Current Events > What's the point in owning a high class car in day to day morning traffic

(+) Yeah! (+)

Your lambo ain't getting anywhere quicker than my accord and you're probably using more gas.

Save that shit for when you can open that car up on empty roads
---

My lambo does get quicker everywhere than my Accord because people move out of the way when they see you pull up in a lambo.
---

because they can and enjoy knowing that you'll bitch about it online instead of bettering yourself and buying your own.
---

Getting high end booty
---

No one would want to use a lambo for traffic like that. It would suck.

When it comes to luxury cars, the more comfortable types like a Rolls Royce might be a smoother ride in stop-and-go traffic versus the Honda Accord.
---

Whats the point in owning a car for morning traffic?

Just run
---

Because they feel like it.
---

DoctorVader posted...

My lambo does get quicker everywhere than my Accord because people move out of the way when they see you pull up in a lambo.

They aren't moving for this guy

EvalAngell posted...

because they can and enjoy knowing that you'll bitch about it online instead of bettering yourself and buying your own.

My complaint isn't that he owns the car. It's that it's extremely impractical to drive it in gridlock traffic
---

They probably don't just drive it in gridlock traffic.
---

Status, finding gold-digging women, boosting your libido. Lol.
---

nobody with a lambo uses it as a daily driver, that's a weekend car. if you can afford a supercar you can afford to have more than one car for commuting vs getting weekend poon
---

Romulox28 posted...

nobody with a lambo uses it as a daily driver, that's a weekend car. if you can afford a supercar you can afford to have more than one car for commuting vs getting weekend poon

---

I4NRulez posted...

DoctorVader posted...

My lambo does get quicker everywhere than my Accord because people move out of the way when they see you pull up in a lambo.

They aren't moving for this guy

EvalAngell posted...

because they can and enjoy knowing that you'll bitch about it online instead of bettering yourself and buying your own.

My complaint isn't that he owns the car. It's that it's extremely impractical to drive it in gridlock traffic

Why is it extremely impractical to drive it in gridlock traffic?
---

It's a nice conversation piece. It must work seeing as you made a topic about it.
---

Road presence.
---

Romulox28 posted...

nobody with a lambo uses it as a daily driver, that's a weekend car. if you can afford a supercar you can afford to have more than one car for commuting vs getting weekend poon

Nah, I see this guy pretty often. Same yellow lambo same bald head. Today we were just not moving so I had time to make the topic cause of an accident down the road

r4X0r posted...

I4NRulez posted...

DoctorVader posted...

My lambo does get quicker everywhere than my Accord because people move out of the way when they see you pull up in a lambo.

They aren't moving for this guy

EvalAngell posted...

because they can and enjoy knowing that you'll bitch about it online instead of bettering yourself and buying your own.

My complaint isn't that he owns the car. It's that it's extremely impractical to drive it in gridlock traffic

Why is it extremely impractical to drive it in gridlock traffic?

Because lambos get like 15 mpg on the highway
---

If you want people to move, get a retired Crown Vic. Preferably with the spotlights still installed, and if you can, one with the push bar still on.

It's amazing how well behaved people become.
---

Somehow I doubt spending a few extra dollars on gasoline every day is impractical to somebody driving a $500,000 car.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

If you want people to move, get a retired Crown Vic. Preferably with the spotlights still installed, and if you can, one with the push bar still on.

It's amazing how well behaved people become.

Driving those absolutely sucks because nobody will go faster than you on the highway. You're always the one in front.
---

I4NRulez posted...

Because lambos get like 15 mpg on the highway

i'm pretty sure if you own a Lambo gas mileage and gas prices are the least of your concerns.
---

It's to make up for their small penis.
---

the morning commute is the most dangerous and unnecessary part of the day anyway

if america was a less politicized nation we would have congestion pricing in every metropolitan area to ensure an adequate and safe traffic flow
---

These days, you need a luxury car just to get an average girlfriend.
---

Balrog0 posted...

the morning commute is the most dangerous and unnecessary part of the day anyway

if america was a less politicized nation we would have congestion pricing in every metropolitan area to ensure an adequate and safe traffic flow

Yes, kick the poor people off the road. They don't have jobs to get to, or anything.
---

so i can hear jealous people talk about how small they think my penis is

;)
---

r4X0r posted...

