$4 gas... question?

Enjoying this discussion

wakeboardin2k4 wrote: Enjoying this discussion

...and I am just trying to figure out the $4/gallon gas... which by the way isnt quite there yet... most local stations went to 3.99.9 this morning ... dang they missed an opportunity.

Maybe my math is wrong. im not very smart but i thunk in 1970 you could buy a brand new car for about 2800.00 bucks, now a new car is close to 28000.00 buck thats 100% increase i think now a gallon of gas was about .36 and now its 3.70 which is about 102% increase give or take a few dollars so my question is why is everyone aggravated at the government and oil companies and not at the auto manufactures who have increased there prices just as much and most of THEM took bailout money. once again i dont like to see $100.00 go down the tube just like everyone else but the price of everything has went up. The only thing that i see that is really skewed is the average income in1970 was around 10k a year for an average household ......I think .....i just pulled these numbers off of a census report now the average income is around 43k which once again is around 43% increase if my numbers are right which they could be.... i see something terribly wrong here but what do i know???

sweet77 wrote: Maybe my math is wrong. im not very smart but i thunk in 1970 you could buy a brand new car for about 2800.00 bucks, now a new car is close to 28000.00 buck thats 100% increase i think now a gallon of gas was about .36 and now its 3.70 which is about 102% increase give or take a few dollars so my question is why is everyone aggravated at the government and oil companies and not at the auto manufactures who have increased there prices just as much

My parents bought a new 21" color tv with the optional remote control(yep you used to have to pay extra for a remote..LOL) back in 1969. That tv cost over a grand... you can buy a pretty NICE one today with that grand!

Technology and option wise, todays $28,000 cars are NOT even close to what we bought in 1970. $2,800 in 1970 bought you a modest car(Malibu,Skylark, etc.). the options were AC, power windows, and maybe an AM-FM radio. Even with the price increase of the cars, it was GRADUAL, not in a few months.

My point is, in the past our econmomy had been based on "cost of living" increases.. usually modest 3-6%/year. And it was pretty even across the board. I DONT see that here...


And your "spot on" with wage increases not keeping pace with the cost of living for the middle class..

.

Hansel wrote: See wealth change for yourself. I just want to clarify here, as I did on another thread a while back, that my opinions and beliefs are NOT rooted in jealousy or envy as many of you seem to suspect. I have a good job with benefits and live a far more comfortable life than I deserve. Why is raising taxes always automatically off the table? Especially at a time of supposed "shared sacrifice?"

Then don't rely on left leaning Soros funded organizations for your information. They get money from OSI.

Raising taxes to solve this problem no different than going to your boss and asking for a raise because you maxed out your credit cards and bought a house and car you can't afford to pay for. Try it and let us know how it works out.

I know it financially would not make any difference but I would like Congress, especially the newbies offer some sacrifice on their part. Term limit, no pension, no auto raise, just something to show they are not above the frey and willing to feel our pain.

It's hard for me to understand how they know what is right for me when they are in such a different league.

eric lavine wrote: I swear to God, i am doing more and more cash transactions everyday, i believe people have switched their mindset, im getting used to saying, "on the books its this much" not because of me even though i prefer cash. when is somebody going to complain that i dont charge enough? lol

Eric, be carefull about putting that in print.

Hansel wrote: I just got back from a week and a half overseas where there is <7% unemployment, nationalized healthcare, great roads and infrastructure, and one of the lowest rates of national debt in the world. And they achieve all of this with gasoline at ~$8/gallon, a top tax bracket of 45%, and 2-3 years of near universal compulsory military service (men & women) at their life's prime. Where is this fantasy land you ask? Israel. A nation completely surrounded by enemies and with few natural resources. Don't buy the hype...

45% taxes and mandatory military service is not my idea of a fantasy land, but if it works for you, consider moving. I dont say this to be mean, you seem like an intellegent and well meaning person but lots of people believe the US in its founders vision is a fanatasy land. This is the only country that is based on individual rights and freedoms. For those that love socialism there are plenty of countries out there where the fantasy can be lived out. This country is the only one where mine can be lived, and I dont want anyone screwing it up.
As for the military thing I am against mandatory service because I would not want my back being covered by someone that did not want the job. I did not serve and in my "prime" i dont feel I should have. I dont think I understood things and woulod have had the commitment till I was in my 30's and then I felt my responsibilities where to my wife and kids. I do wonder if it was mandatory what I would have become from the experience. I have great respect for thaose that serve, and regret that I did not have the maturity in my youth to understand its importance.

OverMyHead wrote: 45% taxes and mandatory military service is not my idea of a fantasy land, but if it works for you, consider moving. I dont say this to be mean, you seem like an intellegent and well meaning person but lots of people believe the US in its founders vision is a fanatasy land. This is the only country that is based on individual rights and freedoms. For those that love socialism there are plenty of countries out there where the fantasy can be lived out. This country is the only one where mine can be lived, and I dont want anyone screwing it up. As for the military thing I am against mandatory service because I would not want my back being covered by someone that did not want the job. I do wonder if it was mandatory what I would have become from the experience. I have great respect for thaose that serve, and regret that I did not have the maturity in my youth to understand its importance.

Boy Dave do I agree with that,if the grass is greener somewhere else,go.
But on the mandatory military thing I think you'd change your mind if we did it to protect ourselfs rather than the thankless job of policing the rest of the world.

