# Oil nearly falls below $80 on oversupply



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

Good news for the daytrippers like me, I hope.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102084062


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 15, 2014)

Bad news for the economy though.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 15, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> Bad news for the economy though.



Perhaps for the economy of Saudi Arabia...


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 15, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Perhaps for the economy of Saudi Arabia...



Na .. they can hold out, our team can't a 0 profit.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> Bad news for the economy though.


  Elaborate?  Low oil means a lot things get cheaper.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Elaborate?  Low oil means a lot things get cheaper.



Until the shale stops flowing because no one is making money getting it out of the ground. The current trajectory of West Texas crude is a big impediment to our economic recovery.


----------



## mriceyman (Oct 15, 2014)

All the experts say as gas prices fall then so will our economy. I think its a fin sham by big oil to scare us into thinking prices cant get to low. I mean imagine them not making ridiculous profits and the little guy in business receiving the benefits of people having an extra dollar in their pocket. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

I am sure there is point when it is too low for the domestic oil production since there is a break even on it with the extraction.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> I am sure there is point when it is too low for the domestic oil production since there is a break even on it with the extraction.



Yup, and $80 or below is the dipping point, according to a lot of analysts. 

Oh, and another problem with too much production is not enough refineries and little to no storage for the stuff. So we are a victum of our own success.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 15, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> *Bad news for the economy though*.



The Russian economy?   Absolutely.  The Canadian economy?  Sure.

The US economy?  Not really.  It's a mixed bag, but it does more good than harm.    The rising USD which is partially responsible for the pullback in oil will likely have a more negative short-term effect.



Scruffy said:


> *Until the shale stops flowing because no one is making money getting it out of the ground.*



Likely not going to happen, prices would have to get to the low $60s for break-even, which is a far cry from here.  Though it could possibly lead to some scaling down along the way.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 15, 2014)

mriceyman said:


> All the experts say as gas prices fall then so will our economy.*  I think its a fin sham by big oil to scare us into thinking prices cant  get to low. I mean imagine them not making ridiculous profits* and the little guy in business receiving the benefits of people having an extra dollar in their pocket.



This is tin-foil hat paranoia.   And FYI, little known fact, the  government makes more money on a gallon of gasoline than the "Big Oil"  company that worked to extract it, provided thousands of jobs, paid to  transport it, paid to refine it, and then paid to transport it again.




Scruffy said:


> *another problem with too much production is not enough  refineries* and little to no storage for the stuff. So *we are a victum of  our own success*.



More like a victim of the Eco-nuts who have tirelessly worked to prevent the creation of additional refineries on US soil.  

The last large refinery was built in the late SEVENTIES* due solely to  politics.  We, all Americans, should pay less at the pump, but we dont  because one of our political parties is held hostage by wealthy campaign  donors who block their creation.


* http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

Little dated but still true.  Taxes are about 10-20% of the price for a gallon.


----------



## Tin (Oct 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Good news for the daytrippers like me, I hope.
> 
> http://www.cnbc.com/id/102084062



From $3.40s a gallon a few weeks ago to $3.17 right now. Interesting what happens when there are no hurricanes in the Gulf to "blame" things on and such.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

Tin said:


> From $3.40s a gallon a few weeks ago to $3.17 right now. Interesting what happens when there are no hurricanes in the Gulf to "blame" things on and such.



Now, if we could get that pipeline from the oil shale deposits built.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 15, 2014)

Tin said:


> From $3.40s a gallon a few weeks ago to *$3.17 right now*.



$2.89 in NJ as of a few days ago, might be a touch lower now.



Tin said:


> I*nteresting what happens when there are no hurricanes in the Gulf to "blame" things on* and such.



This is more tin-foil hat stuff.  

Hurricanes in the Gulf do have a disruptive impact on oil supply, and thus prices, from both an extraction standpoint as well as a large refining impact due to geographic location of US refiners.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> $2.89 in NJ as of a few days ago, might be a touch lower now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the BP oil spill that shut all deep water drilling and the rigs went other places in the world.

And no major hurricanes to hit Gulf since 10/2005.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 15, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Likely not going to happen, prices would have to get to the low $60s for break-even, which is a far cry from here.  Though it could possibly lead to some scaling down along the way.



I hope you're right 

" “If prices go to $80 or lower, which I think is possible, then we are  going to see a reduction in drilling activity,” Ralph Eads, vice  chairman and global head of energy investment banking at Jefferies LLC,  which advised 38 percent of U.S. energy mergers and acquisitions this  year, said in an Oct. 1 interview. “It will be uncharted territory.” "


----------



## Tin (Oct 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> And no major hurricanes to hit Gulf since 10/2005.



Isaac was a Cat. 1, IT shut down refineries in its' path for 3-4 days (end of August). Prior to the hurricane even making landfall there was a 5-15 cent spike out of fears. 92% of refineries were online within 2 days and ONE refinery was flooded and non-operational for over a week, yet and gas prices continued to rise and did not fall to their previous level until mid October.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 15, 2014)

Tin said:


> *Isaac was a Cat. 1, IT shut down refineries in its' path for 3-4 days* (end of August). Prior to the hurricane even making landfall there was a 5-15 cent spike out of fears. *92% of refineries were online within 2 days and ONE refinery was flooded and non-operational for over a week, yet and gas prices continued to rise and did not fall to their previous level until mid October.*



Oil is a global commodity.  You cant just look at one event/factor and say, _"whelp, that's why gas is Up/Down"_.   

There's many things that move the price of oil which are all occurring simultaneously, including improving/deteriorating global economies, middle east strife & war, increased/decreased production, the value of USD, geopolitical risks, weather, tax increases, the price of competing energies, refinery shutdowns, OPEC meetings, and on and on and on.....


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

Tin said:


> Isaac was a Cat. 1




I think I said major


----------



## Tin (Oct 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> I think I said major



You did, but it does not take a major hurricane to shut things down. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point then sorry.


And now for the classic BG....



BenedictGomez said:


> This is more tin-foil hat stuff.
> 
> Hurricanes in the Gulf do have a disruptive impact on oil supply, and thus prices, from both an extraction standpoint as well as a large refining impact due to geographic location of US refiners.





BenedictGomez said:


> Oil is a global commodity. You cant just look at one event/factor and say, _"whelp, that's why gas is Up/Down"_.
> 
> There's many things that move the price of oil which are all occurring simultaneously, including improving/deteriorating global economies, middle east strife & war, increased/decreased production, the value of USD, geopolitical risks, weather, tax increases, the price of competing energies, refinery shutdowns, OPEC meetings, and on and on and on.....



Please, continue to educate us with all your wisdom or just admit you really don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

Tin said:


> You did, but it does not take a major hurricane to shut things down. Unless I'm misunderstanding your point then sorry.



I agree with your point but there has not been a Katrina that shut things down for weeks or months.


----------



## Tin (Oct 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> I agree with your point but there has not been a Katrina that shut things down for weeks or months.



Understood


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 15, 2014)

Tin said:


> *Please, continue to educate us with all your wisdom or just admit you really don't know what you're talking about.*



Sigh..... wow, you_ really_ don't get it.   

 I don't know why I'm bothering, but try this next pairing on for size to see if you can understand (though frankly I'm not confident you even want to understand).

Every wild swordfish that ends up on your dinner plate came from the ocean, but not every wild swordfish on your dinner plate necessarily came from the Atlantic ocean.

Every disruption to oil supply & demand is a factor that ultimately effects the price, but not every factor can be unilaterally blamed for 100% of that swing, up or down.


It's.  Not.  Complicated.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Sigh..... wow, you_ really_ don't get it.
> 
> I don't know why I'm bothering, but try this next pairing on for size to see if you can understand (though frankly I'm not confident you even want to understand).
> 
> ...



I thought my point was that we can ski more if the price of gas down.  Silly me!!!!!


----------



## Tin (Oct 15, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> $2.89 in NJ as of a few days ago, might be a touch lower now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So a single system in the Gulf can cause a price spike?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> I thought *my point was that we can ski more if the price of gas down.*  Silly me!!!!!



Back of the envelope it will save me ~$22 per ski trip to VT.  Not bad I guess, but nothing major.  

 That's said, it could possibly have a BIG effect on people willing to travel to VT and NH to ski.  There is nothing more economically irrational that human behavior & response to gasoline prices.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 15, 2014)

Tin said:


> *So a single system in the Gulf can cause a price spike?*



Will it be a factor in pricing?  Yes.  
Can it cause a price spike?  Yes. 
Will it most likely cause a price spike?  Yes.   
Does it have to cause a price spike?  No.  

Again, it's a global commodity. 

 If, for instance, the "single system in the gulf" happens and OPEC immediately announces it's boosting production by X% to specifically offset that decrease from the market disruption, then no, you're not going to see a price spike.


----------



## x10003q (Oct 15, 2014)

Costco in Edison, NJ - 2.65 for RUG today


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Back of the envelope it will save me ~$22 per ski trip to VT. Not bad I guess, but nothing major.
> 
> That's said, it could possibly have a BIG effect on people willing to travel to VT and NH to ski. There is nothing more economically irrational that human behavior & response to gasoline prices.




$80 a barrel should get to around $2.5 a gallon.  That is a about $10 savings roundtrip.  I will take it.  


Debbie downer!!!


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 15, 2014)

It's important to note too, that crude and the products refined from it, are separate commodities, and thus the down turn price of one may not be immediately reflected in the price of the other. The lower price of gasoline right now, has a lot to do with decreased demand.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 15, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> It's important to note too, that crude and the products refined from it, are separate commodities, and thus the down turn price of one may not be immediately reflected in the price of the other. The lower price of gasoline right now, has a lot to do with decreased demand.



Thus an oversupply of crude.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 15, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> The lower price of gasoline right now, has a lot to do with decreased demand.



So Prius owners will be even more insufferable now?


----------



## jack97 (Oct 15, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Thus an oversupply of crude.



Yep, its in light crude and congress wants to debate whether we should export it to other countries. Interesting thing is US has plateaued in our energy consumption while China and India has increased theirs. 


And not only have we started leveraging shale oil. Some of the old US oil fields are back online, the outfits shut them down not because they ran out of oil, they shut down because they could not complete with cheap oil at that time. 

Some are speculating that OPEC is increasing production to drive off competing sources.... time will tell.


