Problems with Rising Fuel Costs

[Thilindel]

It's 3.96 today. Wtf!?

[Lathander]

I've really got to post some things about demand and supply when I get time on here. I've gotten a good laugh about some of the statements.

I did a quick graph of oil prices. D is demand curve and S is the supply curve. As you can see, the demand curve has shifted to the right resulting in a higher price for oil. I also drew the supply curve with a higher slope on the right end. This signifies the limited ability to just draw more oil out of the ground without more capital expenditures and exploration.

Demand has gone up because the entire world is moving into industrialization through global expansion. This is a good thing as it raises the standard of living. The answer is we need to increase supplies of oil as well as refining for gasoline. Cuba has the Chinese drilling for oil off their northern coast while we refuse to drill anywhere but off of Louisiana. Also, an "excess profit" tax on oil will result in less not more oil produced domestically.

[amena wolfsnarl]

I work in the oilfield in northern Alberta (thats canada just so your know). The oilfield companies are not worried about spending money to get the oil out of the ground. The rule they have is if the hole cant pay for itself in 3 months they dont drill it. But fact of the matter is, is that they are cutting back on drilling and exploring for oil. This year has been a 5 year low for drilling in canada. Its kinda funny considering that the oil price is so high. Its almost as if they want to keep it there.... Go figure. The real kick in the ass is that they are causing my part of the country to become very financially unstable.
They created a market where its almost impossible to find a home that ISNT a crack shack for under $300,000. And a 2 bedroom apartment goes for 1500 a month. Now they are just washing thier hands off it all cause they want to keep the prices where they are at. The government of Alberta is trying to force them to produce more but of course they are dragging thier feet. They recently passed a law that if a company did not take advantage of its mineral rights in 6 months they forfeit the money they paid for it and have to give it back to the government where it will be resold.
Another kick to the head is that the government recently increased the royalties they have to pay to get the oil it amounts to 20 billion in total. Thats between dozens of companies where 20 billion isnt even a large percentage of thier profits. Its not much considering that they are rapin and pillaging the land to get it and making people work in some of the worst conditions in the civil world. (When was the last time u had to go work outside when it was -50 celsius out, not to mention the mud and the crap a person goes throug) The big thing about the royalty is that is supposed to be used to try and set up an industry in Alberta for after the oil boom is over. When its all dried out. How can a company that is supposed to support and encourage a community to grow (and that is alot of thier policies) basically throw a hissy fit like they have over this

[Lathander]

Amena, let me see if I understand you. The Canadian government wants the oil companies to produce more oil. At the same time, they want to raise the royalties on the oil that is pulled out of the ground? Now why in the world would any company INCREASE production when they are being charged more of that production? A simple rule of economics is if you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you tax something, you get less of it. The increased royalty is a higher tax. Let's not even get into the nonsense Canada is doing to the Canadian Trusts that alot of this stuff is run through. Sounds like Canada is as bad as the US.

[Lathander]

The other issue with oil is that some new demand is coming from the market itself. As Corth has alluded to in other threads, today, we have many new financial products to get exposure to areas that were much more difficult years ago. Oil is one of those areas. Oil ETF's have seen a huge inflow of assets as many of the commodity plays have. The traded markets are smaller than things such as the bond market. The inflow of money naturally pushes up the price.

[Corth]

Amena

The oil companies, such as the one that employs you, are making your local economy unstable? I suppose it would be preferable for the local economy if they went out of business and laid everyone off.

They created a market where you can't get a home for less than $300,000. This is apparently not a good thing. So let me get this straight.. The oil companies brought jobs to your region and its now a more desirable place to live. Property values have increased and people are willing to pay a lot more to live there. You wish that the area you lived was less desireable?

They are MAKING people work in horrible conditions? Was slavery legalized in Canada?

