Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Even the most naive person knows that the probability of a Shadchan causing someone a loss is greater than zero. Accordingly a Shadchan should never be allowed to give out a person’s name without their permission.
I actually disagree with you on the part about a non-professional being responsible for damage caused when they had permission to work on something. (Assuming that the person getting damaged was aware that the damager wasn’t a professional- it’s a risk that they took and lost out.)
There are no Shadchanim that have immunity and they shouldn’t need it either. If they’re malicious then they’d forfeit any immunity typically provided to professionals. If they’re sincere and forthcoming then the singles accept all risks upon themselves when taking their advice or suggestions.
I’m not sure if you want to go down that road. If they’re spending so much time calling references why don’t they just call up the person in question and ask for permission to act as an agent on their behalf? (I think we both know the answer to that.)
Are Shadchanim really allowed to go ahead and do what they think is beneficial to someone (without permission) when practically speaking there’s a much higher chances of causing them harm?
Also, if you act one someone’s behalf without their permission and cause them a loss- are you responsible for making them whole again?
I wrote what you quoted above in reference to a Shadchanim who get names and add them to their list without the victims permission. If someone approaches a Shadchan, asks them to put them on their list and agrees (in writing) to allow the Shadchan to do research then I fully agree that the Shadchan can do any research that they want.
Similarly, if a Shadchan redts a shidduch (with the express written permission of all involved) then there’s no limit on the amount of research the other party is allowed to do.
(Obviously whatever information is obtained can not be divulged to other Shadchanim.)
I feel strongly that if a Shadchan wants to add someone’s name to their list then they needs to get their permission. They should also get in writing if the Shadchan is allowed to give out their names to a potential match without first running it by them.
Do you agree with this?
I try to respond to every post directed towards me but recently I’ve become suspicious about you. After rereading many of your recent posts (on this thread and others) I’ve been noticing a concerning trend. I sincerely hope that I’m wrong but I’m going to err on the side of caution and stop responding to you.
Out of courtesy though, I will respond to your most recent post.
Am I suggesting that the market would support such a thing?
No, I’m not suggesting that the market would support it and I don’t believe I ever wrote that. What I wrote, and still feel strongly about, is that the market NEEDS it. If not for anything else but to protect the victims of Shadchan abuse.
I’m privileged to be a member of כלל ישראל, a nation that takes pride in the strict rules about talking about others. Yet for some reason that all goes out the window when someone turns a magical age and a cruel shadchan gets ahold of their name. In the name of “shidduchim” they’re all of the sudden allowed to call anyone and everyone and ask the most detailed and private questions about their personal lives (even when the target specifically tells them to remove their name and they have zero permission to discuss them). There needs to be some sort of protection for these victims.
“Other than your posts on the CR, I haven’t seen or heard of any demand for certification of shadchanim, so I don’t agree that there’s much of a market for it.”
The entire shidduch system is in shambles, even for the ones that it happens to work for. It’s a combination of many failures and addressing (or even fixing) just one of them won’t resolve the issue but may be a start. If for some reason you think that Shadchanim shouldn’t be brought under control- try explaining that instead of just writing that you haven’t seen or heard of it anywhere else so there’s no market for it.
Are you insinuating that we continue pushing agendas that have been pushed for over a decade (with practically zero positive results) since you’ve seen and heard lots of demand for it?
If you had a flat tire what’s to stop you from calling a friend or relative to help you change the tire? Nothing. Could a “mechanic” earn his livelihood by going around all day looking for friends and relatives with flat tires and help them out? Best of luck to him.
Does that mean that we don’t need professional mechanics anymore? Would you suggest that mechanics don’t get certified since then they need to be honest and knowledgeable?
That obvious answer is that for simple things you don’t need someone who’s experienced and qualified but when something gets complicated you do need them. And when someone has a serious issue with their car they’d like to see that the mechanic is ASE certified and has insurance.
Similarly by shidduchim. If a friend or relative redts a shidduch and everything works out then good for them. Even if they’re meant for each other there may be issues that come up that an experienced professional would be better at handling.
Furthermore, once a “shadchan” runs out of friends and family, they need to get more clients from somewhere.
If there was a system in place that would certify (or provide credentials or whatever) to shadchanim- when some quack calls a yeshiva and asks for their shidduch list (how they have a right to give that out without permission is a different matter) the yeshiva could first make sure that they’re certified/ credentialed before giving it out.
If there’s someone from out of town that doesn’t have friends or family that are able to help her find a shidduch and they travel to NY or Lakewood to meet shadchanim, are they going to go to the certified ones or to an uncertified one who justifies her uncertification by not wanting to be disciplined for lying or giving out private information?
At times one shadchan may feel the need to discuss a particular shidduch with a different shadchan (obviously with the express written permission from both sides). Would you feel comfortable allowing a shadchan that earned your trust to discuss your deepest personal information with someone who didn’t go through the training because they’re afraid of being part of the discipline process? I hope not!
The barrier to entry would work the same way it does for any profession.