----------



## millerm277 (Oct 16, 2014)

To be actually discussing something more related to skiing: Low oil prices means that ski areas running diesel compressors will have their fuel budgets go much further than they were expecting them to.

Of course, electric rates are way up in parts of New England as a result of the natural gas pipeline capacity issues that showed up last winter, but at least the low oil prices mean some savings for ski areas and snowmaking budgets.


----------



## mister moose (Oct 16, 2014)

millerm277 said:


> To be actually discussing something more related to skiing: Low oil prices means that ski areas running diesel compressors will have their fuel budgets go much further than they were expecting them to.
> 
> Of course, electric rates are way up in parts of New England as a result of the natural gas pipeline capacity issues that showed up last winter, but at least the low oil prices mean some savings for ski areas and snowmaking budgets.



Depends on when they bought contracts.  I bought the winter's heating oil in July (normally the seasonal low price) at $3.49, and that isn't looking very good now.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 16, 2014)

Tin said:


> So a single system in the Gulf can cause a price spike?



After the flight that I had yesterday from San Antonio to Tampa,  I have a much greater grasp as to how a single storm in the Gulf of Mexico could very well cause a price spike!  

My flight crossed the Texas Coast a bit North and East of Houston and then flew a bit offshore of the TX/LA/AL coast.  It was a clear day and I was amazed at how many oil platforms there are in the shallow coastal waters of the Northern Gulf, easily 100's that I could see. 

Granted all of them may not be producing right now, but with that many platforms in an area that an "average" sized hurricane would cover if it headed that way, I can easily see how that could cause a spike due to the shutting down of that much production while the crews would be evacuated for safety sake ahead of the storm


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 16, 2014)

drjeff said:


> After the flight that I had yesterday from San Antonio to Tampa,  I have a much greater grasp as to how a single storm in the Gulf of Mexico could very well cause a price spike!
> 
> My flight crossed the Texas Coast a bit North and East of Houston and then flew a bit offshore of the TX/LA/AL coast.  It was a clear day and I was amazed at how many oil platforms there are in the shallow coastal waters of the Northern Gulf, easily 100's that I could see.
> 
> Granted all of them may not be producing right now, but with that many platforms in an area that an "average" sized hurricane would cover if it headed that way, I can easily see how that could cause a spike due to the shutting down of that much production while the crews would be evacuated for safety sake ahead of the storm



Stay away from Drjeff he has the double trouble - he was in Texas and he flew on a plane - he may have ebola.


----------



## snoseek (Oct 16, 2014)

Driving from NH to California again at the end of next week...this will save me a good bit of cash. I imagine its even lower once you get into Nebraska


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 16, 2014)

mister moose said:


> Depends on when they bought contracts.  I bought the winter's heating oil in July (normally the seasonal low price) at $3.49, and that isn't looking very good now.



Yeah, while the price might head a bit lower, if people still have the option to freeze in their rate, now would be a great time to lock in a contract if it's being offered.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Oct 16, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> So Prius owners will be even more insufferable now?



Maybe lower prices at the pump will coax them to at least drive faster.  

Getting them out of the fast lane is another story....


----------



## Puck it (Oct 16, 2014)

ThinkSnow said:


> Maybe lower prices at the pump will coax them to at least drive faster.
> 
> Getting them out of the fast lane is another story....




Watch this

http://www.bbcamerica.com/top-gear/videos/thirsty-prius/


----------



## xwhaler (Oct 16, 2014)

I like seeing lower Home Heating oil prices too. Paid $2.99/gal for a delivery on Tuesday this wk, by Wed my supplier dropped another $.10
I only bought 100 gals so if prices continue to drop I can buy again. Would never ever get into a pre-buy or fixed rate contract for HH oil.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez sucks.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 16, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Stay away from Drjeff he has the double trouble - he was in Texas and he flew on a plane - he may have ebola.



In all seriousness, that general concept, more of the plane flight issue and the "casual" interactions you have with people while in an airport, weren't lost upon myself, my business partner and 2 of my staff members who were also in Texas last week as we flew home yesterday (and we got to the airport soon after the news of the second Texas case where she had flown the day before).

If it does take "direct" contact between the infected person, the next time your in a public bathroom, just think about how "easy" one could come in contact with potential virus sources just from say a door handle or the handle for a faucet on a sink, or from that person who just left the stall and either hasn't yet or even possibly doesn't use the sink to wash after 

As someone who spends a great deal of time around some of other people's bodily fluids (especially in either liquid or aerosolized forms), I've learned to trust and have great respect for what are called "universal infection control protocols" and also our own immune systems,  but I will admit on some level, this ebola issue does worry me a bit.....

Cheaper gas, and longer drives instead of flying might not be a "bad" thing for a while


----------



## mister moose (Oct 16, 2014)

mriceyman said:


> All the experts say as gas prices fall then so will our economy. I think its a fin sham by big oil to scare us into thinking prices cant get to low. I mean imagine them not making ridiculous profits and the little guy in business receiving the benefits of people having an extra dollar in their pocket.



Ridiculous profits?  Time to rethink where you get your information from.

Lets put some numbers to this.

Here's a few of the largest companies in the US by total revenue (fy 2013):  All numbers in Billions.

Exxon - 491 
Walmart - 476
Berkshire Hathaway - 182
Apple - 171
GE - 146

Now lets look at their (net) profits, re-ranked in order.

Apple - 37
Exxon - 33
Berkshire Hathaway - 20
Walmart - 17
GE - 17

None of this means much by itself.  The fact that Exxon had 491 Billion in revenue just means its a big company that had a lot of money pass through.  It's what you get to keep that matters.  What we really want to know is the margin, ie how much of each dollar taken in at the cash register is kept as profit.  That's called margin, profit margin.  So here we go.  The next numbers are simply net profit divided by gross revenue, expressed as a percent.

Apple - 21.6%
Berkshire Hathaway - 10.7%
GE - 11.6%
Exxon - 6.7%
Walmart - 3.6%

Huh.  Now who has the "ridiculous profits"?  When you spend $400 on an Ipad, $86.40 goes in the pocket of Apple.   When you buy $400 of gas from Exxon in a month, $26.80 goes in the pocket of Exxon, a third of what Apple makes.  When you buy a flat screen at Walmart for $400, only $14.40 goes in the pocket of Walmart.  That's a sixth of what Apple makes.

Exxon and Walmart are actually remarkably efficient at delivering their products at a very low mark-up.  You should be _glad_ Exxon isn't making profits at the rate of Berkshire, GE, or Apple.

Again, you can argue that Exxon is too big.  I'd listen to that.  The problem is how to restrict size when the competition is in other countries (BP, Shell Oil) are that size, and if you restrict the size of US companies you doom our domestic ownership to foreign entities. 

I don't work for any of these companies.  But I'm concerned that you vote based on huge misconceptions like I outlined above.  

There are lots of recent news stories on the greed of Walmart.  Walmart does an incredible job of delivering goods at a very low cost.  I ask a different question - who is the greedy one, the one who delivers the goods (A whole lot of goods at that) at an extremely low cost, or the one who shops there to take advantage of those low prices?  Look in the mirror.  It is the consumer's greed that drives Walmart, but that headline doesn't sell newspapers.


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 16, 2014)

Not sure about all of the Dynamics of the recent drop.
I think a part is due to the Natural gas influence
My small co. Is responsible for about 30,000 gallons less per year in oil 
Usage. 
We spend about $900.00 per month in fuel for trucks, 
Lovin the drop !
That being said , when the stock market drops , All those "Evil " rich people stop spending 
money on other projects.
2008 was a game changer , Product quality suffer as no one stocks anything anymore, last minute production
I had a 70% fail rate with one brand of equipment.
Lower oil is a killer for Solar and other alternative energy.
Lots of moving parts , place your bets?


----------



## Puck it (Oct 16, 2014)

mister moose said:


> Ridiculous profits? Time to rethink where you get your information from.
> 
> Lets put some numbers to this.
> 
> ...



The other one that gets me besides profits is the oil subsudies.


The summary of oil-related subsidies in the U.S. for 2010 totals $4.5 billion. That is a number often put forward; $4 billion a year or so in support for those greedy oil companies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energys...il-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 16, 2014)

http://www.cfact.org/2013/07/08/sub...-dwarf-those-to-big-oil-but-wait-theres-more/


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 16, 2014)

mister moose said:


> When you spend $400 on an Ipad, $86.40 goes in the pocket of Apple.   When you buy $400 of gas from Exxon in a month, $26.80 goes in the pocket of Exxon, a third of what Apple makes.  When you buy a flat screen at Walmart for $400, only $14.40 goes in the pocket of Walmart.  That's a sixth of what Apple makes.



Thank god I don't have to buy an iPad and flat screen TV every month.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 16, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Thank god I don't have to buy an iPad and flat screen TV every month.



Off topic a little, but have you seen the prices on TV's.  I saw a 60" 1080P at Wally World for $800 for few weeks ago.


----------



## x10003q (Oct 16, 2014)

mister moose said:


> Ridiculous profits?  Time to rethink where you get your information from.
> 
> Lets put some numbers to this.
> 
> ...



It is totally meaningless to compare 5 companies from 5 different industries.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 16, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> BenedictGomez sucks.



Typical NVA, intellectual comment from this poster.


----------



## drjeff (Oct 16, 2014)

x10003q said:


> It is totally meaningless to compare 5 companies from 5 different industries.



Why?

If a company makes a 3% or a 7% or a 12% or a 20% profit margin then that's an apples to apples (no pun in this case intended!) comparison.  

If 1 company makes a million dollars profit at say a 2% margin and another makes a million dollars of profit on a 50% margin, then who's the "lesser" company (obviously speaking from social standpoint here)?

If a company has a good or service that they produce and/or sell and they can get enough people to buy it for whatever amount they can get for it, then as I see it, GREAT for them!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 16, 2014)

mister moose said:


> Ridiculous profits?  *Time to rethink where you get your information from.*



That's not likely going to happen. 



Puck it said:


> The other one that gets me besides profits is the *oil subsudies.*
> /



Just because you hear this repeated 1002 times in the media, doesn't make it true.  It's absurdly overstated.  There's really nothing special or unique about this, it's 90% political talking point meant to deceive the public.  Now subsidies to Wind & Solar?  Holy poop those are real, and they're huge.  Yet ya dont hear about them nearly as much as "oil subsidies" do you?   Hmmmmm...... gosh I wonder why that is?



x10003q said:


> *It is totally meaningless to compare 5 companies from 5 different industries.*




Gee, I sure hope that's not true.   Please dont tell anyone!   A lot my friends and former coworkers will lose their jobs!


