Some of you may remember me talking about converting to a natural gas
furnace and water heater last fall. It seemed like a good time to do it
because the federal and provincial governments were both offering
rebates for switching to high efficiency units. I also took advantage
of rebate offers for insulation and low flush toilets. I added another
9" of insulation to the attic and insulated the headers in the basement.
I needed a new furnace anyway and was counting on a significant saving
in heating and electricity. I had been advised that it would pay for
itself within a few years.

Just to put things into perspective, I did need the furnace and my AC
was at least 35 years old, and not working that great. My equal billing
for heating oil was $330 a month for 10 months. The highest oil use
was December to March when I would go through a tank of oil per month,
at $600-700 per filling. I am not on equal billing for gas, paying
monthly instead. Instead of those $600 plus months, my gas bills have
been running in the range of $110-125.

That means that my monthly heating costs for the coldest months is less
than 1/4 what I had been paying. Even better, that amount includes my
hot water. My electrical bills were $130- 150 per month, but they are
now down in the $80 range. The way things are going, it looks like I
will be saving close to $2500 a year in heating and at least $400 in
electricity.

Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100 from
the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625, dropping
my cost to $5075. That means the work will have paid for itself within 2
years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the thermostat (in the
living room) set at the same level, but it is now a lot warmer upstairs
in the bedroom.

On Mar 22, 10:11*am, Dave Smith > wrote:
> Some of you may remember me talking about converting to a natural gas
> furnace and water heater last fall. It seemed like a good time to do it
> because the federal and provincial governments were both offering
> rebates for switching to high efficiency units. *I also took advantage
> of rebate offers for insulation and low flush toilets. *I added another
> 9" of insulation to the attic and insulated the headers in the basement.
> * I needed a new furnace anyway and was counting on a significant saving
> in heating and electricity. I had been advised that it would pay for
> itself within a few years.
>
> Just to put things into perspective, I did need the furnace and my AC
> was at least 35 years old, and not working that great. *My equal billing
> * for heating oil was $330 a month for 10 months. *The highest oil use
> was * December to March when I would go through a tank of oil per month,
> at *$600-700 per filling. I am not on equal billing for gas, paying
> monthly instead. Instead of those $600 plus months, my gas bills have
> been running in the range of $110-125.
>
> That means that my monthly heating costs for the coldest months is less
> than 1/4 what I had been paying. *Even better, that amount includes my
> hot water. My electrical bills were $130- 150 per month, but they are
> now down in the $80 range. The way things are going, it looks like I
> will be saving close to $2500 a year in heating and at least $400 in
> electricity.
>
> Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100 from
> the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625, dropping
> my cost to $5075. That means the work will have paid for itself within 2
> years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the thermostat (in the
> living room) set at the same level, but it is now a lot warmer upstairs
> in the bedroom.

Way to go. Saving money and using less energy. A win win all the
way.!

On 2010-03-22, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100 from
> the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625, dropping
> my cost to $5075.

.....but, subsidized healtcare is an abomination, right!?

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2010-03-22, Dave Smith > wrote:
>> Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100 from
>> the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625, dropping
>> my cost to $5075.
>
> ....but, subsidized healtcare is an abomination, right!?


???? What subsidized health care is that? I live in Canada where the
government run health care system is funded by taxes, and everyone is
covered.

The government has rebates to encourage people to switch to more
efficient means of home heating. Not only is it a good thing to do, but
I lucked out in needing to replace my stuff at a time when the rebates
were being offered.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:11:49 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Some of you may remember me talking about converting to a natural gas
>furnace and water heater last fall. It seemed like a good time to do it
>because the federal and provincial governments were both offering
>rebates for switching to high efficiency units. I also took advantage
>of rebate offers for insulation and low flush toilets. I added another
>9" of insulation to the attic and insulated the headers in the basement.
> I needed a new furnace anyway and was counting on a significant saving
>in heating and electricity. I had been advised that it would pay for
>itself within a few years.
>
>Just to put things into perspective, I did need the furnace and my AC
>was at least 35 years old, and not working that great. My equal billing
> for heating oil was $330 a month for 10 months. The highest oil use
>was December to March when I would go through a tank of oil per month,
>at $600-700 per filling. I am not on equal billing for gas, paying
>monthly instead. Instead of those $600 plus months, my gas bills have
>been running in the range of $110-125.
>
>That means that my monthly heating costs for the coldest months is less
>than 1/4 what I had been paying. Even better, that amount includes my
>hot water. My electrical bills were $130- 150 per month, but they are
>now down in the $80 range. The way things are going, it looks like I
>will be saving close to $2500 a year in heating and at least $400 in
>electricity.
>
>Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100 from
>the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625, dropping
>my cost to $5075. That means the work will have paid for itself within 2
>years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the thermostat (in the
>living room) set at the same level, but it is now a lot warmer upstairs
>in the bedroom.

You described what I had done on Long Island, actually cost me nothing
to switch from oil heat and electric hot water to natural gas heat and
natural gas hot water. I paid about $40 for an accessory expansion
tank is all. The new units cut my energy bills by about half, not to
mention that gas is much cleaner than oil. Oh, they also gave me a
place to connect my propane Weber to natural gas. Where I live now I
converted oil/wood heat/hot water to propane, costs much less... but
natural gas costs even less... no natural gas around here. Oil costs
a minimum of $200/yr to maintain a service contract... I don't need
any service with gas... no filters, no nozzles, no soot, no cleaning,
no electrical controls, and no smelly oil deliveries.