To make it into a profession there would have to be:
Some sort of education requirements,
Some experience and guidance (I.e. working under a professional for a year or two),
An examination showing proficiency,
A list of rules that members must follow or face disciplinary actions,
A discipline process for those that do break the rules,
Continuing education requirements to make sure that members stay up to date,
And an oversight board to ensure that everything is being followed and victims have a place to file grievances.(This list is by far not all inclusive.)
There’s nothing that stops friends and family from suggesting shidduchim just like there’s nothing stopping you from getting friends or family to fix your car when it breaks down. You’re taking a risk though as you may void the warranty if a non-certified mechanic works on your car.
I’m finding it hard to have a discussion with you but I’m going to respond to some of your concerns (at least for now).
Post #2370330
“And I still say that reducing the number of shadchanim isn’t going to help.”
What I see happening in the long term is that if the incompetent shadchanim are somehow removed and more competent shadchanim are brought in (once the negative stigma of being a shadchan is removed)- then the number of shidduchim being made will go up. Professional shadchanim won’t have to compete with the riff raff and singles can go out on meaningful dates (I.e. not ones that they’re pressured into). They’ll also have more time to follow up on suggestions from friends and family.
Best of all- reducing the number of shadchanim will reduce the amount of collateral damage. (I’m sure you agree with that!)
“ Also I would imagine that plenty of shadchanim who you may think are incompetent have made lots of shidduchim.”
You’re correct- but again you need to take collateral damage into account as well as the lack of precision. And no, the end doesn’t justify the means.
Take the following example:
Let’s say snipers in combat would be issued a shotgun with buckshot. Would you be against arming them with a sniper rifle using the argument that at times they do make the kill (albeit only a small number of times)?
You need to take into account that having a more accurate shot will brings more successes and reduce the amount of collateral damage.
I heard of “sawyouatsinai” but I don’t know much about it, I never heard of “imetyouatsinai” so I can’t comment on either one.
There are some professions that need barriers to entry and some that don’t. Imagine if there were no barriers to become a commercial airline pilot or surgeon- it’s not the same as delivering for Amazon.
With the amount of damage being caused by Shadchanim and the serious state of disrepair of the entire shidduch scene it’s way past the point that there needs to be some serious barriers to entry. If flooding the market with inexperienced Shadchanim would help then maybe there’s something to discuss. Until then- they need to be brought under control (i.e. creating a barrier to entry and creating a discipline process to fine, suspend or ban the ones who violate basic decency).
I’ve mentioned in the past that when I was working in the ACA, I was able to run a query to see what illnesses policyholders suffered from, what medications they were on and when they last filled their medications. If I found someone that hadn’t refilled his medication in three months and contacted his Rov, neighbors and family members to inquire about their financial situation and persuade them to start taking their medications again I would have been canned on the spot and lost my professional credentials. Yet when a Shadchan pulls a stunt like that they’re celebrated as a hero. Their blatant disregard for privacy and strong-arm tactics need to stop but with no barriers to entry there’s no incentive to act appropriately.
As far as the loading resumes is concerned- like I mentioned earlier, as long as everyone who has their resume submitted is a willing participant I can’t imagine why anyone would have an issue with it. (If Shadchanim have an issue it means that you’re onto something good and I wish you the best of luck.) Advertising and getting lots of people on board may be an issue but like every other idea posted in the numerous threads- nothing seems to be getting widespread traction and acceptance by the population at large.
If I meant something else? I’m not the one who used that word. You need to answer what you meant or rephrase the question using words that I wrote.
You still haven’t shown me where I ever mentioned anything about stam people who dabble in shidduchim. Would you like to try again (or rephrase your original question)?
If you’re only going to quote something that I posted that doesn’t contain the word “stam” then don’t waste your time because I’m not going to reply.
I’m happy to fully respond to your post but to make sure we’re on the same page can you please point me to where I ever mentioned anything about stam people who dabble in shidduchim?
I don’t think your idea will have a meaningful impact but as long as all resumes are loaded in the computer by the individual themself (or with explicit written permission from the individual) then I can’t see why anyone would have an issue.
You’d also have to get some geniuses to figure out how the system will be exploited and mitigate those gaps.
While you’re at it- you may want to add a feature that lets you know if the type of person that you’re looking for is also looking for you. (Just a thought.)
I never heard of imetyouatsinai so I can’t comment. Sorry
Would you be able to comment on what’s wrong with creating a barrier to new entrants?
What’s wrong with creating a barrier to new entrants? If it removes all the shadchanim who shouldn’t be there to begin with and prevents new ones who don’t belong there from coming in- that’ll be a win for everyone. The few who belong there won’t be ashamed to refer to themselves as “shadchanim” (and won’t have to deal with the riff raff), those who are forced out can pasture elsewhere and do something productive with their lives, new entrants who didn’t want to be part of the riff raff could get certified and help those who can use their help and finally- the singles who need them the most would know where to turn.
I love your idea of a place where victims of shadchanim could leave their negative comments. After hearing countless times “stop being a chenyukkel, you need to tell me why you said ‘no’, there’s no Issur of Lashon Hora by shadchanim”- it would be nice to give them a taste of their own medicine.
