$7 Per Gallon Gas Coming Soon?

[sa_butta]

Americans struggling with $4 per gallon gas today will have to gird themselves soon for a $3 spike, according to a new report by economists at CIBC World Markets.

Economists at the investment bank predict that motorists will see the price of gas rise to $7 per gallon within two years, a 75 percent increase.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PainAtThePump/story?id=5253022

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/7dollargas_080626_mn.jpg

[boutons_]

Higher is better, but it's got to stay high reliably, constantly so the US can adapt to gasoline at "black gold" prices, by engineering every possible drop of oil, and then some, out of the economy.

Domestic/offshore drilling won't change the price, it will just enrich the oilcos, if they even find any oil.

[johnsmith]

"higher is better"



FUCK YOU

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Higher is better, but it's got to stay high reliably, constantly so the US can adapt to gasoline at "black gold" prices, by engineering every possible drop of oil, and then some, out of the economy.

Domestic/offshore drilling won't change the price, it will just enrich the oilcos, if they even find any oil.
sometimes i wonder if all that glue sniffing you do will rot your brain. i'm glad to see it hasn't

[BacktoBasics]

I think this is pretty unfounded speculation. Furthermore even with change this country couldn't weather 7 dollar gas. I see it capping somewhere around 5 or 6 tops before it all starts dipping down around the 4 range again. 4 or 5 years from now I expect gas to hoover around 3 bucks which is where this country seems to draw the line between being too expensive and being affordable. When I say affordable I mean willing to have and spend disposable income...which is what the country is built on.

[clambake]

I think this is pretty unfounded speculation. Furthermore even with change this country couldn't weather 7 dollar gas. I see it capping somewhere around 5 or 6 tops before it all starts dipping down around the 4 range again. 4 or 5 years from now I expect gas to hoover around 3 bucks which is where this country seems to draw the line between being too expensive and being affordable. When I say affordable I mean willing to have and spend disposable income...which is what the country is built on.

if it caps at 5 then i'm 11 cents away. oil ended at 139+ a barrel today.

[boutons_]

"this country couldn't"

Poor little USA, like a child, can never discipline itself, can never imagine the even the near future no matter how strong the trends are.

[clambake]

just change gas station names to "Car Spa" and everyone will be fine.

[J.T.]

Shit, if gas goes to FIVE dollars, I'm buying a Huffy and slapping some pegs on the front and back, and me and my homeboys will hit the town on that thing. Nevermind people with real jobs, I'm in school, paying my way, don't have a silver spoon shoved up my ass with access to mommy and daddy's 15 credit cards at my fingertips, and even THREE dollar gas was eating most of my shitty part time pay.

[J.T.]

inb4 "quit drinking, smoking and taking drugs JT and maybe you could afford gas"

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Higher is better, but it's got to stay high reliably, constantly so the US can adapt to gasoline at "black gold" prices, by engineering every possible drop of oil, and then some, out of the economy.

Domestic/offshore drilling won't change the price, it will just enrich the oilcos, if they even find any oil.

Higher is better? Easy for you to say, you've still got mommy and daddy paying your gasoline bill.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"this country couldn't"

Poor little USA, like a child, can never discipline itself, can never imagine the even the near future no matter how strong the trends are.

You really are an ignorant fuck, you know that?

It's not about discipline. The entire infrastructure of this country was built on cheap oil. Even if America wants to adapt, gasoline is going to go higher and cute little HOV lanes aren't going to cut it.

It's going to take a significant restructuring of our infrastructure to address the transportation problems we are facing, and that is going to come cheap or overnight, no matter how many times Saint Obama clicks his heels together and wishes for it.

[Chief]

Gas here in Costa Rica is already about $1.25 a liter which is almost $5 a gallon.

They are saying it will soon increase to about $1.60 which would be about $6 a gallon.

Imagine that, in the USA where the average income is higher then here, and gas is cheaper. I don't know how the people here can afford it. But they somehow do.

[BradLohaus]

This article fits in with the talk about how permanently high energy costs will affect the American landscape. It's a bit long, but it's one of the more interesting ones that I've read.

The Next Slum?
The subprime crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

Strange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy yards have become overgrown, as the houses they front have gone vacant. Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading.

At Windy Ridge, a recently built starter-home development seven miles northwest of Charlotte, North Carolina, 81 of the community’s 132 small, vinyl-sided houses were in foreclosure as of late last year. Vandals have kicked in doors and stripped the copper wire from vacant houses; drug users and homeless people have furtively moved in. In December, after a stray bullet blasted through her son’s bedroom and into her own, Laurie Talbot, who’d moved to Windy Ridge from New York in 2005, told The Charlotte Observer, “I thought I’d bought a home in Pleasantville. I never imagined in my wildest dreams that stuff like this would happen.”

In the Franklin Reserve neighborhood of Elk Grove, California, south of Sacramento, the houses are nicer than those at Windy Ridge—many once sold for well over $500,000—but the phenomenon is the same. At the height of the boom, 10,000 new homes were built there in just four years. Now many are empty; renters of dubious character occupy others. Graffiti, broken windows, and other markers of decay have multiplied. Susan McDonald, president of the local residents’ association and an executive at a local bank, told the Associated Press, “There’s been gang activity. Things have really been changing, the last few years.”

In the first half of last year, residential burglaries rose by 35 percent and robberies by 58 percent in suburban Lee County, Florida, where one in four houses stands empty. Charlotte’s crime rates have stayed flat overall in recent years—but from 2003 to 2006, in the 10 suburbs of the city that have experienced the highest foreclosure rates, crime rose 33 percent. Civic organizations in some suburbs have begun to mow the lawns around empty houses to keep up the appearance of stability. Police departments are mapping foreclosures in an effort to identify emerging criminal hot spots.

The decline of places like Windy Ridge and Franklin Reserve is usually attributed to the subprime-mortgage crisis, with its wave of foreclosures. And the crisis has indeed catalyzed or intensified social problems in many communities. But the story of vacant suburban homes and declining suburban neighborhoods did not begin with the crisis, and will not end with it. A structural change is under way in the housing market—a major shift in the way many Americans want to live and work. It has shaped the current downturn, steering some of the worst problems away from the cities and toward the suburban fringes. And its effects will be felt more strongly, and more broadly, as the years pass. Its ultimate impact on the suburbs, and the cities, will be profound.

Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.

For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.

The suburban dream began, arguably, at the New York World’s Fair of 1939 and ’40. “Highways and Horizons,” better known as “Futurama,” was overwhelmingly the fair’s most popular exhibit; perhaps 10 percent of the American population saw it. At the heart of the exhibit was a scale model, covering an area about the size of a football field, that showed what American cities and towns might look like in 1960. Visitors watched matchbox-sized cars zip down wide highways. Gone were the crowded tenements of the time; 1960s Americans would live in stand-alone houses with spacious yards and attached garages. The exhibit would not impress us today, but at the time, it inspired wonder. E. B. White wrote in Harper’s, “A ride on the Futurama … induces approximately the same emotional response as a trip through the Cathedral of St. John the Divine … I didn’t want to wake up.”

The suburban transformation that began in 1946, as GIs returned home, took almost half a century to complete, as first people, then retail, then jobs moved out of cities and into new subdivisions, malls, and office parks. As families decamped for the suburbs, they left behind out-of-fashion real estate, a poorer residential base, and rising crime. Once-thriving central-city retail districts were killed off by the combination of regional suburban malls and the 1960s riots. By the end of the 1970s, people seeking safety and good schools generally had little alternative but to move to the suburbs. In 1981, Escape From New York, starring Kurt Russell, depicted a near future in which Manhattan had been abandoned, fenced off, and turned into an unsupervised penitentiary.

Cities, of course, have made a long climb back since then. Just nine years after Russell escaped from the wreck of New York, Seinfeld—followed by Friends, then Sex and the City—began advertising the city’s renewed urban allure to Gen-Xers and Millennials. Many Americans, meanwhile, became disillusioned with the sprawl and stupor that sometimes characterize suburban life. These days, when Hollywood wants to portray soullessness, despair, or moral decay, it often looks to the suburbs—as The Sopranos and Desperate Housewives attest—for inspiration.

In the past decade, as cities have gentrified, the suburbs have continued to grow at a breakneck pace. Atlanta’s sprawl has extended nearly to Chattanooga; Fort Worth and Dallas have merged; and Los Angeles has swung a leg over the 10,000-foot San Gabriel Mountains into the Mojave Desert. Some experts expect conventional suburbs to continue to sprawl ever outward. Yet today, American metropolitan residential patterns and cultural preferences are mirror opposites of those in the 1940s. Most Americans now live in single-family suburban houses that are segregated from work, shopping, and entertainment; but it is urban life, almost exclusively, that is culturally associated with excitement, freedom, and diverse daily life. And as in the 1940s, the real-estate market has begun to react.

Pent-up demand for urban living is evident in housing prices. Twenty years ago, urban housing was a bargain in most central cities. Today, it carries an enormous price premium. Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.

It’s crucial to note that these premiums have arisen not only in central cities, but also in suburban towns that have walkable urban centers offering a mix of residential and commercial development. For instance, luxury single-family homes in suburban Westchester County, just north of New York City, sell for $375 a square foot. A luxury condo in downtown White Plains, the county’s biggest suburban city, can cost you $750 a square foot. This same pattern can be seen in the suburbs of Detroit, or outside Seattle. People are being drawn to the convenience and culture of walkable urban neighborhoods across the country—even when those neighborhoods are small.

[BradLohaus]

Builders and developers tend to notice big price imbalances, and they are working to accommodate demand for urban living. New lofts and condo complexes have popped up all over many big cities. Suburban towns built in the 19th and early 20th centuries, featuring downtown street grids at their core, have seen a good deal of “in-filling” in recent years as well, with new condos and town houses, and renovated small-lot homes just outside their downtowns. And while urban construction may slow for a time because of the present housing bust, it will surely continue. Sprawling, large-lot suburbs become less attractive as they become more densely built, but urban areas—especially those well served by public transit—become more appealing as they are filled in and built up. Crowded sidewalks tend to be safe and lively, and bigger crowds can support more shops, restaurants, art galleries.

