So I am driving down the highway the other day and run into an accident. Traffic is backed up for miles, and I mean miles. This in New Jersey traffic, not Idaho here. So, I eventually come to an intersection that needs to merge in this heavy traffic. In the Mid West, this works like a zipper, you know every other car goes. Here in Jersey, you have to show you are willing to trade paint to get in!
So, there I am watching like 30 -40 cars from my side go in a row, with this guy in an SUV just waiting "for his turn" that will never happen in Jersey. I decide that I am going to be nice (since it is the holidays) and let him in when I get to the front. I let him in and continue my march in traffic behind him.
Then we get to the next merging intersection and I immediately regret letting this %$&* in. There was a reason why he was not getting in before, he is just a big pussy! I finally just went around him and forced my way into traffic, but spent 10 minutes waiting for this jerk. It is then that I realized that when it comes to traffic in Jersey, it is straight Darwinian tactics. Only the strong survive. If you are strong and try to be nice, it could kill you in the end, so its not worth it. It shows weakness, and when the others smell blood, watch out!
From now on, I am not going to drive nice. They have to show me they want it more!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
What Obama's infrastructure plans should be!
Obama says he wants to save or create 2-3 million jobs as part of his economic stimulus plan. He could act like a typical politician (aka Dumbass) and solve the problem by executive order: No employer can fire any employee for any reason! Sounds reasonable enough right?
But lets think about this as IF we had a Capitalist market system in a Democratic country (I realize this is some fantasy world I am thinking of).
Obama should rebuild our national eletrical grid as his infrastructure project. This plan would help him achieve his stated goal of increasing the use of renewable energy like solar and wind as well. The overall energy plan would need to include Nuclear power as well to meet our current and future needs. If the French can produce 80% of their power from nuclear reactors, maybe it is time we get over our irrational fears in this area. Yes, you can build them in my backyard, but we will store the waste in yours. haha! No, my real solution would be to shoot the spent fuel rods into space toward the nearest black hole (nothing escapes those things, not even light). If something bad happens, you won't be around to worry about it anyway!
Just building another highway/bridge adds more cars to the roads and create more pollution. They also will not help us compete with other nations over the long-run like they did in the 50's and 60's. We need an infrastructure play that not only creates jobs today but create a competitive advantage that can be used over the long run.
We talk about electric cars, but how in the hell would we ever be able to provide enough electricity for all those cars? Even if we had electric cars that would meet market demands, we don't have the generating capacity to change our source of transportation energy that quickly. There is no way solar and/or wind energy is going to meet this huge demand! It is criminal to say they would. Solar plants would work great in the south western U.S., a place where there is not enough water for nuclear power plant cooling towers. We can build as many wind farms as possible, but realistically they already have a backlog of production orders and cannot produce a lot more. Nuclear power has got to be a part of the energy solution. Unless of course you want the coal plant instead in your backyard
Obama should be looking at the secondary and tertiary effects of his plans. Don't just solve one problem today, but find a solution that solves multiple problems today and tomorrow. That is why focusing on the electrical grid and having a holistic energy plan is the best option. This would create a lot of jobs, increase national scecurity, provide relief during natural disasters and enable more effiecient use of our energy. In the long run, it would also make us more competitive with other nations econmomically because our energy would be cheaper and more reliable.
Another area would be to increase the capacity of the nation for tele-conferencing and tele-commuting. Create funding/tax breaks to incent businesses and schools to invest in this capital. This would allow workers to work from home - less traffic and pollution. In addition, instead of building new schools which require a lot of money for buildings and professors, we could have students go to college via video conference. This would prepare students to work with colleagues with whom they are not co-located as well. We could have a nation where every child gets a college degree, not just a HS diploma. This would help address the redistribution of wealth in the long run.
But lets think about this as IF we had a Capitalist market system in a Democratic country (I realize this is some fantasy world I am thinking of).