I can’t see the shidduch process being automated. Finding one’s bashert is much more complicated than purchasing a plane ticket, especially since a good part of the time the person themself doesn’t fully understand or know what they’re looking for. That’s why we could use “professional” shadchanim, those who were able to join the profession by getting by the barrier and are able to live up to a strict code of ethics.
I’m not complaining 😂, I’m just explaining how Social Security works (or was supposed to work) for those who didn’t know. And I’m not relying on it for when I retire.
I just consider it a tax that I’m not receiving any benefit for. A small price to pay to this wonderful country that took in my ancestors with open arms when they had nowhere else to turn.
With that being said- it is a free country and I have the privilege of voting for representatives who I feel will do a better job with the taxes that I pay.
You’re missing a critical word- “there aren’t enough COMPETENT shadchanim”. Increasing the number of untrained shadchanim will just exacerbate the situation. Increasing the number of competent shadchanim while getting rid of the ones who shouldn’t be in the business in the first place would be a great start to solving the crisis. (Although there are many, many other factors that will need to be addressed.)
You can count me and my wife as a shidduch that was made by a family or friend- we were the only successful shidduch she ever made. After a suffering a horrific incident at the hands of a cruel “professional” shadchan I decided that under no circumstances would I ever use a “professional” shadchan again. Guess what- a family friend who was being pushed out of the way by the ruthless shadchanim was finally able to set me up with my wife and the rest is history.
I’m all for people relying on friends and family to set people up and a permanent ban on professional shadchanim. There’s a difference between a friend or family member who dabbles in shidduchim verses a shadchan whose only training and experience is that they “dabble” in shidduchim (i.e. the arrogance and lack of basic decency that comes along with being a “professional” shadchan).
Against my better judgement I’ll explain where that came from.
In post #2366867 you wrote that “It’s still not a Ponzi scheme, even if it’s not going to last” but didn’t explain why.
In post #2367605 I gave the parable of a band-aid verses a bandage and asked if you feel the same way about Social Security? Even though it looks like a Ponzi Scheme, functions like a Ponzi Schem and is destined to collapse like a Ponzi Scheme it isn’t a Ponzi Scheme because it’s legal and transparent?
I thought it was a simple question- do you agree that it’s like a Ponzi Scheme (i.e. current payments pay prior liabilities and current liabilities will hopefully be paid by future payments) but technically isn’t one because Social Security is legal?
In post #2367699, instead of answering my question you asked what wasn’t clear. And then in post #2367703 you mentioned some more reasons why it’s technically not a Ponzi Scheme but still didn’t answer my question.
So, in post #2368218 I left a pretty simple multiple-choice question which your response in post #2368385 seemed to imply to me that you weren’t interested in having an intelligent conversation.
You’re correct that a shadchan is a type of broker. Some brokers are part of a profession and some aren’t. Making shadchanus into a profession is way past due. There needs to be a code of ethics that they need to follow or just some basic decency.
You call a travel agent and if they find something for you- great! If not, hang up the phone and call a different one. They wouldn’t dare call your Rov, Rebbe, neighbor or dog walker (or all of the above plus people you previously dated) to say that they found you a great flight but you don’t want it and they don’t agree with your reasoning so please pressure them into reconsidering before they need to resort to something more extreme.
Shadchanim don’t work that way. Shadchanim have way too much power and information (that they use and abuse) to not have a discipline process in place. They will make your life miserable until they get their way. There needs to be some training, oversight, responsibility and a discipline process that can fine, suspend or permanently ban them.
Here’s where we disagree:
Social Security does rely on current taxes to make current payments- this is exactly how it follows a Ponzi Scheme. Had the Social Security taxes been put towards an annuity for the tax payer- then current payments wouldn’t be paid out by current taxes, it would be paid out by the payments that were previously made (and hopefully invested responsibly).
(But then early recipients wouldn’t have been able to collect hundreds of times the amount they put in.)
I’m saving towards retirement with the expectation of not getting anything from Social Security, if I do end up getting something it’ll be a bonus. I don’t like that they keep raising the wage base so much every year. (But as a friend pointed out- it doesn’t make a difference because we’re not going to get what we’re owed anyway.)
It doesn’t really make much of a difference now what the life expectancy is- check what it was back when Social Security was enacted and see how many more year’s early recipients received payments than was originally expected.
You asked how are we sure that the next generation will respect us and pay taxes to support us? If I was given a choice to forgo any payments from Social Security and in turn my kids won’t have to pay into the system, I’d do it in a second.
I was trying to have a normal conversation with you. I don’t have the patience to deal with someone who can’t give a coherent answer to a simple multiple choice question.
I probably won’t respond to further posts from you on this thread.
Sorry
As with any huge issue out there, there’s usually way more than just one factor causing the issue and fixing one factor may help but won’t resolve the issue.
Here’s a good one to start with though- How about making Shadchanus into a profession?