A company is supposed to support and encourage a community to grow? I hope their shareholders are aware of that. I don't invest in companies for the public interest. I want a return on my investment. Last I checked, the purpose of being in business is to... make money. The purpose of government is to support and encourage a community to grow. From what you say, it seems like the oil industry is actually doing quite a lot to encourage growth in your community. That isn't its purpose, and it shouldn't be. Just a nice side effect of the free market.

I have to say.. sentiments like yours really concern me. I hope to god that a majority of people don't have similar feelings.

[Teyaha]

the real question is - how long before the streets of san francisco look like any in vietnam? everyone in scooters!

[Sarvis]

Amena

The oil companies, such as the one that employs you, are making your local economy unstable? I suppose it would be preferable for the local economy if they went out of business and laid everyone off.

Ooh... starting off with False Dilemma, nice.

They are MAKING people work in horrible conditions? Was slavery legalized in Canada?

A company is supposed to support and encourage a community to grow? I hope their shareholders are aware of that. I don't invest in companies for the public interest. I want a return on my investment. Last I checked, the purpose of being in business is to... make money. The purpose of government is to support and encourage a community to grow. From what you say, it seems like the oil industry is actually doing quite a lot to encourage growth in your community. That isn't its purpose, and it shouldn't be. Just a nice side effect of the free market.

So taking an entire region into wealth and then ditching it into abject poverty is a "nice side effect of the free market?"

I have to say.. sentiments like yours really concern me. I hope to god that a majority of people don't have similar feelings.

Yeah, really. It'd be just silly if people actually thought about how big companies can single handedly determine the economic status of entire regions. All that really matters is if a person's portfolio grew or not.

[Ragorn]

I hear the citizens of Detroit should also be grateful for the opportunities that GM has given them.

This argument... that corporations don't have some obligation to support the communities they create... is one you are not going to win.

[Sarvis]

It's funny, Libertarians somehow just expect giant corporations to behave and play nice. They can't even conceive that an organisation with more wealth than most countries, such as Exxon-Mobil who is slated to be the 17th largest economy this year, can cause harm. Only "governments" can cause harm. There's something special and magical, I guess, about a group of people once they are labeled government.

I can easily imagine what would happen if the Libertarian wet dream came to pass. Instead of cops we'd have private security, as has been advocated many times by Libertarians. CorporationA would pay for security in it's region in order to protect it's employees and be able to operate. Since CorporationA is paying security, they either drop wages or take a bit out of employee paychecks, essentially an income tax. Or maybe they add a few cents to the price of all their products, essentially a consumption tax. Of course, since CorpA is providing security for the region, and tax... sorry, charging everyone, for the priviledge they also get to make the rules. At that point there's no difference between the CorpA and the US Government except that the populace no longer has say in who rules. Of course, the Libertarians would cheer and sing because a private corporation is just "being succesful." After all, if you're making money you've done no wrong.

The one thing Libertarians expect to control companies is a simple pipe dream. Alberta Oil (name made up because I don't know who drills in Alberta) doesn't need Albertans to buy its product. It's got the entire rest of the world who needs oil badly. They can screw over the local economy as much as they want and remain profitable, and in fact be applauded by Corth when his portfolio goes up a couple thousand bucks.

[Corth]

I think thats the point. I don't expect corporations to play nice. I expect them to try and make money. I expect them to try and pay you as little as possible in order to maximize profits. I expect them to not donate my money to the community. They should return any excess money to its owners, shareholders, in the form of dividends.

If the corporation is doing anything illegal then it should be brought to task. Thats all. Government is here to play nice. Corporations are here to make money. Get it through your thick skulls.

[Corth]

Ragorn,

Citizens of detroit should move to Alberta and work in the oil sands. High paying jobs over there. GM would be very happy to return to its former success. Then they could hire lots of employees and pay them good wages. It isn't going to happen.

Repeat after me. Corporations are not governments. They do not have the ability to print money. They are not here to make you happy. They are here to sell stuff.

