<i>"I think the taxation on vehicles and transportation should be directly corrolated to their gas mileage and environmental impact."</i>

Just curious ..... but you must have an unbelievably large guilt-complex when driving your "350HP 930". :eek: Wouldn't you sleep better with a little Toyota Prius or something parked in the driveway? :confused:

No No Curt, he meant YOU. Get with it my man:)

re; Flat Tax
 

Well said.

Getting rid of "compliance complexity" is WELL over-due.

The current "compliance complexity" is a HUGE disincentive to the formation of small business. Those complaining about "big business" taking over everything ought to think on that one. That is, who can afford the overhead of bean-counters who actually have a clue on how to navigate the tax structure?

My daily driver is a lot more environmentally friendly than the 930 not to mention its also a lot better for hauling around a child and large dog too boot. Its also ten years old so I have not contributed towards the use of the resources it takes to build a new car.

With current gas prices I am also happy to be getting around 30 MPG on 87 octane gas.

It more than makes up for the 17 MPG I get during short jaunts in my uncatalyzed turbo.

you're not showing nearly enough guilt or shame over your transportation attrocities ;)

All my attrocities were committed when I put 70K miles on the 930 as a daily driver.

If I could afford to do it all over again I would but after the car is upgraded and back together it will only be a fair weather flyer.

Yeah 350....

Show a little remorse...Start using that bike more....

And that retort to you made by a Cayenne S owner?

Hoo Hah!!!!

I have no guilt whatsover about driving a gas guzzler. :confused: 350HP930 is the one proposing penalities here and trying to justify his gas-guzzler. I happily burn a tank of premium each day and then for fun take the 911 out at night (which gets about 13 MPG!) and burn more.

<i>"most of the people I know I just happy to be working, paying their bills, and staying healthy, much less owning homes or getting a tax break.

there are a few that I know though that just bought million dollar homes and drive new Benz's and those are the ones I hear complaining about the gubnit and how much they are being cheated."</i>

And that's exactly the way it was planned by the politicians from day one .......

it's called the withholding tax. The single most ingenious, devious, repressive, destructive piece of legislation ever devised! First, understand that the government doesn't even trust you enough to send in your 'donation' - so they just steal the money before you even see your check (eliminates those pesky collection problems and the expense of administering this is paid by the employer - pure genius! ). Moreover, they put everyone on the installment plan by just stealing a little bit at a time - not enough that the majority ever get angry about it ......

OTOH, most upper income taxpayers pay their taxes quarterly - the way it should be. You essentially get your "full paycheck" with no deductions. But, 4 times per year you get your checkbook out and send in your 'government donation'. Without question, it's the largest check I write each quarter - sticks out like a sore thumb in fact ...... it does tend to make one a bit angry at the "gubnit" .....

People who have withholding taxes confiscated from their paychecks tend to not have a real good handle on how much they're really paying .... out of sight, out of mind.

Eliminate withholding tax and make everyone pay quarterly and there would be a much-needed tax revolution in this country.

cegerer- thats an interesting point. I do that, and Im comfortable with it. Does it concern me that the money isn't being spent well? Sure it does. But overall I feel like Im doing my part and Im just happy to be paid. My buddy hates taxes, but he claims 10 and has to dish out tens of thousands of dollars each year come April. That would make my blood boil for sure.

I've gotten smarter about the code though. I now have a CPA do my stuff and I can see that "working" the code results in some substantial differences. They say in life there are only 2 things that you have to spend good money on: your lawyer and your accountant.

Cerg:

Therein lies the problem. Your description of your automotive lifestyle is very self-centered. Multiply that by millions across the country and you have a passel of fuel being burned that would not be if such vehicles were more efficient.

What that does, is utilize an increasingly scarce resource and drive up the price (remember supply and demand) for everyone, including me, and I resent that.

Before you get your shorts in a twist, our car is a VW Passat. roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage. I left the need for a big showy vehicle behind me in the first fuel crunch of the 70s and have never looked back. I do not need to impress anyone, and if I require building materials, having them delivered is a heck of a lot cheaper than hauling around three tons of vehicle for the 99% of the time I do not need it. For example, 7 ton of river rock with a delivery charge of $19. Which brings up another point. There is a huge difference between "need" and "want" and most of the "me first" generation cannot or will not see the difference.

As a financial planner, I would have to guess that your income is quite high since, as a rule, only those with the mostest seem to grouse about the "gumment" to that extent.