But developers are also starting to find ways to bring the city to newer suburbs—and provide an alternative to conventional, car-based suburban life. “Lifestyle centers”—walkable developments that create an urban feel, even when built in previously undeveloped places—are becoming popular with some builders. They feature narrow streets and small storefronts that come up to the sidewalk, mixed in with housing and office space. Parking is mostly hidden underground or in the interior of faux city blocks.

The granddaddy of all lifestyle centers is the Reston Town Center, located between Virginia’s Dulles International Airport and Washington, D.C. Since it opened in 1990, it has become the “downtown” for western Fairfax and eastern Loudoun counties; a place for the kids to see Santa and for teenagers to ice skate. People living in the town can stroll from the movie theater to restaurants and then back home. A 2006 study by the Brookings Institution showed that Reston’s apartments, condominiums, and office and retail space were all commanding about a 50 percent rent or price premium over the typically suburban houses, office parks, and strip malls nearby.

Housing at Belmar, the new “downtown” in Lakewood, Colorado, a middle-income inner suburb of Denver, commands a 60 percent premium per square foot over the single-family homes in the neighborhoods around it. The development covers about 20 small blocks in all. What’s most noteworthy is its history: it was built on the site of a razed mall.

Building lifestyle centers is far more complex than building McMansion developments (or malls). These new, faux-urban centers have many moving parts, and they need to achieve critical mass quickly to attract buyers and retailers. As a result, during the 1990s, lifestyle centers spread slowly. But real-estate developers are gaining more experience with this sort of building, and it is proliferating. Very few, if any, regional malls are being built these days—lifestyle centers are going up instead.

In most metropolitan areas, only 5 to 10 percent of the housing stock is located in walkable urban places (including places like downtown White Plains and Belmar). Yet recent consumer research by Jonathan Levine of the University of Michigan and Lawrence Frank of the University of British Columbia suggests that roughly one in three homeowners would prefer to live in these types of places. In one study, for instance, Levine and his colleagues asked more than 1,600 mostly suburban residents of the Atlanta and Boston metro areas to hypothetically trade off typical suburban amenities (such as large living spaces) against typical urban ones (like living within walking distance of retail districts). All in all, they found that only about a third of the people surveyed solidly preferred traditional suburban lifestyles, featuring large houses and lots of driving. Another third, roughly, had mixed feelings. The final third wanted to live in mixed-use, walkable urban areas—but most had no way to do so at an affordable price. Over time, as urban and faux-urban building continues, that will change.

Demographic changes in the United States also are working against conventional suburban growth, and are likely to further weaken preferences for car-based suburban living. When the Baby Boomers were young, families with children made up more than half of all households; by 2000, they were only a third of households; and by 2025, they will be closer to a quarter. Young people are starting families later than earlier generations did, and having fewer children. The Boomers themselves are becoming empty-nesters, and many have voiced a preference for urban living. By 2025, the U.S. will contain about as many single-person households as families with children.

[BradLohaus]

Because the population is growing, families with children will still grow in absolute number—according to U.S. Census data, there will be about 4 million more households with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more than 10 million new single-family homes have already been built since 2000, most of them in the suburbs.

If gasoline and heating costs continue to rise, conventional suburban living may not be much of a bargain in the future. And as more Americans, particularly affluent Americans, move into urban communities, families may find that some of the suburbs’ other big advantages—better schools and safer communities—have eroded. Schooling and safety are likely to improve in urban areas, as those areas continue to gentrify; they may worsen in many suburbs if the tax base—often highly dependent on house values and new development—deteriorates. Many of the fringe counties in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, for instance, are projecting big budget deficits in 2008. Only Washington itself is expecting a large surplus. Fifteen years ago, this budget situation was reversed.

The U.S. grows its total stock of housing and commercial space by, at most, 3 percent each year, so the imbalance between the supply of urban living options and the demand for them is not going to disappear overnight. But over the next 20 years, developers will likely produce many, many millions of new and newly renovated town houses, condos, and small-lot houses in and around both new and traditional downtowns.

As conventional suburban lifestyles fall out of fashion and walkable urban alternatives proliferate, what will happen to obsolete large-lot houses? One might imagine culs-de-sac being converted to faux Main Streets, or McMansion developments being bulldozed and reforested or turned into parks. But these sorts of transformations are likely to be rare. Suburbia’s many small parcels of land, held by different owners with different motivations, make the purchase of whole neighborhoods almost unheard-of. Condemnation of single-family housing for “higher and better use” is politically difficult, and in most states it has become almost legally impossible in recent years. In any case, the infrastructure supporting large-lot suburban residential areas—roads, sewer and water lines—cannot support the dense development that urbanization would require, and is not easy to upgrade. Once large-lot, suburban residential landscapes are built, they are hard to unbuild.

The experience of cities during the 1950s through the ’80s suggests that the fate of many single-family homes on the metropolitan fringes will be resale, at rock-bottom prices, to lower-income families—and in all likelihood, eventual conversion to apartments.

This future is not likely to wear well on suburban housing. Many of the inner-city neighborhoods that began their decline in the 1960s consisted of sturdily built, turn-of-the-century row houses, tough enough to withstand being broken up into apartments, and requiring relatively little upkeep. By comparison, modern suburban houses, even high-end McMansions, are cheaply built. Hollow doors and wallboard are less durable than solid-oak doors and lath-and-plaster walls. The plywood floors that lurk under wood veneers or carpeting tend to break up and warp as the glue that holds the wood together dries out; asphalt-shingle roofs typically need replacing after 10 years. Many recently built houses take what structural integrity they have from drywall—their thin wooden frames are too flimsy to hold the houses up.

As the residents of inner-city neighborhoods did before them, suburban homeowners will surely try to prevent the division of neighborhood houses into rental units, which would herald the arrival of the poor. And many will likely succeed, for a time. But eventually, the owners of these fringe houses will have to sell to someone, and they’re not likely to find many buyers; offers from would-be landlords will start to look better, and neighborhood restrictions will relax. Stopping a fundamental market shift by legislation or regulation is generally impossible.

Of course, not all suburbs will suffer this fate. Those that are affluent and relatively close to central cities—especially those along rail lines—are likely to remain in high demand. Some, especially those that offer a thriving, walkable urban core, may find that even the large-lot, residential-only neighborhoods around that core increase in value. Single-family homes next to the downtowns of Redmond, Washington; Evanston, Illinois; and Birmingham, Michigan, for example, are likely to hold their values just fine.

On the other hand, many inner suburbs that are on the wrong side of town, and poorly served by public transport, are already suffering what looks like inexorable decline. Low-income people, displaced from gentrifying inner cities, have moved in, and longtime residents, seeking more space and nicer neighborhoods, have moved out.

But much of the future decline is likely to occur on the fringes, in towns far away from the central city, not served by rail transit, and lacking any real core. In other words, some of the worst problems are likely to be seen in some of the country’s more recently developed areas—and not only those inhabited by subprime-mortgage borrowers. Many of these areas will become magnets for poverty, crime, and social dysfunction.

Despite this glum forecast for many swaths of suburbia, we should not lose sight of the bigger picture—the shift that’s under way toward walkable urban living is a healthy development. In the most literal sense, it may lead to better personal health and a slimmer population. The environment, of course, will also benefit: if New York City were its own state, it would be the most energy-efficient state in the union; most Manhattanites not only walk or take public transit to get around, they unintentionally share heat with their upstairs neighbors.

Perhaps most important, the shift to walkable urban environments will give more people what they seem to want. I doubt the swing toward urban living will ever proceed as far as the swing toward the suburbs did in the 20th century; many people will still prefer the bigger houses and car-based lifestyles of conventional suburbs. But there will almost certainly be more of a balance between walkable and drivable communities—allowing people in most areas a wider variety of choices.

By the estimate of Virginia Tech’s Arthur Nelson, as much as half of all real-estate development on the ground in 2025 will not have existed in 2000. It’s exciting to imagine what the country will look like then. Building and residential migration seem to progress slowly from year to year, yet then one day, in retrospect, the landscape seems to have been transformed in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, the next transformation, like the ones before it, will leave some places diminished. About 25 years ago, Escape From New York perfectly captured the zeitgeist of its moment. Two or three decades from now, the next Kurt Russell may find his breakout role in Escape From the Suburban Fringe.

[Sense]

im getting a fuckin bike

[Anti.Hero]

Good.

Can't wait till the dumb people revolt against envirolosers.

[RandomGuy]

I think this is pretty unfounded speculation. Furthermore even with change this country couldn't weather 7 dollar gas. I see it capping somewhere around 5 or 6 tops before it all starts dipping down around the 4 range again. 4 or 5 years from now I expect gas to hoover around 3 bucks which is where this country seems to draw the line between being too expensive and being affordable. When I say affordable I mean willing to have and spend disposable income...which is what the country is built on.

Wanna make a bet on that?

Sorry charlie, but there are two new realities you are missing:

1) The overall amounts of oil that CAN be supplied are falling.

and

2) You are now competing with the 2 billion people in China and India for those ever decreasing amounts of oil.

Lower supplies+higher demand= waaaay higher prices.


Seriously. If you want to find a legal way to bet on that, I can pony up a good $200 bucks that gasoline won't come down to $3 per gallon in the next two year.

[RandomGuy]

This article fits in with the talk about how permanently high energy costs will affect the American landscape. It's a bit long, but it's one of the more interesting ones that I've read.

The Next Slum?
The subprime crisis is just the tip of the iceberg. Fundamental changes in American life may turn today’s McMansions into tomorrow’s tenements.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/subprime

Strange days are upon the residents of many a suburban cul-de-sac. Once-tidy yards have become overgrown, as the houses they front have gone vacant. Signs of physical and social disorder are spreading.


I have been saying this for years.

Link to thread in 2006 where I pretty much say that suburban sprawl will be killed by high gas prices. (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46865)

[RandomGuy]

By the estimate of Virginia Tech’s Arthur Nelson, as much as half of all real-estate development on the ground in 2025 will not have existed in 2000. It’s exciting to imagine what the country will look like then. Building and residential migration seem to progress slowly from year to year, yet then one day, in retrospect, the landscape seems to have been transformed in the blink of an eye. Unfortunately, the next transformation, like the ones before it, will leave some places diminished. About 25 years ago, Escape From New York perfectly captured the zeitgeist of its moment. Two or three decades from now, the next Kurt Russell may find his breakout role in Escape From the Suburban Fringe.

