<MichaelNJ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:569d6eba-e945-4fd9-a7bd-37b9395d9f6e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mar 13, 7:54 pm, "Sean" <hu_me@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "ZerkonX" <Z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> messagenews:pan.2008.03.13.14.47.04@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:37:53 -0700, ta wrote:
>>
>> >> On Mar 12, 11:43 am, ZerkonX <Z...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 09:19:05 -0700, ta wrote:
>> >>> > What is the most objective measure of an individual's wealth?
>>
>> >>> Call in all debts immediately, then go from there.
>>
>> >> Poorly phrased question on my part.
>>
>> >> What I really meant was:
>>
>> >> If someone asks you if you are better off financially today than 10
>> >> years ago, what is the most objective way to measure that?
>>
>> >> "Real wages" is the usual term that I have seen most, but I'm just
>> >> wondering if that is universally accepted, or is there a different/
>> >> better measure. "Real wages" make good sense to me, but not being an
>> >> expert in economics, I'm just trying to learn if that is the best
way.
>>
>> > I still think the answer applies.
>>
>> > Wages, money in hand and all assets should be counter balanced with
>> > debt
>> > load. This gives a more objective bottom line, I think.
>>
>> > 'Real wages' as a gage to a current financial state, I believe, can
be
>> > deceptive. Same with any 'asset'. What do you actually own. Not what
>> > can
>> > you actually borrow or are borrowing. If wealth is to be measured in
>> > terms of in hand money and the monetary value of assets owned, then
>> > exactly who owns the assets, who actually holds the title or deed is
>> > the
>> > first question. Otherwise wealth is just faith in the ability to pay
>> > debt.
>>
>> The above would generally apply to individual financial wealth. But is
>> that
>> all that should be considered? I don;t think so.
>>
>> There is also national, natural, and lifestyle wealth/s. Such things
>> whilst
>> less definable in $ terms, nevertheless impact greatly on one's
>> individual
>> wealth. The notion of what is "real" is also relevant.
>>
>> How many simply "believe" an asset such as Shares means $X .... when in
>> reality, such shares are only nominal untill actualy sold for cash or
>> Kind.
>>
>> National wealth in Assets also must include National [ shared ] Debts
to
>> be
>> deducted from it.
>>
>> Someone on $200k a year, who loses all health Insurance due to
>> unimployment,
>
> How would they make $200K a year if they are unemployed? Also since
> health care/insurance does not cost $150k a year, I would say he is
> better off then the socialist dude.
>
Allow me to clarify the intent.
Someone earning $200k a year would appear relatively wealthy [ to most ].
At a point, this person loses his job, and is no longer earning $200k a
year
[ but may still have assets/cash ] however in the process of losing their
job they may also happned to lose their employer provided health insurance
instantaneously.
OK? Had job and insurance, lost job and insurance, and then got ill with
no
health coverage, and then no health insurance would cover them for what is
now "an existing" health issue. Follow the intent now?
>> may not be as "wealthy" as someone on $50k a year in another nation who
>
>
> Is this before or after their government take 50-75% of their income
> as taxes?
>
No. Clarification.
In other nation, person on $50k or $200k pays universal health coverage
insurance of 1% of income, and has freedom to also obtain extra Private
Insurance coverage which then qulaifies them for TAX REBATE of about 50%
of
those premiums. Private health insurance costs is significantly higher
than
1% of $200k, and massively higher than $50k.
In this nation, NO employer is forced to provide Health benefits coverage,
therefore ALL employers profitability is higher than related US companies
in
this regard. doh!
If either $50k or $200k employee loses their job, BOTH still retain
Universal health coverage, AND $200k person still retains their private
health insurance if they maintain their premiums.
Now, little added adendum . Austalias rishest man, was known to sometimes
not have to pay any personal federal income taxes according to the laws.
This man got ill a number of times, and in all occasions he attended
Public
Hospitals, received excellent treatment including organ transplant and
open
heart surgery, and paid nothing for this treatment. ZERO
Why? All his life he had paid his lawful taxes, including the Medicare
levy,
and he used the system that he and society had paid for. [ such as world
leading organ transplant and heart hospitals nationwide. ]
It all works well, provides 100% coverage for all, and at lass than half
the
relative cost of USA health care which fails to cover almost a sixth of
the
population.
Next question?
|
