Money And Happiness

[way2muchcoffee]

I believe that there should be no tax on low incomes and high tax on high incomes so that all people have roughly the same take home pay, or at least fall within a fairly narrow window.

Some say that this would stifle development. I disagree. Scientists, for example, generally aren't in the wealthy classes, but they are responsible for almost all of the technological advances. Educators aren't usually wealthy, but their contribution to society is enormous. Police, Fireman, and most public servants (with the exception of politicians) are generally in the same position. Artists, musicians, and athletes do what they do because they have a natural gift, and a strong personal drive for excellence. They are not motivated by money (at least not initially). I think development would continue because humans are intelligent, creative, imaginative, and motivated.

It is the business and political classes, those who make their fortunes off the labor of others while keeping the lion's share for themselves, who have trouble seeing this. They somehow feel they are entitled to more, and are unwilling to share equitably. I don't believe any business owner should make a 'personal' profit of more than twice the salary of their lowest paid employee. That is called exploitation, and it is morally indefensible.

Edited April 20, 2008 by way2muchcoffee

[Gary A]

I believe that there should be no tax on low incomes and high tax on high incomes so that all people have roughly the same take home pay, or at least fall within a fairly narrow window.

Some say that this would stifle development. I disagree. Scientists, for example, generally aren't in the wealthy classes, but they are responsible for almost all of the technological advances. Educators aren't usually wealthy, but their contribution to society is enormous. Police, Fireman, and most public servants (with the exception of politicians) are generally in the same position. Artists, musicians, and athletes do what they do because they have a natural gift, and a strong personal drive for excellence. They are not motivated by money (at least not initially). I think development would continue because humans are intelligent, creative, imaginative, and motivated.

It is the business and political classes, those who make their fortunes off the labor of others while keeping the lion's share for themselves, who have trouble seeing this. They somehow feel they are entitled to more, and are unwilling to share equitably. I don't believe any business owner should make a 'personal' profit of more than twice the salary of their lowest paid employee. That is called exploitation, and it is morally indefensible.

And of course if the business or company loses money, the employees will help to make it up, right? You certainly are a socialist. Taxes are normally on a percentage basis, so ten percent of very little is very little and ten percent of a lot is a lot. Most tax systems increase the percentage as the wages or salary increase. That said, corporations should NOT be taxed. People should be taxed and the chief executives who make obscene money should be more heavily taxed. By obscene, I mean more than ten million dollars a year. Since the company would be paying no tax thus more dividends, dividends should be taxed too based on the share holders total income.

[CaptainNemo]

A lot of talk about how much money is needed to live in Thailand. I read an article in the NY Times a few days ago, and found it interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/business...amp;oref=slogin

Article summary:

In 1974, Richard Easterlin, then an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, published a study in which he argued that economic growth didn't necessarily lead to more satisfaction.

After the basic necessities are taken care of, people don't experience more happiness. They just reset the bar. Relative income — how much you make compared with others around you — mattered far more than absolute income, Mr. Easterlin wrote.

The media and academics have cited this study for decades, but last week the Brookings Institution in Washington, two young economists — from the University of Pennsylvania, as it happens — presented a rebuttal of the paradox. They came to the conclusion that income does matter and absolute income (measured globally ) seems to matter more than relative income.

I've always believed relative income had a larger impact on happiness than absolute income. As I've aged, my income has increased, but I haven't been aware of it having a major impact on my personal happiness. If my income had decreased relative to others in my age group, I would have noticed and probably wouldn't be as satisfied. I think it is my competitive nature and don't think I'm an anomaly.

In my opinion, both studies prove money does bring a certain amount of happiness. If you are relatively making less money than others or your absolute income is low, you are more likely to be unhappy. Living in Thailand doesn't increase your absolute income, but lowers the income bar. That is why many expats in LOS with little absolute wealth are happy. The expats that have a hard time understanding how others can live on so little are the expats with substantial absolute wealth and income.

I'm not sure which group (Relative vs. Absolute ) is happier in LOS. What I don't understand is why expats live in LOS that dislike the weather, people, ..., so they can mitigate their taxes, live in a beautiful home...

