http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* ich poker spielen , poker regeln lernen , kostenlos texas holdem poker
spielen , online werbung geld verdienen , durak spielen online , online
werbung geld verdienen , schnell geld verdienen in , - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/79a8264b4098f8c1?hl=en
* resurfacing/sealing driveway - looking for grey color, not black - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1b22c0e95f812800?hl=en
* Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again - 17 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dff28f482d02ae5c?hl=en
* Definitions of Frugality - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4db20ff0fb8d6fd6?hl=en
* slowpoke general contractor got us $6,000!!! (home tax credit) - 2 messages,
2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7692010fa0607f6?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ich poker spielen , poker regeln lernen , kostenlos texas holdem poker
spielen , online werbung geld verdienen , durak spielen online , online
werbung geld verdienen , schnell geld verdienen in ,
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/79a8264b4098f8c1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 12:54 pm
From: lucky-villa
ich poker spielen , poker regeln lernen , kostenlos texas holdem poker
spielen , online werbung geld verdienen , durak spielen online ,
online werbung geld verdienen , schnell geld verdienen in ,
*
*
*
+++ GELD ONLINE VERDIENEN +++ GELD IM INTERNET VERDIENEN +++
*
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
http://WWW.KOSTENLOS-SPIELEN.NL
*
*
*
carbon geld machen ich schnell viel geld verdienen
musik geld machen pokern deutsch
48 stunden geld im internet poker spielen ohne anmeldung
poker 2 online spielen leicht geld verdienen im
texas hold em gratis spielen american poker 2 online spielen
gewinnspiele geld online spiele kostenlos
spiele poker texas paidmailer geld verdienen
schach spielen homepage geld verdienen
hand poker spielen texas hold em online game
geld ohne internet youtube geld verdienen
pokern online am schnellsten geld machen
amerikan poker online spielen poker hands
mit online games geld verdienen poker strategy
geld verdienen werbung geld sparen leicht gemacht
pokerschule download texas holdem gratis download
texas holdem kostenlos online roulette spielen
poker gambling tilt pokerschule
sms geld verdienen geld verdienen nebenjob
geld verdienen mit meinungsumfragen man geld machen
poker online spiele gewinnen spiele
==============================================================================
TOPIC: resurfacing/sealing driveway - looking for grey color, not black
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1b22c0e95f812800?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 12:56 pm
From: phil scott
On Nov 8, 9:14 am, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> We are buying a place that under the terms of the HUD inspection, has
> a driveway that has to be repaired or resurfaced. My wife and I took a
> look at it, and since we both grew up in places that had gravel
> driveways, we thought it looked fine. I would much prefer a stone
> driveway, but it isn't allowed here.
>
> Although the HUD inspection estimated that this needs $1,500 worth of
> work, I believe that I should be able to get this driveway back in
> decent looking shape for less than a third of that amount. I'm planning
> on going out there with my Dewalt drill and wire brush to clear out the
> grass & small weeds that have taken root in some of the cracks,
> especially along the edges.
>
> Here's a photo:http://i38.tinypic.com/jktycy.jpg
>
> Neither my wife nor I like the dark black color that is used to seal
> most driveways. We like going barefoot in the summers, and from
> personal experience I've found that these black driveways can get far
> too hot to walk on when it is sunny. As such, we were hoping to find
> something that is a much lighter grey color - something similar to the
> limestone gravel that is used in driveways. However, the home
> improvement centers don't seem to have anything other than dark black.
> My searches online also have not been fruitful in this regard.
>
> Can anyone recommend a high quality resurfacer/sealer that we could
> use, but would give it a light grey color instead of black? Thanks!
if its concrete do this
use TSP to get it degreased
Then concrete crack filler and a trowl to fill the cracks
Then use cement garage floor paint, tint to suit..you can try using a
bit of fine sand mixed in the batch
then a roller if you want,.. try one spot first to see how it works,,,
use maybe 1/2 cup sand per gallon
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 6:05 pm
From: Al
On Nov 8, 12:14 pm, Ohioguy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> We are buying a place that under the terms of the HUD inspection, has
> a driveway that has to be repaired or resurfaced. My wife and I took a
> look at it, and since we both grew up in places that had gravel
> driveways, we thought it looked fine. I would much prefer a stone
> driveway, but it isn't allowed here.
>
> Although the HUD inspection estimated that this needs $1,500 worth of
> work, I believe that I should be able to get this driveway back in
> decent looking shape for less than a third of that amount. I'm planning
> on going out there with my Dewalt drill and wire brush to clear out the
> grass & small weeds that have taken root in some of the cracks,
> especially along the edges.