----------



## dlague (Oct 16, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Why?
> 
> If a company makes a 3% or a 7% or a 12% or a 20% profit margin then that's an apples to apples (no pun in this case intended!) comparison.
> 
> ...



agreed!


----------



## SkiFanE (Oct 16, 2014)

I'm happy.  We heat 2 homes with oil, sucked big time last year.  So...personally my economy is going to like this very much.  Gas prices are really no big deal to me, it's the effing oil that kills us.  Last year it was $600/mo in our MA house, and we never put thermostat about 64* (60* at night).  Saving 20% would save us $120/month - but we bought a woodstove for winter and hoping to cut back in half anyway.  

Wood in ME was rediculously priced this winter, more than it was in MA...hope it doesn't exceed oil next year lol.


----------



## Mojo (Oct 16, 2014)

Ski fan you gotta buy it tree length


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 16, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Just because you hear this repeated 1002 times in the media, doesn't make it true.  It's absurdly overstated.  There's really nothing special or unique about this, it's 90% political talking point meant to deceive the public.  Now subsidies to Wind & Solar?  Holy poop those are real, and they're huge.  *Yet ya dont hear about them nearly as much as "oil subsidies" do you? *  Hmmmmm...... gosh I wonder why that is?



I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic.  On this forum at least (from you) that's ALL we hear about.


----------



## SkiFanE (Oct 16, 2014)

Mojo said:


> Ski fan you gotta buy it tree length



Haha...not for Maine, but for MA we have 5 huge oaks in woods that came down in Hurricane Sandy that we're chopping up.  Here's what I did chopping on Monday, new maul...probably made in China...wtf?  :


----------



## Puck it (Oct 16, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> Haha...not for Maine, but for MA we have 5 huge oaks in woods that came down in Hurricane Sandy that we're chopping up. Here's what I did chopping on Monday, new maul...probably made in China...wtf? :



Get the one with the flairs on the sides.  It makes things so much easier.


----------



## SkiFanE (Oct 16, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Get the one with the flairs on the sides.  It makes things so much easier.



What do you mean?  I bought one of those wedge things that you put in log and splits it in half (this one was like a star)...then I use the axe side to chop them smaller.  

But if there's something easier, do tell...


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 16, 2014)

I have one with a plastic handle to avoid that.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 16, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> What do you mean?  I bought one of those wedge things that you put in log and splits it in half (this one was like a star)...then I use the axe side to chop them smaller.
> 
> But if there's something easier, do tell...




It it looks like this. 


http://t.homedepot.com/p/Estwing-Sure-Split-5-lb-Wedge-E5/100351738/


----------



## SkiFanE (Oct 16, 2014)

Puck it said:


> It it looks like this.
> 
> 
> http://t.homedepot.com/p/Estwing-Sure-Split-5-lb-Wedge-E5/100351738/



Yup, I bought that, so far I haven't split it yet :lol:


----------



## SkiFanE (Oct 16, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> I have one with a plastic handle to avoid that.



Fiberglass maybe?


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 16, 2014)

SkiFanE said:


> Fiberglass maybe?



no plastic


----------



## SkiFanE (Oct 16, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> no plastic



Okay...may try that.  Need to get chopping this weekend, :smash:  and husband hurt shoulder, ugh.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 16, 2014)

drjeff said:


> Why?
> 
> If a company makes a 3% or a 7% or a 12% or a 20% profit margin then that's an apples to apples (no pun in this case intended!) comparison.
> 
> ...



+1

IMO, the point of the comparison is that big oil is not reaping the profits that people think. 

In addition, like it or not, our economy is driven by the price of oil. The cheaper it is, the faster it will grow. If prices stay this way it might be a good year for the ski resorts in general since the customers have more income to use for play.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Oct 16, 2014)

Logsplitter! I used to enjoy using it to split wood


----------



## Quietman (Oct 16, 2014)

It's heavy, but you won't break the steel handle easily!  



*Steel Handled Splitter*


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 20, 2014)

I'm willing to put money on gas going up at least 30 to 40 cents a gallon after elections this November. Typical political crap... gas always goes down around elections.


----------



## Harvey (Oct 21, 2014)

mriceyman said:


> All the experts say as gas prices fall then so will our economy.



This is backwards.

Several things can cause oil prices to drop, but a drop in prices won't hurt the economy.

The backwards part:  If the economy is struggling, demand drops and prices will drop. So a bad economy can cause a drop in prices but the reverse is unlikely.

I think something else is a work in this case. The economy doesn't seem to be slower than it was six months ago.


----------



## Dickc (Oct 21, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> I'm willing to put money on gas going up at least 30 to 40 cents a gallon after elections this November. Typical political crap... gas always goes down around elections.



It normally starts up around Christmas or there abouts as the speculators start to speculate i=on the up coming summer driving season.  Now if we could rope in the speculators so as to stabilize prices.......


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 21, 2014)

Dickc said:


> It normally starts up around Christmas or there abouts as the speculators start to speculate i=on the up coming summer driving season.  Now if we could rope in the speculators so as to stabilize prices.......



I hear you on that. Speculators add nearly 40 - 50 cents to every gallon.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 21, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> *I hear you on that. Speculators add nearly 40 - 50 cents to every gallon.*



This is like, _"you shouldn't go swimming until an hour after you eat"_.  It's often repeated for some odd reason, it's believed by many, but it's simply not true.  The influence of forward derivative contracts on market prices are greatly overstated, and certainly not 40¢ to 50¢ per gallon at the pump.


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 21, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is like, _"you shouldn't go swimming until an hour after you eat"_.  It's often repeated for some odd reason, it's believed by many, but it's simply not true.  The influence of forward derivative contracts on market prices are greatly overstated, and certainly not 40¢ to 50¢ per gallon at the pump.



So based on $80/barrell, what price do you think gas should be at the pump?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 21, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> So based on $80/barrell, what price do you think gas should be at the pump?



D) There is not enough information to answer this question.

You really shouldnt think of it that way.  People want to do this, it seems logical, but oil and gasoline are not the same thing, and the relationship between the two has numerous moving variables.  It would sort of be like saying, based on Cannon receiving X number of inches of snow this season, how much should lift tickets cost?   Snow is integral to skiing and plays a big part in the financial success, but there are other factors involved in the cost of mountain ops.


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 21, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> D) There is not enough information to answer this question.
> 
> You really shouldnt think of it that way.  People want to do this, it seems logical, but oil and gasoline are not the same thing, and the relationship between the two has numerous moving variables.  It would sort of be like saying, based on Cannon receiving X number of inches of snow this season, how much should lift tickets cost?   Snow is integral to skiing and plays a big part in the financial success, but there are other factors involved in the cost of mountain ops.



I actually got my price per gallon estimate from a nationwide report that ExxonMobil was a part of back in June 2011. CALPIRG and 250 national and state organizations worked together to document the speculation impact. At that point in time, speculation drove fuel at the pump costs up by 83 cents per gallon. Since 2011, speculations impact to price at the pump has eased by approximately 50% hugely in part to that report and higher consumer awareness of costs / speculations impact. That's why I said 40 to 50 cents. 50% would be 41.5 cents.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 21, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> D) There is not enough information to answer this question.
> 
> You really shouldnt think of it that way.  People want to do this, it seems logical, but oil and gasoline are not the same thing, and the relationship between the two has numerous moving variables.  It would sort of be like saying, based on Cannon receiving X number of inches of snow this season, how much should lift tickets cost?   Snow is integral to skiing and plays a big part in the financial success, but there are other factors involved in the cost of mountain ops.



Then why does it seem like gas prices immediately go up as soon as oil prices go up?

On another note, I'm glad I didn't pre-buy heating fuel this winter. My wife was all over me to get it done but prices seemed kind of high.
I just bought 200 gallons at $2.20/gal vs $3.05 if I would have pre-bought 2 months ago. Pre-buy was $3.70 in June when my wife started trying to get me to get it done.

Win = me! 
220 gallons =
$440 at $2.20
$610 at $3.05
$740 at $3.70

We use about 650 gallons a year =
$1430 at $2.20
$1982.50 at $3.05
$2405 at $3.70


----------



## jaytrem (Oct 21, 2014)

Quietman said:


> It's heavy, but you won't break the steel handle easily!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've been using the opposite lately...

http://www2.fiskars.com/Gardening-a...and-Striking-Tools/X27-Super-Splitting-Axe-36

Took a bit of getting used to, but I'm hooked.  I guess part of the theory is you can swing a lighter one for a longer time.  I do a good 10-12 cords a year, 99% with the lighter splitter at this point.  We run our wood insert 24/7 in the winter, I'd say 80-90% of our heat comes from it.  I get the wood for free at our town's "conservation center".  There's usually lots of nice stuff there until they bring in a giant grinder truck.  Lots of town's have similar places, so anybody looking for free wood should look into that.  Also, if you see a tree getting cut down in your neighborhood there's a good chance the tree company would be thrilled if you would take if off their hands (at least in NJ), some will even cut to the proper lenghts.  The big negative is you might have some giant logs sitting on your front lawn until you chop it all up.


----------



## Abubob (Oct 21, 2014)

This is just a set up. The last time prices dropped like this they just bounced right back. The gasoline price for regular was about $2.00/gal give or take in 2008 but not too long after it was at $4 per. So when it comes back up this time we'll be looking at $6 per. That's just my cynical opinion.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 21, 2014)

And I have one of these, 8# fiberglass handle maul, that I use to split 1-2 cords a year (the other 2-3 cords I use a hydraulic splitter).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 21, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> At that point in time, speculation drove fuel at the pump costs up by 83 cents per gallon. *Since 2011, speculations impact to price at the pump has eased by approximately 50% hugely in part to that report and higher consumer awareness of costs / speculations impact.*



I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but this makes no sense.   



from_the_NEK said:


> Then why does it seem like gas prices immediately go up as soon as oil prices go up?



You're misunderstanding what was asked.  Gas prices will of course tend to move with oil prices, but that's not what he asked.  He said, if Oil is X per barrel, how much will gas cost at the pump?


