Where will inflation stop?

frenchyd said:

In reply to RX Reven' :

.....High taxes?   Sure,  nothing of value comes cheaply. If low taxes are  your goal, Arkansas, Mississippi, North Dakota,  etc.  should attract you. ..

I think you touch on a very important point here Frenchy.  Taxes to value.  If you boil down what really frustrates tax payers in CA it is exactly that.  What value?  It's not the weather or great scenery, because that should have nothing to do with taxes, it cost the government nothing, and should actually make it far cheaper to live here (higher cost of housing is more reasonable in this case).

I, and most I suspect, would not mind paying higher taxes if we saw a result from those taxes.  In CA, it is very clearly not the case.  Bad roads, high crime, insane costs, insane regulation, wildly out control homeless (many of which are from out of state) etc. Where is the benefit? What exactly are we paying for?

In reply to frenchyd :

Prop 13 has been a tremendous benefit to me.

My house was built in 1979 and my grandparents were the original owners.  When they passed away, I bought their home out of their estate under a "first right of refusal" provision which is legal ease for a type of ownership continuity.

Essentially, my property tax is one percent of the original sale price of 88.5K times a two percent annual increase plus various special assessments.

Bottom line, my property tax is $3,600 per year but if I were to buy another home of equal value today it would be $16,250 per year.  Since we did away with the SALT deduction, that $12,650 delta is pure net savings.

California has a very progressive long term capital gains rate.

If you're on Medicare, had your house for a long time, and it's paid for, you can keep your annual spend below the point where California is going to crush you.

Here's a little calculator I created in Excel:

Basically, if you can live on 90K or less, California isn't too bad but if you want to live on 120K+, they go absolutely Ape $hit on you; by far the hightest in the country!

In my case, my wife is seven years younger than I so if I want to retire now, I'll need to pay for health insurance for the next fifteen years which will eat up about 1/3 of that 90K cap after taxes.

In reply to RX Reven' :

The trouble with value, is it's in the eye of the beholder. 
      Part of your list of problems is due to your size.  And hey, crime is actually going down slightly decade over decade.  
   Homelessness is a major problem caused by your nicer weather. 
    Winter here in mMinnesota  it pretty much disappears. Not that it goes away. But abandoned buildings  get occupants, cars are slept in,  shelters used.  Etc.   
  But when snow is 2 feet deep and 30-40 below  California looks pretty good. 
  Florida  and Texas also have  homeless issues. And the attending crime that follows.   
    The hard part is there is so little that can be done!  Arrest them for vagrancy?  The cost of jails just shot through the roof,  plus  police and courts.  
   The cheapest solution is welfare.  But that drives taxes up as well. But  It's cheaper than any alternative.     
   Ignore the problem?  Crime goes up and home values soften. Far in excess of any welfare.  
  Jail?  Nightly cost of Jail is something around $85. $2550 a month plus police and the courts. Probably another $150 per vagrant.   I don't know what California's monthly welfare payment is.  But it's got to be less than that. 
     
      

RX Reven' said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Prop 13 has been a tremendous benefit to me.

My house was built in 1979 and my grandparents were the original owners.  When they passed away, I bought their home out of their estate under a "first right of refusal" provision which is legal ease for a type of ownership continuity.

Essentially, my property tax is one percent of the original sale price of 88.5K times a two percent annual increase plus various special assessments.

Bottom line, my property tax is $3,600 per year but if I were to buy another home of equal value today it would be $16,250 per year.  Since we did away with the SALT deduction, that $12,650 delta is pure net savings.

California has a very progressive long term capital gains rate.  If you're on Medicare, had your house for a long time, and it's paid for, you can keep your annual spend below the point where California is going to crush you.

Here's a little calculator I created in Excel:

Basically, if you can live on 90K or less, California isn't too bad.  In my case, my wife is seven years younger than I so if I want to retire now, I'll need to pay for health insurance for the next fifteen years which will eat up about 1/3 of that 90K cap after taxes.

I'm 73 and still working.  Part time pay for a 12 hour day.  It's what allows me to race.  
   As A vet I don't get any VA medical benefits because my social security and retirement  get me above the cut off.  I do get Medicare but that costs me $185 a month  and my wife's insurance  is better. ( if I wanted to fill the "doughnut hole" in medicare that's another $150+ a month)!

