[WillStewart]

@MCL1981 11672 wrote:

You can not let this go. Based on your description, what that woman did is a felony in some states. Hell, ramming a bicycle with a 4000lb car is borderline attempted vehicular homicide. You absolutely need to take this up the chain of command in the police department. One lazy police officer does not change the law for his convenience and it happened whether he feels like doing his job or not. If he won’t do his job, someone else will have to, but that won’t happen unless you stand up for yourself in the matter. … I’d highly suggest contacting that attorney listed above as I have never seen a more slam dunk case in my life. He can probably also help with reminding the police that it is their job to arrest criminals. And that psycho is one.

I couldn’t agree more. This was either an assault or criminal negligence. An attorney now doubt would help, as the next steps might be going up the chain, or going to see the prosecutor – I don’t know these ropes, so can’t give specific advice. Given that you’ve had a concussion, clear thinking is difficult right now (I’ve been there). If nothing else, just give Bruce Demming a call – it certainly can’t hurt, and it may be exactly what you need.

[WillStewart]

Any updates you can share?

[WillStewart]

This story really raises my hackles about roadhog drivers with hateful attitudes. Did the driver behind her see the crash? Even if you were taking up the right side of the lane, you had the right of way.
http://waba.org/resources/laws.php

You should have access to her insurance information, and they MUST pay for all of your medical expenses. And who knows what latent injuries will surface in the coming days/weeks.

[WillStewart]

@Riley Casey 11277 wrote:

Life is better on a bike. Thanks for posting that. Where did you find it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDmt_t6umoY

[WillStewart]

@acc 11188 wrote:

Nothing thrills me more than lurking in dark alleys.

Put dayglow on the rhinestones, and anyone stumbling upon you will take you for an angel on a mission. They will be absolutely right, of course…

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 11063 wrote:

I am approaching the top 1% with my government salary and my wife’s job as an IT consultant with a government contractor. Does anyone wonder why the richest areas of the country are around Washington?

When there are tax rate cuts, this must mean that average tax rates for all taxpayers (who receive cuts, which was everyone in 2001 and every one with income from capital in 2003) must have their average tax rates fall. When I said “Bush tax cuts for the poor” I was simply addressing the absurdity of politicians adding the “for the …” rhetoric either in an ignorant or duplicitous manner.

Much of the 2001 tax cuts went to upper middle class families with children because of the child tax credits. A large amount of high income taxpayers did not see a cut because they were subject to the AMT or were thrown into the AMT. And which party claims to support fixing the AMT, which by definition only falls on relatively high income folks?

Since the lowest income level of the top 1% is $386k by the following source, you may need to rethink how close you are to the top 1%. Of course, your stated position may well be understood in the light of your financial position.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

You still haven’t named any couples in Government jobs that are in the top 1%, nor have you given any statistics that show what percentage of the top 1% they entail.

When I and a number of other posters refer to the 2003 Bush tax policy as tax cuts for the rich, it is your free speech right to say that we are ignorant or duplicitous, but you show yourself to be struggling in vain to deny the obvious.

@DismalScientist 11063 wrote:

I have yet to insult you

Hmmmm….

The 2003 tax rate cuts were not the same at each level (the highest tax rates dropped the most, and the lowest rates did not change), so your allusion to average rates for everyone falling is not supported by the facts. More importantly, capital gains dropped dramatically, a major cut for the highest category.

Your discussion of AMT misses the point that much if not most of the top 1% receive a significant amount of their income in capital gains, which is taxed at the lower rate of 15%, which had dropped in the 2003 cuts. That’s one reason Warren Buffet’s aggregate tax rate is only 17%.

@DismalScientist 11063 wrote:

this is my last post

You said that once before, a few posts back…

[WillStewart]

Another very eye-catching spoke light is the Monkey Light;

[video]http://www.youtube.com/v/DLtbeU8FJW0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3[/video]

[WillStewart]

I realize that this was partially addressed by the thread Lights for Bikes – Volunteers Needed!, though lights on the trail are one thing – bike lights on dark rush hour streets require a much higher lumen solution.

