besides, your sight distance is more limited at night as opposed to daytime. also I want to make a comment, seeing as how today is July 31 and tomorrow we start a new month (August) I am working on the monthly budget as advised by Mr. Ramsey. Live within your means and get on a plan America, stop living like everything's okay! Save more, spend less! not rocket science!!!
I have a solution....example: Texas, when the night time speed limit gets phased out in September, continue driving 65 mph at night like we still have to in July and August 2011. (still in place) instead of driving 70, 75, or even 80. You'll get better gas mileage @65 than @70-80, and keep your tires properly inflated, I recommend 34-35 lbs. per square inch.
@ir10031981 good point, driving slower at night is ideal and common sense, it's safer at 65, and you'll require a shorter stopping distance as opposed to higher speeds.
it's hard to live on minimum wage even here in the conservative state of Texas. When you're raking in less than $25,000 a year, it's tough on relationships. Men: Try explaining to your girlfriend or wife about why you and her should live frugally and budget and at some point she might snap.
I've lost all faith in this country. I know the GOP only cares about the billionaires but this cash for clunkers thing was just to continue the buy stuff we cant afford to make the big corporations rich. Obama has done little to prove hes muc different than Bush.
This also destroyed the cars that we broke people could have afforded, leaving us with cars we COULDN'T afford. The government officials who come up with this BS are STUPIDLY ambitious. The don't STOP and THINK about the ramifications of their ideas. Or maybe they do, and then continue because playing robin hood can keep them (unfortunately) employed.
What if you weren't broke, what if you paid taxes like normal Americans do and took the incentives and used it to get a lower price on the vehicle and buy cash for the vehicle?
This idiot can't even sniff Peter Schiff's jock!.....I am sure he will NEVER challenge someone who actually KNOWS what they speak of.......this idiot should not have an audience.....research this dick.....he put many in the poor house.......This dolt is the Dr. Phil of finance.....he is joke who preys on stupid people.
I looked for something on this moron that was recent.......after he humiliated himself by challenging Peter Schiff.....most of the videos are 1 or 2 years old.....this was the most recent...I don't blame him for running for cover since he looks like a total moron....anybody who listens to this fool is an idiot.....look up "Peter Schiff" and "Dave Ramsey".....now he wants to sing another tune......embecil
Dopey Dave. Nice call on the '08 recession. You kinda missed that one. Peter Schiff is the real man. He called the crash. You had no clue in '08. Your understanding of economics is shallow at best.
The Cash for clunkers program is nearly identical in nature to the policy of tax credits that are given to people for donations to university athletic programs for which he 'went ballistic' on John Yang for ranting and calling him a socialist, for criticizing that policy and calling him a liar. Now he is making the same point Yang was making about a different program for what seem to be purely political reasons.
He's not even consistent in his beliefs, no idea why anyone listens to this clown
NO! My god. They are not the same at all. Cash for clunkers actually involved the government giving vouchers The government was actually writing checks to people to help them buy cars. Money that they didn't earn and had no right to. In the case of tax credits people are simply being allowed to keep more of the money that they themselves earned because that money is donated to a non-profit entity. Not only are they not "nearly identical", one has nothing to do with the other.
@phippsed So the government writes me a check for 3500 dollars and then taxes me 3500 dollars more come tax time, or the government doesn't give me a check but lets me keep 3500 dollars, at the bottom line those two things aren't nearly identical they're EXACTLY the same. Do all the mental masturbation you want to try and justtify whatever zany world view you have but math is still math so you might wanna stick to things that aren't so easily quantified when you blather nonsense.
The only thing they have in common is that they are tied to government revenue even in that case they are tied to government revenue in opposing ways. You don't get to keep any extra money when you donate to a non-profit you just don't get taxed on the money that gets donated. Clearly you have never filled out a tax form which doesn't surprise me given the language you use. THe subsidy gets taxed but at whatever rate your tax bracket is. Certainly not 100%. That wouldn't make sense.
They would then owe the government (just under) $22,000.
If they buy a new car for say $20,0000, cash for clunkers aside, the government doesn't care and taxes them the same amount.