On Mar 22, 1:12*pm, notbob > wrote:
> On 2010-03-22, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100 from
> > the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625, dropping
> > my cost to $5075.
>
> ....but, subsidized healtcare is an abomination, right!?

America is a better place than it was yesterday at this time. I
especially approve of the unearned income Medicare tax, and would like
to see all "payroll" taxes applied to unearned as well as earned
income. I still haven't come to a decision on what provocative sign I
should make for my car.
>
> nb

--Bryan

brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:11:49 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
> >Some of you may remember me talking about converting to a natural gas
> >furnace and water heater last fall. It seemed like a good time to do it
> >because the federal and provincial governments were both offering
> >rebates for switching to high efficiency units. I also took advantage
> >of rebate offers for insulation and low flush toilets. I added another
> >9" of insulation to the attic and insulated the headers in the basement.
> > I needed a new furnace anyway and was counting on a significant saving
> >in heating and electricity. I had been advised that it would pay for
> >itself within a few years.
> >
> >Just to put things into perspective, I did need the furnace and my AC
> >was at least 35 years old, and not working that great. My equal billing
> > for heating oil was $330 a month for 10 months. The highest oil use
> >was December to March when I would go through a tank of oil per month,
> >at $600-700 per filling. I am not on equal billing for gas, paying
> >monthly instead. Instead of those $600 plus months, my gas bills have
> >been running in the range of $110-125.
> >
> >That means that my monthly heating costs for the coldest months is less
> >than 1/4 what I had been paying. Even better, that amount includes my
> >hot water. My electrical bills were $130- 150 per month, but they are
> >now down in the $80 range. The way things are going, it looks like I
> >will be saving close to $2500 a year in heating and at least $400 in
> >electricity.
> >
> >Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100 from
> >the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625, dropping
> >my cost to $5075. That means the work will have paid for itself within 2
> >years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the thermostat (in the
> >living room) set at the same level, but it is now a lot warmer upstairs
> >in the bedroom.
>
> You described what I had done on Long Island, actually cost me nothing
> to switch from oil heat and electric hot water to natural gas heat and
> natural gas hot water. I paid about $40 for an accessory expansion
> tank is all. The new units cut my energy bills by about half, not to
> mention that gas is much cleaner than oil. Oh, they also gave me a
> place to connect my propane Weber to natural gas. Where I live now I
> converted oil/wood heat/hot water to propane, costs much less... but
> natural gas costs even less... no natural gas around here. Oil costs
> a minimum of $200/yr to maintain a service contract... I don't need
> any service with gas... no filters, no nozzles, no soot, no cleaning,
> no electrical controls, and no smelly oil deliveries.

All of your numbers are highly distorted since you are not comparing
like units. Comparing an old oil fired unit to a new gas fired unit is
meaningless. So is comparing an old gas fired unit to a new oil fired
one.

You have to compare like new units of each type to get a valid operating
cost comparison. I believe Ed P. is the only one here who has done such
a comparison and also has the figures to show the vast increase in
efficiency of a new oil fired unit over an old oil fired unit.

As for service with gas, gas fired units most certainly do require
annual service for safe operation. Gas fired units are more prone to CO
leaks, have the explosion risk that does not exist with oil fired units,
have the same fire risk as oil fired units, and most certainly can and
do go out of adjustment, create soot and need to be cleaned. On top of
this, gas fired units tend to be less sturdily built (notable exceptions
for high end stuff of course), so parts tend to fail much sooner than
with an oil fired unit.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Some of you may remember me talking about converting to a natural gas
> furnace and water heater last fall. It seemed like a good time to do
> it because the federal and provincial governments were both offering
> rebates for switching to high efficiency units. I also took advantage
> of rebate offers for insulation and low flush toilets. I added
> another 9" of insulation to the attic and insulated the headers in
> the basement. I needed a new furnace anyway and was counting on a
> significant saving in heating and electricity. I had been advised
> that it would pay for itself within a few years.
>
> Just to put things into perspective, I did need the furnace and my AC
> was at least 35 years old, and not working that great. My equal
> billing for heating oil was $330 a month for 10 months. The highest
> oil use was December to March when I would go through a tank of oil
> per month, at $600-700 per filling. I am not on equal billing for
> gas, paying monthly instead. Instead of those $600 plus months, my
> gas bills have been running in the range of $110-125.
>
> That means that my monthly heating costs for the coldest months is
> less than 1/4 what I had been paying. Even better, that amount
> includes my hot water. My electrical bills were $130- 150 per month,
> but they are now down in the $80 range. The way things are going, it
> looks like I will be saving close to $2500 a year in heating and at
> least $400 in electricity.
>
> Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100
> from the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625,
> dropping my cost to $5075. That means the work will have paid for
> itself within 2 years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the
> thermostat (in the living room) set at the same level, but it is now
> a lot warmer upstairs in the bedroom.

Dave, can you tell me your cost of elec per kwh? Ours has risen to nearly
18c (US) in the last several years, and I would love to compare.

thanks,
Keith



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

K wrote:

>
> Dave, can you tell me your cost of elec per kwh? Ours has risen to nearly
> 18c (US) in the last several years, and I would love to compare.

