Open Up Oil Reserves!

[Skylar]

It is just not residential counter tops we make. We are also involved in a lot of commercial projects, and have done a lot of solid surface commercial projects. Currently we are sending solid surface product to Puyallup, Wa for a hospital remodel. We are have been trying like heck to get our foot in the door of commercial remodels/new projects concerning hopitals/clinics and so on. It has not been easy, but we do have the door cracked open. We had a 300 unit project go out at the end of December. Shower bases, vanity tops, shower walls, toilet shelves, soap and shampoo holders, corner molding etc. Please don't ask me about what the company does with the money, what our debt ratio is etc, I am just a shop grunt, so I do not know.

Am I in a pickle, yes, and have known it for about 2 years now. Am I going to throw in the towel after 20 years, and bail on the owner that has treated me pretty well these 20 years? NOPE. 80 percent of the people who work here have 15 or more years invested, we need the company, just like the company needs us. When/if they close the doors, then I will begin the search. Local companies in our town are hiring, I HAVE NO DOUBT I WILL GET ANOTHER JOB! There are 3 other companies where I have friends who are long term supervisors/superintendents. It will be ok.

DC, I did not take offense to what you said, no need to apologize. Not going to ban you LOL.

No worries peeps! Things happen for a reason, and I will roll with whatever happens.

I see wholesale gas is back up to 2.89 a gallon, up from a low of 2.76 the other day.

 

[whitedust]

Skylar you have to watch "Other People's Money". It is about you, exactly your situation, only about 11/2hours & will put things in perspective & cheap rental. When the chips are down even the most loyal change direction because they have too.You will get some much needed grins & giggles too.

 

[Hoosier]

In that regard, it is interesting to recall some historical U.S. income tax rates, and the years in which they were in effect (check those top marginal rates in the rightmost column):

<table border="1"><tbody><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>Year(s)</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$10,001</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$20,001</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$60,001</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$100,001</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$250,001</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1944</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>41%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>59%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>81%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>92%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>94%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1946</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>78%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>91%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1948</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>78%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>91%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1950</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>78%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>91%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1952</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>42%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>80%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>90%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>92%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1954</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>78%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>91%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1956</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>26%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>75%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1958</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>26%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>75%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1960</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>26%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>75%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1962</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>26%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>75%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1964</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>23%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>34%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>66%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>76%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1966-1976</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>22%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>32%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>53%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>70%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1980</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>18%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>24%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>54%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>59%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>70%</center>[/SIZE]</td></tr></tbody></table>
Hmmm, such a severe top marginal tax rate during many of our boom years. Howja s'pose that worked, eh?

(I'm not necessarily suggesting that such a scheme would be useful in today's economy, just some historical perspective, and food for thought.)

It would be useful to see what percentage of the total income taxes each of those brackets paid in each of those years. As the rates have come down over the past 50 years, the percentage of total taxes paid by the upper brackets has gone up. When taxes were cut when JFK was President, and again when Reagan was President, tax collections skyrocketed. Tax Revenue has never been the issue...it's spending.

 

[snow_monkey]

Nice. They opened up the reserves and speedway just went up 20 cents next door! priceless!

 

[indy_500]

not one that can be solved by lower gasoline prices

I disagree, my family roughly spends around $150 per week on gasoline. That equates to just shy of $8000 per year in gas alone. Say gas prices were $2 gallon like they were years ago, I would estimate we'd spend $100 per week, since we'd feel the need to drive around more. That would be a tad over $5000. That's $3000 more per year. Think about ALL of the money that could be saved if gas prices were $2 per gallon? It could be anywhere between $1,000-$10,000! Ya Ya Ya, I'm just a kid and a lot if this is far over my head, but I don't think the economy would be in such poor shape if gas prices were lower!

 

[Skylar]

Well, looky here, does anyone remember what happened when the Fed bought 600 billion in treasury funds recently? Oil skyrocketed, this will lower the value of the dollar, which the commoditiy boys love.

Fed set to buy $300B more Treasuries


By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney June 28, 2011: 9:54 AM ET
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke isn't done buying Treasuries, even if QE2 is almost over.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- QE2 is just about done. But the Federal Reserve will still be buying massive amounts of long-term Treasuries.

In fact, the Fed's purchases over the next year will likely be at least $300 billion. That's half the size of QE2 -- even if QE3 never takes place.


Think of it as QE2.5.

While the Fed's efforts to pump about $600 billion of new cash into the economy over the last eight months comes to an end this week, the program, known as quantitative easing or QE2 for short, was not the only way the central bank was an active buyer of Treasuries.

Since last August, the Fed purchased $250 billion in long-term Treasuries in addition to the QE2 purchases. That's because it was reinvesting the principal from other securities that matured.

Assuming the Fed keeps reinvesting, as it said it would earlier this month, it will continue to be a very big buyer of bonds in the months to come.

"We still see the Fed being a major buyer of Treasuries, and giving the market some support," said Kim Rupert, managing director of fixed income for Action Economics.

But those purchases may not push yields, which move in the opposite direction of their price, lower for that much longer.