>
> Here's a photo:http://i38.tinypic.com/jktycy.jpg
>
> Neither my wife nor I like the dark black color that is used to seal
> most driveways. We like going barefoot in the summers, and from
> personal experience I've found that these black driveways can get far
> too hot to walk on when it is sunny. As such, we were hoping to find
> something that is a much lighter grey color - something similar to the
> limestone gravel that is used in driveways. However, the home
> improvement centers don't seem to have anything other than dark black.
> My searches online also have not been fruitful in this regard.
>
> Can anyone recommend a high quality resurfacer/sealer that we could
> use, but would give it a light grey color instead of black? Thanks!
If that picture is the worst of it, I think you have a good shot at
repairing it to last a long time. I'm assuming there is no heaving or
lifting of the asphalt. If there is, then those areas would need to
be dug out at a minimum.
Forget the Dewalt. You'd be there a week and achieve nothing.
Professionals use a power washer to deep clean those grassy spots out
of there. Then you can use heavy filler in all the cracks and a top
sealer to finish. This will take at least three different days to
complete. FHA and HUD inspectors can be quite quirky. If the same
inspector gets it in his craw that the driveway needs to be dug up,
perhaps he will not approve your do it yourself work. As for color, I
don't know for sure. I know they use similar material in gray and even
white on roofs. There must be a reason all the drives are black.
Perhaps that is because a gray topping will soon have black streaks
and look very tacky indeed.
If you stated the width and length of the driveway, you might get more
interesting answers. Driveway work is always quoted in square feet.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Subsidy Nonsense Yet Again
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dff28f482d02ae5c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 1:27 pm
From: krw
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:46:15 -0500, Les Cargill
<lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>krw wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
>> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> krw wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
>>>> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>>>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>>>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
>>>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>>>
>>> Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
>>> you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
>>> I'm willing to subsidize that some.
>>
>> Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
>> better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>>
>
>Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor
>enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write
>those people off. Can private efforts replace public
>transport? I don't know.
So you're going assist people in their own helplessness? ...even
force it? How positively Johnsonian of you.
>Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
>to compete. That places the burden of care for them
>somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
>creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
>doesn't seem realistic.
Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway
funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The
unproductive are already under control.
>>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>>
>>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>>> carbon offsets are.
>>
>> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
>> higher income tax isn't going to work.
>
>It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.
By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no
mater what color you paint them. People know this, but what they
can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you
suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a
check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15?
>> The states have maxed out
>> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
>> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
>> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
>> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>>
>
>Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>altogether.
Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes.
>Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
>last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
>even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
>ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
>writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
>
>Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
>fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
>and still claim the high moral ground.
No, the problem with capitalism is government.
>>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>>> makes money.
>>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>>
>>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>>> really sock in a good down payment.
>>
>> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
>> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
>> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>>
>
>No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
>cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.
How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please
elaborate.
>> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
>> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
>> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>>
>
>Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying
if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't
necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house
with less than 1% down.
>This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial
winner.
>Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>ownership.
Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty
small, over the life of a house.
>>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>>> sucker.
>>
>> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
>> equity in my house isn't income either.
>>
>
>but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
>the only way to win is not to play.
The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That
isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet.
== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 1:47 pm
From: aemeijers
Les Cargill wrote:
(snip)
> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
> altogether.
>
Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the
deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what
they can take in without using a gun. The government ought to try that
sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut. I work for
them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three.
Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile,
instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save
millions right there. A drop of piss in the ocean, I know, but every
drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could
cut expenses bigtime. Note that I blame congress as much or more than
whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill
would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy
train. Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in
the hole, the less they take home.
--
aem sends....
== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 2:03 pm
From: krw
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:47:24 -0500, aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net>
wrote:
>Les Cargill wrote:
>(snip)
>> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>> altogether.
>>
>
>Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the
>deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what
>they can take in without using a gun. The government ought to try that
>sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut. I work for
>them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three.
>Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile,
>instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save
>millions right there. A drop of piss in the ocean, I know, but every
>drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could
>cut expenses bigtime. Note that I blame congress as much or more than
>whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill
>would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy
>train. Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in
>the hole, the less they take home.
Make it a simple ratio, sign and all.
== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 3:01 pm
From: Phil W Lee
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> considered Sun, 8 Nov 2009
15:45:59 +1100 the perfect time to write:
>Jym Dyer wrote
>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>> = Rod Speed
>
>You've completely mangled the attributions. That should have been
>
>> Rod Speed
>>> Scott in SoCal
>
>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because
>>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are.
>
>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>
>> I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque
>> array of funding serves to keep most of us from
>> thinking about the true cost of driving.
>
>In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect
>in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure.