Currently, and no pun intended the cost is 5.8 cents per kwh for the
first 1000 kwh and usage over 1000 is 6.7 cents. However, there are also
delivery charges, regulatory charges and "debt reduction charges", all
being based on usage. FWIW, this months bill was $34.51 for the power
used and 42.25 for delivery, roughly $85 excluding tax. so it's
probably close to 14 cents with all the extras.

In a few months we start Smart Meter prices and rates depend on time of
us. Off peak will be 4.4 cents, mid peak 8 cents and on peak 9.3 cents.
Peak hours change with the season. Weekends and holidays are off peak.

"Food Snob®" > wrote in message
news:eb251afe-f41c-47fe-abb3-
>
> I
> especially approve of the unearned income Medicare tax, and would like
> to see all "payroll" taxes applied to unearned as well as earned
> income.
> --Bryan

You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. The more
you send, the less the rest of us have to. Go ahead, send it in. Let me
guess, you don't have any unearned income.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon 22 Mar 2010 07:54:57p, K wrote in rec.food.cooking
> >:
>
>> Dave, can you tell me your cost of elec per kwh? Ours has risen
>> to nearly 18c (US) in the last several years, and I would love
>> to compare.
>>
>
> Where are you in the US? I'm in Maryland and the cost per kwh here
> is just over .11. That will change soon; I'm not sure what it goes
> to come May/June.

That is cheap. Here in CT I'm at 17.7¢

"Pete C." > wrote in message
ster.com...
>
> brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:11:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Some of you may remember me talking about converting to a natural gas
>> >furnace and water heater last fall. It seemed like a good time to do it
>> >because the federal and provincial governments were both offering
>> >rebates for switching to high efficiency units. I also took advantage
>> >of rebate offers for insulation and low flush toilets. I added another
>> >9" of insulation to the attic and insulated the headers in the basement.
>> > I needed a new furnace anyway and was counting on a significant saving
>> >in heating and electricity. I had been advised that it would pay for
>> >itself within a few years.
>> >
>> >Just to put things into perspective, I did need the furnace and my AC
>> >was at least 35 years old, and not working that great. My equal billing
>> > for heating oil was $330 a month for 10 months. The highest oil use
>> >was December to March when I would go through a tank of oil per month,
>> >at $600-700 per filling. I am not on equal billing for gas, paying
>> >monthly instead. Instead of those $600 plus months, my gas bills have
>> >been running in the range of $110-125.
>> >
>> >That means that my monthly heating costs for the coldest months is less
>> >than 1/4 what I had been paying. Even better, that amount includes my
>> >hot water. My electrical bills were $130- 150 per month, but they are
>> >now down in the $80 range. The way things are going, it looks like I
>> >will be saving close to $2500 a year in heating and at least $400 in
>> >electricity.
>> >
>> >Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100 from
>> >the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625, dropping
>> >my cost to $5075. That means the work will have paid for itself within 2
>> >years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the thermostat (in the
>> >living room) set at the same level, but it is now a lot warmer upstairs
>> >in the bedroom.
>>
>> You described what I had done on Long Island, actually cost me nothing
>> to switch from oil heat and electric hot water to natural gas heat and
>> natural gas hot water. I paid about $40 for an accessory expansion
>> tank is all. The new units cut my energy bills by about half, not to
>> mention that gas is much cleaner than oil. Oh, they also gave me a
>> place to connect my propane Weber to natural gas. Where I live now I
>> converted oil/wood heat/hot water to propane, costs much less... but
>> natural gas costs even less... no natural gas around here. Oil costs
>> a minimum of $200/yr to maintain a service contract... I don't need
>> any service with gas... no filters, no nozzles, no soot, no cleaning,
>> no electrical controls, and no smelly oil deliveries.
>
> All of your numbers are highly distorted since you are not comparing
> like units. Comparing an old oil fired unit to a new gas fired unit is
> meaningless. So is comparing an old gas fired unit to a new oil fired
> one.
>
> You have to compare like new units of each type to get a valid operating
> cost comparison. I believe Ed P. is the only one here who has done such
> a comparison and also has the figures to show the vast increase in
> efficiency of a new oil fired unit over an old oil fired unit.

That was me. My savings over 15 months are 38%. Replaced a 30 year old
oil boiler with a System 2000 from www.energykinetics.com Tax credit,
rebate from the state, 0% financing from the state and savings on oil will
pay for it with no cash outlay from me.

Pete C. wrote:


> All of your numbers are highly distorted since you are not comparing
> like units. Comparing an old oil fired unit to a new gas fired unit is
> meaningless. So is comparing an old gas fired unit to a new oil fired
> one.

Huh? He compared operating cost. How can that be meaningless?

> On top of
> this, gas fired units tend to be less sturdily built (notable exceptions
> for high end stuff of course), so parts tend to fail much sooner than
> with an oil fired unit.