Hashem created everyone and created someone meant to be their zivug- if they’re not introduced to each other (or possibly under the wrong circumstances) there’s a good chance they won’t end up marrying.
There are certain characteristics that define a profession (here’s a partial list):
The professional undergoes training,
There’s continuing education,
There’s certification,
There’s ethical standards that need to be followed,
There’s oversight and
There’s a discipline process.Would you trust someone who’s a doctor solely because they “dabble” in healthcare?
Would you trust someone who’s a mechanic solely because he “dabbles” in auto repairs?So why would you trust someone who’s a shadchan solely because they “dabble” in shidduchim?
Furthermore- without oversight and the thought of being banned, fined or face any disciplinary action- what encourages them to act in good faith?
@always_ask_questions and @daas-yochid
I’m not questioning the legalities of Social Security, I’m not a lawyer and don’t have an opinion of the legalities one way or the other.
What I wrote earlier on is that Social Security is designed like a Ponzi Scheme and is destined to fail like all Ponzi Schemes eventually do. (Regardless of whether it’s technically (or legally) a Ponzi Scheme or not.) It may last longer than other Ponzi Schemes do but if early contributors already got payments equal to many times more than they contributed- then there’s going to be a time where the payments coming in aren’t enough to make the payments promised to later contributors. It’s being exacerbated now when people are living longer, having less kids and many of the younger generation are never entering the workforce altogether and therefore not contributing to the fund.
You asked what was unclear- I’m trying to get an answer from you as to why you feel that Social Security isn’t a Ponzi Scheme. Can you pick from one of the choices below? (For context I would choose B.)
A. Social Security doesn’t rely on future contributions to make payments for past contributors,
B. Social Security is legal while Ponzi Schemes are illegal,
C. Both
D. None of the above (please explain)
I respectfully disagree with many of your “facts”. Before discussing them individually- would you mind answering the multiple-choice question I posed to @daas-yochid?
I try to respond to everyone who comments on what I write. To make it easier for me would you be able to explain why Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme?
If someone is wearing a CVS branded bandage they’re technically not wearing a Band-aid. So, even though it looks like a Band-aid, feels like a Band-aid and works like a Band-aid, it’s still not a Band-aid.
Do you feel the same way about Social Security? Even though it looks like a Ponzi Scheme, functions like a Ponzi Schem and is destined to collapse like a Ponzi Scheme it isn’t a Ponzi Scheme because it’s legal and transparent?
I’m trying to figure out where the disconnect is.
Are you opining that Social Security isn’t legally a Ponzi Scheme or isn’t mathematically a Ponzi Scheme (or it isn’t either)?
Government mandated or not- if the funds coming in are not enough to payout the funds due the entire system will collapse.
The shortfall is projected to be in the trillions of Dollars. Where is the government going to get this money from?
The fact that a US Citizen can renounce their citizenship is enough proof that the US doesn’t own its citizens. There needs to be some sort of cutoff to know when one is no longer a citizen. Would you like taxes to be like gym membership where once one no longer pays they’re no longer members and no longer entitled to the benefits of membership? And yes, it would be “theft” to continue using the gym (or any benefit associated with membership) after membership has been revoked.
I’m a member of כלל ישראל, this is a different type of membership as there’s no way to renounce my membership. B”H when the בית המקדש is rebuilt and בתי דינים are established- I’m going to be under their jurisdiction and there’s nothing I can do about it. In this case I’m owned by the religion.
On the other hand- I have professional memberships- I met the requirements, applied for membership and pay my dues (which includes a fee for a disciplinary process if anyone files a complaint against me). I’m not owned by these organizations but there are benefits to being a member (e.g. I can use their professional designations after my signature). Even if I stop paying membership I’m still bound by their rules until I officially resign and can face their disciplinary process and have my name listed as not being in good standing.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with socialized healthcare but if given the option to opt out socialized healthcare a 911 operator would first have to place someone on hold to see if they paid the socialized tax.
You asked who mentioned Ponzi scheme?
If A = B and C = B, would you say that C = A?
Now-
Let A = Ponzi Scheme,
Let B = A fund that people contribute money towards and instead of the money being invested it’s used to payout people who contributed money earlier on, and
Let C = Social Security.
Do you agree now that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme?
If you want to be technical you could say that mathematically it’s a Ponzi Scheme but legally it’s not because (1) a Ponzi Scheme is illegal and Social Security is legal and (2) a Ponzi Scheme isn’t transparent where the money goes but Social Security is transparent for who ever cares to read up about it. But you get the point.
Based on your post I’m having a hard time understanding why Warren Buffet believes that Social Security isn’t a Ponzi Scheme. Would you be able to explain what a Ponzi Scheme is, how Social Security works and contrast the two?
(Isn’t a Ponzi Scheme where people put in money and instead of it being invested it’s used to pay back people who put in money earlier and the people putting in money now hope to get back money at a future date from people who will put in money at a future date?)
I fully agree with you though that people shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which taxes they want to contribute towards.
Imagine the following:
911- 911, what’s your emergency?
