"For many people cable really is the only viable Internet service method."
Really? I love my cable internet, but if it went away, I can access the net on my phone's data package. Also, there's the Hughes satellite and the Excede satellite, and maybe another, not sure. And in the forseeable future, Elon Musk and at least one other is dedicated to having a large constellation of low earth orbiting satellites to do the same connections as all these others.
...we've spent years learning all the little quirks and nooks and crannies of Windows, and don't want to do it all over again for another OS of dubious added value only to lose access to Windows-specific games unless we want to go thru the pain of trying to make some damned emulator or other workaround work to get back what we already have working right now. And then there's Photoshop - first search for this returns, "Mar 23, 2018 - You can install Photoshop on Linux and run it using a virtual machine or Wine." Why do I have to VM or Wine? Why not native? I read something like that and expect all kinds of quirky problems. These programs are screwball enough just learning them in the environment for which they were made, let alone learning them and, when it doesn't work, having to wonder, "Is that Photoshop not working, or is it the VM, Wine, or Linux itself?
Why buy into a pile of problems and months or years of getting good at another OS as much as you already are good on Win 10?
And, I just got a new scanner. It came with a software key printed on the bottom of the scanner that contained "1"'s, only they were capital i's, and it took a while to figure that out. Throw in possible problems from a VM or Wine and/or Linux on top of it? Why have to chase 3 - 4 sources of problems when you can limit them to 2 in the environment for which the software was written?
Sure I can. Its blindingly obvious that the correct way to rig it is that the car won't go into drive if the driver is blotto. But they didn't say it that way, they said, "car won't start." Why? When the obvious solution that would work the same way and be less dangerous is not chosen, then why did they do that? So, its worth attacking what they _did_ say, and see of maybe we hear why they said it that way.
Guy comes out of the bar because it closes at 2 AM, gets in his car, it won't start 'cuz he's lit up big-time, he can't run the heater, it's International Falls, Mn with a current temp of -35 degrees, there's no one around and he passes out and dies of hypothermia.
Naw, never happen, eh?
Why don't the car makers just make us those self driving cars where we can tell it to go home and then crawl in the back seat and sleep all the way into the garage, eh? Probably because they don't have a clue how to do that safely any more than they will have a clue how to do this and not kill anyone either.
The greatest "anti-new-player" mechanism in existence in this country is the income taxes. With 1000's of loopholes, only the large companies have the $$$ to hire the legal help to maximize profit by minimizing income taxes via correct tax decisions throughout the year. Newcomers to any business in the USA are forced to pay the full-pull taxes, because they can't yet afford to hire 100's of lawyers to guide them through these loopholes.
Want to benefit competition amongst all aspects of commerce? Repeal all the Federal income taxes, all of them. Pass the FairTax, a consumption tax that is warped a bit with something called the prebate to make it the only progressive tax in existence.
Ooookkkaayyyy... "Change the way we do things." Right. How, exactly?
What all the analyses always seem to step over is the fact that fossil fuels bring prosperity, and their lack brings poverty. We have enough people in poverty already, and artificially depriving ourselves of fossil fuels will simply increase the amount of people in poverty.
Also seemingly unknown to the masses is that poverty kills. Smoking will take up to 7 years off your life, but living in poverty can take 10.
So, how many million / billion people do we want to throw into poverty by attempting to cease use of fossil fuels? Ready to be a murderer? That's what you would be if you pass a law that says, "no cars / planes / etc in 10 years."
The solution to this is going to have to come out of a lab, and cannot come out of the halls of any government. People can pass all the laws they want, and the result will only be millions of dead people, killed by poverty.
What we want to do is to ensure the research into the better battery and the better ultra-capacitor. Either or both of these will likely be found in a "practical" electric car. The "practical" electric car will be able to perform better than a 1987 Yugo, that circulated the USA in the 1987 One Lap of America, travelling 9,000 miles in 10 days and carrying 3 people (friends of mine, actually.) But the feat that no electric car can currently match is the range of the vehicle, rapid "recharging" of the vehicle, and the fuel availability for the vehicle being "almost anywhere." Tesla S cannot match the '87 Yugo. Tesla would be found on road, discharged somewhere around the country as the Yugo went over the horizon.
So, lets ensure the continued research of battery tech, ultracapacitor tech, and any other energy storage tech that might work to solve the transportation sector's roadblocks to using electricity. And, OBTW, the current electric cars are getting about 3.5 - 4 miles per KwH, a KwH around here is about 12 1/2 cents, and so at 4 mi / KwH, it will go 100 miles on $3.12. Know any gas cars that will go 100 miles on $3.12? Me either. Current car gets about 25 mpg, at near $3 / gallon for premium (which will _still_ not accelerate as well as an electric car), so 100 miles would be $12. So, the holy grail for the project may be carbonless emissions, but the side-effect of dramatically lower fuel costs would be something not to sneeze at.
So, I think the correct approach is to attempt to make electric cars viable in all respects. We do that, things get CHEAPER in a hurry, and we can then look to a horizon of fossil-fueless existence.
"...Every reason you describe that you think excuses speeding is already illegal"
Don't care. They have to catch me first. If they do, I'll pay the ticket and drive off into the sunset. Have done this about 40 times or so (I'm 71) and will continue to do it. Its just a big money scam anyway.
"accepted by the courts"
Don't care about that either. I know better than the numbers on a sign what is safe, and after 55 years of driving with only 1 bent metal accident as a result of some anomalous vision issues after cataract surgery, and where nobody bled at all, I think I can back that up with real-world experience. I drive to minimize my chances of having my hair, teeth, and eyes getting scraped up off the highway by the emergency services people, as well as getting where I'm going before I get dangerously tired from driving anyway, and can do it quite well without the gov't getting involved. Any time the highway robbery traffic-ticket flim-flam gets conflicts with this... well, they're going to have to catch me first!