We just replaced a 35 year old gas unit with another. How much sooner
do gas furnaces fail than oil?

gloria p

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:54:57 -0500, "K" > wrote:

>
>
>Dave Smith wrote:
>> Some of you may remember me talking about converting to a natural gas
>> furnace and water heater last fall. It seemed like a good time to do
>> it because the federal and provincial governments were both offering
>> rebates for switching to high efficiency units. I also took advantage
>> of rebate offers for insulation and low flush toilets. I added
>> another 9" of insulation to the attic and insulated the headers in
>> the basement. I needed a new furnace anyway and was counting on a
>> significant saving in heating and electricity. I had been advised
>> that it would pay for itself within a few years.
>>
>> Just to put things into perspective, I did need the furnace and my AC
>> was at least 35 years old, and not working that great. My equal
>> billing for heating oil was $330 a month for 10 months. The highest
>> oil use was December to March when I would go through a tank of oil
>> per month, at $600-700 per filling. I am not on equal billing for
>> gas, paying monthly instead. Instead of those $600 plus months, my
>> gas bills have been running in the range of $110-125.
>>
>> That means that my monthly heating costs for the coldest months is
>> less than 1/4 what I had been paying. Even better, that amount
>> includes my hot water. My electrical bills were $130- 150 per month,
>> but they are now down in the $80 range. The way things are going, it
>> looks like I will be saving close to $2500 a year in heating and at
>> least $400 in electricity.
>>
>> Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100
>> from the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625,
>> dropping my cost to $5075. That means the work will have paid for
>> itself within 2 years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the
>> thermostat (in the living room) set at the same level, but it is now
>> a lot warmer upstairs in the bedroom.
>
>Dave, can you tell me your cost of elec per kwh? Ours has risen to nearly
>18c (US) in the last several years, and I would love to compare.
>
>thanks,
>Keith


With Duke Energy here in North Carolina we pay $.08/KWH. We have an
all-electric house and get a reduced rate for that.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On Mar 22, 10:09*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Food Snob®" > wrote in message
>
> news:eb251afe-f41c-47fe-abb3-
>
>
>
> > * I
> > especially approve of the unearned income Medicare tax, and would like
> > to see all "payroll" taxes applied to unearned as well as earned
> > income.
> > --Bryan
>
> You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. *The more
> you send, the less the rest of us have to. *Go ahead, send it in. Let me
> guess, you don't have any unearned income.

Why should folks who own for a living be subject to lower tax rates
than those who WORK for a living? There's a reason it's called
"unearned."

--Bryan

On 3/22/2010 11:09 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Food Snob®" > wrote in message
> news:eb251afe-f41c-47fe-abb3-
>>
>> I
>> especially approve of the unearned income Medicare tax, and would like
>> to see all "payroll" taxes applied to unearned as well as earned
>> income.
>> --Bryan
>
> You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. The more
> you send, the less the rest of us have to. Go ahead, send it in. Let me
> guess, you don't have any unearned income.

The whole idea behind tax breaks for unearned income is to encourage
savings and investment. Of course if you don't make enough to save
anything that doesn't help you . . .
>
>
>

On Mar 23, 7:22*am, "J. Clarke" > wrote:
> On 3/22/2010 11:09 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Food Snob®" > wrote in message
> > news:eb251afe-f41c-47fe-abb3-
>
> >> I
> >> especially approve of the unearned income Medicare tax, and would like
> >> to see all "payroll" taxes applied to unearned as well as earned
> >> income.
> >> --Bryan
>
> > You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. The more
> > you send, the less the rest of us have to. Go ahead, send it in. Let me
> > guess, you don't have any unearned income.
>
> The whole idea behind tax breaks for unearned income is to encourage
> savings and investment. *Of course if you don't make enough to save
> anything that doesn't help you . . .
>
The whole idea is that those who own are more worthy of income than
those who toil. It was/is SOLD as encouraging savings and
investment. If it were REALLY " to encourage savings and investment,"
the exemption could be capped at some level where increases in the
value of capital to fund a comfortable retirement would be untaxed,
but the very rich would still have to pay, say $200/250K, which is a
Hell of a lot of yearly investment income.

--Bryan

On 3/23/2010 6:55 AM, The Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:54:57 -0500, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Some of you may remember me talking about converting to a natural gas
>>> furnace and water heater last fall. It seemed like a good time to do
>>> it because the federal and provincial governments were both offering
>>> rebates for switching to high efficiency units. I also took advantage
>>> of rebate offers for insulation and low flush toilets. I added
>>> another 9" of insulation to the attic and insulated the headers in
>>> the basement. I needed a new furnace anyway and was counting on a
>>> significant saving in heating and electricity. I had been advised
>>> that it would pay for itself within a few years.
>>>
>>> Just to put things into perspective, I did need the furnace and my AC
>>> was at least 35 years old, and not working that great. My equal
>>> billing for heating oil was $330 a month for 10 months. The highest
>>> oil use was December to March when I would go through a tank of oil
>>> per month, at $600-700 per filling. I am not on equal billing for
>>> gas, paying monthly instead. Instead of those $600 plus months, my
>>> gas bills have been running in the range of $110-125.
>>>
>>> That means that my monthly heating costs for the coldest months is
>>> less than 1/4 what I had been paying. Even better, that amount
>>> includes my hot water. My electrical bills were $130- 150 per month,
>>> but they are now down in the $80 range. The way things are going, it
>>> looks like I will be saving close to $2500 a year in heating and at
>>> least $400 in electricity.
>>>
>>> Total expenses for the work was $8700. I will be getting back $3100
>>> from the government and $525 from my electricity company... $3625,
>>> dropping my cost to $5075. That means the work will have paid for
>>> itself within 2 years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the
>>> thermostat (in the living room) set at the same level, but it is now
>>> a lot warmer upstairs in the bedroom.
>>
>> Dave, can you tell me your cost of elec per kwh? Ours has risen to nearly
>> 18c (US) in the last several years, and I would love to compare.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Keith
>
>
> With Duke Energy here in North Carolina we pay $.08/KWH. We have an
> all-electric house and get a reduced rate for that.

