“Trapped” in the spiral of easy debt…
Callow said she went to easyhome because it requires no credit. She could also get the furniture the next day. “They’ve got nice furniture but boy, do they charge,” says Callow, who is on disability and lives in subsidized housing in North York. “It’s not fair. I’m on a fixed income.”
The phenomenon of experiencing negative outcomes due to spending beyond one’s means is a new one. Luckily, we have experts to help walk us through the statistics;
The Vanier Institute for the Family released a study last year that examined the assets and debts of Canada’s 15 million households. They found that, based on Statistics Canada figures, the poorest 20 per cent, approximately 2.6 million households, had a net worth of $34 billion but their debts totalled $40 billion.
“This is the only group where the debt is bigger than the (net) value of the assets,” says Roger Sauvé, a consultant who prepared the report.
Oddly enough!
I know, what we need is a government financing program so these folks can refinance all of that debt again. It’s not fair that only people who pay back their debts then get to take out more loans, the payment challenged are being discriminated against here.
Someone call a human rights commission.
One of the best posts I’ve ever seen. I love it.
“Oddly enough!”
Did you notice the title of the reporter in the The Star article was “Social Justice Reporter”?
If there’s no social injustice to report on then you have to manufacture it!
“Social Justice Reporter”
Good God.
Now, isn’t this a perfect example of social justice? The woman spent more money than she had, indeed, she spent other people’s money and, in return, she has the rapidly depreciating assets she wanted and the debts she agreed to incur to get them?
Sounds just to me. Good morning all.
I wonder how much they spend on lottery tickets a week?
“If you know how to spend less than you get, you have the philosopher’s stone.”
—
Benjamin Franklin
This article provides a good illustration of the proposition that adding the adjective “social” before a word inverts its meaning. “Social justice” is to justice as “dutch treat” is to a “treat” and a “dutch oven” is to an oven.
The title of the Star piece: POVERTY
Trapped in the spiral of easy debt
Now granted the couple mentioned in the story used to make $100,000 a year between them and now with her $38,000 salary and his $12,000 per annum disability cheque they only bring in $50,000. That’s quite a drop in income, but is $50,000 a year now considered poverty?
Sure we all would like to have nice stuff and the latest gadgets. Let me give you a piece of advise my mother gave me when I first got married 38 years ago. If you can’t afford it don’t buy it. You can always make do until you save up the money to pay for it.
“Annual income twenty pounds,
annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six,
result happiness.
Annual income twenty pounds,
annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
Mr Micawber in “David Copperfield”
“social justice”
I love these “qualified” words: social justice, social democracy, people’s democracy, progressive democracy.
It’s as if “justice” and “democracy” weren’t capable of standing on their own.
The American writer Paul Fussell once noted that there were five words too many in the motto over the US Supreme Court building: EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL UNDER LAW.
The word JUSTICE was all that was needed, the rest being entirely redundant since they were wholly implied by that one word.
She went into debt to buy overpriced furniture.
She has a spiritual problem. She needs help, not money.
A $3800 TV, $176 cable/cell/internet package?
These folks need a dope smack not an avocate for social justice. If your income drops measurably from $100K, stop living like you make $100K.
This is nothing more than people exercising there right to be victims, I will exercise my right to ignore them.
Social Justice: the stubborn application of unworkable solutions to imaginary problems.
Hmmm…. at sort of the opposite end of this are the relatively few(but financially well-to-do) people/institutions who have invested heavily in ABCP “investments”. They have (directly or indirectly) enjoyed the benefits of very high interest rates for the most part, and are now crying that they were “duped” and expect to have at least their full principle returned to them by guess who – yes the gov’t. (taxpayers, really) via the big banks who were stupid enough to let this get out of control. These are supposed to be the “wise” people.
After some $40B (probably not done yet) pumped into the banking/financial system by gov’ts, it seems to be working rather well, don’t you think.
Why should the few banks and the rest of us who pay our bills/live within our means be penalized to indemnify those who are stupid enough to think that they can reap the benefits of garnering high interest and are not be prepared to take their losses if things melt down.
And the beat continues with another drop in interest rate by the Bank of Canada expected today – which will do exactly what. Of course – to make it easier for those “in-need-of-help” people to live further beyond their means while financial institutions are emboldened to allow it and not be worried about having to take losses, should they occur (and they are bound to) when the piper has to be paid.
this pome(pennyeach) is of an earlier age…but one with many down home precepts i practice.