Roger that. As the 1st state that has allowed concealed carry of weapons, the density of people carrying handguns is one of the highest there is. That said, those people are the most law-abiding, and least likely to resort to such violence. Of course, there's a bad apple in most every barrel, so you screw with people on the road, the Floridians have the means to do something about it if they decide they want to.
I'm thinking of 2 lanes of road here, that wander all over the freakin' USA. You're driving 600 miles in a day, and the shortcut between the interestates is 90 miles of driving on 2-lane roads, you're going to be doing that at the speed of the slowest traffic you encounter. If that's some bozo, or series of bozos doing 45 or maybe even less, you're going to be taking 2 hours for that 90 miles, instead of 1 hour and 41 minutes at 55, and real-world, everone adds 7 - 8 mph to the SL, for 62 mph and 87 minutes. So, difference of 33 minutes wasted on screwing around some 2-lane roads at 45 mph. Of course I don't often choose 2-lane roads, and will drive an extra 40 miles to drive it at interstate highway speeds, but if Google Maps say that the interestates are backed up with traffic, then yeah, 2-lane roads. But I'll pass where my 335 hp and 380 ft-lbs of torque let me at a speed that works for the pass. Getting to where there is more 2-lane road travel again, such as, for instance, the Ohio Turnpike, where they seem to have adopted the Pennsylvania Turnpike model - a road I stopped driving about 5 years ago because of this - but they create ridiculously long "work zones" where there's orange barrels for maybe 40 - 90 miles (in Pennsylvania, not quite that long in Ohio) the road may or may not be narrowed from 3 lanes in one direction to 2, but of course there's a work zone speed limit that is egregiously low, while the work zone itself has these 90 miles of orange barrels and maybe 3 guys working somewhere in the entire zone. The obvious ruse here is to lower the speed limit to create a highway piracy zone for the cops to write speeding tickets, so I drive Interstate 68 to get to the same areas, through Maryland which seems to have done much better and doesn't have to have work zones ALWAYS set up to lower speed limits. Will now also use Interstate 70 for the westward component of my trip in May, and probably wend my way up to Sandusky, Ohio on 2-lane roads. Probably another 90 miles. Feds want to raise gas taxes 26.4 cents a gallon, to actually "do infrastructure", and if they can do it without taking years of construction zones, but get it done in a few weeks like should be done, I'm then all for it.
And that means that they mostly don't pass unless that road is really, really deserted of traffic. Yeah, I could pass in Death Valley, that road is straight and you can see for about 50 miles to the next set of mountains, but around here, and most everywhere else I've been, they don't pass, they can't pass, and it takes them a LOT longer to get where they're going.
Yeah, that's just going "by the book." In the real world, this law is broken more often than sunshine. They want to write me a ticket for passing someone going 45 by me going 70 to get my ass out of the oncoming lane, they can go ahead and do it. But of course they have to catch me first, and they're mostly not around on these 2-lane roads. Trying to pass someone going 45 without going over 55 will take... lessee, from a (safe) position 30 feet behind the car, to a position 30 ft in front of the car, and assuming the car is about 12 feet long, and my car is also 12 feet long, that's 84 feet. 10 mph difference in speed is 22 X 10 / 15 = 220 / 15 = approx. 14 ft / sec. 84 feet / 14 ft. / sec = 6 seconds. 6 seconds at 55 mph is 484 feet to do the pass, just shy of 1/10th mile. That's a lot. It gives fate time to provide someone to pop over a hill you didn't know was there, carelessly turn out of a driveway or sideroad into your path because they're looking left for cars coming in their lane and don't see you coming from their right (all based on USA drive-on-the-right) (and I've actually had this happen to me), so the shorter distance and time they you are in the left lane passing some bozo picking his nose and doing 45, the better. That's done by doing mayhem to the speed limit. Overall... its safer. Its just not "by the book."
"If you'd thought to do that before you got into your little car rant, you'd have seen that you can simply apply additional pressure to a special foot operated lever which will allow you to exceed the limiters speed. If that's still not enough for you, you can completely disable the limiter until you next switch the engine on."
Either it's a limiter or its not. If you can switch it off, it's not a limiter. So the summary of the article is inconsistent with the facts.
"As for sales - if you can't buy any cars except limited ones because it's illegal to sell them, if you want a car, you'll buy one."
"If." The point is, I wouldn't want one of those cars, and neither would a whale of a lot of people that I know. Virtually no one, in fact. We like controlling all aspects of our ride, and being able to do what we need to do when we need to do it, without the gov't getting into the way of dynamic physical interactions of multiple instances of 2 tons of moving metal. Its as dumb as these computers controlling, and crashing, airplanes, only mass produced cars would have nowhere near the testing that commercial airliners get, and _still_ screw up the task of keeping everyone safe.
"The advantage of slowing down is that if there is a collision, you'll be going slightly slower, so more more likely to survive."
The disadvantage of slowing down is that you have to be looking over your right shoulder to look for a way to merge. Lots of cars you can't see for squat, plus you need to look over your shoulder and you also need to use the right outside mirror. While you're doing all this, some bozo in front of you decides to slow down or merge in front of you, you don't see that because you're looking where you've been instead of where you're going. The likelihood of having an accident is waaaaaay higher than sprinting ahead a bit and merging into a hole that's big enough and you can know exactly where everyone is, without taking your eyes off where you're going.
And again, who are they going to sell these cars to? I predict a huge slump in sales as buyers keep their more-capable cars until the wheels fall off.
...How do you pass a car doing 45 mph on a road limited at 55 mph? The answer is, you don't, and are delayed and consigned to do 45 as long as the bozo in front of you decides to do 45, because it would take too long to pass, and some oncoming car would come out of *somewhere* to give you an exciting ride.
And then of course there is the emergency aspects of this - you're being chased, or you're attempting to get the H out of the woods before it burns down entirely, or you're just keeping in front of the mile-wide tornado, etc. etc.
