OT: Total top 50 tax burden.....

[johnson86-1]

Yeah, expecting cyclists to come to a complete stop is totally reasonable.

I do hope that everyone who gets irrationally triggered by a bicycle not coming to a full stop are equally outraged every time a car/truck/van doesnt come to a full stop at stop signs and instead slows down hard then rolls thru or turns at 5mph, or slows down hard and then turns right on red at 5mph.

Seems reasonable to expect consistent outrage. Though with how frequently vehicles also slow roll through stop signs and slow roll into right turns on red, people would be in a constant state of anger every time they drive.
At least this would be the case in my metro. Maybe the Jackson MS metro is full of drivers who always come to complete stops and let their vehicle rock back before proceeding.

Asking somebody to be reasonable in the face of this is in itself unreasonable.

 

[mstateglfr]

My counter to this would be that you're on a multi-use trail, everybody that's here is slower than you and is already looking out for you, so just turn it off, unless maybe it's getting dark. But broad daylight, kill the strobe, you don't need it.

Strobe during the day is super annoying, unless you are riding in a shady area like through some woods, since that makes it difficult to see what is ahead.
Frankly, I say that if someone is averaging more than 15mph, get the 17 off of the heavily used trails/MUPs. Let heavily used trails/MUPs be for walkers, runners, dog walkers, families with oblivious cut little kids wobbling on a 3 wheel scooter, etc.
...but that then puts cyclists on roads, and based on this thread, cyclists on roads enrages many people.

 

[mstateglfr]

Asking somebody to be reasonable in the face of this is in itself unreasonable.

View attachment 1384346

Agreed. White socks with black shoes? What a clown!

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Yeah, expecting cyclists to come to a complete stop is totally reasonable.

I do hope that everyone who gets irrationally triggered by a bicycle not coming to a full stop are equally outraged every time a car/truck/van doesnt come to a full stop at stop signs and instead slows down hard then rolls thru or turns at 5mph, or slows down hard and then turns right on red at 5mph.

Seems reasonable to expect consistent outrage. Though with how frequently vehicles also slow roll through stop signs and slow roll into right turns on red, people would be in a constant state of anger every time they drive.
At least this would be the case in my metro. Maybe the Jackson MS metro is full of drivers who always come to complete stops and let their vehicle rock back before proceeding.

I likely frustrate people because I full stop and make sure that others are going to do their part before proceeding. Mostly out of self-preservation rather than respect for law...

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Agreed. White socks with black shoes? What a clown!

Sandals are the only obvious choice there.

 

[lazlow]

Ill never understand the hatred towards bikes/bikers on the trace. It's a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road. It's funded by the national park service, not MDOT.

If people don't want bikes on car roads, let's build more dedicated bike trails (like Longleaf) instead of being angry about it.

Some of these people would lose their shlt in other countries like Scotland . I think they have > 1500 miles of dedicated biking lanes. And if it’s not Scottish it’s crap!

 

[John Deaux VII]

This is such a non-issue in practice that it seems like you are either woefully uninformed or you have an axe to grind.

Probably both. Ignorance breeds contempt.

 

[champdawg.sixpack]

My father did triathlons. He rode 5 days a week with a club. They would ride in the most dangerous places. Old West Point road, octoc road and others. It would drive me crazy. His club were the cyclists with attitudes. If they had a close call, they would blame the driver of the car cuss and flip them off It never occurred to them that maybe, just maybe they should find safer roads to ride. It’s all fun and games until somebody gets smoked and dies

 

[BTCMoonBoy]

Ill never understand the hatred towards bikes/bikers on the trace. It's a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road. It's funded by the national park service, not MDOT.

If people don't want bikes on car roads, let's build more dedicated bike trails (like Longleaf) instead of being angry about it.

I would be ok not allowing any cars on the trace. It would immediately become the destination for cyclists around the world

 

[BTCMoonBoy]

We dont care about the poors. They shoulda just decided not to be poor like the rest of us did right after we cut our own umbilical cord and bootstrapped our first business.***

You had me until ***. In this country you choose to be poor and it is usually because you’re an addict

 

[horshack.sixpack]

You had me until ***. In this country you choose to be poor and it is usually because you’re an addict

In this country, people choose to be ignorant, and it is usually because they think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they should.

