Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

andres3

driver100 said:

tjc78 said:

andres3 said:

tjc78 said:

stickguy said:

I would be happy with 80 on rural interstates. Maybe 85, max.

Can’t think of many roads near us that could support those speeds.  RT 55 between Glassboro and Vineland, maybe the stretch of the A.C. expressway that’s three lanes. 

Turnpike is pretty much the autobahn anyway so not sure it matters... but 85 SL would mean left lane moving at near 100.  It moves at 90 now anyway.  

Common fallacy. When speed limits have changes, real world speeds driven barely move. So no, you won't see cars with a mechanical and or "limited" top speed of 118 suddenly driving 155.

Unlimited speed limits might move the needle noticeably though.

Montana had unlimited speeds for a while and repealed them.   Guess they shouldn’t have as no one was driving too fast?

I don’t have a problem with speed.   I certainly push it myself... (and in my younger years spent many a day in court) but speed combined with the inattentive drivers on the road is the problem

. 





I agree, speed isn't a problem......if you are the only one on the road.

If everyone is going the same direction (as where high speed limits exist in the world), it is still zero relative speed if everyone keeps the same speed. So it doesn't really matter whether you are stopped or going 120 MPH if all the other cars are going 120 too.

I realize "other cars" are not the only hazard on a roadway,but "only one on the road" suggests that is the only hazard we are talking about as relates to this discussion here.

andres3

berri said:

IIRC Montana posted speed limits to be in compliance with some federal stuff because otherwise it may have impacted getting federal highway monies. I don't think it was a safety issue driving the change.

Exactly, and just like it always consistently does in the world, it reduced their safety and increased their fatality rates to impose a speed limit instead of "reasonable and prudent."

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

In case anyone still believes the myth that the old 55 MPH speed limit saved lives, and repealing cost them, here is the NHTSA data equalized by miles traveled/driven over the whole nation. 

Not to engage you on this because I know you won't listen to anything that doesn't fit your narrative but there is a flaw in your logic. Can you spot it?

Go ahead and educate me on this so-called flaw you see.

There is no flaw in my logic, unless you are saying no one ever said the opposite of what the data supports.

So far in this forum, it has only been you that ignores the logic, data, and statistics to fit your narrative.

snakeweasel

Michaell said:

driver100 said:

andres3 said:

stickguy said:

I would be happy with 80 on rural interstates. Maybe 85, max.

Can’t think of many roads near us that could support those speeds.  RT 55 between Glassboro and Vineland, maybe the stretch of the A.C. expressway that’s three lanes. 

Turnpike is pretty much the autobahn anyway so not sure it matters... but 85 SL would mean left lane moving at near 100.  It moves at 90 now anyway.  

Common fallacy. When speed limits have changes, real world speeds driven barely move. So no, you won't see cars with a mechanical and or "limited" top speed of 118 suddenly driving 155. Unlimited speed limits might move the needle noticeably though.

Montana had unlimited speeds for a while and repealed them.   Guess they shouldn’t have as no one was driving too fast?

I don’t have a problem with speed.   I certainly push it myself... (and in my younger years spent many a day in court) but speed combined with the inattentive drivers on the road is the problem

. 

I agree, speed isn't a problem......if you are the only one on the road.

Try driving down I 70 east of Glenwood Springs, CO doing 65 MPH and come back and tell us that.

Exactly! That is a gorgeous stretch of road, but 55 MPH is the limit, and I'm diligent about sticking to it. Horrendously expensive to build, however. I think that was the most expensive piece of the interstate highway system, on a cost-per-mile basis. Here is a representative picture: The canyon is very narrow, so this happens from time to time:

I seem to remember a lower speed limit but it has been years since I have been on it so I will yield to you on this.

last time I was there I rode the bike path that goes through the canyon and often under the interstate. Great ride.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

In case anyone still believes the myth that the old 55 MPH speed limit saved lives, and repealing cost them, here is the NHTSA data equalized by miles traveled/driven over the whole nation. 

Not to engage you on this because I know you won't listen to anything that doesn't fit your narrative but there is a flaw in your logic. Can you spot it?