Next time you see a Duke Energy lineman stop him and thank him on our
behalf. After Hurricane Rita it was two very large Duke Energy linemen
who got us powered up after a week without. Of course the fact that I
made a big pot of gumbo on the crawfish boiler rig that may have drawn
them to the house. I was feeding about twenty neighbors and us for that
time. I used to be a Boy Scout so I was prepared.

The Duke guys were very nice and were certainly well experienced, they
yanked the stub of our power pole out of the ground, put in a new one
and hooked us up to the system within an hour. I had already had a local
electrician put in a new power head and the associated equipment so we
were ready. Was a relief to shut down that generator.

Stu wrote:

>> In a few months we start Smart Meter prices and rates depend on time of
>> us. Off peak will be 4.4 cents, mid peak 8 cents and on peak 9.3 cents.
>> Peak hours change with the season. Weekends and holidays are off peak.
>
> Where are you Dave?


In the middle of the Niagara Peninsula.

In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:


> But you have to work like hell to get to the point of having unearned
> income. If I have $1million in savings, it came from income t hat I earned
> and put away. Now you want to tax me again because I'm taking care of my
> own future. I think the jealousy factor is at work.

I'm sure the jealousy factor is pretty big. Still, there are an awful
lot of people in this world who were born with a silver spoon in their
mouth. They didn't "work like hell". Some of them never worked an
honest day in their lives.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Mar 22, 1:11*pm, Dave Smith > wrote:
That means the work will have paid for itself within 2
> years. The house is a lot warmer now. We have the thermostat (in the
> living room) set at the same level, but it is now a lot warmer upstairs
> in the bedroom.

Commendable. Spread the word and inspire others. Two years is a good
pay-off time.

In article >,
sf > wrote:


> Unearned income is income that is not a wage - it can be dividends,
> interest or rent. Pull your savings out and it's not taxed if you
> saved it after paying income tax on it, but the income your savings
> generate is taxed. In the end, income is income and it's all taxed.
> As ole Ben Franklin once said: Two things in life are certain, death
> and taxes.

I think you missed the whole point. Currently, you don't pay Medicare
on unearned income. You don't pay Social Security either. The proposal
was to change that. There was no discussion of income tax in this
thread. You are right, of course, that people in the US have to pay
income tax on unearned income just the same as earned income.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Cheryl wrote:
> On Mon 22 Mar 2010 07:54:57p, K wrote in rec.food.cooking
> >:
>
>> Dave, can you tell me your cost of elec per kwh? Ours has risen
>> to nearly 18c (US) in the last several years, and I would love
>> to compare.
>>
>
> Where are you in the US? I'm in Maryland and the cost per kwh here
> is just over .11. That will change soon; I'm not sure what it goes
> to come May/June.

We're in Connecticut, where the utility gets raises seemingly whenever they
want.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon 22 Mar 2010 07:54:57p, K wrote in rec.food.cooking
>> >:
>>
>>> Dave, can you tell me your cost of elec per kwh? Ours has risen
>>> to nearly 18c (US) in the last several years, and I would love
>>> to compare.
>>>
>>
>> Where are you in the US? I'm in Maryland and the cost per kwh here
>> is just over .11. That will change soon; I'm not sure what it goes
>> to come May/June.
>
> That is cheap. Here in CT I'm at 17.7¢

Not sure how much ours is per kwh because there are fees, taxes, etc.,
but when divided by the hours we used, the bill averaged out to be 6.8.


Becca

On Mar 22, 11:31*pm, "gloria.p" > wrote:
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> *> All of your numbers are highly distorted since you are not comparing
> *> like units. Comparing an old oil fired unit to a new gas fired unit is
> *> meaningless. So is comparing an old gas fired unit to a new oil fired
> *> one.
>
> Huh? * He compared operating cost. *How can that be meaningless?
>
> > On top of
> > this, gas fired units tend to be less sturdily built (notable exceptions
> > for high end stuff of course), so parts tend to fail much sooner than
> > with an oil fired unit.
>
> We just replaced a 35 year old gas unit with another. *How much sooner
> do gas furnaces fail than oil?
>
> gloria p


One must calculate cost per BTUs in order to compare. Oil delivers
approx 140,000 (fuel oil #2) BTUs per gallon, and gas has 1000 BTUs
per cubic foot. Calculate what 1,000,000 BTUs costs by dividing it
out. The results will be the cost at 1,000,000 BTUs input. Then,
multiply by the percentage of efficiency of the given units gives the
net output, which is the factor that heats the house. That is the
comparison.

Gas units have flimsier heat exchangers compared to oil, and the oil
has one extra motor. Oil requires more tuning, but perhaps over the
long run will last longer due to the more ruggd heat exchangers. Gas
is NOT cleaner. If a product of combustion is detected in the house,
it is typically the result of a flawed heat echanger. Oil will
generally cost more per installation when comparing like
efficiencies.

My input just cost 2 cents per BTU.

"K" > wrote
>
> We're in Connecticut, where the utility gets raises seemingly whenever
> they want.