 

[johnson86-1]

You had me until ***. In this country you choose to be poor and it is usually because you’re an addict

I mean, outside of disabilities, kinda sorta, but conscientiousness is pretty highly correlated with intelligence. There are a lot of stupid people that yes, technically if they made good decisions with money could have a quality life even with lower earnings, but I'm not sure how realistic that is to expect them to just make good long term decisions without hyper discounting. Even if you can expect that, ~16% of people in the US have an IQ of 85 or less. They are at best going to understand compound interest at a conceptual level of "borrowing makes things more expensive". They probably aren't going to be able to tell you how much worse a 24% apr on a credit card is than a 5% mortgage rate. What are the chances they can file for taxes and get something like an earned income tax credit without somebody taking advantage of them and charging multiples of what it should cost?

Not to say that you deny them any agency and treat them incredibly paternalistically, but maybe a little paternalistically?

 

[BTCMoonBoy]

In this country, people choose to be ignorant, and it is usually because they think more highly of themselves and their opinions than they should.

We should set feed troughs up in the national parks then…I mean they’re just dumb animals

 

[RotorHead]

O

Ill never understand the hatred towards bikes/bikers on the trace. It's a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road. It's funded by the national park service, not MDOT.

If people don't want bikes on car roads, let's build more dedicated bike trails (like Longleaf) instead of being angry about it.

Ok. Another example. Family is on a bike ride on the trail parallel to the trace. Parents and young kids (one just off training wheels) are riding; bicyclist races up behind and slams on their brakes while yelling at the child that she’s messing up their time.

If bicyclists want to ride on roads, they should be susceptible to the consequences of rules and regulations. Stop signs, red lights, right of ways….the whole nine.

“It’s a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road” is an asinine statement; any road is designated to be driven on.

 

[mstateglfr]

If bicyclists want to ride on roads, they should be susceptible to the consequences of rules and regulations. Stop signs, red lights, right of ways….the whole nine.

If a state sets laws for bicycles as being the same as vehicles(stop signs and red lights specifically since you mentioned them), then yeah- the laws need to be observed by cyclists and enforced by police.
Totally reasonable expectation.


Given the overwhelming dominance of vehicle use to bicycle use on a given road/city/day, and the exponentially higher number of moving violations caused by those vehicles every day, I do hope you direct exponentially more frustration at all the vehicles that dont fully stop at stop signs, turn right on red when it isnt allowed, distractedly cross the center line, turn the wrong way on a one way street, speed, etc etc etc.

 

[ll Martain ll]

“It’s a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road” is an asinine statement; any road is designated to be driven on.

Sure, drive on it all you want. But getting angry at someone because you disagree with them riding their bike on a PARKway exactly as it was intended in the name of you being late for work is the very definition of asinine.

 

[FactCheckerBot]

The main argument you’ll hear against consumption tax is that it’s regressive, disproportionately impacting those with less to spend.

Question:

How is it “regressive” if it’s the most fair? Everyone consumes. Those with more consume more than those with less. It also captures tax revenue from those with more ”shady” occupations that don’t report income because even they consume.

 

[BTCMoonBoy]

Question:

How is it “regressive” if it’s the most fair? Everyone consumes. Those with more consume more than those with less. It also captures tax revenue from those with more ”shady” occupations that don’t report income because even they consume.

Yep agree. Very low or no tax on food essentials. High taxes on unessentials like private jets and tranzz flags. No taxes on mental health treatments

 

[RotorHead]

Sure, drive on it all you want. But getting angry at someone because you disagree with them riding their bike on a PARKway exactly as it was intended in the name of you being late for work is the very definition of asinine.

Why do you suppose we drive on a parkway but park on a driveway?
Nice of you to assume it’s because I’m late, but arguing you on your assumption would be akin to arguing my wife on one of hers, inefficient to say the least. Cheerio guv

 

[champdawg.sixpack]

O

Ok. Another example. Family is on a bike ride on the trail parallel to the trace. Parents and young kids (one just off training wheels) are riding; bicyclist races up behind and slams on their brakes while yelling at the child that she’s messing up their time.

If bicyclists want to ride on roads, they should be susceptible to the consequences of rules and regulations. Stop signs, red lights, right of ways….the whole nine.

“It’s a parkway, not intended to be a commuter road” is an asinine statement; any road is designated to be driven on

Why do you suppose we drive on a parkway but park on a driveway?
Nice of you to assume it’s because I’m late, but arguing you on your assumption would be akin to arguing my wife on one of hers, inefficient to say the least. Cheerio guv

Stephen Wright?

 

[dickiedawg]

Question:

How is it “regressive” if it’s the most fair? Everyone consumes. Those with more consume more than those with less. It also captures tax revenue from those with more ”shady” occupations that don’t report income because even they consume.