[Sarvis]

I think thats the point. I don't expect corporations to play nice. I expect them to try and make money. I expect them to try and pay you as little as possible in order to maximize profits. I expect them to not donate my money to the community. They should return any excess money to its owners, shareholders, in the form of dividends.

If the corporation is doing anything illegal then it should be brought to task. Thats all. Government is here to play nice. Corporations are here to make money. Get it through your thick skulls.

Yes, and if an entire region ends up homeless then it's ok because causing homelessness isn't illegal. Of course, not much should be illegal when corporations are concerned, because regulating a corporation is a breach of free market ideals. The invisible hand should regulate EVERYTHING!

Oh, and here's the kicker: Corporations don't even generally give profits to shareholders! They reuse it to grow and expand instead, which is why many stocks don't even pay dividends these days. You don't get the money the corporation earns, you get money if other people expect it to grow and your share price goes up. That's it, but hey... don't let me rob you of all your delusions. I shouldn't have been born, after all.

[teflor the ranger]

Attention: Things Always Change

The changes that are positive are good, but they won't last. You have to get used to the fact that what you have will be gone and look for or get good at creating something else.

Temporary wealth is a blessing, not a curse. It's an opportunity for you to get an education, start a business, or do something else to get ready for when change occurs.

[Lathander]

Rags and Sarvis,

How in the world can you say a company's primary focus should be supporting a community? Detroit crapped on the auto makers for years and raised taxes like crazy on their citizens. In addition, liberals allowed lawlessness, and you got white flight out of the city and into the suburbs. As the tax base contracted to predominately poor people, Detroit raised taxes higher and higher on anyone they could. This made the flight even worse to where Detroit is the only city I've ever been in with 40 and 50 story buildings completely empty.

That's like saying because I live in Maryland I have to stay in MD to support it. To hell with that, I can vote with my feet and get the hell out if they keep raising taxes. Why do you think so many older folks change their official home address to FL when they retire? No state income tax. It is naive to say you owe everything to the collective when you can find a better community to join.

Just like individuals, companies need to look at where they are welcome. Today, the southern states have a very nice environment for auto makers. Fairly low energy rates, pro-worker vs pro-union laws, and lower taxes all contribute to why car makers are flocking to the south. Detroit killed their goose that laid the golden egg, but I guess you missed that in Michael Moore's biased movie which is about all you really know about Detroit.

[Lathander]

Quote from Sarvis:

Oh, and here's the kicker: Corporations don't even generally give profits to shareholders! They reuse it to grow and expand instead, which is why many stocks don't even pay dividends these days. You don't get the money the corporation earns, you get money if other people expect it to grow and your share price goes up. That's it, but hey... don't let me rob you of all your delusions. I shouldn't have been born, after all.


End Quote

Wow, talk about a lack of understanding. First, there is a real reason to not give all a company's profits to shareholders, TAXES! Unless the company is setup as a REIT or LP, the profits are double taxed if given to shareholders. It is a little better now with Qualified Dividends Income, but you still have some double taxation. Wouldn't you prefer to effectively reinvest those profits and avoid some taxes?

When QDI came, many companies began paying higher dividends as a much more tax effective way to get money to the shareholders. Also, dividends are not the only importance. Another big factor is the growth rate of the dividend. A dividend rate of 3% is nice, but if that dividend rate can grow at 10 to 20%, that's even nicer.

Man, sometimes it really feels like you are throwing quite the pity party, Sarvis. I'm sorry your life is so tough on you.