Rupert said she expects bond yields to rise even with the Fed's continued purchases. She said some investors who bought Treasuries recently in a flight to quality will unwind those positions. If the economic outlook improves later in the year, that could also lift interest rates.

The additional Fed purchases will have an impact though. Rupert said it should "slow the updraft in yields in a measurable way."

The Fed still has more than $1 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, debt issued by government-sponsored firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and other long-term bonds on its balance sheet.

While not all of this debt is set to mature in the next few months, the Fed still has a lot at its disposal to roll over into new bond purchases.

Of course the Fed could decide to stop reinvesting the principal of maturing securities. But that could almost have the same effect of actually raising interest rates. It would take significant amounts of cash out of the economy.

Even though some Fed policymakers are worried about the impact the bond buying has had on the dollar and inflation, the Fed does not seem ready to remove all its stimulus just yet. After all, the central bank did just issue a gloomier forecast for growth and unemployment through the end of 2012.

"Most of us can agree the economy is not going gangbusters and it's not a self-sustaining recovery yet," said David Coard, director of fixed income sales and trading for The Williams Capital Group. "For the foreseeable future, the Fed will have to maintain an accommodative stance. It's the only game in town."

 

[ezra]

In that regard, it is interesting to recall some historical U.S. income tax rates, and the years in which they were in effect (check those top marginal rates in the rightmost column.

Historical marginal income tax rates for Married Filing Jointly at stated income levels.:

<table border="1"><tbody><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>Year(s)</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$10,001</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$20,001</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$60,001</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$100,001</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>$250,001</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1944</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>41%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>59%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>81%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>92%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>94%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1946</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>78%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>91%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1948</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>78%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>91%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1950</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>78%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>91%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1952</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>42%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>80%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>90%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>92%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1954</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>78%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>91%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1956</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>26%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>75%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1958</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>26%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>75%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1960</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>26%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>75%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1962</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>26%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>38%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>75%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>89%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1964</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>23%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>34%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>56%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>66%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>76%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1966-1976</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>22%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>32%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>53%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>62%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>70%</center>[/SIZE] </td></tr><tr><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>1980</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>18%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>24%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>54%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>59%</center>[/SIZE]</td><td>[SIZE=-2]<center>70%</center>[/SIZE]</td></tr></tbody></table>
Hmmm, such a severe top marginal tax rate during many of our boom years. Howja s'pose that worked, eh?

(I'm not necessarily suggesting that such a scheme would be useful in today's economy, just some historical perspective, and food for thought.)

why stop the chart in 1980? show what happend after 1980 like say 1981 how after droping the unrealistic tax rates how the fed started receving record setting tax money. the economy exploded and money actualy started returning to usa banks.

 

[polarisrider1]

The rich already pay all the taxes....What more do you want???? You want the rich to pay 95% of their income to pay off the debt for taking care of people that dont feel like working?? You want the rich person to be poor just like you because you arent smart enough to get rich like him??? If you have all the answers, figure out how to get rich so you to can laugh at people like you once were......

Thats the problem with everybody.....its "WHAT ABOUT ME, WHAT CAN SOMEONE ELSE DO FOR ME"

It should be "What can I DO to make my life better, What can I DO to make more money."

I agree with everything you said, but the first line. How did you come up with that? Please explain. And the laughing at the unmotivated isn't to nice either they have to deal with themselves as it is.

 

[lenny]

never mind, I deleted it all

 

[srt20]

I agree with everything you said, but the first line. How did you come up with that? Please explain. And the laughing at the unmotivated isn't to nice either they have to deal with themselves as it is.

In 2002 the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent.
The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent.

This was under G.W. Bush. Just imagine what Obama wants to do.

This is just a quick scan off of google, you can look up more if you wish.
I just get pi$$ed when some people is the lower brackets pay nothing, and sometimes get more back than they pay in. But some political groups want more more more, because some people are to lazy to better themselves. ****, the government will give us more. They will bail us out.

Screw it! Im going Amish. Ill be the first Amish guy to ride snowmobiles.

 

[srt20]

Heres some more ;


There seems to be a lot of misinformation about who pays taxes and who doesn’t. According to the Taxpayers Union, in 2009, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 38 percent of the total federal personal income tax, the top 10 percent paid 70 percent and the bottom 50 percent paid about 3 percent. The bottom 40 percent pays no federal tax at all. In addition, people in the upper brackets pay most of the state income taxes.

Politically, we have reached the tipping-point where the majority of citizens with no tax-burden at stake will vote for the politicians that promise them more by advocating taxing the “rich.” Often forgotten is the fact that rich people are the ones that create jobs for the rest of us. If we take away the incentive to make money by means of high tax rates, people with talent will just ease back and not work so hard. In the process, they will create fewer jobs and high unemployment will be the norm.

Solving our budget problems by inordinately taxing the “rich” seems to be gaining in popularity so, perhaps, there is no way to keep our financial system from crashing. It won’t happen right away, but unless we change the way we think, and behave it is inevitable! Perhaps we should get weary of the rhetoric, let the high-tax-rate advocates raise taxes as much as they desire, and see what happens.