Interesting article.

I see a lot of small clustered development around commuter rail lines.

Austin has been toying with the idea, and given the tax base boon that all the new condos in the city center will provide will be well placed to do that.

The "liberal" idea of mixed develpment and mass transit over cars, proves to be somewhat prophetic. Whodathunkit? ;)

"Damn hippies and their mixed use development. The free-market says we all should drive cars, and live in huge suburban houses because that is what we want. Anybody who tries to think a few years down the road and suggest otherwise is a total envirowhacko." :rolleyes

[johnsmith]

The "liberal" idea of mixed develpment and mass transit over cars, proves to be somewhat prophetic. Whodathunkit? ;)


Really, that's a "liberal" idea?

Fuck you're an arrogant douche bag.


By the way, when I lived in Denver and it was still dominated by conservatives in the local gov't, a light rail system was voted on, approved, and built.

Damn "conservatives".

[JoeChalupa]

Just freakin' great. I finally get a SUV and now I'm getting screwed big time. I'll have to trade it in for a more economical vehicle asap. I seriously thinking about getting a scooter. I've added a basket to my bike for small errands.

[RandomGuy]

Really, that's a "liberal" idea?

Fuck you're an arrogant douche bag.


By the way, when I lived in Denver and it was still dominated by conservatives in the local gov't, a light rail system was voted on, approved, and built.

Damn "conservatives".

(shrugs)

You have a stereotype of liberals as arrogant, and you look for information that confirms this, and at the same time, ignore information that doesn't.

I put the word "liberal" in quotes for a reason.

Here is a yes or no question for you:

Is getting rid of gasoline powered vehicles in favor of mass transit generally perceived as a liberal idea?

Yes or no?

[johnsmith]

(shrugs)

You have a stereotype of liberals as arrogant, and you look for information that confirms this, and at the same time, ignore information that doesn't.

I put the word "liberal" in quotes for a reason.

Here is a yes or no question for you:

Is getting rid of gasoline powered vehicles in favor of mass transit generally perceived as a liberal idea?

Yes or no?

You are wrong on so many accounts here that I'll break it down:


You have a stereotype of liberals as arrogant, and you look for information that confirms this, and at the same time, ignore information that doesn't.

I actually don't hold a stereotype of liberals being arrogant, in fact, far from it. I do have a belief however that YOU ARE FUCKING ARROGANT. And I don't need to look for info to confirm that because it's posted all over the political forum by you every single day, so it's not real hard to find.


I put the word "liberal" in quotes for a reason.

You should put everything you say in quotes, and the reason is, IT'S MOSTLY BULLSHIT.


Here is a yes or no question for you:

Is getting rid of gasoline powered vehicles in favor of mass transit generally perceived as a liberal idea?

Yes or no?

Getting rid of gasoline powered vehicles - Yes
Mass Transit systems - No

[RandomGuy]

Randomguy asked:
So is getting rid of cars in favor of mass transit generally a liberal idea?







Getting rid of gasoline powered vehicles - Yes
Mass Transit systems - No

So then if you are right, and I am talking out my ass, I can go out and search a few websites commonly viewed as liberal I should find no liberal saying mass transit is a good idea.

If you are the one talking our your ass, then I can probably find quite a few liberals who think that getting rid of cars in favor of mass transit is a good idea.

Is this the correct way to figure out who is talking out their ass here, yes or no?

[RandomGuy]

You should put everything you say in quotes, and the reason is, IT'S MOSTLY BULLSHIT.

Is that a fact or just your opinion?

I notice that you said "it is bullshit" and not "in my opinion it is bullshit."

Isn't THAT stating your opinion as fact?

[johnsmith]

Randomguy asked:
So is getting rid of cars in favor of mass transit generally a liberal idea?



So then if you are right, and I am talking out my ass, I can go out and search a few websites commonly viewed as liberal I should find no liberal saying mass transit is a good idea.

If you are the one talking our your ass, then I can probably find quite a few liberals who think that getting rid of cars in favor of mass transit is a good idea.

Is this the correct way to figure out who is talking out their ass here, yes or no?


I bet you can do the same on both examples but switch the word liberal for conservative.

In fact, you should go do that. Take a lot of time on it and make me look bad. Site all your sources and post the links plus a brief synopsis of what you believe the article(s) are saying. Seriously, take a couple of weeks on it too. You're a lifetime college student with no real world experience, you should love this as a research type of a project.

To make you feel even better about it, I'll grade you.

Hope you get an A :tu

[johnsmith]

Is that a fact or just your opinion?

I notice that you said "it is bullshit" and not "in my opinion it is bullshit."

Isn't THAT stating your opinion as fact?

The difference being that mine is fact, you are indeed full of shit.

[RandomGuy]

Take a lot of time on it and make me look bad.

You're an arrogant fucktard. It doesn't take that long, and you make it easy for me, honest.

[johnsmith]

You're an arrogant fucktard. It doesn't take that long, and you make it easy for me, honest.

So when are you going to start on that paper for me?

Here, I'll make you feel even more comfortable, I'll not only grade you, but it's due by Friday next week. You can either email it to me or turn it into my office.

[RandomGuy]

ar·ro·gance
Function:
noun
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions


One more thing, I can picture your gigantic ass making the noise "hurumph" and it has ruined my day.

Have a nice weekend.

attitude of superiority.



Jesus Fucking Christ you're an idiot. You couldn't come up with anything better then that?

Face it, you didn't read what I posted, you assumed what I posted, and made yourself look like an idiot.


Two things though, if what I did according to you was "flexing my muscles", wtf do you call what you do on here? My guess is that it has something to do with funnel cake.

Secondly, on the "get a job" thing. Dude, not everyone can help America progress the way you do by running a fucking carnival.

At the end of the day, I'm helping America and you are a carnie.

Later tubby.

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


Jesus Fucking Christ you're an idiot. You couldn't come up with anything better then that?

Face it, you didn't read what I posted, you assumed what I posted, and made yourself look like an idiot.


Two things though, if what I did according to you was "flexing my muscles", wtf do you call what you do on here? My guess is that it has something to do with funnel cake.

Secondly, on the "get a job" thing. Dude, not everyone can help America progress the way you do by running a fucking carnival.

At the end of the day, I'm helping America and you are a carnie.

Later tubby.

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


"higher is better"



FUCK YOU


I've helped build a coal plant, neat aren't they?

Gas plants aren't all that exciting, but good money makers.

I'm sure it is expensive to guard them.

attitude of superiority, presumptuous claims


The Air Force uses the black hawk and has people stationed there. They don't bill the plant for the cost.

Also, it's no "pet project", in fact, I don't have anything to do with nuclear plants other then help with materials. I just don't like you talking out of your ass.

overbearing attitude


Who said hundreds of guards per plant?

Show me where I said that and I'll re-think it.

Now, answer my fucking question you spineless bitch. Have you been to one or are you just assuming they are an easy target?

attitude of superiority, overbearing attitude


Ok

Dude, you're going to be a college professor one day. No real world experience, just spout off what you know to be "fact" because you read it online.


You still haven't answered either of my questions but rather just changed the subject. Have you been to one? Are you just assuming they are easy targets?

You also never replied to your new education on cost overruns regarding wind power.

more attitude, more superiority


Have you ever been to a nuclear plant? I've been to one in Florida and one in Arizona. I can fucking promise you that a truck full of explosives isn't going to make it anywhere near where it has to get to in order to cause some damage. I can also promise that an airplane won't make it near there either.

presumptuous claims, attitude of superiority


Dude, go and google this "Every fucking Industrial project built over the last 25 years"..........they'll all look the same as your cute little search above.

Sucks doesn't it, but that's how contractors make money. They're called change orders and they're our friends.

presumptuous claims, attitude of superiority


I'll go out on a limb and say you were never good at baseball............which is funny, because according to you, it takes "0 athletic ability".

attitude of superiority


Ummm, I was referring to the fact that you look like you ate a 13 year old boy.

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


Nope, I'm all grown up and 28 years old.


However, that was a sweet "adult" like comeback from you.

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


Rub the corn dog dough out of your eyes and read the first post. I was listening that day and I haven't listened since.

I do tune in every once in a while though, probably not again for a while, but every once in a while.

On a different note, I heard you gained some weight, good for you.

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


Seriously, do you ever get tired of sounding like an idiot on this board?

overbearing manner


No, but walking around with gold chains, flaunting your cash, and spraying $1,000 bottles of champagne on strangers sure as hell doesn't help.

overbearing manner


Then shut the fuck up.

overbearing manner


I promise that I'm a better golfer then you.

Secondly, scoreboard bitch. Tiger outplayed Rocco.

presumptuous claims


You went with a shitty fat wife joke so I countered with a shitty daughter joke.

Geez, pot meet kettle.

I know, I know, other 51 year olds think your funny. I'm sure you get all sorts of laughs at your practice, I know when my dentist makes a shitty joke (which is everyone of them), I give him a little pity laugh too.

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


I've said it a million times. The baby boomer generation is the one that when looked back upon, will go down as the WORST GENERATION EVER.

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


Neat thing about my name is that you or anyone else on here doesn't know my real information. Which is opposite of the fact that everyone on here knows that you look like a douche bag.

attitude of superiority overbearing manner


Shocker.

Ok, what do you plan on doing when mom and dad stop giving you money on a monthly basis?

attitude of superiority


I can see where a homosexual like yourself would not be a fan of that over tanned bimbo whom was just named Maxim's hottest female on the planet.

Yucky, an overtanned bimbo.

(If I could type with a lisp, I would right now just to make fun of you some more.)

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


Easy there pop, I'm 28 years old and you are what, 60? I have a lot more future to go then your old ass.

In fact, I'd say once I'm hitting my 40's, you'll be dead........so that will be nice to be able to let the old lady and mutant kid off the hook eh?

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner


????