Caller- there’s a fire in my house,
911- let me put you on hold while I check if you paid your fire fighting taxes…
Social Security didn’t have to be a Ponzi Scheme but it’s too late- that’s how it was set up and there’s nothing that can be done about it now.
See the case of Ida May Fuller- the first Social Security recipient- she barely paid into Social Security and collected it for over 35 years- receiving close to 1,000 times what she contributed. I highly doubt that I’m even going to get back even close to what I (and my employers) contributed. The funds that she collected were paid into Social Security by the next generation and their checks are being covered by our parents and us.
I spoke with a retirement actuary at length about Social Security and why it was purposely designed as a Ponzi Scheme and not as an annuity- like your typical insurance company would do it.
With a typical 401(K) a person sets aside funds (and at times their employer matches it to some extent) and at retirement they can either live off the lump sum or purchase an annuity and ensure that they don’t outlive their money. Of course the government is extremely on top of the employers issuing matches, the banks holding the 401(K)s and the insurance companies selling the annuities.
The amounts held in the portfolios of some of these banks and insurance companies is staggering.
The designers of Social Security were concerned with the government having access to retirement accounts- worth potentially in the trillions- and no oversight, so they designed Social Security in a way where there isn’t tons of money sitting around but payments come in from the current generation to pay the previous generation, i.e. a massive Ponzi Scheme. While Social Security does have lots of money at the moment- it’s nothing compared to the trillions they’d be sitting on otherwise.
As with any Ponzi Scheme, it’s going to fail sooner or later. From what I understand, the designers of Social Security anticipated that for each retiree there would be 16 people working and making Social Security payments. With people living longer, having less kids and with so many people choosing not to work- the ultimate demise is bound to happen sooner rather than later. But- it was going to happen eventually anyway.
Are you mixing me up with someone else?
Who’s being held up and gunpoint and being forced to pay taxes. I’ve said numerous times in this thread that anyone who feels that the taxes are too high for the benefits of being a US Citizen is allowed to leave and renounce their citizenship.
The US isn’t a communist country and the US doesn’t own its citizens. Unless you’re in jain (and probably not paying taxes anyway) you’re free to leave. I have never written anything contrary to that.
It’s gotta be hard trying to have a conversation with someone and having to wait a week for a response- I apologize for that.
Taxes are an unfortunate part of life. We both seem to agree that taxes in the US are unsustainable for many families. The problem though, is that many families would be better off if taxes were even higher (i.e. the ones not paying any taxes and living off of our taxes). There’s no general consensus on what’s too high and what isn’t.
I don’t think the government should be allowed to levy crippling taxes on anyone, but “crippling” is rather subjective. Who would be the one to decide what’s crippling and what isn’t?
There is a vehicle to lower taxes and make them more affordable- it’s your ability to go out and vote. Not paying taxes is taking matters into your own hands and things could get out of control if people could suddenly decide that taxes are too high and stop paying them.
And yes, I know we agreed to disagree on this but, in my opinion, an individual who cheats on his taxes because he feels they’re too high is stealing.
You seem to be a nice person and kept our differences respectful- thanks for that.
I also never heard of the term “legally lie” before and after. He explained that basically I wasn’t signing that everything was true- I was signing that if something isn’t true, they have the right to sue me. That raised a red flag. Another red flag was that I needed to pay in cash and not get a receipt so that there’s no trail. I wasn’t comfortable with the whole thing.
I think what we don’t agree on boils down to whether or not the government has the right to charge “unfair” taxes and not if someone is allowed to cheat on taxes if they feel that it’s not fair. We probably both agree that there’s enormous amounts of waste in the taxes being collected.
I’m trying very hard to stay out of politics but I will say that, in my opinion, the taxes being charged nowadays are exorbitant and unfair to many families. I will also say though that for some people it’s working and would work better if the government would raise taxes.
I also think we disagree on whether it’s fair or not to tell someone who doesn’t like the tax rates to either vote out the politicians (you probably agree with me on that one) or leave the country and renounce citizenship.
I don’t think it’s possible to save Social Security – at least not in a way that would give everyone 100% of what they should be getting. It’s a shame because I see how my 401(k)s are growing and the amount paid towards Social Security (between me and my employers) is significantly higher than what my employers and I set aside towards retirement.
People are retiring at a younger age nowadays and there aren’t enough people working vs the amount of people getting Social Security. Had the government funneled the funds towards an annuity with an insurance company- I think we’d all be in a better position.
It’s been great talking to you on this topic.
I stand firm that taxes will never ever be fair to everyone and that cheating on your taxes is wrong and stealing. (Even if you justify it by “they’re not fair”.)
If another country invaded yours and started charging an exorbitant tax rate I’d be OK with overthrowing the invading country but I’d still feel that it’s stealing to sit back and enjoy the benefits of the new government and cheat on your taxes.
Like I wrote many times before and I’ll write one last time- if you don’t think the taxes here are fair, you’re free to leave the country and renounce your citizenship.
I don’t think I’m going to convince you otherwise and you’re definitely not going to convince me otherwise.