I've yet to hear of one that doesn't - most spend FAR more.
>
>> The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging
>> one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per
>> person is going to involve more resources, no matter
>> how accountants distribute the numbers.
>
>Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant claim about SUBSIDYS.
>
>When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of
>transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra
>mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice.
And the government obligingly pays for the cost of constructing
sufficient roadway to accommodate it.
THAT'S a subsidy.
>
>> When point A and point B are so much further
>> apart because so much land area is devoted to
>> cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking),
>> that, too, is going to involve more resources.
>
>Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate
>matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS.
So try driving without a roadway.
If you're using the roadway, you're accepting the subsidy.
>
>> Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources
>> all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all.
>
>Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax.
Nowhere near.
>
>And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway,
>who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact
>subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead.
How much maintenance do you think a cycleway or footpath needs
compared to a roadway?
Just as a clue, the damage caused by traffic rises in proportion to
the 4th power of the axle weight of the vehicle.
>
>> You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte,
>> but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose.
>
>Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and
>I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either.
>
Guess you'd better find your own planet then, but I don't think you'll
have much luck redesigning the laws of physics anywhere in this
universe.
== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 3:22 pm
From: Scott in SoCal
Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.net>
said:
>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>be able to.
Same is true of transit. In fact, it was true of transit even before
there were cars. Ever heard of "Streetcar Suburbs?"
>What we see with public transport is that it never
>makes money.
OK, so show me a road that makes money.
The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car
users "free" roads and "free" parking without even the hope of a
payback, let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected
to earn a profit at the farebox.
== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 3:30 pm
From: krw
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:22:24 -0800, Scott in SoCal
<scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Last time on misc.consumers, Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.net>
>said:
>
>>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>be able to.
>
>Same is true of transit. In fact, it was true of transit even before
>there were cars. Ever heard of "Streetcar Suburbs?"
Nonsnese. Try streetcars in any major city now. Try affording them
in any small city.
>>What we see with public transport is that it never
>>makes money.
>
>OK, so show me a road that makes money.
Don't be an idiot. They all do. If you want one that makes a (huge)
profit, try the NYS Thruway.
>The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car
>users "free" roads and "free" parking without even the hope of a
>payback, let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected
>to earn a profit at the farebox.
They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public
transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no
issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 3:42 pm
From: Phil W Lee
aemeijers <aemeijers@att.net> considered Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:07:12
-0500 the perfect time to write:
>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>> = Rod Speed
>>
>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>
>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>> true cost of driving.
>>
>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>> maintaining it all.
>>
>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
>> and guess what? You lose.
>> <_Jym_>
>>
>Add it up again with door-to-door service, and 'anytime' availability.
>Not everyone lives in the imaginary 1920s-1960s urban utopia of 40 foot
>wide lot row houses with a bus stop on every other corner. Nor does
>everyone go to work or come home the same time, or work the hours the
>bus system is running. To provide anything near the level of service a
>private vehicle offers, you would need a whole lot more buses and
>drivers. And most of them would still be running near-empty most of the
>time, at a higher cost per passenger mile than a private car. Buses are
>only efficient if they are at least partially full.
>
>Hey, I <like> public transit. In college, I used it almost every day.
>But in a college town, most of the users live in a concentrated area,
>and the places they need to go are in a concentrated area. Out in the
>real world, the only areas that get near that user/destination density
>are the old urban centers. Which happen to be the only areas where mass
>transit works. That is why the city here collapsed their bus routes and
>schedules- they realized that the buses to the outer regions were
>running nearly empty most of the time. Same for the off-hour buses, even
>in town. It would be cheaper to give cab fare coupons to the folks that
>can't drive for whatever reason. They didn't do that, of course, so
>there were some people truly between a rock and a hard place. One guy
>wanted to take up the slack with a jitney bus service that regular-use
>non-drivers could subscribe to, but the cab companies leaned on the
>city, and it never happened.
That's ok, once people have to pay the full cost of driving, many will
decide it isn't worth the cost.
And when they can't drive anymore, they'll all get back on the buses.
== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 3:48 pm
From: Phil W Lee
Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.net> considered Sun, 08 Nov 2009
01:54:14 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>> = Rod Speed
>>
>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>
>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>> true cost of driving.
>>
>
>??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>
Not even close. I don't know of any government that doesn't subsidise
road infrastructure from central taxes.
Maybe you do, but I'm talking about the planet earth.
>The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>
Studies have been done, and you're right, the market price is much
less than the actual cost, particularly if you include the cost of
clearing up after it.
>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>> maintaining it all.
>>
>
>But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>makes money.
Only because so many people use cars.
Once they have to pay the full cost of that, most will stop.
