Budget Day - The Official After Hours Thread - (Ireland's undisputed Voice of Reason)

Swan Curry

ibarelycare wrote: »

It should be the young unemployed people protesting. They're the ones who have been affected. They're not in work or college. A percentage of them are doing Jobbridge but the majority of them would have been free to make their voices heard.

What do you think After Hours would say if young unemployed people protested?Most posters would make some snarky comment about how they should be looking for a job,not protesting,and then forget it ever happened.They can shout as loud as they want but nobody wants to listen,especially not in the Dáil.

ibarelycare

Swan Curry wrote: »

What do you think After Hours would say if young unemployed people protested?Most posters would make some snarky comment about how they should be looking for a job,not protesting,and then forget it ever happened.They can shout as loud as they want but nobody wants to listen,especially not in the Dáil.

Who cares what the people of AH would say? In fact I think most of us would be impressed that they would be out there attempting to do something about it.

seamus

The majority under 25 on JSA are either supported by parents or a partner, or are claiming a host of other benefits.

On top of that, it's been quite carefully crafted. It only applies to new entrants. So nobody currently claiming JSA is losing out. You don't miss what you never had.

flutered

Lyaiera wrote: »

Then this goes back to the same figure from the boom time years... We had 4% unemployment. Given seasonal work, people between jobs and people changing status within the welfare system that's considered pretty much full employment of everyone who can work. This idea of there being hordes of people milking the system is rubbish when people were willing to work when the jobs were there.

the dept of the t-shock got a cash injection yesterday 300k to hire more people, people hired included the lass who asked a taxi driver to dance in dame street as 3am one morning this summer, that video went viral, i do not keep videos but its out there.

Swan Curry

ibarelycare wrote: »

Who cares what the people of AH would say? In fact I think most of us would be impressed that they would be out there attempting to do something about it.

Come on,we both know how young unemployed people protesting would play out.The media narrative and the public perception would be "Why aren't these people looking for a job?",not "Fair play to these people for not lying down and taking it like the rest of the country have (except for the elderly,of course)",like you suggest.If there were any arrests,the protesters would be portrayed as thugs and rioters.

After that,nothing would change.Social welfare for young people would be cut even more and people will continue to have no other option than to emigrate.

Sir Oxman

Swan Curry wrote: »

What do you think After Hours would say if young unemployed people protested?Most posters would make some snarky comment about how they should be looking for a job,not protesting,and then forget it ever happened.They can shout as loud as they want but nobody wants to listen,especially not in the Dáil.

And there's the problem with the younger citizen - can't be bothered to vote* (the demographic), can't be bothered to protest = easy to target/forget

*Obviously, not all.

jank

K-9 wrote: »

The above contradicts the below:

On the contrary you contradicted yourself.

Well I'd expect the lowest 20% to have a better standard of living these days than the same section 20 years ago

A Sunday Roast would have been a luxury even 30 years ago, was for me anyway growing up, whereas with the increased standard of living that both you and me agree is a given, would be considered basic enough now.

So people ARE better off than they were 20 years ago so? Yet the poor are 'poorer' Explain that to me. Cause the ability to have a roast on a Sunday is a sign of being poor or not? Give me a break!

K-9 wrote: »

Anyway, anybody cooking a roast should be able to get a couple of meals out of it, better than eating processed crap!

I do agree with your general sentiment but with increased educational and knowledge levels, the ability to have a balanced diet should be a norm these days.

The thing is why do we shift the term poor with the times in the first place? In 20 years time will we classify someone as poor if they cannot afford 2 Sunday Roasts, Sky TV, 2 cars and a holiday home? I suppose if it is normal for people to have 4 cars I suppose the above will be true!  Why do shift the goal posts in relation to poor yet people keep on moaning and bitching about their lot being so tough and that the guberment should do more to help them, well just cause!!

In my view there is very very little real poverty in Ireland or indeed in the West. If you want to see that then go to Africa, South America or Asia where things like fresh water, pencils and paper and fresh food/ or any meat are luxuries. Too many people have a warped sense of entitlement.

