Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

graphicguy

In Vegas for a conference this week. Using nothing but UBER. Had one driver said that UBER renting her the car she's using so she doesn't have to pay for wear and tear on her own car. Pretty nice vehicle....about a one year old Corolla.

She said she puts 1,000 miles per week on it.

andres3

dino001 said:

50 percent number may be deceptive, but if something like 70 percent of the income tax revenue comes from top 10 percent earners and top 1 percent pays 38 percent of the revenue. One interesting thing is, even though their marginal rate is high, their effective rate is quite a bit lower, but still almost twice rate of the bottom 50% (27% vs 14%, respectively). BTW, bottom 50% of people pay only 3 percent of the revenue. That's of course, one type of tax. There are others. Other taxes are different - FICA (Soc Sec and Med), you'll see effective rate going down - but in theory, it's not a tax, it's "insurance". Sales taxes, or property taxes are paid by the poor, too - but I'll also venture to say chances are the rich people pay more, as they consume more. So, it's not fair to say 50 percent don't pay anything, but it is fair to say the contribution from those 50 percent is nothing in comparison to the top 5 or 1 percent.

As I already said, what irks me the most is the class warfare language blasting those people that somehow they don't pay their fair share. We should thank them for paying as much as they are. Again, in need we MIGHT ask them to pay even more - but we should ASK NICELY and show WHY we need the money, e.g. pay down debt, not fund another boondoggle.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update/

I would say the 1.4 Trillion or so granted to bailout the well-connected favored corporations and keep Wall Street market from crashing deeper is a good reason for the need to tax the rich more.

After all, keeping the stock market and housing market from crashing very low benefited the rich the most by far.

andres3

houdini1 said:

I guess I will never understand why people in this country who so devoutly espouse socialism or communism don't just move to a country more in line with their beliefs.

That reminds me of the story of two guys discussing politics and one said he thought they should divide everything in the country up and give everyone an equal share. The other guy said that wouldn't work because soon the smart rich people would own everything again. The first guy said you don't understand, I mean divide it up every Saturday.

The problem is the rich like socialism when it comes to losses, and free market when it comes to profits.

isellhondas

Does the $9 an hour take into consideration the car expense? Not just the price of gas but everything else?

The L.A. Times used to run a continual ad looking for people with cars to deliver papers in the morning.

I was 17 and I needed job so I jumped at the chance to work two hours in the early morning and make 200.00 a month! It was back breaking work seven days a week. I would load my 1952 Chevy to the gills with heavy newspapers and I would spend more like three hours delivering papers. On sundays they weighed over six pounds each. In those days of "cheap" gas I would spend 3.00/day on gas alone! One clutch and a broken rear spring later I realized I was killing myself for nothing. They acted surprised when I quit. Years later that ad would continue to run everyday.

isellhondas

graphicguy said:

In Vegas for a conference this week. Using nothing but UBER. Had one driver said that UBER renting her the car she's using so she doesn't have to pay for wear and tear on her own car. Pretty nice vehicle....about a one year old Corolla.

She said she puts 1,000 miles per week on it.

It'll be interesting to see if she's still doing this a year from now. Reminds me of Amway. How many excited people sign up only to lose interest (and friends!) after a few months?

Still, I know a few (VERY few) can make some pretty good money!

andres3

isellhondas said:

Does the $9 an hour take into consideration the car expense? Not just the price of gas but everything else?

The L.A. Times used to run a continual ad looking for people with cars to deliver papers in the morning.

I was 17 and I needed job so I jumped at the chance to work two hours in the early morning and make 200.00 a month! It was back breaking work seven days a week. I would load my 1952 Chevy to the gills with heavy newspapers and I would spend more like three hours delivering papers. On sundays they weighed over six pounds each. In those days of "cheap" gas I would spend 3.00/day on gas alone! One clutch and a broken rear spring later I realized I was killing myself for nothing. They acted surprised when I quit. Years later that ad would continue to run everyday.

I think I'd blame Chevy more than the newspapers for the short-lived clutch and broken rear spring.

However, I am curious is the $9/hour figure takes into account vehicle wear and tear, plus fuel costs.

dino001

andres3 said:

I would say the 1.4 Trillion or so granted to bailout the well-connected favored corporations and keep Wall Street market from crashing deeper is a good reason for the need to tax the rich more.

After all, keeping the stock market and housing market from crashing very low benefited the rich the most by far.