Yes, kick the poor people off the road. They don't have jobs to get to, or anything.

yeah, instead of making people pay for the things they use let's just tax everybody who buys gas whether or not they use it for driving! all those poor people mowing their lawns sure do deserve to pay for you to drive
---

Marked gasoline and diesel exists for off road applications though.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Marked gasoline and diesel exists for off road applications though.

that's not a thing in america (or at least I've never seen it!)

and it doesn't address the root issue of the excise funding mechanism, which is that poor people typically drive less but pay more per mile due to driving cars with lower fuel efficiency on average! this is exacerbated by the fact that the US does not actually fully fund roads through the gas tax, meaning we use a lot of public debt to finance infrastucture
---

Balrog0 posted...

r4X0r posted...

Yes, kick the poor people off the road. They don't have jobs to get to, or anything.

yeah, instead of making people pay for the things they use let's just tax everybody who buys gas whether or not they use it for driving! all those poor people mowing their lawns sure do deserve to pay for you to drive

Which is why they can get that tax refunded, silly. Do you even 26 U.S. Code 6421, bro?
---

r4X0r posted...

Which is why they can get that tax refunded, silly. Do you even 26 U.S. Code 6421, bro?

poor people don't itemize, and not every state allows you to claim the same exemptions for offroad uses (some require it to be a business expense, for instance!)
---

Balrog0 posted...

r4X0r posted...

Which is why they can get that tax refunded, silly. Do you even 26 U.S. Code 6421, bro?

poor people don't itemize, and not every state allows you to claim the same exemptions for offroad uses (some require it to be a business expense, for instance!)

If it's not a business expense and only personal use, who the hell cares? The amount is trivial. You want to switch to congestion taxing which only works by pricing people off the road for that? "Had to quit my job because I can't afford to drive into the city any more, but I saved three dollars per year because I don't have to pay road tax to mow my lawn!"
---

r4X0r posted...

If it's not a business expense and only personal use, who the hell cares? The amount is trivial.

'paul ryan was right that 1.50 a week is meaningful'

'I care about poor people selectively to support my prior conviction"

yeah I already knew that
---

poor people are also much more likely to work off-hours than 9-5 people who would be hit by congestion pricing btw
---

they're also more likely to live closer to work
---

Overhauling our fuel taxation system to save people $3.00 annually on their lawn mowing bill at the cost of pricing poor people off the roads is ridiculous.
---

by charging them what they use instead of an arbitrary amount based on their consumption of gas you would actually lower their transit bill, too

but the proposal would be good even if it raised revenue so I'm not gonna argue that too much, our roads are seriously underfunded and we should raise taxes/fees to pay for them
---

Maybe it makes the "waiting" time more comfortable?

r4X0r posted...

Overhauling our fuel taxation system to save people $3.00 annually on their lawn mowing bill at the cost of pricing poor people off the roads is ridiculous.

it isn't just about that, it just shows you don't actually care about the morality of charging poor people too much for no reason

Poor people, who are much less likely to drive at all, especially in cities and during peak times when congestion pricing is in play, are the unequivocal winners when it comes to congestion pricing. Because isntead of charging them based on fuel you charge them based on use. It's a very basic argument that a real conservative would understand
---

r4, do you still have your k5?
---

How will people know I invested in bitcoin if I don't drive my lambo to work?
---

Poor people are less likely to drive because poor people are less likely to have jobs. You want to screw over the ones that do. What congestion taxing attempts to do is social engineering and controlling people's habits, which is something a real conservative would obviously oppose.