You did sign up for a different supplier though right? Still high, but I'm
saving about $10 a month with Levco and now ConEd is a few bucks cheaper
yet.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:22:08 -0700 (PDT), oz
> wrote:

>On Mar 22, 11:31*pm, "gloria.p" > wrote:
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> *> All of your numbers are highly distorted since you are not comparing
>> *> like units. Comparing an old oil fired unit to a new gas fired unit is
>> *> meaningless. So is comparing an old gas fired unit to a new oil fired
>> *> one.
>>
>> Huh? * He compared operating cost. *How can that be meaningless?
>>
>> > On top of
>> > this, gas fired units tend to be less sturdily built (notable exceptions
>> > for high end stuff of course), so parts tend to fail much sooner than
>> > with an oil fired unit.
>>
>> We just replaced a 35 year old gas unit with another. *How much sooner
>> do gas furnaces fail than oil?
>>
>> gloria p
>
>
>One must calculate cost per BTUs in order to compare. Oil delivers
>approx 140,000 (fuel oil #2) BTUs per gallon, and gas has 1000 BTUs
>per cubic foot. Calculate what 1,000,000 BTUs costs by dividing it
>out. The results will be the cost at 1,000,000 BTUs input. Then,
>multiply by the percentage of efficiency of the given units gives the
>net output, which is the factor that heats the house. That is the
>comparison.
>
>Gas units have flimsier heat exchangers compared to oil, and the oil
>has one extra motor. Oil requires more tuning, but perhaps over the
>long run will last longer due to the more ruggd heat exchangers. Gas
>is NOT cleaner. If a product of combustion is detected in the house,
>it is typically the result of a flawed heat echanger. Oil will
>generally cost more per installation when comparing like
>efficiencies.
>
>My input just cost 2 cents per BTU.

Gas fired units are exactly the same as oil fired, in fact they can be
switched from one fuel to the other and often are. There are poorly
constructed heating units same as there are well built units, however
which fuel one chooses to use hasn't a whit to do with anything
regarding longivity, The Boch hot water heater, considered the rolls
royce of the industry, is fitted with either gas or oil on the same
exact unit. Without proper maintenence, which includes water quality,
no hot water heater will last very long, regardless of fuel

http://www.bockwaterheaters.com/index.html

On Mar 23, 11:31*pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:22:08 -0700 (PDT), oz
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Mar 22, 11:31*pm, "gloria.p" > wrote:
> >> Pete C. wrote:
>
> >> *> All of your numbers are highly distorted since you are not comparing
> >> *> like units. Comparing an old oil fired unit to a new gas fired unit is
> >> *> meaningless. So is comparing an old gas fired unit to a new oil fired
> >> *> one.
>
> >> Huh? * He compared operating cost. *How can that be meaningless?
>
> >> > On top of
> >> > this, gas fired units tend to be less sturdily built (notable exceptions
> >> > for high end stuff of course), so parts tend to fail much sooner than
> >> > with an oil fired unit.
>
> >> We just replaced a 35 year old gas unit with another. *How much sooner
> >> do gas furnaces fail than oil?
>
> >> gloria p
>
> >One must calculate cost per BTUs in order to compare. *Oil delivers
> >approx 140,000 (fuel oil #2) BTUs per gallon, and gas has 1000 BTUs
> >per cubic foot. *Calculate what 1,000,000 BTUs costs by dividing it
> >out. *The results will be the cost at 1,000,000 BTUs input. *Then,
> >multiply by the percentage of efficiency of the given units gives the
> >net output, which is the factor that heats the house. *That is the
> >comparison.
>
> >Gas units have flimsier heat exchangers compared to oil, and the oil
> >has one extra motor. *Oil requires more tuning, but perhaps over the
> >long run will last longer due to the more ruggd heat exchangers. *Gas
> >is NOT cleaner. *If a product of combustion is detected in the house,
> >it is typically the result of a flawed heat echanger. *Oil will
> >generally cost more per installation when comparing like
> >efficiencies.
>
> >My input just cost 2 cents per BTU.
>
> Gas fired units are exactly the same as oil fired, in fact they can be
> switched from one fuel to the other and often are. *There are poorly
> constructed heating units same as there are well built units, however
> which fuel one chooses to use hasn't a whit to do with anything
> regarding longivity, *The Boch hot water heater, considered the rolls
> royce of the industry, is fitted with either gas or oil on the same
> exact unit. *Without proper maintenence, which includes water quality,
> no hot water heater will last very long, regardless of fuel
>
> http://www.bockwaterheaters.com/index.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you're referring to furnaces, then that is not correct. ALL gas
furnaces now come wih sectional heat exchangers. Oil furnaces have
drum heat exchangers. And I know of no water heaters these days that
are interchangable, fuel-wise.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 21:08:31 -0700 (PDT), oz
> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 11:31*pm, brooklyn1 > wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:22:08 -0700 (PDT), oz
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Mar 22, 11:31*pm, "gloria.p" > wrote:
>> >> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> >> *> All of your numbers are highly distorted since you are not comparing
>> >> *> like units. Comparing an old oil fired unit to a new gas fired unit is
>> >> *> meaningless. So is comparing an old gas fired unit to a new oil fired
>> >> *> one.
>>
>> >> Huh? * He compared operating cost. *How can that be meaningless?
>>
>> >> > On top of
>> >> > this, gas fired units tend to be less sturdily built (notable exceptions
>> >> > for high end stuff of course), so parts tend to fail much sooner than
>> >> > with an oil fired unit.
>>
>> >> We just replaced a 35 year old gas unit with another. *How much sooner
>> >> do gas furnaces fail than oil?
>>
>> >> gloria p
>>
>> >One must calculate cost per BTUs in order to compare. *Oil delivers
>> >approx 140,000 (fuel oil #2) BTUs per gallon, and gas has 1000 BTUs
>> >per cubic foot. *Calculate what 1,000,000 BTUs costs by dividing it
>> >out. *The results will be the cost at 1,000,000 BTUs input. *Then,
>> >multiply by the percentage of efficiency of the given units gives the
>> >net output, which is the factor that heats the house. *That is the
>> >comparison.
>>
>> >Gas units have flimsier heat exchangers compared to oil, and the oil
>> >has one extra motor. *Oil requires more tuning, but perhaps over the
>> >long run will last longer due to the more ruggd heat exchangers. *Gas
>> >is NOT cleaner. *If a product of combustion is detected in the house,
>> >it is typically the result of a flawed heat echanger. *Oil will
>> >generally cost more per installation when comparing like
>> >efficiencies.
>>
>> >My input just cost 2 cents per BTU.
>>
>> Gas fired units are exactly the same as oil fired, in fact they can be
>> switched from one fuel to the other and often are. *There are poorly
>> constructed heating units same as there are well built units, however
>> which fuel one chooses to use hasn't a whit to do with anything
>> regarding longivity, *The Boch hot water heater, considered the rolls
>> royce of the industry, is fitted with either gas or oil on the same
>> exact unit. *Without proper maintenence, which includes water quality,
>> no hot water heater will last very long, regardless of fuel
>>
>> http://www.bockwaterheaters.com/index.html-
>
>If you're referring to furnaces, then that is not correct. ALL gas
>furnaces now come wih sectional heat exchangers. Oil furnaces have
>drum heat exchangers. And I know of no water heaters these days that
>are interchangable, fuel-wise.

