Options
Are gas prices fueling your pain?
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I'll bet you've memorized William Jennings Bryan's magnificent acceptance speech at the 1896 Democratic convention: "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Great stuff!
Me, I'm a libertarian, not a populist - I'd rather starve government than soak the rich - but I salute populism as a great American political tradition.
Back to the subject of expensive gas: according to today's paper, MasterCard reports that U.S. gasoline consumption was 5.5% lower last week than it was a year earlier - 3.8 million barrels less. And the DOT reports that our highway mileage in March, 2008 was down 4.3% from March, 2007. This was first March decline since the late 70s.
all that living large is mainly fueld by ego.
there are alot of people who are 'The Millionaire Next Door"; people who choose not to wear their income on thier sleaves.
Just because there is someone who flies around in a 747 by himself (President of the US) doesn't make what you do to conserve worthless.
I see people who spend gobs of money on these giant homes, cars and things, to be chasing an empty dream.
I doubt the wealthy give much thought to what they are morally entitled to. They do what they can afford to do just like the rest of us.
I flew in the Navy during the 80's and have a couple friends that now fly corporate jets. They both love their jobs. When you talk about your brother's dissatisfaction maybe it's not the rich people but him, or maybe he's fiction. Or maybe he's acquired your very well developed sense of being a helpless victim.
does this sound like one of those 12 step things? :surprise:
we all still enjoy driving it, we are just more careful about how it gets driven.
downside is, 'dad, the mustang 5.0 gets better mileage, can it take that?'
Answer to the "religious conservative" issue: Conservatives, religious or otherwise, will not vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, if they believe in the following two things: Abortion and Same Sex Marriage... period. A candidate that espouses those belief systems openly cannot gain the vote of a conservative, even if the conservative voter agrees with the other 99% of the things they believe in.. I know that many of you would consider that narrow minded and I understand that but again, I am simply the messenger answering the question. My apologies for offending anyone and for violating forum guidelines. Also, my answer pertains to a southern conservative voter that was born and raised in the Southeast USA...
In 1952 and 1953 the top tax bracket was 93% on income over $200K. It went down to 91% and stayed there till 1963.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
When we went to NYC for vacation we stayed in a hotel right at LGA. We had no trouble getting on a bus to the train to get down town.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
On the flip side, I (and we) certainly have to acknowledge that our criticisms of "the rich" comprise the same criticisms of us that many other people in this country have.
Besides being home to plenty of wealth-flaunting folks, Dallas also has plenty of first-generation immigrants, legal and otherwise. They live several people to an apartment, and two families to a house. They drive very used cars. They work hard jobs for low pay.
They must look at a guy like me -- single, drives a new car, owns a 1,700 sq. ft. house, and squanders cash on ski and scuba trips -- and wonder why I waste so much money and energy to support my lifestyle.
But, just like "the rich," I ain't changin' just to please others.
.
Your statement is absolutely correct.
To clarify: For many of us who live in NYC we think of either thesubway or the bus... you'd be suprised how many people who get around on the subways NEVER think of getting on a bus, and vice-versa. It would have been clearer for me to say that you can't get on a subway and get off the subway AT the airport.
Missing the point entirely. Wealthy and the generation of wealth necessarily need focus and concentration. But BOTH Bill Gates and Warren Buffett freely admit that the situation is obscene that they would benefit personally, so they are giving theirs away as fast as they possibly can. It's actually kind of hard work to give away wealth without wasting it. The Gate foundation was so good at at the Buffet gave Gates all of his to give away.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are the perfect examples of responsible super rich. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are on the record that the tax situation that they face is horribly unfair. Buffett made a huge public case of how he pays less taxes as a percentage than his secretary!
Gates and Buffett have even tried to form a club of billionaires for higher taxes. Only about a hundred billionaires signed up. Ted Turner started a counter club of billionaires for lower taxes. Ted Turner's club got thousands of members signing on. Hmmm Time for an IRS meeting for the TT club members I think. Sick'm boys.
It's going to take a culture change. The super wealthy are going to need to realize in that they are just lucky, not better. Luckiness gets Taxed at 70% from now on. I'd even let Bill Gates and Warren Buffet choose the cut line.