The data shows that fatality rates were dropping just about every year. Therefore it doesn't conclusively 100% support that 55 killed people. However, it does conclusively show that the higher limits did NOT increase fatality rates, and in fact, rates kept dropping as limits kept going up, and that pattern continues to hold true in just about every case.

It also shows that the naysayers that keep saying there will be a "blood bath" just never pans out.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:
Common fallacy. When speed limits have changes, real world speeds driven barely move. So no, you won't see cars with a mechanical and or "limited" top speed of 118 suddenly driving 155.

Unlimited speed limits might move the needle noticeably though.

Not really in the short term most drivers won't increase their speeds, but in the long term the average speeds do increase. So two weeks after increasing the speed limit you likely won't see a significant increase in average speed but in two years you will.

If it takes you 2 years to adjust to new laws you are one stubborn individual.

Mr_Shiftright

It does seem logical though, that at higher speeds you would get more fatalities per accident occurring over 55 mph than under 55?

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:
 You are just playing a word game. It is pretty thinly veiled. 

If there are word games being played it's not by me. We were discussing income taxes and nothing else. But looking at total taxes I know people that pay more in federal income taxes than you make in a year. So their Federal income tax liability is much more than the total tax liability of any middle class family.

Taxes are not all mixed. Sure federal revenue is shared with state and local governments but an upward flow rarely happens. So your sales taxes, property taxes and so forth are not going to the Federal government.

Fines and penalties are not taxes as they are penalties for breaking the law. And they are treated differently for tax and accounting purposes.

While user fees are technically taxes they are called user fees because they are to allocate the cost of a service to the user of said service. This tends to be a more fair way to fund a merit good as those that directly benefit from it directly pay for the service. If we cut spending (and I think we should) we should cut other taxes and keep user fees such as registration and driver's license fees and gas taxes.

_________________________

So you probably believe that people that don't have kids should get a tax break from local and State since they are not using the public schools? Tax break federally from the Dept. of Education.

People that don't use the roads should be exempt from paying any taxes towards infrastructure?

People that are anti-military exploits should be allowed to withhold the high percentage of all tax that goes to the military then. Only the half of the population that supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars should pay that bill, leaving the people against those wars free of charge for all expenses.

The people against the bailouts should get refunded TARP, the 40% or so who supported it should pay for it entirely.

The people that want the border wall should pay for it. The people that think it is a waste of money should be spared the expense.

Is this what you really want?

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

It does seem logical though, that at higher speeds you would get more fatalities per accident occurring over 55 mph than under 55?

I'll concede that. However, I believe the thinking that collisions are normal, acceptable, and inevitable to be false, illogical, and frankly, dumb.

A collision is OK as long as it is survivable is pretty "Debbie Downer" to me.

ab348

This morning I think I would be willing to go back to the old seam-filled login situation if it meant we could get a "mute user" function.

Michaell

snakeweasel said:

Michaell said:

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

tjc78 said:

andres3 said:

tjc78 said:

stickguy said:

I would be happy with 80 on rural interstates. Maybe 85, max.

Can’t think of many roads near us that could support those speeds.  RT 55 between Glassboro and Vineland, maybe the stretch of the A.C. expressway that’s three lanes. 

Turnpike is pretty much the autobahn anyway so not sure it matters... but 85 SL would mean left lane moving at near 100.  It moves at 90 now anyway.  

Common fallacy. When speed limits have changes, real world speeds driven barely move. So no, you won't see cars with a mechanical and or "limited" top speed of 118 suddenly driving 155.

Unlimited speed limits might move the needle noticeably though.

Montana had unlimited speeds for a while and repealed them.   Guess they shouldn’t have as no one was driving too fast?

I don’t have a problem with speed.   I certainly push it myself... (and in my younger years spent many a day in court) but speed combined with the inattentive drivers on the road is the problem

. 

I agree, speed isn't a problem......if you are the only one on the road.

Try driving down I 70 east of Glenwood Springs, CO doing 65 MPH and come back and tell us that.

Exactly! That is a gorgeous stretch of road, but 55 MPH is the limit, and I'm diligent about sticking to it.

Horrendously expensive to build, however. I think that was the most expensive piece of the interstate highway system, on a cost-per-mile basis.