That will make public transport viable.
Then the majority will get sick of the yuppies driving around on
public roads, and stop them.
That will make public transport profitable.
The only real question is how long that will take, and how much of the
planet will be left by the time it happens.
>
>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
>> and guess what? You lose.
>> <_Jym_>
>>
== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:25 pm
From: "h"
"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:kvkef51fhk4mio56krftteolo54m51r7qh@4ax.com...
>
> They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public
> transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no
> issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
Is little Scottie still whinging on about car owners? Does he REALLY not get
that roads are not just for cars? He'd starve to death without roads, since
without them trucks wouldn't be able to bring his food into the city. Also,
buses need roads, too, or does he really think people shouldn't travel AT
ALL?
== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:25 pm
From: "h"
"Phil W Lee" <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote in message
news:0nlef5hgh3pctftqnt91h6gqbusqpas8qg@4ax.com...
> That's ok, once people have to pay the full cost of driving, many will
> decide it isn't worth the cost.
> And when they can't drive anymore, they'll all get back on the buses.
Assuming they live where there are buses.
== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:50 pm
From: krw
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:25:01 -0500, "h" <tmclone@searchmachine.com>
wrote:
>
>"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
>news:kvkef51fhk4mio56krftteolo54m51r7qh@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> They anent free, Scotty. Road taxes pay for them, and much of public
>> transit too. Of more is needed, raise the road taxes. I have no
>> issue if it is USED FOR ROADS.
>
>Is little Scottie still whinging on about car owners? Does he REALLY not get
>that roads are not just for cars? He'd starve to death without roads, since
>without them trucks wouldn't be able to bring his food into the city. Also,
>buses need roads, too, or does he really think people shouldn't travel AT
>ALL?
Sure, he's still whining. He's no different than any of the little
leftist who want to own your soul.
== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 6:23 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Phil W Lee wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Jym Dyer wrote
>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>> = Rod Speed
>> You've completely mangled the attributions. That should have been
>>> Rod Speed
>>>> Scott in SoCal
>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because
>>>>> it is subsidized LESS than automobiles are.
>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>> I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque
>>> array of funding serves to keep most of us from
>>> thinking about the true cost of driving.
>> In fact most countrys dont actually spend all that they collect
>> in road taxes exclusively on roads and other car infrastructure.
> I've yet to hear of one that doesn't
Then you need to get out more and look at
western europe where they heavily tax fuel etc.
> - most spend FAR more.
Thats a lie.
>>> The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging
>>> one or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per
>>> person is going to involve more resources, no matter
>>> how accountants distribute the numbers.
>> Yes, but thats an entirely separate matter to his pig ignorant claim about SUBSIDYS.
>> When the individual that chooses to use a car instead of
>> transit pays for the extra fuel used to move that extra
>> mass around, that not a subsidy, thats a personal choice.
> And the government obligingly pays for the cost
> of constructing sufficient roadway to accommodate it.
> THAT'S a subsidy.
Not when its only part of what is raised in car taxes.
>>> When point A and point B are so much further
>>> apart because so much land area is devoted to
>>> cars (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking),
>>> that, too, is going to involve more resources.
>> Yes, but again, thats an entirely separate
>> matter to what is being discussed, SUBSIDYS.
> So try driving without a roadway.
Dont need to, they are paid for with road taxes.
> If you're using the roadway, you're accepting the subsidy.
There is no subsidy if its only part of what is raised in road taxes.
>>> Paving all that land area? Yep, more resources
>>> all over again, plus the const of maintaining it all.
>> Paid for by the car taxes, mostly the fuel tax.
> Nowhere near.
Wrong, as always.
>> And they're paved even for just pedestrians and bike riders anyway,
>> who mostly dont pay any use tax to use them so THEY are in fact
>> subsidised by those who choose to use a car instead.
> How much maintenance do you think a cycleway
> or footpath needs compared to a roadway?
None needs much when its done properly in the first place.
> Just as a clue, the damage caused by traffic rises in
> proportion to the 4th power of the axle weight of the vehicle.
So its the trucks that do most of the wear and tear on roads.
>>> You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing 3-Card Monte,
>>> but eventually there's a bottom line involved, and guess what? You lose.
>> Nope, I win by having much more flexibility with my movements and
>> I dont have to put up with the unwashed rabble in my vehicle either.
> Guess you'd better find your own planet then,
This one is fine.
> but I don't think you'll have much luck redesigning the laws of physics anywhere in this universe.
No laws of physics involved in whether the road taxes are used to pay for the roads.
== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 6:26 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Scott in SoCal wrote
> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote
>> What we see with public transport is that it never makes money.