Well, their are only about 350 billionaires in the US. I'd say that's a pretty good response.
To say these people are wealthy mainly due to luck is hilarious. Winning the lottery is luck.
Please take your socialist rant to the politics thread.
Back to gas prices, it's down to $4.05 here.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Oh thats it, work hard succeed and get screwed by the government. That will encourage people to succeed.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
RUG is $4.39 up by me, aren't you guys SOO lucky? I think they should replace income taxes with pure fuel taxes. THAT will get people to buy more efficient vehicles and drive less. It'll create a larger market for fuel-efficient exotic vehicles for the rich too. :P
If your talking historical the highest rates were in 1944 and 1945 when income over $200k was taxed at 94%. By before Reagan I meant what was the top bracket before the Reagan administration's reductions.
How about some links backing up your crazy claims. If memory serves me right. Ted Turner started the ball rolling on billionaire giving. He pledged $1 billion to charity and challenged Bill Gates and others to follow suit. At that time Gates and Buffett were giving very little of their wealth to charity.
You could make the tax percentage most anything you want. People like Buffett do not take huge salaries from their wealth. They write off a big share of their income. I think when you realize just how repressive Socialism is to Everyone it will be too late. Do I think that many CEO salaries are obscene. I sure do. And right at the top of the list are incomes like $120,000,000 for Bill & Hillary Clinton over the last 7 years. And their donations to THEIR own charity to avoid high taxes.
If your scenario of billionaires wanting higher taxes was true. Which it is pandering to the masses. They are free to write a check to the IRS for as much as they feel they owe this country. When Gates and Buffett kick in an extra billion a year to Uncle Sam, I will believe what they say.
PS
Check out the tax increases proposed by Obama. You will see that you and I will be paying more. Making gas even more difficult to afford.
He was given full credit by the Reagan Administration for simplifying the tax system at the time.
Then maybe his secretary deserves a tax cut.
Seriously, when people make statements like this, they're committing a lie of omission. They're citing the percentage of Buffet's total net worth, while only citing the percentage of income for the secretary.
They're also including social security and medicare taxes. When the secretary collects those entitlements, they will represent a much BIGGER percentage of her total income than Mr. Buffet.
If you give an honest comparison, anyone who makes seven figures pays a higher percentage of his income than anyone who makes six or five figures, because the percentage of taxation increases with the amount of income.
Even if it didn't -- even if everyone payed the same tax by percent no matter what their income -- those who made more would STILL pay more. 20% of $50,000 is $10,000. 20% of $500,000 is $100,000.
And the entire argument that the rich should pay more taxes implies that the government deserves extra money, and that it will use it to benefit the citizens. It doesn't, and it won't.
Just look at what they do with the gasoline taxes -- supposedly collected exclusively for road construction and maintenance: bike paths, light rail, and in some states (like Texas) they even siphon 1/4 of the money into the general fund. Meanwhile, we have bridges collapsing into rivers.
Just like our energy conservation simply gives others more to waste, any extra money the gov't receives is just more for them to steal.
.
Far from an apples to apples comparison. Sure last year we hit the 33% tax bracket filing jointly, but our federal effective tax rate was just over 14%.
I have a lot of respect for Warren Buffet, but when I read his comment comparing his taxes to his secretary I had to shake my head.
If Warren's effective rate was lower than mine, good for him. It doesn't bother me. Percentages don't mean jack.
Yeah, but Dubai will be under water soon as the ocean level rises.
I wonder if he is on one of the Palm Islands?
These old wives tales never die "Rich people pay less taxes". Then some example get cited of one person with who knows what tax situation. On average the rich pay more $$ (of course, they should) and a much higher average % of their income in taxes. I just looked at the IRS web site (sorry to bring in actual facts here), and found that the group averaging $1,267,000 in gross income paid an average of 25.7% in taxes, compared to, say, the group averaging $42,500, who paid an average of 6.1% of gross income in taxes. I'm not saying the current setup is wrong, just that those who contend high income people pay less taxes, by any measure, are wrong. Check it out yourself (look at Table #1, for 2005, you'll need to do a little math to get the average income #s). 2005 tax info
(/whine)
The radio said gas here went up two cents overnight. It wasn't that long ago that the DJs were doing their morning reports on hog futures or corn prices - now it's RUG that everyone is following.