Here is a representative picture:


The canyon is very narrow, so this happens from time to time:



I seem to remember a lower speed limit but it has been years since I have been on it so I will yield to you on this.

last time I was there I rode the bike path that goes through the canyon and often under the interstate. Great ride.

I'd have to look at what the limit is; it's been years since I've been there, as well.

Well, gee. Technology strikes again!

https://www.postindependent.com/news/speed-limit-in-glenwood-canyon-to-range-from-30-60-mph-depending-on-conditions/

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

andres3 said:

In case anyone still believes the myth that the old 55 MPH speed limit saved lives, and repealing cost them, here is the NHTSA data equalized by miles traveled/driven over the whole nation. 

Not to engage you on this because I know you won't listen to anything that doesn't fit your narrative but there is a flaw in your logic. Can you spot it?

Go ahead and educate me on this so-called flaw you see. There is no flaw in my logic, unless you are saying no one ever said the opposite of what the data supports. So far in this forum, it has only been you that ignores the logic, data, and statistics to fit your narrative.

The flaw in your logic is that you are focused on speed limits and not on any of the other factors that affect the number of deaths on the highway. Just to name some are cars that are designed to be safer with crumple zone that absorbs impacts, more cars having airbags, increased seat belt use, better designed roads, better trained first responders and medical advances all contribute to lowering the number of deaths on the road. You need to take those factors into account.

Case in point seat belt usage was about 10% in 1980 but now is around 90% or more. The increase in seat belt usage is estimated to save around 5,000 lives a year. That's about half the reduction in traffic deaths since 1980.

How many lives have better trained first responders saved as well as advances in medical sciences? Back in the 50s they just picked you up and put you in the ambulance, an act that often made matters worse.

It is very possible that factors that decrease deaths on the highway are greater than those that increase it leading to an overall decrease. 

So unless you adjust the figures to account for the other factors that influence the number of deaths on the highways any conclusion you come to regarding speed and safety base on highway deaths is meaningless and at worse deceitful.

Your logic is faulty.

Mr_Shiftright

I remember that stretch as 45 mph when I used to drive my motorcycle through there.

Mr_Shiftright

I dunno. Given the typical American driver's competency level, the crowded roads and the aging population, I think people are going about as fast as they should be going.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

andres3 said:
 You are just playing a word game. It is pretty thinly veiled. 

If there are word games being played it's not by me. We were discussing income taxes and nothing else. But looking at total taxes I know people that pay more in federal income taxes than you make in a year. So their Federal income tax liability is much more than the total tax liability of any middle class family.

Taxes are not all mixed. Sure federal revenue is shared with state and local governments but an upward flow rarely happens. So your sales taxes, property taxes and so forth are not going to the Federal government.

Fines and penalties are not taxes as they are penalties for breaking the law. And they are treated differently for tax and accounting purposes.

While user fees are technically taxes they are called user fees because they are to allocate the cost of a service to the user of said service. This tends to be a more fair way to fund a merit good as those that directly benefit from it directly pay for the service. If we cut spending (and I think we should) we should cut other taxes and keep user fees such as registration and driver's license fees and gas taxes.

_________________________ So you probably believe that people that don't have kids should get a tax break from local and State since they are not using the public schools? Tax break federally from the Dept. of Education. People that don't use the roads should be exempt from paying any taxes towards infrastructure? People that are anti-military exploits should be allowed to withhold the high percentage of all tax that goes to the military then. Only the half of the population that supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars should pay that bill, leaving the people against those wars free of charge for all expenses. The people against the bailouts should get refunded TARP, the 40% or so who supported it should pay for it entirely. The people that want the border wall should pay for it. The people that think it is a waste of money should be spared the expense. Is this what you really want?

Don't put words in my mouth, I detest the taste of your words.

Mr_Shiftright

Please maintain basic courtesy in this topic. Thank you all!

berri

I drove that a couple of years ago and think it was posted 55. Beautiful stretch of highway and a nice rest area too.

snakeweasel

Mr_Shiftright said:

It does seem logical though, that at higher speeds you would get more fatalities per accident occurring over 55 mph than under 55?

It is logical as higher speeds make vehicles harder to control and 8ncrease the force of any impact.

there are several studies that show up to a certain speed the risk of s fatal accident remains constant but exceeding that speed (most have it at around 40 MPH) the risk increases as speed increases.