You're doing the 70 mph limit on an Interstate highway, and want to get into the right lane to exit, and need to sprint ahead just a little to increase clearance with the car behind so you can get in the right lane to access the exit, and... you can't do it. And its FAR more difficult to attempt that by slowing and dropping into a space behind that car, as there may not be such a space, some pinhead without a speed limited car may come racing up just to keep you from being able to do that (every other person on the road is a prick, in case you haven't noticed), and on, and on... 1000's of reasons why this is a bad idea.
The ultimate reason that this is a bad idea is that I would never, ever, ever buy a new car again, and know a lot of people that would feel the same way. I belong to the Sports Car Club of America, about 55,000 people, so there's 55,000 "no sale"s right there. And being how this is the USA, and we are a bit 'round the bend about the freedom thing, one of the biggest reasons we have 350 million privately owned firearms in a country with about 320 million people including the kids, such a car would not make a lot of money being sold here, I think.
Plug in $21840, the calculated poverty level spending, where the prebate pays for all the spending on new retail items for sale, and services, is $16,240. So, the spending done on the difference between $21840 and 16,240 is $5,600. FairTax on that would be 23% of $5,600, or $1,288. That's 785.48 more FairTax.
OK, but there's other factors at work. The "Child Tax Credit" that results in more tax refund than paid is really a subsidy from the gov't. While not in the FairTax bill, I'm pretty certain that, if/when the FairTax is passed, lawmakers will create an actual welfare assistance rule that will result in that much money being available through the welfare system where it belongs, instead of the tax system, where it doesn't belong. If that happens, then that's the big difference, and the FairTax will then beat the income taxes by $2000 - $785.48 = $1014.52.
But say that doesn't happen. Remember, this is a tax on spending in retail items for sale and services. And, specifically, not on other gov't's taxes. Assuming that the person is spending all of $21,840 every year, there is state sales tax most everywhere, all but 5 states. Here in Virginia, it's 5%. So, out of $21,840, only $20,748 is actually spent on the items for sale at retail. That's a reduction of $21,840 - $20,748 = $992. 23% of $992 = $228.16. So, the former $785.48 more for FairTax would be $227.16 less, or $558.32 more FairTax than what happens under the income taxes.
And finally, we get into the area that is harder to quantify. Does this person buy a car? If so, I'm sure it'll be something years old and really cheap, but if that person finds a used car for $5,000, and finances it for 4 years, there will be no FairTax on the $5,000, nor will there be FairTax on the $117.43 car payment for 4 years at 6%. So, 23% of $117.43 = $27 / month that isn't taxed or 12 X 27 = $324 less tax. Now we're down to 558.32 disadvantage for the FairTax - $324 = $232.32 disadvantage for the FairTax.
What else? This person probably buys things at retail now, but under the FairTax, would likely buy things like a window air conditioner, a television, some of the clothes for herself and the kid, etc. at thrift stores, pawn shops, and ebay or Craigslist. Would that nuke the $232.32 disadvantage for the FairTax over the year? Probably.
There are state income taxes. At that level of earnings, does this person pay any? Probably not. But if so, they wouldn't be taxed under the FairTax. Does the state have a personal property tax on cars? The FairTax would not be charged against that spending either. Does the person own a home? Then there would be property taxes, which the FairTax does not tax. Also not taxed would be the mortgage payment, and not simply relieving tax on the mortgage interest as the income taxes do, but instead the entire monthly payment of the mortgage is not subject to FairTax.
If that has worn down that remaining $232.32 to $0, that's great. If it hasn't, I think the welfare department would be coming up with that $2K child tax credit under another name, but am fairly sure that such people wouldn't be left hanging.
And, in the long run, that $10.50 / hr would be destined to go up, probably fairly dramatically, as the world's manufacturers likely injure themselves in the stampede to build factories in the USA to take advantage of income-tax-free manufacturing. Millions of jobs would be created, and either this person would be trotting out of the Dollar General to go down the street to the new factory manufacturing wire and cable, such as the factory locally that left this area for an overseas location, and probably be making $15 to start with progressive pay increases to higher wages as the person learns the jobs there. Either that, or the Dollar General will start coughing up
"The employee portion of payroll taxes are 6.2% for Social Security, and 1.45% for Medicare. You'll find, through some exceptionally complex mathematics, that this does not add up to 15.3%."
It does, when you add the "employer's share, also 7.65% total, to the "employee's share" at 7.65%. What you have to think deeper to realize is that the employer does, and has been since the inception of this amazingly regressive tax, lower the employee's wages by that amount necessary to be able to send that extra 7.65% to Washington.
"And no, removing those taxes does not mean the employee gets paid the employer portion of payroll taxes. Companies treat that like an operating expense. Removing that side of the taxes does not mean payroll goes up."
Yeah, it will eventually, because money will out. That money will be laying around the corporating, unsent-to-Washington, and they have to do something with it. As that company's competitors for the labor in the labor market start paying more, using that money that's laying around doing nothing because it wasn't sent to Washington, the company's employees will say, "Take this job and shove it, I ain't workin' here no more" and trot on down to the other company that is paying their workers that unused, unsent-to-Washington 7.65%. Yeah, the company's employees will eventually get it, when "the labor market" decides it for them.
"And you're paying about $8k in consumption taxes in order to bring in the same revenue that income and payroll taxes currently collect. If we apply some complex mathematics to that, we find that your "prebate" doesn't quite pay all that."
That's mysterious math. Who's paying 8K in consumption taxes? Certainly not the poor person making $12K / yr. The "prebate" provides citizens enough money to pay the FairTax on spending up to the poverty level. A single person's poverty level, as determined by the gov't, is around $12K. Married people's poverty level is about twice that. The gov't would send 23% of $12K to the single person in 12 monthly installments, and would send 23% of the poverty level for marrieds to the married couple in 12 monthly installments. Everyone would have enough $$$ to buy brand new stuff for living expenses. Just remember that those people will elect to buy used stuff whenever they can, and avoid the FairTax - used cell phones, used clothing, used cars, etc. They'll also avoid spending money, just like they do now, buy carpooling to work, or moving across the street from work and walking, etc.
