Back to the future
Cold weather drops electric cars’ range by 57%. And if you heat the cabin, you’re truly screwed.
Filed under Uncategorized
Back to the future: Does time move backwards in an alternate universe? Scientists believe it may be so. https://quittingiseasy.com/2016/01/does-time-move-backwards-in-an-alternate-universe-scientists-believe-it-may-be-so/
One of the major complaints I’ve heard about electric cars is that it takes forever to defrost the windshield .
Drops by 57%? Not if you wear a propeller beanie to generate electricity.
And an “Obama ’08” sticker on the Prius to blow hot air up its ass.
Sad as it is, Obama was a better choice than either Hillary or McCain in ’08. Stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye: we’re all doomed.
57% is too high…more like 30% for the Tesla. If you are plugged in and warm the car first than that number is even less. Of course it takes a bigger percentage of the battery capacity to warm up the leaf so 57% for that car may be accurate.
What do you guys care anyway? You’re all moving to Florida or South Carolina anyway to escape the liberals, right?
Reminds me of when I had an old diesel and had to plug in to keep the fuel from gumming up. I lived in DC and if I didn’t park within 100 feet of the building, I couldn’t run an extension cord and was screwed for the days when the weather was under 30 degrees
FF, Amazing you can mock the exodus which is killing your tax revenue projections and hurting everyone you claim to care about. By everyone, I mean everyone. Your house value – could be higher if we had better fiscal management. Your kids future – could be brighter if we didn’t over leverage today which has robbed tomorrow. Society’s most vulnerable (disabled, seniors, children in poverty) – likely to have less robust support in the future because the muscle that pays the taxes is leaving. Your war on poverty – failing to provide skills, failing to provide jobs and most of all, failing to break the cycle of crime and poverty which runs very deep and multi generation with the majority of households affected.
I’m pretty consistent in saying that life is pretty good here, and there is much more than concern over taxes and spending that should keep all of us in Connecticut, instead of self-exile over financial issues. I’m leery about the simplistic statements that essentially say millionare leaves, poor kids suffer. Our problems are much more complex, like the fact that our taxation system encourages extreme balkanization of wealth, with cities destined to get poorer and some suburbs destined to be richer with the corresponding necessary, but resented, transfer of income between them to ensure payment of bare necessities in education and social services. All a plan of solely cutting taxes will do is perpetuate a system that doesnt work, albeit with less money than before. So yes I mock the exodus, an exodus that I don’t think is really happening at all in any rates in excess of the past (please don’t provide me cocktail party anecdotes or data that when you look at it shows 90% of the delta of leavers going to Rhode Island or Massachusetts)
FF, you have provided plenty to chew on…more than I have time for this Friday evening. Let’s start with this chuck of irrefutable evidence – over a decade of income tax data provided by the IRS detailing where people move from one year to the next. FL – huge winner of high income households and CT – huge loser. Its stunning you can pretend this isnt’t real. That this doesn’t have consequences. High income folks aren’t leaving because CT does a lousy job with its Cities. They are leaving because they have lost faith in Hartford to do the right thing and manage expenses properly while keeping tax policy sane.
I know you are not a dolt with numbers. Its the anemic growth of income tax data in the state which is wreaking havoc with your beloved Danny boy enough evidence?
Second, balkanization is hardly unique to CT. I can’t think of a state that doesn’t have natural income segregation by cities and towns. Please name one. Our five largest cities (all poor except Stamford), receive a majority of their operating and capital budget (particularly when counting school $) through our redistributive state income tax and federal programs. Its well documented that virtually none of the income tax collected in the 12 wealthiest towns is returned to those towns. There is nothing wrong with these approaches to governance (prop tax to fund local programs/income tax for regional & state matters). What is wrong is that the money is misspent in the cities that receive it. What is wrong is that the health/pension system for government labor is too expensive and ultimately unsustainable. We have to end defined pension/health care and replace with defined contribution at the state and local level. Doing so will go a long – long way to ending our permanent budget crisis.
Third, we need less government period. Less government would give us more money for schools, health care and meaningful programs. For instance, here;’s a program to kill with no ROI for the state tax payer:
Life is about choices. Hartford keeps making the wrong choices.
You in DC….that sounds about right
Well then you should be cheering global warming
I just bought a diesel :). It’s awesome.
What he says about the old diesels is true.
So it makes perfect sense for Norway to have huge incentives for EVs
Paying for Electric Cars… Twice
Imagine that the government decided to tax you to finance a step ladder project to the Moon. In a very real way, that’s exactly what’s happening. In California right now – and probably soon, other states as well.
Keep driving cars that get less than 20mpg. Nothing bad can come of that eh? While you drive maybe you can say a prayer to Allah.
Allah now lives in Williston ND – home of the Balken Shale Oil?
That kind of BS propaganda only works on Libtards. How many times did you have to wring your hands while writing it?
Why don’t you inform yourself by reading my 2:47 Eric Peters link above.
The big picture is……[can we talk about the big picture, rather than the little crap?] The big picture is that in 1991 liberalism (in the person of that strong-man jackass Weicker) gave Connecticut the income tax at 4.5% because it would “stabilize” the state’s finances. Now that the rate is 6.7%, the state’s finances are unstable, inadequate to the blow-out spending. The receipts are too concentrated among rich companies and rich people who are leaving. So why should the citizens trust the liberals on economic policy?
RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 274 other followers