If they instead donate 20k to their alma mater's football program then this am mount gets deducted from there taxable income thus they would pay 22% on $80,0000 dollars, though further charitable donations can serve to drop your tax bracket, in this case to roughly 20% (rounded down), yielding $80000x0.20 = $16000
Thus have a difference of $6,000 that you get to 'keep' which you would not have had you spent that same money on a car. If I were in this situation and offered cash for clunkers or to have my purchase of a new car treated in the same way as such a charitable donation I would obviously choose the later as dictated by basic understanding of mathematics. When it comes to finance the only thing that really matters is the bottom line, unfortunately we live in a world with tax codes, but as such we
must account for this appropriately in our mathematics and use the results to inform our opinions. I'll grant that the perks of having a better funded college football team and whatever perks come with being atop the alumni booster donations list, is a much less tangible product than a car, but it is a product of some sort none the less. This should all be granted ahead of time, the only real debate here is whether college athletics is of acceptable humanitarian worth to be granted chairitable
status and exemption. The same is true for cash for clunkers.
Hopefully the force of math has swayed you, if you wish to have the debate on the only actual issue here, the charitable merits of both programs, I'm willing to. Though to be honest I don't find that very interesting.
For what it's worth I'm against both policies.
And for the record I've filled out tax forms, also received an A in a non-introductory university math of finance course.
That is not how cash for clunkers works. Its not a tax deduction it is a 4,500 dollar subsidy. If you were buying a car that costs 16K the government covers the first 4,500 and you pay 11,500. It has nothing to do with taxes. If that was how cash for clunkers works then of course I would agree with you. Now perfectly good cars are being destroyed. People are being encouraged to buy cars they can't afford and the debt is soaring.
So when you were talking about mental masturbation and zany (reality based) world views. What was that? Reasoned discourse apparently. Sorry I'm not as classy as you are. Under the first scenario the person has a net income of 78K (100-22). Under the second scenario their net income is 64k (80-16). THey dont have an extra 6K. They may have payed 6k less in taxes but their net income is still lower and that is what really matters.
Under the second scenario they have 78k - 20k they spent on their car which is 58k which is 6k less than 64k.
that's the whole point we're comparing the product of a car to the product of a booster club donation which I admitted is less tangible and clearly more people probably want cars than their favorite college football team to do well, but again, that's not the point. I never said cash for clunkers had anything to do with taxes, I agree it was a stupid program, but that has
nothing to do with this. This is an objective mathematical fact. What makes your world view zany and resulted in my describing your thought processes as mental masturbation was your failure to recognize this fact, and further to explicitly dispute it.
Sorry but when someone throws around words like socialist and communist as meaningless terms to justify not liking one thing but being okay with another, and as a result comes back with 3+3 = 6 but 1+2+3 = 5, I don't know what else to call it.
Dave, we are still living in the tail of the recession of 2000-2001 that gov. did not let fully unravel, not just recession caused by housing. Maybe you could not connect the dots, but I hope you read this message.
All cash for clunkers does is take good running cars off the road, and makes it harder for people that need a used engine. How about I keep driving my oil burning F-150 and blow enormous clouds of smoke all down the road, since I won't be able to find a used engine now. Obama you can take the $4500 I could of used and shove it up your ass, as I think this is the stupidest program I have ever seen.
besides, your sight distance is more limited at night as opposed to daytime. also I want to make a comment, seeing as how today is July 31 and tomorrow we start a new month (August) I am working on the monthly budget as advised by Mr. Ramsey. Live within your means and get on a plan America, stop living like everything's okay! Save more, spend less! not rocket science!!!
orangefiona1 7 months ago
I have a solution....example: Texas, when the night time speed limit gets phased out in September, continue driving 65 mph at night like we still have to in July and August 2011. (still in place) instead of driving 70, 75, or even 80. You'll get better gas mileage @65 than @70-80, and keep your tires properly inflated, I recommend 34-35 lbs. per square inch.
ir10031981 7 months ago
@ir10031981 good point, driving slower at night is ideal and common sense, it's safer at 65, and you'll require a shorter stopping distance as opposed to higher speeds.