Happiness is to do with having good friends and stable family and being able to do some of the things you like (either time or money can be important in that). Sunshine doesn't hurt, but I'd argue that having a full set of seasons to enjoy is better - as well as living in a place of natural beauty where people respect it by not littering it; making noise; and behaving in threatening ways as they seem wont to do in British conurbations these days. A pretty house is usually better than a big house, but of course it depends on what activities you want to do...

If you don't have much money, and are constantly working your posterior off leaving you little time for R&R (as seems to be the case in the UK), then you're not going to be very happy... and that's borne out in the statistics about depression and stress in the UK.

There's only so much personal wealth anybody needs, and if they have status angst because others have more, then it's a sign that they are lacking enough fun and friendship in their life: fun comes from doing a thing you enjoy like a hobby rather than getting inebriated or off your face, which means having the time to do it more than the money!

The people who seem to be happiest are those who feel that they are doing something worthwhile with their life; as well as having good friends and family; and having enough time for R&R; and enough money to not have to be constantly unders stress about meeting bills and things... it's not the people with the ferraris, record contracts, and supermodel girlfriends, or those with great wealth and power!

Edited April 20, 2008 by CaptainNemo

[CaptainNemo]

I've always believed relative income had a larger impact on happiness than absolute income.

Agreed

Living in Thailand doesn't increase your absolute income, but lowers the income bar. That is why many expats in LOS with little absolute wealth are happy. The expats that have a hard time understanding how others can live on so little are the expats with substantial absolute wealth and income. Disagree. Think some of those expats are pleased that they can get labor cheap and can exploit some of these people.

I'm not sure which group (Relative vs. Absolute ) is happier in LOS. What I don't understand is why expats live in LOS that dislike the weather, people, ..., so they can mitigate their taxes, live in a beautiful home...

Those are the expats without the money. If they had money they would live in walled compounds insulated from the unwashed heathens and look upon the Thais as smiling subservient drones. They would also look down on those expats that have found a way to be happy living amongst the Thais. From what I have seen its all about adapting and coping with the local environment. Those that can, flourish and are content. Those that cannot not end up constipated nasty grumps ripping into folk because they either have a naughty tattoo or are married to an Isaan girl etc.

That's a rather spiteful generalisation!

It doesn't make sense either... if you were only living in the Land of the Lotus Eaters to mitigate tax to save up to live in your own country, then you wouldn't be one of the expats "without the money", would you?! (Frankly I don't see what's wrong with that, if you're willing to sacrifice living in your home country to work and be like a high-paid gypsy, then it's a fair compensation).

Unless you mean people who were living and working in Thailand to live in a country where they pay less tax etc... whilst hating the place... Well I don't think such people exist!

The types of people who bum around as English teachers do it because they love the place (or are suffering from rice fever)... or just all "lotus-eaten up" and on perpetual holiday to avoid the hard life of work (and paperwork) back home.

I suppose you might mean those middle aged blokes who marry a cook-maid-whore to look after them (I've encountered a few), but don't much like spicy food or spending longer than they have to in the country of their "employee-spouse"'s homeland... but they are not the types to live there to reduce costs.

...so I just don't get who you are on about?

My Thai wife has specifically explained to me that foreign husbands shouldn't get too involved with the local people, because they don't understand what they are getting into - what the rules are - and all sorts of problems can ensue.

There are major cultural issues... like how if you get into a fight with a Southeast Asian the rules are very different to getting into a fight with a fellow westerner for example.

She is not from a privileged background... poor military/farming, but is educated and never sought out foreign men, and herself would only wish to live amongst foreigners in Thailand (with me and our children) for safety reasons.

Being "happy living amongst Thais" and "adapting and coping with the environment" suggest a false notion of bucolic bliss when you parachute into a Thai community.

Even if you get a degree in Thai language and culture, you are forever a "farang", and you'd be naive to suppose that would change... certain things would always be expected from you; and you'll always be kept at a certain distance whatever you say or do.

I don't understand where this chip on your shoulder comes from... are you a tattooed bloke with an Isaan wife and feel a bit inadequate about it?

I don't see why anyone should be attacked for criticising the flow of deluded western dropouts hooking up with uneducated avaricious village girls from the Isaan.

Women like these contribute to a negative image of Thailand as a giant whorehouse or wife-shop; blokes like this contribute to the image of western blokes with Thai women as being sex-mad or no-hopers.