So one can say they just got their own money back, as it's them who paid the tax bill at the first place. But say we didn't bail them out. Who do you think would get hurt the most? The bailout was not about the stock market crash, it was about your ATM working next day, your local store and business not having their accounts frozen. Seriously. I detest the bankers for getting us there, but hanging them would not do us any good. The only real error that was done, the execs of those failing companies were allowed to walk away with millions or stay on the job and collect bonuses.

Mr_Shiftright

graphicguy said:

In Vegas for a conference this week. Using nothing but UBER. Had one driver said that UBER renting her the car she's using so she doesn't have to pay for wear and tear on her own car. Pretty nice vehicle....about a one year old Corolla.

She said she puts 1,000 miles per week on it.

One Uber driver on Quora says this:

"I drive around 50,000 miles a year in order to bring in around $1100 a week by driving 45 hours a week".

So figuring in car rental, Uber commission, gas, blah blah, she's probably making $12 an hour.

isellhondas

andres3 said:

isellhondas said:

Does the $9 an hour take into consideration the car expense? Not just the price of gas but everything else?

The L.A. Times used to run a continual ad looking for people with cars to deliver papers in the morning.

I was 17 and I needed job so I jumped at the chance to work two hours in the early morning and make 200.00 a month! It was back breaking work seven days a week. I would load my 1952 Chevy to the gills with heavy newspapers and I would spend more like three hours delivering papers. On sundays they weighed over six pounds each. In those days of "cheap" gas I would spend 3.00/day on gas alone! One clutch and a broken rear spring later I realized I was killing myself for nothing. They acted surprised when I quit. Years later that ad would continue to run everyday.

I think I'd blame Chevy more than the newspapers for the short-lived clutch and broken rear spring.

However, I am curious is the $9/hour figure takes into account vehicle wear and tear, plus fuel costs.

If you would have seen my Chevy on a Sunday morning totally loaded except for a small place for me to sit you would see how the spring broke and if you knew my route in Palos Verdes with nothing but steep hills you would also know how the clutch went. Granted, it was probably near the end of it's life. So, no, not the chevys fault at all! It would sit lower than the lowriders in San Pedro!

andres3

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

I would say the 1.4 Trillion or so granted to bailout the well-connected favored corporations and keep Wall Street market from crashing deeper is a good reason for the need to tax the rich more.

After all, keeping the stock market and housing market from crashing very low benefited the rich the most by far.

So one can say they just got their own money back, as it's them who paid the tax bill at the first place. But say we didn't bail them out. Who do you think would get hurt the most? The bailout was not about the stock market crash, it was about your ATM working next day, your local store and business not having their accounts frozen. Seriously. I detest the bankers for getting us there, but hanging them would not do us any good. The only real error that was done, the execs of those failing companies were allowed to walk away with millions or stay on the job and collect bonuses.

I suppose you could argue the rich pay most of the taxes so they should get to direct when the money is spent, but isn't a democracy supposed to be 1 person = 1 vote? And isn't government all about choosing where our money/resources are spent/allocated?

As far as ATM's not working, that would be more credible if it actually happened on any kind of a real scale. For the banks closed down and taken over by the FDIC, it doesn't seem like it took more than 48 hours to rectify that problem. Indymac is a good example where it was allowed to happen quickly.

Also, the smaller smarter better positioned when the mortgages tanked banks would have prospered better when the dumb risky poorly positioned large banks failed. I bet if you talk to some Union Bank or Everbank executives (and other banks like them) they'd tell a story of being fiscally responsible during the boom years, which put them in a position to grow when the economy tanked. Not every bank or insurance company was into being as irresponsible and a big of a failure as possible. I'd like to know who coined the term "TOO BIG TO FAIL" first. My guess is someone with a net-worth over 100+ million.

Now, the argument becomes were too many irresponsible potentially creating a domino affect of collateral damage to the responsible well-managed companies? Possible, but unproven.

Also, I think we could have bailed out the secondary and tertiary affected companies for pennies on the bailout dollars.

TOO BIG to fail = Too big to exist.

fintail

You might need to remove a digit (your choice) and then become cool and trendy. Get a Starbucks on every block, a speculative local RE market aimed at well to do hipsters and new residents, and a few employment enclaves, and the newbies might come.

graphicguy said:

Minor details. I'll even make them a deal....3K sq ft for $1.5M.

fintail

Yep, it's not the bailout that makes a difference, it's the downstream consequences. Just like with the automaker bailout. Let em fail, and see what happens down the line. It won't be pretty.