Obama should rebuild our national eletrical grid as his infrastructure project. This plan would help him achieve his stated goal of increasing the use of renewable energy like solar and wind as well. The overall energy plan would need to include Nuclear power as well to meet our current and future needs. If the French can produce 80% of their power from nuclear reactors, maybe it is time we get over our irrational fears in this area. Yes, you can build them in my backyard, but we will store the waste in yours. haha! No, my real solution would be to shoot the spent fuel rods into space toward the nearest black hole (nothing escapes those things, not even light). If something bad happens, you won't be around to worry about it anyway!
Just building another highway/bridge adds more cars to the roads and create more pollution. They also will not help us compete with other nations over the long-run like they did in the 50's and 60's. We need an infrastructure play that not only creates jobs today but create a competitive advantage that can be used over the long run.
We talk about electric cars, but how in the hell would we ever be able to provide enough electricity for all those cars? Even if we had electric cars that would meet market demands, we don't have the generating capacity to change our source of transportation energy that quickly. There is no way solar and/or wind energy is going to meet this huge demand! It is criminal to say they would. Solar plants would work great in the south western U.S., a place where there is not enough water for nuclear power plant cooling towers. We can build as many wind farms as possible, but realistically they already have a backlog of production orders and cannot produce a lot more. Nuclear power has got to be a part of the energy solution. Unless of course you want the coal plant instead in your backyard
Obama should be looking at the secondary and tertiary effects of his plans. Don't just solve one problem today, but find a solution that solves multiple problems today and tomorrow. That is why focusing on the electrical grid and having a holistic energy plan is the best option. This would create a lot of jobs, increase national scecurity, provide relief during natural disasters and enable more effiecient use of our energy. In the long run, it would also make us more competitive with other nations econmomically because our energy would be cheaper and more reliable.
Another area would be to increase the capacity of the nation for tele-conferencing and tele-commuting. Create funding/tax breaks to incent businesses and schools to invest in this capital. This would allow workers to work from home - less traffic and pollution. In addition, instead of building new schools which require a lot of money for buildings and professors, we could have students go to college via video conference. This would prepare students to work with colleagues with whom they are not co-located as well. We could have a nation where every child gets a college degree, not just a HS diploma. This would help address the redistribution of wealth in the long run.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Future Topics
Here are some ideas I am working on for future posts:
- What Obama's Infrastructure Plans should be!
- Diamonds - I don't get it
- The End of Prosperity
- Taxes - Where you live matters
- How many "must haves" do you get?
- What the Flag represents to me
Monday, December 15, 2008
Where you live Matters! Taxes
Since I hate taxes and want to minimize them as much as legally possible, I have done a little research to figure out where the best place to work/live is - yes I am planning my next move! I based my research on a single person making $75,000 in each state. Here is what I have found: New Jersey is the worst state to live in when taxes alone are considered. A little less than 45% of every dollar earned is given back via income, sales, and property taxes, Federal income taxes. It doesn't even take into account things like toll roads.
When Cost of Living (COL) is added into the equation, Hawaii, California and D.C. are the worst. New Jersey comes in 4th. In other words, a person making $75,000 will feel the poorest in these states as they will have less money to discretionary spending or saving.
Alaska and Wyoming have the lowest taxes in the US. When COL is added, The best places to live are: Tennessee, South Dakota, and Texas. Most of the states that were near the top are those which do not have a state income tax (9 states).