> OK, so show me a road that makes money.
Plenty of private toll roads do.
> The only "nonsense" here is the double standard. It's OK to give car users "free" roads
They aint free, they pay road use and fuel taxes.
> and "free" parking
They aint free, they pay road use and fuel taxes.
> without even the hope of a payback,
Thats a lie.
> let alone a profit, but somehow trains and buses are expected to earn a profit at the farebox.
Because they dont pay the road use and fuel taxes.
== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 6:30 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Phil W Lee wrote:
> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.net> considered Sun, 08 Nov 2009
> 01:54:14 -0500 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>
>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>
>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>> true cost of driving.
>>>
>>
>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
> Not even close. I don't know of any government that
> doesn't subsidise road infrastructure from central taxes.
Your pig ignorance is your problem.
Try western europe.
> Maybe you do, but I'm talking about the planet earth.
So are we.
>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
> Studies have been done, and you're right, the market price is much
> less than the actual cost, particularly if you include the cost of
> clearing up after it.
>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>> maintaining it all.
>>>
>>
>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>> makes money.
>
> Only because so many people use cars.
> Once they have to pay the full cost of that, most will stop.
Pure fantasy.
> That will make public transport viable.
Pure fantasy.
> Then the majority will get sick of the yuppies
> driving around on public roads, and stop them.
Pure fantasy.
> That will make public transport profitable.
Pure fantasy.
> The only real question is how long that will take,
Forever, you watch.
> and how much of the planet will be left by the time it happens.
It aint going nowhere.
>>> =v= You can shuffle the finances around as if you're playing
>>> 3-Card Monte, but eventually there's a bottom line involved,
>>> and guess what? You lose.
>>> <_Jym_>
== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 6:32 pm
From: Les Cargill
krw wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 14:46:15 -0500, Les Cargill
> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> krw wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:13:13 -0500, Les Cargill
>>> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> krw wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:54:14 -0500, Les Cargill
>>>>> <lcargill99@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jym Dyer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> = Scott in SoCal
>>>>>>>> = Rod Speed
>>>>>>>>> Transit only *seems* more expensive because it is subsidized
>>>>>>>>> LESS than automobiles are.
>>>>>>>> Wrong. There are plenty of situations where the cheapest
>>>>>>>> cars are cheaper than the worst mass transit available and
>>>>>>>> the cheapest cars arent subsidized by anyone.
>>>>>>> =v= I understand that the vast and Rube Goldbergesque array
>>>>>>> of funding serves to keep most of us from thinking about the
>>>>>>> true cost of driving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ??? The roads are financed by fuel taxes. It hardly looks
>>>>>> very opaque, and people have done multiple studies.
>>>>> ...and those fuel taxes are often tapped as a convenient source of
>>>>> income for all sorts of social engineering, like "public" transit.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't particularly have a serious problem with that. If
>>>> you can conform to bus schedules and it saves you scarce cash,
>>>> I'm willing to subsidize that some.
>>> Why? Shouldn't public transportation's pay its costs? If it's
>>> better, shouldn't this be easy? If it's not, why have it at all.
>>>
>> Because people simply don't choose to be disabled or poor
>> enough to need public transport. I'm not willing to write
>> those people off. Can private efforts replace public
>> transport? I don't know.
>
> So you're going assist people in their own helplessness? ...even
> force it? How positively Johnsonian of you.
>
*Much* worse than that. Yes, I will. There is a founding
principle of economics of "the declining marginal value of
money" which had very few exceptions. I will encourage less
entropy in the world with that small subsidy than without it.
>> Schumpeterien forces make it harder for the least of us
>> to compete. That places the burden of care for them
>> somewhat on the winners. We all reap the benefits of
>> creative destruction; expecting people to simply cope
>> doesn't seem realistic.
>
> Then why not pay the largesse out of general funds rather than highway
> funds? Answer: Because it doesn't control the productive enough. The
> unproductive are already under control.
>
Because as these things go, it's one large lump. I am sure
that whatever the reasons to take it out of highway funds
comes from somebody reading symmetry between waiting on the
bus until I Cadillac.
>>>>>> The only thing we really don't know is the true cost
>>>>>> of a barrel of oil. We do know the market price of it.
>>>>> Often the kitchen sink is thrown at the "true cost" by lunatics
>>>>> pushing their collectivist propaganda.
>>>>>
>>>> Heh. That certainly doesn't help. Pigovian taxes are well-understood
>>>> by The Right People, but look at how looney the debates over
>>>> carbon offsets are.
>>> Sure. Like the "health care" debate, the real issue is taxes. A
>>> higher income tax isn't going to work.