K-9 wrote: »

Basically you aren't looking at it in a rounded way, you are looking at it from a way to justify your political view. I'm not questioning your assertion that the poorer sections of society are better of than 30 years,

I thought that was exactly what you were doing.

K-9 wrote: »

what the stats point out is the wealthier show a higher increase in living standards than lower sections, which logically brings into question the trickle down economic dogma.



PS. I'd also question the quality of food poorer people can afford.

The average cost of groceries in terms of the average weekly wage has gone down by 30% in the past 20 years. Sure not everyone can afford to eat Organic Chicken or Wild Salmon (even I cant afford that and Im on a good wage) but due to the free market food has NEVER been more affordable. Why do you think there are 7 Billion people on the planet?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/08/154568945/what-america-spends-on-groceries

Have a look at the Forbes rich list. The vast vast majority of those in the top 500 are self made. It may be true that the rich do have an increasing share of the pie but it is also true that the pie is getting larger ALL the time and that people dont stay poor all their lives. Income mobility has to be accounted for. One who is a student with no assets or money will not always be that way. Over their live times their nominal wealth and income will increase all their lives. New "poor" people will take their place and so on.

In terms of quality of food, well that is up to the individual. It does not cost that much more to eat fresh and healthy. The internet is at everyones finger tips, look up some data and information on what to eat and what not to eat. If they want to eat that roast (which would cost about 2/3 pints) lay off the drink or the fags, or stay out of the bookies. At the end of the day people have to be responsible for themselves, their own health and their own lifestyle. The idea that we have to have the state look after us all like children, telling us what to eat, what to spend, what to tax us like good citizens is absurd. How did civilisation ever get so far without some bureaucrat telling us all how to behave? One wonders.

jank

Charlie Rock wrote: »

What free market? The one in your head?



If you're going to reply to this post please address the specific points instead of flooding the the thread with bullshit.

Remember now, address the specific points made above.

What is your point? That all companies are cartels? The only cartels I can think off are state owned.

jank

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Not true, and part of the just world fallacy again. Read up on it. It targets the wealthy, and the idea that all wealthy people are hard working is bull****.

Well, their money may work harder in some cases but most people of wealth are self made. Look at the stats. If someone has wealth but doesn’t work does that mean the state should forcibly make him work or take away his wealth?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Is it fair that people with more pay more to help the people who have less? I think so. I wouldn't mind paying it if I had it.

If is the key word there. By all means one can freely give away their cash out of their own accord. No problem there but you are basically saying that your opinion should be forced onto others because you have a good intention. You want to use the state as the aggressor. You think its fair so you then use the State and its powers to carry out your opinion. See the danger in that? Where does that leave us?

Anyway, people with more money already pay more. People on low incomes contribute very little to the overall tax take yet receives the most benefits. People on higher incomes contribute much more to the over all tax take and receive less in over all benefits. So the more you pay the less you get. What a great incentive that is!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously? You're contrdicting yourself here. "A very small amount" - you need to start with the people who need it then work pout how much. If people genuinely need it but there isn't enough don;t hve it, is that fair?

Need what though? People need food, water, warmth, shelter and clothes. That is it really. That is what I think its fair. I don’t think its fair to pay people for lifestyle choices funded by those who work. That most definitely not is fair.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Asking people to contirbute to the upkeep of services is "robbery"? Where did you get that soundbite for? If the taxes are not reinvested in society then yes - it is. But if they are, then how can it be robbery? The people taking the money are not keeping it.

What services? I am expected to pay for services for the good of society yet I don’t use 90% of the services. Taxation is legalised robbery. The state forces everyone to pay or else it will put you in jail, no matter services you use or do not use. Nothing is free, least of all state services. Free GP care is not "Free" for the tax payer! I will have to pay for that yet have no kids, but sure that is what ‘society’ is!?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

As I said: someone asked for a system that was fair, I gave them the most fair system mankind currently has.

In your opinion that is fair, others will disagree.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Taking aside the fact that it probably wouldn't work here (fair enough) do you accept that it CAN work and DOES work and if so, where does it leave your point taxes being robbery?

Can work? Where in Utopia? It is amazing that we look at a place like Sweden and think it is heaven on earth but the place is nothing like Utopia. A place like that proves nothing I am afraid so not sure what the point is.