Your worldview is as twisted as a shibari session.
---

Balrog0 posted...

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Marked gasoline and diesel exists for off road applications though.

that's not a thing in america (or at least I've never seen it!)

and it doesn't address the root issue of the excise funding mechanism, which is that poor people typically drive less but pay more per mile due to driving cars with lower fuel efficiency on average! this is exacerbated by the fact that the US does not actually fully fund roads through the gas tax, meaning we use a lot of public debt to finance infrastucture

I saw one station in California that sold marked diesel. It was about 50 cents a gallon cheaper if I remember correctly. Granted it is probably hard to find stations that sell off road fuel.
---

r4X0r posted...

Yes, kick the poor people off the road. They don't have jobs to get to, or anything.

In most major cities, poor people aren't on the road to begin with; they take public transit.

Congestion pricing is a progressive tax, especially if the revenue goes towards public transit
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/mayor-behind-progressive-congestion-pricing-article-1.3498583

But it has been proven for more than a decade that a scheme that charges a fee for users of the least space-efficient and most polluting mode and reinvests the proceeds into mass transit is, in fact, a progressive policy.

Why? According to analysis of Census data by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 54.5% of New York City households are car-free, and more than twice as many people use transit every day to get to work than drive. And more to the point, zero-car households earn less than half as much as households that own at least one vehicle.

No congestion pricing plan can be truly regressive if it benefits low-income individuals the most. In this transit-dependent city, revenues from congestion pricing reinvested back into the transit system overwhelmingly benefit individuals who cant afford to take Uber, let alone own their own private automobile.

These are the same New Yorkers who are most burdened by subway delays and buses that crawl along at walking speed.

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2007/11/02/fact-check-congestion-pricing-is-not-a-regressive-tax/

But an analysis of Census data by
TSTC and the Pratt Center for Community Development shows that, in all but one State Assembly district in NYC, vehicle-owning households are 50% wealthier than households without a vehicle; in nearly half of districts, average income is twice as high.

---

r4X0r posted...

Poor people are less likely to drive because poor people are less likely to have jobs. You want to screw over the ones that do.

no, that's not why

they drive less because driving is a very cost-sensitive activity. they drive less for the same reason people drive less when gas is more expensive.

r4X0r posted...

What congestion taxing attempts to do is social engineering and controlling people's habits, which is something a real conservative would obviously oppose.

how is it social engineering to control people to ask them to pay for something in proportion to their use of it? whats social engineering is being profligate with public money under the false idea that it should be free for everyone to use. it's not like excise taxes aren't intended to be used to influence peoples behavior -- it just hasn't been changed for so long because people would rather someone else pay for their roads.
---

thank god Trump isn't some socialist hack like r4X0r

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/1/29/review-of-the-white-house-infrastructure-plan

Critics are sure to suggest as Governing and Politico have that this bill is the federal government turning their backs on cities and states. This would be a more credible argument without some of the reforms being proposed as part of the bill. These changes give local governments more options for raising revenue and more motivation to find other responses to demand beyond simply begging the federal government for more money to build more stuff they can't afford to maintain.

Perhaps the most radical change is a provision to give states the flexibility to toll interstates so long as the revenue is reinvested in infrastructure. Its a welcome and long overdue baby step towards some actual pricing feedback. We can see this possibly leading to a broader shift away from gas tax, general funds and debt to actual user charges as the primary mechanism for funding highways. Standing ovation for a real, substantial reform.

Im also elated by a requirement this is not flexibility but a requirement for value capture financing to be used to fund major transit projects. In other words, the next time California wants to use billions of federal dollars to make a few people who own property around new transit stops filthy richonly to have those same people become NIMBY opposers of any development that would make the government investment actually pay offthe state wont need to resort to local zoning tyranny to avert multiple crises.

Thanks, Trump
---

What's the point in driving a car with 4 doors and 4 seats if only 1 person uses it most of the time?
---