[amena wolfsnarl]

I understand a corporation is out to make a profit. But what right does it have to completely destroy a regions economy in doing so. Sure i can understand if the price of oil bottomed and they couldn't afford to continue operating in this region but its not its at an all time high. Last year 2000 homes were seized by the bank while these corporations are going to make an all time record profit for what the 3 or 4th year in a row. I'm just saying that at sometime these companies need to realize that they are responsible to more than just the share holders. That people depend on them to continue to live.
And the real kicker is that they are doing it to keep the price of oil nice and high. There is no shortage out there they are just purposely keeping the price where it is by basically doing nothing. If they continued the drilling like they have in the last 5 years the price wouldnt be nearly as bad as it is right now. Instead they let it rise all so they can pad thier pockets a little more. There is a thing called corporate responsibility and these companies dont do it. They rape and pillage all they can and are just holding thier breath until the run away and leave probably an entire province absolutly destroyed.

And just so you know i am planing on going back to school and getting out of this field of work. I start at BCIT in the fall for my mechanical engineering degree. I have nothing good to say about any of these companies that are going to destroy this province both enviromenatly and financially. The fact that they are aware of what is going to happen is the worst part of it all.

Personally i think this kind of attitude should be criminal but fortunately i dont make those decisions. I know the government should take a more active role in making the economies in these regions more diverse but unfortunately politicians are idiots no matter where u live.

[amena wolfsnarl]

Oh and cause i know it will be brought up. The royalties that was recently increased in Alberta are still the lowest in the world. The only reason that they were increased was cause they were set in the early 80s when the price of oil was really low. By increasing the royalties they were just catching up with the rest of the world as far as that went.

[Lathander]

Let's hit the foreclosure thing first. You don't magically wake up one day and get foreclosed on. It means you quit paying your mortgage for at least three months (here in the States). Also, it takes about six to nine months to go through the legal stuff, so it takes about a year total to be foreclosed on. If someone stops paying their mortgage, the mortgage service company is obilgated to defend the rights of the mortgage owners, usually investors, and foreclose on the property. What's so complicated about that? If I rented a house from you and just stopped paying the rent, you'd evict me too.

As I said before, when you tax something more, you get less of it. When the royalties were raised, the oil companies decided it didn't make sense to increase production and get less marginal income. Also, I assume this is the oil sands region. My understanding is that the quality is lower and the cost is higher to extract that stuff. If oil is going into a bubble phase, then eventually it will pop. In an environment of higher costs from the royalties and risk of lower demand, why would you spend capital to increase production?

Out of curiousity, what is your job at the oil company?

[Sarvis]

Wow, talk about a lack of understanding. First, there is a real reason to not give all a company's profits to shareholders, TAXES! Unless the company is setup as a REIT or LP, the profits are double taxed if given to shareholders. It is a little better now with Qualified Dividends Income, but you still have some double taxation. Wouldn't you prefer to effectively reinvest those profits and avoid some taxes?

You know, for a paragraph starting off with "Wow, talk about a lack of understanding" it did a fucking spectacular job of reinforcing my point: companies don't typically share the profits with shareholders.

[Lathander]

Then you need to read harder Sarvis. Notice the double taxation statement? Maybe you want to google it to comprehend what the double taxation is about?

[Lathander]

In addition, there are three parts to a corporations balance sheet: Assets, Liabilities, and Shareholder Equity. The formula is Assets = Liabilities + Shareholder Equity.

Within Shareholder Equity is a section called "Retained Earnings". When the earnings are not given out as dividends, they go into this bucket. Essentially, the earnings are reinvested back into the company providing more return with a better tax treatment.

Seriously, what's your degree in again? It isn't something absurd like Philosophy or something is it?

[Lathander]

Amena,

Here is a good story on how things work in the real world.

After Peloton Partners' demise the WSJ provides an autopsy
The WSJ delves into the rise and rapid flame-out of Peloton Partners....

When hedge-fund chief Ron Beller's investments in U.S. mortgages turned against him, he got a rude awakening to Wall Street's unsentimental ways. Bankers who had vied for his business reeled in credit lines and seized the fund's assets. In a matter of days, Peloton Partners LLP, once one of the world's best-performing hedge-fund operators, lost some $17 billion.

In its sheer speed, Peloton's demise offers an illustration of the delicate relationships upon which the financial industry is built, and the breakneck pace at which they have been unraveling.