.jacksparrow.

Benefits and entitlements!!!

If I hear one more person say there entitled to something, Jesus it's the most self important head in the clouds word I have ever heard.

Kirby

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Benefits and entitlements!!!

If I hear one more person say there entitled to something, Jesus it's the most self important head in the clouds word I have ever heard.

Ahem....

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Fans are entitled to voice their frustration if they feel a player isn't up to scratch or putting the effort in

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

were all entitled to our opinion of course!

Careful what you wish for

.jacksparrow.

Kirby wrote: »

Ahem....





Careful what you wish for

I see what you done there, nice!

efb

flutered wrote: »

the dept of the t-shock got a cash injection yesterday 300k to hire more people, people hired included the lass who asked a taxi driver to dance in dame street as 3am one morning this summer, that video went viral, i do not keep videos but its out there.

It wasn't 3am

0ph0rce0

The One Parent Tax Credit.

If the other parent doesn't claim this can the other.

What if the share the time with kids 1 week and the other parent the next week, what happens there?

NTMK

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

The One Parent Tax Credit.

If the other parent doesn't claim this can the other.

What if the share the time with kids 1 week and the other parent the next week, what happens there?

Its probably near impossible to claim like all the other single parent benefits that unless youre gaming the system like a lot of welfare careerist you aint getting ****.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

Well, their money may work harder in some cases but most people of wealth are self made. Look at the stats. If someone has wealth but doesn’t work does that mean the state should forcibly make him work or take away his wealth?




If is the key word there. By all means one can freely give away their cash out of their own accord. No problem there but you are basically saying that your opinion should be forced onto others because you have a good intention. You want to use the state as the aggressor. You think its fair so you then use the State and its powers to carry out your opinion. See the danger in that? Where does that leave us?

Anyway, people with more money already pay more. People on low incomes contribute very little to the overall tax take yet receives the most benefits. People on higher incomes contribute much more to the over all tax take and receive less in over all benefits. So the more you pay the less you get. What a great incentive that is!!




Need what though? People need food, water, warmth, shelter and clothes. That is it really. That is what I think its fair. I don’t think its fair to pay people for lifestyle choices funded by those who work. That most definitely not is fair.


What services? I am expected to pay for services for the good of society yet I don’t use 90% of the services. Taxation is legalised robbery. The state forces everyone to pay or else it will put you in jail, no matter services you use or do not use. Nothing is free, least of all state services. Free GP care is not "Free" for the tax payer! I will have to pay for that yet have no kids, but sure that is what ‘society’ is!?




In your opinion that is fair, others will disagree.


Can work? Where in Utopia? It is amazing that we look at a place like Sweden and think it is heaven on earth but the place is nothing like Utopia. A place like that proves nothing I am afraid so not sure what the point is.

You seem to have a very simplistic idea over what your taxes are paying for. Have you ever driven on a motorway? Or used an airport? And if so, did you build them yourself?

Have you ever taken a State exam and had it correcte independently? If so, did you fund it yourself?

I'm not advocating socialism or saying that any system is perfect or Utopian or heaven - those are YOUR wrods not mine. AGAIN - I was asked to put forward a syste, which worked and I did. You know exactly what my point is: it is a system which people ae happier living in - so stop predending you don't or changing it to suit your argument.

jank

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You seem to have a very simplistic idea over what your taxes are paying for. Have you ever driven on a motorway? Or used an airport? And if so, did you build them yourself? .

Yes, what would we ever do if the government didnt build these things for us.... There is no reason why any of the above cannot be built privately without state funds or taxes. There are many airports in the world privately owned and built as well as numerous motorways. I assume you paid tolls before?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Have you ever taken a State exam and had it correcte independently? If so, did you fund it yourself?.

Hard to get into 3rd level when the state has a monopoly on access with the Leaving Cert

Playboy

Charlie Rock wrote: »

% is %. If you tax someone on 200K PA 10% it's 10%. If you tax someone on 20K PA 10% it's 10%.

Not sure you get the point. 10% of £200k is £20k, 10% of 20k is £2k. The person on £200k pays substantially more tax.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

The tax rates are staggered on pay/income. The fact is that the more people earn the more likely it is they will have income from other sources that are far harder to asses; property, stocks/shares, trust funds, destructive accountants etc.