Some wealthy people born on third base claim corporations are people too, but the execs aren't usually treated like people when they commit crimes. It's the real golden rule, I suppose. If you have enough gold, actual harsh punishment is never a worry.

dino001 said:

So one can say they just got their own money back, as it's them who paid the tax bill at the first place. But say we didn't bail them out. Who do you think would get hurt the most? The bailout was not about the stock market crash, it was about your ATM working next day, your local store and business not having their accounts frozen. Seriously. I detest the bankers for getting us there, but hanging them would not do us any good. The only real error that was done, the execs of those failing companies were allowed to walk away with millions or stay on the job and collect bonuses.

fintail

That's the joke - this economy privatizes profits and socializes losses.

The "love it leave it" mentality also gets old pretty quick. The people who want changes aren't doing it out of hate, they want improvement. Change scares a lot of people.

andres3 said:

The problem is the rich like socialism when it comes to losses, and free market when it comes to profits.

dino001

andres3 said:

As far as ATM's not working, that would be more credible if it actually happened on any kind of a real scale. For the banks closed down and taken over by the FDIC, it doesn't seem like it took more than 48 hours to rectify that problem. Indymac is a good example where it was allowed to happen quickly.

Yeah, because FDIC had enough money and people to simultaneously take care of Bank of America, Citi, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and keep all customers of Chase and Wells Fargo (only real solvent and liquid large banks at the time) in their homes. Right.

I completely agree too big to fail = too big to exist. Be we allowed it, so we had to deal with it.

Again - I'm NOT against progressive taxation. I'm against vilification of those rich people who pay our gov. bills. The vitriol against them tells me it has nothing to do with justice, it's just plain and simple envy. BTW, the "money back" was tongue-in-cheek " comment. Nobody should be happy about what happened then. What was done was mostly necessary. Mistakes were made in the process, which was probably inevitable. Doing nothing would have been worse by power of ten.

andres3

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

As far as ATM's not working, that would be more credible if it actually happened on any kind of a real scale. For the banks closed down and taken over by the FDIC, it doesn't seem like it took more than 48 hours to rectify that problem. Indymac is a good example where it was allowed to happen quickly.

Yeah, because FDIC had enough money and people to simultaneously take care of Bank of America, Citi, Washington Mutual, Wachovia and keep all customers of Chase and Wells Fargo (only real solvent and liquid large banks at the time) in their homes. Right.

I completely agree too big to fail = too big to exist. Be we allowed it, so we had to deal with it.

Again - I'm NOT against progressive taxation. I'm against vilification of those rich people who pay our gov. bills. The vitriol against them tells me it has nothing to do with justice, it's just plain and simple envy. BTW, the "money back" was tongue-in-cheek " comment. Nobody should be happy about what happened then. What was done was mostly necessary. Mistakes were made in the process, which was probably inevitable. Doing nothing would have been worse by power of ten.

Didn't BofA buy Merrill Lynch during the darkest days of the so-called last recession? Seems like they had some liquid money on-board, or maybe they only bought up these things because they were tied to bailout help.

I remember Chase taking over Washington Mutual with the quickness. Wachovia too? Not many of them on the West Coast though.

I am just against the "doing nothing" would have been worse by a power of ten argument. First, that will always just be speculation since we can't go back in time and relive the alternative future. Second, we wouldn't have "done nothing" I believe we could have intervened on the 2nd and 3rd levels rather than on the 1st upper level failures. AIG? really? So the alternatives weren't limited to just doing nothing, but perhaps waiting a little longer to do something. Let the weak fail, as they will fail first, and then you come into rescue mode if indeed some sort of downward spiral starts and continues.

I guess some people had less tolerance to sit and wait once a few titans fell than I did. Of course, history seems to show the first titans to fail (such as Lehman Bros..) were given all kinds of free-market and somewhat bailout-like "outs" prior to collapsing. They chose to dig in and accept their fate.

iluvmysephia1

Houdini - Steve Harvey's hilarious. Little Big Shots is really funny. I laugh throughout!

qbrozen

Mr_Shiftright said:

graphicguy said:

In Vegas for a conference this week. Using nothing but UBER. Had one driver said that UBER renting her the car she's using so she doesn't have to pay for wear and tear on her own car. Pretty nice vehicle....about a one year old Corolla.

She said she puts 1,000 miles per week on it.