There is a widespread weakness in the hedge-fund business: Highflying managers sometimes fail to fully factor in broader risks, such as what happens when troubled banks pull back the borrowed money many funds need to make their investments. Peloton was particularly susceptible because it borrowed heavily to boost returns. For every dollar of client money, Peloton had borrowed at least another nine dollars to buy some bonds.

"If you run out of money, you can't stay in the game," notes Chris Jones of Key Asset Management Ltd., a hedge-fund management firm and early Peloton investor.

Mr. Beller, who personally lost about $60 million in investments, believes Peloton failed not because it made the wrong investments but because his bankers didn't stick with him when the prices of those investments were temporarily out of whack, according to people familiar with the fund. Among investors that lost money are New York investment firm BlackRock Inc., Swiss private bank Lombard Odier Darier Hentsch & Cie. and United Kingdom asset-management firm Man Group PLC.

"We are deeply sorry about this outcome," Mr. Beller said on a final investor conference call in early March....

[Sarvis]

Then you need to read harder Sarvis. Notice the double taxation statement? Maybe you want to google it to comprehend what the double taxation is about?

It's another reason I'm right, apparently. Is this another time where you're asking us to believe the opposite of what you said/posted? Maybe you can find an article saying companies don't pay dividends and try to convince us it means they do. It worked for healthcare, right?

Look, I don't care if companies don't pay dividends because of double taxation. The point is that they don't.

[Lathander]

So you just want to babble nonsense saying that companies don't pay shareholders the profits and not know what in the hell you're talking about. Shareholders are the company, and to assert they don't get the profits is nonsense. A company can use retained earnings to buy back shares which in theory lowers the number of oustanding shares, increasing the earnings per share and, hopefully, the stock price. A company can also invest those retained earnings in R&D. Finally, they can use that cash to buy other companies.

Look, stick to the junk like politics and economics, but avoid the concrete things like corporate structure which you don't know anything about and are real concrete things. You'll look less foolish.

[Sarvis]

Thanks for reminding me why I don't reply to your posts.

I do notice, however, that nowhere in that little rant did you say companies distribute profit to shareholders.

G'Night!

[teflor the ranger]

companies don't typically share the profits with shareholders.

?

You do realize that shareholders own the company, right?

[Ragorn]

Seriously, what's your degree in again? It isn't something absurd like Philosophy or something is it?

Forum rules

- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!

[Kifle]

Seriously, what's your degree in again? It isn't something absurd like Philosophy or something is it?

Forum rules

- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!

Oh, he wasn't attacking the person, Rag; he was attacking the statement... err the field of philosophy maybe? I don't know, but it definately wasn't a personal attack!

[teflor the ranger]

Seriously, what's your degree in again? It isn't something absurd like Philosophy or something is it?

Forum rules

- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!

Oh, he wasn't attacking the person, Rag; he was attacking the statement... err the field of philosophy maybe? I don't know, but it definately wasn't a personal attack!

It looks like a question or two to me. Philosophy is quite absurd though.

[Botef]

I see what Amena is getting at, although it isnt exclusive to oil.

I have a relative that moved to McCall Idaho in the 60's and bought a tiny cabin for $10,000. Fast forward to today and McCall is a bustling ski resort town. As a result of the corporations that came to town and set up shop the property value has sky rocketed. Thats great for rich folk who want to move to a ski resort town, but totally sucks for people who have been there for decades.

My relative can no longer afford to live in the house she bought free and clear over 40 years ago. Why, because of the increase in value - which in turn raised her property tax so high she cant afford it every month.

Sure she has a cash cow house she got for 10k that she can now sell for a zillion times more but that isnt the point. The point is that she is being pushed out of the community she has been a part of for 40 years as a direct result of the 'living increase' the big wigs brought to town. If I had been living in a home for 40 years and suddenly found myself being pushed out because of something like this damn right I'd be pissed.