"Yes, I laughed heartily at that. Jeff4747, LLC will be buying a lot of goods and services for the CEO's use. Thus avoiding all of your taxes. We're a struggling consulting firm that just happens to not make any money, though we do have plenty of clients...who also just so happen to not make any money but they do buy goods and services that happen to be used by their primary shareholders."
Here comes the part where every detractor comes up with their fantasy methods of evading the FairTax. The beauty of the FairTax is that it is collected mostly from businesses, which are far fewer in number than the 160 million or so income tax payers at the moment. That means it doesn't take nearly as many auditors to come by, discover your fraud, and throw your ass in jail. So go ahead, be my guest, see what happens. Kinda like Wyatt Earp's line in the movie "Tombstone", "Go ahead, skin that smokepole, see what happens," said with all the malice befitting the occasion.
"Go ahead. Show how much you've thought about it by showing everyone just how much you need to tax the purchases of individuals to replace [thebalance.com] $1.7T in individual income tax revenue, $239B in business income tax revenue and $1.2T in payroll tax revenue."
That adds up to about 3.1T, so 23% of X = $3.1T, so X = $13.4T. And again, showing that you're not stopping to think this thru, the tax is levied not only on domestic goods and services, but also on imported goods, of which there are trillions of dollars worth
"Most people in that income range pay zero or negative taxes today "
But they don't pay zero taxes. There are the payroll taxes, which tax at 15.3% - the "employee's share" at 7.65%, and the "employer's share" at 7.65%, which the employer clandestinely lower's the employee's wages to get. The payroll taxes are also horribly regressive, taxing poor people from the 1st dollar they make, and then even more egregiously, failing to tax any dollars earned above about $130K. So, someone earning $500K or $5M or $500M all pay the same amount of payroll tax. Now that's regressive.
The FairTax would remove this injustice by completely abolishing all income taxes, including the payroll tax. Approximately 35% of all FairTax collected revenues would go to support the Social Security / Medicare programs that the payroll taxes support now. The difference is that the FairTax provides a mechanism for NOT charging poor people tax, and taxes the fairly egregious spending of the rich for every last dollar they spend. They spend a lot.
When you're figuring the taxes for the $15K - $50K, don't forget that those people can choose not to pay the tax by not buying the new item for sale or the service, and so can control how much tax they pay. Nobody's coming through the door and demanding a citizen's money to cart off to Washington. If one doesn't want to pay the tax, or doesn't have the money to pay the tax, then one simply doesn't buy the item that is taxed, or the service. Can't afford your lawn care company any more? Do it yourself, don't pay any tax on the lawn care service. Also remember that installment loan payments aren't taxed, saving, including retirement savings aren't taxed, taxes paid to the states aren't taxed, earned interest at the bank isn't taxed, etc.
Also when considering the $15K - $50K person's situation, remember that the removal of business taxes will dramatically boost the economy, resulting in a fairly massive availability of jobs that compete for an ever dwindling pool of workers to do them, which will force wages up. That will improve the $15K - $50K person's situation, possibly shoving them out of the top of the $50K bracket. That's a good thing. And, that person now making more than $50K can still choose not to buy taxed items if he wants to, and instead buy untaxed items, which are untaxed because they are used. I just sold a 2019 Jeep Cherokee with 13K miles on it - traded it in on a Ford Edge ST, and that Jeep is perfect. If bought used off the dealer's lot, it would not be taxed under the FairTax. Someone would get an essentially new Jeep without paying the FairTax on it. But that's how the FairTax works, it gives citizens the freedom to either pay it or not pay it.
Hollywood's decision to insert identity politics into everything, as well as international politics with the theme "America is Bad." We don't much appreciate this sort of preachifying around here. You make Captain Marvel to be working on the side of evil, and the former bad guys are just oppressed by the supposed good guys, and that just shrieks that America is the Kree, and everyone else are the opproessed. Look, the good guys in all the superhero magazines throughout their existence have always been a stand-in for the USA - Superman was the USA after WW2, and was absolutely invulnerable except for kryponite, and then we lost the Viet Nam War. Suddenly, Superman could be hurt, because Superman WAS the USA. Then we have the Hollywood bunch promoting anti-Americanism, and now Superman can actually be killed. That is Hollywood attacking the USA as evil, no 2 ways about it, and I think some people actually feel it without putting those little 2's and 2's together. We also have guys like Tarantino badmouthing the police - more identity politics for which I didn't see the Hateful 8, even tho that was not this year, but the string of America-bashing flicks are not so enjoyable if you don't believe the President is evil and the USA is evil and the sunrise is racist and the sunrise is racist because of the USA.
Stuff it, Hollywood. Get back on track and embrace patriotism, and quit with the identity politics that has things like the Star Trek Discovery crew being captianed by a female that goes hand-to-hand with Klingons and survives - which Kirk could barely get away with, and no person in a 140 lb frame without testosterone-fueld muscles is going to survive against a 250 lb Klingon. Saw the 1st 1 or 2 eposides, sand, "Naw", and have't looked at another one. Get real, people - guys do hand to hand combat, not gals, and there's no fictiionalizing that Hollywood can do to change that. Play the magic card like Wonder Woman and it becomes OK, but otherwse... naw, not interesting.
So, get real, give us something that adds up when we bring out our 2's plus 2's, and maybe we can enjoy it. I see most everything anyway, as I love going to the theater, but the difference is when you give me something good, I'll see it twice, or maybe even thrice. But anti-American stuff that offends me, or completely stupid stuff like whispy females surviving Klingons hand-to-hand... that's a one-and-done.
Slashdot Mirror
"For many people cable really is the only viable Internet service method."
Really? I love my cable internet, but if it went away, I can access the net on my phone's data package. Also, there's the Hughes satellite and the Excede satellite, and maybe another, not sure. And in the forseeable future, Elon Musk and at least one other is dedicated to having a large constellation of low earth orbiting satellites to do the same connections as all these others.