So, is your wife still the two headed mutant she was last year?

attitude of superiority

[RandomGuy]

What a fucking bully. Jesus. Wading through these posts was like swimming in a sewer.

Find something that someone might be vulnerable on, harp on it endlessly.

[CubanMustGo]

Quite frankly I see two sides of the same coin. You use similar tactics.

[RandomGuy]

Quite frankly I see two sides of the same coin. You use similar tactics.

Feel free to thumb through my posts and to a similar greatest hits.

I do admit to being irritated on occasion. Hell, I even toss out an occasional personal insult.

This guy has issues.

[RandomGuy]

I noticed you didn't answer the question.

What idea are we fighting, genius?

attitude of superiority


You're an arrogant fucktard. It doesn't take that long, and you make it easy for me, honest.

attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



It's there alright here and there to be sure, but itsn't nearly on the scale of Mr. Smith's there.

He seems to live for getting into pointless, vindictive spats.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Just freakin' great. I finally get a SUV

CuhROFL

[Nbadan]

The coming Auto Trader...

http://i28.tinypic.com/i3cjm1.jpg

[boutons_]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/p02t_pie.gif

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/p02t_pie.gif

Say "Gas & Oil" doubled to 5.6% or tripled to 7.4% as gasoline hit $7 or $9/gal, with the effect of reducing oil imports by 40% (domestic drilling won't decrease imports by 40%), the increase in gas&oil is clearly affordable, esp people who afforded super-heavy, guzzling sub-20 MPG luxury cars.

[johnsmith]

ar·ro·gance
Function:
noun
: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions



attitude of superiority.




attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



attitude of superiority, overbearing manner





attitude of superiority, presumptuous claims



overbearing attitude



attitude of superiority, overbearing attitude



more attitude, more superiority



presumptuous claims, attitude of superiority



presumptuous claims, attitude of superiority



attitude of superiority



attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



overbearing manner



overbearing manner



overbearing manner



presumptuous claims



attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



attitude of superiority overbearing manner



attitude of superiority



attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



attitude of superiority, overbearing manner



attitude of superiority


:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol


Wow, you're a bigger loser then I had previously thought. Dude, is the old wife not giving you much attention at home that you actually sifted through all my posts?


:lol:lol

Seriously, I am actually laughing out loud AT you and personally am proud that I bothered you enough to take the time to do that.

Later douche bag, I'm off to have a weekend that doesn't involve the internet the way it does for you.

[johnsmith]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just noticed too that you made the post at 10:09 and then continued to edit it at 10:27..........20 minutes spent on one post...............HAHAHAHAHAHA


Go out sometime, read a book to your kids, make love to your wife, but get a fucking life.


HHAHAHAHAHAH

[boutons_]

Here's great graph showing how the gutless American "leaders" have encouraged oil consumption, eg "more drilling" to help the oilcos who will never return the favor.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-06-29-gas.jpg

So the US lets the oilcos pocket nearly all the profits taken from consumer pockets for gas, diesel, heating oil, while other countries have reduced consumption while keeping the tax money in the public treasury rather than shipped to the oil suppliers.

[JoeChalupa]

All I know is that the higher cost of fuel has made us make some changes in our budget.

[RandomGuy]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just noticed too that you made the post at 10:09 and then continued to edit it at 10:27..........20 minutes spent on one post...............HAHAHAHAHAHA


Go out sometime, read a book to your kids, make love to your wife, but get a fucking life.


HHAHAHAHAHAH

doing a search of all your posts: 0.34 seconds

copying and pasting the nastiness: 20 minutes

getting over the feeling that I needed to wash my hands: 10 seconds

Conclusively showing that you are the biggest bully on the board: Timeless.

[RandomGuy]

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol


Wow, you're a bigger loser then I had previously thought. Dude, is the old wife not giving you much attention at home that you actually sifted through all my posts?


:lol:lol

Seriously, I am actually laughing out loud AT you and personally am proud that I bothered you enough to take the time to do that.

Later douche bag, I'm off to have a weekend that doesn't involve the internet the way it does for you.



Click on the little arrow or click here (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2630097&postcount=33)

[BacktoBasics]

Wanna make a bet on that?

Sorry charlie, but there are two new realities you are missing:

1) The overall amounts of oil that CAN be supplied are falling.

and

2) You are now competing with the 2 billion people in China and India for those ever decreasing amounts of oil.

Lower supplies+higher demand= waaaay higher prices.


Seriously. If you want to find a legal way to bet on that, I can pony up a good $200 bucks that gasoline won't come down to $3 per gallon in the next two year.I'd be more interested in betting that gas won't his 7 bucks than where it ultimately ends up. We can obviously handle 4 dollars even if it is a crunch for some. At some point these peoples 4 year or 5 year car notes are going to be paid up and instead of jumping right back out for new car they'll settle for something cheaper or nothing at all so the current rate of living can be absorbed by a single debt or two reaching maturity.

I don't believe that will be the case if we see 7 bucks a gallon. The current America which is driven by middle class frequent spenders will all but dry up if 80 bucks in groceries again doubles to 160. Remember what was once (two years ago) 80 bucks in food is not 120. Double it again and you've maxxed out a family. Too many people in dead in jobs and with more expensive food, gas, clothing and so forth it simply won't manage. There will be next to no disposible income within your primary audience. Sure the rich will still spend but core group of people that push this countries economy are the middle class guys. Everyone is trimming back but if you force them to trim back too much then bam you got nothing. It won't work and gas will be eventually level off for society to reach a functional state. Its already more than it should be.

[RandomGuy]

I'd be more interested in betting that gas won't his 7 bucks than where it ultimately ends up. We can obviously handle 4 dollars even if it is a crunch for some. At some point these peoples 4 year or 5 year car notes are going to be paid up and instead of jumping right back out for new car they'll settle for something cheaper or nothing at all so the current rate of living can be absorbed by a single debt or two reaching maturity.

I don't believe that will be the case if we see 7 bucks a gallon. The current America which is driven by middle class frequent spenders will all but dry up if 80 bucks in groceries again doubles to 160. Remember what was once (two years ago) 80 bucks in food is not 120. Double it again and you've maxxed out a family. Too many people in dead in jobs and with more expensive food, gas, clothing and so forth it simply won't manage. There will be next to no disposible income within your primary audience. Sure the rich will still spend but core group of people that push this countries economy are the middle class guys. Everyone is trimming back but if you force them to trim back too much then bam you got nothing. It won't work and gas will be eventually level off for society to reach a functional state. Its already more than it should be.

I do see what you are saying, and you make a pretty good point.

But look at gas as part of an overall picture, and you can see how a higher gasoline price will figure into the mix, and how the prices can be supported at a higher level, without a lot of change in the current price.

Think of owning an operating a car as an overall transportation expense.

payments
+gasoline
+insurance
+maint
+repairs
Total cost

Divide total cost by miles driven, and you have a rough idea how much it costs you to drive to work etc.

You budget,a certain amount per month for all of this.

Gas goes up and all of a sudden, you are overbudget. The short term solution is to not do as much optional, non-work driving.

Over time, you can also cut down on your cash flows for car transportation by doing one of three things:

1) Buy a car with better gas mileage, which cuts your gasoline, and to some extent your insurance payments (from having a smaller, cheaper car)

or

2) Keeping your car and avoiding the payments for a new one. Sure maintenace and repairs on an older car do creep up, but they are generally less than payments on a new car for any given year. You take the money freed up from the payments and use that to pay for gas.

or

3) Drive less overall. Carpool, take the bus, walk, live closer to work, etc.

Both allow you to adjust to higher fuel prices in terms of your overall budget.

The first option will lower overall demand for gasoline over time, and the second option will do so as well, as cars eventually reach the end of their lives and are replaced with better mileage vehicles.

Neither of these is instant, but they will happen as people adjust.

Yes, there are people who can't afford to even temporarily pay more in gas. That will suck, as they will have to make some hard choices, as you very rightly point out.

The thing to keep in the back of our mind, as our economy slows down and adjusts:
The Chinese and Indian economies aren't slowing down, and won't as much, even if the US has a pretty harsh downturn. Their overall demand for oil will be going up as ours goes down.

Most of the growth in demand for oil in the last few years has come from less-developed countries. This demand probably won't ease up.

Faced with tight supplies and global demand that goes up even as we use less oil, there is plenty of reason to think that prices won't fall, as much as that would be good for a lot of people.

[BacktoBasics]

I see your point but it boils down to the overall effect high gas prices will have on everything vs. what you can concievably and logically cut back on.

Sure we could all use a dose of reality and try to recenter our lives around being more productive and conservative but even a reasonable family can only cut back so much.

I recently overhauled some stuff in my life and in about 6 months I should be able to trim back about 350 a month in expense. Sounds good and in fact thats a huge percentage for your typical 50k family income. But.....

Say you bump gas up to 7 bucks from 4. Thats nearly doubling a very conservative 75 bucks a week we spend on gas. So call it an increase of 250 monthly. Then the cost of food goes up say another 100 a month, 25 bucks a week to every 100. Then partner that with every other single thing that goes up like its done recently and you're looking at would could concievably be a 400-500 a month increase in cost of living if we see gas bump up to 7 bucks. Thats a 3rd to a quarter increase in most peoples conservative budgets. With no raise at work and for most the inability to handle a second job you're treading into a territory thats borderlining on the average american being unable to dispose frivously of what 300, 400, 500 or more a month on pointless shit and activities, the very same shit thats fueled the economy for generations. It won't stick too much loss across the board.

No normal America budget no matter how tight and well thought out could handle a 300-500 a month increase in expense.

36k a year = about 2,400 a month take home. You increase the cost of living by 20% if we see 7 dollar gas. Too much for the average family to absorbed and still be a contributor to the general economy with disposable income. It could take years if not months for them to break free of their current so called resturctured or conservative budgets to put themselves into a cheaper home more efficient auto closer to work or school. The interm would kill.

[spurster]

http://misslissa.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/smart-car.jpg

[johnsmith]

doing a search of all your posts: 0.34 seconds

copying and pasting the nastiness: 20 minutes

getting over the feeling that I needed to wash my hands: 10 seconds

Conclusively showing that you are the biggest bully on the board: Timeless.