  The thing that hurts is my home's tax base value increased by $285,000 this year alone. Which will be a sizable tax jump. 

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. My point was that the state makes more money off of most businesses' labor than the businesses make themselves. I did point out that businesses don't pay taxes, the customer does, but that wasn't the point. I often bid large projects where my gross margin- before all of the business expenses are added in- is lower than the state collects in sales tax. My company does all the work and takes all of the risk, and the amount we take to the bottom line- which we are taxed on again- is a fraction of the sales  tax taken by the state. Add up all of the taxes, and the government takes in orders of magnitude more money than the business for their work. If we were starting from scratch, today- and the government said to business "for every dollar of profit you make, we want $4, I don't think that would fly. But here we are. And $4 is probably really low. 

frenchyd said:

In reply to RX Reven' :

  Florida  and Texas also have  homeless issues. And the attending crime that follows.   
    The hard part is there is so little that can be done!  Arrest them for vagrancy?  The cost of jails just shot through the roof,  plus  police and courts.  
   The cheapest solution is welfare.  But that drives taxes up as well. But  It's cheaper than any alternative.     
   Ignore the problem?  Crime goes up and home values soften. Far in excess of any welfare.  
  Jail?  Nightly cost of Jail is something around $85. $2550 a month plus police and the courts. Probably another $150 per vagrant.   I don't know what California's monthly welfare payment is.  But it's got to be less than that. 
    

Most of the suburbs around Dallas have the homeless problem solved. The police pick up homeless people, take them to the outskirts of the town, point them South and tell them "Dallas is that way, don't ever let us catch you in our town again". They deny doing it, but everybody knows it happens. The more upscale suburbs don't have problems with panhandlers and tent cities. 

They don't call this place "Off Topic" for nothing!

Increasing inflation, increasing crime, increasing taxes.....  I'm sure it's all just some sort of freak accident.  I'm sure if you pay more taxes, we can create world piece and cure climate change!  Never mind they promised to cure hunger and poverty decades ago and 29 years ago they fixed health care.  You all continue to argue who is on which side and about equality.  
 

Let me drop a big clue in your lap.  They don't care about or even want equality.  They want more power, more money, more control, and want you to shut up and do what you're told.  If you won't do that fighting with your neighbors in the same situation you are will keep you distracted so they can do as they wish.  
 

This much stuff doesn't get messed up this fast unless they are working together.  They love it when you blame your neighbors though.  
 

There is no left or right.  There is only up or down.  

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

That's one thing about the nomad trend.  It's a big middle finger and "I don't want to play your game anymore" to mainstream life.  

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Increasing inflation, increasing crime, increasing taxes.....  I'm sure it's all just some sort of freak accident.  I'm sure if you pay more taxes, we can create world piece and cure climate change!  Never mind they promised to cure hunger and poverty decades ago and 29 years ago they fixed health care.  You all continue to argue who is on which side and about equality.  
 

Let me drop a big clue in your lap.  They don't care about or even want equality.  They want more power, more money, more control, and want you to shut up and do what you're told.  If you won't do that fighting with your neighbors in the same situation you are will keep you distracted so they can do as they wish.  
 

This much stuff doesn't get messed up this fast unless they are working together.  They love it when you blame your neighbors though.  
 

There is no left or right.  There is only up or down.  

Politicians need power because corporations are so powerful. They buy whatever they want because, compared to the big corporations politicians are chump change. 
    It's not that they are coming after your lawn mowers or bowling balls. Most laws affecting people are local.   Speed limits and stop signs are local.  police are local.  Taxes and property rules are local. Schools and parks are local.  
       As long as politicians from either party can be legally bribed  by big business.  Capitalism will fail.  Democracy is under attack.  
  You are absolutly correct in that  they distract you with nonsense that means little or nothing. 
 

In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :

True indeed. But there are only so many places and they all are regulated and controlled.  That tropical paradise?  Arctic wilderness?   Controlled and limited. 

frenchyd said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Increasing inflation, increasing crime, increasing taxes.....  I'm sure it's all just some sort of freak accident.  I'm sure if you pay more taxes, we can create world piece and cure climate change!  Never mind they promised to cure hunger and poverty decades ago and 29 years ago they fixed health care.  You all continue to argue who is on which side and about equality.  
 

Let me drop a big clue in your lap.  They don't care about or even want equality.  They want more power, more money, more control, and want you to shut up and do what you're told.  If you won't do that fighting with your neighbors in the same situation you are will keep you distracted so they can do as they wish.  
 

This much stuff doesn't get messed up this fast unless they are working together.  They love it when you blame your neighbors though.  
 

There is no left or right.  There is only up or down.  

Politicians need power because corporations are so powerful. They buy whatever they want because, compared to the big corporations politicians are chump change. 
    It's not that they are coming after your lawn mowers or bowling balls. Most laws affecting people are local.   Speed limits and stop signs are local.  police are local.  Taxes and property rules are local. Schools and parks are local.  
       As long as politicians from either party can be legally bribed  by big business.  Capitalism will fail.  Democracy is under attack.  
  You are absolutly correct in that  they distract you with nonsense that means little or nothing. 
 

I just can't get over the fact that with a war in the Ukraine, a housing shortage, refugees coming from everywhere and the spike in gas prices, that somebody getting slapped at the Oscars gets more press than our real problems. Kids are getting shot in schools and people are getting slaughtered wholesale by the Russians. They guy who got slapped didn't even go down. Hollywood and the elites really want us distracted. 

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

I don't think it's about Hollywood wanting distraction.  Rather the fact that it occurred in such a dignified venue that traditionally has a well behaved venue. 
      Plus the worlds press was there. 
       With regard to our children being shot in schools there the lack of press is a political statement.  1/2 of the country doesn't want to hear about it.  
  Sometimes things are just what they seem to be and sometimes not. 

frenchyd said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Increasing inflation, increasing crime, increasing taxes.....  I'm sure it's all just some sort of freak accident.  I'm sure if you pay more taxes, we can create world piece and cure climate change!  Never mind they promised to cure hunger and poverty decades ago and 29 years ago they fixed health care.  You all continue to argue who is on which side and about equality.  
 

Let me drop a big clue in your lap.  They don't care about or even want equality.  They want more power, more money, more control, and want you to shut up and do what you're told.  If you won't do that fighting with your neighbors in the same situation you are will keep you distracted so they can do as they wish.  
 

This much stuff doesn't get messed up this fast unless they are working together.  They love it when you blame your neighbors though.  
 

There is no left or right.  There is only up or down.  

Politicians need power because corporations are so powerful. They buy whatever they want because, compared to the big corporations politicians are chump change. 
    It's not that they are coming after your lawn mowers or bowling balls. Most laws affecting people are local.   Speed limits and stop signs are local.  police are local.  Taxes and property rules are local. Schools and parks are local.  
       As long as politicians from either party can be legally bribed  by big business.  Capitalism will fail.  Democracy is under attack.  
  You are absolutly correct in that  they distract you with nonsense that means little or nothing. 
 

People with money influencing policy and getting that sweet corporate welfare is capitalism working as intended. Perhaps not as advertised, but the current economic climate is the direct outcome of supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics. No one has ever mathematically proven supply side economics but it has festered into the current state of being.

In reply to AaronT :

Ahhh but what's keeping capitalism afloat is the printed money. 
 Traditionally what keeps capitalism working is growth. More people creating more things, earning money to buy other things. China is actual proof of capitalism.  
  American capitalists traded our productivity and gains for lower labor costs. In effect cutting off their noses to spite their face.   By having China build things that previously had been made in America.  As jobs and whole careers were lost, wages slipped.  No longer could a man work hard at his job and send 2-3 children to college. Now those children had to assume debt  to get that same education. Thus repayment of student loans delayed purchase of new homes. 
   Entry level jobs paid less and less in real terms. Until the recent pandemic caused the great resignation. That too hasn't been resolved yet. 
 

frenchyd said:

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

I don't think it's about Hollywood wanting distraction.  Rather the fact that it occurred in such a dignified venue that traditionally has a well behaved venue. 
      Plus the worlds press was there. 
       With regard to our children being shot in schools there the lack of press is a political statement.  1/2 of the country doesn't want to hear about it.  
  Sometimes things are just what they seem to be and sometimes not. 

Nothing dignified about the Oscars. Somebody is always trying to make a radical political statement or drawing attention with a "wardrobe malfunction. The problem is that most of America isn't interested in watching, thus the ratings keep dropping year after year. 

In reply to frenchyd :

Amen.

There was a thread on Speedtalk a ways back about an econo dragster idea so kids can get into racing.  The problem isn't that the cars are too expensive, the problem is that there are not many 20somethings anymore who can afford a house and truck and trailer and the running expense of fielding a drag only car.  They were focusing on cheaper cars, ignoring that even if the cars were free, most people can't afford it.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Amen.

There was a thread on Speedtalk a ways back about an econo dragster idea so kids can get into racing.  The problem isn't that the cars are too expensive, the problem is that there are not many 20somethings anymore who can afford a house and truck and trailer and the running expense of fielding a drag only car.  They were focusing on cheaper cars, ignoring that even if the cars were free, most people can't afford it.

Great point.  Even our $2000 challenge is more than a lot can afford. Calvin Nelson reports it's around $4000 to build a $2000 car.  Tires are exempt but not free, the rules allow replacement of broken parts without a budget hit ( as long as they are equal ) but again somebody has to pay that and exempt safety gear? Same deal.  Plus get it there, afford to stay there and return.  
      Now if you shop carefully and buy the right car you can probably participate for less.  But you won't be at the pointy end of the field. 
       Young guys in their late teens, early 20's, would be hard pressed to be competitive.   
   I'd like to help some young guys but it's not going to work if they need to wait and wait and wait before they can save enough to participate. 
  Can you imagine what it's like to go wheel to wheel racing for young guys?   $10,000  budget will require a lucky purchase,  a lot of late nights and scrounging. And relatively few events in  the year. 

In reply to AaronT :

People with money influencing policy and getting that sweet corporate welfare is capitalism working as intended. Perhaps not as advertised, but the current economic climate is the direct outcome of supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics. No one has ever mathematically proven supply side economics but it has festered into the current state of being.
 

It's not perfect, but show me a better system. The problem with trickle down is people who put little effort or skill into the system and complain when money isn't falling into their laps. But what we have right now is the exact friggin' opposite of trickle down. We told businesses that they must close, we told people not to go out. We gave people boatloads of money to not work. Now our economy is hamstrung with labor shortages. There has never been a better time to get a job, and jobs are paying more than they ever have before. Now to no one's  surprise that can do math, the cost of doing business has gone up and that cost gets passed on to customers. 
 

As for people with money influencing policy, who would you have influencing policy? You say that like it's a negative thing, but who else do you propose? Walk me through how people without money influencing policy makes more sense. Not that it doesn't happen, it's happening at a record pace in many places in the country, but it's not working out so well so far. Hence the topic of this discussion. 

frenchyd said:

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

In reply to frenchyd :

Amen.

There was a thread on Speedtalk a ways back about an econo dragster idea so kids can get into racing.  The problem isn't that the cars are too expensive, the problem is that there are not many 20somethings anymore who can afford a house and truck and trailer and the running expense of fielding a drag only car.  They were focusing on cheaper cars, ignoring that even if the cars were free, most people can't afford it.

Great point.  Even our $2000 challenge is more than a lot can afford. Calvin Nelson reports it's around $4000 to build a $2000 car.  Tires are exempt but not free, the rules allow replacement of broken parts without a budget hit ( as long as they are equal ) but again somebody has to pay that and exempt safety gear? Same deal.  Plus get it there, afford to stay there and return.  
      Now if you shop carefully and buy the right car you can probably participate for less.  But you won't be at the pointy end of the field. 
       Young guys in their late teens, early 20's, would be hard pressed to be competitive.   
   I'd like to help some young guys but it's not going to work if they need to wait and wait and wait before they can save enough to participate. 
  Can you imagine what it's like to go wheel to wheel racing for young guys?   $10,000  budget will require a lucky purchase,  a lot of late nights and scrounging. And relatively few events in  the year. 