What monopoly?
...we've spent years learning all the little quirks and nooks and crannies of Windows, and don't want to do it all over again for another OS of dubious added value only to lose access to Windows-specific games unless we want to go thru the pain of trying to make some damned emulator or other workaround work to get back what we already have working right now. And then there's Photoshop - first search for this returns, "Mar 23, 2018 - You can install Photoshop on Linux and run it using a virtual machine or Wine." Why do I have to VM or Wine? Why not native? I read something like that and expect all kinds of quirky problems. These programs are screwball enough just learning them in the environment for which they were made, let alone learning them and, when it doesn't work, having to wonder, "Is that Photoshop not working, or is it the VM, Wine, or Linux itself?
Why buy into a pile of problems and months or years of getting good at another OS as much as you already are good on Win 10?
And, I just got a new scanner. It came with a software key printed on the bottom of the scanner that contained "1"'s, only they were capital i's, and it took a while to figure that out. Throw in possible problems from a VM or Wine and/or Linux on top of it? Why have to chase 3 - 4 sources of problems when you can limit them to 2 in the environment for which the software was written?
Anyway, that's why...
Sure I can. Its blindingly obvious that the correct way to rig it is that the car won't go into drive if the driver is blotto. But they didn't say it that way, they said, "car won't start." Why? When the obvious solution that would work the same way and be less dangerous is not chosen, then why did they do that? So, its worth attacking what they _did_ say, and see of maybe we hear why they said it that way.
Guy comes out of the bar because it closes at 2 AM, gets in his car, it won't start 'cuz he's lit up big-time, he can't run the heater, it's International Falls, Mn with a current temp of -35 degrees, there's no one around and he passes out and dies of hypothermia.
Naw, never happen, eh?
Why don't the car makers just make us those self driving cars where we can tell it to go home and then crawl in the back seat and sleep all the way into the garage, eh? Probably because they don't have a clue how to do that safely any more than they will have a clue how to do this and not kill anyone either.
The greatest "anti-new-player" mechanism in existence in this country is the income taxes. With 1000's of loopholes, only the large companies have the $$$ to hire the legal help to maximize profit by minimizing income taxes via correct tax decisions throughout the year. Newcomers to any business in the USA are forced to pay the full-pull taxes, because they can't yet afford to hire 100's of lawyers to guide them through these loopholes.
Want to benefit competition amongst all aspects of commerce? Repeal all the Federal income taxes, all of them. Pass the FairTax, a consumption tax that is warped a bit with something called the prebate to make it the only progressive tax in existence.
Ooookkkaayyyy... "Change the way we do things." Right. How, exactly?
What all the analyses always seem to step over is the fact that fossil fuels bring prosperity, and their lack brings poverty. We have enough people in poverty already, and artificially depriving ourselves of fossil fuels will simply increase the amount of people in poverty.
Also seemingly unknown to the masses is that poverty kills. Smoking will take up to 7 years off your life, but living in poverty can take 10.
So, how many million / billion people do we want to throw into poverty by attempting to cease use of fossil fuels? Ready to be a murderer? That's what you would be if you pass a law that says, "no cars / planes / etc in 10 years."
The solution to this is going to have to come out of a lab, and cannot come out of the halls of any government. People can pass all the laws they want, and the result will only be millions of dead people, killed by poverty.
What we want to do is to ensure the research into the better battery and the better ultra-capacitor. Either or both of these will likely be found in a "practical" electric car. The "practical" electric car will be able to perform better than a 1987 Yugo, that circulated the USA in the 1987 One Lap of America, travelling 9,000 miles in 10 days and carrying 3 people (friends of mine, actually.) But the feat that no electric car can currently match is the range of the vehicle, rapid "recharging" of the vehicle, and the fuel availability for the vehicle being "almost anywhere." Tesla S cannot match the '87 Yugo. Tesla would be found on road, discharged somewhere around the country as the Yugo went over the horizon.
So, lets ensure the continued research of battery tech, ultracapacitor tech, and any other energy storage tech that might work to solve the transportation sector's roadblocks to using electricity. And, OBTW, the current electric cars are getting about 3.5 - 4 miles per KwH, a KwH around here is about 12 1/2 cents, and so at 4 mi / KwH, it will go 100 miles on $3.12. Know any gas cars that will go 100 miles on $3.12? Me either. Current car gets about 25 mpg, at near $3 / gallon for premium (which will _still_ not accelerate as well as an electric car), so 100 miles would be $12. So, the holy grail for the project may be carbonless emissions, but the side-effect of dramatically lower fuel costs would be something not to sneeze at.
So, I think the correct approach is to attempt to make electric cars viable in all respects. We do that, things get CHEAPER in a hurry, and we can then look to a horizon of fossil-fueless existence.
"...Every reason you describe that you think excuses speeding is already illegal"
Don't care. They have to catch me first. If they do, I'll pay the ticket and drive off into the sunset. Have done this about 40 times or so (I'm 71) and will continue to do it. Its just a big money scam anyway.
"accepted by the courts"
Don't care about that either. I know better than the numbers on a sign what is safe, and after 55 years of driving with only 1 bent metal accident as a result of some anomalous vision issues after cataract surgery, and where nobody bled at all, I think I can back that up with real-world experience. I drive to minimize my chances of having my hair, teeth, and eyes getting scraped up off the highway by the emergency services people, as well as getting where I'm going before I get dangerously tired from driving anyway, and can do it quite well without the gov't getting involved. Any time the highway robbery traffic-ticket flim-flam gets conflicts with this... well, they're going to have to catch me first!
Roger that. As the 1st state that has allowed concealed carry of weapons, the density of people carrying handguns is one of the highest there is. That said, those people are the most law-abiding, and least likely to resort to such violence. Of course, there's a bad apple in most every barrel, so you screw with people on the road, the Floridians have the means to do something about it if they decide they want to.
" I'm thinking of 4 lane roads here."