Do I like taxes? Not especially. But until someone can come up with a way of paying for the services that the private sector cannot or will not provide such as nice roads for your Cayenne, I see no alternative. And, we are still taxed less than many other countries.

No offense, just a bit tired of the "me first" attitude.

:rolleyes: Wow. I haven't heard a sermon like that in ages ...... "need and want"????? You can't possibly take yourself seriously. You drive a VW Passat? Did you really "need" that? Wouldn't a smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient Jetta or Golf with no options been a better choice for society as a whole?

And why do you assume that somebody driving a "big showy vehicle" is trying to impress someone :confused: That may have been your MO, but I'm simply a lifelong Porsche fanatic in worn-out jeans and a T-shirt who bought a Cayenne because it perfectly suits my business and personal transportation needs. Nobody around here even knows what it is! If I wanted to impress, I'd buy an Escalade with 22" spinners ..... ;)

But back to taxes: being vehemently opposed to our current tax system is unrelated to one's income level - stealing money is morally wrong. :cool:

How can it be stealing money if it is needed to run the country?

No-one would pay if it was voluntary - thus, they have to "take" it.

That is the problem Cam...they are "taking it." If the govt is using money for things that noone would pay for voluntarily...surely they have exceeded their bounds.

Cerg:

The Passat in question is a 1993. Bought used. Replaced a 1986 Sundance (loved that car..hatchback; still ran well after 150k miles). That should answer your question re: my choice of wheels. Things last out here in AZ.......Could I afford new? For cash. In a heartbeat.

Sermon was deserved. The only reason I can figure to own a Cayenne is to impress, since there are many less ostentatious vehicles out there that will haul more, seat more people and cost less to own and operate. (no third row of seats, no spare to name some drawbacks) Of course, the Porsche company laughs all the way to the bank. Believe me, really rich folks generally do not own high end cars. As I drive through upscale neighborhoods, I often wonder if the residents own more than the doorknobs. I have counselled hundreds of people in just such straits: too much house, too much debt, too soon. It hurts to see it all unravel.

Come up with a way of paying for the services you get that does not include taxation and you will be a hero to the masses!!!

Like I said, those with the most money seem to complain the loudest about the system. Things change little. To quote Scrooge: "Are there not prisons? Are there not workhouses?"

Nothing personal, just never developed a taste for owning the most expensive or the biggest of anything, so I have nice home,no mortgage, no car payments and no outstanding debt. Life is sweet!!

And yes, I do take the distinction between "need" and "want" seriously. They are totally different things. I do not think I should have to elaborate. As a financial planner, these concepts are very important in bringing someone's financial health back to normal.

Some stuff relevant to this floating around the news at the moment:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131693,00.html

It uses the rebate system instead of excluded products (I'd actually prefer that), although the rebate level would need to be phased out about the poverty line (this may be the case - I can't be arsed reading the details). some would complain about low income people being given a cheque every month too.

I still reckon it wouldn't work, but I'd be intrigued to see you try it ;)

This is great...

But just how much tax to do actually pay? Compared to what the government spends?

Do you think that your contribution covers what it actually costs to keep the environment in which you live?

Even if we set aside what could argueably be called 'excessive' or 'debatable' programs, certainly from this welfare seems part of the issue.

I'd like to know if you think your individual contribution would cover what you 'cost?'

By that I meant does it cover for example building the roads we drive on, especially the great twisties we all so enjoy?
Does it cover the cost of lighting your streets and collecting your trash? And funding the police anf fire departments....how about the 'free-education' that kids get?

Well you get the picture....

If you think your contribution does cover this then questioning the validity of further contributions is valid.

Over here studies have shown it is not the case even with our high taxes, but I have no idea if the same is the case in the US...

So what do we think?

Technically, she got herself into this by making the decision to go through with having the baby.

She picked the loser who can't/won't support her and the child.

She may have been willing to bring a life into this world that she can't provide for, just for her own selfish reasons.

BTW, what kind of birth control was she using. Most pregnancies occur as a result of no birth control, or the condom only method... I almost forgot the pull-out method, that one works really well.

Maybe she should close her legs until she's able to provide for what may be a consequence of her actions.

Of course, this has no bearing on women who's husbands have passed on. For them, I can only imagine the pain they must feel, and the unlikely wishes they have for their children.


Just my $.02

Actually old tube amps are pretty cool. And expensive.

But I get your point.