And ditto what Mattandi said!
When the May vehicle sales come out next week we should see the collapse of the large SUV and pickup market.
In Alaska, RUG is almost up to an average of $4.24 while California is at $5.15 for diesel.
I'm left with the nagging question of safety. I looked around to try and get some sense of just how safe is bicycling. Stats are all over the place so it is difficult to decipher. Provided laws are followed and reasonable steps regarding safety are employed, it appears as though riding a bike is at least as safe as riding in or driving a car. Most stats available on the web appear to be presented by biking or helmet advocacy sites, so there may be some bias in their presentation.
I can't help but wonder if the perception that bikes are less safe is somewhat akin to the same type of perception that SUV's are more safe. One being the converse of the other.
High gas prices aren't killing us, but anything that reduces our consumption is something we would consider.
Well I guess I'll unload my shotgun, and not guard my car tonight. Being here in NH, all I have to do is "feel threatened" and mistake that siphon for a gun, in the dark.
In the past, and even though I only rode a few miles at a time, I've been hit in the face when riding by bugs - almost swallowed a bee - very dangerous if your throat swells. So I'd suggest at least goggles, or a full face-shield. I'd also suggest your wife not ride on rainy days and especially when there's a threat of thunder and lightening.
Your wish to reduce consumption may be correct, but consumption may be reduced per capita, but overall consumption will still increase as more and more people use oil and gasoline. If you were in the Northeast I'd show you new condos and housing being added, that each have an oil-burner, and will use 750-1000 gal/year each.
Despite conservation efforts since 1973, our energy usage has grown. Conservation efforts only slows the energy increase, as long as we continue to grow our population and GDP.
BTW heating oil has now reached $4.50/gal. This fall your congressmen are going to be asked to take your tax dollars and subsidize a lot of people here in the NE, so they can heat their houses.
Sidewalks are a much safer place to ride than the streets. Check the laws and see if sidewalk riding is allowed in your area.
As far as riding in the rain - I bought a "rain suit" from a guy who used to do a lot of sailing. It is a neoprene-like outfit which has a separate top and a bottom that both go over your clothes. I live in Phoenix so rain is not often a problem - but I have had to use my rainsuit several times in the last year anyway. Other than looking like a big old yellow Dork, this works perfectly for me. I get to work dry as a bone.
She could also consider an electric assist bike. That's what I have. This allows me to get my commute done and not end up a totally sweaty pig at the end of the ride. And I still burn about 600-700 calories a day on my two 30-minute daily rides. I've lost about 15 pounds since I started riding the bike. Search Ezip or E-zip at the Walmart.com site. The bike is $348 right now. It's a good deal on a nice little bike and there is a woman's version also.
I measured the cost to charge my bike battery last night. Cost 0.09 kwh to charge it, which comes out to about one and a half cents. Almost free at 3 cents per day.
Good luck.
If riding on the road, you must also consider that driver's windows fogup quickly, and sometimes it rans so hard the cars can literally not see and have to pull over.
I agree that you should ride on the sidewalk as much as possible.
Here's a replacement to be done on the back of 3X5 card. 15% for income to $30K. 17% for incomes to $60K, 19% to $120K. 23% to $240K, 27% to $580K, 31% to $1.6M, 39% to $3.2M, 49% to $6.4M, and 59% to 12.8M, 69% to what ever number.
Deductions: Interest on up to two homes. Charity fully deductable at your income rate. Capital gains ZERO Tax (you keep what you kill so to speak).
This is my first tax system ever. Never even thought about it before. Not really... See it's not hard.
She grew up sailing. We do lots of camping and often hike. She already has better rain gear than me. I am only assuming that riding in the rain would not be the most pleasant experience.
And for $80-$90 bucks, who cares if you decide to not continue ridie it. Hell that's one tank of gas for some people.
Discussions on conservation are interesting. There are so many factors at play.There are individual considerations as well as corporate considerations. It's actually a fairly simple matter to reduce energy use on an individual level. It is also fairly doable on a per capita basis. It becomes increasingly difficult as we move to the societal and global levels. I am willing to accept that at those levels it may be a practical impossibility. Population dynamics, developing cultures, growing industrialism and other factors play into the increasing demand for energy.