>> It might. Our galloping deficits are going to work less.
>
> By "work" I meant "fly". Higher taxes will kill the golden goose, no
> mater what color you paint them.
I suppose you've been asleep the last ten years. What golden goose?
You can only remain accountable for so much willing suspension of
disbelief for so long. After all, Greenspan said his mea culpa
last year.
If people drawing cartoons of production is that standard, then...
> People know this, but what they
> can't see they don't understand. Let me put it another way... Do you
> suppose taxes would be as high as they are if you had to fork over a
> check for the *total* amount of _all_ taxes every April 15?
>
>
I always have when I did not properly withhold. It does not matter.
I was glad to do it, too. it is a privilege.
>>> The states have maxed out
>>> sales and property taxes. The direct taxes are all maxed out. The
>>> only thing left are "hidden" taxes, which is exactly what "health
>>> care" and "cap and tax" are all about. The loony left loves to tax
>>> the productive into the unproductive so they can be controlled.
>>>
>> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>> altogether.
>
> Look at the revenue side before you take such broad strokes.
>
Unfortunately... I am doing exactly that. It's not very good. You
want to reify the jumped-up pseeudo event of "revenue" since about, oh
1982?
>> Never mind the sheer level of direct, unfiltered subsidy to the
>> last bunch of "masters of the universe". Free market? Not
>> even close. Greenspan's mea culpa last year pretty much
>> ended all that. he'd held that belief apparently since
>> writing an Objectivist paper in 1963.
>>
>> Again, the problem with Capitalism is still Capitalists - or
>> fratboy capitalist wannabees. You can't observe this phenomenon
>> and still claim the high moral ground.
>
> No, the problem with capitalism is government.
>
Well, if you really *want* to agree with me, that's fine. Government
pretty much made the fratboy capitalist standard subject to Iron Law.
They'll accept privilege so we don't have to....
Are you specifically *denying* the fratboy capitalist standard? Because
I have such a significant cannon loaded for that event.... even Obama
embraces it.
>>>>>>> =v= The laws of physics are less complicated. Dragging one
>>>>>>> or more tons of steel and plastic and toxics per person is
>>>>>>> going to involve more resources, no matter how accountants
>>>>>>> distribute the numbers. When point A and point B are so much
>>>>>>> further apart because so much land area is devoted to cars
>>>>>>> (whether they're driving, speeding, or parking), that, too,
>>>>>>> is going to involve more resources. Paving all that land
>>>>>>> area? Yep, more resources all over again, plus the const of
>>>>>>> maintaining it all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But cars enable people to use land they wouldn't otherwise
>>>>>> be able to. What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>>>> makes money.
>>>>> Right. Now imagine a society where land barons or evil corporations
>>>>> own the tenements were *everyone* is forced to live. I rather like
>>>>> the idea of owning my own home.
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Although it's probably more frugal to rent, unless you can
>>>> really sock in a good down payment.
>>> Not the point. Do you think everyone can afford rent if *everyone* is
>>> forced to live within the bounds of public transportation. How many
>>> can afford to live in Manhattan? Now double that.
>>>
>> No, not at all. My point still stands - the greatest value of
>> cars is the ability to shift the balance of power in land rents.
>
> How are "land rents" any different than land ownership? Please
> elaborate.
>
Find Henry George. it's a caricature of itself when land value, so
abused in the recent falls like a stone.
>>> Back to your point. You will never save a "decent" down payment
>>> renting from the only game in town. Even with this recession, a home
>>> is still the way to long-term financial security.
>>>
>> Bollocks. That's the fairy story. Do the math yourself - if and
>> only if you can *actually afford it* - the TCO of ownership is
>> strictly less than renting - is it more frugal. What people do
>> is chase the tax break and pretend it's making them money. Well,
>> the marginal rate is still far less than 100%, no matter what.
>
> If you can't afford a McMansion, buying one isn't smart, no. Buying
> if smart if you can afford it, and a 20% down (pick your number) isn't
> necessarily the hallmark of "affordability". I bought my first house
> with less than 1% down.
>
Then you gambled on a rise in equity to make up for what you did not
have going in. Fine if it works; sucks when it fails.
>> This does not mean there are no strategies where home ownership is
>> more frugal - just that one must prepare for it properly.
>
> Said like someone who believes that leasing a car is a financial
> winner.
>
No, just someone who understands that renting is much more efficient.
Unless you're up to owning. But isn't what we see around us the
Great Lie - ownership is Better? It is if the numbers say it is, but
in the presence of the Cult of the Greater Sucker...
>> Right now, the way prices are plummeting - it's a good
>> time to transition to owning, assuming you have stable income.