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 21, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but this makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> You're misunderstanding what was asked.  Gas prices will of course tend to move with oil prices, but that's not what he asked.



Not trying to be a smart a**, but it makes perfect sense if you take the time to read it. You can look the study up online as well. Bloomberg even published it.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 21, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> Not trying to be a smart a**, but *it makes perfect sense* if you take the time to read it. You can look the study up online as well. Bloomberg even published it.



Then just explain it to me, because as written it doeskin make sense.    

Regardless, the belief that there is some evil force driving up the price of oil is largely a political belief, and not well-grounded in economic theory.  When you tend to find "papers" you speak of, whether "published in Bloomberg" or not, that claim speculators are somehow making "evil profits" on speculation, they're typically rather political.  Much of it comes from the comments of Exxon's CEO a few years ago, but that doesn't make it true even if he genuinely believes it.  Warren Buffet said something incredibly stupid about the US housing market last week too, but at the end of the day, I'll go with what we do know from years of studies and market theory, over what "some guy thinks", even if that guy is a CEO of a major oil company.


----------



## Rowsdower (Oct 21, 2014)

We always used wooden handles. I don't like the fiberglass. I've had them splinter on me before. 

My folks got a log splitter a couple years ago. I come home over the summer and we fill the barn in about a month or two. That's with about 10-12 cords. We can pretty much roll anything to the splitter. Since it swings to an upright position you can just roll a log and set it up underneath.  Our set up is to bring the trees down the previous fall, cut them into ~18 inch logs, and stack them up to keep the wood off the ground. We come back during the summer with the splitter which we haul in with a 1949 Farmall cub. Split everything on site, then load it up into a large trailer we haul back to the barn with the tractor. When one tree is done we move the splitter to the next. 

I used to have a system where we split lighter, less dense wood (poplar, sasafras, and maple) at the beginning and end. This left the denser hardwoods like oak and birch for the middle. That way we stacked light first, then dense, then lighter again so when you brought wood in you burned through your lighter stock during the warmer months, and your denser stuff for the coldest months. Now my dad just throws it in together. 

Oh well.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Oct 22, 2014)

from_the_NEK said:


> I just bought 200 gallons at $2.20/gal vs $3.05 if I would have pre-bought 2 months ago. Pre-buy was $3.70 in June when my wife started trying to get me to get it done.
> 
> Win = me!
> 220 gallons =
> ...



$2.209 ?? Holy Crap that's a great price for oil. Must be a small local oil guy?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 22, 2014)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> $2.209 ?? Holy Crap that's a great price for oil. Must be a small local oil guy?



Well I must have heard the guy wrong, even though I had him repeat it. This morning I ended up paying $3.31/gal for the oil that was delivered yesterday.  :???:
I guess it was too good to be true.

The $2.20 stuff must have been the fuel that was an ethanol blend and subsidized :flame:.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Oct 22, 2014)

from_the_NEK said:


> Well I must have heard the guy wrong, even though I had him repeat it. This morning I ended up paying $3.31/gal for the oil that was delivered yesterday.  :???:
> I guess it was too good to be true.
> 
> The $2.20 stuff must have been the fuel that was an ethanol blend and subsidized :flame:.



Yeah, I was wondering if I need to go VT with an empty tanker! I paid $3.339 on Sept 25 for mine... and the GF just paid $3.099 for hers this morning. That's pretty good pricing for up here in the 'County. But thanks for making us go check! Should be even cheaper the morning of Election Day! Think I'll get the other tank topped then.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 22, 2014)

You're both lucky, paid $3.799 my last fill up 9/25. That's the same price I was paying at the beginning of last season. It went up to $4.299 by the end of last season. We use between 500-600 gallons a season. Last year was on the high end of that. Haven't needed to turn on the heat yet this year.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 27, 2014)

Broke the $80/barrel line this morning.  How low will it go?


----------



## Edd (Oct 27, 2014)

I'm loving it. Paid $3.02/gallon the other day for gasoline.


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 27, 2014)

Edd said:


> I'm loving it. Paid $3.02/gallon the other day for gasoline.



Just heard $2.77 in Jersey...

Overall barometer of economy? Hope not. Hoping more natural gas demand shift


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 27, 2014)

Figures it's gotten so cheap now that I no longer have to pay for gas for my car.


----------



## machski (Oct 27, 2014)

Regular is down to below $3/gal in spots in NH (Epping was $2.97 last Friday!)  Just wish Diesel would fall with gas as the wife and I switch to VW TDI's but not too likely with heating season kicking in.  t least it is still close to Premium which is what I'd need to put in a GTI if I had gone that route.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 27, 2014)

I want to see heating oil drop more.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 27, 2014)

$3.05 in Beverly this morning.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 27, 2014)

Puck it said:


> $3.05 in Beverly this morning.


We are about 25 or 30 cents more than that.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 27, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Typical NVA, intellectual comment from this poster.



I'm jealous because you understand politics and energy so well.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> *Just heard $2.77 in Jersey...*



Paid $2.73 yesterday at Mobil, and the Mom & Pop station next to it was $2.71 (that's the lowest I've seen).



Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> *Overall barometer of economy? *Hope not. Hoping more natural gas demand shift



It's everything.  Oil is being hit with a perfect storm of high supply and lower demand, as well as the poor economy which lowers forward predicted demand, the fact the Saudis have thrown in the towel and will fight for market share rather than enact a cut, the stronger USD, etc.....  It's a weird combination of all simultaneous bad news for oil.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 27, 2014)

$3.22 in Portland, ME.  Apparently they didn't get the memo on cheap gas


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 27, 2014)

$2.73 in Delaware yesterday. 

I hope this trend holds. I will have so much extra cash for Long Trails and Switchbacks this winter with all the cash I'm going to save driving from Maryland to Vermont and back.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> $*3.22 in Portland, ME.  Apparently they didn't get the memo on cheap gas*



Everyone has "cheap gas" right now.  What some have in addition to "cheap gas" is "expensive tax".  That's the difference. 

 In New Jersey our gasoline tax is low compared to most states.  Dont be jealous of that fact, however, because just about every other form of taxation is higher in New Jersey than the rest of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 27, 2014)

Come to NYC. Cheapest I've seen around here is still $3.299


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 27, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Come to NYC. Cheapest I've seen around here is still $3.299


That's lower than I would have guessed.


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 27, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Everyone has "cheap gas" right now.  What some have in addition to "cheap gas" is "expensive tax".  That's the difference.
> 
> In New Jersey our gasoline tax is low compared to most states.  Dont be jealous of that fact, however, because just about every other form of taxation is higher in New Jersey than the rest of America.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States



You also have to tip the people to fill your gas tank in Jersey. 

And let's not forget about them Jersey tolls. R-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 27, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> That's lower than I would have guessed.



One of the virtues of living in NYC is never having to know the price of gas.  The trade off is having to take the bus to Hunter mountain.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> You also have to tip the people to fill your gas tank in Jersey.



Say what?



Mariovntr said:


> And let's not forget about them Jersey tolls. R-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.



Are they really that bad?  I rarely ever take the few roads that have tolls, but when I have they dont seem that egregious.  What's egregious is the fact we even have them in the first place given the politicians lied and never removed them, but that's another story.  IMO, the NY State tolls seem worse.  I think it's something like $8 each way to Vermont.


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 27, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Say what?



Full service gas stations. You are 'supposed' to tip the individuals that fill your tank.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 27, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> Full service gas stations. You are 'supposed' to tip the individuals that fill your tank.


They must think I'm cheap because I've never tipped a gas attendant in Jersey. I do fill up there when I'm in the area. Only times I've ever tipped as gas attendant is if they clean my windshield & I haven't had an attendant do that in years. Used to be pretty common years ago for them to do it, some would even check your oil..


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 27, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> They must think I'm cheap because I've never tipped a gas attendant in Jersey. I do fill up there when I'm in the area. Only times I've ever tipped as gas attendant is if they clean my windshield & I haven't had an attendant do that in years. Used to be pretty common years ago for them to do it.



I always tip, but that's how it always was when I grew up in Ohio. Everyone always tipped the attendants at the Full Serve stations.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 27, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> They must think I'm cheap because I've never tipped a gas attendant in Jersey. I do fill up there when I'm in the area. Only times I've ever tipped as gas attendant is if they clean my windshield & I haven't had an attendant do that in years. Used to be pretty common years ago for them to do it.



No one in NJ tips.  No attendant expects it (though no doubt they appreciate it).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> Full service gas stations.* You are 'supposed' to tip the individuals that fill your tank*.



LOL.  No; trust me, you're not!

But our gas would be even cheaper if the stations weren't literally forced by the state to hire people to pump your gas.



Domeskier said:


> *No one in NJ tips.  No attendant expects it* .



Born and raised, and never even heard of someone tipping let alone seen someone tip.  

Reason being, the "full-service" in New Jersey isnt an additional "service" like in some places where tipping might be common, it's literally mandated by law in New Jersey.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 27, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> Full service gas stations. You are 'supposed' to tip the individuals that fill your tank.



im originally from NJ, now just over the river in westchester, and I've never in my life even heard of anyone tipping the gas station attendant.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 27, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> I always tip, but that's how it always was when I grew up in Ohio. Everyone always tipped the attendants at the Full Serve stations.



Does Ohio have both self-service and full service?  In NJ, self-service is prohibited.  Perhaps that explains the difference.


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 27, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> LOL.  No; trust me, you're not!
> 
> But our gas would be even cheaper if the stations weren't literally forced by the state to hire people to pump your gas.



I always see people tipping in Jersey. Anyway, I don't mind tipping the people a few bucks. They have to put food on their plates and their families plates so it's all good.


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 27, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> Does Ohio have both self-service and full service?  In NJ, self-service is prohibited.  Perhaps that explains the difference.



Yeah we had both. Mostly self service though.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> *im originally from NJ, now just over the river in westchester, and I've never in my life even heard of anyone tipping the gas station attendant*.



Exactly.



Mariovntr said:


> *I always see people tipping in Jersey.*



No you don't! LOL.

   That money you see them handing the gas attendant through the window is paying for the gas!


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 27, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Common courtesy goes a long way. Have a good day sir.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> *Common courtesy goes a long way. *



I agree.  But so does being aware of geographical customs.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 27, 2014)

Here in NYC the full service pumps are generally priced 30-40 cents higher per gallon than self service pumps so I'd think the tip is already included in the pricing.