“when couples sang
and played duets
and it was considered immoral
to be in debt
i shall continue
until i die
to pay in cash
for the things i buy”
“The title of the Star piece: POVERTY
Trapped in the spiral of easy debt”
To be amended to: STUPIDITY
Spending all kinds of money they don’t have.
There – improved. I need to get a gig as an editor.
“If you can’t afford it don’t buy it. You can always make do until you save up the money to pay for it.”
But…but…that’s…unfair!
To me, anyway. Because, to me, if I can’t have something I want, well, god dammit, that’s UNFAIR, and I’m going to get it whether I can afford it or not. Then I’ll be all weepy when Social Justice Reporters interview me for some Poverty Series they’re making up. Then the left will arise in righteous anger! See, they’ll shout, how the Harperites are oppressing the poor and undermining their right to own expensive stuff they can’t afford!
Then, monstrous right-wing bloggers and columnists will violate my rights by pointing out obvious truths which, if I’d learned them earlier in life, would probably allow me to have some nicer stuff without impoverishing myself.
I assume no sarc tag is required.
I thought it was soscially injust when we took care of our 4 kids on one income, and the payroll taxes that we paid were given to lazy bums down the road who wouldn’t get a job.I feel sorry for the guy with the disability but there are ways to cope.
Value Village,Rebuilt Resources, and the Sally Anne have the best deals in town.
We were content.
these people have 50k a year income and can’t survive without huge debt. i know many people who have less than 50k and they don’t have anywhere close to a debt they can’t pay.
If ya want more people on welfare, just raise welfare rates.
If ya want more people on drugs, just give out free needles & crack pipes.
If ya want more people in debt, just remove the stigma of debt poverty and replace it with a victimization liberation theology that says “it’s not my fault, somebody owes me”
Miller is not asking for a ban on all easy credit signs. Capitalist tool.
I once knew a social worker who, after years of trying to deny it, finally came to the realization that delayed gratification was a psychological discipline which belonged mostly to the middle and upper classes of the socioeconomic strata in our society. Without that discipline, the “working poor” tended to immediately acquire all the trappings of materialism, but without understanding the attendant costs of acquiring the debts that went along with the goodies.
That, mixed with living from paycheque to paycheque, meant that the “working poor” were always one payday away from disaster. His portfolio was filled with people who had injured themselves, gotten sick, or just told their bosses to shove it, and had lost their single-paycheque cushion. WHAM! Out on the streets (family and friends were no help, because they were usually from the same socio-economic strata and had the same lack of financial cushion).
The social worker’s opinion was that the best thing that could be done for someone like that was to teach them delayed gratification, or they were doomed.
And we spend our time teaching teenagers “self-esteem.” Yeah, that’s gonna help.
Great title.
They refinanced their home several times and racked up credit debt by taking cash advances to pay the mortgage.
I am in a like situation. I am selling the house and moving somewhere that I can afford to make ends meet.
These people are making choices. Yes, the disability was unfortunate but life isn’t fair.
I am not responsible to foot the bill for other people’s poor choices.
These people are enjoying social justice: the fruits of their own stupidity.
“To make things easier for Don, at home all day, and to give the family a source of entertainment two years ago, she bought a large-screen plasma TV and made payments on it for two years.
“You have to have some entertainment for him,” she says.
The $3,800 TV is now paid for. But they still have their monthly cable bill of $176, which includes the Internet, cell and home phone.”
Cable bill notwithstanding, what exactly would have been wrong with a regular old 32″ CRT TV costing $3000 less than a big screen plasma 2 years ago? I had a 19″ TV for 15 years before I finally shelled out for a plasma last fall.
Also, I notice that nowhere in the entire piece do the people featured take ANY personal responsibility for their financial situation. That’s not social justice, that’s stupidity.
Yeah Kate, let’s put “these people” these poor people on cattle cars and ship ’em off to camps somewhere, learn ’em the meaning of money so they can handle money like you and your friends in the “real” world. Have a lovely negative day Kate. If the sun shines where you are find something awful to post about it, k?
“All you need is a place to live, a few friends and a source of income,” says an ad by easyhome where a sofa and loveseat might rent for $19 a week.
This type of business drives me to drink. Here in the US we have the same type of rent to own businesses. They prey on the ignorance of their target market. Moving in close and providing delivery to impoverished neighborhoods.
Yeah Kate, let’s put “these people” these poor people on cattle cars and ship ’em off to camps somewhere
Boy, I never thought of that. I kinda feel bad right now! Wait, the sun just started to shine — I’m ok.