>> But what most people forget is all the peripheral cost of
>> ownership.
>
> Much of the peripheral costs are voluntary. Maintenance is pretty
> small, over the life of a house.
>
Whoo boy. I am speaking to someone who did not keep good
records. And peripheral costs are not completely encapsulated
by maintenance.
>>>> If real estate regresses to its utility value rather than its
>>>> speculative value, that's different. You just don't wanna be the greater
>>>> sucker.
>>> Sure. That's why I don't speculate with housing. I live in it. The
>>> equity in my house isn't income either.
>>>
>> but if you're in a market that is dominated *by* speculation,
>> the only way to win is not to play.
>
> The only way to win is to live in a house your entire life. That
> isn't done by saving a huge down payment before getting the feet wet.
So never have to move, and you're OK. That's fine if you don't work
for a living.
--
Les Cargill
== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 6:41 pm
From: Les Cargill
aemeijers wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
> (snip)
>> Check the CBO figures on what the Bush tax cuts have done to the
>> deficits. It would be irresponsible to continue them on a linear
>> projected basis, unless we're prepared to abandon deficit spending
>> altogether.
>>
>
> Funny, I thought it was the out-of-control spending that led to the
> deficits. In the real world, people have to base what they spend on what
> they can take in without using a gun.
But gummint ain't people. Understand that first.
> The government ought to try that
> sometime. And don't tell me the federal budget can't be cut.
It mostly cannot.
> I work for
> them, and see firsthand how they waste at least one dollar out of three.
but thats for reasons of the support of transparency. Instrumentation is
expensive, *objective* instrumentation even more so.
> Just as a symbolic gesture, POTUS should try staying in DC for awhile,
> instead of campaigning for a job he already has. That would save
> millions right there. A drop of piss in the ocean, I know, but every
> drop helps. If the feds got their collective act together, they could
> cut expenses bigtime.
No, not really. Every man jack of the bureaucracy lives mostly
in fear of being noted on the pages of history.
> Note that I blame congress as much or more than
> whoever happens to be in the white house. If the 535 fools on the hill
> would grow a brain, a pair, and a spine, they could derail the gravy
> train.
But it's much bigger than they are.
> Maybe their salaries should be based on the deficit- the more in
> the hole, the less they take home.
>
you first have to understand that the standards for public debt
are radically different than for private or encorporate debt.
Done properly,GDP growth erases public debt like it never happened.
It is like buying shoes for your chlidren two sizes too large, because
they will grow into it. The problem is that the standards of appropriate
debt shift with the wind.
> --
> aem sends....
--
Les Cargill
== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 7:06 pm
From: Scott in SoCal
Last time on misc.consumers, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> said:
>>>What we see with public transport is that it never
>>>makes money.
>>
>>OK, so show me a road that makes money.
>
>Don't be an idiot. They all do.
Really? Prove it!
Show me the profit and loss statement of even ONE road.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Definitions of Frugality
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4db20ff0fb8d6fd6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 2:06 pm
From: Gordon
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7lni1iF3cs9m1U1@mid.individual.net:
> Gordon wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Gordon wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> Cutting off the satellite for television was not a major loss.
>>>>>>>> Frugality kicked in. We dropped the satellite feed.
>
>>>>>>> So now you have nothing for real news and current affairs.
>
>>>>>> Internet.
>
>>>>> You dont know that she bothers and thats not as good anyway,
>>>>> particularly with docos etc.
>
>>>> docos?
>
>>> Documentarys.
>
>>>> I have never considered TV to be a necessary source of news and
>>>> information.
>
>>> Never said it was.
>
>>>> Besides the internet, there is also radio and the news paper.
>
>>> And you dont know that she bothers with either.
>
>> I'm just saying that those sources are available.
>
> You dont know she bothers with either.
Oh look, in the very next sentence I say the same thing.
>
>> unless she weighs in, neither of us will know what she does or does
>> not bother with.
>
> Its obvious that she's terminally pig ignorant, so she clearly doesnt,
> or at least bothers with either that are other than steaming turds,
> anyway.
>
>> You can lead a horse to water...
>
> Indeed, but if there is no water available...
>
>> This is all getting rather pointless.
>
> Yep, you havent contributed a damned thing.
>
No, you are too blind or ignorent to see the contributions
>> The fact is that there are 4 good sources of news and current events.
>
> You dont know she bothers with any of them, or than all 4 are
> available to her either.
>
As I said above...
>> Just because an individual has cut themselves off from one of those
>> sources does not mean they are deprived of all news and current
>> events.