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 27, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Here in NYC the full service pumps are generally priced 30-40 cents higher per gallon than self service pumps so I'd think the tip is already included in the pricing.



They were always higher in Ohio too. That's s really good point though


----------



## bigbog (Oct 27, 2014)

Big Oil moles recognizing points of progress by the alternative fuel developers = extra hours in production scheduled = falling prices of crude...


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 27, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2014/10/27/business/27reuters-oil-forecast-goldman.html?src=busln


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2014)

bigbog said:


> *Big Oil moles recognizing points of progress by the alternative fuel developers = extra hours in production scheduled = falling prices of crude*...



Yes, that's it.  You're onto them and their conspiracy! 

 Alternative energy is so wildly successful (massive sarcasm) that "Big Oil" is intentionally cratering the price of oil on purpose.    That really makes sense.

  And to think...... all it took was multi-national cooperation of dozens of nations with vastly different motives, economies, different political objectives, dozens of companies with vastly different capital structures, the creation of new technology to make finding oil faster and more productive, and 101 other things.  But of course, getting the Chinese on board with all this and intentionally decreasing their own nation's growth rate......now THAT was the real coup de grace!


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 27, 2014)

How do you calculate the cost of pollution and other environmental damage such as earthquakes caused by fracking?


----------



## Puck it (Oct 27, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> How do you calculate the cost of pollution and other environmental damage such as earthquakes caused by fracking?



And the world is flat!


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Oct 27, 2014)

Puck it said:


> And the world is flat!



and denial is a river in egypt...we should all be so lucky to have flaming tap water, right?


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 27, 2014)

Full service used to be . Fill tank , check oil , clean windshield!


----------



## billski (Oct 27, 2014)

Oil prices are down?  oh good, I'll stock up on Bryllcreem!


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 27, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> How do you calculate the cost of pollution and other environmental damage such as earthquakes caused by fracking?


...


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 27, 2014)

billski said:


> Oil prices are down?  oh good, I'll stock up on Bryllcreem!


This stuff was the bomb. Grease free too.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 27, 2014)

spring_mountain_high said:


> and denial is a river in egypt...*we should all be so lucky to have flaming tap water, right?*



That is a propaganda talking point, lie, or myth (take your pick) promulgated by far-left environmental nuts.

EDIT:  And before you reply with the video that I know you're going to post of that guy in the kitchen who holds a match to his sink water = debunked and nothing to do with fracking.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 28, 2014)

spring_mountain_high said:


> and denial is a river in egypt...we should all be so lucky to have flaming tap water, right?




That was proven not to be ral in the fictional move gasland.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> EDIT:  And before you reply with the video that I know you're going to post of that guy in the kitchen who holds a match to his sink water = debunked and nothing to do with fracking.



That's a great vid for people who are living near the Nile.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

GS is now predicting oil could go as low at $70 by early 2015.   

Of course, before counting my "$2.40 per gallon of gas" chickens before they hatch, I remember them saying oil would hit $200/barrel five or six years ago, so......


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 28, 2014)

Time for the rise of the gas tax when the price is so low...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> *Time for the rise of the gas tax when the price is so low.*..



_Already_ being discussed in New Jersey.    I. Kid. You. Not.

We're screwed once Christie leaves office.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> _Already_ being discussed in New Jersey.    I. Kid. You. Not.
> 
> We're screwed once Christie leaves office.


NJ has the second cheapest state gas tax in the U.S @ 14.5 cents per gallon. Only state cheaper is Alaska. On the other hand here in NY state gas tax is 49.9 cents per gallon. Cry me a river.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> *NJ has the second cheapest state gas tax in the U.S* @ 14.5 cents per gallon. Only state cheaper is Alaska. On the other hand here in NY state gas tax is 49.9 cents per gallon. *Cry me a river.*



New Jersey is the highest taxed state in America, period.  People are fleeing here in droves because they cannot afford the taxes. I think my entire High School graduating class is in the Carolinas.    *The Tax Foundation just released their annual report yesterday, and once again New Jersey came in 50th (i.e. last) place as "most taxed" in the nation.*  It's bad.



> New Jersey loses again because the Garden State “suffers from some of  the highest property tax burdens in the country, is one of just two  states to levy both an inheritance and an estate tax, and maintains some  of the worst structured individual income taxes in the country.......New York (and) New Jersey, the high-tax locales that once again finished  49th and 50th among the states. New Jersey eked out real GDP growth of  1.1% last year, while New York’s economy grew an anemic 0.7%.”



http://online.wsj.com/articles/states-of-taxation-1414451028


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> New Jersey is the highest taxed state in America, period.  People are fleeing here in droves because they cannot afford the taxes. I think my entire High School graduating class is in the Carolinas.    *The Tax Foundation just released their annual report yesterday, and once again New Jersey came in 50th (i.e. last) place as "most taxed" in the nation.*  It's bad.
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/states-of-taxation-1414451028


Believe it or not here in NYC property taxes are actually quite low. Long Island & Westchester is another story.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 28, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Believe it or not here in NYC property taxes are actually quite low. Long Island & Westchester is another story.



It's generally a wash when you take into account the city income tax.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> New Jersey is the highest taxed state in America, period.  People are fleeing here in droves because they cannot afford the taxes. I think my entire High School graduating class is in the Carolinas.    *The Tax Foundation just released their annual report yesterday, and once again New Jersey came in 50th (i.e. last) place as "most taxed" in the nation.*  It's bad.
> 
> 
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/articles/states-of-taxation-1414451028



NJ is heavily taxed, but that is not necessarily why people are leaving the state.  NYC is part of NYS which is also heavily taxed and its population is growing significantly.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 28, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> It's generally a wash when you take into account the city income tax.


How so? Generally NJ municiple income tax rates are significantly higher than NYC.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> NJ is heavily taxed, but *that is not necessarily why people are leaving the state.  *NYC is part of NYS which is also heavily taxed and its population is growing significantly.



It's largely the taxes.  There's a good correlation with cost of living and migration.  Is it the only thing that matters?  Well, of course not, but if you look at a map of America based off census data married with taxes, it becomes pretty clear (see below, Green are "gaining" citizens, Red are "losing" people).  

And this trend of "financial migration" in America is substantially heating up (i.e. it seems to be more a factor now than in year's past, perhaps due to the recession or perhaps because high taxes have hit a critical mass?).


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 28, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> How so? Generally NJ municiple income tax rates are significantly higher than NYC.



Most NJ towns do not have an income tax on top of property taxes.  NJ municipal property taxes are roughly equal to NYC income tax plus property taxes.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's largely the taxes.  There's a good correlation with cost of living and migration.  Is it the only thing that matters?  Well, of course not, but if you look at a map of America based off census data married with taxes, it becomes pretty clear (see below, Green are "gaining" citizens, Red are "losing" people).
> 
> And this trend of "financial migration" in America is substantially heating up (i.e. it seems to be more a factor now than in year's past, perhaps due to the recession or perhaps because high taxes have hit a critical mass?).



just because you say so, does not make it so.  and when is that graph from because I question its accuracy.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> *just because you say so, does not make it so.*
> 
> *and when is that graph from because I question its accuracy.*



Ehhhhh......okay.....well, it's from 2010 (i.e. the last US census).  

In terms of it's "accuracy", I cant help you there.  You'll have to take that up with the IRS Division of Statistics & the US Census Bureau.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Ehhhhh......okay.....well, it's from 2010 (i.e. the last US census).
> 
> In terms of it's "accuracy", I cant help you there.  You'll have to take that up with the IRS Division of Statistics & the US Census Bureau.




And you believe the IRS.  I see his point.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

Puck it said:


> *And you believe the IRS.  I see his point.*



I mean, sure we now know they targeted groups for "extra" levels of scrutiny based on their political views, but they didn't outright manipulate the raw data.

Or DID they!?!?!? (with menacing music playing in background, _dun, dun, dun, dun_)


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's largely the taxes.  There's a good correlation with cost of living and migration.  Is it the only thing that matters?  Well, of course not, but if you look at a map of America based off census data married with taxes, it becomes pretty clear (see below, Green are "gaining" citizens, Red are "losing" people).
> 
> And this trend of "financial migration" in America is substantially heating up (i.e. it seems to be more a factor now than in year's past, perhaps due to the recession or perhaps because high taxes have hit a critical mass?).



Ohio: Very low taxes, low cost of living and regulation is minimal compared to states like California, Jersey, Maryland and New York. So "perhaps", your thinking or reasoning is flawed.  

Personally, I'd love to blame a lot of the tax and cost of living issues on Liberal Agendas and Democrats, but it doesn't work like that. Ohio is a fairly Conservative state and there are definitely other outliers driving the migration from the states in red.


----------



## Harvey (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> We're screwed once Christie leaves office.



Christie certainly has the common man's best interest at heart.  But look on the bright side maybe he'll be your next president.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

Mariovntr said:


> *Ohio: Very low taxes, low cost of living and regulation is minimal compared to states like California, Jersey, Maryland and New York. So "perhaps", your thinking or reasoning is flawed.*



  As I said before in this thread, it's obviously _not_ the only thing that drives people's decision to move to/from one state to another.

However, just for fun, lets assume I did say exactly that......... the fact that you could pick out an example that doesn't conform perfectly to the IRS statistics, doesn't invalidate the entire depiction of the IRS/Census data pull.  I think any fair-minded person who takes a good hard look at that map (assuming they're well-informed about relative taxation rates as well as cost of living by state) would be pretty struck by just how tight of a correlation it depicts.  Outliers?  Sure.  But for the most part it's pretty darn good.

So why are people leaving Ohio?    I don't know.  If I had to speculate I'd say it's due to the fact that Ohio has been ravaged by the decline of manufacturing jobs for the last few  decades, and the collapse of the US auto industry.   It's made a bit of a comeback recently, but that state experienced a LOT of job loss in the last 10 or so years.




Mariovntr said:


> *Ohio is a fairly Conservative state *.



Ohio is a very moderate state that voted for Obama twice, Bush twice, Clinton twice, Reagan twice, and Carter.  

It's about as purple as a state can possibly get, perhaps the most purple state in all of America, but either way, it's certainly not a "conservative" state.