One Uber driver on Quora says this:

"I drive around 50,000 miles a year in order to bring in around $1100 a week by driving 45 hours a week".

So figuring in car rental, Uber commission, gas, blah blah, she's probably making $12 an hour.

$1/mile gross doesn't seem too bad. Biggest problem I see is that some people think this helps you buy a car, yet, at those kinds of miles, your car is being used up by the job very quickly.

ab348

fintail said:

That's the joke - this economy privatizes profits and socializes losses.

The "love it leave it" mentality also gets old pretty quick. The people who want changes aren't doing it out of hate, they want improvement. Change scares a lot of people.

Well, the problem is that government cannot make a "public" profit very easily. Unless you create a monopoly, they are simply too inefficient and are not built to make profits. Private investors build a business and if they are both lucky and good they make a profit. If things turn and society/government decides they cannot afford the consequences of that auto company or (as was the case here) sunset industry to close, then that is a public policy decision for good or bad.

Change is scary when it is seen as a bad change. Many of the things some groups think they want are not fully thought-out.

cdnpinhead

When I was driving for a living, the phrase was "X dollars to the truck (car)." From that money the note, maintenance, fuel, tolls and all the rest had to be paid. Hopefully there was something left over.

As has been said for other lines of work, "what would you do if you won the lottery? Well, I'd just keep on until it's gone."

dino001

andres3 said:

Didn't BofA buy Merrill Lynch during the darkest days of the so-called last recession? Seems like they had some liquid money on-board, or maybe they only bought up these things because they were tied to bailout help.

I remember Chase taking over Washington Mutual with the quickness. Wachovia too? Not many of them on the West Coast though.

Those were all Fed-assisted purchases directly, or indirectly. They wouldn't have touched each other without that assistance. BTW, Wachovia was taken by Wells Fargo. These transactions were all done exactly to prevent need of FDIC intervention.

andres3 said:

AIG? really?

Really. AIG was the key to the system. Anybody who read a little about that time knows that. AIG was essentially where all debts were backstopped (by credit default swaps) - they underwrote the entire derivative market, yet it had no money to back it up. Lehman's failure was enough to freeze almost all European bond trade (more than American) for weeks. I believe it the potential was worse than any of us could even (or want to) imagine.

driver100

Let's cut to the chase:

What do UberX drivers actually make?
(in Toronto) $11.36 (average trip) - $4.17 (other expenses) - $1.48 (HST) = $5.71
Driver-incurred costs potentially eat up half what UberX drivers get paid. So, if Uber’s $23 claim is correct, drivers can expect to pocket about $11.50/hour -- only twenty-five cents more than Ontario’s new minimum wage (as of Oct. 1) -- and that’s without factoring in the added cost of commercial insurance.

FULL ARTICLE

Nick Raats has been an UberX driver for about a month, working 60 to 65 hours per week.
He loves the “freedom” and “power” to choose when to work and relies on his UberX earnings as he gets his web design company off the ground.
Raats said his best day was last Friday: “I made $350 driving for about 15 hours.”
That same night he had his first drunk passenger, a man who stumbled out of a TIFF party at 3 a.m. and urinated on his car after he dropped him off.
“It is an unskilled job, I mean, I am amazed I can earn $20 an hour.”
Raats would prefer Uber add HST (sales tax) to the fare and thinks it’s “idiotic” that he is expected to collect it himself. He’s also waiting for the details of a new partnership with Intact Insurance to offer coverage for Uber drivers.
“I am concerned that if I report I am driving for Uber, my insurance company will drop my coverage,” he said.

Mr_Shiftright

Income tax revenue is about 47% of total U.S. government revenue.

I always liked this quote from (allegedly) Louis XIV's finance minister:

“The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

andres3

dino001 said:

andres3 said:

Didn't BofA buy Merrill Lynch during the darkest days of the so-called last recession? Seems like they had some liquid money on-board, or maybe they only bought up these things because they were tied to bailout help.

I remember Chase taking over Washington Mutual with the quickness. Wachovia too? Not many of them on the West Coast though.

Those were all Fed-assisted purchases directly, or indirectly. They wouldn't have touched each other without that assistance. BTW, Wachovia was taken by Wells Fargo. These transactions were all done exactly to prevent need of FDIC intervention.

andres3 said:

AIG? really?