>
> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>
>
Are you?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:18 pm
From: Napoleon
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:26:29 -0500, Vandy Terre
<vandy@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote:
> Some would say I would earn more if I
>worked outside the home. I say not. If you turn the time I spend repairing
>clothing, harvesting gardens, collecting eggs into dollars not spent at some
>shop, I am earning better than I could working somewhere else. Plus, I am here
>for the children when they return from school or if they have need of a parent
>during the day.
That is true. One parent should stay home with the children, and it
usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never
understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income. Just
more money for the tax man to take from. In fact, a family would pay
less income tax if only one partner worked, or one partner made MUCH
less than the other one. If both partners made about the same income,
then the tax rate would be much higher (this I learned from a tax
class I took in law school - the only thing I really retained from
that class).
Plus, the savings on gas and car usage (you might even be able to have
ONE CAR!). In addition, isn't time with your children priceless? Two
parents who work is not a frugal situation since all the extra money
that is made is spent on childcare, babysitting, fast food, gas, car
repairs, taxes, etc. People never think about that. I believe most
people want to work to get away from their kids, which is strange,
because why have kids in the first place if they're raised by
strangers?
>I see too many people playing the 'keep up with the Jones' game and needing to
>work two jobs per adult to manage it. Where is the time to enjoy the extras
>purchased with that income if you are working two jobs? Does the family really
>_need_ that boat or four wheeler or expensive car?
No, the excuse now is HEALTH CARE! Imagine if America had socialized
medicine, maybe, just maybe one parent might stay home to raise the
kids. But probably not, Americans are selfish.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:31 pm
From: "h"
"Napoleon" <anarch@666yes.net> wrote in message
news:etqef5983tu9a9nltleus744nvqpqbi2hh@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:26:29 -0500, Vandy Terre
> <vandy@tanglewood-destiny.com> wrote:
>
>> Some would say I would earn more if I
>>worked outside the home. I say not. If you turn the time I spend
>>repairing
>>clothing, harvesting gardens, collecting eggs into dollars not spent at
>>some
>>shop, I am earning better than I could working somewhere else. Plus, I am
>>here
>>for the children when they return from school or if they have need of a
>>parent
>>during the day.
>
> That is true. One parent should stay home with the children, and it
> usually is more frugal than if both parents worked. I could never
> understand the obsession in America with the Two-Family income. Just
> more money for the tax man to take from. In fact, a family would pay
> less income tax if only one partner worked, or one partner made MUCH
> less than the other one. If both partners made about the same income,
> then the tax rate would be much higher (this I learned from a tax
> class I took in law school - the only thing I really retained from
> that class).
>
> Plus, the savings on gas and car usage (you might even be able to have
> ONE CAR!). In addition, isn't time with your children priceless? Two
> parents who work is not a frugal situation since all the extra money
> that is made is spent on childcare, babysitting, fast food, gas, car
> repairs, taxes, etc. People never think about that. I believe most
> people want to work to get away from their kids, which is strange,
> because why have kids in the first place if they're raised by
> strangers?
If you REALLY want to be frugal you don't have kids in the first place. You
are neither frugal nor green if you breed.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: slowpoke general contractor got us $6,000!!! (home tax credit)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b7692010fa0607f6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:05 pm
From: Napoleon
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:17:59 -0500, Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:
> The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids.
>Although kids do take up resources in the short term, they also become
>tomorrow's taxpayers.
Hey OGuy, I thought you were against govt interference in your life?
You know, socialized medicine and all that. But you're willing to suck
at the teat of the govt for the tax credit? Seems a little
hypocritical.
No matter, the crappy health bill passed the house. Let's hope it's SO
BAD, that we can get real socialized medicine here someday. It
certainly would be more useful than a child tax credit. At least
socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Nov 8 2009 5:30 pm
From: "h"
"Napoleon" <anarch@666yes.net> wrote in message
news:agqef5hbkq37u8fk30dqi801ch26meatb2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:17:59 -0500, Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The child tax credit is designed to encourage people to have kids.
>>Although kids do take up resources in the short term, they also become
>>tomorrow's taxpayers.
>
> Hey OGuy, I thought you were against govt interference in your life?
> You know, socialized medicine and all that. But you're willing to suck
> at the teat of the govt for the tax credit? Seems a little
> hypocritical.
>
> No matter, the crappy health bill passed the house. Let's hope it's SO
> BAD, that we can get real socialized medicine here someday. It
> certainly would be more useful than a child tax credit. At least
> socialized medicine BENEFITS EVERYONE, not just those who have kids.
OhioGuy seems to have the mentality typical of the flyover states. He wants
the gubmint completely out of his life UNLESS it's shoving money into his
pockets. He says he believes in "personal responsibility" and then gloats
about the taxpayers funding his lifestyle choices.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment