The REAL Reason You're Broke

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>For a huge number of troubled debtors, it all began with a car. Too
>much car, financed too long, traded too soon.

Reminds me of a gal I dated briefly about 7 years back. We sat up to
watch the 2000 returns. She was very interested in the results of a
local referendum regarding the abolishment of property taxes on
vehicles. I told her that I didn't vote for it, as I believe strongly
that the taxes lost from vehicular property tax would be made up
elsewhere, perhaps even sales tax on food and other essential items.
She wanted no part of that discussion, instead focusing on the
vehicular tax itself.

Her statement was that if she wanted to go out and buy a brand new
Lexus, she shouldn't be prevented from doing so by property taxes. My
immediate reply to her was that if she was shopping for a car where
property taxes were playing into her purchasing decision, she was
shopping for more car than she could afford, and such a decision would
be stupid.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why we stopped dating that
night. =))




--

gpstard ) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the
simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:"
(Message-ID: om>)
Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?

"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity:
the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1dd649fb?hl=en

"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle:
I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
: http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e8a61824?hl=en

Joshua Calvert > demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy":
Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event.
Message-ID: >

In article >, Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) wrote:

> vehicles. I told her that I didn't vote for it, as I believe strongly
> that the taxes lost from vehicular property tax would be made up
> elsewhere, perhaps even sales tax on food and other essential items.
> She wanted no part of that discussion, instead focusing on the
> vehicular tax itself.

How about opposition to either the concept of property taxed or how they
are imposed? Is it really right to increase taxes so that someone is
forced to sell what they already own and have paid for?

That used car you bought in '75 is now worth so much you cannot afford to
keep it? The house you bought in '78 in a less desirable area is now a
desirable area so you have to sell because the taxes are too high?

It just seems wrong to me.

Back when I was in college, at the 7-11 there, this scruffy looking guy
working there. Too old and too young to be working at 7-11. Some of my
friends named him 'Al Bundy'. Well one night I am parking my car
and 'Al' asks me if I can jump his car.... his car... a Boss 302 Mustang.
He had just taken it out of storage and the battery went flat on him.

Boss 302s are selling to the irrational for six figures these days. No
way 'Al' could pay a property tax on this car, but why should it be
taken from him (forced to sell) because he was wise enough to buy it back
when it was just another used car and keep it nice?

Brent P wrote:
>In article >, Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) wrote:
>
>> vehicles. I told her that I didn't vote for it, as I believe strongly
>> that the taxes lost from vehicular property tax would be made up
>> elsewhere, perhaps even sales tax on food and other essential items.
>> She wanted no part of that discussion, instead focusing on the
>> vehicular tax itself.
>
>How about opposition to either the concept of property taxed or how they
>are imposed? Is it really right to increase taxes so that someone is
>forced to sell what they already own and have paid for?
>
>That used car you bought in '75 is now worth so much you cannot afford to
>keep it? The house you bought in '78 in a less desirable area is now a
>desirable area so you have to sell because the taxes are too high?
>
>It just seems wrong to me.
>
>Back when I was in college, at the 7-11 there, this scruffy looking guy
>working there. Too old and too young to be working at 7-11. Some of my
>friends named him 'Al Bundy'. Well one night I am parking my car
>and 'Al' asks me if I can jump his car.... his car... a Boss 302 Mustang.
>He had just taken it out of storage and the battery went flat on him.
>
>Boss 302s are selling to the irrational for six figures these days. No
>way 'Al' could pay a property tax on this car, but why should it be
>taken from him (forced to sell) because he was wise enough to buy it back
>when it was just another used car and keep it nice?

As I understand it, in SC, property taxes work differently for
automobiles verses real property. You don't have to pay property taxes
on a vehicle in SC unless you want to tag it and drive it.

The point being that property taxes are a small portion of the
expenses required to possess, maintain, and operate a vehicle. IMO,
anyone who is budgeting so closely that property taxes are causing
them discomfort is spending beyond their means.


--

gpstard ) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the
simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:"
(Message-ID: om>)
Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?

"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity:
the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1dd649fb?hl=en

"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle:
I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
: http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e8a61824?hl=en

Joshua Calvert > demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy":
Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event.
Message-ID: >

In article >, Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) wrote:

> As I understand it, in SC, property taxes work differently for
> automobiles verses real property. You don't have to pay property taxes
> on a vehicle in SC unless you want to tag it and drive it.

Thankfully no property taxes on anything other than real estate in IL that I
know of. Still seems unfair. It's not like a lexus causes more wear and
tear to the roads more than taurus.

> The point being that property taxes are a small portion of the
> expenses required to possess, maintain, and operate a vehicle. IMO,
> anyone who is budgeting so closely that property taxes are causing
> them discomfort is spending beyond their means.

Doesn't mean the government should have the money.

Brent P wrote:
>In article >, Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, in SC, property taxes work differently for
>> automobiles verses real property. You don't have to pay property taxes
>> on a vehicle in SC unless you want to tag it and drive it.
>
>Thankfully no property taxes on anything other than real estate in IL that I
>know of. Still seems unfair. It's not like a lexus causes more wear and
>tear to the roads more than taurus.

I agree with the unfairness, to a certain degree. The rural area I
live in isn't set up for public transportation, and not many people
have the fortune of being able to walk to work.

Property taxes on automobiles are prorated based on age. As such,
owners of new lexuses would be taxed more than owners of older models.
So the new lexus owners get to pay more of the cost for upkeep on the
roads than the old ones do. :-/

>> The point being that property taxes are a small portion of the
>> expenses required to possess, maintain, and operate a vehicle. IMO,
>> anyone who is budgeting so closely that property taxes are causing
>> them discomfort is spending beyond their means.
>
>Doesn't mean the government should have the money.

I agree with you whole heartedly, but the practical reality of the
situation is they are going to do what they can to get that $$$. After
all, someone's gotta pay jaybird's salary. =))


--

gpstard ) demonstrates his inability to comprehend the
simple differences of the definitions of the monosyllabic words "time" and "chance:"
(Message-ID: om>)
Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident?

"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's homosexuallity:
the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie.
: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1dd649fb?hl=en

"Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle:
I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash.
: http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e8a61824?hl=en

Joshua Calvert > demonstrates his lack of understanding of the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy":
Poor rightard, forced to whine about an 40 year old event.
Message-ID: >

In article >,
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) </dev/nul> wrote:
>
>The point being that property taxes are a small portion of the
>expenses required to possess, maintain, and operate a vehicle. IMO,
>anyone who is budgeting so closely that property taxes are causing
>them discomfort is spending beyond their means.

Not so; they're at the margin.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.