At this point I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
Best of luck
Taxes are what they are and part of the reason they are what they are is because of tax fraud. (It may be a small amount compared to the waste caused by crooked politicians but it definitely contributes.) You may not be promoting tax cheats it but you sure seem to be justifying them. Like I wrote before, if you feel that politicians are stealing from you, you have the right to vote against them.
There is no way to create a tax system that is fair to everyone. What people are trumpeting as fair share will definitely not be fair to many families. Are you ok with anyone cheating on their taxes when they feel it’s not fair for them? Did the founding fathers write that anyone who feels that taxes aren’t fair for them have the right to cheat on their taxes?
If someone feels that Yeshiva Tuition is too high for them (or they don’t like the way the Yeshiva spends it’s money) and the scholarship given to them by the school isn’t enough- do they have the right to lie about their income on the scholarship application?
(As a side point- I was told by a lawyer many years ago about how I could legally lie to save myself hundreds of Dollars per month. He said that the law in the case is that lying isn’t illegal but it gives them the right to sue me for all ill gotten gains but they’re too lazy to do anything about it. I asked a shaila and was told that irregardless of US Law it’s אסור להלכה as it’s stealing from all stakeholders and I’d have to repay every single one of them.)
I agree with you that raising taxes to an astronomical amount is an abuse of power but I don’t agree with you that something can’t be done “because it’s an abuse of power. I’m not getting into politics but there have been some things done recently that just about everyone agrees were an abuse of power – but they were done.
I’d feel differently if a country considered you their property and didn’t let you leave or won’t let you give up your citizenship but that’s definitely not the case with the US. You’re free to leave and renounce your citizenship.
By the way- I did respond to your question about “ illegal activities” against the British king- I told you that you can fight for your independence.
You, on the other hand, didn’t respond to my question. I’m going to ask it again.
Would you say it’s ok to steal from a grocery store that donates a percentage of purchases to something you abhor?
I’m definitely not happy with the tax rate and where lots of the tax money is going but why are you saying that the government has no right to do that?
Yes, in my opinion it is stealing. They can tax any amount that they want and if you want to be a citizen (or resident) you have to pay that. If you don’t want to pay taxes you’re welcome to leave and give up your citizenship or vote out the current politicians. But until then, if you’re a US Citizen and getting the benefits of citizenship you’re stealing if you cheat on your taxes.
Like I keep writing- the US has benefits for its citizens all over the world. Expecting to get those benefits (or even just being covered by those benefits) while cheating on your taxes is stealing. If you have a problem with the taxes, you have the option to leave and renounce your citizenship or vote out the politicians collecting taxes you don’t agree with to pay for things that you don’t want them to spend money on. (You can also fight for your independence.)
My point though, and I’ll write it again, is that expecting to get the benefits from the US Government while not contributing what they tell you you owe- is stealing.
I agree with you 100% that the government is wasting ridiculous amounts of money but that doesn’t give you the right to steal. Would you say it’s ok to steal from a grocery store that donates a percentage of purchases to something you abhor? Hopefully not. You have the right to either pay for your groceries (knowing where some of the profits are going) or shopping elsewhere. Same with citizenship.
But I disagree with you that someone stealing from the government can’t be judged. (And by the way- there will NEVER be a tax code written that is fair to everyone.)
I wrote earlier that there are benefits to being a US Citizen. The US Government is supposed to look after their citizens all over the world. This is an exposure for the government and it is an expense- regardless of whether you ever use it or not. Expecting the government to be there for you while cheating on your taxes (regardless of if you’re in the country or not) is stealing. I believe stealing isn’t covered by the Halacha of dina demalchusa dina.
(I’d feel differently if the US had, for example, a rule that its citizens can’t drink alcohol no matter where in the world they are and you decided to drink alcohol out the country where the host country has no rule against it.)
I sympathize with those that are struggling to make ends meet but not paying taxes that are due is simply stealing. Signing your name to something that isn’t true is simply lying.
Like I wrote earlier- if someone doesn’t want to pay US taxes they’re more than welcome to renounce their citizenship and give up on all the benefits that come along with being a US Citizen.
It makes no difference if you agree with the policies of the US Government or how they spend the money they collect in taxes. If it bothers you go ahead and vote for someone whose policies are in line with your values.
(I was מקבל on myself this past ראש השנה to not post anything political so I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with your last sentences.)
I’m not a Rov or an accountant so this isn’t halachic or professional advice- just my personal opinion.
Signing your name to something that you know isn’t true, even if there’s no way you’re going to be caught is just wrong, plane and simple- there’s no two ways about it.
Being a citizen of a country entitles one to certain privileges and protections which ultimately costs the country money. While you may feel that paying taxes for the same income to the Israeli Government and then to the US Government is double paying- the respective governments look at us as their share of the costs to look out for their citizens.
Who decides what’s fair and unfair?
If your clients in Israel don’t feel like paying US income taxes, why don’t they just denounce their citizenship?