But we have to remember there are many factors at play here so speed shouldn't be the only focus.

28firefighter

Scroll wheel getting a workout today!

tjc78

You aren't kidding.. finished that up long before I ate my lunch. Guess it's back to work!

driver100

venture said:

The dealer body shop that has my Legacy called yesterday. After they dismantled it they discovered a few other things that need fixed. Now, instead of 3 or 4 days, it's going to be 2 weeks. He also said the estimate is up to $4,000. Great googally moogally!

Just for giggles I looked at the Nissan site to see what the Murano I am renting sells for (MSRP anyway). It starts at over $43,000. I'm absolutely amazed anyone would spend that much money for one of them...I don't care how much they can be bought for under retail. I can hardly wait to get my Legacy back.

It's like when you're over 50 and you try to think how long ago something happened....it is usually double what you thought.
Same with damage estimates....think what you think it will cost and then double it.
2 weeks wait is not nice, probably awaiting a part. Paint...that usually means add an extra day for it to dry.
Agree, $43k is a lot for Murano...if you're going that high might as well check into a few other competitors, can't be much more for an X1, Acura, Audi, MB etc

snakeweasel

wow the scammers are working overtime today. So far today I have 2 voicemails that's a robotic voice stating that they are from the Department of Social Security Administration stating that due to suspected fraud they have suspended my SSN. 

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

The dealer body shop that has my Legacy called yesterday. After they dismantled it they discovered a few other things that need fixed. Now, instead of 3 or 4 days, it's going to be 2 weeks. He also said the estimate is up to $4,000. Great googally moogally! Just for giggles I looked at the Nissan site to see what the Murano I am renting sells for (MSRP anyway). It starts at over $43,000. I'm absolutely amazed anyone would spend that much money for one of them...I don't care how much they can be bought for under retail. I can hardly wait to get my Legacy back.

It's like when you're over 50 and you try to think how long ago something happened....it is usually double what you thought. Same with damage estimates....think what you think it will cost and then double it. 2 weeks wait is not nice, probably awaiting a part. Paint...that usually means add an extra day for it to dry. Agree, $43k is a lot for Murano...if you're going that high might as well check into a few other competitors, can't be much more for an X1, Acura, Audi, MB etc

Doesn't a murano start just over $30k?

driver100

Michaell said:

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

tjc78 said:

andres3 said:

tjc78 said:

stickguy said:

I would be happy with 80 on rural interstates. Maybe 85, max.

Can’t think of many roads near us that could support those speeds.  RT 55 between Glassboro and Vineland, maybe the stretch of the A.C. expressway that’s three lanes. 

Turnpike is pretty much the autobahn anyway so not sure it matters... but 85 SL would mean left lane moving at near 100.  It moves at 90 now anyway.  

Common fallacy. When speed limits have changes, real world speeds driven barely move. So no, you won't see cars with a mechanical and or "limited" top speed of 118 suddenly driving 155.

Unlimited speed limits might move the needle noticeably though.

Montana had unlimited speeds for a while and repealed them.   Guess they shouldn’t have as no one was driving too fast?

I don’t have a problem with speed.   I certainly push it myself... (and in my younger years spent many a day in court) but speed combined with the inattentive drivers on the road is the problem

. 

I agree, speed isn't a problem......if you are the only one on the road.

Try driving down I 70 east of Glenwood Springs, CO doing 65 MPH and come back and tell us that.
Exactly! That is a gorgeous stretch of road, but 55 MPH is the limit, and I'm diligent about sticking to it.
Horrendously expensive to build, however. I think that was the most expensive piece of the interstate highway system, on a cost-per-mile basis.
Here is a representative picture:



Thanks for showing....I can see why it would be hard to do 120 mph on that road, but, maybe Andre will give it a try.

tjc78

All this talk of the striped shirt made me go back and find it!

driver100

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:
 You are just playing a word game. It is pretty thinly veiled. 

If there are word games being played it's not by me. We were discussing income taxes and nothing else. But looking at total taxes I know people that pay more in federal income taxes than you make in a year. So their Federal income tax liability is much more than the total tax liability of any middle class family.

