The Forum > Article Comments > The growing cost of living poorly > Comments
The growing cost of living poorly : Comments
By Julie Edwards, published 17/1/2006Julie Edwards argues the cost of living for the poor has risen disproportionately to that of the rich.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
- 7
-
- All
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 19 January 2006 5:14:12 PM
| |
Shonga.
You once again are correct. I lived on a "worm and a glass of water" 25 years ago to save a deposit for my first house. I now own my own home, I worked bloody hard to pay extra and reduce the mortgage. But I once again am lucky my home is not yet considered an asset, people living on over 2 hectares (I think) have their home considered an asset even if they live in a dust bowl. "Sorry your disabled and cannot work but your land should produce income so bugger off or sell it" I am lucky to have a broadband connection paid for by my family. I am lucky because I can exist on what I get, $80 does not go far. I have terminal cancer that is why I do not work, not because I have chosen to, not because I cannot get out of bed, (although some days it is difficult). Why has this thread degenerated into discussion about relative levels of poverty? Tuna (canned $1.89), spiral pasta (69c), White sauce (flour 5c, butter 10c, milk 20c, cheese $1.00) $4.38 for ingredients add 62 cents for power make it a round $5 meal. Thats $35 a week, leaves $45 for petrol ,clothes, prescriptions (only $4.60 but it adds up)etc. Yes I do count every cent, I have to. I agree I am lucky, but I also feel for those who's lives are worse because of our mean and sneaky Govt. Posted by Steve Madden, Thursday, 19 January 2006 5:58:53 PM
| |
Kekenidika, The misspelling of your name was not in any way deliberate, politically motivated or otherwise however upon reflection, I must admit, that the previous postings were overly harsh and critical. Your resentment was understandable.
I wish I could mount an argument in my own defence but, unfortunately, that is not the case in any real sense. Apologies for any affront that I may have caused. Posted by Craig Blanch, Thursday, 19 January 2006 8:29:22 PM
| |
Actually Shonga I said that perhaps poor needs to be defined and that it is subjective. I did not claim it required evaluation, but your point is taken. However, if it is defined in terms of Australian standards as you are suggesting then it is a subjective definition as I proposed. At the same time there are also different classes of poor within Australia (no need to compare elsewhere, therefore as others have also posted it may be relative or absolute.
Posted by Coraliz, Thursday, 19 January 2006 9:40:25 PM
| |
Shonga I'm sorry to hear about your health problems. I have less faith then you in the experts, when it comes to mental health. Neuroscience has been a bit of a hobby of mine for a while and I think that there are answers, but alot of them we can figure out for ourselves.
I once followed a US website, where people were trying to deal with anxiety, depression etc. They had swallowed every drug, suffered from all sorts of side effects from those drugs, but those making by far the best progress, were those who took a daily magnesium supplement. Our modern diets lack magnesium. I also know from animal nutrition, that increasing magnesium calms livestock. Next thing, half of us are coffee addicts. Its part of our modern lifestyle, particularly in the US. I've done some experiments. Cut coffee to max of 1-2 cups a day, add a magnesium supplement to the diet and its amazing what those things can do for brain chemistry, once you get past the caffeine addiction withdrawel symptoms. To be honest, I would hate to be federal treasurer. I once saw the amount of people receiving various welfare payments and it was more then there were taxpayers. A huge % of the Federal budget goes on welfare. Who do we tax more, who do we help? I really don't know, as there are so many areas of need. Tax the rich more and they will simply go elsewhere. The poor are already paying plenty of tax. The only answer I can see is that 50 somethings generally are doing pretty well, from massive increases in real estate values. Rather then leave it to the kids, they might as well use that value to enjoy their lives more and rely less on Govt. Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 19 January 2006 10:53:47 PM
| |
When_The_Going_Gets_Weird
Great post! Shonga "I am 50, and have the following, Chronic Major Depression, Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and lastly Insommnia." I suffered similarly to you and have improved enormously since switching to a strict hypoglycemic diet. Magnesium and caffeine (as mentioned by Yabby) are part of it but there's a lot more. Check out this website. http://www.hypoglycemia.asn.au Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 19 January 2006 11:43:39 PM
|
You claim we have to evaluate "poor" well how about we use "Australian Standards" as we do for many other things. Australian Standards, could be not enough money to feed a family of 4-5 properly, not enought money to put petrol in the car to go to job interviews, not enough money to pay electricity/gas bills,not enough money to go to the doctor when children are sick etc. Like Steve Madden, some of the luckier "poor" people have worked for decades so we at least have some infastructure, which saves us money, personally I do not smoke or drink, so that is not an issue for me.
We actually live in Australia, so comparing our poverty to international poverty is a useless exercise, many of us have paid our dues [taxes] un-discounted for decades, as an insurance premium in case of emergency, which is now upon us individually, and in my case because of ill-treatment by an employeer.