Limit To Luxury Morally good thing to do or human rights violation

[Harlot 2]

sooooooooo, what exactly did that have to do with anything? thanks for proving my point once again, buddy...

My point is that your post is nothing more than harassment rather than an attempt at serious discussion, and your have no point, just personal attacks and bigotry. Your attempt to save face by saying "you proved my point" is a failure and everyone in this community can see that your conduct is idiotic. You have destroyed your creditability..again.

This is the non sense that everyone see in your recent statement..."sooooo, what exactly did my personal attacks have to do with anything? thanks for proving my point once again". You responses is completely non-sense. In addition you act like you have an emotion attachment to me, since you obviously have taken my views personally enough to follow me thread to thread like a online stalker. You have already derailed this thread by throwing around personal attacks and trying to prove a point that don't exist. Maybe you should disappear now and save whats left of your chewed up repetition.
Edited August 9, 2010 by Harlot (see edit history)

[Shahrukh 0]

I don't endorse personal attacks but Harlot, you have to understand that people talk in different ways, especially since the Internet supports a wide cultural and geological spectrum.Anwii did make a valid point in saying that your idea of basic necessities is unrealistic. What you said meant more like giving up most of your life rather than only luxuries.

[anwiii 17]

My point is that your post is nothing more than harassment rather than an attempt at serious discussion, and your have no point, just personal attacks and bigotry. Your attempt to save face by saying "you proved my point" is a failure and everyone in this community can see that your conduct is idiotic. You have destroyed your creditability..again.
This is the non sense that everyone see in your recent statement..."sooooo, what exactly did my personal attacks have to do with anything? thanks for proving my point once again". You responses is completely non-sense. In addition you act like you have an emotion attachment to me, since you obviously have taken my views personally enough to follow me thread to thread like a online stalker. You have already derailed this thread by throwing around personal attacks and trying to prove a point that don't exist. Maybe you should disappear now and save whats left of your chewed up repetition.

hmmmm woa!... are you going to ever get back on topic or what? i have not done any of the claims you've made, so let's not talk about my nonsense, ok? look in the mirror. if you don't like my views, that's one thing, but please stay on topic for the better good of the forum. i think you're not gonna make it in to heaven the way you're going, buddy you're computer is a luxury according to you and you are using it in bad bad ways here that are affecting people negatively.
Edited August 9, 2010 by anwiii (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

As I said at the start, the discussion will not really progress until luxury is defined, because it is central to the question.

[web_designer 7]

ok the argument here is heating up, but i prefer to answer the main question. for me i think i have my own balance in life. although i always believe in giving poor people and who are less fortune in life some of what we have, but i do that in a balanced way. for example, let's say i need a car to go to school or my job or for my family, so if i have money and i know that a neighbor needs some money to fix his roof for example. then i will buy a car for me, but a good one that covers my need not a fancy one and leave some money to lend it to that neighbor. another example, if i have about 100$ and i should buy grocery, and i saw a poor guy who didn't find something to eat then i could buy grocery in about 50$ or 75$ and give him the rest. because i really believe in helping others in life and sharing them our money will bring us more money in the future, to help even more people and make their life better. it is a kind of cycle that giving money to people who help others who don't have money to let the goodness in life continues and the hope of its presence exists. add to all that, when we help others in a way or another then someday when we need for help or someone to lend us a hand we will find someone to do that for us. i really think it is kind of repay for good people who have a good heart.

[Shahrukh 0]

As I said at the start, the discussion will not really progress until luxury is defined, because it is central to the question.

Dude, just consider it in the general sense: the extra expense above and over the required one.

ok the argument here is heating up, but i prefer to answer the main question. for me i think i have my own balance in life. although i always believe in giving poor people and who are less fortune in life some of what we have, but i do that in a balanced way. for example, let's say i need a car to go to school or my job or for my family, so if i have money and i know that a neighbor needs some money to fix his roof for example. then i will buy a car for me, but a good one that covers my need not a fancy one and leave some money to lend it to that neighbor.
another example, if i have about 100$ and i should buy grocery, and i saw a poor guy who didn't find something to eat then i could buy grocery in about 50$ or 75$ and give him the rest.

because i really believe in helping others in life and sharing them our money will bring us more money in the future, to help even more people and make their life better. it is a kind of cycle that giving money to people who help others who don't have money to let the goodness in life continues and the hope of its presence exists.

add to all that, when we help others in a way or another then someday when we need for help or someone to lend us a hand we will find someone to do that for us. i really think it is kind of repay for good people who have a good heart.

That is very generous of you. I wish more people did that.
However, there is a problem too. Especially in my country, people don't beg out of necessity. Its their 'job'. And, sadly, they collect more money this way than they would if they worked as labour, etc. Almost 70% population is illiterate here.
I am among the lucky ones, thanks to God.

[Bikerman 2]

Dude, just consider it in the general sense: the extra expense above and over the required one.