[Kifle]

I see what Amena is getting at, although it isnt exclusive to oil.

I have a relative that moved to McCall Idaho in the 60's and bought a tiny cabin for $10,000. Fast forward to today and McCall is a bustling ski resort town. As a result of the corporations that came to town and set up shop the property value has sky rocketed. Thats great for rich folk who want to move to a ski resort town, but totally sucks for people who have been there for decades.

My relative can no longer afford to live in the house she bought free and clear over 40 years ago. Why, because of the increase in value - which in turn raised her property tax so high she cant afford it every month.

Sure she has a cash cow house she got for 10k that she can now sell for a zillion times more but that isnt the point. The point is that she is being pushed out of the community she has been a part of for 40 years as a direct result of the 'living increase' the big wigs brought to town. If I had been living in a home for 40 years and suddenly found myself being pushed out because of something like this damn right I'd be pissed.

Lol, I'm sorry, but the whole point of owning a house, other than shelter, is to have an investment that increases over time -- so that you can sell it. If my house was suddenly worth that much after only paying 10k, I'd sell it to the rich retards and move and laugh all the way to the bank. Then I'd settle down in another small town where there is little difference in lifestyle. Lol, mad because she mad tons of cash on an investment. I'm sorry, but that's just insane.

[Sarvis]

Listen to Kifle's wisdom. Houses are investments, not shelter! :roll:

[Botef]

Your right Kifle, a 78 year old women shouldn't have the option of staying in the home they've been in for nearly 50 years. She should be overjoyed at being able to get grips at cash and say fuck it to losing the home you raised your kids in and spent the last half a century enjoying. Why with all that money maybe she can buy BRAND NEW memories somewhere else before she dies.

[Kifle]

Listen to Kifle's wisdom. Houses are investments, not shelter! :roll:

Lol, I'm sorry, but the whole point of owning a house, other than shelter, is to have an investment that increases over time

L2read :roll:

Edited.

[Sarvis]

Yes, I saw that. I was pointing out that you were demoting the primary purpose of a house to a minor footnote. Sorry, but many people buy houses to live in rather than as investment vehicles.

[Kifle]

Yes, I saw that. I was pointing out that you were demoting the primary purpose of a house to a minor footnote. Sorry, but many people buy houses to live in rather than as investment vehicles.

Ok, edited my last post. Anyway, the purpose of a house has two primary functions: investment and shelter. They are equal. The form of shelter where somebody is not also primarily intending to invest is called renting. They are both viable means of shelter, yet one is better than the other inthe long-term financially -- and that is owning a house.

[Kifle]

Your right Kifle, a 78 year old women shouldn't have the option of staying in the home they've been in for nearly 50 years. She should be overjoyed at being able to get grips at cash and say fuck it to losing the home you raised your kids in and spent the last half a century enjoying. Why with all that money maybe she can buy BRAND NEW memories somewhere else before she dies.

Unless she plans on taking it to the grave with her. I'm sure it's a lot easier to split up cash in a will rather than a physical estate such as a house. The fact that she didn't forsee this boom in the real estate market in her area, or even notice it while it was happening, tells me that she just didn't care that much to be able to afford that house after the taxes went up. It is not the new neighbors' faults that she somehow wasn't left w/enough savings/income that she can no longer afford property taxes.

Not to be rude or anything, but she's getting to the age where she may not be able to take care of herself in the near future, so that house isn't going to be doing a lot of good to her anyway. She's actually better off just selling it and moving to florida.

Honestly, this is so rediculous, I can't even believe I'm arguing it. Just know, I'm not crying for your grandma. I, and I'm guessing 99% of the country would love to be in her situation right now.

[Corth]

Jeez, if the house is paid off and worth a ton of money and shes only going to live at most another 15-20 years or so, tell her to get a reverse mortgage and be done with it. She can live there happily for the rest of her life.