I'm thinking of 2 lanes of road here, that wander all over the freakin' USA. You're driving 600 miles in a day, and the shortcut between the interestates is 90 miles of driving on 2-lane roads, you're going to be doing that at the speed of the slowest traffic you encounter. If that's some bozo, or series of bozos doing 45 or maybe even less, you're going to be taking 2 hours for that 90 miles, instead of 1 hour and 41 minutes at 55, and real-world, everone adds 7 - 8 mph to the SL, for 62 mph and 87 minutes. So, difference of 33 minutes wasted on screwing around some 2-lane roads at 45 mph. Of course I don't often choose 2-lane roads, and will drive an extra 40 miles to drive it at interstate highway speeds, but if Google Maps say that the interestates are backed up with traffic, then yeah, 2-lane roads. But I'll pass where my 335 hp and 380 ft-lbs of torque let me at a speed that works for the pass. Getting to where there is more 2-lane road travel again, such as, for instance, the Ohio Turnpike, where they seem to have adopted the Pennsylvania Turnpike model - a road I stopped driving about 5 years ago because of this - but they create ridiculously long "work zones" where there's orange barrels for maybe 40 - 90 miles (in Pennsylvania, not quite that long in Ohio) the road may or may not be narrowed from 3 lanes in one direction to 2, but of course there's a work zone speed limit that is egregiously low, while the work zone itself has these 90 miles of orange barrels and maybe 3 guys working somewhere in the entire zone. The obvious ruse here is to lower the speed limit to create a highway piracy zone for the cops to write speeding tickets, so I drive Interstate 68 to get to the same areas, through Maryland which seems to have done much better and doesn't have to have work zones ALWAYS set up to lower speed limits. Will now also use Interstate 70 for the westward component of my trip in May, and probably wend my way up to Sandusky, Ohio on 2-lane roads. Probably another 90 miles. Feds want to raise gas taxes 26.4 cents a gallon, to actually "do infrastructure", and if they can do it without taking years of construction zones, but get it done in a few weeks like should be done, I'm then all for it.
And that means that they mostly don't pass unless that road is really, really deserted of traffic. Yeah, I could pass in Death Valley, that road is straight and you can see for about 50 miles to the next set of mountains, but around here, and most everywhere else I've been, they don't pass, they can't pass, and it takes them a LOT longer to get where they're going.
Yeah, that's just going "by the book." In the real world, this law is broken more often than sunshine. They want to write me a ticket for passing someone going 45 by me going 70 to get my ass out of the oncoming lane, they can go ahead and do it. But of course they have to catch me first, and they're mostly not around on these 2-lane roads. Trying to pass someone going 45 without going over 55 will take... lessee, from a (safe) position 30 feet behind the car, to a position 30 ft in front of the car, and assuming the car is about 12 feet long, and my car is also 12 feet long, that's 84 feet. 10 mph difference in speed is 22 X 10 / 15 = 220 / 15 = approx. 14 ft / sec. 84 feet / 14 ft. / sec = 6 seconds. 6 seconds at 55 mph is 484 feet to do the pass, just shy of 1/10th mile. That's a lot. It gives fate time to provide someone to pop over a hill you didn't know was there, carelessly turn out of a driveway or sideroad into your path because they're looking left for cars coming in their lane and don't see you coming from their right (all based on USA drive-on-the-right) (and I've actually had this happen to me), so the shorter distance and time they you are in the left lane passing some bozo picking his nose and doing 45, the better. That's done by doing mayhem to the speed limit. Overall... its safer. Its just not "by the book."
And then the car won't even start, and gives you a message to have it towed to your nearest dealer to get these things fixed.
"If you'd thought to do that before you got into your little car rant, you'd have seen that you can simply apply additional pressure to a special foot operated lever which will allow you to exceed the limiters speed. If that's still not enough for you, you can completely disable the limiter until you next switch the engine on."
Either it's a limiter or its not. If you can switch it off, it's not a limiter. So the summary of the article is inconsistent with the facts.
"As for sales - if you can't buy any cars except limited ones because it's illegal to sell them, if you want a car, you'll buy one."
"If." The point is, I wouldn't want one of those cars, and neither would a whale of a lot of people that I know. Virtually no one, in fact. We like controlling all aspects of our ride, and being able to do what we need to do when we need to do it, without the gov't getting into the way of dynamic physical interactions of multiple instances of 2 tons of moving metal. Its as dumb as these computers controlling, and crashing, airplanes, only mass produced cars would have nowhere near the testing that commercial airliners get, and _still_ screw up the task of keeping everyone safe.
"The advantage of slowing down is that if there is a collision, you'll be going slightly slower, so more more likely to survive."
The disadvantage of slowing down is that you have to be looking over your right shoulder to look for a way to merge. Lots of cars you can't see for squat, plus you need to look over your shoulder and you also need to use the right outside mirror. While you're doing all this, some bozo in front of you decides to slow down or merge in front of you, you don't see that because you're looking where you've been instead of where you're going. The likelihood of having an accident is waaaaaay higher than sprinting ahead a bit and merging into a hole that's big enough and you can know exactly where everyone is, without taking your eyes off where you're going.
And again, who are they going to sell these cars to? I predict a huge slump in sales as buyers keep their more-capable cars until the wheels fall off.
We practice, practice, practice!
And sleep in onsies...
Aw, I don't have to go to Switzerland to get annoyed by traffic laws, there's lots of traffic laws right here to do that to me...
From net search: "assign; commit decisively or permanently."
I think it fits.
Prolly one of our USA liberals, they're way into namecalling.
Rats... should have been, "As a Practical Matter..."
...How do you pass a car doing 45 mph on a road limited at 55 mph? The answer is, you don't, and are delayed and consigned to do 45 as long as the bozo in front of you decides to do 45, because it would take too long to pass, and some oncoming car would come out of *somewhere* to give you an exciting ride.
And then of course there is the emergency aspects of this - you're being chased, or you're attempting to get the H out of the woods before it burns down entirely, or you're just keeping in front of the mile-wide tornado, etc. etc.