In Cambodia they've stopped the borderline human trafficking in internet brides; is that a bad thing?

Shouldn't women hope for more in life?

It does nothing much for the image or selfimage of these "subservient drones" is to find a farang to service or entertain, deos it?!

[siamamerican]

3) Regarding 'excessive' taxes. I don't think they are excessive. This is a matter of opinion and belief. Excess monies should be used to increase the standard of living for the world population as a whole, including infrastructure, and not for purchasing the second house, car, 50 inch plasma TV, or jetsetting around the world.

I respect your passion, but your post has a lot of holes. Excess is relative, and many in this world would consider your life to be one of excess. You take vacations, drive a car, own a TV, while others work 15 hours a day in the rice fields and come home to a shack with no electricity.

If my tax rate was 90%, I would stop working immediately. I have enough to make ends meet and what is the point of working as hard as I do to support those that don’t. If the top 5% income earners drastically cut there economic output the world would suffer. We can’t save or help all the starving, people dieing of AIDS, and mentally ill, but without the wealthy we would save almost none of them.

Socialism gives some people the warm fuzzies. In a completely fare world it would work. We are all born with different skill sets, but if we all understood we were going to be equally compensated for our efforts the world would be a lovely place. The problem is that some aren’t capable of grasping the fact that they have to work as hard as the next person ( moochers/ looters ). Also, there are those that are willing to work harder than the rest and expect to be compensated. The socialistic model ultimately breaks down because it goes against human nature.

How about this analogy ( a little stupid, but I just came up with it )

A ship you are on sinks and five of you jump on a life raft. You have 20 gallons of water and 4 fishing poles. Of course everyone decides to share the water and the fish that are caught. Day one, a fat lazy raft mate drinks more water than the rest and doesn’t fish. That day, 1 fish is caught and all share. Day 10 there are 2 gallons left and all the fish (only 4) have been caught by 3 of the people in the raft. These 3 never sleep and constantly fish, but realize they are all going to die. That’s when they become capitalists and let the other 2 take a long swim.

We are basically animals and at times are sentient. I would have probably clubbed the 2 lazy raft mates, used them as fish bate, and advise the others to work harder or meet the same end.

[Spee]

I believe that there should be no tax on low incomes and high tax on high incomes so that all people have roughly the same take home pay, or at least fall within a fairly narrow window.

So in other words, the central governments should decide how much money people should have in their pockets? Scary .... scary .... scary.

Some say that this would stifle development.

You are making a bold assumption that there would be development with central governments essentially controlling all of the national wealth. Look around. It's a ridiculous notion, both from past history and current events.

Educators aren't usually wealthy, but their contribution to society is enormous.

You obviously haven't checked public educator salaries in the US for the last 20 years.

I would agree that the contribution to society is enormous. The national teachers union and liberal educational thought of the last 40 years has ruined the educational system in America. The dropout rates and frequency of passing illiterate children are at all time highs.

Artists, musicians, and athletes do what they do because they have a natural gift, and a strong personal drive for excellence. They are not motivated by money (at least not initially).

The last statement is dubiously questionable at best. I would submit that people also have natural gifts for being able to run and grow businesses. It's call entrepreneurship and business acumen.

An artist, musician or athlete gives pleasure to a relative few who can afford it. Under your ideal, these people wouldn't exist because no one would have any money to patronize them.

It is the business and political classes, those who make their fortunes off the labor of others while keeping the lion's share for themselves, who have trouble seeing this.

Well, in America we have a thing called a 401k. Teachers and non-profits have something similar. When a business prospers and makes money, the "them" is "us." I'm really beginning to suspect how warped your perception of reality really is.

As far as making fortunes, why should the wealthy enjoy some of the reward? They assume a lot of the financial risk. If someone employs 10 or 100 or 1000 people, they are creating more societal benefit than any politician. Why shouldn't they be allowed to reap the fruits of their labors?

I don't believe any business owner should make a 'personal' profit of more than twice the salary of their lowest paid employee. That is called exploitation, and it is morally indefensible.

I don't believe there should be a minimum wage set by the central government. It is exploitation and morally indefensible.