I think we need to distinguish super wealthy from upper middle class / wealthy families. There are taxes in place to deal with all of the above but they only really apply in a material way to a small minority. Someone on £200k per annum is limited in how they can hide money with the help of accountants. But my point still stands, people are expected to pay more the more they earn. If someone has millions or billions then of course it's difficult to tax them effectively as they can use tax havens etc to minimise their tax bill.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Bull.
****.

The more you extract from the system the more it serves you.

Because you say so? I'm not sure what quoting Adam Smith has to do with anything and its a quote you have already used earlier in the thread. Society in the 18th century bears little resemblance to society today. Our ideas of the free market and capitalism has moved on substanially since then. You could argue that the Wealth of Nations is in complete contradiction to what people think a free market is today even though its held up as the bible to some free marketeers.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

This is a reason to be more rigorous about closing loopholes rather than letting people off the hook.

And that works both ways. At both ends of the economic spectrum there are loopholes that frustrate both sides. But we have to be realistic, we are never going to catch all tax evaders/avoiders and neither are we going to catch all benefit cheats.

What we need is a fair and transparent system that everyone feels is fair and just. If you removed Staggered tax systems then maybe the wealthy would stop avoiding tax and if you increased the pay, tax free allowance and conditions of the working class then people might be encouraged to get off of welfare.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Yes. The massive welfare programs for failed bond speculators, failed banks/ers, property speculators, failed politicians and failed civil servants are going to cost this country dearly for a generation.

I dont disagree. I think from top to bottom people have a sense of entitlement whether thats in realtion to social welfare or bail outs. People have very little personal responsibility for the impact of poor decisions they make.

Charlie Rock wrote: »

Who is? Again, consider the massive welfare programs for failed bond speculators, failed banks/ers, property speculators, failed politicians and failed civil servants are going to cost this country dearly for a generation.

As above I dont disagree, whether my tax dollars are used to pay for a lazy able person who refuses to work or pay for a financial institution that behaved irresponsibly it is not a situation I am happy with.

K-9

jank wrote: »

On the contrary you contradicted yourself.

Nope.

So people ARE better off than they were 20 years ago so? Yet the poor are 'poorer' Explain that to me. Cause the ability to have a roast on a Sunday is a sign of being poor or not? Give me a break!

So they should be, if people had the same standard of living as 20 years ago capitalism has totally failed. It's a bit like thay guy you quoted going on about people having internet and they didn't have it 50 years ago! Internet would be like having a TV then.

The thing is why do we shift the term poor with the times in the first place? In 20 years time will we classify someone as poor if they cannot afford 2 Sunday Roasts, Sky TV, 2 cars and a holiday home? I suppose if it is normal for people to have 4 cars I suppose the above will be true!  Why do shift the goal posts in relation to poor yet people keep on moaning and bitching about their lot being so tough and that the guberment should do more to help them, well just cause!!

In my view there is very very little real poverty in Ireland or indeed in the West. If you want to see that then go to Africa, South America or Asia where things like fresh water, pencils and paper and fresh food/ or any meat are luxuries. Too many people have a warped sense of entitlement.

My original claim was the rich got richer and the poor poorer during the crisis. I provided a link and there's loads more out there. These surveys are prepared by people who know a bit more about these things than you or me, put a little more thought into them, so I'll go with them. You haven't provided anything other than a youtube video.

Also we are a first world European country, why would you compare us to Asia and Africa? Sounds like a last ditch attempt to win the internet.

The average cost of groceries in terms of the average weekly wage has gone down by 30% in the past 20 years. Sure not everyone can afford to eat Organic Chicken or Wild Salmon (even I cant afford that and Im on a good wage) but due to the free market food has NEVER been more affordable. Why do you think there are 7 Billion people on the planet?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/08/154568945/what-america-spends-on-groceries

Food has never been more affordable but yet people were fighting over bags of rice in Asian countries a couple of years ago? That's what happens when you make food a stock market commodity.