Really. AIG was the key to the system. Anybody who read a little about that time knows that. AIG was essentially where all debts were backstopped (by credit default swaps) - they underwrote the entire derivative market, yet it had no money to back it up. Lehman's failure was enough to freeze almost all European bond trade (more than American) for weeks. I believe it the potential was worse than any of us could even (or want to) imagine.

Therein lies the problem "no money to back it up."

So sorry companies that bought insurance from another company that didn't back up their promises, guess you'll go down for that poor decision too. Also, AIG of course had money, and assets, just not enough to fully cover their obligations. They could have paid some odd pennies on the dollar and then disappeared. For sure they had plenty more than nothing as bonuses and parties and company trips/jets seemed to all be first-rate.

graphicguy

qbrozen said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

graphicguy said:

In Vegas for a conference this week. Using nothing but UBER. Had one driver said that UBER renting her the car she's using so she doesn't have to pay for wear and tear on her own car. Pretty nice vehicle....about a one year old Corolla.

She said she puts 1,000 miles per week on it.

One Uber driver on Quora says this:

"I drive around 50,000 miles a year in order to bring in around $1100 a week by driving 45 hours a week".

So figuring in car rental, Uber commission, gas, blah blah, she's probably making $12 an hour.

$1/mile gross doesn't seem too bad. Biggest problem I see is that some people think this helps you buy a car, yet, at those kinds of miles, your car is being used up by the job very quickly.

But.....they get to write off almost all their gas, wear and tear, parts, labor to keep it on the road, any payments, interest, etc.

The girl who I road with this a.m in the Corolla said she'd been doing it for two years. I asked her what her personal car was, and she said it was a Scion xB. That sounds perfect for an UBER driver. But, she said she loved it and they don't make them any more. Can't argue with that.

fintail

But it is at least possible - it just doesn't happen much. Private sector entities can do it too, when the entity actually produces good in more ways than stock prices that benefit a small amount of people. However, losses are too often absorbed by the populace at large, while those who created the losses can skate on to the next venture scot free - like those who abuse bankruptcy regulations.

Sometimes change appearing scary doesn't correlate to the change itself being bad. An easy way to encourage regression is the "love it or leave it" attitude. That mindset concerns me more than people being suspicious of wealth out of supposed envy.

ab348 said:

Well, the problem is that government cannot make a "public" profit very easily. Unless you create a monopoly, they are simply too inefficient and are not built to make profits. Private investors build a business and if they are both lucky and good they make a profit. If things turn and society/government decides they cannot afford the consequences of that auto company or (as was the case here) sunset industry to close, then that is a public policy decision for good or bad.

Change is scary when it is seen as a bad change. Many of the things some groups think they want are not fully thought-out.

oldfarmer50

isellhondas said:

Does the $9 an hour take into consideration the car expense? Not just the price of gas but everything else?

The L.A. Times used to run a continual ad looking for people with cars to deliver papers in the morning.

I was 17 and I needed job so I jumped at the chance to work two hours in the early morning and make 200.00 a month! It was back breaking work seven days a week. I would load my 1952 Chevy to the gills with heavy newspapers and I would spend more like three hours delivering papers. On sundays they weighed over six pounds each. In those days of "cheap" gas I would spend 3.00/day on gas alone! One clutch and a broken rear spring later I realized I was killing myself for nothing. They acted surprised when I quit. Years later that ad would continue to run everyday.

Sounds like my newspaper experience when I was 12 except I had to do it on a bike in the snow. CHRISTMAS tips were pretty good though.

tbirdmarco

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ykfaNV0CD4Q

oldfarmer50

qbrozen said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

graphicguy said:

In Vegas for a conference this week. Using nothing but UBER. Had one driver said that UBER renting her the car she's using so she doesn't have to pay for wear and tear on her own car. Pretty nice vehicle....about a one year old Corolla.

She said she puts 1,000 miles per week on it.

One Uber driver on Quora says this:

"I drive around 50,000 miles a year in order to bring in around $1100 a week by driving 45 hours a week".

So figuring in car rental, Uber commission, gas, blah blah, she's probably making $12 an hour.

$1/mile gross doesn't seem too bad. Biggest problem I see is that some people think this helps you buy a car, yet, at those kinds of miles, your car is being used up by the job very quickly.

In the farming business we called that 'living off the tractor'.

oldfarmer50

driver100 said:

Let's cut to the chase:

What do UberX drivers actually make?
(in Toronto) $11.36 (average trip) - $4.17 (other expenses) - $1.48 (HST) = $5.71
Driver-incurred costs potentially eat up half what UberX drivers get paid. So, if Uber’s $23 claim is correct, drivers can expect to pocket about $11.50/hour -- only twenty-five cents more than Ontario’s new minimum wage (as of Oct. 1) -- and that’s without factoring in the added cost of commercial insurance.

