HOME       >>       Science and Technology

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


Shahrukh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

anwiii

what's the problem, deadmad? you're neither a giver or a taker? yes. i said it was for something important and it is personal. i needed a little over $100 and they gave me half. the thing is deadmad, you say the guy who donated to the church should have kept his money. some people actually do in fact believe in being selfish like you. not give to charity or help someone out in need. me, i practice giving religiously because i believe what goes around comes around. yes. churches give money to good causes deadmad. now you know. they don't just give money away though. you are right. i am a hater. i hate racism and always will. i thing it's bred in people like a virus. that's just me though. it's one of those things i would die for if i could stop itso to repeat, YES! churches have excess funds to donate to worthy causes. either you have to be a member, or in my case, a lot of catholic churches will help someone in time of need. salvation army and the red cross will also help someone in need. there are a lot of organizations out there that help people. even the gonverment where some of our taxes go like welfare or food stamps or programs like hud to help people find a roof over their head. so are you seriously telling me that there should not be people helping people out there in the world? maybe you should volunteer on the weekends to help the homeless and see if the act of giving doesn't put a smile on your face knowing you are helping to save a life.....or not.....maybe there are other things more important, eh?i have learned a lot about giving. the one time that sticks out the most is when a homeless guy gave me the last bit of his food when i was in a jam once traveling across country. at the same time, i know i had an impact on him that he will never forget either. the act of giving allows others to feel good and allows us to feel good about our own selves. the world would be a better place if EVERYONE could sacrifice a part of their lives for others....wether it's time or money one is sacrificing.so yes, you knew i would have to respond to you knowing i hate selfish people and your belief that people should keep their time and money for themselves. and you....you travel a little bit now and again. do you take it for granted or do you not care OTHER people are sacrificing their time and money for YOU right now? maybe they should keep it for themselves too, huh? so the question is....what have you done to give back?


Bikerman

what's the problem, deadmad? you're neither a giver or a taker? yes. i said it was for something important and it is personal. i needed a little over $100 and they gave me half. the thing is deadmad, you say the guy who donated to the church should have kept his money. some people actually do in fact believe in being selfish like you. not give to charity or help someone out in need. me, i practice giving religiously because i believe what goes around comes around. yes. churches give money to good causes deadmad. now you know. they don't just give money away though. you are right. i am a hater. i hate racism and always will. i thing it's bred in people like a virus. that's just me though. it's one of those things i would die for if i could stop it

But why half? If you need x to do y then 1/2x is not much use....

anwiii

if it wasn't much use, i would have never accepted it. this thread isn't about my personal affairs. i was just stating something as a personal example to make a point. yes, i needed x to do y, but 1/2 of x got me 1/2 of y which was enough for the time being. so in fact, half of what i actually needed was enough from them at the time.... now i hope that makes sense haha


Bikerman

if it wasn't much use, i would have never accepted it. this thread isn't about my personal affairs. i was just stating something as a personal example to make a point. yes, i needed x to do y, but 1/2 of x got me 1/2 of y which was enough for the time being. so in fact, half of what i actually needed was enough from them at the time.... now i hope that makes sense haha

Not really. If 1/2x was sufficient then you didn't need x....but as you say this isn't about that..

anwiii

oh god....


Bikerman

oh god....

Call me a pedant if it makes you feel better - I don't mind (as long as you don't call me pedantic which would imply a general knowledge of my characterisics/habits which could not be supported from a single, or even multiple examples of postings on internet forums)...

fermin25

Of course not we can?t limit our luxury. If we have the money to spend in some things that the most of people can?t so spend this money is very healthy to the economy because behind these "lux" things like a great car, brand designer clothes and all the other luxs there are people who their sustent is with this products like the enginners that desing a Ferrari and the workers who build that Ferrari who get paid with the sale of that car. Of course there are some social things like luxury is bad but everything have good things and bad things and I think that spend the excedent of money in luxury is not so bad than save all the money in a bank or in your house where the money will be stopped of the circulation and the economy is being damaged for practices like save all your money and never spend it or invest it. So I thing that the luxes are so neccesary and only have one bad thing that is generated for it: Envy. An there is a personal envy and colective envy and when you are envy with someone you will be thinking on this person all the day and will be hating to someone else because they have more things or more money than you. I think that envy is in everywhere since the offices to the churches and we see envy in a lot of media and in our day interacting with the people commenting about that or this person who is very rich when they are a lot of people who is suffering today, and things like that.But I repeat we have to have a limit to the luxury but I thing that the luxury is so neccesary to the economy that stopping it we can have a lot of economic problems because an important part of the economy is behind the luxury and the expensive things.Bye.


deadmad7

what's the problem, deadmad? you're neither a giver or a taker? yes. i said it was for something important and it is personal. i needed a little over $100 and they gave me half. the thing is deadmad, you say the guy who donated to the church should have kept his money. some people actually do in fact believe in being selfish like you. not give to charity or help someone out in need. me, i practice giving religiously because i believe what goes around comes around. yes. churches give money to good causes deadmad. now you know. they don't just give money away though. you are right. i am a hater. i hate racism and always will. i thing it's bred in people like a virus. that's just me though. it's one of those things i would die for if i could stop it

