalized" because they did not blow their extra money on spending sprees.

Middle class families with Coach bags and Tiffany bracelets should NOT be getting support! It boggles my mind that they would ask the government TO support them in their luxury lifestyle.

I would call myself "middle class" and I do not own any Tiffany bracelets or Coach bags. Should I not go ask the government for some extra cash, so I can reach this woman's level? I paid in to all the welfare systems for many years too ...

This is exactly why I am against large government, that it gets to these extremes. That is not where I want my taxes going.