Over and above what? Bread and water?What many people do is expand spending to fit income. If you have a monthly outgoing of $1000 for the mortgage on your $500,000 home, and $500 repayment on the speedboat, and $600 for food mail-order from Harrods etc...then at the end of the month you might have little left over for 'luxuries' - but your luxuries are 'built-in' to the monthly expense....

[Shahrukh 0]

Over and above what? Bread and water?What many people do is expand spending to fit income. If you have a monthly outgoing of $1000 for the mortgage on your $500,000 home, and $500 repayment on the speedboat, and $600 for food mail-order from Harrods etc...then at the end of the month you might have little left over for 'luxuries' - but your luxuries are 'built-in' to the monthly expense....

Over and above what is 'required' to live your life.
And bread and water are not the only things. You need a home, transport, social life, education, communication and many other things like that.
You can live in a small house or in a mansion. The small house is a requirement and the mansion is a luxury.
You can travel via public transport or have a car, depends on your needs. A small car is a requirement and a 'luxury' car is a luxury. (They even name them luxury cars).
You have to meet people. You can do it at each other's home or a restaurant or go to a five star hotel with double expense per head.
Get the idea now?

[Bikerman 2]

Over and above what is 'required' to live your life.And bread and water are not the only things. You need a home, transport, social life, education, communication and many other things like that.
You can live in a small house or in a mansion. The small house is a requirement and the mansion is a luxury.
You can travel via public transport or have a car, depends on your needs. A small car is a requirement and a 'luxury' car is a luxury. (They even name them luxury cars).
You have to meet people. You can do it at each other's home or a restaurant or go to a five star hotel with double expense per head.
Get the idea now?

Not really.
OK - take a real case (my in-laws).
They run a newsagent. It is now in a very posh area but it wasn't when they bought it 45 years ago. Likewise their house was quite reasonable when they bought it but is now worth a mint. Their friends socialise at a local and very exclusive golf club (membership several thousand pounds) so they are naturally members.
Now, they could live in a house that wasn't worth a million, they could sell the shop and buy a smaller/cheaper property and they could find new friends. So are the million pound house and the golf club membership luxuries or 'what they need to live'?

Now that is a real example, but there are many more extreme ones. What about the top executive who meets his clients at the Ritz Grill because it creates a good impression, even though lunch costs Ł200 plus each. Luxury? What about the executive who owns a Lear Jet because he reckons the time it saves is worth the price? Luxury or not?

It is very easy to justify all sorts of things that I would regard as luxuries as being 'necessary to live life' - especially if one lives a life in which luxury is routine and widespread...

[Shahrukh 0]

Not really.OK - take a real case (my in-laws).
They run a newsagent. It is now in a very posh area but it wasn't when they bought it 45 years ago. Likewise their house was quite reasonable when they bought it but is now worth a mint. Their friends socialise at a local and very exclusive golf club (membership several thousand pounds) so they are naturally members.
Now, they could live in a house that wasn't worth a million, they could sell the shop and buy a smaller/cheaper property and they could find new friends. So are the million pound house and the golf club membership luxuries or 'what they need to live'?

Now that is a real example, but there are many more extreme ones. What about the top executive who meets his clients at the Ritz Grill because it creates a good impression, even though lunch costs Ł200 plus each. Luxury? What about the executive who owns a Lear Jet because he reckons the time it saves is worth the price? Luxury or not?

It is very easy to justify all sorts of things that I would regard as luxuries as being 'necessary to live life' - especially if one lives a life in which luxury is routine and widespread...

Actually, the things you mentioned are necessities for their social status.
In the same way, my father uses a Toyota Prado all the time since that makes a better impression among the clients. But during a new project, he had to travel to another city quite a lot. And there were no clients to impress. So he used a Suzuki Cultus (local car) instead to save on fuel costs. The same vehicle was a necessity at one time and a luxury at another. And he gave that up to save money. And he didn't get any of the saved money for personal use.

[sheepdog 10]

Q

Should we limit our luxury to contribute to the general good?

 

NO!!!!

Now certainly prez Obummer and the rest of the democrates think we should, but I'm not buying that. At All.

If I am willing to work and do something constructive with my life and be responsible and take care of business, why should I not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of my labor as I see fit to use them? After all, it was I who did the work and made something of my life. Sitting around watching the mailbox for the welfare check does not constitute hard labor. Or being a contributing member to society.

 

Defining luxury is of course, very difficult and in no way a "one size fits all" kind of catagory. I personally do not indulge in much luxury for myself. Second hand clothes from the thrift store, dented cans from a grocery salvage store at bargain prices are just fine by me. But this spring, for once I did splurge on something for myself, and I am very happy about it. I bought one of those metal frame pools at Big Lots, a whopping $219! In the current heat wave we are having, I'm not sure if it is actually a luxury or a nessesity! I sure do love it. Since we don't have air conditioning in the house, (a luxury?) it's the only way I have to cool off. I probably jump in it a dozen times a day. May not stay long, but at least I can cool off for a few minutes. I'll even go run and jump in it in the evenings when we are watching Tv during a commercial! The house gets so miserably hot even with sitting in front of a fan it still feels hot unless you are wet.

