?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Josh-D. S. Davis

Xaminmo / Omnimax / Max Omni / Mad Scientist / Midnight Shadow / Radiation Master

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
It is not proper to rob the future to pay for yesterday or today's frivolous spending.
Josh 201604 KWP
joshdavis
I was rambling in an email to my uncle about fiscal responsibility and came up with the statement, "it is not proper to rob the future to pay for yesterday or today's frivolous spending."

I believe this wholeheartedly. We all have trouble with our finances from time to time; but ultimately, we have to be responsible for ourselves and our future.

You can't count on SSA being there in the future. Heck, looking at California, I'm not even sure I won't have a bankrupt government by the time I want to retire.

So I have to provide for myself (and my family) not just now, but in the future.

That means preparing my kids to be able to provide for themselves when the move out, but also protecting against the likelihood of living past the time in which I can earn enough on which to live.

This means disability insurance, life insurance, long term care, and health insurance. To pay for these things, I live in a smaller house than I could or would if I did not pay for these things.

LTC and DI mean that I can live some semblance of life in a non-ideal state without being as much of a burden to my friends and family. I consider my life to be valuable enough to not die if I'm disabled, and I consider it my responsibility to be prepared for such a possibility.

Life insurance is more about providing for my family if I die before the kids are out on their own, but also to cover the processing of my estate afterward. So I have term insurance, which is relatively cheap, to pay off the house and allow Erica to keep raising the kids the way we're doing now until they can support themselves. I also have a small amount of permanent insurance which will help out during the aftermath, regardless of whether the kids are still home or not.

LTC, DI and LI are based on earning power and should generally be affordable and afforded by anyone in proportion to their earnings.

Health insurance is different, because the costs are unrelated to your earning power. You need a giant group to average out, and you need limitations on what's covered. Whether these limitations are uniform or not is of course a huge issue in the US, but HC is and more than I'm up for discussing right now.

Aside from all of this, providing also means not spending all of my money now. Granted, I'm not the best at this, because I will buy crap on card from time to time. Right now is a little more difficult because of the house move and I don't really have a feel for things yet.

Ultimately though, living paycheck to paycheck is not acceptable. I put aside about 22% for retirement right now. It's really hard. It means when I do something stupid with my money, it takes longer to pay it off. It means that I don't get to squander nearly as much as I'd like before I feel really guilty and have to tighten up the belt a bit.

The alternative is to leave risk. Those risks would be that I could end up unable to earn and without money to live on. I could end up disabled and without income. Whatever the problem, it is likely that I could end up forcing you to pay for me to be a non-contributor to society. Many people are OK with that. I'm not.

Again, health care is a different aspect, because of the fixed costs. It gets into the value of a human life, and most people really don't like talking about that, or are inflexible in their assessments. Because of this, I think that some, bare-bones, minimal health care should be available for all citizens and permanent resident aliens (aka taxpayers). It should be a line-item in your taxes, (FICA). Maybe move the cap up for FICA, and increase the % to cover the expansion. I think the deductible should be some small percentage of your take-home pay up to a reasonable cap, and there should be small copays for everything.

I don't think it should be great coverage. I think it should be pointedly limited. I think great coverage should be an option you pay for out of your own pocket.

  • 1
I largely agree with this, though what I struggle with is which government entity is best suited for, and has the legal power to provide these services, and who ultimately pays for it.

But in principle I agree. Free health care should not be great health care. It should be basic, and adequate. Which is what medicaid and charity hospitals like Parkland are, so I'm not certain what the big problem is that we need to fix right away...

I think that's some of the issue why many Texans don't like this. Texas DOES provide many of these services and would, with very little change, be able to make up any difference. Having to ALSO pay for a Federal is nothing more than redundant.

But some states can't afford such things.

Ultimately, I don't think its a federal responsibility though. I like a more loosely structured union, maybe a little more tightly knit than the EU, but not as glom happy as ours has become.

  • 1