Why do you tolerate this?

OK State Fan

2nd Team
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
827
245
43
Would you feel better if we used "cleaner"?

The assertion regarding Tesla's lifecycle impact has been refuted by several researchers. Take a look at this study as one example. If you have a recent one that you could point me to, I would be grateful as I am genuinely interested in staying current on this topic.

REMs are absolutely a component in an EV. They are also used in ICE production. And in the refining process. And in your phone. There is some good evidence that we are moving away from some of the more difficult/polluting components in EV architectures including a steady reduction in Lithium salts required for the battery packs.
Cleaner would likely be more accurate. I read the review and several others. So the basic consensus is the "glider" is irrelevant. The battery is all that matters. Somewhere around 150K-200K miles the battery catches up to the traditional car as far as environmental CO2 impact. When it catches up depends on what the source of electricity is (Coal longer, Nuclear shorter). There appears to be no agreement as to environmental impact of sourcing of raw materials. China sourced is likely an environmental disaster. After that there is prob little difference as far as country of origin. I find it very difficulty to think based on how the materials are harvested that at some point "mines" will end up to be "superfund" kind of sites on a global scale. The HTP mentioned and graphed in the article is pretty much useless to me. I can not figure out what the numbers actually mean. I tried to access the articles provided as reference, but I'm not going to buy them and from the articles I did look at it is a nebulous index that requires too many inferences and guesses for me to ascertain how meaningful it is.

The overall assumption is that technology will improve over the next decade or so to the point batteries will be so good that all the other environmental impacts will be negated and we can all sing kumbaya. We all know where assumptions get you.

I am not a hater of green anything (I've put my $100 down for Tesla pickup) and tend fall on the tree hugger side but I am also a realist. The politics of these debates make them impossible. Should we be more conscientious and strive to protect earth as a whole absolutely. Will all of humanity be wiped out unlikely. Will some rich people on the worlds coast have there houses and condos flooded probably...The price you pay for the choice of having a beach house. That part should make the more liberal side of the debate gleeful. You would think that side would be in favor of global warming.
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
19,982
7,752
113
55
Portland,OR
I am not a hater of green anything (I've put my $100 down for Tesla pickup) and tend fall on the tree hugger side but I am also a realist. The politics of these debates make them impossible. Should we be more conscientious and strive to protect earth as a whole absolutely. Will all of humanity be wiped out unlikely. Will some rich people on the worlds coast have there houses and condos flooded probably...The price you pay for the choice of having a beach house. That part should make the more liberal side of the debate gleeful. You would think that side would be in favor of global warming.
Did you go with the tri-motor? I have thought about the higher-end Lightning (canceling my Cyber truck reservation) but the range isn't there especially when towing with the F-150.

As to vacation homes, you won't see me buying anything waterfront. The rich will take care of themselves, but a whole lot of other folks will be impacted which will create a bit of economic chaos. I tend to agree that extinction doesn't seem likely. I may start looking at land in Wyoming (watch out @wyomingosualum - things might kinda tinge bluer in your neck of the woods).
 

OK State Fan

2nd Team
Gold Member
Feb 5, 2003
827
245
43
Of course as a red neck Oklahoman, I would definitely have to have the tri-motor. LOL.

Also, I am no English major - above I should have typed "their" not "there". Hate when I mess up things that annoy me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen

HighStickHarry

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Apr 21, 2006
32,546
35,762
113
Did you go with the tri-motor? I have thought about the higher-end Lightning (canceling my Cyber truck reservation) but the range isn't there especially when towing with the F-150.

As to vacation homes, you won't see me buying anything waterfront. The rich will take care of themselves, but a whole lot of other folks will be impacted which will create a bit of economic chaos. I tend to agree that extinction doesn't seem likely. I may start looking at land in Wyoming (watch out @wyomingosualum - things might kinda tinge bluer in your neck of the woods).

And the leftists continue to metastasize because the consequences of their ideals are disastrous. You are a cliché.
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
19,982
7,752
113
55
Portland,OR
Of course as a red neck Oklahoman, I would definitely have to have the tri-motor. LOL.

Also, I am no English major - above I should have typed "their" not "there". Hate when I mess up things that annoy me.
Recognizing a mistake is half the battle.

