Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community

Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community (https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/)
-   Hi, I am... (https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f26/)
-   -   WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06 (https://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f26/wsj-retirement-section-12-11-06-a-24480.html)

jackcjackson 12-21-2006 02:19 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Am I the only one here NOT in favor of social engineering through the tax code ( that is already so bloated that NO ONE alive really knows it), high tax socialism,etc?

brewer12345 12-21-2006 02:48 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jackcjackson
Am I the only one here NOT in favor of social engineering through the tax code ( that is already so bloated that NO ONE alive really knows it), high tax socialism,etc?

Heheh, absolutely, Comrade. Eat the rich! From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Death to the imperialist-capitalist overlords!

peggy 12-22-2006 07:54 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888

Sorry I am sick of the policies of our country. I waited on those gasoline lines back in the 70s I have ALWAYS owned a 4 cyl vehicle for 35 years always drive a small car, Oh guess what when the children were still in the house THEY FIT JUST FINE IN THE BACK OF THE HONDA CIVIC and their stuff FIT IN THE TRUNK! Trips if it did not fit IT DID NOT GO WITH US!!!

American parents and their I NEED THE SUV OR MINIVAN BECAUSE OF THE KIDZ STUFF! $hit what a bunch of moronic parents. Do they know 15 of the 19 hijackers were SAUDIS on 9/11?????????

Back in the 1970's, though, you didn't have laws requiring that every child under age five or under 50 pounds (whatever the current restriction is) MUST be in a car seat, and every single person in the car over those limits MUST be seat belted.

My MIL tossed five kids into a station wagon back in the late 1960's and drove across country. If anyone tried that today, they'd get a bunch of tickets right and left for not having the kids properly buckled in.

I know, I know, average family size is shrinking, but that means that for every couple like DH and me with no kids, there's a couple with four kids. How are you going to fit mom, dad, and four kids into that selfsame Honda Civic?

brewer12345 12-22-2006 07:58 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by peggy
I know, I know, average family size is shrinking, but that means that for every couple like DH and me with no kids, there's a couple with four kids. How are you going to fit mom, dad, and four kids into that selfsame Honda Civic?

Yup. Exactly the reason we ended up with a minivan. Good luck squeezing all those carseats into a mid-sized sedan.

dumpster56 12-22-2006 11:13 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
It would work in a camry, a car that gets 30+ mpg, you can put three car seats in the back.

brewer12345 12-22-2006 11:16 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888
It would work in a camry, a car that gets 30+ mpg, you can put three car seats in the back.

Heh, ever tried it? And where do I put the two dogs? On the roof rack?

mathjak107 12-22-2006 06:25 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
i spend toooo much time in my car to be shoe horned into one of these skate board on wheels for the sake of economy. they are fine for running errands around town but trips are another story. i want performance, safety and comfort over mpg........ yep call me an infidel

jazz4cash 12-22-2006 06:25 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Ever since I stood in the gas lines, I have always thought we should have a gas tax to fund energy independance........not $5/gal....maybe 50 cents or a buck. Whatever level makes the best compromise between stimulating R&D, reducing wasted consumption, and maintaining freedom of movement.
There would need to be a trust fund (like the highway trust fund) so the money is not used for other expenses. The goverment should sponser a policy for private industry to to make the necessary advances and diversification to ensure our future freedom.

Everytime I 've tried to argue "gas is cheap" (compared to the rest of the world, inflation, $/mile traveled, or any other metric) with folks I know, I get "the look" that says "It is my birthright to consume!" When my barber bitched about the cost of gas and I say "Why are you driving an SUV?", his reply is "I LOVE my SUV!" I don't buy the argument that you MUST buy gas either........every jam packed rush hour highway I see has lots and lots of cars occupied by one person. I see long lines at the fast food drive thru and I often park, go inside, get served and am on my way before the last car in line gets through. We are just energy hogs and I can't think of any way to reduce consumption other than taxes. Any politician that dares utter "conservation" is DOA.

Bottom line in my opinion is we have NO ENERGY POLICY (good, bad, or otherwise) and we are letting short term economics ruin the future for our kids. We have tons of resources to utilize, but we are no better off than we were thirty years ago..........probably worse

dumpster56 12-22-2006 07:59 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jazz4cash
Ever since I stood in the gas lines, I have always thought we should have a gas tax to fund energy independance........not $5/gal....maybe 50 cents or a buck. Whatever level makes the best compromise between stimulating R&D, reducing wasted consumption, and maintaining freedom of movement.
There would need to be a trust fund (like the highway trust fund) so the money is not used for other expenses. The goverment should sponser a policy for private industry to to make the necessary advances and diversification to ensure our future freedom.

Everytime I 've tried to argue "gas is cheap" (compared to the rest of the world, inflation, $/mile traveled, or any other metric) with folks I know, I get "the look" that says "It is my birthright to consume!" When my barber bitched about the cost of gas and I say "Why are you driving an SUV?", his reply is "I LOVE my SUV!" I don't buy the argument that you MUST buy gas either........every jam packed rush hour highway I see has lots and lots of cars occupied by one person. I see long lines at the fast food drive thru and I often park, go inside, get served and am on my way before the last car in line gets through. We are just energy hogs and I can't think of any way to reduce consumption other than taxes. Any politician that dares utter "conservation" is DOA.

