Laudable is the social legislation that provides 26 weeks of subsidies to the unemployed who meet specific qualifications. However, hardly, if ever, does the legislature or media of any type, speak to the issue of self-insured personal savings.
Over and over, while the funds flow into employees’ pockets is heard the mantra, save some for rainy days. No surprise that these funds are small, insufficient or non-existent and so, even well paid employees throw themselves under the mercy of the state to make up for poor stewardship of funds flow while employed.
Why is it not mandated to provide from current cash flow, funds privately invested in a tax -exempt account available only during unemployment or family emergency? Sadly, individuals with six-figure annual incomes are not prepared, and so the food banks are visited by unemployed driving Cadillacs, Mercedes, Mustang GTs, an other luxury priced vehicles. Refusing to live within available means should not be rewarded.
If the state mandates homeowners, automobile and motor vehicle insurance, why not family emergency?
It is elsewhere mandated that he who refuses to work should not eat.
Samuel Bess
Stanwood
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