What does me being a "bully" have to do with you being a pretentious dickwad all the time?

[BacktoBasics]

http://misslissa.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/smart-car.jpgHere is my answer to this. You have a car that you owe 5k on that gets 20mpg. Your payment is 250.

You trade said car in for a car that gets 30mpg but it now costs you 300 a month. Congrats you just broke even monthly if not cost yourself more

Also same idea different spin.

You have a car that gets 20mpg. Now at 4 bucks a gallon.

You trade up for a car that gets 30mpg but gas in now 7 bucks. You budget on average just went up 50-75 bucks a month on just gas so even with way better gas mileage you expense is still way higher if gas creeps up that high. If it takes restructuring now image when shit hits the fan at 7 because no budget can be trimmed back enough in the immediate to fit that kind of increase. Thats just gas alone factor in the rest of it and you'll see.

This is why I laugh my ass off at all the stupid dumbshits who say yeah high gas prices it forces people to live a more modest life blah blah blah, lets go green. Its not so simple to rebudget in such a short period of time. Its not enough to be better people. Its too much of stretch. No way this country lets gas and gas alone break the system. Rich will get rich like always but at some point the crunch will actually trickle up and I believe that mark is at about 6 bucks a gallon.

[RandomGuy]

What does me being a "bully" have to do with you being a pretentious dickwad all the time?

I don't think standing up to bullies is being a pretentious dickwad.

If you prefer, I could simply start doing the same thing you do, and resort to post after post after post of insults.

Would that make me less pretentious?

[boutons_]

"yeah high gas prices it forces people to live a more modest life"

Correction, it forces EVERYONE to engineer oil products out of their lives.

It will take time (to replace gas-guzzlers), and it will be painful. Plus the cost of food up, people will have less discretionary funds (but USA household debt already exceeds household income by over 10%)

Do you have an alternative to oil conservation?

Look at the chart I posted, the US gallon price is about the same as other industrial countries BEFORE those countries add tax.

Low-cost oil has taken decades to penetrate and pollute every level of human life. It will be long and painful to reduce it significantly. The era of cheap oil is over, and the USA is still childishly, irresponsibly reacting, rather than responsibly anticipating.

[johnsmith]

I don't think standing up to bullies is being a pretentious dickwad.

If you prefer, I could simply start doing the same thing you do, and resort to post after post after post of insults.

Would that make me less pretentious?

I'll tell you what, if you stop acting like you are an all knowing douche bag and quit talking out of your ass and mentioning your education, I'll stop bullying.

By the way, where are my fucking research papers I asked for?

[BacktoBasics]

"yeah high gas prices it forces people to live a more modest life"

Correction, it forces EVERYONE to engineer oil products out of their lives.

It will take time (to replace gas-guzzlers), and it will be painful. Plus the cost of food up, people will have less discretionary funds (but USA household debt already exceeds household income by over 10%)

Do you have an alternative to oil conservation?

Look at the chart I posted, the US gallon price is about the same as other industrial countries BEFORE those countries add tax.

Low-cost oil has taken decades to penetrate and pollute every level of human life. It will be long and painful to reduce it significantly. The era of cheap oil is over, and the USA is still childishly, irresponsibly reacting, rather than responsibly anticipating.You mistake "long and painful change for the better" with "complete and udder collapse".

I don't argue that change is good or for the better but its just not generally feasible to increase the cost of living by 20% in less than two calendar years. You talking about triggering the beginning of a complete economic collapse.


It will take time (to replace gas-guzzlers), and it will be painful. Plus the cost of food up, people will have less discretionary funds (but USA household debt already exceeds household income by over 10%)

In my eyes it will likely take 4-7 years for the average family to successfully trim out 500-600 dollars a month in income. Thats counting being fically conservative and even eating less. Not counting the fact that trimming 500 off but adding 300 in inflation hardly helps the cause. The solution for most is to simply let a debt or two go completely off the books to compensates for whatever shortcomings they have even after cutting back on gas, food and fun money.

Thats already becoming a national problem with no easy solution so sitting there saying oh yeah bring it on and it will be painful and so forth but in the end it'll be better....NO WAY. Too much too soon and its going to do way more harm than long term good. Remember cutting back on 500 now hardly would equate to 200 in 2 years with 7 dollar gas. Too big of jump too soon for what you said is already a country stretched to the max and beyond.

You act like you're thinking big picture but you're not even close.

Big fucking deal if you can increase you gas mileage by 33% if you have take on a whole new debt to do it.

How much can a real family trim off of grocery money? 20 bucks a week? You can't even begin to concievably trim it down enough to compensate for the massive inflation that would follow 7 dollar gas.

I guess you think we should all be eating oatmeal and water for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

[RandomGuy]

If you prefer, I could simply start doing the same thing you do, and resort to post after post after post of insults.


douche bag

:rolleyes

[boutons_]

"You talking about triggering the beginning of a complete economic collapse."

no, I'm not. You are. scare-mongering is always more fun than trying anything.

As I showed, gasoline expenditure is under 3% of national income, moving to 4% is not economic collapse.

Still no alternative to consuming oil as wastefully as now? didn't think so.

The "solution" will be forced upon on us now as a "free market" solution (speculation, manipulation, supply/demand) so loved by right-wingers.

So far, the "barrel of a gun" solution stealing Iraqi oil hasn't worked out too well, has it?

[RandomGuy]

I guess you think we should all be eating oatmeal and water for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

No, not really.

We got ourselves into this mess by not taking a long term view of things.

Collectively, we made a lot of individual choices, and now have to live with the results, good or bad.

I am not happy about it, despite what you seem to think. It just is what it is.

[Spur-Addict]

N6V5ym9kx_8

COUGH** Private owned Federal Reserve COUGH** COUGH huge problem COUGH**

[BacktoBasics]

"You talking about triggering the beginning of a complete economic collapse."

no, I'm not. You are. scare-mongering is always more fun than trying anything.

As I showed, gasoline expenditure is under 3% of national income, moving to 4% is not economic collapse.

Still no alternative to consuming oil as wastefully as now? didn't think so.

The "solution" will be forced upon on us now as a "free market" solution (speculation, manipulation, supply/demand) so loved by right-wingers.

So far, the "barrel of a gun" solution stealing Iraqi oil hasn't worked out too well, has it?Again you fail to see how moving up gas cost moves everything up. If it was just a simple increase of 200 a month for gas to 300 a month for gas we could all easily handle it.

You move gas up and it all follows

Food
Clothes
Shampoo
Tooth paste
Furniture
Power
Water
Air (it now cost .75 to get air at the cornerstore not .25 or .50 like before
Gardening supplies
Eating out
Eating in
business cards
shoe laces
hairspray
makeup
jewelry
repair men
auto parts
the vehicles themselves
plastics
cardboard
steel
aluminum
wood
nails

Fucking all of it. We aren't talking about just the price of gas increasing that would be a godsend.

You bump gas up 200 a month you might as well collectively bump the actual cost around it up another 200 bucks.

You cannot take a median family income and bump their budget up 400 bucks a month. It financially won't work. I'm not being an alarmist here. Its taken two years for some of the other stuff around gas to creep up. What was once a 2 dollar sammich is now 3.99 and so forth so as we sit here at 4 dollar gas and feel a little pinch we are going to feel a massive blow when the cost reaches 7 and all the other expenses in life fall in line with higher fuel prices.

We just saw the price of steel go up 30% based on shipping and rendering costs. You double your gas and bam you gonna see another spike in the 30-40% range.

We bump gas up .25 or .30 no big deal we can all absord and conserve a bit more but not if it has a full economical impact on the entire board of expense which is exacty what it does.

As it stands right now a good majority of the banks have bailed out on all recreational financing and pretty soon they'll move away from mid level necessity items like homes and cars. This doesn't create competition it eliminates it. Partner that with all the middle class defaulting on loans to off set costs of living and you have the recipe for an unbelievably slow economy if you have millions of middle class workers with the money who are over budget with shit credit and no lenders buying average FICOs like they did 10 years ago. Putting pressure on people financially and causing them to think differently isn't going to invoke change it'll cause panic and the end result will be a dead economy.

Cost goes up on everything

Middle America begins to default on current unaffordable loans

Banks refuse to buy average to below average paper due to risk

Limited amount of buyers due to lack of financing options

=

Slow fucking economy. We think its slow now just wait.

Stop thinking gas as just gas as just one bill rising. Its attached to everything and you can't just wake up and suddenly say "oh we should be looking elsewhere". Thats a process that should have been played out like Europe did it. Slow Slow Slow process so its can be worked with and manipulated. America was flat too stupid to plan for something like this but then again they probably didn't think a good majority of the politicians would have oil monies in their back pocket.

[DarkReign]

I don't believe that will be the case if we see 7 bucks a gallon. The current America which is driven by middle class frequent spenders will all but dry up if 80 bucks in groceries again doubles to 160. Remember what was once (two years ago) 80 bucks in food is not 120. Double it again and you've maxxed out a family. Too many people in dead in jobs and with more expensive food, gas, clothing and so forth it simply won't manage. There will be next to no disposible income within your primary audience. Sure the rich will still spend but core group of people that push this countries economy are the middle class guys. Everyone is trimming back but if you force them to trim back too much then bam you got nothing. It won't work and gas will be eventually level off for society to reach a functional state. Its already more than it should be.

:lmao

You seem to have this assumption that the government has some sort of vested interest in maintaining the middle class. Hilarious.

Here is a fact: the government's interest in you starts and ends with your tax payments. Beyond that, go fuck yourself.

If you think about the term "middle class", its immediately recognized as a subjective term. A term that has varying definitions across the globe. Middle Class in the US is a good thing. Whats the middle class like in China? India? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Africa? Anywhere else?

Im sure some of those other middle classes will more or less line up with our definition. But my best guess tells me a vast majority of the others do not. Its what we would call a "popualtion of poverty". Well, thats true...when looked at through our American-colored glasses.

But to them, theyre no different than the guy next door...or in the next town...or in the next country. To him, hes middle class.

Middle Class is a moving target with an ever-changing definition. Ive always defined it as what a majority of people live like in your country. Well, if a majority are broke.....