 

[frnash]

why stop the chart in 1980?

Cuz my intent was to point out the highest marginal tax rates that were in effect during some of our greatest "boom" years. (That and that's as far as the Wikipedia table went, and I didn't feel like spending the rest of the day on further research. )

… show what happend after 1980 like say 1981 how after droping the unrealistic tax rates how the fed started receving record setting tax money. the economy exploded and money actualy started returning to usa banks.

You are absolutely correct on that, as incongruous as it may sound, lowering the tax rate actually increased revenue very substantially, due to the increased economic activity that it inspired! Like the old saying goes: "We made it up on volume!"

Q: Would a similar scheme have a snowball's chance in Phoenix of working today? I doubt it.

 

[Firecatguy]

what the tax in Mn on per gal?

 

[Hoosier]

I disagree, my family roughly spends around $150 per week on gasoline. That equates to just shy of $8000 per year in gas alone. Say gas prices were $2 gallon like they were years ago, I would estimate we'd spend $100 per week, since we'd feel the need to drive around more. That would be a tad over $5000. That's $3000 more per year. Think about ALL of the money that could be saved if gas prices were $2 per gallon? It could be anywhere between $1,000-$10,000! Ya Ya Ya, I'm just a kid and a lot if this is far over my head, but I don't think the economy would be in such poor shape if gas prices were lower!

Hate to say it, but Indy's right. High gas prices are like a tax on working families. To make it worse, it's a regressive tax in that impacts the lower classes more than the upper classes, as it soaks up so much more of their income.

 

[polarisrider1]

Hate to say it, but Indy's right. High gas prices are like a tax on working families. To make it worse, it's a regressive tax in that impacts the lower classes more than the upper classes, as it soaks up so much more of their income.

That is like stating the cost of diapers is a tax on a couple with young children. You have options with gas. Take the bus, move close to work and walk, ride a bike. That is what they do in Europe.

 

[scott_b]

"Suppose that every day 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59."

The 10 men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, being sure to give each a break, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so now the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."

Then, the nine men surrounded the tenth man (the richest one, paying the most) and beat him up. The next night the richest man didn't show up for dinner, so now the nine men sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

"And that, boys, girls and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean."

 

[xcr440]

Hate to say it, but Indy's right. High gas prices are like a tax on working families. To make it worse, it's a regressive tax in that impacts the lower classes more than the upper classes, as it soaks up so much more of their income.

There are a lot of things that have gone up in price since gas was $2/gallon. Unfortunately, fuel has had a direct corellation to many of these (Without giving specific examples).

But its the simple fact that transportation and the fuel that drives that transportation is what is handcuffing the working class. And when I refer to the working class, I also refer to the small business owner.

Look at how the economy was "improving" during late last summer and into the fall and winter months. Then fuel took off again, and what happens? Oh no, the economy is not growing as fast. What a shock! Not. It directly relates to the fact that it took more to get where we are going with either our own butts or what we have transported.

Is opening up oil reserves going to help? Well, common wisdom would say so, more supply, with the same demand, would reduce cost, right? Not with the oil industry. They regulate how much flow there is, so they can keep the cost where they want it, regardless of how much whining we all do about $4/gallon.

Of course this is my "speculation"

 

[dcsnomo]

Heres some more ;


Often forgotten is the fact that rich people are the ones that create jobs for the rest of us.

We have been practicing supply side economics for 30 years.

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

What is forgotten is that the economic situation in 2011 is vastly different from the Reagan years. Reagan inherited a stagnant economy with high inflation, record high interest rates, consumer spending accounted for 62% of the economy. Baby boomers, the largest segment of consumers, were in their early 30's, about to embark on the largest spending spree known to civilization. Credit cards were not maxed out, and we cared more about our new BMW than our retirement. He gave us tax cuts, and man, we spent it!

Things are different now. Economy is stagnant, little, if any core inflation. Interest rates are so low the Fed gives money away. Consumer spending now drives 70% of the economy, and boomers, still the largest segment of the economy, have had their home values wiped out, their 401ks decimated, and are facing the prospect of eating cat food at retirement. Their credit cards are maxed out, and in 6 years they will quit working.

The economic theories of the 80's do not apply to 2011. Cutting taxes is NOT driving economic growth, look it up. The tax cuts are driving an increased saving rate (from 2% to 5-6%), reduced credit card debt, and massive borrowing by the government.

Why? Because baby boomers (me) have shut their wallets, and they will stay closed. And the generations behind me are massively underemployed and their wallets are also closed. This consumer driven economy has come to the end of the track, because the vast numbers of consumers that drive it don't have the money.

If tax cuts drive jobs, WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Is it possible, just maybe, that in this economic scenario of 2011 that tax cuts drive debt?

 

[whitedust]

Spending money you don't have drives debt simple as that.

 

[Hoosier]

That is like stating the cost of diapers is a tax on a couple with young children. You have options with gas. Take the bus, move close to work and walk, ride a bike. That is what they do in Europe.

Yes, everyone has options with gas, but not in the short run, particularly for those in the lower classes. It costs money to move. Buses aren't available in many places.