@g08b couldnt have said it better myself
But to quote the end of the first משנה in יומא
אם כן, אין לדבר סוף״”
Should we make all 18 wheelers have a “co-pilot” like the Staten Island Ferry? Is an incapacitated driver of an out of control big rig less dangerous than an incapacitated ferry captain?
Should we make every vehicle on the road go through a D Check every six years like a 747 needs to? Is hidden corrosion on a car any less dangerous than hidden corrosion on an airliner? (And while we’re at it- if we required the same annual recurring training for drivers that are required of commercial airline pilots- many of the unsafe drivers would be removed.)
Should we make every residential house and apartment have an emergency exit in every room? Is a fire in a bedroom blocking the lone doorway any less dangerous than a fire in a classroom?
The answer is that in life, for the most part, everything is a balance and a price tag needs to be put on everything (unfortunately, this includes people’s lives). Obviously the government feels that it’s not cost efficient for the amount it would cost compared to the amount it would save.
(@ commonsaychel – your post had me cracking up- thanks! Sorry for stealing your sense of humor.)
Raising kids is different for every family and it’s a careful balance based on each family’s unique parameters. I respect your approach but we do things differently.
There’s no limit to what I’d spend to ensure that my kids have the best education and I don’t consider this a luxury that my kids are going to turn into a necessity.
I don’t discuss tuition with my kids for the most part (when they turn 18 and I have no access to their college accounts I need them to hand me the statements so I can pay them). I would also never discuss with my kids that I felt a school wasn’t acting reasonable with pricing (except possibly a college). B”H I never felt that my kids could be getting a better education elsewhere. There were a few times that I felt the schools could’ve handled things differently but at the end of the day- if I discussed it with them and they didn’t agree- it’s their school and I had to respect their decisions.
As far as making new friends is concerned- I wasn’t talking about neighbors who wouldn’t talk to you because you switched your kids out of one school- of course you probably shouldn’t have been friends with them to begin with. I was referring to your kids not being able to easily stay friends with the kids they used to be with in class and on the bus. It can be hard coming into a new school knowing very few kids and having to make new friends when most of the kids already have their groups of friends.
@eddie
I agree with your earlier post but to a very limited degree. There is an initial sunk cost in opening a school and every additional student taken in adds a small variable expense. But- when the school needs to add a parallel class, all of the sudden you need an additional classroom and teachers- the cost is going to jump significantly. If a school has 250 students from Kindergarten to 8th grade that’s about 25 kids give or take per grade and one class per grade. Once the number is hovering around 1,000 the school needs 3 to 4 classes per grade and a much larger building than the schools you dealt with. This all costs lots of more money than just the differential of adding one more student a few hundred times.
I’m not sure why you’re having a hard time believing that a far right school, where the Rabbeim and teachers are paid far less than their counterparts in public schools, and without the same bloated budgets as public schools, can educate kids for a fraction of what public schools do. The general cost in the US per public school kid is hovering around $20,000.
The figures I got were from the CPA that audited the schools books on behalf of the bank that they applied for a loan from. He claimed that full tuition covers each kid plus an extra percentage for those who don’t pay full tuition. There’s still a shortfall that’s closed with fundraising.
If everyone paid full tuition (which I know is never going to happen) there would be no need for the extra percentage or fundraising. That scholarship that you’re getting is taking away from those paying that extra percentage. Furthermore- if everyone paid full tuition and the school did fundraising as well- that would lower the cost of full tuition for everyone and leave more money in the pockets of those paying full tuition.
I’m not a CPA but I’m under the impression that the extra percentage isn’t tax-deductible as it’s listed as tuition. If the school listed tuition and a mandatory donation- that donation would be considered tax-deductible. Schools hesitate to do that as they feel that parents may put up a fight.
(One school had a mandatory amount that each family had to fundraise for the school. As we never complied it was added to our next year’s tuition balance and we’d get a tax-deductible receipt for that amount.)
Why don’t they have the option of executing terrorists who aren’t in uniform? They’re not protected under the Geneva Convention.
@eddie
My kids go to far right schools and there’s no way that it costs $40,000 per kid and they’re fundraising the difference. At around 1,000 students Bli Ayin Hora, they’re not raising over $30,000,000 every year. I’m not affiliated with other schools and don’t know what goes on there.
(As a side point- the local public schools receive about $20,000 annually per kid. The Frum schools don’t have the same bloated budgets as public schools, they don’t have unionized teachers and they don’t have the same benefits that public school teachers have. I’d expect the cost per kid to be much less than in public schools.)
My kids are gifts from Hashem and my most treasured assets, which is why I take pride in tuition being my first and highest priority. (In 2024 we probably paid more than four times the amount on tuition than we did on our mortgage.)
Switching a kid to another school can be hard as they’ll be leaving their friends and coming into a new school where the kids already have their groups of friends. They may be behind (or ahead) of the curriculum in the new school- it’s not always easy to catch up (or spending a year to learn something for the second time). Is the new school going to give your kids the attention they deserve if they know that you’re only sending them there to prove a point to another school and then you’ll switch them back or to somewhere else?