Dave, I do report it

here is a fact in caps ONE POINT FIVE TRILLION has been spent in Iraq, just think if that money was invested here in the country, that would be one helluva stimulas check...
so i guess if we didnt keep our men and woman in uniforms busy, they would be part of the unemployment equation? we could probably keep them hand in hand at the borders instead of an fence?

Sure I would take it, but if we are talking millions I would consult a tax attorney before I cashed it. If setting up a residence in south dakota, florida, or the bahamas would let me keep 65% or 70% or 90%, I will put in that adress change. money gives you resources to do things like owning multiple homes. buying a 100 grand condo somewhere to net millions is a no brainer. Raising tax rates cannot be done in a "vacume" like physics for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. No one likes getting screwed, no matter how much money they have. Look at the examplesof states that have put surcharges on the rich. try to find someone with a college degree in michigan these days. The educataed and wealthy are leaving that state in droves, putting furhter tax burden on the middle class, same with Mass. I believe they are the state that put additional taxes on millionaires 2 years ago, and they somehow "lost" about a fourth of them and collections in that income catagorie decreased dispite the higher rates. Eric, you say you have not raised your rates in years, why not? Do you fear it would result in fewer customers and less income? If people feal you are treating them fairly and they are getting good value for their money they will stay loyal for ever, but if they feel taken advantage of they will take action and take their dollars elswhere. Taxes work the same way, the rich have choices.

From the 40's..... I wish that the breakdown was on the pumps now. I have seen some here in TN and I believe that about $0.35 is tax. I bet the govt wishes they had used a % now that prices are moving 5 cents a day.....

Hansel wrote: I find it rather ironic that Dave says that he would do whatever he could to avoid paying taxes ("the rich have choices"), only to be immediately followed by Steve lamenting about the lack of customer loyalty...

"Jamin"... I have been involved in retail since 1970. (not sure of your experiences?) All I am saying is the times have changed a LOT. Both the way people buy and the fact there is little of what I consider true loyalty today.

With the way the economy is, PRICE is one of the first considerations in most purchases I personally see, followed by quality and service.

I dont mean to sound like I'm lamenting, I am just stating facts......
Frustrated at times?...yes... kinda hard not to be when most of our expenses are skyrocketing out of control and profit margins are the smallest they have ever been.

Not sure I have ever seen what you do for a living ... just curious?

Jamin, I dont see you as advesarial, just as someone with a point of view enjoying a debate. It is the same with me. Look into Jimmy Carters overall philosophy, monetary policy and taxation ideas. You will find them scarily similar to those of Obama,but Obama is Carter on steroids. It did not work then and it looks more disasterous now. It may help if you look at the "rich" as consumers rather than just a bucket of money, and the government as a service provider ( which it is supposed to be). You stated in another post that you were not sure who the boss was in our government scenario. It is not congress or the president. Our constitution is based on individual rights. there is no provision for group rights in its origins. The individuals have inaliable rights. The citizens grant the government limited rights as spelled out in the constituion. WE are the bosses. The government is to serve us. Back to the rich, as consumers of government they will act like consumers, looking for quality services at reasonable prices. Most consumers expect to pay for what they get, and get what they pay for. If they feel they are not being treated fairly they will will look for services elsewhere or choose not to participate. If you opened a auto dealership that sold cars based on ability to pay and ran against dealerships that charge the actual cost for the vehicle who would your customers be? The Rich would go to the dealership that charged them for just the car, and the poor would go to your dealership looking for a hand out. Who then would pay for all those cars going to the poor for little or nothing? The only way that system works is if you legitimize a way to force redistribution of wealth.

I am old fashioned for my age. I believe in following some simple guidlines like the golden rule, treat others as you wopuld like to be treated. I bet you feel the same way, but to me you put a twist on that that I can not understand. I believe I am responsible for myself, and I believe god has graced me with abilities that I should share with others through charity. I am guessing you believe if you where unable to care for yourself you would like the government to be there to help you, so you want the government to be there to help others. The difference is to realize your dream involves taking from others to fund your ideal. My version reguires me to give of myself. I believe that self reliance is good for the "sole". and I believe that giving charitably is also good for the sole. When the government redistributes wealth it takes away from both sides of the equation. leaving a bunch of unhealthy soles.

Hi Dave,

Good breakdown of your position. Thanks for always reading what I write, I enjoy doing the same for you. Yes, I believe that one of the legitimate purposes of government is to provide a "safety net" when circumstances require.

Steve,

No worries on the name. It is odd enough that you should be able to figure out who I am with relative ease, plus I don't like to put up certain personal info (birth date, etc.) so that is why the profile is rather thin. I like that people are up front about who they are on this site (Pete keeps everybody honest on this!). It is not so most places on the "internets."

Thanks for telling your story. I respect you greatly for all the hard work you have put in during you lifetime, and don't see it for a one moment as complaining. As myself and other young people look to the future we can only have a similar pessimism, the difference being that we are only at the very beginning of our careers. We all have much to be both thankful and nervous about. You are about the age of my parents, aunts, and uncles. I see in you (and Dave) the work ethic and personal responsibility that I admire in them and helped me to get where I am today.

I've been wanting to attend Green Lake for about five years. Unfortunately being a field scientist I spend my summers "making hay" as it were so it hasn't happened yet and probably won't for the foreseeable future. The best I can hope for at the moment is to weasel in on some other event or catch CCFans if ever they are in Madison.

Best!