You're doing the 70 mph limit on an Interstate highway, and want to get into the right lane to exit, and need to sprint ahead just a little to increase clearance with the car behind so you can get in the right lane to access the exit, and... you can't do it. And its FAR more difficult to attempt that by slowing and dropping into a space behind that car, as there may not be such a space, some pinhead without a speed limited car may come racing up just to keep you from being able to do that (every other person on the road is a prick, in case you haven't noticed), and on, and on... 1000's of reasons why this is a bad idea.
The ultimate reason that this is a bad idea is that I would never, ever, ever buy a new car again, and know a lot of people that would feel the same way. I belong to the Sports Car Club of America, about 55,000 people, so there's 55,000 "no sale"s right there. And being how this is the USA, and we are a bit 'round the bend about the freedom thing, one of the biggest reasons we have 350 million privately owned firearms in a country with about 320 million people including the kids, such a car would not make a lot of money being sold here, I think.
OK, person, 1 kid, make $21840, presumably, since poor, spends it all.
Go here:
http://www.fairtaxcalculator.o...
Plug in $21840, the calculated poverty level spending, where the prebate pays for all the spending on new retail items for sale, and services, is $16,240. So, the spending done on the difference between $21840 and 16,240 is $5,600. FairTax on that would be 23% of $5,600, or $1,288. That's 785.48 more FairTax.
OK, but there's other factors at work. The "Child Tax Credit" that results in more tax refund than paid is really a subsidy from the gov't. While not in the FairTax bill, I'm pretty certain that, if/when the FairTax is passed, lawmakers will create an actual welfare assistance rule that will result in that much money being available through the welfare system where it belongs, instead of the tax system, where it doesn't belong. If that happens, then that's the big difference, and the FairTax will then beat the income taxes by $2000 - $785.48 = $1014 .52.
But say that doesn't happen. Remember, this is a tax on spending in retail items for sale and services. And, specifically, not on other gov't's taxes. Assuming that the person is spending all of $21,840 every year, there is state sales tax most everywhere, all but 5 states. Here in Virginia, it's 5%. So, out of $21,840, only $20,748 is actually spent on the items for sale at retail. That's a reduction of $21,840 - $20,748 = $992. 23% of $992 = $228.16. So, the former $785.48 more for FairTax would be $227.16 less, or $558.32 more FairTax than what happens under the income taxes.
And finally, we get into the area that is harder to quantify. Does this person buy a car? If so, I'm sure it'll be something years old and really cheap, but if that person finds a used car for $5,000, and finances it for 4 years, there will be no FairTax on the $5,000, nor will there be FairTax on the $117.43 car payment for 4 years at 6%. So, 23% of $117.43 = $27 / month that isn't taxed or 12 X 27 = $324 less tax. Now we're down to 558.32 disadvantage for the FairTax - $324 = $232.32 disadvantage for the FairTax.
What else? This person probably buys things at retail now, but under the FairTax, would likely buy things like a window air conditioner, a television, some of the clothes for herself and the kid, etc. at thrift stores, pawn shops, and ebay or Craigslist. Would that nuke the $232.32 disadvantage for the FairTax over the year? Probably.
There are state income taxes. At that level of earnings, does this person pay any? Probably not. But if so, they wouldn't be taxed under the FairTax. Does the state have a personal property tax on cars? The FairTax would not be charged against that spending either. Does the person own a home? Then there would be property taxes, which the FairTax does not tax. Also not taxed would be the mortgage payment, and not simply relieving tax on the mortgage interest as the income taxes do, but instead the entire monthly payment of the mortgage is not subject to FairTax.
If that has worn down that remaining $232.32 to $0, that's great. If it hasn't, I think the welfare department would be coming up with that $2K child tax credit under another name, but am fairly sure that such people wouldn't be left hanging.
And, in the long run, that $10.50 / hr would be destined to go up, probably fairly dramatically, as the world's manufacturers likely injure themselves in the stampede to build factories in the USA to take advantage of income-tax-free manufacturing. Millions of jobs would be created, and either this person would be trotting out of the Dollar General to go down the street to the new factory manufacturing wire and cable, such as the factory locally that left this area for an overseas location, and probably be making $15 to start with progressive pay increases to higher wages as the person learns the jobs there. Either that, or the Dollar General will start coughing up
"The employee portion of payroll taxes are 6.2% for Social Security, and 1.45% for Medicare. You'll find, through some exceptionally complex mathematics, that this does not add up to 15.3%."
It does, when you add the "employer's share, also 7.65% total, to the "employee's share" at 7.65%. What you have to think deeper to realize is that the employer does, and has been since the inception of this amazingly regressive tax, lower the employee's wages by that amount necessary to be able to send that extra 7.65% to Washington.
"And no, removing those taxes does not mean the employee gets paid the employer portion of payroll taxes. Companies treat that like an operating expense. Removing that side of the taxes does not mean payroll goes up."
Yeah, it will eventually, because money will out. That money will be laying around the corporating, unsent-to-Washington, and they have to do something with it. As that company's competitors for the labor in the labor market start paying more, using that money that's laying around doing nothing because it wasn't sent to Washington, the company's employees will say, "Take this job and shove it, I ain't workin' here no more" and trot on down to the other company that is paying their workers that unused, unsent-to-Washington 7.65%. Yeah, the company's employees will eventually get it, when "the labor market" decides it for them.
"And you're paying about $8k in consumption taxes in order to bring in the same revenue that income and payroll taxes currently collect. If we apply some complex mathematics to that, we find that your "prebate" doesn't quite pay all that."