Moreover, you make a good point that hurting the buying power of your typical American is not good for business. All very true.

But when a majority of Americans cant name one Supreme Court Justice, or the Vice President for example, you start to realize Americans have a fucked up priority list.

Im sure internet, television and movie industries will be juuust fine. Which account for the largest portion of other companies advertising budgets. I think we'd all be surprised by how stupid everyday people really are.

[DarkReign]

America was flat too stupid to plan for something like this but then again they probably didn't think a good majority of the politicians would have oil monies in their back pocket.

Too stupid? I disagree, sir. I'd think this is going according to plan, near perfectly.

[BacktoBasics]

Too stupid? I disagree, sir. I'd think this is going according to plan, near perfectly.Well the oil people can't exactly be called stupid at this point. They'll push as long as they possibly can. Why do you think gas is already a bit inflated in comparision to the real demand.


sure internet, television and movie industries will be juuust fine. Which account for the largest portion of other companies advertising budgets. I think we'd all be surprised by how stupid everyday people really are.

Sarcasm? IDK

I expect to see a cut back on tele and movies. Not to mention if a good majority of disposible income driven business's are struggling I'd expect to see quite a significant drop in advertising budgets as well. Although it will likely swing up for a year or two to see if they can generate more business off the additional advertising.

[BacktoBasics]

Essentially my whole point is how do you take a family income of

2,400 a month

With bills around 1,400 monthly and increase that amount to 1,900. There is a wall somewhere in there where they can no longer rebudget and cut back and you effectively eliminate nearly all disposible income. Which is exactly what this country functions on.

I think that inflation wall is at 6 bucks a gallon and how its cost pertains to the wide arrange of living expenses.

Once you hit 6 or so and more there's no more room to budget the extra cost in. The end result would have a pretty ugly effect accross the board.

[Spur-Addict]

Instead of focusing on the tentacles of the problem, why don't we focus on the central problem, The Federal Reserve.

[boutons_]

"you effectively eliminate nearly all disposible income."

Americans have done that already by running househeld debt well beyond household income. With COL rising, they will have no real $$$ to pay down their credit card debt, their cc interest will skyrocket, and they will get slaughtered by the lenders.

Now some of you may understand why 50M Americans have no health insurance, other than dubya's "just go to the Emergency Room".

[johnsmith]

"you effectively eliminate nearly all disposible income."

Americans have done that already by running househeld debt well beyond household income. With COL rising, they will have no real $$$ to pay down their credit card debt, their cc interest will skyrocket, and they will get slaughtered by the lenders.

Now some of you may understand why 50M Americans have no health insurance, other than dubya's "just go to the Emergency Room".


Please note that these are estimates:

Family making $75,000 a year (we'll use that number for Obama's sake).

After taxes, they receive $56,250.
After insurance and retirement, they receive $51,000 per year.
That breaks down to $4,250 per month.

The following are bills:
Mortgage/Taxes/Insurance - $1,200 (This is definately a Texas number)
Phone/Cable/Internet - $150.00
Gas/Electric - $250
Water - $150
Student Loans - $400
Groceries - $250 (We'll say they don't have kids)
Vehicles - $600 (Probably on the low end)
Gas - $600 (as it stands today)

That totals up to $3,600 total. The lucky middle class folks that have "ran up credit card bills" as boutons states have about $650 disposable income as it stands right now.

Now, let's add another $500 to that gas total and the lucky middle class folks that have "ran up credit card bills" as boutons states have about $150 disposable income as it could stand then, plus, there is no credit card debt in there.

Better fucking hope no one gets hurt or a car breaks down.

So as I said before to boutons, fuck you, the American middle class hates you.

[Extra Stout]

This is all part of the plan to stop illegal immigration. If the standard of living in the United States is exactly the same as Mexico, there is no incentive to come here anymore.

[smeagol]

This is all part of the plan to stop illegal immigration. If the standard of living in the United States is exactly the same as Mexico, there is no incentive to come here anymore.

Ahhh . . . stop crying already . . . you gringos have money. You can afford high gas prices.

[mavs>spurs2]

Ahhh . . . stop crying already . . . you gringos have money. You can afford high gas prices.

No we can't..read johnsmith's post, it breaks down the cost of living pretty well.

[mavs>spurs2]

Just freakin' great. I finally get a SUV and now I'm getting screwed big time. I'll have to trade it in for a more economical vehicle asap. I seriously thinking about getting a scooter. I've added a basket to my bike for small errands.

Hi, DoubtingThomas :rollin

[Extra Stout]

Ahhh . . . stop crying already . . . you gringos have money. You can afford high gas prices.
Visit Michigan or Ohio some time.

[johnsmith]

No, not really.

We got ourselves into this mess by not taking a long term view of things.

Collectively, we made a lot of individual choices, and now have to live with the results, good or bad.

I am not happy about it, despite what you seem to think. It just is what it is.

Last I checked I didn't do a damn thing to have my gas prices so high.

[Spur-Addict]

:frying: <<<That's what the Fed is doing to us except money comes out everytime. The root of the problem is the Fed, all this other bullshit is avoidable and more controllable after control of the Fed is gained.


:wakeup

[smeagol]

Visit Michigan or Ohio some time.

I've been in NY and Miami and have seen all those Mercedes, Porchas and Beemers. The guys who drive those can afford plenty of gas.

But seriously, my comment was meant to be sarcastic. It looks like I failed. Next time I'll blue it, or emoticon it.

[xrayzebra]

yeah high gas prices it forces people to live a more modest life"

Correction, it forces EVERYONE to engineer oil products out of their lives.

It will take time (to replace gas-guzzlers), and it will be painful. Plus the cost of food up, people will have less discretionary funds (but USA household debt already exceeds household income by over 10%)

Do you have an alternative to oil conservation?

Spoken like a true socialist. Yeah I have an alternative to oil conservation. Drill more wells. Simple solution isn't it.

I love the way liberals do their thing. Take a plentiful supply of something and make it scarce. Like water in the Edwards. Electricity, when their is a plentiful supply of coal, natural gas and nuclean power.

Why, God only knows. Power, Global warming (already proven beyond a doubt as pure crap) I will take the first option. Power. Liberals take a little bite, then a little more and then take the whole. All in the name of nature, rights or whatever sounds good, at the time. You know like change and hope.

[RandomGuy]

Please note that these are estimates:

Family making $75,000 a year (we'll use that number for Obama's sake).

After taxes, they receive $56,250.
After insurance and retirement, they receive $51,000 per year.
That breaks down to $4,250 per month.

The following are bills:
Mortgage/Taxes/Insurance - $1,200 (This is definately a Texas number)
Phone/Cable/Internet - $150.00
Gas/Electric - $250
Water - $150
Student Loans - $400
Groceries - $250 (We'll say they don't have kids)
Vehicles - $600 (Probably on the low end)
Gas - $600 (as it stands today)

That totals up to $3,600 total. The lucky middle class folks that have "ran up credit card bills" as boutons states have about $650 disposable income as it stands right now.

Now, let's add another $500 to that gas total and the lucky middle class folks that have "ran up credit card bills" as boutons states have about $150 disposable income as it could stand then, plus, there is no credit card debt in there.

Better fucking hope no one gets hurt or a car breaks down.

So as I said before to boutons, fuck you, the American middle class hates you.
You vastly overestimated the income taxes. Instead of $18,750, your childless couple would only be paying about $7500 woth of income taxes to the federal government, probably less. $12,000 if you throw in what got taken out for SS and medicaid.
The first $17,500 worth of income is tax free for married couples, assuming no itemized deductions.

After that, you get the interest on the student loans AND the interest on the mortgage out of taxable income.

Leaving roughly $55,000 taxed at a 13.6% marginal rate.


But, your ultimate point is still pretty valid. Any increase in overall expenses is a "bottom line" dollar that takes away the stuff left over dollar for dollar.

[johnsmith]

You vastly overestimated the income taxes. Instead of $18,750, your childless couple would only be paying about $7500 woth of income taxes to the federal government, probably less. $12,000 if you throw in what got taken out for SS and medicaid.
The first $17,500 worth of income is tax free for married couples, assuming no itemized deductions.

After that, you get the interest on the student loans AND the interest on the mortgage out of taxable income.

Leaving roughly $55,000 taxed at a 13.6% marginal rate.


But, your ultimate point is still pretty valid. Any increase in overall expenses is a "bottom line" dollar that takes away the stuff left over dollar for dollar.


How do you figure? 7,500 is only 10% correct.

I'm not arguing here I'm asking.

[johnsmith]

Never mind, I just noticed the "hidden stuff.

But I'm still basing my estimates off month-to-month on what a married couple without kids would have.

[boutons_]

Quit yer bitchin about the price of gas.

This is nothing but the "Free Market" working its "creative destruction" on personal wealth.

Who could possibly be against the Free Fucking Market?

The oilcos have flat out refused to drill on the leases they already have. They are "free" to game the "market" that way.

[johnsmith]

Quit yer bitchin about the price of gas.

This is nothing but the "Free Market" working its "creative destruction" on personal wealth.

Who could possibly be against the Free Fucking Market?

The oilcos have flat out refused to drill on the leases they already have. They are "free" to game the "market" that way.



Enough Boutons, the grown ups are talking now.

[RandomGuy]

How do you figure? 7,500 is only 10% correct.

I'm not arguing here I'm asking.

The ultimate tax bill is only 10% of total earnings, you are right in that regard.

Since the final, taxable income is about $55,000 you have to remember that the taxes are instituted in a gradual way:

$0-15650= 10% is taxed PLUS

the next step up
15650-$63700 = 15% is taxed

So the marginal tax rate is something of a weighted average. 10% of the first 15,650, then 15% of next chunk up to 63,700, or in this case, 15% of 55,000-15650

It is detailed at the end of the tax tables. The tax tables are a quick reference guide calculated from this formula.

You also left out a few things in your budget, like clothes, and underestimate what two people would spend on grocercies ($2 per meal times 3 meals times 30 days is $180 each at a minimum). But I didn't want to point that out and sound too "know it all". Ultimately the point is the same.

[RandomGuy]

Quit yer bitchin about the price of gas.

This is nothing but the "Free Market" working its "creative destruction" on personal wealth.

