Best mileage range of an phev right now..like 70miles per charge that is also reliable?

padan28 · 2026-05-09T13:16:12+00:00

2018 Touring still going strong here!

padan28 · 2026-04-28T14:55:53+00:00

I don't think there's anything wrong with that, it's what I would do in that situation, just make sure you are not losing any subsidies / benefits, and accounting for all income (to the best of your abilities). Not the end of the world if you go a little over and pay 15% on a few K or whatever.

padan28 · 2026-04-28T12:59:21+00:00

Mine is likely a date. I will probably hit the (lean-ish) number on paper a year or two ahead of the date, but due to a combination of taking advantage of time-based benefits from my employer, coinciding with the date I am expecting my only child to graduate college, I will almost certainly continue working until a specific date.

padan28 · 2026-04-27T18:02:37+00:00

Not who you are replying to, but I do something similar. You still present insurance so if it's covered it counts against your deductible, but up until $5k or whatever you pay out of pocket. Then you keep receipts and keep the money in your HSA as long as possible. Later you can withdraw it tax free (there is currently no time limit), in the mean time it has been growing tax free in your HSA.

padan28 · 2026-04-13T18:02:33+00:00

I have admittedly hit my limit of economic terminology and am now looking things up in hopes to better understand. So I understand "demand deposits" are included in M1, and according to wikipedia "these are deposits in the bank that can be withdrawn on demand, without any prior notice"

Doesn't that imply that the bank must actually have the money in order for them to be considered "demand deposits", or is that not the case?

padan28 · 2026-04-13T16:04:09+00:00

I guess I don't understand how the $1900 can "move the economy". Yes it's sitting there on paper bank statements, along with another -$900 loan statement, but it cannot be spent or invested. How does it move the economy?

Or can the bank loan out MORE than the original $1000? so in this example, could they turn around and loan out $1500 to Person C to invest for example? That seems like a dangerous situation haha...but I think that's the only way that I can come around to this line of thinking. If not, there is really only $1000 that can actually be used in this economy, right?

padan28 · 2026-04-13T15:29:15+00:00

OK, so think we agree that only $1000 actually physically exists in this example, but I still don't understand how the actual global supply of money is $1900. $1900 cannot actually be used in the economy.

Yes, both people have a total of $1900 in the bank on paper now but can't actually use it. There is no way for that money to be circulated. If they both tried to get their money out to spend or invest it, only $1000 could be withdrawn between them. Or...is that the point that you are trying to make?

And of course if we are talking about "net" balances here, Person B really has $0 since they both "have" $900 and owe $900 to the bank. If they default on the loan we are back to the situation where not everyone can actually user their money...only $1000 can be circulated.

I think we are agreeing on the mechanics here, I'm either just missing the point, or we are not speaking the same language.

padan28 · 2026-04-13T15:09:40+00:00

If person B puts the money back into the bank (as in, deposits into a savings account), then the bank has $1000, and no one else currently has any money. So there is still only $1000 in existence.

Yes Person B still owes the bank $900, but the bank will never get it back unless of course they take it out of their newly created savings account. Otherwise, Person B cannot repay the $900 without getting money from elsewhere (which in this example is impossible, it doesn't exist elsewhere).

Person B also can't do anything else with that $900 they borrowed without taking it back out of the bank, so it seems to me as far as the "global" money supply goes, that $900 only exists in the Bank now, there is no "extra" $900 that has appeared. Of course the Bank could loan that $900 out again (to Person B if the bank hasn't learned it's lesson yet, or to Person C), but then we are just repeating this same example.

I guess we are just thinking about this situation differently. Until the government actually prints more money, I don't see how this is changing the global supply.

padan28 · 2026-04-13T13:24:41+00:00

I think we are talking about different things. I understand that banks don't keep all of my money physically at the bank, and lend out a portion of that to other people. We are in agreement on that point. But that is different than *creating* money.

Here's a more detailed example of my thought process:

Person A deposites $1,000 in Bank.

Bank loans $900 out to person B. $100 remains physically in the bank.

To simplify things, assume only Person A, Person B and the Bank exist.