It tells the employer that all employees are created equal and should be compensated equally. Many workers probably deserve less than half the minimum wage and many probably deserve much more. But with the government meddling in the free market, neither gets the equitable and fair treatment they deserve.

And let's close with something perhaps more significant. If there were this combination socialist/communist utopia that you so badly seem to want, guess what? The chances of you being able to pursue your chosen lifestyle, occupation and living area in the world, would be slim to nil. The government may have not allowed you to go to college and get a degree. They may not have allowed you to go work abroad and not pay any taxes to your home country. Thailand may not have allowed you to enter the country, much less teach its citizens.

[way2muchcoffee]

Socialism gives some people the warm fuzzies. In a completely fare world it would work. We are all born with different skill sets, but if we all understood we were going to be equally compensated for our efforts the world would be a lovely place. The problem is that some aren’t capable of grasping the fact that they have to work as hard as the next person ( moochers/ looters ). Also, there are those that are willing to work harder than the rest and expect to be compensated. The socialistic model ultimately breaks down because it goes against human nature.

This was precisely my point when I stated that humans lacked the requisite morality at present. Human nature is an interesting notion. Is it fixed? Does it change or evolve? If it does evolve, how and why? Can it evolve to a point where people don't feel the need to hoard wealth and exploit their fellow man? What are our fundamental traits? Are we cooperative? Are we competitive? Both? Are we fundamentally decent, or is self-serving a better description? Is the capacity to love broadly a part of our makeup, or can we only love those close to us? The answers to these questions will bear heavily on the fate of our species.

Spee - All I can say to your comments is that no person more 'valuable' than any other. The existing system of economics is mean-spirited and inherently unfair. The experiment hasn't yet reached it's conclusion but I believe the end result will be the undoing of civilization and possibly the extinction or near-extinction of our species. I hold a small sliver of hope that our better natures will ultimately prevail, but it certainly won't be anytime soon, if ever.

Edited April 20, 2008 by way2muchcoffee

[Ijustwannateach]

I would go for pretty low taxes in general, except for one: inheritance tax. If not high enough, it creates anti-capitalistic parasitism.

[distortedlink]

Good Post !

Happiness is the important thing,not absolute income

Wiley Coyote

Having money is nothing to do with happiness, it's a necessary.

Here is the reality:

Health is number one, money number two.

Without health money is no use, without money we cannot sustain good health or any sort of quality lifestyle.

In this day and age money is like lifeblood. No one wants to know poor people. The philosophy today is, there is no one down on their luck, only losers when monies involved and if there are those who disagree and say that most people are good, kind and charitable, yes they are, but people will sometimes give something providing we don't really need it. That's done to give them good social standing and perhaps subconsciously that we may be of help to them one day. Become destitute and a desperado, we are than cast aside and our details put away in the filing system labeled (L) for loser.

During our lives most create a social circle of friends around them, which we normally choose who are of a similar financial level to ourselves, either the same or slightly higher or lower. Drop down financially and not able to compete with your peers, best start looking for a new social scene.

Some say money brings misery. Personally I would rather be miserable with money than without it.

These are the harsh facts, my people, and anyone that believes different, is living in a cotton wool padded world.

Edited April 20, 2008 by distortedlink

[Dakhar]

I would disagree, but my parents are doing their best to spend my potential inheritance.... so.... either way, tax or no tax I get zip

[Spee]

The existing system of economics is mean-spirited and inherently unfair.

Yes I would agree with you that the current system of economics is mean-spirited and inherently unfair ..................... in Zimbabwe, where Mugabe has kicked every white land owner out of the country and converted a highly productive nation into a poor, racist, beggar nation. It's a classic example of how to create nothing from something purely by mean-spirited and unfair economic policies. As for much of the rest of the world, what's the point of responding? Feel free to continue to live in your little fantasy world.

[Heng]

I would go for pretty low taxes in general, except for one: inheritance tax. If not high enough, it creates anti-capitalistic parasitism.

I would disagree, but my parents are doing their best to spend my potential inheritance.... so.... either way, tax or no tax I get zip

You'd have to make it a universal inheritance tax (too many places in the world to keep one's assets safe and tax free) and also make it illegal for people to establish trusts. Also, it's not just inheritance that keeps wealth away from the cardboard box crowd, simply controlling it for your own lifetime keeps it safe for 70-80 years at a time and allows you to kickstart the next generation leaps and bounds ahead of the other guys.

