Interesting concept----spending only 5% on yourself....Kaiden.
I know it wasnt your idea but I find it difficult to "get around" that concept.
Perhaps I am not reading the whole idea correctly.
I dont really mean to argue about a point made by someone, not only who isnt here but whose concept I have not entirely grasped.
But it does seem a rather dismal, not to mention difficult existence.
One has to wonder...about where one would spend the rest of their income if only 5% went on themselves.
And thinking about it, just now...dont we spend almost all of our income on ourselves? directly or indirectly?
Rent or mortgage payments...so WE can have a place to live, food..even what we buy for our kids, if we have any....is still for ourselves. RRSPs?...for ourselves.
My father used to tell me that we should spend 10% of our income on charity, tithing etc, yet as a father with a wife and 2 children he was able only to tithe about 5%
University students, some of whom post here...who earn their own money for tuition, lodging etc, spend the entirety of their income on themselves, yet indirectly on the rest of the world in that their "bought" skills will benefit others.....
And in the end, if we can buy something that will make us better people which will ultimately help the rest of the world...what difference what percentage of our income is spent...on ourselves?
Anyway, I have Euphoria coming to me by mail at this time...so perhaps I can understand Mr Sikes' concept better.
...any thoughts?