Taxes are not all mixed. Sure federal revenue is shared with state and local governments but an upward flow rarely happens. So your sales taxes, property taxes and so forth are not going to the Federal government.

Fines and penalties are not taxes as they are penalties for breaking the law. And they are treated differently for tax and accounting purposes.

While user fees are technically taxes they are called user fees because they are to allocate the cost of a service to the user of said service. This tends to be a more fair way to fund a merit good as those that directly benefit from it directly pay for the service. If we cut spending (and I think we should) we should cut other taxes and keep user fees such as registration and driver's license fees and gas taxes.

_________________________

Don't put words in my mouth, I detest the taste of your words.

There is a simple solution....

Michaell

driver100 said:

Michaell said:

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

tjc78 said:

andres3 said:

tjc78 said:

stickguy said:

I would be happy with 80 on rural interstates. Maybe 85, max.

Can’t think of many roads near us that could support those speeds.  RT 55 between Glassboro and Vineland, maybe the stretch of the A.C. expressway that’s three lanes. 

Turnpike is pretty much the autobahn anyway so not sure it matters... but 85 SL would mean left lane moving at near 100.  It moves at 90 now anyway.  

Common fallacy. When speed limits have changes, real world speeds driven barely move. So no, you won't see cars with a mechanical and or "limited" top speed of 118 suddenly driving 155.

Unlimited speed limits might move the needle noticeably though.

Montana had unlimited speeds for a while and repealed them.   Guess they shouldn’t have as no one was driving too fast?

I don’t have a problem with speed.   I certainly push it myself... (and in my younger years spent many a day in court) but speed combined with the inattentive drivers on the road is the problem

. 

I agree, speed isn't a problem......if you are the only one on the road.

Try driving down I 70 east of Glenwood Springs, CO doing 65 MPH and come back and tell us that.
Exactly! That is a gorgeous stretch of road, but 55 MPH is the limit, and I'm diligent about sticking to it.
Horrendously expensive to build, however. I think that was the most expensive piece of the interstate highway system, on a cost-per-mile basis.
Here is a representative picture:



Thanks for showing....I can see why it would be hard to do 120 mph on that road, but, maybe Andre will give it a try.



In the canyon, there is the eastbound road, the westbound road, the Colorado River, and a set of train tracks on the other side of the river (the far right in the above picture).

driver100

tjc78 said:

All this talk of the striped shirt made me go back and find it!

Thanks!

cdnpinhead

28firefighter said:

Scroll wheel getting a workout today!

Mine's industrial grade & water cooled, and needs to be.

driver100

Someone could make a fortune selling supersonic speed mouse wheels.

henryn

Back around 2013, I almost bought a new left over 2012 Murano. It was not top of the line, but was nicely equipped, and I could have had it for $23k. I changed my mind at the last minute because I just didn't like the seats.

dino001

Watching people's behavior every day I commute to/from work and reading discussion on this forum, I can't wait for autonomous vehicles and prohibition against human driving. I'm willing to relinquish my own "fun" with the car, if that's the price for ridding yahoos behind the wheel, who don't think, don't care, or worse, think they know better than everybody else. Not that I'm actually holding my breath...

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well if you want to call TARP socialist, you would have to call farm subsidies, corporate tax breaks, blah blah, "socialist" as well. Also the Chrysler bailouts, or even going way back to when small independent automobile companies were given first divs on steel and other critical materials after World War II.

So I think to avoid that collision, one would have to keep the term "socialist" to purely "social" realms, not to business. TARP was about business stimulation.

Hmmm.... Business stimulation? But Corporations are people, or so the SCOTUS said.

Giving everyone free healthcare and college tuition would certainly stimulate the economy because any money not spent or saved on that will be spent on something else most likely (at least from the 99%).

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:
 You are just playing a word game. It is pretty thinly veiled. 

If there are word games being played it's not by me. We were discussing income taxes and nothing else. But looking at total taxes I know people that pay more in federal income taxes than you make in a year. So their Federal income tax liability is much more than the total tax liability of any middle class family.

Taxes are not all mixed. Sure federal revenue is shared with state and local governments but an upward flow rarely happens. So your sales taxes, property taxes and so forth are not going to the Federal government.