We choose schools based on where our kids are going to succeed the most- not to show the schools that we have other options. We choose schools where we trust that the faculty will do what is in the best interest of the child, regardless of whether it’s in their own best interest.
I agree that you can’t capture everything- if I had enough time I’d love to build a flexible tuition scholarship model where new scenarios can easily be added. While it may not contain every possible scenario- it will contain all the scenarios presented to the committee once all the applications are filled out and the model has been updated.
My point though is that even if the model contained every possible scenario- there’s a 0% chance that everyone will find it fair.
Let’s head back to the example of the mother who willfully didn’t work and got assessed $50,000 of income for the benefits that he got. Let’s say she could be earning $100,000 if she took the job. I could see another mother saying it’s not fair that she had to leave her kids all day and work and on top of that get charged additional tuition than if she stayed home all day with her kids like the other person.
(By the way- I do agree with you that handouts/ government programs should be considered income.)
That calculation doesn’t pass the smell test.
Take the entire school budget for the fiscal year and divide it by the number of kids in the school (possibly prorate it by grade as for example preschool is less expensive than older grades). Once an expense is determined at the individual level and a surcharge above that is added for full tuition- a family should be able to ask for a tax deduction for the surcharge(s).
Asking for more than that is just not honest. (I’m not sure what context you saw that in though.)
The school that I spoke with the auditor about would project their annual budget and add a certain percentage to the individual tuition responsibilities for full tuition. Whatever shortfalls they were left with was closed with fundraising.
I’m not under the impression that have a certain amount to give out in scholarships and they divide discretionally.
You seem concerned about the intrusion of the tuition committee into peoples personal lives. I’m not trying to belittle that but point out how much worse it is when vicious Shadchanim find out that someone exists (may Hashem protect us all from them and their wicked tactics).
A family only needs to deal with a tuition committee (and again, I understand that it may be very uncomfortable) once they decide that they want to send their kids there and ask for a scholarship application. If they feel that the questions are too personal they’re welcome to not fill it out and apply elsewhere.
Once an evil shadchan gets ahold of your name there’s nothing you can do. Even after you tell them that you’re not interested in working with them and give them no permission to make calls on your behalf (the polite ones will tell you that it’s too bad because that’s not how the system works while the rude ones won’t even acknowledge your concerns) they’re going to call everyone you know and ask the most personal questions (and trust me, it’s not limited to finances) under the ruse that לשון הרע doesn’t apply to shadchanim.
I can’t tell from your post if you’re offended. If you are- it wasn’t my intent and I apologize.
If it was just inflows and outflows that would be a black and white calculation but it’s much more complicated than that and there’s lots of gray areas in between- and again, there’s going to be lots of strong points on both sides. It would also give families the opportunity to play the system if they knew the weight that each item carries.
For example-
I once overheard a (stay at home) mother in the park saying that she got a job offer but won’t be accepting it since after all the handouts outs that she’s going to lose out on and the extra tuition she’s going to pay- she’s going to come home with only $2 per hour. Do you think that’s fair to everyone else who’s working hard and would love to stay home and spend more time with their kids? Would it be fair to add an extra $50,000 income to the scholarship calculation for any able bodied person who chooses not to work?
How about the people that got their houses for free? Is it fair that those working hard to pay their mortgage and full tuition should be subsidizing the tuition of those who have no mortgage and could take out a heloc? I also understand why someone would have concerns about having a lien on their home. I see both sides.
There was a school where parents found out that they gave discounts to families from a neighboring community (regardless of whether they needed it or not, full tuition was less). Their response was that “you have no choice where to send your kids- they can decide between us and a different neighboring community so we need to compete for them”. They weren’t adding more classes so the marginal cost per kid was small but it brought in lots of money. Again, I can see both sides.
Take two similar people- one who has no problem getting his hands dirty and maintaining his house and car while the other one wouldn’t dare climb under a car. Car and house maintenance is a legitimate expense for the latter one while the former one may not agree. This is another gray area. How would you handle that if you were on the committee?
The tax deductible receipt one had me scratching my head as well- I can’t imagine that there’s that many families that pay above the amount of what it costs to educate their kids and would make a stink about the extra amount. The tax savings wouldn’t be insignificant and the “donation” amount could possibly be doubled if their employers have matching gift programs. Luckily I’m not part of a scholarship committee.
I’m all for transparency but there are some consequences. Do you actually want someone with a gripe to go through the books with a magnifying glass and complain about every penny that they don’t agree with?
At work we call it the Perry Mason Rule (and no, I’m not old enough to remember it), if we don’t have to share or disclose something- we don’t. Trust me- there are many times that my life would be easier if I could just share my entire financial model with the auditors but the higher ups won’t let. They don’t want those auditors, who are looking for problems, to have access to the full model. I need to cut out exactly what they’re looking for and give it to them.
When my son’s school applied for a loan to renovate / expand their building the bank hired an auditor to go through their books and he spilled the beans to me. (Okay- some auditors are cool.) Trust me- there’s nothing explosive in there but someone looking for some excitement could get lots of parents all riled up.