"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
nk.net:

In Europe, they have better transit, and
is reasonable. In 2001 the Metro in Paris costs about .75 Euro to go
anywhere in the major metropolitan area of Paris.

"Costs" is not the accurate term. "Charges" is correct. There are
massive taxpayer subsidies of every mass transit system in the world.

The lie that mass transit "costs" "only" fill in the fare the rider pays
here is nothing more than that: a lie.

I do not say the ticket charges were xxx, I say the ticket cost me xxx.
Semantics. Of course there are massive subsidies. BART, the SF Bay area
mass transit, has a strike or threatened strike every time the contract
comes up for renewal. So a train driver, or station agent is making $80k +
benefits. GED required. Most of the taxpayers, think they should be fired
if they strike. Just like the air traffic controllers.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 21:42:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

For the same reason I respond to Snipper...I want to see how big of an
asshole you really are. Snipper's the current title holder.

Unfortunately that creates a lot of by product and clutter. Put him
in the bozo bin and be done with it.

"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
ink.net:


"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in
nk.net:

In Europe, they have better transit, and
is reasonable. In 2001 the Metro in Paris costs about .75 Euro to
go anywhere in the major metropolitan area of Paris.

"Costs" is not the accurate term. "Charges" is correct. There are
massive taxpayer subsidies of every mass transit system in the world.

The lie that mass transit "costs" "only" fill in the fare the rider
pays here is nothing more than that: a lie.

I do not say the ticket charges were xxx, I say the ticket cost me
xxx. Semantics.

Semantics don't pay the bills :-)

BART, the SF
Bay area mass transit, has a strike or threatened strike every time
the contract comes up for renewal. So a train driver, or station
agent is making $80k + benefits. GED required. Most of the
taxpayers, think they should be fired if they strike. Just like the
air traffic controllers.

Absolutely.

They do for Michael Criton, et al.

In article et,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is
up.
In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good
offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car.

My 2002 Audi has about 20K miles on it and in near perfect condition.
I
could probably net a couple grand on it if I bought it and resold it.

How long was your lease on it?

48 mos. Financing was ridiculous and nothing out of pocket. It was my
second lease with them and, although I'm attracted to the new a6 (mostly
the interior), I'm also attracted to getting off the merry go round.

Per our discussion, Volkswagen would still get its money out of the car
vs. GM having to write off the difference between residual and the
actual worth of the car.

Audi had a great lease on its A6 and A4. The A4 was $349/mo. with zero out
of pocket, 12,000 mi/yr, for only 24 months. The A6 was $569/mo. or $599/mo
with the same terms. Obviously, the 24 month term was what I found most
appealing.

I couldn't do that. The thought of having to go through the hassle
every 24 mos. is not appealing to me.

But I wanted to be under $500, so I didn't even drive the A6. The A4 was
too small and too slow. I couldn't get used to a 4-cylinder after driving
the G35...even if it was turbocharged.

I love the growl of the a4 3.0. I tried to squeeze into it after
returning my 1999 a4 but couldn't justify it. Good thing too, I had 5
grown men in the a6 for business two weeks after taking delivery and too
many times since.

jps

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:
In article . net,
says...


I don't know why anyone would purchase their car after the lease is up.
In some states you will pay sales tax twice. I have had very good
offers to keep cars, but not good enough to move to the next, new car.


My 2002 Audi has about 20K miles on it and in near perfect condition. I
could probably net a couple grand on it if I bought it and resold it.

jps

That means you either paid too much in depreciation during the course of
your lease or you paid a large "cap cost reduction" so the residual
value is higher. What you "net" on it in a sale would be a repayment to
yourself for overpayment. You will also pay sales tax on the residual
value since you never owned it in the first place. You would now be
buying it from the bank. That can be avoided if you trade it in.

The reason I have a disparity of value at the end of the lease is that I
don't put anywhere near the mileage on the car the lease anticipates.
I'm 3 miles from work and, being in the NW, not on the road that much,
not like folks in the NE who can drive through 5 major metropolitan
areas in 5 hours.

Most of our travel is by plane...

As far as I can tell, leasing is a guessing game for the banks. They
have to guess what the car will be worth after a certain period of time
with a certain number of miles on the odometer.

Right.

I have also traded in a lease right before its expiration date and
picked up a grand, or so. I have traded in others that were essentially
a wash just to avoid the return hassle.

I guess that depends on the dealer/financing folks flexibility.

jps

In article ,
says...
jps wrote:
In article ,
says...
jps wrote:
In article ,
says...

It is concours, by the way, as in concours d'elegance.

Not concourse.
That's beyond my class of French. I probably can't even spell foie
gras.

jps
Isn't he the brother of cooo-de-grass?

Is that a french hemp reference?


Smoooooookin'!

Stewart had a funny thing on "switchgrass" last night. Also, Howard
Fineman talked to Al Franken yesterday about his bet that if Bush
mentioned the word "switchgrass" during the SOTU he'd drink an entire
bottle of something.

jps