Fines and penalties are not taxes as they are penalties for breaking the law. And they are treated differently for tax and accounting purposes.

While user fees are technically taxes they are called user fees because they are to allocate the cost of a service to the user of said service. This tends to be a more fair way to fund a merit good as those that directly benefit from it directly pay for the service. If we cut spending (and I think we should) we should cut other taxes and keep user fees such as registration and driver's license fees and gas taxes.

_________________________

So you probably believe that people that don't have kids should get a tax break from local and State since they are not using the public schools? Tax break federally from the Dept. of Education.

People that don't use the roads should be exempt from paying any taxes towards infrastructure?

People that are anti-military exploits should be allowed to withhold the high percentage of all tax that goes to the military then. Only the half of the population that supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars should pay that bill, leaving the people against those wars free of charge for all expenses.

The people against the bailouts should get refunded TARP, the 40% or so who supported it should pay for it entirely.

The people that want the border wall should pay for it. The people that think it is a waste of money should be spared the expense.

Is this what you really want?

Don't put words in my mouth, I detest the taste of your words.

These words use the same line of reasoning and logic you are using.

IF A+B = C. Then surely B+A = C. If everyone got to choose to pay only user fees for something that directly benefited them, we'd have anarchy. I like Libertarian leanings, but even I know the Government has to tax me something for the common good.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:
These words use the same line of reasoning and logic you are using. IF A+B = C. Then surely B+A = C. If everyone got to choose to pay only user fees for something that directly benefited them, we'd have anarchy. I like Libertarian leanings, but even I know the Government has to tax me something for the common good.

Not the same line of reasoning since you are mixing merit goods with public goods. 

driver100

Please have mercy...hopefully it will end there.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

In case anyone still believes the myth that the old 55 MPH speed limit saved lives, and repealing cost them, here is the NHTSA data equalized by miles traveled/driven over the whole nation. 

Not to engage you on this because I know you won't listen to anything that doesn't fit your narrative but there is a flaw in your logic. Can you spot it?

Go ahead and educate me on this so-called flaw you see.

There is no flaw in my logic, unless you are saying no one ever said the opposite of what the data supports.

So far in this forum, it has only been you that ignores the logic, data, and statistics to fit your narrative.

The flaw in your logic is that you are focused on speed limits and not on any of the other factors that affect the number of deaths on the highway. Just to name some are cars that are designed to be safer with crumple zone that absorbs impacts, more cars having airbags, increased seat belt use, better designed roads, better trained first responders and medical advances all contribute to lowering the number of deaths on the road. You need to take those factors into account.

Case in point seat belt usage was about 10% in 1980 but now is around 90% or more. The increase in seat belt usage is estimated to save around 5,000 lives a year. That's about half the reduction in traffic deaths since 1980.

How many lives have better trained first responders saved as well as advances in medical sciences? Back in the 50s they just picked you up and put you in the ambulance, an act that often made matters worse.

It is very possible that factors that decrease deaths on the highway are greater than those that increase it leading to an overall decrease. 

So unless you adjust the figures to account for the other factors that influence the number of deaths on the highways any conclusion you come to regarding speed and safety base on highway deaths is meaningless and at worse deceitful.

Your logic is faulty.

CA appears to have been able to change all their speed limit signage within a few weeks. If a State as large as CA can do it, anyone can. Therefore, in particular years, the only variable significantly changing is the speed limit. Cars are a long-term asset. Other than the folks in the CCBA, most hold onto there vehicles for a long time. It isn't a variable that changes much from year to year.

Therefore, the variables you mention all lack any significant fluctuation from year to year. In a decade, sure, there is probably a small measurable difference, but in any given year I'd argue it is an insignificant factor.

Also, we must consider diminished returns. Can we live with 100 MPH speed limits because cars get better fuel economy and have less emissions than in 1970? Sure, you get better fuel economy at lower speed, but we would still probably do better than the Pontiac GTO's at 70 MPH.

imidazol97

I just saw an article about how the IRS tax refunds are now equal to last year--I assume in total amounts.

The problem with all the political hand wringing over the earlier data is that it's like a CR poll--the data isn't sufficient to mean much. It might have been correct, but not proven.