Seriously, I could use that kind of problem... Lucky old wench.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

I can't believe I'm doing this, sigh, but I'm gonna agree with Sarvis. Kifle, you who have stated supporting socialist programs, and said that "I also think it's insane to write-off adults who have worked hard, have tried their hands, but ultimately fail because of bad luck", you would show no sympathy towards the older lady? People do buy houses as investments (and they are partially to blame for the housing problem), and they buy them as shelter (of course), but they also buy them as a nest, as a place to build a family, memories, and a life, with the dream of not having to pay mortgage or rent in 30 years. There hasn't been something of this level ever in housing in the US; there was no chance some 75yr old lady could have foreseen it, or planned ahead for it. She made no mistakes, she did not choose poorly, she did not have bad luck.

Unfair methods of taxation are whats to blame.

[Kifle]

I can't believe I'm doing this, sigh, but I'm gonna agree with Sarvis. Kifle, you who have stated supporting socialist programs, and said that "I also think it's insane to write-off adults who have worked hard, have tried their hands, but ultimately fail because of bad luck", you would show no sympathy towards the older lady? People do buy houses as investments (and they are partially to blame for the housing problem), and they buy them as shelter (of course), but they also buy them as a nest, as a place to build a family, memories, and a life, with the dream of not having to pay mortgage or rent in 30 years. There hasn't been something of this level ever in housing in the US; there was no chance some 75yr old lady could have foreseen it, or planned ahead for it. She made no mistakes, she did not choose poorly, she did not have bad luck.

Unfair methods of taxation are whats to blame.

Your comparison of this situation to my earlier statements is contrived. This old lady is not a victim of bad luck -- quite the opposite. The simple influx of rich people, businesses, and tourism should have tipped her off as to what was going to happen to her property values if she even half-paid attention.

As far as your sentimental reasons, they may be true, but the last is fulfilled even better by the raise in property value. As for the others, I'm not sure of the statistic, but I would wager to guess that the percentage of people who stay in houses that long is pretty low. For most of America, the equity gained is the reasoning behind home ownership rather than renting.

Regardless, if she was somehow losing her home through the takings clause, I would sympathise; however, she is (may) lose her home because she is going to make a fortune off of it's sale. I'm not seeing how this puts this lady in the same circumstances as those living in Detroit, South Bend, and other places which were the focus of the discussion earlier -- places that were devistated by economic collapse rather than the opposite (which to me is still insane to be griping about).

[teflor the ranger]

Three things:

1) On this particular matter, Kifle is mostly correct.

2) All of you are still i...needing to know about something else: Reverse mortgages. No, I'm not citing anything or explaining anything, go GOOGLE it.

3) Equity.

It's called options people. They're not hard to find if you look for them.

[teflor the ranger]

there was no chance some 75yr old lady could have foreseen it, or planned ahead for it. She made no mistakes, she did not choose poorly, she did not have bad luck.

Yes she could have, yes she can, yes she did, yes, she did, and that's situationally dependant but largely irrelevant.

Unfair methods of taxation are whats to blame.

Corth would agree with you, but that's because he believes that all methods of taxation are unfair (unless you mean no taxation). But there is nothing unfair about property taxes. Property values change, they have always had that ability. In fact, everything changes. People are expected to meet those changes because nothing ever stays exactly the same (unless you live in a strange bubble, like Youngstown, OH, where nearly 1/2 of residential structures are abandoned).

[Teyaha]

paper said other day that gas in britain is around $8.00 US, with 75% of that being taxes

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

The simple influx of rich people, businesses, and tourism should have tipped her off as to what was going to happen to her property values if she even half-paid attention...I'm not seeing how this puts this lady in the same circumstances as those living in Detroit, South Bend, and other places which were the focus of the discussion earlier -- places that were devistated by economic collapse rather than the opposite...

