Yet more bad economic signs - car sales are...
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 8,504
From: Ohio
Originally posted by centric
This makes per capita income appear much less than if two people are working and the income is not being averaged.
This makes per capita income appear much less than if two people are working and the income is not being averaged.
The very meaning of per capita would seem to exclude the possibility of household income being lumped together.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=per%20capita
per cap·i·ta ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr kp-t)
adv. & adj.
1) Per unit of population; per person: In that year, Americans earned $15,304 per capita. Among the states, Connecticut has a high per capita income.
2) Equally to each individual.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by centric
Sorry, GuionM:
Yes, it per per PERSON income. Back in the 50s and 60s (and, arguably, much of the 70s), when only one person per household was working, the income was averaged over two adults in the household. This makes per capita income appear much less than if two people are working and the income is not being averaged.
For example, $50k/year salary in 2-person, one-worker household = $25k per capita, while $30k and $40k incomes in a 2-person, 2-worker household = $35k per capita.
Looking at that, it seems like, "Wow! We've made wonderful progress because per capita income is up $10k!" When in reality, both people have to work--each for less total income.
And don't even get me started on the tax load of the average middle-class family then and now, especially when things like sales taxes are included.
Not a flame--just something to think about.
Mark Twain: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics!"
Sorry, GuionM:
Yes, it per per PERSON income. Back in the 50s and 60s (and, arguably, much of the 70s), when only one person per household was working, the income was averaged over two adults in the household. This makes per capita income appear much less than if two people are working and the income is not being averaged.
For example, $50k/year salary in 2-person, one-worker household = $25k per capita, while $30k and $40k incomes in a 2-person, 2-worker household = $35k per capita.
Looking at that, it seems like, "Wow! We've made wonderful progress because per capita income is up $10k!" When in reality, both people have to work--each for less total income.
And don't even get me started on the tax load of the average middle-class family then and now, especially when things like sales taxes are included.
Not a flame--just something to think about.
Mark Twain: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics!"
As for federal income tax rates, we aren't that bad off historically:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...historical.PDF
Even cigarette taxes (once 1/3 the cost of a pack of cigarettes) is lower:
http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/...s/pdf/0092.pdf
We have had slightly lower income tax rates, but we have also had waaay higher rates as well (+/- 6.7% today vs double digits from the late 70s to late 80s!). With the exception of 1996, federal tax rates have DECREASED throughout the 90s for pretty much everyone except the wealthy and most larger businesses. It's just that complaints about taxes are 2nd nature to some people.... that is till their kids get college grants, their parents get social security & medicare checks, or we wonder why noone is fixing the roads.
Now, notice I emphasized FEDERAL taxes. State taxes, depending where you live, are entirely different. In some instances state taxes have decreased, some have increased, some have shifted their taxes around (ie: from income taxes to fuel or sales taxes), so there's no way to honestly measure that. To top it all off, those tax cuts (and on the last one 2 years ago, the richer you are, the bigger the percentage cut you got) simply moved the burden to the states, who must contend with reduced money from the federal goverment.
One especially devious way the Federal goverment has gotten around reduced revenue from tax cuts, is by lumping your Social security deductions into the general fund (& jacking up the withholding rates) for use by the entire goverment (why Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats as increasing taxes).
Now, are you ready for the kicker? While income taxes are basically progressive in that the richer you are, the more you pay (before deductions, writeoffs, and loopholes), and while recent tax cuts give a bigger rate cut to those who make 6 digit figures, FICA (your Social Security deduction) has a ceiling meaning if you make millions per year, you pay the same amount as someone who makes $70,000 per year. Translation: any increase in FICA is a much more massive tax on those making less than say $70K/ year than it is on someone making millions.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa...ICA_family.PDF
Enough of this. Going back to the original idea: in general, cars are just as affordable as they ever have been. Add in that cars last alot longer, are safer & cleaner, needing waay less maintence, we don't really have a bad deal today.
BTW, anyone who still thinks our taxes are high, pick a country....any country...and look up what their total tax rates are. Be sure to be sitting down & sedated.
Last edited by guionM; Mar 17, 2003 at 03:29 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 403
From: Wish I knew..
Re: Re: I'm not tryin to be an a$$ so bear with me.
Originally posted by guionM
Seems that the bottom line to all of this is that your brother wants something he can't afford, or doesn't want to finance. Nothing more, nothing less.
Seems that the bottom line to all of this is that your brother wants something he can't afford, or doesn't want to finance. Nothing more, nothing less.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Re: Re: I'm not tryin to be an a$$ so bear with me.
Originally posted by 91Zman
True he can't afford it and financing is out of the question because he can't. Point is most cars(not the truck mentioned)are overpriced.Nothing more nothing less.
True he can't afford it and financing is out of the question because he can't. Point is most cars(not the truck mentioned)are overpriced.Nothing more nothing less.
He can't finance a new car? Seems new car dealers are willing to go as far as financing death row inmates, let alone anyone who has a job.
Won't pry. Not my business.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 403
From: Wish I knew..
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not tryin to be an a$$ so bear with me.
Originally posted by guionM
If you are talking about high powered Camaros & Mustangs under $30K, I really don't think that's overpriced. If you are talking about $40,000 FWD Buick V6s or Bonneville GXPs, or $50,000 Escalades that are nothing more than fancy $30,000 Tahoes, then I'll 100% agree with you, that IS overpriced!!
He can't finance a new car? Seems new car dealers are willing to go as far as financing death row inmates, let alone anyone who has a job.
Won't pry. Not my business.
If you are talking about high powered Camaros & Mustangs under $30K, I really don't think that's overpriced. If you are talking about $40,000 FWD Buick V6s or Bonneville GXPs, or $50,000 Escalades that are nothing more than fancy $30,000 Tahoes, then I'll 100% agree with you, that IS overpriced!!
He can't finance a new car? Seems new car dealers are willing to go as far as financing death row inmates, let alone anyone who has a job.
Won't pry. Not my business.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
Dec 3, 2014 12:30 PM