State tax rates: Income, ave. property, sales, and federal income tax:
Alaska 30.91%
Wyoming 33.18%
New Hampshire 33.64%
Delaware 34.15%
South Dakota 34.57%
Tennessee 36.41%
Montana 36.51%
Nevada 36.65%
Florida 36.73%
Louisiana 37.15%
Colorado 37.34%
Alabama 37.38%
Texas 37.56%
Washington 37.83%
North Dakota 38.56%
Arizona 38.93%
Oklahoma 38.97%
New Mexico 39.18%
Indiana 39.20%
Georgia 39.34%
Utah 39.39%
Missouri 39.66%
West Virginia 39.75%
Ohio 39.88%
Oregon 39.95%
Hawaii 40.31%
Virginia 40.31%
Penn. 40.42%
Mississippi 40.60%
Arkansas 40.75%
Kentucky 40.82%
North Carolina 40.87%
Maryland 41.25%
Kansas 41.39%
Michigan 41.42%
South Carolina 41.60%
Illinois 41.71%
Mass. 42.03%
Iowa 42.20%
D.C. 42.29%
Nebraska 42.58%
New York 42.69%
Conn. 43.51%
Minn. 43.53%
Idaho 43.64%
Wisconsin 43.78%
Maine 43.79%
Vermont 44.52%
California 44.56%
Rhode Island 44.84%
New Jersey 44.93%
Interesting thought: Many retiree's go to Florida to retire. It could be because of the warm weather, but it may be that by living in Florida, their nest egg goes farther because there is no income tax. By moving from New Jersey to Florida and assuming I have 5 million in my 401k, I would save $350,000 just because of the income tax difference. Retirement Strategy: move to Florida for one year, take a lump sum payment from my pension and 401k, then move to a low cost state that I really want to live in.
I can't believe Idaho has such high taxes! Those people aren't getting screwed... at least New Jersey has jobs that pay $75,000!
When Cost of Living (COL) is added into the equation, Hawaii, California and D.C. are the worst. New Jersey comes in 4th. In other words, a person making $75,000 will feel the poorest in these states as they will have less money to discretionary spending or saving.
Alaska and Wyoming have the lowest taxes in the US. When COL is added, The best places to live are: Tennessee, South Dakota, and Texas. Most of the states that were near the top are those which do not have a state income tax (9 states).
State tax rates: Income, ave. property, sales, and federal income tax:
Alaska 30.91%
Wyoming 33.18%
New Hampshire 33.64%
Delaware 34.15%
South Dakota 34.57%
Tennessee 36.41%
Montana 36.51%
Nevada 36.65%
Florida 36.73%
Louisiana 37.15%
Colorado 37.34%
Alabama 37.38%
Texas 37.56%
Washington 37.83%
North Dakota 38.56%
Arizona 38.93%
Oklahoma 38.97%
New Mexico 39.18%
Indiana 39.20%
Georgia 39.34%
Utah 39.39%
Missouri 39.66%
West Virginia 39.75%
Ohio 39.88%
Oregon 39.95%
Hawaii 40.31%
Virginia 40.31%
Penn. 40.42%
Mississippi 40.60%
Arkansas 40.75%
Kentucky 40.82%
North Carolina 40.87%
Maryland 41.25%
Kansas 41.39%
Michigan 41.42%
South Carolina 41.60%
Illinois 41.71%
Mass. 42.03%
Iowa 42.20%
D.C. 42.29%
Nebraska 42.58%
New York 42.69%
Conn. 43.51%
Minn. 43.53%
Idaho 43.64%
Wisconsin 43.78%
Maine 43.79%
Vermont 44.52%
California 44.56%
Rhode Island 44.84%
New Jersey 44.93%
Interesting thought: Many retiree's go to Florida to retire. It could be because of the warm weather, but it may be that by living in Florida, their nest egg goes farther because there is no income tax. By moving from New Jersey to Florida and assuming I have 5 million in my 401k, I would save $350,000 just because of the income tax difference. Retirement Strategy: move to Florida for one year, take a lump sum payment from my pension and 401k, then move to a low cost state that I really want to live in.
I can't believe Idaho has such high taxes! Those people aren't getting screwed... at least New Jersey has jobs that pay $75,000!
It Begins
So I finally started a blog after like 4 years of "thinking" about it. I will try not to torture the world too much with the twisted, inner workings of my mind! Hopefully, it will be a good place for friends and family to keep up with how I am doing and comment on my ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