orangefiona1 7 months ago
it's hard to live on minimum wage even here in the conservative state of Texas. When you're raking in less than $25,000 a year, it's tough on relationships. Men: Try explaining to your girlfriend or wife about why you and her should live frugally and budget and at some point she might snap.
ir10031981 7 months ago
I've lost all faith in this country. I know the GOP only cares about the billionaires but this cash for clunkers thing was just to continue the buy stuff we cant afford to make the big corporations rich. Obama has done little to prove hes muc different than Bush.
jebenn23 8 months ago
This also destroyed the cars that we broke people could have afforded, leaving us with cars we COULDN'T afford. The government officials who come up with this BS are STUPIDLY ambitious. The don't STOP and THINK about the ramifications of their ideas. Or maybe they do, and then continue because playing robin hood can keep them (unfortunately) employed.
onionofdeath 1 year ago 2
What if you weren't broke, what if you paid taxes like normal Americans do and took the incentives and used it to get a lower price on the vehicle and buy cash for the vehicle?
RemixG 1 year ago
This idiot can't even sniff Peter Schiff's jock!.....I am sure he will NEVER challenge someone who actually KNOWS what they speak of.......this idiot should not have an audience.....research this dick.....he put many in the poor house.......This dolt is the Dr. Phil of finance.....he is joke who preys on stupid people.
msm318 1 year ago
I looked for something on this moron that was recent.......after he humiliated himself by challenging Peter Schiff.....most of the videos are 1 or 2 years old.....this was the most recent...I don't blame him for running for cover since he looks like a total moron....anybody who listens to this fool is an idiot.....look up "Peter Schiff" and "Dave Ramsey".....now he wants to sing another tune......embecil
msm318 1 year ago
Dopey Dave. Nice call on the '08 recession. You kinda missed that one. Peter Schiff is the real man. He called the crash. You had no clue in '08. Your understanding of economics is shallow at best.
provc 1 year ago
@provc AMEN
He's an idiot.
msm318 1 year ago
The Cash for clunkers program is nearly identical in nature to the policy of tax credits that are given to people for donations to university athletic programs for which he 'went ballistic' on John Yang for ranting and calling him a socialist, for criticizing that policy and calling him a liar. Now he is making the same point Yang was making about a different program for what seem to be purely political reasons.
He's not even consistent in his beliefs, no idea why anyone listens to this clown
pilatech 1 year ago
@pilatech
NO! My god. They are not the same at all. Cash for clunkers actually involved the government giving vouchers The government was actually writing checks to people to help them buy cars. Money that they didn't earn and had no right to. In the case of tax credits people are simply being allowed to keep more of the money that they themselves earned because that money is donated to a non-profit entity. Not only are they not "nearly identical", one has nothing to do with the other.
phippsed 1 year ago
Comment removed
pilatech 1 year ago
@phippsed So the government writes me a check for 3500 dollars and then taxes me 3500 dollars more come tax time, or the government doesn't give me a check but lets me keep 3500 dollars, at the bottom line those two things aren't nearly identical they're EXACTLY the same. Do all the mental masturbation you want to try and justtify whatever zany world view you have but math is still math so you might wanna stick to things that aren't so easily quantified when you blather nonsense.
pilatech 1 year ago
@pilatech
The only thing they have in common is that they are tied to government revenue even in that case they are tied to government revenue in opposing ways. You don't get to keep any extra money when you donate to a non-profit you just don't get taxed on the money that gets donated. Clearly you have never filled out a tax form which doesn't surprise me given the language you use. THe subsidy gets taxed but at whatever rate your tax bracket is. Certainly not 100%. That wouldn't make sense.
phippsed 1 year ago
@phippsed
Come on man, 'clearly you have never filled out a tax form'?
Another, albeit strange, ad hominem and I'm content to ignore you as not capable of reasoned discourse.
As you seem unwilling to grasp the concept in general terms I will resort to a simple hypothetical example.
Let us assume some person X makes $100,000 a year in taxable income. To simplify assume the person is single, has no savings dependents ect.
In 2009 this puts them in a tax bracket at roughly 22% (rounded up)
pilatech 1 year ago
They would then owe the government (just under) $22,000.
If they buy a new car for say $20,0000, cash for clunkers aside, the government doesn't care and taxes them the same amount.