"Tax refunds increased by 17 percent last week and are now at the same level as last year, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin/"

The other factor to taxes is that many don't understand the block aspect of the various marginal rates.
Best I saw last year was a bar graph with multiple blocks representing the various tax rates stacked on top of the deduction with the vertical axis being the total dollars earned and then next to the blocks maximum in each stack it showed the total taxes that would have been paid.

The other is loaning the government money. I erred when I kept my withholding the same from my major sources. And I failed to take into account that I was having Fed withholding on RMD's. My bad.

driver100

dino001 said:

Watching people's behavior every day I commute to/from work and reading discussion on this forum, I can't wait for autonomous vehicles and prohibition against human driving. I'm willing to relinquish my own "fun" with the car, if that's the price for ridding yahoos behind the wheel, who don't think, don't care, or worse, think they know better than everybody else. Not that I'm actually holding my breath...

Dino...I see the same awful driving as you do.....and many people comment on how bad it is in the Tampa Bay area. Almost all the snowbirds I talk to find driving in Florida is worse than back home.

But, I would still rather drive my own car....not ready for a self driver yet.

Mr_Shiftright

snakeweasel said:

wow the scammers are working overtime today. So far today I have 2 voicemails that's a robotic voice stating that they are from the Department of Social Security Administration stating that due to suspected fraud they have suspended my SSN. 

How do you "suspend" a social security number? Do they....like....declare you legally dead?

cdnpinhead

It's becoming clearer and clearer why Richard is no longer here. When you get older, fewer things are tolerable.

andres3

@snakeweasel 's theory of it taking 2 years for people to speed up to new speed limits is something I've never heard before, but it is an interesting thought.

I know if CA went Autobahn tomorrow, I'd be driving a bit faster immediately where it was possible to do so safely. It wouldn't take me 2 years to take advantage. One of the main advantages is not having to spend energy looking out for LEO's, or worrying about it.

jmonroe1

28firefighter said:

Scroll wheel getting a workout today!

I think mine lost cooling water because it just smoked. :@

jmonroe

jmonroe1

tjc78 said:

All this talk of the striped shirt made me go back and find it!

Don't ever do that again.

jmonroe

jmonroe1

snakeweasel said:

wow the scammers are working overtime today. So far today I have 2 voicemails that's a robotic voice stating that they are from the Department of Social Security Administration stating that due to suspected fraud they have suspended my SSN. 

Good for you. Now you won't have to pay into the system. I should have been so lucky.

jmonroe

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

wow the scammers are working overtime today. So far today I have 2 voicemails that's a robotic voice stating that they are from the Department of Social Security Administration stating that due to suspected fraud they have suspended my SSN. 

How do you "suspend" a social security number? Do they....like....declare you legally dead?

He doesn't exist any more?
Might be spontaneous combustion.

driver100

jmonroe1 said:

tjc78 said:

All this talk of the striped shirt made me go back and find it!

Don't ever do that again.

jmonroe

Too bad it got posted again....now ruking has seen it too.

jmonroe1

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

snakeweasel said:

wow the scammers are working overtime today. So far today I have 2 voicemails that's a robotic voice stating that they are from the Department of Social Security Administration stating that due to suspected fraud they have suspended my SSN. 

How do you "suspend" a social security number? Do they....like....declare you legally dead?

He doesn't exist any more?
Might be spontaneous combustion.

I'm giving odds that someone in here did that to cut down on some of his postings. Next up...@andres3.

jmonroe

jmonroe1

driver100 said:

jmonroe1 said:

tjc78 said:

All this talk of the striped shirt made me go back and find it!

Don't ever do that again.

jmonroe

Too bad it got posted again....now ruking has seen it too.

Oh no !!! He may edit that to show you on a tricycle.

jmonroe

snakeweasel

jmonroe1 said:

wow the scammers are working overtime today. So far today I have 2 voicemails that's a robotic voice stating that they are from the Department of Social Security Administration stating that due to suspected fraud they have suspended my SSN. 

How do you "suspend" a social security number? Do they....like....declare you legally dead?

He doesn't exist any more? Might be spontaneous combustion.

I'm giving odds that someone in here did that to cut down on some of his postings. Next up...@andres3. jmonroe

nope, I said my peace.