Hybrid cars in ski area

[Scruffy]

Thats the least of it. The so called "advanced techniques" go over tailgating trucks, turning the ignition completely off while cruising on the highway until you need gas again, and other retarded me first activities.

I don't hypermile, I don't even have a prius .. but had to laugh at tailgating trucks. Like, a truck would never tailgate a anyone, no sir never seen a F350 withing two feet of the bumber of a prius doing 85 mph .. nope never happened... :lol:

 

[AdironRider]

Im talking big rigs, not brodouches in jacked up 350's.

 

[Scruffy]

Im talking big rigs, not brodouches in jacked up 350's.

OK Gottcha .. "brodouches!" I love it. Just curious? Do they even have cars one would bother hypermiling with in Wyoming?

 

[abc]

I don't hypermile, I don't even have a prius .. but had to laugh at tailgating trucks. Like, a truck would never tailgate a anyone, no sir never seen a F350 withing two feet of the bumber of a prius doing 85 mph .. nope never happened... :lol:

It is nonetheless dangerous.

Do it long enough, you'll get yourself killed sooner rather than later.

 

[abc]

Thats the least of it. The so called "advanced techniques" go over tailgating trucks, turning the ignition completely off while cruising on the highway until you need gas again, and other retarded me first activities.

Actually, turning the engine off when "cruising on highway" doesn't save gas. Unless the highway happens to be going downhill. And even then, it may not save gas.

It actually take MORE energy to accelerate so if you let the speed drops on level ground, you're wasting gas!

 

[BenedictGomez]

Meh. Distinguishing tax breaks from tax subsidiaries may be politically expedient, but they're one and the same thing from the point of view of Treasury and any rational agent.

Yes, much like the net effect of a person closing his/her $10,000 account with a bank has the same effect as a robber stealing $10,000 from same bank at gunpoint. Doesn't alter the fact that one behavior is generally accepted to have a more negative effect than the other.

Though it doesnt shock me that you dont understand this, as conflating "tax break" with "subsidy", has become a rather successful marketing effort in Washington. It's all just, "more of our money that the government sadly doesn't get since they could use it better than we could" to some.

Thats the least of it. The so called "advanced techniques" go over tailgating trucks, turning the ignition completely off while cruising on the highway until you need gas again, and other retarded me first activities.

It's not even, "me first", it's behaviour that can get people killed. I'd rather some doofus text-while-driving than hypermile.

Actually, turning the engine off when "cruising on highway" doesn't save gas. Unless the highway happens to be going downhill. And even then, it may not save gas.

It actually take MORE energy to accelerate so if you let the speed drops on level ground, you're wasting gas!

Not enough information to complete answer.

If you're coming off a decent decline and you can coast at speed for a good chunk of level real estate before needing to accelerate, that would definitely use less gas (at least I'm pretty sure, seems like common sense to me).

 

[Domeskier]

Yes, much like the net effect of a person closing his/her $10,000 account with a bank has the same effect as a robber stealing $10,000 from same bank at gunpoint. Doesn't alter the fact that one behavior is generally accepted to have a more negative effect than the other.

Though it doesnt shock me that you dont understand this, as conflating "tax break" with "subsidy", has become a rather successful marketing effort in Washington. It's all just, "more of our money that the government sadly doesn't get since they could use it better than we could" to some.

Well, at least we are making some progress. You are finally acknowledging your error in trying to distinguish between tax breaks and tax subsidies from a financial perspective and are now, as as last resort, trying to draw some unprincipled moral or legal distinction between the two. Allow me to save you any further effort at backpedalling and cut to the heart of your position: "tax breaks" = tax reductions that BenedictGomez approves of; "tax subsidies" = tax reductions that BenedictGomez disapproves of. You're welcome.

 

[steamboat1]

Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses. A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses.

 

[Domeskier]

Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses. A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses.

Except that BG is talking specifically about tax subsidies, which, by definition, are accomplished through tax reductions.

 

[steamboat1]

Except that BG is talking specifically about tax subsidies, which, by definition, are accomplished through tax reductions.

That would be called a tax credit not a subsity. Different animal.

 

[Domeskier]

That would be called a tax credit not a subsity. Different animal.

No - he is correct at least that far. The government can subsidize economic activity through the tax code using any means at its disposal - tax credits, deductions or rate reductions. Where he goes wrong is thinking that (some) rate reductions are not economically equivalent to subsidies.

 

[steamboat1]

Except that BG is talking specifically about tax subsidies, which, by definition, are accomplished through tax reductions.

A tax subsity is something the government pays out (ie. farmer tax subsity). A tax cut or credit reduces the amount of money the government takes in. Two vastly different concepts.

 

[Domeskier]

A tax subsity is something the government pays out (ie. farmer tax subsity). A tax cut or credit reduces the amount of money the government takes in. Two vastly different concepts.

No. The agricultural subsidies you are talking about are direct payments from the government. They are not tax subsidies. Tax subsidies are creatures of the Internal Revenue Code - credits, deductions, exemptions, etc. that mimic the effect of direct subsidies without actual expenditures (as opposed to tax expenditures).

 

[BenedictGomez]

Well, at least we are making some progress. You are finally acknowledging your error in trying to distinguish between tax breaks and tax subsidies from a financial perspective and are now, as as last resort, trying to draw some unprincipled moral or legal distinction between the two. Allow me to save you any further effort at backpedalling and cut to the heart of your position: "tax breaks" = tax reductions that BenedictGomez approves of; "tax subsidies" = tax reductions that BenedictGomez disapproves of. You're welcome.

You're way off the reservation of subjects you should be speaking about as an authority.

Again, you "think" you know what you're talking about, so much so that it's clear in my mind that you GENUINELY believe you're correct. You're not.

And your insertion of a Strawman argument after your first post in this thread doesn't seem to be fooling anyone here.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Properly speaking, a “subsidy” means the government giving wealth that it forcibly seized from individuals or businesses to other individuals or businesses.

A “tax cut” means reducing the amount of wealth the government forcibly seizes from individuals or businesses.

Correct. And this relates correctly to the hybrid vehicle subsidy specifically being discussed. [/End of Story]

And frankly, not a very complex story.

 

[deadheadskier]

and around and around we go

 

[steamboat1]

No. The agricultural subsidies you are talking about are direct payments from the government

No shit Sherlock.

 

[Domeskier]

You're way off the reservation of subjects you should be speaking about as an authority.

Again, you "think" you know what you're talking about, so much so that it's clear in my mind that you GENUINELY believe you're correct. You're not.

And your insertion of a Strawman argument after your first post in this thread doesn't seem to be fooling anyone here..

You can bluster all you want, but it does not change the fact they your initial response to my quip displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of very basic financial and economic concepts. Either you really lack a basic understanding of finance and economics or your head is so far up your party line that any intellectual honesty you might had was lost somewhere in its colon.

 

[Domeskier]

Correct. And this relates correctly to the hybrid vehicle subsidy specifically being discussed. [/End of Story]

And frankly, not a very complex story.

So the backpedalling continues. LEt me refresh your memory.

I admit I didn't read the whole thread. What is the argument for hybrids hurting the economy?

There are several reasons having mostly to do with tax subsidies.

Don't try to pretend now that this is a conversation about direct subsidies. I find it hard to believe you are as dense as Steamboat.

 

[Domeskier]

No shit Sherlock.

Then they have no place in a discussion about the economic equivalence between tax breaks and tax subsidies, genius.