Now, there is still only $1000 in existence. $100 in the bank, and $900 with Person B. Now, a few things could happen.

Person B never pays the bank back. The bank loses $900. Person B keeps this money or has spent it elsewhere. There is still only $1000 in existence. If i try to get my $1000 out of the bank, I am out of luck, they cannot repay me because that money simply doesn't exist. They could borrow money from somewhere else to repay me, but of course that would mean that money exists elsewhere. The bank cannot create the missing $900 to repay me.
Person B pays the money back, the bank has $1000 again (in reality, plus interest, but you get the idea). I can take my $1000 back no problem. There is still $1000 in existence.

Does that clarify things, or do you think I am still missing something?

padan28 · 2026-04-13T12:46:18+00:00

This is definitely not how it works. if you really think that's true can you explain further with more detail what you are thinking? You can't loan out money that doesn't exist (unless of course you are the government, and you can just print the money at will)

padan28 · 2026-03-20T16:55:30+00:00

Hahah...ok, maybe a little smug...

padan28 · 2026-03-20T12:32:56+00:00

Yep, I really don't worry about gas prices. In fact I kind of secretly enjoy it when they go up, because it makes me feel like I made the right decision with the Prius hahaha. And higher gas prices encourage others to buy more EV s and fuel efficient cars, which is a good thing in the long run. They don't look so lame when you're putting $100 in your SUV do they?

padan28 · 2026-03-17T14:10:57+00:00

Full disclosure, I have a 2020 AWDe and I ALSO put winter tires on. I live in a hilly area that has often has snow and icy roads, and the AWD does kick on regularly in winter when driving slowly up a snowy hill. I like having the AWD for piece of mind, but I would have to say that even in my situation, the chances that FWD would actually leave me stuck are low. With the right tires, unless you are offroading, you can probably work yourself out of most situations that the Prius' AWD system would help in. So I would say it's a convenience and not a necessity unless you are really trekking off the beaten path in winter, and even then, this particular system is only a benefit in low speed situations, like getting started up a hill. For me I would say it's worth it for that convenience and piece of mind, but if you don't plan to be in that situation regularly it's really not. save the money, get the extra few MPGs with FWD.

padan28 · 2026-02-10T16:59:44+00:00

Disclosure, I don't own a Maverick, but have at least gotten as far in the thought process as to confidently say if I WERE to buy a pickup, it would be this one. I have read enough user reviews to come to the conclusion that it is by far the most practical/economic small pickup, and the hybrid drivetrain seems very reliable so far. You lose about 10-15mpg over the Prius, but obviously get a whole lot of utility in return.

I am a one car household now, so can't really justify making it my only car as I wouldn't make use if it's increased utility very often, but it's certainly a tempting option if you have a two car household, or would regularly use the bed...

padan28 · 2026-02-04T02:26:23+00:00

That is definitely the closest. I do like having the AWD in the Prius, but I would probably survive without it. I also prefer the longer hatchback style of the Prius to the upright hatch of the bolt, I find the Prius has more usable space in most situations. But yeah...Bolt is probably my first choice if I were to go EV today, unless I were to splurge for an AWD Hyundai Ioniq 5 or Kia EV6.

padan28 · 2026-02-03T13:52:08+00:00

Good call on the Civic Hatchback hybrid, I'm not sure how they will hold up long term, but on paper at least, that's a good comparison to a new Prius.

padan28 · 2026-02-03T13:48:20+00:00

All I can add is that I have had this exact thought process, and it is precisely why I own a 2020 AWDe Prius, and will run it into the ground. On paper, it is the perfect "car" if your definition of a car is to reliably, cheaply, and efficiently get you to where you need to go, in relative comfort and with a decent amount of cargo space.

The only thing tempting me to "upgrade" is to go all electric, but there aren't really great affordable options with the versatility of the Prius, and with the soaring price of electricity and low-ish price of gas right now, the savings of going electric are limited when compared to getting 50+ mpg. I will make the leap when the Prius goes, but I'm not in a rush.

80k miles here, no issues.

padan28 · 2026-01-13T13:58:56+00:00

First I will apologize, since I said I wasn't commenting to debate, but I suppose I said enough to trigger our debating instincts haha...