Bottom line in my opinion is we have NO ENERGY POLICY (good, bad, or otherwise) and we are letting short term economics ruin the future for our kids. We have tons of resources to utilize, but we are no better off than we were thirty years ago..........probably worse


Maybe rebuild the american railroads, it would put people to work at good jobs increase tax revenues and get people out of their cars.

I too see the fools yes FOOLS sitting in lines around fast food places 13 and 14 cars deep waiting for a breakfast buscuit. I laugh at them as I run by. I can run a 2 mile loop around the bojangles only to see the guy in 10th place in the line just making it to the window in his suv after I have been running 2 miles.

dumpster56 12-22-2006 08:00 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345
Heh, ever tried it? And where do I put the two dogs? On the roof rack?

Yes in fact we did this summer with the sisterinlaws kids, yes it worked. the dogs Boardem. Or rent a mini van for you vacation if you just have to take the dogs.

brewer12345 12-22-2006 08:02 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888
Yes in fact we did this summer with the sisterinlaws kids, yes it worked. the dogs Boardem. Or rent a mini van for you vacation if you just have to take the dogs.

No thanks. The van gets less than 10k miles a year and will do 25MPG on the highway, so its not like it is a huge pig. Plus when DW was rear-ended last month, I was a lot less worried knowing she was in a 4500# vehicle with a dozen airbags.

dumpster56 12-22-2006 08:17 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345
No thanks. The van gets less than 10k miles a year and will do 25MPG on the highway, so its not like it is a huge pig. Plus when DW was rear-ended last month, I was a lot less worried knowing she was in a 4500# vehicle with a dozen airbags.

You has a van. Not a problem I have always had the problem with the people who say they needed the big SUV that only got 12 mpg but the people wouldtell you oh I get 20 mpg in my suburban. Uh thats a FISH STORY!!

Khan 12-22-2006 09:37 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888
Yes in fact we did this summer with the sisterinlaws kids, yes it worked. the dogs Boardem. Or rent a mini van for you vacation if you just have to take the dogs.

Own something small for commute.
Rent something large for occasional use.

mathjak107 12-23-2006 03:09 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
its always amusing how the people who dont have to drive distances or commute to work want a gas tax and the rest of us to drive minature cars.

its like here in new york tolls on bridges go to fund mass transit. everytime theres a transit budget deficit the train riders want the drivers who use bridges to pay more towards their trains instead of all of new york footing the bill with a general tax increase. because someone works in a particular area they get kind of taxed unfairly by a toll that supports other things other than pay for the the bridge. i dont mind the extra gas costs to drive something comfortable.

its the ole if it dosnt effect me and i dont have to pay let someone else pay


let the same people who whine about what we should all drive stop over eating and get some exercise and stop costing the rest of us increased health insurance costs

jazz4cash 12-23-2006 03:11 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107
its always amusing how the people who dont have to drive distances or commute to work want a gas tax and the rest of us to drive minature cars.

Hey! Don't count ME in there..........We drive ALOT and I am only willing to "pay" a tax if it helps maintain our ability to freely move about whenever we need to. I think everybody outta drive whatever pleases and/or meets thier needs. Let's face it.....many of the choices folks make about thier personal transportation are not based on LBYM or any other practical basis. We talked about gas taxes, but same applies to any consumption of energy.

mathjak107 12-24-2006 03:24 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
more than likely all a tax would do is throw us back into the inflation scenerio of the 70's as everyone attempts to recover increased costs of living and moving about.
any oil saved would be quickly consumed by increased world demand in other growing areas.

i have to think it would turnout like the refrigerant and the ozone thing.

r12 shot up to 1,000 bucks for a tank because of restrictions on production in this country so we can protect the ozone layer.

well did we forget that when mexico , canada and the rest of the world still uses it there is still a hole? duh! .

Nords 12-24-2006 11:02 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107
i have to think it would turnout like the refrigerant and the ozone thing.
r12 shot up to 1,000 bucks for a tank because of restrictions on production in this country so we can protect the ozone layer.
well did we forget that when mexico , canada and the rest of the world still uses it there is still a hole? duh! .

You're right, Mathjak, doing nothing while waiting on someone else's initiative seems to be a much more affordable & convenient alternative.

You go first...

mathjak107 12-24-2006 11:13 AM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
works well ha ha ha .


i think the point is a lot of what is done in this world are either futile attempts of worthless technology that for all its brilliance goes no where; or we attempt some hair brain idea alone and we end up punishing ourselves while the rest of the planet just chugs along.

Nords 12-24-2006 12:09 PM

Re: WSJ Retirement Section 12/11/06
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107
i think the point is a lot of what is done in this world are either futile attempts of worthless technology that for all its brilliance goes no where; or we attempt some hair brain idea alone and we end up punishing ourselves while the rest of the planet just chugs along.

I think you're missing the beneficial side effects of environmental initiatives. Most of them provide a reason to sweep out old, costly, inefficient, polluting infrastructure and replace it with a more efficient system that happens to be more environmentally friendly and probably quicker/faster/cheaper to operate. Not only is it less of a concern, but companies willing to invest the capital expense are usually set up for higher profits.

I had to contend with submarine R12 for decades. R134 (and just about any other modern refrigerant) is well worth the effort for the improved safety & ease of use, not just because it doesn't catalyze ozone decay.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.