Have a look at the Forbes rich list. The vast vast majority of those in the top 500 are self made. It may be true that the rich do have an increasing share of the pie but it is also true that the pie is getting larger ALL the time and that people dont stay poor all their lives. Income mobility has to be accounted for. One who is a student with no assets or money will not always be that way. Over their live times their nominal wealth and income will increase all their lives. New "poor" people will take their place and so on.

Do you not get it? People move up and down the various income sections, that should be a given. Stats are concerned with the standard of living of the top and the poorest. They don't track each and every individual, that would be a bit pointless! Many in the Forbes list make a fortune from nothing, others lose their wealth, the stats are interested in the overall picture.

In terms of quality of food, well that is up to the individual. It does not cost that much more to eat fresh and healthy. The internet is at everyones finger tips, look up some data and information on what to eat and what not to eat. If they want to eat that roast (which would cost about 2/3 pints) lay off the drink or the fags, or stay out of the bookies. At the end of the day people have to be responsible for themselves, their own health and their own lifestyle. The idea that we have to have the state look after us all like children, telling us what to eat, what to spend, what to tax us like good citizens is absurd. How did civilisation ever get so far without some bureaucrat telling us all how to behave? One wonders.

Great rant.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jank wrote: »

Yes, what would we ever do if the government didnt build these things for us.... There is no reason why any of the above cannot be built privately without state funds or taxes. There are many airports in the world privately owned and built as well as numerous motorways. I assume you paid tolls before?

So, instead of relying on govenment, you're relying on business? And instead of paying taxes, you're paying tolls? Hardly moves on from your self-sufficiency argument.

The point is, you live in a society. You are not immune to siad society, even if you want to be.

Hard to get into 3rd level when the state has a monopoly on access with the Leaving Cert

That's a completely different arguement as you need to have some common benchmark on which to judge students.

Playboy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, instead of relying on govenment, you're relying on business? And instead of paying taxes, you're paying tolls? Hardly moves on from your self-sufficiency argument.

The point is, you live in a society. You are not immune to siad society, even if you want to be.

The key difference is one of choice. In the scenario outlined you can choose to avail of certain services and pay for them or you can be forced to pay for all services whether you need to use them or not. You can argue the merits of a private enterprise delivering a profitable and efficient service over a government delivering the same service. I think there are examples which prove both points as some privatisations are successes and others are unmitigated disasters.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Playboy wrote: »

The key difference is one of choice. In the scenario outlined you can choose to avail of certain services and pay for them or you can be forced to pay for all services whether you need to use them or not. You can argue the merits of a private enterprise delivering a profitable and efficient service over a government delivering the same service. I think there are examples which prove both points as some privatisations are successes and others are unmitigated disasters.

In order for choice to exist, we'd be talking two airports and two motorways to every city. In any case, what's to stop someone from building a second airport in Dublin?

The other point is one of profitability: what private enterprise is going to take on the task of say, bulding a motorway to Galway, if it's not profitable?

If the State had not built an airport, an if no one is willing to take on the task, and you're not willing to pay taxes to fund something, are you willing to live without one?

Loblox

Can I throw something about why young ones aren't protesting? Back when I was a student, I took part in a few protests (all peaceful, and I didn't see any of them on the news). Biggest one was the one where they gave out Batt O'Keefe's number. And every time I went out, my neighbour treated me like I was Hitler because "you're young and fit and don't need it! Let someone who needs that money get it!"

After I got work through jobbridge, I missed a big protest, and the exact same guy lost his mind with me, saying if I wasn't willing to protest, I didn't deserve it. And I got that from so many people, including my parents.

Now, sure, you're going to get people who don't care, and you're going to get people who are there just to cause trouble. But I can guarantee that there are plenty who do give a damn, but get screwed either way. I'd have protested with those few hundred yesterday no problem if I hadn't been forced to emigrate. (got my job within three weeks of heading to Canada, spent last night drinking free vodka with John Densmore. Thank you, Toronto)

Playboy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

In order for choice to exist, we'd be talking two airports and two motorways to every city. In any case, what's to stop someone from building a second airport in Dublin?

The other point is one of profitability: what private enterprise is going to take on the task of say, bulding a motorway to Galway, if it's not profitable?