----------



## Harvey (Oct 28, 2014)

So Ohio voted "correctly" every time? That's interesting.  Any other states do that?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

Harvey said:


> Christie certainly has the common man's best interest at heart.  But look on the bright side maybe he'll be your next president.



I am not a huge Christie fan myself, nor am I a Christie hater either.   He's an effective leader, but his #1 concern is Chris Christie.

What I meant by that comment wasn't so much anything good Christie can do or has done, but all of the bad stuff that Christie has blocked since he's been in office.

All the proposed (additional) economic horrors and additional tax increases that Christie regularly tosses into the trash bin get enacted into law the first year he's gone from office, because the entire government of NJ is Democrat.   Even higher taxes, even more job loss, even less personal freedom, all coming to New Jersey in a few years.

That will be it for me, the final straw.  I'll join the rest of my High School class and move......perhaps over the river.  Uncertain.



Harvey said:


> So *Ohio voted "correctly" every time? That's interesting.  Any other states do that?*



I dont know.  I do know they're the current record holder though.  IIRC, I think it even goes all the way back to the 1960s.....Kennedy maybe?


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 28, 2014)

Harvey said:


> Christie certainly has the common man's best interest at heart.  But look on the bright side maybe he'll be your next president.



are you joking???  
I really try to avoid these kind of discussions, but that is a bridge too far (no pun intended).  you do realize, he stole 3B dollars set aside for the rail tunnel to nyc to balance the operating budget, not to mention the other billions he took from the PA to pay for state projects.  He's a fraud of epic proportions.


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I am not a huge Christie fan myself, nor am I a Christie hater either.   He's an effective leader, but his #1 concern is Chris Christie.
> 
> What I meant by that comment wasn't so much anything good Christie can do or has done, but all of the bad stuff that Christie has blocked since he's been in office.
> 
> ...



Well ...Northampton Co. is much closer to Blue Mountain...on the border.


----------



## Harvey (Oct 28, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> are you joking???



Yes.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> * he stole 3B dollars set aside for the rail tunnel to nyc*



Thank GOD that rail tunnel didn't get built.  What an EPIC boondoggle  that was going to be,.  It would have made Boston's Big Dig look like a  Girl Scout Cookie bake sale.  As I said, I'm not a huge CC fan, but that's one of my favorite things he did.

And even if you pretend NONE of the  above were true, WTH should a preponderance of New Jersey citizens have  to massively pay for one of the largest expenses in the history of the  state that so relatively few would utilize?   Good grief, of all the  things people could single out, that's the last one I'd criticize him  for.  The reality is the New Jersey State Democratic  Party was butthurt because they lost out on Billions  (literally) of dollars in handouts and political payoffs to their  friends, their political cronies, and most of all, the Unions who would have profited the most.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Well ...Northampton Co. is much closer to Blue Mountain...on the border.



Is it nice there?   I know Lehigh County and Bucks County pretty well (they're both beautiful).  I dont know much about Northampton.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> As I said before in this thread, it's obviously _not_ the only thing that drives people's decision to move to/from one state to another.
> 
> However, just for fun, lets assume I did say exactly that......... the fact that you could pick out an example that doesn't conform perfectly to the IRS statistics, doesn't invalidate the entire depiction of the IRS/Census data pull.  I think any fair-minded person who takes a good hard look at that map (assuming they're well-informed about relative taxation rates as well as cost of living by state) would be pretty struck by just how tight of a correlation it depicts.  Outliers?  Sure.  But for the most part it's pretty darn good.
> 
> ...



or perhaps the correlation is due to the fact that states that are growing dont have to tax as heavily as states that are losing population.  look at detroit for example, it has to tax its remaining citizens disproportionately because it has a government infrastructure for a population of 2m when now its down to 700k.  If NY and NJ were growing like florida, it wouldnt have to tax its citizens as much. 
there are a lot of reasons other than taxes that people move to florida.  bottom line.


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Is it nice there?   I know Lehigh County and Bucks County pretty well (they're both beautiful).  I dont know much about Northampton.



Not bad , financial woes like everywhere else. Northern part of county is rural. Bethlehem has ( Music mess ) I mean Music fest. Bethlehem to Easton corridor is filling in becoming one big town.


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Thank GOD that rail tunnel didn't get built.  What an EPIC boondoggle  that was going to be,.  It would have made Boston's Big Dig look like a  Girl Scout Cookie bake sale.  As I said, I'm not a huge CC fan, but that's one of my favorite things he did.
> 
> And even if you pretend NONE of the  above were true, WTH should a preponderance of New Jersey citizens have  to massively pay for one of the largest expenses in the history of the  state that so relatively few would utilize?   Good grief, of all the  things people could single out, that's the last one I'd criticize him  for.  The reality is the New Jersey State Democratic  Party was butthurt because they lost out on Billions  (literally) of dollars in handouts and political payoffs to their  friends, their political cronies, and most of all, the Unions who would have profited the most.



good luck with your property values when your state doesnt invest in future growth.  fwiw-I live in westchester 35 miles from midtown and the train takes 45 minutes to grand central.  from NJ, 10-15 miles to penn station takes an hour because there is no capacity in the lone tunnel that was built 100 years ago.  
and you are misrepresenting the facts.  the feds were paying 70% of the cost of the tunnel.  I can't say in this public forum how I know this, but trust me, christie killed the tunnel to use the money to cover the operating deficit.  typical republican shenanigans of shortchanging capital investments.  looks good in the short term, though.


----------



## Rowsdower (Oct 28, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> good luck with your property values when your state doesnt invest in future growth.  fwiw-I live in westchester 35 miles from midtown and the train takes 45 minutes to grand central.  from NJ, 10-15 miles to penn station takes an hour because there is no capacity in the lone tunnel that was built 100 years ago.
> and you are misrepresenting the facts.  the feds were paying 70% of the cost of the tunnel.  I can't say in this public forum how I know this, but trust me, christie killed the tunnel to use the money to cover the operating deficit.  typical republican shenanigans of shortchanging capital investments.  looks good in the short term, though.



Yeah agreed, I hate the taxes in NJ as much as Benedict, but the tunnel has to happen. Killing it essentially means crippling rail service into NYC. It will be a huge problem in 10-20 years if nothing is done. I understand not wanting to be on the hook for the bill, but at some point its going to have to get done.

That said, I'll be moving back to PA this winter. I can't justify paying twice as much in COL for exactly the same things I'd have across the Delaware. It means a 45 minute commute into work, but to me its a fair trade off especially with gas prices falling like they are. Plus it puts me back within an hour of getting to a hill, albeit a mole-hill but its still better than the hour and a half or nothing drive I had here. NJ seems to have a captive populace in those who work in the NYC metro. There's a large tax base of relatively affluent workers that need that proximity to the city, and the state knows no matter what crap it pulls those people can't reasonably go anywhere else. Even when they do there's two more behind them to take their place. It just makes the state so horrendously inefficient. Like I said, you get the same quality of education in PA, the same infrastructure, etc. but for half the cost. No other state seems to have the expenditure issues NJ does.


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 28, 2014)

Oh ok we'll just take your word for it...


----------



## bigbog (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes, that's it.  You're onto them and their conspiracy!
> 
> Alternative energy is so wildly successful (massive sarcasm) that "Big Oil" is intentionally cratering the price of oil on purpose.    That really makes sense...........



No BG, not that...not everyone is willing to party with everyone else in Big Oil, just as some are more willing to dive into other forms of energy...and "upset the cart"...Y/N?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 28, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> *you are misrepresenting the facts.  the feds were paying 70% of the cost of the tunnel.*



I'm confident letting others here decide who is _"misrepresenting the facts"_.  

You who only pointed out the $3 Billion that New Jersey residents were on the hook for, or me who was pointing out the correct *total *construction estimate of roughly $10 Billion to $12 Billion to complete the entire project?

Oh,,,,,,,, but what's that you say?   

Since the good people of Arizona, Vermont, Utah, Iowa, and Maine were paying for most of the costs of my New Jersey tunnel, I should be totally okay with it?   Sorry.  I dont roll like that.  That's IMO a big part of the, _"Me, me, me, me, me, me, me"_ mentality that has this country so entirely financially screwed in the first place.  Someone else is on the hook? Soak em!



Rowsdower said:


> *I'll be moving back to PA this winter. I can't justify paying twice as much in COL for exactly the same things I'd have across the Delaware.* It means a 45 minute commute into work, but to me its a fair trade off especially with gas prices falling like they are.



I grew up off of 78, and the 5pm traffic pattern is NOTHING like when I was a kid.  Now it starts at 4:15pm, and whereas 78 West used to be empty, now it's nothing buy cars with PA plates heading home.  New Jersey's high taxes have turned parts of Eastern Pennsylvania into something of a late-19th century wild west boomtown.  Funny thing is, Pennsy isnt a low tax state, but compared to Jersey it seems like a dream.



Rowsdower said:


> *No other state seems to have the expenditure issues NJ does*.



It's really more of a horse race.  California, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and a few others are all in an exciting race to see who will go bankrupt first.  My roulette chips are on Illinois.


----------



## millerm277 (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I grew up off of 78, and the 5pm traffic pattern is NOTHING like when I was a kid.  Now it starts at 4:15pm, and whereas 78 West used to be empty, now it's nothing buy cars with PA plates heading home.  New Jersey's high taxes have turned parts of Eastern Pennsylvania into something of a late-19th century wild west boomtown.  Funny thing is, Pennsy isnt a low tax state, but compared to Jersey it seems like a dream.



Just chiming in as a NJ resident with a reverse commute: I-78 crawls for all 30 miles from the PA border to 287, for pretty much the duration of all the hours you would want to commute. It has gotten vastly worse in the last 5-10 years. 

I know a few people who've moved back to NJ because when they went out there it was great and now it's a near-impossible commute unless you have an employer with flexible hours and you're willing to do things like working a 7-3 schedule.

From what I know of I-80, it's just as bad.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 28, 2014)

Sounds like you all need to invest in public transportation in a big way down in NJ.  Boston does as well and there are plans to vastly expand T service to growing suburb areas.  We shall see when the investment is made. 


or people could move to the tax free promise lands of Charlotte or Atlanta and sit in similar traffic that's on 8 lane super highways with garbage public transit. 

Yes, I live in low tax NH.  Guess what?  The amount of road infrastructure projects going on around the seacoast right now are the biggest in decades.  Preparing for the future.  Needs to be done.