FULL ARTICLE

Nick Raats has been an UberX driver for about a month, working 60 to 65 hours per week.
He loves the “freedom” and “power” to choose when to work and relies on his UberX earnings as he gets his web design company off the ground.
Raats said his best day was last Friday: “I made $350 driving for about 15 hours.”
That same night he had his first drunk passenger, a man who stumbled out of a TIFF party at 3 a.m. and urinated on his car after he dropped him off.
“It is an unskilled job, I mean, I am amazed I can earn $20 an hour.”
Raats would prefer Uber add HST (sales tax) to the fare and thinks it’s “idiotic” that he is expected to collect it himself. He’s also waiting for the details of a new partnership with Intact Insurance to offer coverage for Uber drivers.
“I am concerned that if I report I am driving for Uber, my insurance company will drop my coverage,” he said.

Worse yet if he has an accident and his insurance refuses to pay.

As to sales tax collection, welcome to the club. Being a servant of the state is a condition of being in business. I suprised that the Uber app doesn't automatically collect it.

driver100

As to sales tax collection, welcome to the club. Being a servant of the state is a condition of being in business. I suprised that the Uber app doesn't automatically collect it.

It would be difficult to program and customers would be up in arms. I will try to explain, our sales tax (called HST, Harmonized Sales Tax - national and provincial combined) is 13%. It doesn't kick in until you make over $33000 gross. Some drivers wouldn't charge it if they were below $33k in income, once they reach $33k they would charge it....so drivers could have different rates. Confusing, but that is what taxes cause.

Insurance is a big problem though....who knows if you are covered if you are a passenger, and drivers may not be covered.....using their car to make a living.

driver100

qbrozen said:
» show previous quotes
$1/mile gross doesn't seem too bad. Biggest problem I see is that some people think this helps you buy a car, yet, at those kinds of miles, your car is being used up by the job very quickly.

oldfarmer50 said In the farming business we called that 'living off the tractor'.

I use a form of Drivers Rule of Justification in this case and it worked for me. The rule says, I need to have a car anyway so some of my earnings go to pay off the car, just like it would if I had a real job. The car will get a lot more mileage and cost more in repairs....but, write offs will offset that.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah but you need to MAKE money to have write-offs. You know the IRS, if you are running a "business" that loses money year after year, they will declare it a "hobby" and put your feet to the fire.

andres3

Mr_Shiftright said:

Yeah but you need to MAKE money to have write-offs. You know the IRS, if you are running a "business" that loses money year after year, they will declare it a "hobby" and put your feet to the fire.

Feet to the fire as in continual audits that make releasing your taxes ill-advised?

Or is it better to lose 1 billion dollars in one year, and spread it over a 10-year loss at 100 million per year, but if you actually lose 100 million 10 years in a row; god forbid!

fintail

I'm tellin ya, it's a Florida thing - must be the relentless sun and bath salts at work

stickguy

I, kinda like it?

graphicguy

I guess it depends on what value you put on being independent and making your own hours, working when you want to, regarding UBER's employment value.

I read a story a couple of years ago about an UBER driver who started out by himself but sold some costume jewelry his wife made during the ride. I guess the way it worked, he'd have this jewelry on a display in the back seat. He wouldn't say anything until someone would ask him about it. He told them his wife made the jewelry and it was for sale.

He consigned the jewelry to other UBER drivers and paid them a commission on everything they sold.

Can't remember the exact number but I think he was pulling down $250K/year.

Now, that's an entrepreneur.

Mr_Shiftright

From the Ad: "This car is not a Bentley. "....

Thanks but we already knew that.

fintail

I admit the faux Bentley looks pretty well done for what it is, but the ad copy makes my head hurt.

Also, you can get a nice used Continental GT and maybe even have a bit left over for that money.

Mr_Shiftright

You guys are generous and forgiving--two traits that often elude me, at least with regards to opinions on car design. My problem with the faux Bentley is that it really looks like a fiberglass tub. The front end is the worst part.

And FIN is right--you can buy the real deal for that money, and a decent one, too.