 

Of course, in many ways it is economically sound. I can reuse the same water to cool off over and over. If I didn't have it and was having to take cold showers, the water would just be used once and run down the drain.

 

So....why should I not have my pool to cool off since I did pay for it myself, while welfare recipients sit around watching TV in the air conditioning that is paid for by tax payers?

[Shahrukh 0]

If I am willing to work and do something constructive with my life and be responsible and take care of business, why should I not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of my labor as I see fit to use them? After all, it was I who did the work and made something of my life. Sitting around watching the mailbox for the welfare check does not constitute hard labor. Or being a contributing member to society.

That's true.
But using up all of your money for yourself isn't being a 'contributing' member of the society either.
And you can still eat the fruits of your labour while sharing with others. If you have a garden and someone takes a few apples, it won't affect you much. But it could mean the difference between life and death to some poor, hungry fella.

As for those depending their lives on welfare fund, I don't like that kind of behaviour. We have those kind of people a lot here. I never give anything to them. Unless, of course, I can verify that they really are needy (its easy to do, really).

Also, its not like you aren't allowed to use your money. Just that you should use it responsibly and not waste it over a little thing while you could have used it in a better way, which might be by helping others.
Giving the example of a mobile phone again, you know that your friend needs a new mobile but can't afford a good one. You also want a new mobile. Instead of buying an X6 (32GB), you can buy two X6 (8GB) and give one to him. You only had to let go of some memory in your phone but your friend got a lot better than he would have if you didn't give it to him.
(I would have mentioned the diminishing marginal utility of money here but that would make things a bit confusing).

[zanzibarjones 1]

Actually, the things you mentioned are necessities for their social status.

That is just an odd thing to say. A necessity for the social status. Social status is not needed in life. It is earned. I don't agree with them, but they are earned.

Luxury is, in my opinion, everything you have after you have your necessities. I mean you need a toilet, but you don't need a gold plated one. You need clothing, but you don't need clothing that costs more than your mortgage.

But society has put the term luxury on everyday items as well recently. We all need food. Currently the preferred food is processed, because it is cheaper to make than real organic food. Organic food, is a luxury. When back int he day it was a necessity.

We put value on things, they don't come that way.

[anwiii 17]

you have a good point, sheepdog, but i don't thing anyone is saying nobody should enjoy the fruits of their laber. if a person works hard all their life to make that all might dollar that seems to be one of the most important things in life to them, they sures should enjoy the benefits, but there is a difference between enjoying the benefits and being selfish at the same time. to me, to not give back is a moral crime. i am not saying people have to give back money wise. there is other ways to give back. like personal time and volunteering. but for those who work every day, it's hard to give up time so they give back money instead.i will tell you one things sheepdog. i remember when i needed some money for something and had NONE! i called a church and the total they gave me equalled half of what i needed. i couldn't thank them enough. that money came from someone who worked hard for it. now the question arises.... where was the money better spent when obviously someone deserves to spend it on their own selves when they are the ones who worked for it?now peronally, i am not a firm believer in charity for myself so it was really hard to ask for a handout but it was for something very important. also, we all do know that in the united states, all charity donations are tax deductable, right? :)and while we are on this subject, i don't think it's fair to blame democrats for anything. that's like harlot the racist blaming whites for problems. we have taxes in this country where the government sees it their right to take money from those who have money. although that money doesn't all go to charity, but it does go to the better good like fixing the roads where they are safer to drive on and to even go so far to say it gets used for this countries defense so it is a safer place to live.

[deadmad7 4]

i will tell you one things sheepdog. i remember when i needed some money for something and had NONE! i called a church and the total they gave me equalled half of what i needed. i couldn't thank them enough. that money came from someone who worked hard for it. now the question arises.... where was the money better spent when obviously someone deserves to spend it on their own selves when they are the ones who worked for it?

I really AM happy the church gave you some money for the "important thing" but i personally think that the guy you said "worked hard for it" should have it more than you. I don't really know why you took the money, it could be that you had to have a serious life or death operation or something important like that, so not to say what you did was wrong but the guy who worked for it SHOULD have spent it on something... even if he was in luck financially, he might have even saved it up. You on the other hand, is the one who didn't work for it and it practically doesn't even belong to you. If i were you, i would HAVE took it and paid him back at least some amount of it or might have donated/bought something nice for the church. But i can't really complain on this one because the guy knew what he was doing

now peronally, i am not a firm believer in charity for myself so it was really hard to ask for a handout but it was for something very important. also, we all do know that in the united states, all charity donations are tax deductable, right?

I actually never even knew that the church gave money like that, what do you have to do? Do you have to sign some papers or something?

and while we are on this subject, i don't think it's fair to blame democrats for anything. that's like harlot the racist blaming whites for problems. we have taxes in this country where the government sees it their right to take money from those who have money. although that money doesn't all go to charity, but it does go to the better good like fixing the roads where they are safer to drive on and to even go so far to say it gets used for this countries defense so it is a safer place to live.

Ahh...anwiii...anwiii... stop hating on people because they have different views than you. It's not like i hate you after you make that anwiii-long post about what i just wrote.