There's no such thing as an "oil/gas furnace"... there are cast iron,
sheet metal, wet base, dry base, steam, forced air, and various
hybrids, but type of fuel NEVER defines a type of furnace... every
combustion furnace/water heater can be fitted to accomodate a variety
of fuels; oil, kerosene, natural gas, propane, wood, coal, even
combinations. Oil and gas weren't always available, there are still
many, many old coal/wood furnaces around that some 50 years ago were
converted to oil/gas. I recently had my furnace converted from oil to
propane... the oil tank, oil burner, and all controls are still there
if I ever want to convert back. The furnace is just a basic cast iron
wet base, can even be converted to steam, if I wanted to go through
the expence and inconvenience of tearing out all the hot water
baseboard and install cast iron radiators... if natural gas were
available here I would have used that, costs significantly less per
BTU than propane, but propane costs about 20% less than oil, and
propane requires no maintenence/service contract. A lot of people say
they have an oil fired boiler when in fact it could just as easily be
gas fired. The gas retrofit I had installed (made in Germany) is a
very ingenious device in that it requires no pilot light, ignites
pretty much the same as an oil burner, generates an electrical arc,
however has many safety features, one that it blows out the combustion
chamber and chiminey for 30 seconds before ignition, sounds like a jet
engine... first time it went off while I was in the basement it scared
the shit out of me. I can easily go back to smelly filthy oil but
can't imagine I ever would.

On 3/23/2010 12:02 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In article<9KadnW_PLcZ5UzXWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews. com>,
> "Ed > wrote:
>
>
>> But you have to work like hell to get to the point of having unearned
>> income. If I have $1million in savings, it came from income t hat I earned
>> and put away. Now you want to tax me again because I'm taking care of my
>> own future. I think the jealousy factor is at work.
>
> I'm sure the jealousy factor is pretty big. Still, there are an awful
> lot of people in this world who were born with a silver spoon in their
> mouth. They didn't "work like hell". Some of them never worked an
> honest day in their lives.
>

Absolutely, and I am still fuming that the Democrat Congress (Congress
is the only one who controls the purse strings) decided to bail out the
rotten POS Wall St pirates. I am even madder after my dufass Congressman
went on TV to express his dismay that the pirates who have no regard for
anything except money just didn't get it...

On 3/23/2010 9:22 PM, oz wrote:
> On Mar 22, 11:31 pm, > wrote:
>> Pete C. wrote:
>>
>> > All of your numbers are highly distorted since you are not comparing
>> > like units. Comparing an old oil fired unit to a new gas fired unit is
>> > meaningless. So is comparing an old gas fired unit to a new oil fired
>> > one.
>>
>> Huh? He compared operating cost. How can that be meaningless?
>>
>>> On top of
>>> this, gas fired units tend to be less sturdily built (notable exceptions
>>> for high end stuff of course), so parts tend to fail much sooner than
>>> with an oil fired unit.
>>
>> We just replaced a 35 year old gas unit with another. How much sooner
>> do gas furnaces fail than oil?
>>
>> gloria p
>
>
> One must calculate cost per BTUs in order to compare. Oil delivers
> approx 140,000 (fuel oil #2) BTUs per gallon, and gas has 1000 BTUs
> per cubic foot. Calculate what 1,000,000 BTUs costs by dividing it
> out. The results will be the cost at 1,000,000 BTUs input. Then,
> multiply by the percentage of efficiency of the given units gives the
> net output, which is the factor that heats the house. That is the
> comparison.
>
> Gas units have flimsier heat exchangers compared to oil, and the oil
> has one extra motor. Oil requires more tuning, but perhaps over the
> long run will last longer due to the more ruggd heat exchangers. Gas
> is NOT cleaner.