500+ mile range and a 0-60 in under 3 seconds - what is not to love....
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
19,982
7,752
113
55
Portland,OR
If you have to pay tax on unrealized gain, do you get a rebate for unrealized loss? And if you pay tax on unrealized gain in Year 1, what happens if the stock goes down in Year 2? Do you get some of that Year 1 tax back? If this sort of dumbfvckery ever gets passed, the act needs to be called the “CPA Income Security Act”. Because they would be the biggest beneficiaries of this idiocy.
You can carry over any loss offsetting 100% of follow on year gains - hell how about unlimited, never expiring carryovers. You on board now?
 

N. Pappagiorgio

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Mar 4, 2004
24,631
9,634
113
You can carry over any loss offsetting 100% of follow on year gains - hell how about unlimited, never expiring carryovers. You on board now?
I think it would be handled this way but I am concerned about removing the compounding benefit the stock market gives and what it would do do equity values.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
19,982
7,752
113
55
Portland,OR
I think it would be handled this way but I am concerned about removing the compounding benefit the stock market gives and what it would do do equity values.
Indeed, tax free compounding gains (money on money) would go away. But alas, eggs will be broken if an omelet is to be made.
 

N. Pappagiorgio

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
Mar 4, 2004
24,631
9,634
113
I think it would be handled this way but I am concerned about removing the compounding benefit the stock market gives and what it would do do equity values.
I should add that the government will eventually get their share of those gains. Do we need to rush them?
Indeed, tax free compounding gains (money on money) would go away. But alas, eggs will be broken if an omelet is to be made.
My omelet would include reduced government spending which apparently isn’t an option for either side.
 

davidallen

Heisman Winner
Gold Member
Aug 15, 2006
19,982
7,752
113
55
Portland,OR
I should add that the government will eventually get their share of those gains. Do we need to rush them?

My omelet would include reduced government spending which apparently isn’t an option for either side.
I could go for some of that egg white omelet - we might not agree on everything that needs to be trimmed, but there is more than enough that we could agree on that it would make a dent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N. Pappagiorgio

soonerinlOUisiana

Heisman Winner
May 29, 2004
12,198
8,661
113
fvck off, leftists
www.youtube.com
You can carry over any loss offsetting 100% of follow on year gains - hell how about unlimited, never expiring carryovers. You on board now?
No. Because paying tax on unrealized gain is stupid. It’s not income. It’s only potential income. Maybe we should start making individuals pay tax on their earning potential too, right?
 

wyomingosualum

Heisman Candidate
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2005
5,548
6,802
113
Did you go with the tri-motor? I have thought about the higher-end Lightning (canceling my Cyber truck reservation) but the range isn't there especially when towing with the F-150.

As to vacation homes, you won't see me buying anything waterfront. The rich will take care of themselves, but a whole lot of other folks will be impacted which will create a bit of economic chaos. I tend to agree that extinction doesn't seem likely. I may start looking at land in Wyoming (watch out @wyomingosualum - things might kinda tinge bluer in your neck of the woods).
Give me a call if you start getting serious about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen

cableok

All-American
Nov 7, 2002
2,514
1,554
113
No. Because paying tax on unrealized gain is stupid. It’s not income. It’s only potential income. Maybe we should start making individuals pay tax on their earning potential too, right?
I am surprised some people are taking the propublica article seriously. It was clearly written as a way to divide and make those uneducated in taxes and finance hate the rich and imply that something nefarious was happening. Taxing unrealized gain is just silly.

So if a broke painter painted 10 new landscapes and an art critic wrote the painter is the next Picasso and that each painting is worth millions ....would the painter be forced to sell one or more of those paintings to pay the taxes on his unrealized gains? In what warped leftist dystopian world does that make sense?
 

soonerinlOUisiana

Heisman Winner
May 29, 2004
12,198
8,661
113
fvck off, leftists
www.youtube.com
I am surprised some people are taking the propublica article seriously. It was clearly written as a way to divide and make those uneducated in taxes and finance hate the rich and imply that something nefarious was happening. Taxing unrealized gain is just silly.

So if a broke painter painted 10 new landscapes and an art critic wrote the painter is the next Picasso and that each painting is worth millions ....would the painter be forced to sell one or more of those paintings to pay the taxes on his unrealized gains? In what warped leftist dystopian world does that make sense?
In the warped leftist dystopian world that David and those like him want for us (but not for themselves).