Doesn't matter what the rules are if your skill sets inventory mean you're going to be the last one picked for the kickball team anyway.

[Jingjok]

In my own country … I paid dearly for health insurance that when needed is not there or very long waiting list … paid large amounts of tax for something like education which is a complete disaster … paid road tax and tax on fuel to see this NOT being used to improve the infrastructure … pay tax on my house and tax for energy and tax for waste treatment only to see the price of electricity rise more … the garbage collected only once every 14 days etc… Cumulative the tax was around 85%...

This sounds awfully familiar. UK by any chance?

I believe taxes on any income over $100,000 should be something like 90% or higher…

Yeah, yeah. I still keep a tax demand from the UK in the 70’s where the last band reads 70%, lest I ever forget. And look where that got the UK economy in those days.

I had friends at college who talked like you, Coffee. But as they grew up I've observed a miraculous change in all of them.

Last month an old school friend, not known for his love of Conservative policy in general and Mrs Thatcher in particular, visited me in Phuket. Once a virulent socialist, but now also a successful professional.

Being late with his tax return, he spent an afternoon hunched scrooge-like at my desk, tippex in hand, doctoring bank statements and compiling a spectacularly false tax return. I cannot describe how much pleasure this little scene gave me.

The poorest man in the world can laugh as much as the richest.

Yes, but I suspect he may do so less often.

[siamamerican]

The existing system of economics is mean-spirited and inherently unfair.

Yes I would agree with you that the current system of economics is mean-spirited and inherently unfair ..................... in Zimbabwe, where Mugabe has kicked every white land owner out of the country and converted a highly productive nation into a poor, racist, beggar nation. It's a classic example of how to create nothing from something purely by mean-spirited and unfair economic policies. As for much of the rest of the world, what's the point of responding? Feel free to continue to live in your little fantasy world.

Agree with this post as well as your previous post. Waytoomuchcoffee should take an honest look at history and use some common sense. He is to wrapped up in his idealistic beliefs and has a hard time with reality. The world is a better place today because of the the minority that take financial risks and are rewarded with high incomes. He mentioned in previous post that the poor shouldn't pay taxes. In America, they don't. Most families making less than 30k, don't pay a dime in taxes.

[way2muchcoffee]

Here come the personal insults - the lowest form of debate.

Why would anyone suggest that I don't live in reality? Where and how do you think I live?

I made three primary assertions.

1) The current system is unfair and leads to unnecessary suffering

2) Better, more egalitarian systems are possible

3) Man is currently incapable of living by a better system, but this could change

Jeez. What's with the personal slurs?

Edited April 21, 2008 by way2muchcoffee

[mahtin]

I don't understand where this chip on your shoulder comes from... are you a tattooed bloke with an Isaan wife and feel a bit inadequate about it?

I don't see why anyone should be attacked for criticising the flow of deluded western dropouts hooking up with uneducated avaricious village girls from the Isaan.

Women like these contribute to a negative image of Thailand as a giant whorehouse or wife-shop; blokes like this contribute to the image of western blokes with Thai women as being sex-mad or no-hopers.

***

I think most of these stereotypes apply to the short-term visitors to Isaan rather than to those who have the patience and saved cash to keep coming back, do the paperwork, and marry the girl.

Anyway, I don't have a tattoo. I promised Mummy when I was little.

[zenna]

interesting topic , money and happiness.

It seems some people attract a success value to money, ie the more you have the better you are.That just looks like a weakness to me.

I dont believe there is an absolute truth, we have different interpretations and what we say may not in truth reflect what goes on , in our minds even if we want it to.

Local news reported a while ago that lottery winners , 6 months after the initially exhillarating event were back to their prior state of happiness-whatever that may have been- the same was said of people that suffered the loss of a close mate, obviously in reverse.Infact it reported than it was very difficult to shift our state of happiness at all.Suggesting more of a link to nature and nurture than money.

I hope this isnt entirely true, i would like to be able to improve my level of happiness.It does seem very difficult to change anything at all about ourselves though, which doesnt seem all that fair.

I have a friend that won $250,000us a year ago, she is a little happier now, mostly she feels more secure.