That's mysterious math. Who's paying 8K in consumption taxes? Certainly not the poor person making $12K / yr. The "prebate" provides citizens enough money to pay the FairTax on spending up to the poverty level. A single person's poverty level, as determined by the gov't, is around $12K. Married people's poverty level is about twice that. The gov't would send 23% of $12K to the single person in 12 monthly installments, and would send 23% of the poverty level for marrieds to the married couple in 12 monthly installments. Everyone would have enough $$$ to buy brand new stuff for living expenses. Just remember that those people will elect to buy used stuff whenever they can, and avoid the FairTax - used cell phones, used clothing, used cars, etc. They'll also avoid spending money, just like they do now, buy carpooling to work, or moving across the street from work and walking, etc.
"Yes, I laughed heartily at that. Jeff4747, LLC will be buying a lot of goods and services for the CEO's use. Thus avoiding all of your taxes. We're a struggling consulting firm that just happens to not make any money, though we do have plenty of clients...who also just so happen to not make any money but they do buy goods and services that happen to be used by their primary shareholders."
Here comes the part where every detractor comes up with their fantasy methods of evading the FairTax. The beauty of the FairTax is that it is collected mostly from businesses, which are far fewer in number than the 160 million or so income tax payers at the moment. That means it doesn't take nearly as many auditors to come by, discover your fraud, and throw your ass in jail. So go ahead, be my guest, see what happens. Kinda like Wyatt Earp's line in the movie "Tombstone", "Go ahead, skin that smokepole, see what happens," said with all the malice befitting the occasion.
"Go ahead. Show how much you've thought about it by showing everyone just how much you need to tax the purchases of individuals to replace [thebalance.com] $1.7T in individual income tax revenue, $239B in business income tax revenue and $1.2T in payroll tax revenue."
That adds up to about 3.1T, so 23% of X = $3.1T, so X = $13.4T. And again, showing that you're not stopping to think this thru, the tax is levied not only on domestic goods and services, but also on imported goods, of which there are trillions of dollars worth
"Most people in that income range pay zero or negative taxes today "
But they don't pay zero taxes. There are the payroll taxes, which tax at 15.3% - the "employee's share" at 7.65%, and the "employer's share" at 7.65%, which the employer clandestinely lower's the employee's wages to get. The payroll taxes are also horribly regressive, taxing poor people from the 1st dollar they make, and then even more egregiously, failing to tax any dollars earned above about $130K. So, someone earning $500K or $5M or $500M all pay the same amount of payroll tax. Now that's regressive.
The FairTax would remove this injustice by completely abolishing all income taxes, including the payroll tax. Approximately 35% of all FairTax collected revenues would go to support the Social Security / Medicare programs that the payroll taxes support now. The difference is that the FairTax provides a mechanism for NOT charging poor people tax, and taxes the fairly egregious spending of the rich for every last dollar they spend. They spend a lot.
When you're figuring the taxes for the $15K - $50K, don't forget that those people can choose not to pay the tax by not buying the new item for sale or the service, and so can control how much tax they pay. Nobody's coming through the door and demanding a citizen's money to cart off to Washington. If one doesn't want to pay the tax, or doesn't have the money to pay the tax, then one simply doesn't buy the item that is taxed, or the service. Can't afford your lawn care company any more? Do it yourself, don't pay any tax on the lawn care service. Also remember that installment loan payments aren't taxed, saving, including retirement savings aren't taxed, taxes paid to the states aren't taxed, earned interest at the bank isn't taxed, etc.
Also when considering the $15K - $50K person's situation, remember that the removal of business taxes will dramatically boost the economy, resulting in a fairly massive availability of jobs that compete for an ever dwindling pool of workers to do them, which will force wages up. That will improve the $15K - $50K person's situation, possibly shoving them out of the top of the $50K bracket. That's a good thing. And, that person now making more than $50K can still choose not to buy taxed items if he wants to, and instead buy untaxed items, which are untaxed because they are used. I just sold a 2019 Jeep Cherokee with 13K miles on it - traded it in on a Ford Edge ST, and that Jeep is perfect. If bought used off the dealer's lot, it would not be taxed under the FairTax. Someone would get an essentially new Jeep without paying the FairTax on it. But that's how the FairTax works, it gives citizens the freedom to either pay it or not pay it.
Hollywood's decision to insert identity politics into everything, as well as international politics with the theme "America is Bad." We don't much appreciate this sort of preachifying around here. You make Captain Marvel to be working on the side of evil, and the former bad guys are just oppressed by the supposed good guys, and that just shrieks that America is the Kree, and everyone else are the opproessed. Look, the good guys in all the superhero magazines throughout their existence have always been a stand-in for the USA - Superman was the USA after WW2, and was absolutely invulnerable except for kryponite, and then we lost the Viet Nam War. Suddenly, Superman could be hurt, because Superman WAS the USA. Then we have the Hollywood bunch promoting anti-Americanism, and now Superman can actually be killed. That is Hollywood attacking the USA as evil, no 2 ways about it, and I think some people actually feel it without putting those little 2's and 2's together. We also have guys like Tarantino badmouthing the police - more identity politics for which I didn't see the Hateful 8, even tho that was not this year, but the string of America-bashing flicks are not so enjoyable if you don't believe the President is evil and the USA is evil and the sunrise is racist and the sunrise is racist because of the USA.
Stuff it, Hollywood. Get back on track and embrace patriotism, and quit with the identity politics that has things like the Star Trek Discovery crew being captianed by a female that goes hand-to-hand with Klingons and survives - which Kirk could barely get away with, and no person in a 140 lb frame without testosterone-fueld muscles is going to survive against a 250 lb Klingon. Saw the 1st 1 or 2 eposides, sand, "Naw", and have't looked at another one. Get real, people - guys do hand to hand combat, not gals, and there's no fictiionalizing that Hollywood can do to change that. Play the magic card like Wonder Woman and it becomes OK, but otherwse... naw, not interesting.
So, get real, give us something that adds up when we bring out our 2's plus 2's, and maybe we can enjoy it. I see most everything anyway, as I love going to the theater, but the difference is when you give me something good, I'll see it twice, or maybe even thrice. But anti-American stuff that offends me, or completely stupid stuff like whispy females surviving Klingons hand-to-hand... that's a one-and-done.