Part of the problem here is the perception that is bred that suggests that what the individual does has little effect in the grand scheme. IMHO that is a misguided, incorrect, and defeatist perception. Individual efforts and choices do make a difference. The difference is obvious and apparent at the individual level and more obscured beyond the individual level, but the difference is still there.
We'll look at it more this summer.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
You describe an active, intelligent adult - she (and you) can handle it.... of course you could also follow her insecret for the first few days just to be sure...
Yes, I totally agree. I didn't have the $ for a candy bar at times when I was in college, and have since made choices in my life that have put me in fine shape not to be affected much by these gas costs. I continue to adjust, and plan for contingencies.
and more obscured beyond the individual level, but the difference is still there.
Yes your individual conservation makes a slight difference. Since 1973 - a) the avg. mpg. of our vehicles has increased, b) we have gone to EnergyStar appliances, c) many of us have already gone to low-energy lighting, d) we have gone to more energy efficient windows, e) our industries are more efficient and conscientious, but the fact is that we collectively continue to use more and more energy each year.
Those are facts, not pessimistically or optimistically based. We use more energy as our economic goals are to increase GDP and to improve our lifestyles. This is the goal of every nation and people worldwide.
So unless the supply of energy or oil or gasoline has some sort of large increase, which I don't see imminent, we are going to continue along this path. Those who have more money will continue to get as much fuel/energy just as it is true today. And high prices do not mean social chaos, as we have seen this in Europe; and in many countries where the vast majority can not afford gasoline and cars.
If you look world-wide today, only a small percent of the globe has as much energy as they want. Many people can not afford much fuel. There is not enough fuel for everyone. The fact is that now the pool of people who can afford our "normal" quantity of oil and gas may be shrinking. This topic kind of infers "what are you willing to do to stay in that pool, what are you going to give up or how are you going to restructure your life, OR are you dropping out of the % that are buying gasoline?"
Clear as mug. :shades:
State RUG/D2 PUG/D2 RUG/PUG
Alaska 13.3% 1.3% 11.9%
Alabama 21.7% 10.6% 10.1%
Arkansas 22.9% 9.5% 12.2%
Arizona 25.1% 13.4% 10.3%
California 22.7% 13.4% 8.2%
Colorado 20.3% 7.6% 11.8%
Connecticut 18.0% 6.0% 11.4%
District of Columbia 20.1% 9.5% 9.7%
Delaware 22.7% 10.6% 10.9%
Florida 20.7% 9.4% 10.3%
Georgia 21.1% 7.9% 12.3%
Hawaii 21.7% 13.0% 7.7%
Iowa 21.2% 9.8% 10.3%
Idaho 21.9% 12.4% 8.5%
Illinois 16.7% 5.2% 10.9%
Indiana 20.8% 9.2% 10.6%
Kansas 22.4% 14.7% 6.7%
Kentucky 18.7% 5.9% 12.1%
Louisiana 21.1% 8.5% 11.6%
Massachusetts 23.7% 10.8% 11.6%
Maryland 22.0% 11.9% 9.0%
Maine 22.2% 10.2% 10.9%
Michigan 18.9% 7.9% 10.1%
Minnesota 21.3% 13.7% 6.7%
Missouri 22.1% 10.9% 10.2%
Mississippi 21.3% 10.1% 10.2%
Montana 19.3% 9.1% 9.3%
North Carolina 20.6% 8.9% 10.8%
North Dakota 18.5% 10.6% 7.2%
Nebraska 19.7% 13.9% 5.1%
New Hampshire 22.8% 9.4% 12.2%
New Jersey 24.1% 11.6% 11.3%
New Mexico 22.2% 10.0% 11.1%
Nevada 22.7% 12.3% 9.2%
New York 23.0% 12.6% 9.3%
Ohio 19.7% 8.0% 10.9%
Oklahoma 20.3% 10.2% 9.2%
Oregon 19.5% 11.6% 7.1%
Pennsylvania 25.0% 13.6% 10.1%
Rhode Island 23.2% 12.1% 9.9%
South Carolina 22.2% 9.6% 11.5%
South Dakota 19.3% 7.7% 10.8%
Tennessee 21.7% 9.7% 10.9%
Texas 21.9% 11.2% 9.6%
Utah 22.4% 11.2% 10.1%
Virginia 20.9% 11.0% 8.9%
Vermont 25.4% 11.7% 12.3%
Washington 20.5% 10.8% 8.7%
Wisconsin 19.3% 9.8% 8.6%
West Virginia 20.3% 9.5% 9.8%
Wyoming 21.3% 9.2% 11.1%
That is correct. This begs the question of whether or not our conservation efforts over the last 25 years have been a failure? Or what would our energy use be if we had not employed any conservation measures over that time?