----------



## moresnow (Oct 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I grew up off of 78, and the 5pm traffic pattern is NOTHING like when I was a kid.  Now it starts at 4:15pm, and whereas 78 West used to be empty, now it's nothing buy cars with PA plates heading home.  New Jersey's high taxes have turned parts of Eastern Pennsylvania into something of a late-19th century wild west boomtown.  Funny thing is, Pennsy isnt a low tax state, but compared to Jersey it seems like a dream.



Exactly. Why should we invest in rail infrastructure when we can just drive?


----------



## Rowsdower (Oct 28, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Sounds like you all need to invest in public transportation in a big way down in NJ.  Boston does as well and there are plans to vastly expand T service to growing suburb areas.  We shall see when the investment is made.
> 
> 
> or people could move to the tax free promise lands of Charlotte or Atlanta and sit in similar traffic that's on 8 lane super highways with garbage public transit.
> ...



The thing is, NJ has great public transit, but getting into NYC presents a massive bottleneck. You've got to get under the Hudson which means going down to two tracks in the old Pennsy tunnels. Plus, those tubes are 100 years old and should be taken out of service to be rehabbed. As it stands you've got to reduce speed and there's often shutdowns because of equipment failures in the tunnel. 

I really don't mind the commute. I'm working on my PhD and I only have 2 years or so left on it, so its not like I'll be doing this forever. Afterwards I'll either look for a job in PA or move north.

Or maybe Switzerland... I hear its a great place to be for biotech, but I suppose I'd have to learn German...


----------



## HowieT2 (Oct 29, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> The thing is, NJ has great public transit, but getting into NYC presents a massive bottleneck. You've got to get under the Hudson which means going down to two tracks in the old Pennsy tunnels. Plus, those tubes are 100 years old and should be taken out of service to be rehabbed. As it stands you've got to reduce speed and there's often shutdowns because of equipment failures in the tunnel.
> 
> I really don't mind the commute. I'm working on my PhD and I only have 2 years or so left on it, so its not like I'll be doing this forever. Afterwards I'll either look for a job in PA or move north.
> 
> Or maybe Switzerland... I hear its a great place to be for biotech, but I suppose I'd have to learn German...



exactly.  One can live in Poughkeepsie and have the same commute to midtown on the train as from Montclair in New Jersey.  Which may explain why Long Island and WESTCHESTER are growing while nj is not.  So while Bg is applauding the extra 3b added to the nj operating budget, his property value are being negatively effected for long time.  And tunnels don't get built in a week a month or even a year, so that short term boost for Christie, is going to damage the state for many years.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 29, 2014)

I'll contribute to this thread being way off-topic:
A) New Jersey needs more train tunnel access to Manhattan.  I am a fan of improved public transportation.  Spend some time in Europe and you will see how awful our infrastructure is.
B) It's an unfortunate reality that we don't have regional (non-political border) taxation mechanisms for this type of project.  In other words, tax the region that would benefit from the link regardless of where state lines lie.
C) As far as highways are concerned, there is ample research to show that they are self-defeating.  When highways get clogged, people stop moving to the affected area.  When you build more capacity, more people move in and eventually clog the highway just as much.  This is one reason we have so much sprawl.  Blindly building extra highway capacity just doubles-down on prior poor urban planning decisions.  I'm not saying that it should never happen.  I'm just saying that adding capacity should not be automatically assumed to be a good idea.
D) Does the failure to build an extra tunnel really affect property values that much?  I'm not convinced that it affects it as much as people think.  With extra rail capacity will come extra construction.  Real estate values depend on supply and demand and it's naive to think that supply will remain the same.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 29, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I'll contribute to this thread being way off-topic:
> A) New Jersey needs more train tunnel access to Manhattan.  I am a fan of improved public transportation.  Spend some time in Europe and you will see how awful our infrastructure is.
> B) It's an unfortunate reality that we don't have regional (non-political border) taxation mechanisms for this type of project.  In other words, tax the region that would benefit from the link regardless of where state lines lie.
> C) As far as highways are concerned, there is ample research to show that they are self-defeating.  When highways get clogged, people stop moving to the affected area.  When you build more capacity, more people move in and eventually clog the highway just as much.  This is one reason we have so much sprawl.  Blindly building extra highway capacity just doubles-down on prior poor urban planning decisions.  I'm not saying that it should never happen.  I'm just saying that adding capacity should not be automatically assumed to be a good idea.
> D) Does the failure to build an extra tunnel really affect property values that much?  I'm not convinced that it affects it as much as people think.  With extra rail capacity will come extra construction.  Real estate values depend on supply and demand and it's naive to think that supply will remain the same.



As far as C is concerned couldn't the same be said for rail capacity?


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 29, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> As far as C is concerned couldn't the same be said for rail capacity?


Yes and no.  Yes as far as more people moving into the area and more people using the rail network.  No in that a rail network is a much better network to absorb the extra use than a highway network.  If people are going to exist, we want more of them using the most efficient forms of moving people.

Although... I am not a fan of building huge parking lots at the outlying commuter rail stations.  That encourages sprawl.  I am a proponent of cluster housing.  But that's a whole different topic...


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 29, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I'll contribute to this thread being way off-topic:
> 
> B) It's an unfortunate reality that we don't have regional (non-political border) taxation mechanisms for this type of project.  In other words, tax the region that would benefit from the link regardless of where state lines lie.



How about tax the people who are using the infrastructure?


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 29, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> How about tax the people who are using the infrastructure?


A better way is to tax the people that derive the benefit from the infrastructure.  If you tax only the people who use it, the people who get a benefit but don't actually use it get a free ride.  

The other problem with taxing the smaller subset (actual users) is that the tax would need to be higher.  Assuming that the "tax" came in the form of ticket prices, the higher ticket prices would discourage people from using the rail network.  We want to encourage people to use it, not discourage.

To be fair, I struggle with the concept of subsidizing mass-transit.  But IMHO, the benefits of mass-transit warrant some level of subsidization.  The key is to have a set of policies (zoning, etc.) that create actual benefits to public transportation.  I'm not sure our policies do that.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 29, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> A better way is to tax the people that derive the benefit from the infrastructure.  If you tax only the people who use it, the people who get a benefit but don't actually use it get a free ride.
> 
> The other problem with taxing the smaller subset (actual users) is that the tax would need to be higher.  Assuming that the "tax" came in the form of ticket prices, the higher ticket prices would discourage people from using the rail network.  We want to encourage people to use it, not discourage.
> 
> To be fair, I struggle with the concept of subsidizing mass-transit.  But IMHO, the benefits of mass-transit warrant some level of subsidization.  The key is to have a set of policies (zoning, etc.) that create actual benefits to public transportation.  I'm not sure our policies do that.



Mass has talked about actually taxing people by how many miles they drive to pay for roads which does not play into this thinking well at all.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 29, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Mass has talked about actually taxing people by how many miles they drive to pay for roads which does not play into this thinking well at all.


Indeed.  It falsely assumes that the only people deriving a benefit from the roads are the people who drive upon them.  That's quite myopic.

For example, let's say that I own a restaurant in the Back Bay that serves all sorts of office workers during the lunch hour.  I make a good living from the money they spend at my restaurant.  How did those office workers get to my location?  Did they drive?  I bet you a large percentage did.  If they didn't have a road to drive on, I wouldn't have my customers.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> *while Bg is applauding the extra 3b added to the nj operating budget, his property value are being negatively effected for long time.*



Huh?  The fact that oodles of people are "fleeing" from New Jersey certainly isn't because of the fact a very small number of New Jerseyans have to sit on a track for 8 additional minutes per ride.   It's because of the high taxes, the high cost of living, and our state government's execution by firing squad of businesses.

And the last thing I'd do right now is buy a house anyway, because there's going to be a "Housing Crash part 2".  I currently rent a very nice property at a rate that is currently significantly less than the cost of home ownership.*  I'll buy someday, but it likely wont be in New Jersey, and it will definitely be after "Son of Housing Bubble" bursts.

*That example demonstrates just how expensive NJ is, depending on where you are, renting is often cheaper than owning.  That's an inversion that shouldn't occur.



Smellytele said:


> *Mass has talked about actually taxing people by how many miles they drive* to pay for roads which does not play into this thinking well at all.



That has more to do with trying to make people drive less, because ideologically they hate gas, because they believe Global Warming is "killing the planet", than it does with a sound financial planning policy to maintain roads.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 29, 2014)

I definitely agree that the housing market is sitting on a powder keg right now - and that the recent "correction" was not enough of a correction to negate that powder keg.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 29, 2014)

Bought my house almost 30 years ago & it has increased in value 5X's what I paid. That would have to be a pretty big correction to wipe out that appreciation in value. Besides the houses in my area didn't decrease in value even after the last housing bubble. The rate of increase has slowed though.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 29, 2014)

Since we are so far off topic.  I don't get how EBT cards can buy gas.  Burns my ass.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 29, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Bought my house almost 30 years ago & it has increased in value 5X's what I paid. That would have to be a pretty big correction to wipe out that appreciation in value. Besides the houses in my area didn't decrease in value even after the last housing bubble. The rate of increase has slowed though.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that a house purchased 30 years ago is going to be worth less than the purchase price if there is another bubble that bursts.

A correction is about returning to normal - and for housing the "normal" is an increase in value over time.  The average increase is just a lot less than people think.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I definitely agree that *the housing market is sitting on a powder keg right now - and that the recent "correction" was not enough of a correction to negate that *powder keg.



Yup.  Economic fundamentals do not support current US home prices.   You can only play a multi-cup shell game for so long before someone eventually finds the peanut.



VTKilarney said:


> *I don't think anyone is suggesting that a house  purchased 30 years ago is going to be worth less than the purchase  price if there is another bubble that bursts*.



Right.  Not even close.  But in a way, that is a fairly decent part of the problem.  

Americans have culturally grown to believe that _"houses always increase in value"_, because they have in this country for so many years.  Its been a helluva run, but the truth is, a house is simply an asset, subject to supply & demand, speculation, and price swings like other assets.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup.  Economic fundamentals do not support current US home prices.   You can only play a multi-cup shell game for so long before someone eventually finds the peanut.


Watch what happens if interest rates go up - and when they are at historic lows one can't ignore that risk.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Since we are so far off topic.  *I don't get how EBT cards can buy gas.  Burns my ass*.