My goal is to be debt free and have enough to engage in my desired life style, that being the basics plus entertainment and travel for about 4 months of the year, plus a couple of modest toys.I will reach this point soon.I do expect a lift in my sense of happiness when i get there, perhaps naively.I will feel dissapointed if i dont get it.

[siamamerican]

interesting topic , money and happiness.

It seems some people attract a success value to money, ie the more you have the better you are.That just looks like a weakness to me.

I dont believe there is an absolute truth, we have different interpretations and what we say may not in truth reflect what goes on , in our minds even if we want it to.

Local news reported a while ago that lottery winners , 6 months after the initially exhillarating event were back to their prior state of happiness-whatever that may have been- the same was said of people that suffered the loss of a close mate, obviously in reverse.Infact it reported than it was very difficult to shift our state of happiness at all.Suggesting more of a link to nature and nurture than money.

I hope this isnt entirely true, i would like to be able to improve my level of happiness.It does seem very difficult to change anything at all about ourselves though, which doesnt seem all that fair.

I have a friend that won $250,000us a year ago, she is a little happier now, mostly she feels more secure.

My goal is to be debt free and have enough to engage in my desired life style, that being the basics plus entertainment and travel for about 4 months of the year, plus a couple of modest toys.I will reach this point soon.I do expect a lift in my sense of happiness when i get there, perhaps naively.I will feel dissapointed if i dont get it.

Zena.

Money probably will bring you more happiness. You have a purpose and that is what will ultimately make you happy. You want to travel and experience other cultures. I've been there, done it and have had incredible life.

Good luck

[koto]

I think my mother nailed it when she said that money may not buy happiness, but it can do a lot to alleviate misery.

I learned it as "Money can't buy happiness .... but poverty can't either."

I have learned after most of my life having all of the money that I needed to

live a good life and after making some bad investments, at 70 years old find myself some what broke, That my health and outlook regardless of my coin is a major player in my happiness, As long as you exercise, eat and think right, I find wealth is from the inside out, with out inner wealth, no amount of coin can make you happy.

"The life of the people is in the heart and the land"

If you do Tam Boon, you have Chok Dee, regardless how much money you have,

Reaching out, means much more then a hand out, May health and happiness be with us all, When your days of leaving earth get closer, It is your past, that make your todays

good, bad or ugly, Look in the mirror, if need be, right your wrongs, leave with a smile, not a tear, we only go around one time, as far as we know, forgive yourself and all others, make it right before your last flight, as it is a one way ticket, the choice is yours, We get what we deserve and you can take that to the bank

[Heng]

For the relatively less well off, just a little more money will probably bring you more happiness than if you were fairly well off. For example if you're poor and riding the bus and renting an apartment, upgrading to owning your car and home outright with no financing involved will probably bring a person more happiness than when that same person increasing the number and/or luxury of homes or cars they own.

There are fewer new things to upgrade to, the higher up you go. I can't imagine my first Ferrari (which if I ever get one, probably won't be a new one... would want to dig up an old Testarossa, ....80's Miami Vice generation and all that)bringing me more joy than my first Mustang. One often finds happiness by enjoying the contrast between what you have now and what you used to have. Eating streetside or flying economy when the situation calls for it can be a rather enjoyable thing when you know that you can go back to flying first/business or dining wherever you want. Voluntary downgrading is a lot more fun than upgrading/wanting/trying out what's beyond your reach.

[ezzra]

"I am easily satisfied with the very best."

(winston Churchill)

[Marvo]

A month or two ago I was reading a thread in which a poster that to date, had managed to stash the sum of $700,000 and was asking for advice on early retirement to Thailand (he was 46). He had had it with the rat race and was investigating alternatives that he had open to him.

Many opinions were offered as to what kind of life he could expect living off of his amassed wealth. To some posters, $700,000 was an unimaginable/untenable amount of money. To others it appeared to be small change.

Some of the "big finance" boys and girls on the forum crunched the numbers for him based on what THEY considered he needed coming in each month to live on. They came back with the advice to forget the down-shifting idea, that he didn't have enough cash and they reckoned he should go back to work for another 10 years. I do believe they persuaded the OP of that thread to give up his dream for the time being.