I gave before, but i have never taken so far... so i might later on but i hope i don't get down on my luck though And I didn't ask for you needed the $, i knew it was personal. And stop right there, don't you dare call me selfish. You don't know anything about me.. well, not EVERYTHING... you are just being ignorant. I DO give to charity, all my toys (yes, even the ones i used to hug) old clothes and everything i don't need anymore goes to orphanages. I also think about "what goes around comes around", but in a religious way... sort of like its just a part of life And go ahead, i didn't say anything about you stopping racism, go start a hunger strike if you want.

so to repeat, YES! churches have excess funds to donate to worthy causes. either you have to be a member, or in my case, a lot of catholic churches will help someone in time of need. salvation army and the red cross will also help someone in need. there are a lot of organizations out there that help people. even the gonverment where some of our taxes go like welfare or food stamps or programs like hud to help people find a roof over their head. so are you seriously telling me that there should not be people helping people out there in the world? maybe you should volunteer on the weekends to help the homeless and see if the act of giving doesn't put a smile on your face knowing you are helping to save a life.....or not.....maybe there are other things more important, eh?

I'm not religious in any way, gone to a church only a few times and probably even went to a hindu temple more times than a church, since my mom is hindu. since my parents of different religion but my dad isn't that religious too, only my mom but they don't force me on anything... and i have never really chose any religion and i don't ever plan to, but i don't think that makes me a "atheist", i respect others religious and I also DO kind of believe in God only in those specific times when its a big issue like if a person is seriously hurt or when i get scared.

i have learned a lot about giving. the one time that sticks out the most is when a homeless guy gave me the last bit of his food when i was in a jam once traveling across country. at the same time, i know i had an impact on him that he will never forget either. the act of giving allows others to feel good and allows us to feel good about our own selves. the world would be a better place if EVERYONE could sacrifice a part of their lives for others....wether it's time or money one is sacrificing.

Really? A similar thing happened to me one time. I was lost when I was like 3 or 4 years old and i was walking alone in the street and this homeless guy found me and then he gave my some of his fries and stuff and then he took me to the police and then they called my parents after i told my parent's name. We never found out who that guy was, he just left after he handed me to the police (some lazy police ). And i remember this all clearly and its only memory i have from when i was so young.

so yes, you knew i would have to respond to you knowing i hate selfish people and your belief that people should keep their time and money for themselves. and you....you travel a little bit now and again. do you take it for granted or do you not care OTHER people are sacrificing their time and money for YOU right now? maybe they should keep it for themselves too, huh? so the question is....what have you done to give back?

FYI, i spent last summer selling candies and other things like cookies and doing this door to door to raise money for poor, disabled and abused children. I have also done 20 hours of community service for free since i joined High School. I DO care about money spending their time and money for me, thats what my parents do everyday. And i also said that i don't feel anything wrong with you borrowing money as long as you PAY IT BACK. I surely think that you have $50 bucks right now. Go donate it to charity or the church, what comes around goes around, doesn't it?

oh god....

I am also puzzled my this, you SAID you needed y (100) but when the church give you x (50) you took it because it was half of y but it was enough for you? Then why did you want y in the first place since x was sufficient? Did you get something smaller x? (if it was a product) or you just pitched in your own money?

anwiii

oh god. some dude dropped you off at a police station and they didn't get the guys information?!? haha! this just proves my point that most cops are stupid. you got lucky there. deadmad. i am glad you stayed safe. but didn't your mom ever teach you not to accept fries from strangers? hahahagiving away things you will never need again is not what we are talking about here.if you believe in giving, then why do you think that the guy who worked for his money and donated to the church should have kept it where i would have never recieved it at all? your original post was a very selfish one and i responded to it in the same tine you used.yes deadmad, i eventually got what i needed. you are on the right track. bikerman wasn't using his noggin just because i got half of what i needed from one place didn't mean i didn't get what was needed in full.also, it wasn't a loan deadmad... but yea, i do have to agree with you that when people can afford it, they need to give back. that was my whole point! haha at the same time, it's not a competition to me. some people believe the more money they have to give makes them better people.i am not religious either deadmad, but i am 42 years old now. i have experienced life. you are 16 and still have a lot to learn before you get set in your ways. i am glad your mom is teaching you part of her culture. even if you don't necessarily belive in it, it is still a part of your generations and who you are.


Bikerman

But I repeat we have to have a limit to the luxury but I thing that the luxury is so neccesary to the economy that stopping it we can have a lot of economic problems because an important part of the economy is behind the luxury and the expensive things.Bye.

No, this doesn't work as a supporting argument. The economy is based on supply/demand. If you make it so that there is no demand for luxury goods (by legislation, education or whatever) then production will switch to other things.
Exactly this argument is used to support the manufacture and selling of weapons worldwide by countries such as the UK and US. It is bogus - the people currently employed making weapons could equally well be employed making other things - it is a CHOICE, not a requirement.


Pages :-

Page 1Page 2Page 3


VIEW ORIGINAL REGISTER GET FREE HOSTING

Xisto.com offers Free Web Hosting to its Members for their participation in this Community. We moderate all content posted here but we cannot warrant full correctness of all content. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our terms of use, cookie and privacy policy. Copyright 2001-2019 by Xisto Corporation. All Rights Reserved.