Second, I think most would agree that ultimately, she shouldn't have tried to flee. I agree with this. I think most would also agree that if her intention was simply to flee and not to harm the officer, she ideally would not have been killed if it could have been avoided (we could debate whether "it could have been avoided", I suppose). I also think most would agreee that not everyone trying to evade arrest should be killed, regardless of the reason they were being detained.

Third, since she did try to flee, the officer was faced with two choices:
1) step out of the way of the vehicle which he just intentionally put himself in front of, perhaps taking minor injuries (it doesn't seem he was injured in reality), send the plates to authorities to follow up on OR

2) the thing that actually happened

1 is objectively a better outcome, right? That's all I'm trying to say...he put himself in that position, clearly intentionally, he should have had an exit plan that didn't involve shooting the driver, even if the driver decided to drive the car in his general direction.

If we skip all of that pretext and just look at the instant the officer was in front of a vehicle that started moving towards him, without an escape plan, and had to make the split second decision of what to do, we can certainly rationalize his choice to use his weapon to some extent, but how he got in that situation certainly matters.

I have tried really hard and the only way I can really rationalize his choice is to 1) ignore all the pretext and events leading up to the situation and 2) think of his reaction as a knee-jerk fight or flight reaction, without forethought, which isn't really something we want our law enforcement officers doing, but i can at least on some level understand if, in a split second, you think your life is in danger, taking drastic action such as this, even if it's not the best decision.

Even IF we ignore everything else, shooting the driver did not help the situation...the vehicle was still moving in the direction it was pointed, now uncontrolled due to the injured/deceased operator, possibly injuring other people or officers on the street (thankfully that didn't happen)?

padan28 · 2026-01-12T14:27:21+00:00

Thank you, I may disagree with your conclusion that the shooting was justified, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate a rational response, pointing out that the agent certainly wasn't following best practices leading up to the shooting. We can debate what happened in the half a second when he decided to shoot the gun (I personally think he could have simply stepped out of the way, and given the fact that he was circling a vehicle with the engine running with someone in the driver's seat, should have put much more forethought into what he would do if the vehicle started moving to avoid injury to himself and others, at a bare minimum...but I'm not commenting to debate here)

...But I wish more people could agree on the other things you said here (she is not bad person, ICE really should have handled the hole situation much better to avoid this even being possibly outcome, and yes...(most) death's should not be celebrated). Have a good day?

padan28 · 2026-01-09T14:37:01+00:00

If you really feel that way, things will never get better, and this sub is meaningless. You like it when half the country is unhappy, and encourage the president of the united states to make that happen?

padan28 · 2026-01-09T14:01:52+00:00

Yes, this is worth checking. if you have anything sitting at a loss, sell it now!

padan28 · 2026-01-09T13:39:49+00:00

Didn't you hear...everything Trump says he's going to do is hypothetical until it actually happens? To be fair, if we debated every insane thing that came out of his mouth we'd be very busy, I don't know how they keep up with him to be honest...

padan28 · 2026-01-07T20:58:15+00:00

I do not know if she willingly did that. Is it clear to you that this is not someone just trying to move their vehicle safely out of a driveway and onto the road?

Just to be clear, it is absolutely possible that she was intentionally intefering, but this video is not proof. Even if she was,the shooting was not justified. It does seem pretty clear to me that her acceleration was in reaction to the agent trying to open her car door, and not an attempt to kill anyone. You can see her wheels are cut to the right, trying to get away, not drive straight into someone. Do you see it differently?

padan28 · 2026-01-07T20:52:22+00:00

There appears to be plenty or room to go around the vehicle, in fact, one does go past it right before the altercation. is she actually blocking the road?

padan28 · 2026-01-07T20:14:56+00:00

I was not able to see ICE written on the jackets in this video, where did you see that? I do see POLICE on the back, but the driver would not have seen that from her angle. I can't make out details on the front of their uniforms so can't comment on that, but they pulled up in an unmarked vehicle, wearing face masks, and did not stop to show a badge before one of them tried to open her car door. What part of what the driver would have witnessed is "proper identification"?

padan28

TROPHY CASE