Our demand for energy will continue to increase. Our energy use will continue to increase. Does this mean that we should cease all efforts to use less energy on a per capita or individual basis?
I do not differ from you very much on most of this I think. I do differ in that I think there is plenty of energy available. Most of the demand is socially and culturally driven, not as need based as is popularly believed. We just want the cheap and easy solution. Not surprising actually. Part of the human condition I suppose.
I thought it might be due to ethanol, but the cost difference in Iowa (corn/ethanol state) is 40 cents.
Congratulations to your wife for suggesting the bike commute. My wife is the one who got me interested in cycling once again after 15 years off the bike. I stayed with it and became a lot better at it than she was. Now she won't ride with me. :sick:
Anyhow, for commuting tips you might look at websites such as the LAB (League of American Bicyclists) or the Bicycling magazine forums. The last one has a VERY active area with all kinds of tips, tricks, clothing suggestions, etc. I'm at work and have to deal with a company firewall or I'd post links to the above. They should be easy to find with a quick Google search.
I generally avoid riding on rainy days, mainly because lightning usually follows rainy weather and I'm not a good lightning rod. I do have a really high tech rain jacket that "breathes" when the rain stops so I don't get soaked in sweat.
I stay off the sidewalks. They are pretty much forbidden to ride on where I live. There are few shoulders on my 34-mile RT commute but I've found that if I obey the same traffic laws as other vehicles on the road, signal my turns, etc., I gain a lot more respect from the motorists who I have to share the roads with. I do not "hog" the lane but sometimes there's only so far over I can move.
You said you are in the SE area. I don't know what state but during a transcontinental ride last summer I experienced a lower tolerance level from drivers in the SE who did not think I should be on the road. In fact, I don't think anyone even honked at me until Alabama. They say Florida is the absolute worst.
You'd better dust off your saddle, too, or your wife will soon be leaving you in the dust.
That is definitely a good deal. There is nothing better than a bike for its outstanding infinite mpg and healthy side effects.
When I rode in Paris, cars were pretty respectful. The most dangerous were pedestrians with their non existant discipline.
> Hell that's one tank of gas for some people.
Half a tank for a mid-sized sedan in France, but we won't find $90 new bikes here.
it is rather $200 , so you are right, a big full tank also buys a bike over here.
On top of that, credit card fees are killing her profit margins, and just the week before the article was printed Exxon, who owns the land the station is on, gave her a new lease stating that they're raising her rent 30%, phased in over the next three years!
When she told Exxon that she can't make money with rent that high, the territory manager simply replied... "When you go, leave us the keys".
This kind of attitude makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about big business...NOT. :mad:
But if I were making just under $200K and offered a promotion that would give me, say, a 10% increase but also 10% more work, responsibility, stress, etc, the only way I would take it would be if the only other option was to be shown the door. Or, if the company threw in some kind of non-taxable perk that was too good to refuse.
I used to be able to do that kind of stuff, but having a desk job has made me lazy. Back in the day though, I could work 7:30-4, or 8-4:30 Monday-Friday, and then work part time, 5-11 on Mon/Tues/Thurs, 5-midnite or later on Friday, and then go in 5-1 on Saturday. I gradually phased that down though, and eventually quit that part time job.
These days though, I usually have to work late on Thursdays, usually putting in 10-11 hours instead of 8. Those extra 2-3 hours will kick my butt! Part of the problem though, is that 2-3 hours sitting at a computer getting eye-strain, carpal tunnel, and sort of physically vegetating is different from an extra few hours running around on your feet. Both will wear you out, but in different ways.