If the State had not built an airport, an if no one is willing to take on the task, and you're not willing to pay taxes to fund something, are you willing to live without one?

I think you confused my point. I meant in an enterprise driven economy with very little government interference and low taxation then people would have the choice to pay for only the services they use. In an economy with high taxation and large amounts of government interference then people are forced via taxation to pay fopr services they never use. For instance you might never need to use Knock airport but you have paid for it and continue to subsidise it by virtue of being a taxpayer.

Now you can argue the merits all you want of the benefits of doing this but that is an ideological point of view in the same way as the opposing view is. I'm not advocating either system by the way, I think a sensible balance has to be found somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately though Governments seem to have little accountability for how they spend and waste taxpayers hard earned cash and this generates resentment and frustration amongst high rate tax payers in a way it doesnt with people at the less well off end of the spectrum.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Playboy wrote: »

I think you confused my point. I meant in an enterprise driven economy with very little government interference and low taxation then people would have the choice to pay for only the services they use. In an economy with high taxation and large amounts of government interference then people are forced via taxation to pay fopr services they never use. For instance you might never need to use Knock airport but you have paid for it and continue to subsidise it by virtue of being a taxpayer.

Now you can argue the merits all you want of the benefits of doing this but that is an ideological point of view in the same way as the opposing view is. I'm not advocating either system by the way, I think a sensible balance has to be found somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately though Governments seem to have little accountability for how they spend and waste taxpayers hard earned cash and this generates resentment and frustration amongst high rate tax payers in a way it doesnt with people at the less well off end of the spectrum.

I'd agree with the second part, but you can't tar all governments with the same brush. No matter how much you earn or pay, you're going to get pissed off if the government doesn't deliver. That said, some have built very good social systems and infrsturctures with the taxes they've recouped. Pointing at one country and saying taring them all with the same brush is hardly a fair analysis.

The confusion in the first part, again, lies in your assumption that enterprise will build infrastruture with a very low chance of profit. I personally don't see that happening. As for the idea that you can pick and choose what services you use, that;s just unpractical. I might never need an army to defend my borders, but then why should I pay for it? I might not need to dial 999 and call the police, but why should I pay for it?

Idbatterim

You seem to have a very simplistic idea over what your taxes are paying for. Have you ever driven on a motorway? Or used an airport? And if so, did you build them yourself?

Have you ever taken a State exam and had it correcte independently? If so, did you fund it yourself?

motorists contribute 4 billion a year to the exchequer, roads have 1 billion put back into them. The airports have taxes and charges so every time you use them you are paying for them. In relation to the state exam, I cant remember if I paid extra for the JC and LC, I reckon the 3500 my parents were spending to send me to school every year, just about covered these though... This argument would be fair enough IF there was no motor tax or ridiculous taxes on fuel & airport charges, but there are...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Idbatterim wrote: »

motorists contribute 4 billion a year to the exchequer, roads have 1 billion put back into them. The airports have taxes and charges so every time you use them you are paying for them. In relation to the state exam, I cant remember if I paid extra for the JC and LC, I reckon the 3500 my parents were spending to send me to school every year, just about covered these though... This argument would be fair enough IF there was no motor tax or ridiculous taxes on fuel & airport charges, but there are...

The poster was arguing against the payment of taxes, full stop. A previous one going so far as to call it "robbery". I'd agree with you regardig the airport - but someone has to pay for it being built in the first place, that was my point.

Taxing someone is one thing, wasting that money is another. I'm not arguing the second. If the government is taking in 3 billion extra in road tax and spending it on government jets, this is a fault of the government - not the system. Not to mention the people who elected them. My argument against the system is a seperate issue.

Your last line - with which I agree - is very true. But doesn't go against the argument I was making.

K-9

jank wrote: »

So people ARE better off than they were 20 years ago so? Yet the poor are 'poorer' Explain that to me. Cause the ability to have a roast on a Sunday is a sign of being poor or not? Give me a break!

Put in very simple terms, you used measures of wealth in the 60's to back up your point, why not go back 100 years. Electricity, radio and a camera would be luxury items, 50 years later they were pretty much essential items. I'm exagerating your perspective to give it an almost Luddite charm!