Does anyone have a good phrase or two to use when you pull up next to one of these people at a stoplight/crossing?

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 11041 wrote:

Your assumption of my concurrence is misplaced.

So either you don’t have anything to address those other points or don’t believe what you have will suffice. If you change your mind, we’ll be happy to examine the substance of your claims in detail.

@DismalScientist 11041 wrote:

Husband and wife GS15 step 10 combined earn about $320,000. That’s almost there by itself.

You make up a scenario, yet still are not able to substantiate your allegation. We will assume you were simply making up a scenario intended as a distraction.

@DismalScientist 11041 wrote:

…Upon reading more carefully your post, you are right. Tax cuts reduced the average tax rates on the upper tax bracket. …. And everyone else.
But, of course that is not the subject at hand. Under these criteria, one could argue that Bush’s tax cuts for the poor is causing the mess we are in with the same information.

Either you are not a scientist, or you think that none of us can do math.

Drop the top tax rate from 39% to 35%, and that means someone making $1,000,000 pays $40,000 less

On the other hand, the little (if any) tax cut afforded a poor family can now be used to buy much needed food and shelter.

The bottom 50% own 2.5% of the nation’s wealth – there is no handwaving that can begin to point to the poor or lower middle class as the problem. I can’t believe you would even try to go down this path…

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 11021 wrote:

(Increasing dividends instead of retaining capital does not change real income inequality, it just changes whether the income that stockholders get is in dividends or capital gains.)

You are still dancing around the subject at hand – the tax cuts reduced average tax rates on the upper tax bracket.

You didn’t address any of my other points (including providing names of those who are in the top 1% and in government jobs), so I’ll assume you concur.

[WillStewart]

@KLizotte 10830 wrote:

PrintError’s triumph is nothing compared to this guy.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]475[/ATTACH]

This is obviously a sculpture…

[WillStewart]

The DC area possesses a high concentration of highly educated people, so deflections and FUD tricks that work on less-educated people are rather useless here.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

There are no tax cuts proposed or recently implemented for the top 1%.

Everyone knows that we are talking about the Bush tax cuts, so such a rhetorical maneuver carries no water.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

Certainly it was argued that the 2001 tax cuts favored the wealthy, but the 2001 tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive.

Your claim is highly debatable, especially when taken in light of the deficit it engendered, but the tax cuts for the rich occurred in 2003, so the focus should be primarily on those in this discussion.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

The 2003 tax cuts reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. The incidence of taxes on capital is a very tricky thing…

The dramatic increase in income inequality is the end result, ‘tricky’ rhetoric notwithstanding. You can’t seriously expect us to swallow such a line, especially when Buffet and a large number of millionaires/billionaires agree that they are given too many unfair tax breaks.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/11/super-committee-congress-patriotic-millionaire-tax-rates-norquist.html

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

Note that when dividend taxes fell, companies returned more in dividends rather than retain the capital.

Or rather than pay their workers more, hence the income inequality exacerbation.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

According to the Tax Foundation, to be in the top 1%, you need an adjusted gross income of $343,947. This means that there are a lot of families whose breadwinners suckle at the taxpayers’ teat (directly and indirectly) in this area that are very close to the top 1%.

This is the functional equivalent of “Some say…”. You provide no evidence or supporting material, simply make a blanket allegation. Please provide names or official stats, or such an attempt to deflect will remain recognized as simply that.

@DismalScientist 10995 wrote:

I didn’t want to get into politics…

Of course not…

[WillStewart]

@MCL1981 10960 wrote:

I wonder how much this ()#&$*(#&$ cost me in taxes.

On that subject, there’s a much bigger picture – the top 1% tax cuts that drive (and keep) the deficit up means that the repayment will merely come due later, which our children will have to pick up so that millionaires and billionaires can have their 10 houses and 3 yachts today.

[WillStewart]

A smile and a wave takes the wind out of their sails, if not immediately then over the next several minutes. I have, of course, also used other techniques, such as when someone says “GO RIDE ON THE BIKEPATH!!!”, I say, “Go drive on the Beltway!”.

[WillStewart]

I’ll take, need one for the kids bikes.

[Author]

Posts