Who could possibly be against the Free Fucking Market?

The oilcos have flat out refused to drill on the leases they already have. They are "free" to game the "market" that way.

Actually they haven't refused. There is simply not enough equipment or trained people to drill at any price. That will change in a hurry though, with all the money to be made. Give it another few years.

[johnsmith]

The ultimate tax bill is only 10% of total earnings, you are right in that regard.

Since the final, taxable income is about $55,000 you have to remember that the taxes are instituted in a gradual way:

$0-15650= 10% is taxed PLUS

the next step up
15650-$63700 = 15% is taxed

So the marginal tax rate is something of a weighted average. 10% of the first 15,650, then 15% of next chunk up to 63,700, or in this case, 15% of 55,000-15650

It is detailed at the end of the tax tables. The tax tables are a quick reference guide calculated from this formula.

You also left out a few things in your budget, like clothes, and underestimate what two people would spend on grocercies ($2 per meal times 3 meals times 30 days is $180 each at a minimum). But I didn't want to point that out and sound too "know it all". Ultimately the point is the same.

But this wouldn't change their monthly income would it? Isn't that money recovered around tax time because their paychecks affected by their gross income level and don't factor in marriage and total family income.

That was more of a question then a statement by the way.

[boutons_]

I know there is a drilling rig bottleneck, but I'm sure the US oilcos are complicit in that happy accident.

Even in a few years, when more domestic oil arrives, the oilcos will let the world price set their own price for their own oil.

[JoeChalupa]

I found gas during vacation for 3.75 and was foaming at the mouth.

[boutons_]

"With all this oil becoming available, the Aramco officials said they were baffled that the market seemed to be behaving as though there were a shortage."

Quote from a Saudi:

“We’ve asked all the international oil companies that buy from us if they want more oil,” Mr. Nasser said. “But we can’t find customers.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/world/middleeast/01saudi.html?pagewanted=print

Very strange. Are oilcos slowing oil's arrival to market to fabricate a shortage and increase their profits?

This confirms the idea of oil market analysts that the "market fundamentals" simply don't justify $140/barrel.

[RandomGuy]

But this wouldn't change their monthly income would it? Isn't that money recovered around tax time because their paychecks affected by their gross income level and don't factor in marriage and total family income.

That was more of a question then a statement by the way.

That depends on whether or not they chose to max out their withholding allowances or not.

The tax bill must be paid somehow. Either you can have a portion of the correct amount withheld from each paycheck, or set aside a good estimated amount per month so that when April 15th comes, you don't have a bill of $7k+ that you don't have the cash for.

It is better to set aside a certain amount in some kind of interest bearing savings account or CD, than to have it withheld by the government and let them have the money for free, of course.

Click here to see the IRS withholding allowance calculator. (http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96196,00.html)

7500/12= $625 per month 18000/12= $1500 per month

[johnsmith]

That depends on whether or not they chose to max out their withholding allowances or not.

The tax bill must be paid somehow. Either you can have a portion of the correct amount withheld from each paycheck, or set aside a good estimated amount per month so that when April 15th comes, you don't have a bill of $7k+ that you don't have the cash for.

It is better to set aside a certain amount in some kind of interest bearing savings account or CD, than to have it withheld by the government and let them have the money for free, of course.

Click here to see the IRS withholding allowance calculator. (http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=96196,00.html)

7500/12= $625 per month 18000/12= $1500 per month


You're right, and my numbers were based on a couple claiming zero. Ok, so having said all that, either fucking way, Boutons is wrong and the "average" middle class American doesn't need credit card debt to not be able to handle gas increases, they are already fucked. So again, Boutons, the American middle class hates you.


RG, thank you for the analysis.

[RandomGuy]

Please note that these are estimates:

Family making $75,000 a year (we'll use that number for Obama's sake).

After taxes, they receive $56,250.
After insurance and retirement, they receive $51,000 per year.
That breaks down to $4,250 per month.

The following are bills:
Mortgage/Taxes/Insurance - $1,200 (This is definately a Texas number)
Phone/Cable/Internet - $150.00
Gas/Electric - $250
Water - $150
Student Loans - $400
Groceries - $250 (We'll say they don't have kids)
Vehicles - $600 (Probably on the low end)
Gas - $600 (as it stands today)

That totals up to $3,600 total. The lucky middle class folks that have "ran up credit card bills" as boutons states have about $650 disposable income as it stands right now.

Now, let's add another $500 to that gas total and the lucky middle class folks that have "ran up credit card bills" as boutons states have about $150 disposable income as it could stand then, plus, there is no credit card debt in there.

Better fucking hope no one gets hurt or a car breaks down.

So as I said before to boutons, fuck you, the American middle class hates you.

If I may:

Family making $75,000 a year, before any taxes
After federal income taxes taxes, social security, and medicare, they receive $63,000

63,000/12=
$5,250 monthly inflow

Retirement savings at $200 each =400
Health costs (insurance + co-pays etc) at $400 each = 800
credit card debt servicing, total out of the ass figure= $200 per month
(assumes approximately $6,000 in debt)
Morgage+ all housing costs= $1200
Two cell phones, internet service, and cable= $220
Utilities/trash/etc = $400
Groceries/food = $500
Vehicle payments = $600
Vehicle other = $200
(oil changes, tires, registration, insurance, etc)
Clothes = $75 (two work wardrobes, some dry cleaning)
Student loans = $400
(assumes $40000 total between couple)
Gasoline = $500
(two cars, 3100 total monthly miles at 25 mpg and $4.00/gallon)
Entertainment = $50 (probably understated)
Other = $200
(tv, stereos, music, hobbies, stuff that breaks, etc, etc, etc)

Total= $5745

Ouch. What to cut to make up the $495 difference? Retirement savings? Health insurance? Borrow more on credit cards?

There is some room for "give" in this budget, and it is certainly not all-inclusive, but ouch.

Analysis:
In this budget, the total "debt servicing" (interest+principle costs) for all debt is:
Mortgage= $800
vehicles= $600
credit =$400
student loans =$400

$2200 per month, or 39% of all outflows.

If gas goes up by another 50%, that is another $250 that cannot be spent elsewhere.

Replace vehicles with more fuel efficient, smaller cheaper ones could save $200 per month in payments, $40 per month in "vehicle other", and about $125 in gasoline for a total savings of $365.

That right there is probably the easiest/biggest single thing to do to boost cash flow, followed by cutting out retirement savings, and paying off credit cards, and giving up health insurance, in that order.

There are lots of other options, of course, such as work a bit more, land line instead of cell phones, etc.

[RandomGuy]

RG, thank you for the analysis.

You're welcome.

[Wild Cobra]

Now I may be wrong, but won't the 25% tax break include those $75k families when the tax cuts expire?


FYI:

For future calculations rather than 2007 numbers, 2008 tax rates:

Tax Rate Schedules for Individuals and Trusts--2008

Single Taxpayers--2008

______Taxable income:__________________ Tax:
__Over___But not over________ Tax______ +%__ On amount over____________

$______0 _____$ 8,025________$____0.00__ 10______ $______0
___8,025 _____ 32,550__________ 802.50__ 15__________8,025
__32,550 _____ 78,850________ 4,481.25__ 25________ 32,550
__78,850 ____ 164,550________16,056.25__ 28________ 78,850
_164,550 ____ 357,700________40,052.25__ 33________164,550
_357,700______.......______ 103,791.75__ 35________357,700
__


Married Individuals Filing Joint and Surviving Spouses--2008

______Taxable income:__________________ Tax:
__Over____ But not over________ Tax______ +%__ On amount over____________

$______0____ $ 16,050________$____ 0.00__10______ $______0
__16,050______ 65,100__________1,605.00__15________ 16,050
__65,100______131,450__________8,962.50__25_______ _ 65,100
131,450______200,300________ 25,550.00__28________131,450
200,300______357,700________ 44,828.00__33________200,300
357,700______.......________ 96,770.00__35________357,700


Married Individuals Filing Separate--2008

______Taxable income:__________________ Tax:
__Over____ But not over________ Tax______ +%__ On amount over____________

$______0____ $__8,025________$____0.00__ 10______ $______0
__ 8,025______ 32,550__________ 802.50__ 15__________8,025
__32,550______ 65,725________ 4,481.25__ 25________ 32,550
__65,725______100,150________12,775.00__ 28________ 65,725
100,150______178,850________22,414.00__ 33________100,150
178,850______.......________48,385.00__ 35________178,850



Heads Of Households--2008

______Taxable income:__________________ Tax:
__Over____ But not over________ Tax______ +%__ On amount over____________

$______0____ $ 11,450________$____0.00__ 10______ $______0
__11,450______ 43,650________ 1,145.00__ 15________ 11,450
__43,650______112,650________ 5,975.00__ 25________ 43,650
112,650______182,400________23,225.00__ 28________112,650
182,400______357,700________42,755.00__ 33________182,400
357,700______.......______ 100,604.00__ 35________357,700


Standard Deduction--2008

Filing Status______________________ Standard Deduction

Married filing joint and
surviving spouses______________________ $10,900

Heads of Household________________________8,000
__
Single individuals________________________5,450

Married, filing separate__________________5,450

Personal Exemption--2008

Amount--$3,500

The SS and Medicare are still at 6.2% and 1.45% for a 7.45% of applicable income. Keep in mind many middle class are self employed and pay both ends of that for 14.9%!
4.9%!

[Nbadan]

Retirement savings at $200 each =400
Health costs (insurance + co-pays etc) at $400 each = 800
credit card debt servicing, total out of the ass figure= $200 per month
(assumes approximately $6,000 in debt)
Morgage+ all housing costs= $1200
Two cell phones, internet service, and cable= $220
Utilities/trash/etc = $400
Groceries/food = $500
Vehicle payments = $600
Vehicle other = $200
(oil changes, tires, registration, insurance, etc)
Clothes = $75 (two work wardrobes, some dry cleaning)
Student loans = $400
(assumes $40000 total between couple)
Gasoline = $500
(two cars, 3100 total monthly miles at 25 mpg and $4.00/gallon)
Entertainment = $50 (probably understated)
Other = $200
(tv, stereos, music, hobbies, stuff that breaks, etc, etc, etc)

In most cases retirement savings are taken out of pre-tax income and if your paying $800 per month in insurance, and your company isn't paying diddly....it's time to move on...