Wow, the trolls are out at 9.03 am! John, do ever get tired of the mental gymnastics that must be required to hold onto such a thick-headed view? Where in the post,(besides your suggestion), does Kate (or anyone) take the position you ascribe to her? Why, other than sympathy for the guy’s condition, should anyone care about people who spend themselves into debt they can’t handle, on their own, just because they cannot fiscally discipline themselves?
Ah, the socialist fellow travelers are already up. The reality is that a lack of repercussions to contrary behavior encourages further poor decisions. The working and middle class are very intelligent. They will play the media [the left] for further concessions from the state as well as any protected class will whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Well, that’s not half a bad idea. I don’t know about camps and cattle cars, but certainly you’re correct that people who spend themselves into poverty obviously never learned how to handle money, and I think it would be extremely valuable to provide that kind of education. That’s a social program I would support (minus the camps and cattle cars, of course) that would pay for itself in short order.
Still, it’s kind of funny that you posted such a self-evident truth in a tone intended to convey your hatred and contempt for people who understand it. I think it’s quite revealing about who you are, and shows what little respect you have for yourself. I find you pitiable.
That’s right, Mr. Daly. I sneer at the poor.
This wealthy blogger owns _two_ TV’s. One is 19″ (I inherited it when my grandfather died) the other is smaller. No cable here, both have rabbit ears.
No cell phone, either.
I don’t have living room furniture at all, my living room having been converted to a work studio long ago.
The studio is in the house because, as a self-employed artist, it’s foolish to get locked into high overhead. Times can get tough, and there is no employment insurance to fall back on. The last thing I need to be doing is paying rent on commercial space I’m not using.
My daily driver is a 22 year old truck. I paid 5K for it and a couple of years later, when it started to use oil, I put a rebuild in it for 3K. It looks like crap now that it’s starting to rust. But it runs like a top, is cheap to repair, and does the dirty work without fear of getting scratched.
So, yeah – would I ship some of these people to “camps” to learn the art of self-sufficiency if I could? Probably. I’ve been in that camp all my life, and it hasn’t hurt me.
Daly putting people in cattle cars is a terrible idea.
The socialists in Germany did that and we whipped their ass, in the second world war.
Germany has been forever scarred for fooling with socialism.
Socialism/collectivism has killed 100’s of millions of people in less than 60 years.
More then any desease, war or famine.
That’s why liberals don’t hard sell socialism by name any more in Canada, and only the dippers are stupid enough to admire out loud it’s dictators like Castro, Mugabe and Chavez.
Get with the times Daly your world view is disgustingly dated well past it due date, time to move on, it’s 2008.
Thanks Kate…now we can all have a go at the troll:
Daly, we lived below the so-called poverty line for many years and did not qualify for even the miniscule ‘insulation grants’for our drafty farmhouse because duh! one of us worked!The drafty farmhouse was our choice, so we fixed the problem ourselves.
We were content. We managed.We did not get ourselves in to huge debt and then ‘blame’ society.And we have taught our kids to be responsible for their own behaviour and money.
Let’s have the ‘Social Justice Reporter’ from the Star tell your story Daly.
Have you had it easy, or are you expecting us to pay for your mistakes?
I must get to work now…have bills to pay.
Father Tessier in Calgary, in a sermon said once.
There is no virtue in poverty. There is no depravity in wealth.
Though it is incumbent on the poor to get out of poverty and on the wealthy to do charity.
Daly, you pussy.
Hey , Canada is not alone !
The Clinton administration brought in a policy to increase home ownership in the US and allow lower income wage earners to buy houses !
It was a resounding success … and resulted in the Sub-Prime mortgage crisis.
… but it was well intentioned !
Three tv’s, 2 VCR’s, two DVD players and 2 fax machines.
All free, picked up with the remotes mostly, from the curb.
I watch three NFL games at once, in a mini video wall, that i’ve built with stuff that others toss.
Probably four this fall.
Food is free here too!
Get rid of the cable – over-the-air HD TV is free and there is a good selection of channels in the Toronto area.
Note to everyone: make sure you have decent long term disability coverage in the event you need it as partial income replacement.
Daly – don’t look now but you just had your ass handed to you by a girl! Back under the bridge you troll.
Debt today is a serious problem – whether you are an individual, a business or government. We want instant gratification but when its pay up time well all too often it becomes very painful. With some people if they have two nickles to rub together they spent three. It catches up with you.
But as low-income households wind up with expensive products they borrow heavily to buy, it raises the question: 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?
Isn’t that kicker….?
Sneer at the poor? I’d venture that many of the readers here currently qualify, or in the past have qualified as “working poor”. What we sneer at, is the idea that a family earning a mere $50,000 can’t survive without spiraling into debt. I’m amazed the idea that this qualifies as some kind of social wrong–a moral issue.