Using that argument Kifle, then the Detroit people "should have seen it coming" also, and taken steps to move out. You're making an argument against the old lady simply because she can get money out of the house, whereas the Detroit folks won't get as much. But in both cases, they can lose something precious or dear to them. I'm not saying she's screwed Kifle, but she's being forced to move due to higher taxes that are out of her control. She's almost 80.

there was no chance some 75yr old lady could have foreseen it, or planned ahead for it. She made no mistakes, she did not choose poorly, she did not have bad luck.

Yes she could have, yes she can, yes she did, yes, she did, and that's situationally dependant but largely irrelevant.

This is a childish, dogmatic response, Teflor, come on. I'll respond similarly:

But there is nothing unfair about property taxes.

Yes there is.

[Corth]

Teflor,

Where did I ever say that all methods of taxation are unfair? I'd like you to cite that.

[Teyaha]

my attempt at bringing the thread back on topic

If you are looking at a way to offset the rising costs of fuel (and it will prob be $5 this time next year), you can look into these 60-70 mpg options

From Honda:

Reflex ABS



these are basicaly automatic transmission motorcycles. they generally top out at 75mph unless you're fat like me, but still maintain 60-70mpg. they are highway/freeway legal, allow you to ride in carpool lanes and the motorcycle endorsement they also likewise require is pretty easy in 41 states - written test for permit, take a course and pass it and you prob dont have to take the riding test at the DMV

Honda's have the second highest maintenance track record, but they tend to skimp on power for the price. the above is $6,049. 294cc making it the most expensive in that class.

Yamaha:
Morpheus



top rated maxi-scooter in terms of maintenance (among 2006-2008 models) but gives up some fuel efficiency, with most testers getting upper 50 to lower 60 mpg. it is also the highest rated in terms of comfort. MSRP is $5299 and again 250cc.


and lastly is the only real competitor to the above two companies in terms of value for the price, but with some drawbacks.

Kymco Xciting 500


a recent contendor (also comes in a 250 version, both highway legal) it's maintenance track record so far isnt up to honda or yamaha specs. (eh..korean companie...bleh). it is also the tallest of maxi scooters on the market where someone with a 30" or less inseam wont be able to touch the ground with their toes keeping the bike fully upright. (the morpheus is the longest wheelbase wise). it does however have the best handling of the three i'm listing here and the best MPG at nearly 70mpg tested. msrp is $5999 and makes it the least expensive 500 cc maxi scooter on the market. the 500cc of the Reflex from h onda is the silver wing (msrp close to $11,000) and the Yamaha Majesty (395 cc, $5899 msrp)


all of the above are basically automatic transmission motorcycles. there's something to be said for a CTV transmission and having both front and read dual disc brakes at your fingertips, instead of one at one hand and the other on a foot. they also give a degree of comfort one usually would only be able to get with a custom harley for long rides. insurance is rather inexpensive at around $500-$800 a year for full liability and collision if you have no motorcycle endorsement (license) and havent taken the class, and drops another 25-40% depending on carrier once you do

these are fantastic alternatives for people who must solo commute, or just for simple things like grocery shopping. the honda and yamaha have a wider variety of accessories if you plan to do any touring.

[teflor the ranger]

there was no chance some 75yr old lady could have foreseen it, or planned ahead for it. She made no mistakes, she did not choose poorly, she did not have bad luck.

Yes she could have, yes she can, yes she did, yes, she did, and that's situationally dependant but largely irrelevant.

This is a childish, dogmatic response, Teflor, come on. I'll respond similarly:

No, your response is just that. I gave the same respect in my reply that was given in the statement. Someone blabed a bunch of their opinion, and I returned mine.

You however, are just trolling.

[teflor the ranger]

Teflor,

Where did I ever say that all methods of taxation are unfair? I'd like you to cite that.

You're a libertarian. It kind of goes hand in hand.

[Corth]

I believe that taxation is justified for limited purposes so long as it is done in an equal manner. Regardless of my label.