Live in Manhattan for a few years and watch them trade them like baseball cards for cigarettes and beer, or for money, etc.... That'll really burn your ass.  They're also frequently living in larger sq/ft subsidized apartments that taxpayers are paying for, in the same uber-expensive zip code that you live in, while you're working your ass off paying approximately $2,000 to $3,000 per month in rent for a shoebox.  Makes sense.



VTKilarney said:


> *Watch what happens if interest rates go up - and when they are at historic lows one can't ignore that risk*.



It's been put off for so long that I'm increasingly thinking that out of fear, meaningful interest rate increases aren't going to happen until a new president is elected (i.e. let the potential pain & suffering occur when someone else is in office).


----------



## Rowsdower (Oct 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Huh?  The fact that oodles of people are "fleeing" from New Jersey



Just to be clear, New Jersey's population is _increasing_. There's a lot of people leaving, but they're replaced at a faster rate.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 29, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Just to be clear, New Jersey's population is _increasing_. There's a lot of people leaving, but they're replaced at a faster rate.



Well clearly those people are just poor people who don't pay taxes or own property and are just looking to cash in on the forced reallocation of income from the hard working people of NJ who are all fleeing to eastern Pennsylvania.


----------



## mister moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Just to be clear, New Jersey's population is _increasing_. There's a lot of people leaving, but they're replaced at a faster rate.



Just to be clear, one frog in the water on the stove said to the other, "The water isn't hot, it's warm".  Here in CT we gained some population too, but lost a congressional seat because other states gained more.  We are losing the young who leave to find a job, and the retirees who leave to escape the taxes.  That talent and money isn't being replaced.  Enjoy your warm water until it boils.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> *Just to be clear, New Jersey's population is increasing. There's a lot of people leaving, but they're replaced at a faster rate.*



Partially correct.  You're right, New Jersey is growing, _barely_ (< 1%).    But I'm talking about immigration/emigration here, people coming and going, not natural increase.  There are very few places in all of America that are literally decreasing in total number when you add up immigration/emigration + natural increase/decrease.



Domeskier said:


> Well* clearly* *those people are just poor people who don't pay taxes or own property *and are just looking to cash in on the forced reallocation of income from the hard working people of NJ who are all fleeing to eastern Pennsylvania.



100% sarcastic though your comment was, there's far more economic truth to it than you realize (though the latter half makes no sense).

If you stratify the immigration/emigration by wealth, wealth is leaving New Jersey, *big time*, and it's greatly adding to the state's "Death Spiral" from a dwindling tax base.



mister moose said:


> Just to be clear, one frog in the water on  the stove said to the other, "The water isn't hot, it's warm". * Here in  CT we gained some population too, but lost a congressional seat because  other states gained more.  We are losing the young who leave to find a  job, and the retirees who leave to escape the taxes.  That talent and  money isn't being replaced. * Enjoy your warm water until it  boils.



This is correct too, and more akin to what I'm saying.     As I mentioned, pretty much EVERYWHERE is growing if you look at it from BOTH the standpoint of natural growth & immigration/emigration, but some are barely growing.  That map I posted before does a great job of showing who's "losing money" and who's "gaining money".


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Live in Manhattan for a few years and watch them trade them like baseball cards for cigarettes and beer, or for money, etc.... That'll really burn your ass.  They're also frequently living in larger sq/ft subsidized apartments that taxpayers are paying for, in the same uber-expensive zip code that you live in, while you're working your ass off paying approximately $2,000 to $3,000 per month in rent for a shoebox.  Makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> It's been put off for so long that I'm increasingly thinking that out of fear, meaningful interest rate increases aren't going to happen until a new president is elected (i.e. let the potential pain & suffering occur when someone else is in office).



How I am not surprised that you paint yourself as a victim of the social safety net.  You are predictable if nothing else, spewing every scummy right wing tactic.


----------



## Rowsdower (Oct 29, 2014)

mister moose said:


> Just to be clear, one frog in the water on the stove said to the other, "The water isn't hot, it's warm".  Here in CT we gained some population too, but lost a congressional seat because other states gained more.  We are losing the young who leave to find a job, and the retirees who leave to escape the taxes.  That talent and money isn't being replaced.  Enjoy your warm water until it boils.



Hardly. The NYC metro is a massive jobs engine. It's simply too desirable an area to be in, so you can have ridiculous taxes and terribly inefficient public services yet still get increasing population simply because if you work in the NYC metro where else are you going to live?


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 29, 2014)

Rowsdower said:


> Hardly. The NYC metro is a massive jobs engine. It's simply too desirable an area to be in, so you can have ridiculous taxes and terribly inefficient public services yet still get increasing population simply because if you work in the NYC metro where else are you going to live?



Exactly, all real estate is local. While real estate is over heating again in some areas ( 2nd bubble ), it is still plummeting in other areas of the country. You can spend more for a new econo car than a house in some locals of this country.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 29, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> You can spend more for a new econo car than a house in some locals of this country.


Detroit, anyone?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> How I am not surprised that you paint yourself as a victim of the *social safety net. * You are predictable if nothing else, spewing every scummy right wing tactic.



Oh, look who showed up solely to toss about insults and as usual offer absolutely NVA to the discussion.

LOL at that interpretation of the_ "social safety net"_ though.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> *You can spend more for a new econo car than a house in some locals of this country*.





VTKilarney said:


> *Detroit, anyone?*



The most famous current example of the results of years upon years of irresponsible financial structure, bleeding corporations to death (literally), crazy taxes, and an insatiable appetite to spend money you don't have.  RIP.


----------



## Tin (Oct 29, 2014)

I think for the next big discussion we should discuss white privilege.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 30, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> How I am not surprised that you paint yourself as a victim of the social safety net.  You are predictable if nothing else, spewing every scummy right wing tactic.


...


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 30, 2014)

Tin said:


> we should discuss white privilege.



Is that what you call it when the local shops are closed on a powder day?


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 30, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> How I am not surprised that you paint yourself as a victim of the social safety net.  You are predictable if nothing else, spewing every scummy right wing tactic.


You know it's bad when someone as abrasive as myself cringes at a comment such as this.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 30, 2014)

Oh no, vtkilarney doesn't approve of my comment.  Maybe I'm just trying to derail this stupid thread.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 30, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> ...



From the board's homophobic moron  I take it as a badge of honor.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 30, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> Oh no, vtkilarney doesn't approve of my comment.  *Maybe I'm just trying to derail this stupid thread*.



It's "stupid" because the logic and facts which you're not capable of refuting challenge your extreme left ideology, which you find upsetting, hence your repeated angry lashing out with ad hominem attacks.  

It would be far less upsetting for you if you just ignored this thread, and went back to reading Daily Kos, Huffington Post, MediaMatters, or whatever other far-left propaganda you_ surely_ read, which will reassuringly spoon-feed you information while omitting key facts in an overly simplistic_ "we're good, and they're bad, so we must be right" _manner, typical of their ilk.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 30, 2014)

For me, it's as simple as this.  I have an open mind - but I value critical thought.  Different types of statements accomplish different goals.  Mere puffery does not accomplish the goal of persuasion.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Oct 30, 2014)

I'm just trying to figure out when this fucking ski forum turned into RedState.com. Can't you guys take this shit to the TGR padded room?


----------



## Puck it (Oct 30, 2014)

mattchuck2 said:


> I'm just trying to figure out when this fucking ski forum turned into RedState.com. Can't you guys take this shit to the TGR padded room?


  You don't like conservatives.


----------



## Mariovntr (Oct 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's "stupid" because the logic and facts which you're not capable of refuting challenge your extreme left ideology, which you find upsetting, hence your repeated angry lashing out with ad hominem attacks.
> 
> It would be far less upsetting for you if you just ignored this thread, and went back to reading Daily Kos, Huffington Post, MediaMatters, or whatever other far-left propaganda you_ surely_ read, which will reassuringly spoon-feed you information while omitting key facts in an overly simplistic_ "we're good, and they're bad, so we must be right" _manner, typical of their ilk.



You keep baiting this dude. If you would just shush up and not reply, he would stop. You don't always have to be right or have the last word. I get it, you're from Jersey, but damn, chill already.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> ... an overly simplistic_ "we're good, and they're bad, so we must be right" _manner, typical of their ilk.



Funny.  This describes you pretty well, albeit at the far right.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 30, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Funny. This describes you pretty well, albeit at the far right.


 And you sir, are the far left.  If you guys go any farther than you may meet.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 30, 2014)

Puck it said:


> And you sir, are the far left.  If you guys go any farther than you may meet.



You would be surprised.  Believe it or not, you can believe in climate change and not be to the far left.  Fiscally I am very conservative. I'm not a big fan of wind energy either.  On the other hand  I'v yet to see BG express an opinion that is not from the far right.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Oct 30, 2014)

Puck it said:


> You don't like conservatives.



I don't like boredom. And if I wanted to tired "conservative" talking points, I'd just see what was on Drudge today.

I think the only correct responses to "oil falls below $x dollars/barrel" on a ski forum are:

1. Cool, now it's cheaper to get to the mountain
2. Nice, maybe fuel costs for planes will be cheaper so I can take this western trip I've been planning
3. Awesome, maybe that means the U.S. Dollar is stronger so I can check out Europe

And so on. 

But arguing about political bullshit is not really the purpose of this site. Aren't there other places you can argue about this?


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 30, 2014)

It's always an issue for moderators of an internet forum to decide how much latitude to give.  I think the moderators here do a good job.  But I tend to err on the side of free and open dialog even when I am constantly being reminded that I am an "idiot."

The reality is that it's not our sandbox, so we need to accept whatever it is.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 30, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> You would be surprised. Believe it or not, you can believe in climate change and not be to the far left. Fiscally I am very conservative. I'm not a big fan of wind energy either. On the other hand I'v yet to see BG express an opinion that is not from the far right.




You do not come off that way on here.


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 30, 2014)

Children, behave !


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 30, 2014)

mattchuck2 said:


> I'm just trying to figure out when this fucking ski forum turned into RedState.com. Can't you guys take this shit to the TGR padded room?



It is RedState.com vs BlueState.com. both sides are fuckin nuts


----------



## Puck it (Oct 30, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> It is RedState.com vs BlueState.com. both sides are fuckin nuts




I'm a little red man living a big blue state!!!!!!


Is that very PC now that I read it?


----------