I don't know why, but I was particularly struck by that thread. Maybe because I've just decided not to let the rat race in the UK kill ME and I'm currently contemplating what MY options are. The diversity of opinion expressed in the threads covering the topic of "How much money do you need to live in Thailand" makes very interesting and sometimes depressing reading.

I did also get the impression though that the people posting, suggesting that life here was possible on a very modest monthly income, did actually come across as happier individulals and more spiritually enlightened compared to the "big money" boys.

We're back down to what amount of cash will take care of our individual "needs" and how much on top of that will buy us our individual "freedom". I guess we are all different in this respect making "specific" anonymous advice of this nature on a forum a little dangerous IMO.

But who doesn't agree that money can buy freedom and freedom has a significant relationship to happiness?

What is different for each of us and is the most difficult thing to fathom, is what our own true "requirements" are. How much cash is needed to cover our "needs" and then how much extra will the individual need to buy their "freedom", leading to the happiness that that gives?

Edit: add paragraph.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Marvo

[digitele]

Money cannot buy happiness but it can (and has since the beginning of time) buy freedom. Whether it was in the time of slaves buying literally buying their freedom, or people buying their way out of their mortgage or any other kind of debt... just another type of slavery.

Try being happy without freedom.

EXACTLY, Mr Heng!

Poverty and Debt are a prison. I am currently on Parole....

[Heng]

Money cannot buy happiness but it can (and has since the beginning of time) buy freedom. Whether it was in the time of slaves literally buying their freedom, or people buying their way out of their mortgage or any other kind of debt... just another type of slavery.

Try being happy without freedom.

EXACTLY, Mr Heng!

Poverty and Debt are a prison. I am currently on Parole....

Thanks.

And yeah, I'm never going to prison either.

[siamamerican]

Voluntary downgrading is a lot more fun than upgrading/wanting/trying out what's beyond your reach.

This statement is dead on! Trying to upgrade when you don’t have the financial clout to do so, brings misery. I see it every day in my line of business, where individuals sacrifice their future for short term gratification. Nothing wrong with an occasional splurge, but there are too many debt alcoholics that need to go cold turkey.

As for voluntarily downgrading, it is a way of life for me. The knowledge that I can afford most luxuries makes them less appealing. There was a time when I would have been embarrassed to be seen in my 9 yr old car. Now, I’m not bothered in the least.

[freitag1]

Money can help you to have more freedom and freedom is what makes me happy. So for myself both of them are related to each other. The good thing is that I don't need a luxus car or a yacht to feel I have my freedom, but for example I want to be able to eat where ever I want whenever I want but this is some sort of freedom that is not too expensive.

*Edit: Yeah, I agree with Mr. Heng

Edited May 4, 2008 by freitag1

[qwertz]

Discuss it, invest it, save it - do what you like with it.

But when one day there's not enough water oil and food to go around - what you can't do with it is eat it or drink it.

And your car and your yacht won't won't run on it either.

Edited May 4, 2008 by qwertz

[Sir Burr]

Our researcher might have saved himself a lot off effort if he had only watched 'The Treasure of the Sierra Mardre ....... with that great actor... what's his name?!

Walter Huston. The father of the director of that film, John Huston.

[Heng]

But when one day there's not enough water oil and food to go around - what you can't do with it is eat it or drink it.

And your car and your yacht won't won't run on it either.

When there is no food or water left on the planet, sure. No doubt no one will be eating or drinking at all.

When there is limited supply, as it is NOW, no need to wait "one day," some people will have access to it, and some won't. And what do you think people will use to gain access to it?

[Heng]

As for voluntarily downgrading, it is a way of life for me. The knowledge that I can afford most luxuries makes them less appealing. There was a time when I would have been embarrassed to be seen in my 9 yr old car. Now, I’m not bothered in the least.

Yeah, my main cars are 7 and 8 years old. Well maintained and kinda of that like new (to me at least) / nice fit feeling like an well worn leather jacket or baseball glove. Usually fly in a SQ biz pod to LA and then take a Southwest Airlines "bus" to Austin. I love the downgrade (not just for the sake of downgrading, but I'd prefer a nonstop flight instead of being routed through Denver, Dallas, or Houston on United, American, or Continental... even if better service is available) because when I step off that SW flight on the way back, I know I'll have a much more comfortable flight ahead of me.