If you live in Florida you don't have the expense of getting the car across the country. If you are local you don't even have the expense of a hotel room. If you live in Texas like I do, you have the expense of a tow vehicle and a trailer and motel rooms on the way out and fueling all of it with $4 a gallon gasoline. More like a $4,000 Challenge. Coming from California or Canada or somewhere further out increases costs even more. If you want to do it the crazy man's way like I did you could drive a $600 Suzuki Swift from Dallas to Gainesville, but you aren't going to beat the stripped down cars that rode in on a trailer with a truck full of tools and a welder and so on. I didn't. But I did make it all the way back home. You could sleep in a tent and crash at KOA camps to save even more money, or sleep in your car. But you still can't get around the high gas prices. 

I might try it again someday just to see how cheap I can do it. It would probably involve some non-running sub $1,000 Korean car because the Suzukis and Geos are all rusted away, and I would go with a tent and a sleeping bag to cut hotel costs at the expense of my back. I still won't win against the trailered cars that don't have to be driven a long distance, but it might be fun.

In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :

How true.  My teammates want to try it though. I have access to a trailer I built and the truck to pull it. I'm also building the Jaguar on a $2000 budget.  For them  it's 1800 miles Plus return.  It's also 25 hours of driving.  ( non stop,   one way ).  Fuel alone is over $1000. Plus toll fairs. ?$100?    Better budget  another $1000 for 5 days of lodging.  One is closer to my age,  another is more middle age.  I doubt they will be willing to tent it.  Then meals?  At least another $300.  Plus entry fee.  
     So let's  call it the  $6500 challenge.   

Perhaps some sort of slush fund that is distributed each year weighted by distance traveled?

I am sure most would love to have something that encourages more v12's to appear 

In reply to frenchyd :

I'm 62 and would be perfectly happy sleeping in a tent surrounded by REI gear. But I would draw the line at hunting and skinning my own food along the way. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to AaronT :

People with money influencing policy and getting that sweet corporate welfare is capitalism working as intended. Perhaps not as advertised, but the current economic climate is the direct outcome of supply-side/trickle-down/Reaganomics. No one has ever mathematically proven supply side economics but it has festered into the current state of being.
 

It's not perfect, but show me a better system. The problem with trickle down is people who put little effort or skill into the system and complain when money isn't falling into their laps. But what we have right now is the exact friggin' opposite of trickle down. We told businesses that they must close, we told people not to go out. We gave people boatloads of money to not work. Now our economy is hamstrung with labor shortages. There has never been a better time to get a job, and jobs are paying more than they ever have before. Now to no one's  surprise that can do math, the cost of doing business has gone up and that cost gets passed on to customers. 
 

As for people with money influencing policy, who would you have influencing policy? You say that like it's a negative thing, but who else do you propose? Walk me through how people without money influencing policy makes more sense. Not that it doesn't happen, it's happening at a record pace in many places in the country, but it's not working out so well so far. Hence the topic of this discussion. 

Wages have lagged productivity since the late mid-70s, which is the exact opposite result of what trickle down should do. Anyway, I'll ask you for the mathematical proof that trickle down works. This is not a question about feelings, this is a question about math. We really did not give people as much money to not work as the chicken-little crowd will tell you, and that money has long since been spent.

There is no such thing as a labor shortage, simply a wage shortage. Given the record corporate profits, you'd expect increased wages with trickle-down, right? Also, labor cost is just supply and demand, baby! That's the free berkeleying market working it's magic.

Allowing money to influence policy is how we end up with corporate welfare and the taxpayers subsidizing too-big-to-fail. Isn't failure part of the free market? Let them go under.

In reply to AaronT :

Ironically enough, a lot of the labor shortage is because people's 401ks are doing so well, they used Covid as a good reason to retire early. 90% of the people who left the workforce are over 55.

You can't find people willing to work at the diner for $2.15 an hour because they got a higher paying job, that was probably vacated by someone else giving themself a raise by moving up.  If I got a job doing whatever at $40k/year I ain't going back to waiting tables or flipping burgers.

If you want cheap labor again, tank the stock market.