We clearly need a government program to teach kids conservative ideology.
People should be free to be as foolish with money as they want. It is their right. But they should then accept the responsibility and consequences. Don’t look to government (taxpayers) to fix things. Not every personal problem requires a government solution.
Besides this isn’t about poverty, it’s about faulty decision making. Some tough breaks compounded by bad choices. The first couple should have either increased income or decreased outgo after their circumstances changed. This is not impossible, it just takes planning and sacrifice. Many families do this when they choose to have a stay at home parent.
The bottom line is that if you treat people like adults then they may eventually act like one. Making mistakes and learning from them builds character. Being rescued, no matter how well intentioned, does not foster problem solving skills, resiliency or self-reliance.
Perhaps the family mentioned in the article should cash out of Ontario and buy a condo in Arizona. You can get a decent 2 bed 2 bath for around 100K. Oh yeah….no ‘free’ health care down there.
Mr. Daly, I reread every comment. Not one slams the poor for being poor or suggests that the poor be rounded up and sent to camps. They do point out the folly of overspending or spending what you don’t have.
I also clicked on the link to your blog.(if it is indeed your blog) Perhaps as with your vision of Dumbledore, you are seeing things that aren’t there.
Lefties cry injustice when “poor” people can not have the stuff the middle class has (such as large screen plasma TVs.)
but lefties also tell us we live in too much abundance and that is what is destroying the planet and no one needs large screen plasma TVs and stuff like that.
in other words,
Having lots of nice things destroys the planet but it is unfair that poor people can not have lots of nice things???!!!
Anyone sees the contradiction here?
“If you can’t afford it don’t buy it. You can always make do until you save up the money to pay for it.”
And oddly enough, if you make do long enough, you’ll find you don’t really need to get/replace it anyway.
Our Daly Troll assumes that if one is conservative, one is wealthy, that the poor are pure. Our dear, righteous troll. It is bigotry, plain and simple, to assume that conservatism is a result of the intoxication of riches.
Consumer debt can be a problem but where does it say that the rest of society has to look after those not able to take responsibility (oh damn, that “R” word again). And yes, I have been in debt before (thanks in part to Revenue Canada, but that’s another story) but I have always paid off my debts. The rent-to-own and house-leasing companies aren’t the bad people here, they serve a purpose. I leased my apartment furnishings when I first moved to Houston. That fee was a cost of living and was factored into my budget as was rent, power, insurance, phone and such. As I saved up some money, I would pay down some debt I had and also set some aside to buy my own couch, chair and such. It isn’t a get rich quick system but more satisfying to see the look on a salesman’s face when you plunk down the cash before he has had a chance to talk about financing.
Sometimes life throws people a curve ball like losing a wage earner but the sad part is that you have to adapt, even if that means more hamburger helper or selling the big house for something more modest. If I can help someone I know that needs a hand I will but I won’t put them on my “payroll”. i.e. I’ll help you move to your new smaller house but I won’t subsidize your mortgage payments to the home you can no longer afford.
Kathryn,
You just summed up my thoughts exactly. The sense of entitlement of consumer goods in insane.
I can afford any TV I want, but I have a seven year old normal Sony 32″ screen that is more than I need. TV programming sucks anyway.
I was very poor as a young man. The reason was simple, I wasn’t thinking. I got tired of it, tore up credit cards resolving to buy nothing unless I had saved the cash for it.
Something strange happened. Once I had the cash for something, I found myself far less willing to hand it over for a consumer good that I really didn’t need.
I found that having a pile of cash on hand was empowering. I “could” buy what I may want, but I didn’t really want anything. I preferred the security of cash on hand.
Later on I started looking for ways to increase that cash and found a few. Buy low sell high and the stock market has many safe investments that pay well.
All the while I worked hard and enjoyed the many simple things in life that were inexpensive or free. Reading, swimming, walking, learning to play a musical instrument, cooking nice meals, yakking in a coffee shop all fun and all entertaining … all cheap or free.
Nowadays, the pile of cash is high enough that I can buy whatever I want and do whatever I want without seriously diminishing the pile of cash.
You don’t have to be rich to live well, and you don’t have to live in poverty just because you don’t have much money.
It’s all about attitude.
For many low-income earners, a widescreen TV is “essentially and fundamentally the only entertainment,” says Peel Family Services’ Triantafillou. “How sad is that? I don’t doubt for a minute, if they had the means they’d find other entertainment.”
Wow. How far have we come as society, when these words actually hit a printed page?
Words escape me.