It’s called regressive because it disproportionately impacts lower income households. Basically spending doesn’t scale perfectly with earning, lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income.
Let’s say you make $500,000 a year and I make $50,000. I may spend $6,000 a year on groceries. You’re probably not buying $60,000 worth of groceries, even if you are eating filet every night.
Say I buy a $20,000 car. Even if you buy a nice Mercedes SUV for $100,000, you’ve still spent a much lower amount as a percentage of your income.

 

[champdawg.sixpack]

It’s called regressive because it disproportionately impacts lower income households. Basically spending doesn’t scale perfectly with earning, lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income.
Let’s say you make $500,000 a year and I make $50,000. I may spend $6,000 a year on groceries. You’re probably not buying $60,000 worth of groceries, even if you are eating filet every night.
Say I buy a $20,000 car. Even if you buy a nice Mercedes SUV for $100,000, you’ve still spent a much lower amount as a percentage of your income.

And what is your point. ? People buy what they buy. Afford what they can afford Do without red drinks and cheese puffs maybe?

 

[dickiedawg]

And what is your point. ? People buy what they buy. Afford what they can afford Do without red drinks and cheese puffs maybe?

The point is it's regressive. Whether that's a problem or not I suppose is a matter of opinion.

I made no judgement on anyone's spending habits, nor did I suggest people should buy anything other than what they can afford.

 

[Pookieray]

Let's not make this a repeat of the dumb thread from a few months ago where the same stupid demand was suggested.

- pretty much everyone who rides a bike already pays for tags because they drive too.
- if they are riding instead of driving, they are actually causing less wear and tear on the roads, so you should be happy.
- the cost of a tag for a bike, based on infrastructure wear, would be so minimal that your point wouldn't be made.
This is as dumb as crying over walkers not paying tags for their shoes to touch sidewalks.
- cyclists with homeowners/renters insurance are almost always covered if they are at fault for an accident. You are demanding they be insured when almost all already are.


This is such a non-issue in practice that it seems like you are either woefully uninformed or you have an axe to grind.

So you’re saying if a cyclist causes an accident on main st their homeowners insurance will cover it?

 

[mstateglfr]

So you’re saying if a cyclist causes an accident on main st their homeowners insurance will cover it?

Personal liability coverage in homeowners and renters policies is how you are covered, yes.

 

[FactCheckerBot]

It’s called regressive because it disproportionately impacts lower income households. Basically spending doesn’t scale perfectly with earning, lower income people spend a much higher percentage of their income.
Let’s say you make $500,000 a year and I make $50,000. I may spend $6,000 a year on groceries. You’re probably not buying $60,000 worth of groceries, even if you are eating filet every night.
Say I buy a $20,000 car. Even if you buy a nice Mercedes SUV for $100,000, you’ve still spent a much lower amount as a percentage of your income.

Fact:

It seems like it’s “regressive” if one’s spending habits are such. Labeling it like that implies that everyone spends like that. It isn’t mandatory that people spend beyond their means.

 

[mstateglfr]

Fact:

It seems like it’s “regressive” if one’s spending habits are such. Labeling it like that implies that everyone spends like that. It isn’t mandatory that people spend beyond their means.

The term 'regressive', in this instance, means the tax burden drops as income rises. It effectively regressed.

That is opposite to a 'progressive' tax, which means the tax burden increases as income rises. It effectively progressed.



The term 'regressive' does not imply everyone 'spends like that' and spends beyond their means.

 

[FactCheckerBot]

The term 'regressive', in this instance, means the tax burden drops as income rises. It effectively regressed.

That is opposite to a 'progressive' tax, which means the tax burden increases as income rises. It effectively progressed.



The term 'regressive' does not imply everyone 'spends like that' and spends beyond their means.

Question:

How does a tax burden “drop” if it is equal for all? “You spend this, you pay this tax”. The tax doesn’t ask how much you have, it asks “how much are you spending?”

Consumption taxes aren’t “regressive”, but merely considered as such by some.

It’s the same as trans people: some consider them one thing while they’re actually not.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Stephen Wright?

someone broke into my apartment and stole everything, and replaced it with an exact replica

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Honestly us and politicians simply don't have the appetite to address the real problem, so we argue over discretionary spending, which is similar to one of us being very house poor, barely being able to service the mortgage interest and talking about switching from Community to Folgers to save a few pennies. Nobody wants higher taxes put in place to help solve the problem, and certainly nobody wants both higher taxes AND an increased retirement age, which is what it would take to have a shot.