If they instead donate 20k to their alma mater's football program then this am mount gets deducted from there taxable income thus they would pay 22% on $80,0000 dollars, though further charitable donations can serve to drop your tax bracket, in this case to roughly 20% (rounded down), yielding $80000x0.20 = $16000
pilatech 1 year ago
Thus have a difference of $6,000 that you get to 'keep' which you would not have had you spent that same money on a car. If I were in this situation and offered cash for clunkers or to have my purchase of a new car treated in the same way as such a charitable donation I would obviously choose the later as dictated by basic understanding of mathematics. When it comes to finance the only thing that really matters is the bottom line, unfortunately we live in a world with tax codes, but as such we
pilatech 1 year ago
must account for this appropriately in our mathematics and use the results to inform our opinions. I'll grant that the perks of having a better funded college football team and whatever perks come with being atop the alumni booster donations list, is a much less tangible product than a car, but it is a product of some sort none the less. This should all be granted ahead of time, the only real debate here is whether college athletics is of acceptable humanitarian worth to be granted chairitable
pilatech 1 year ago
status and exemption. The same is true for cash for clunkers.
Hopefully the force of math has swayed you, if you wish to have the debate on the only actual issue here, the charitable merits of both programs, I'm willing to. Though to be honest I don't find that very interesting.
For what it's worth I'm against both policies.
And for the record I've filled out tax forms, also received an A in a non-introductory university math of finance course.
Most meaningless however, this is elementary.
pilatech 1 year ago
@pilatech
That is not how cash for clunkers works. Its not a tax deduction it is a 4,500 dollar subsidy. If you were buying a car that costs 16K the government covers the first 4,500 and you pay 11,500. It has nothing to do with taxes. If that was how cash for clunkers works then of course I would agree with you. Now perfectly good cars are being destroyed. People are being encouraged to buy cars they can't afford and the debt is soaring.
phippsed 1 year ago 2
@pilatech
So when you were talking about mental masturbation and zany (reality based) world views. What was that? Reasoned discourse apparently. Sorry I'm not as classy as you are. Under the first scenario the person has a net income of 78K (100-22). Under the second scenario their net income is 64k (80-16). THey dont have an extra 6K. They may have payed 6k less in taxes but their net income is still lower and that is what really matters.
phippsed 1 year ago
@phippsed
Under the second scenario they have 78k - 20k they spent on their car which is 58k which is 6k less than 64k.
that's the whole point we're comparing the product of a car to the product of a booster club donation which I admitted is less tangible and clearly more people probably want cars than their favorite college football team to do well, but again, that's not the point. I never said cash for clunkers had anything to do with taxes, I agree it was a stupid program, but that has
pilatech 1 year ago
nothing to do with this. This is an objective mathematical fact. What makes your world view zany and resulted in my describing your thought processes as mental masturbation was your failure to recognize this fact, and further to explicitly dispute it.
Sorry but when someone throws around words like socialist and communist as meaningless terms to justify not liking one thing but being okay with another, and as a result comes back with 3+3 = 6 but 1+2+3 = 5, I don't know what else to call it.
pilatech 1 year ago
I, Obama and Kim Il Song approve of Cash for Clunkers.
tdolz 1 year ago
LOL I never heard about this until 09
clintonskakun 1 year ago
Dave Ramsey is my own personal guru, hoxha, teacher and shaman. Thanks Dave for allowing so many people to see the light.
lsnows 2 years ago
Yes, Dave Ramsey is a god.
CarlosMerighe 2 years ago
im a pure capitalist!
jeffroman654 2 years ago
Dave, we are still living in the tail of the recession of 2000-2001 that gov. did not let fully unravel, not just recession caused by housing. Maybe you could not connect the dots, but I hope you read this message.
vorotnikova 2 years ago
All cash for clunkers does is take good running cars off the road, and makes it harder for people that need a used engine. How about I keep driving my oil burning F-150 and blow enormous clouds of smoke all down the road, since I won't be able to find a used engine now. Obama you can take the $4500 I could of used and shove it up your ass, as I think this is the stupidest program I have ever seen.
carguy255 2 years ago 2