Poor guy isn't going to get $55K for that thing. More like $35K,, like what you'd get for a used faux Porsche speedster. He's not going to get the price of a high-quality AC Cobra reproduction.

berri

If you want a relatively cheap sorta Bentley looking car, just buy a Chrysler 300

fintail

To be fair, I said it looks to be well done for what it is A FL-built kit car, the bar isn't high. The real Continental front end isn't the best angle either. And I suspect in person, it isn't as striking.

I've seen earlier Continentals under 40K, and you can even get a Flying Spur for the price of the kit car. Not going to change hands for that money.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah I can see a lot of work went into it, but it is what it is.....

jmonroe

berri said:

If you want a relatively cheap sorta Bentley looking car, just buy a Chrysler 300

The guy at the Firestone store thought my Genny WAS a Bentley when I pulled in front of his stores big glass window right after I got it in June of '15 and wanted to get my tires balanced.

So far, that's the only comment I've gotten about it, lefthanded or otherwise. :@

jmonroe

Michaell

jmonroe said:

berri said:

If you want a relatively cheap sorta Bentley looking car, just buy a Chrysler 300

The guy at the Firestone store thought my Genny WAS a Bentley when I pulled in front of his stores big glass window right after I got it in June of '15 and wanted to get my tires balanced.

So far, that's the only comment I've gotten about it, lefthanded or otherwise. :@

jmonroe

I had someone think my '02 Saturn L300 was a Cadillac. Not sure what that says - about the car or the observer.

js06gv

Michaell said:

jmonroe said:

berri said:

If you want a relatively cheap sorta Bentley looking car, just buy a Chrysler 300

The guy at the Firestone store thought my Genny WAS a Bentley when I pulled in front of his stores big glass window right after I got it in June of '15 and wanted to get my tires balanced.

So far, that's the only comment I've gotten about it, lefthanded or otherwise. :@

jmonroe

I had someone think my '02 Saturn L300 was a Cadillac. Not sure what that says - about the car or the observer.

There was always something about that L-Series that was Catera-ish to me.

andres3

Michaell said:

jmonroe said:

berri said:

If you want a relatively cheap sorta Bentley looking car, just buy a Chrysler 300

The guy at the Firestone store thought my Genny WAS a Bentley when I pulled in front of his stores big glass window right after I got it in June of '15 and wanted to get my tires balanced.

So far, that's the only comment I've gotten about it, lefthanded or otherwise. :@

jmonroe

I had someone think my '02 Saturn L300 was a Cadillac. Not sure what that says - about the car or the observer.

LOL, I had someone say my TTS looked kinda like the new Hyundai Veloster. I quickly corrected him, LOL. He was a young guy and I don't think he knew much about cars.

ab348

jmonroe said:

The guy at the Firestone store thought my Genny WAS a Bentley when I pulled in front of his stores big glass window right after I got it in June of '15 and wanted to get my tires balanced.

Understandable error given how Hyundai copied the winged Bentley badge design for Genesis.

andres3

Even my non-car brother in law noticed how Hyundai wasn't proud enough of their badge to put it on the front of the first generation Genesis when they first came out.

Michaell

js06gv said:

Michaell said:

jmonroe said:

berri said:

If you want a relatively cheap sorta Bentley looking car, just buy a Chrysler 300

The guy at the Firestone store thought my Genny WAS a Bentley when I pulled in front of his stores big glass window right after I got it in June of '15 and wanted to get my tires balanced.

So far, that's the only comment I've gotten about it, lefthanded or otherwise. :@

jmonroe

I had someone think my '02 Saturn L300 was a Cadillac. Not sure what that says - about the car or the observer.

There was always something about that L-Series that was Catera-ish to me.

Mine was pewter with chrome wheels - definitely had Cadillac-ish looks to it.

jmonroe

andres3 said:

Michaell said:

jmonroe said:

berri said:

If you want a relatively cheap sorta Bentley looking car, just buy a Chrysler 300

The guy at the Firestone store thought my Genny WAS a Bentley when I pulled in front of his stores big glass window right after I got it in June of '15 and wanted to get my tires balanced.

So far, that's the only comment I've gotten about it, lefthanded or otherwise. :@

jmonroe

I had someone think my '02 Saturn L300 was a Cadillac. Not sure what that says - about the car or the observer.

LOL, I had someone say my TTS looked kinda like the new Hyundai Veloster. I quickly corrected him, LOL. He was a young guy and I don't think he knew much about cars.

What an insult. You shoulda decked him, right there on the spot ! :@

jmonroe