[BRHornet45]

sons I CANNOT WAIT for gas to get that high! it will be a wonderful moment in America.

[RandomGuy]

In most cases retirement savings are taken out of pre-tax income and if your paying $800 per month in insurance, and your company isn't paying diddly....it's time to move on...

That depends on whether you are contributing to a Roth IRA, or a conventional IRA.

Go for a Roth that draws from post tax-income, because it shields you from the very high risk of future taxe increases.

$800 per month for two people includes all the happy-fun copays, prescription costs, deductibles, dental, and the host of other "holes" in health insurance that exist, in addition to the out-of-pocket premiums.

I also mentally lumped in stuff like life insurance, disability insurance, etc. into that cost.

Given the rate at which employers are dropping paid health insurance, or requiring employees to pony up part of the cost, it seems fairly reasonable, but it might be a bit overstated, as you suggest.

$75,000 for a two income family means $38k each, and that is somewhat on the low end for professional, college educated jobs. I assumed they were relatively junior employees who tend to have less paid for by their employers.

I know my bad habit of overly long posts, so I tried to keep it short and not say all of this stuff explicitly, because it detracted from the simple point I was trying to make.

[johnsmith]

That depends on whether you are contributing to a Roth IRA, or a conventional IRA.

Go for a Roth that draws from post tax-income, because it shields you from the very high risk of future taxe increases.

$800 per month for two people includes all the happy-fun copays, prescription costs, deductibles, dental, and the host of other "holes" in health insurance that exist, in addition to the out-of-pocket premiums.

I also mentally lumped in stuff like life insurance, disability insurance, etc. into that cost.

Given the rate at which employers are dropping paid health insurance, or requiring employees to pony up part of the cost, it seems fairly reasonable, but it might be a bit overstated, as you suggest.

$75,000 for a two income family means $38k each, and that is somewhat on the low end for professional, college educated jobs. I assumed they were relatively junior employees who tend to have less paid for by their employers.

I know my bad habit of overly long posts, so I tried to keep it short and not say all of this stuff explicitly, because it detracted from the simple point I was trying to make.

The only reason I picked $75,000 was because that's what the mesia......errrr.....Obama always throws around.

[RandomGuy]

Now I may be wrong, but won't the 25% tax break include those $75k families when the tax cuts expire?

FYI:

For future calculations rather than 2007 numbers, 2008 tax rates:

Tax Rate Schedules for Individuals and Trusts--2008The SS and Medicare are still at 6.2% and 1.45% for a 7.45% of applicable income. Keep in mind many middle class are self employed and pay both ends of that for 14.9%!
4.9%!

"25% Tax break"? You will have to be a bit more clear about what exactly you are talking about for me to address it.

I did indeed use 2007 tax tables and figures. Had I used 2008 tax tables and figures, the ending income tax would have been less, probably by about 2 to 4 percent less.

People who aren't self-employed still pay the extra SS and Medicare, they just don't quite see it. That extra money is paid by the employer and is therefore not available to be paid to the employee. Kinduva weird system, but that is what it is.

[RandomGuy]

The only reason I picked $75,000 was because that's what the mesia......errrr.....Obama always throws around.

That is about right for a two income household.

The median US income is about $38k if I remember correctly.

The funny thing about that is that with the US dollar at record lows against the Euro, you could probably earn more, on average, by working in Europe.

"but their taxes are higher than ours"

Not really. All of their taxes tend to be federal, with no city or state taxes, so it looks like more.

Economists have studied the total % of income paid for all levels of gov't in the US, and it ends up being pretty close to that of Europe. I can probably find the link to this if asked.

[boutons_]

"their taxes are higher than ours"

but their health care costs are MUCH lower, and everybody's covered, the doctors are providing care rather than fighting with private insurance companies about which treatments they can do, and which will be covered. the "free market" at work. Private insurance companies deciding on your treatments so they maximize their proftis, not maximize your health.

[RandomGuy]

"their taxes are higher than ours"

but their health care costs are MUCH lower, and everybody's covered, the doctors are providing care rather than fighting with private insurance companies about which treatments they can do, and which will be covered. the "free market" at work. Private insurance companies deciding on your treatments so they maximize their proftis, not maximize your health.

German doctors spend 50% less on administrative costs than US doctors do. Puts some teeth behind the efficiency arguments for a single-payor system.

[Wild Cobra]

"25% Tax break"? You will have to be a bit more clear about what exactly you are talking about for me to address it.

Yep, I meant 28% tax bracket for marginal rates.

I don't have the time I used to have to be on the internet. I rushed my entry and didn't make several others I wanted to. Just received my shipment of umber this morning. I'll be busy with home improvements.

FYI

When the demonrats don't renew the Bush tax Cuts, those in the 10% bracket will have a 50% tax increase on taxable income as it goes to 15%!

[RandomGuy]

Yep, I meant 28% tax bracket for marginal rates.

I don't have the time I used to have to be on the internet. I rushed my entry and didn't make several others I wanted to. Just received my shipment of umber this morning. I'll be busy with home improvements.

FYI

When the demonrats don't renew the Bush tax Cuts, those in the 10% bracket will have a 50% tax increase on taxable income as it goes to 15%!

Who exactly is in the 10% tax bracket again?

[Wild Cobra]

Who exactly is in the 10% tax bracket again?

I would guess mostly single minimum wage earners working full time, and those making twice as much with a family. I don't really know the numbers, but there are people in that bracket. I just thought I'd point out that it does amount to a 50% increase in federal income taxes for quite a few people.

A single mother with one kid making $23,000 would have her federal tax increase from $800 to $1200 based on the 2008 tax table, when the demonrats let the Bush Tax cuts expire.

[RandomGuy]

I would guess mostly single minimum wage earners working full time, and those making twice as much with a family. I don't really know the numbers, but there are people in that bracket. I just thought I'd point out that it does amount to a 50% increase in federal income taxes for quite a few people.

A single mother with one kid making $23,000 would have her federal tax increase from $800 to $1200 based on the 2008 tax table, when the demonrats let the Bush Tax cuts expire.

Based on the tax table only, that would apply. Head of household standard deduction and two exemptions would leave $8,000 worth of taxable income.

BUT

There are two tax credits that not only take up the slack, but provide for a refund that the mother would likely receive.

One is the child tax credit, the other, the earned income tax credit. This is in addition to any credit that might be claimed for qualifying daycare expenses.

The federal income tax bill for your hypothetical mother at $23,000 would not change from $0.

[Oh, Gee!!]

never say never when it comes to gas prices

[Wild Cobra]

Based on the tax table only, that would apply. Head of household standard deduction and two exemptions would leave $8,000 worth of taxable income.

BUT

There are two tax credits that not only take up the slack, but provide for a refund that the mother would likely receive.

One is the child tax credit, the other, the earned income tax credit. This is in addition to any credit that might be claimed for qualifying daycare expenses.

The federal income tax bill for your hypothetical mother at $23,000 would not change from $0.

OK, I made a mistake forgetting about that. The current $1000 credit applies for a 'qualifying child' and not all qualify, for do 18 years olds. I don't remember the details. Once the Bush Tax cuts expire, this will be reduced to $500 per child. This is now $700 instead of $1200. A $700 increase rather than a $400 increase. Thank-you for pointing out my mistake! This single mother gets dinged even harder than I thought!

Yes, she still doesn't owe taxes because of Earned Income Credit, but she now has $700 less coming to her in that total!

[RandomGuy]

OK, I made a mistake forgetting about that. The current $1000 credit applies for a 'qualifying child' and not all qualify, for do 18 years olds. I don't remember the details. Once the Bush Tax cuts expire, this will be reduced to $500 per child. This is now $700 instead of $1200. A $700 increase rather than a $400 increase. Thank-you for pointing out my mistake! This single mother gets dinged even harder than I thought!

Yes, she still doesn't owe taxes because of Earned Income Credit, but she now has $700 less coming to her in that total!

You make a lot of mistakes, mostly because you have poor critical thinking skills when it comes to hearing/reading something you agree with on whatever conservative news source you get your shit from and failing to apply any level of honest questioning to it, propaganda-boy.

Now that we have figured out that a Single mom making $23,000 still wouldn't pay any taxes after the much-vaunted Bush tax cuts expire, perhaps you can answer me this with your vast knowledge of the tax code:


After the Bush tax cuts expire, how much more in taxes would a single mom making $500,000 a year pay?

[xrayzebra]

After the Bush tax cuts expire, how much more in taxes would a single mom making $500,000 a year pay?

I don't know, but do you know if she is actively dating. I sure would like to get to know her.......even at my age. With that kinda income she can even be u g l y as a mud fence. And I would qualify as a double exemption.:toast:lol:lol

[RandomGuy]

I don't know, but do you know if she is actively dating. I sure would like to get to know her.......even at my age. With that kinda income she can even be u g l y as a mud fence. And I would qualify as a double exemption.:toast:lol:lol

:lol

Yeah buddy. Good luck, we could all use a sugar mama...

[Wild Cobra]

You make a lot of mistakes, mostly because you have poor critical thinking skills when it comes to hearing/reading something you agree with on whatever conservative news source you get your shit from and failing to apply any level of honest questioning to it, propaganda-boy.

Typical answer from someone who knows he is wrong. Not willing to dispute the numbers. The single mother has less money afrer filing taxes than befor. Is that disputed?



Now that we have figured out that a Single mom making $23,000 still wouldn't pay any taxes after the much-vaunted Bush tax cuts expire, perhaps you can answer me this with your vast knowledge of the tax code:

She gets far less in earned income credit. I have acknowledged my mistake. Why cannot you do the same?



After the Bush tax cuts expire, how much more in taxes would a single mom making $500,000 a year pay?

Less. I'm not going to figure it out.

Why do hou hate the rich so much as to want to penalize them?

[RandomGuy]

Why do hou hate the rich so much as to want to penalize them?

I don't.

Why do you think people should benefit from a system, but not have to pay back into the system that produced the wealth to begin with?