The only thing keeping it afloat is the rest of the world being willing to buy our debt. Should that stop, there will be a reckoning. We are simply keeping our money to the detriment of some future generation when the music stops playing. So realistically, if you are in a pissing match with anyone about federal budget that does not involve SS/Medicare/etc., you are just arguing because to like to argue with "the other side".

Budget Category Percentage of Total Budget

Social Security~22.5%
Medicare & Medicaid~24.0%
Other Mandatory Programs~13.0%
Net Interest (Debt Service)~14.0%

Total Legally Obligated/Required Spending~73.5%

Discretionary Spending (Defense & Nondefense)~26.5%

 

[johnson86-1]

Honestly us and politicians simply don't have the appetite to address the real problem, so we argue over discretionary spending, which is similar to one of us being very house poor, barely being able to service the mortgage interest and talking about switching from Community to Folgers to save a few pennies. Nobody wants higher taxes put in place to help solve the problem, and certainly nobody wants both higher taxes AND an increased retirement age, which is what it would take to have a shot.

The only thing keeping it afloat is the rest of the world being willing to buy our debt. Should that stop, there will be a reckoning. We are simply keeping our money to the detriment of some future generation when the music stops playing. So realistically, if you are in a pissing match with anyone about federal budget that does not involve SS/Medicare/etc., you are just arguing because to like to argue with "the other side".

Budget Category Percentage of Total Budget

Social Security~22.5%
Medicare & Medicaid~24.0%
Other Mandatory Programs~13.0%
Net Interest (Debt Service)~14.0%

Total Legally Obligated/Required Spending~73.5%

Discretionary Spending (Defense & Nondefense)~26.5%

This is not accurate. The term mandatory and discretionary spending are an abuse to the english language used to justify higher spending.

It is basically all discretionary, except arguably the debt service and then the small amounts of money that are already legally obligated. There are programs where spending is automatic even if it is not appropriated each year, but it is still discretionary under any reasonable use of the English language.

But it is true that as a practical matter, you can't balance the budget without reducing future increases in Social security, medicare, and medicaid.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

This is not accurate. The term mandatory and discretionary spending are an abuse to the english language used to justify higher spending.

It is basically all discretionary, except arguably the debt service and then the small amounts of money that are already legally obligated. There are programs where spending is automatic even if it is not appropriated each year, but it is still discretionary under any reasonable use of the English language.

But it is true that as a practical matter, you can't balance the budget without reducing future increases in Social security, medicare, and medicaid.

Things that do not get voted on for approval as they are mandated to happen may be a better term. I suppose with enough legislation all of it is discretionary. However, the point still stands. We spend all of our money in places that nobody is willing to discuss seriously, we use the minority of our spending to fight about. It's disingenuous.

Of course as I see it one side (D's) talks about taxation and government programs as if there was some limitless spigot of money that's simply being withheld from them and their causes while the other side (R's) would never talk that way, they talk about tough decisions and fiscal responsibility and smaller government and then act like there is some limitless spigot of money to fund the things that they find attractive.

It's quite comical to watch both sides pretend they are materially different. They only vary in the ways that they would spend all the money, so we devolve to culture wars to fight about how terrible the other side is for even considering x,y and z. It's a forgone conclusion that we will accept ever increasing levels of corruption and zero fiscal responsibility.

 

[johnson86-1]

Things that do not get voted on for approval as they are mandated to happen may be a better term. I suppose with enough legislation all of it is discretionary. However, the point still stands. We spend all of our money in places that nobody is willing to discuss seriously, we use the minority of our spending to fight about. It's disingenuous.

True. George W was smacked down when he tried to shore up social security with private accounts. There were ads showing a Paul Ryan look alike literally rolling granny in a wheel chair off a cliff when he proposed some incremental improvements.

Of course as I see it one side (D's) talks about taxation and government programs as if there was some limitless spigot of money that's simply being withheld from them and their causes while the other side (R's) would never talk that way, they talk about tough decisions and fiscal responsibility and smaller government and then act like there is some limitless spigot of money to fund the things that they find attractive.

It's quite comical to watch both sides pretend they are materially different. They only vary in the ways that they would spend all the money, so we devolve to culture wars to fight about how terrible the other side is for even considering x,y and z. It's a forgone conclusion that we will accept ever increasing levels of corruption and zero fiscal responsibility.

This is unfortunately one of the few issues where politicians are perfectly happy to do exactly what the voters want them to do, which is lie to them while we head towards a fiscal crisis.