I would strongly disagree with that. There isn't anything much cleaner
than burning methane "natural gas". There is no soot. Our boiler is ~ 20
years old and the burners and flue passages look the same as the day the
unit was installed and they have never been cleaned because they simply
don't get dirty.

If a product of combustion is detected in the house,
> it is typically the result of a flawed heat echanger. Oil will
> generally cost more per installation when comparing like
> efficiencies.
>
> My input just cost 2 cents per BTU.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:09:52 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "Food Snob®" > wrote in message
> news:eb251afe-f41c-47fe-abb3-
>>
>> I
>> especially approve of the unearned income Medicare tax, and would like
>> to see all "payroll" taxes applied to unearned as well as earned
>> income.
>> --Bryan
>
> You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. The more
> you send, the less the rest of us have to. Go ahead, send it in. Let me
> guess, you don't have any unearned income.
>

why should unearned income be taxed a lower rate than wage income?

your pal,
blake

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 3/23/2010 12:02 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article<9KadnW_PLcZ5UzXWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews. com>,
> > "Ed > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But you have to work like hell to get to the point of having unearned
> >> income. If I have $1million in savings, it came from income t hat I
> >> earned
> >> and put away. Now you want to tax me again because I'm taking care of my
> >> own future. I think the jealousy factor is at work.
> >
> > I'm sure the jealousy factor is pretty big. Still, there are an awful
> > lot of people in this world who were born with a silver spoon in their
> > mouth. They didn't "work like hell". Some of them never worked an
> > honest day in their lives.
> >
>
> Absolutely, and I am still fuming that the Democrat Congress (Congress
> is the only one who controls the purse strings) decided to bail out the
> rotten POS Wall St pirates. I am even madder after my dufass Congressman
> went on TV to express his dismay that the pirates who have no regard for
> anything except money just didn't get it...

It was too late to do much else other than bail them out. It would be
nice to say to them that they assumed the risk, now they get the losses.
But they weren't playing with their own money. They were playing with
other people's money. And all those bank deposits were guaranteed by
the government. Hey, what a deal! Speculate with other people's money!
If you make a bundle, it's yours to keep! If you lose other people's
money, it's guaranteed by the government. No way to lose there. The
time to stop that was in 1999, when all the regulations that kept them
from speculating with other people's money were gutted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

I'd like to blame that on the Republicans, but the cite clearly shows
that it passed easily with a lot of Democratic support. It was signed
by President Clinton, but even if he had vetoed it, it would have
repassed easily over his veto.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

blake murphy wrote:
>
>> You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. The more
>> you send, the less the rest of us have to. Go ahead, send it in. Let me
>> guess, you don't have any unearned income.
>>
>
> why should unearned income be taxed a lower rate than wage income?


Maybe for the same reason that luxury yachts are taxed at a lower rate?
To give tax break to the people who can most afford it.

"Dave Smith" > wrote
> Maybe for the same reason that luxury yachts are taxed at a lower rate? To
> give tax break to the people who can most afford it.
>

Those yachts are taxed at the same rate here to my knowledge.
We put an additonal tax on luxury items like yachts a few years back. What
happened was the workers that built them (people like you and me) got laid
off when the order stopped coming in.

"Dave Smith" > ha scritto nel messaggio
news:36Pqn.8797
> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>> You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. The
>>> more >>> you send, the less the rest of us have to. Go ahead, send it
>>> in. Let me guess, you don't have any unearned income.
>>>
>>
>> why should unearned income be taxed a lower rate than wage income?
>
>
> Maybe for the same reason that luxury yachts are taxed at a lower rate? >
> To give tax break to the people who can most afford it.

Y'all persist in thinking that people who have unearned income are rich. I
am not rich. I was self-employed most of my life and the only pension I
could have was what I could save and invest. SS doesn't make it for
anybody. You have to have a separate pension.

You also completely ignore the need for investments and the risk involved.
Coins under the mattress do not support the economy nor produce jobs.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:16:38 +0100, Giusi wrote:

> "Dave Smith" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:36Pqn.8797
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. The
>>>> more >>> you send, the less the rest of us have to. Go ahead, send it
>>>> in. Let me guess, you don't have any unearned income.
>>>>
>>>
>>> why should unearned income be taxed a lower rate than wage income?
>>
>>
>> Maybe for the same reason that luxury yachts are taxed at a lower rate? >
>> To give tax break to the people who can most afford it.
>
> Y'all persist in thinking that people who have unearned income are rich. I
> am not rich. I was self-employed most of my life and the only pension I
> could have was what I could save and invest. SS doesn't make it for
> anybody. You have to have a separate pension.
>
> You also completely ignore the need for investments and the risk involved.
> Coins under the mattress do not support the economy nor produce jobs.

why should other taxpayers subsidize your risk by paying more on their wage
income than you pay on your profit?

and would people really say to themselves, 'gosh i really shouldn't make
this money (without actually working for it) because i'll be taxed at a
normal rate?'

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:


>> You also completely ignore the need for investments and the risk involved.
>> Coins under the mattress do not support the economy nor produce jobs.
>
> why should other taxpayers subsidize your risk by paying more on their wage
> income than you pay on your profit?
>
> and would people really say to themselves, 'gosh i really shouldn't make
> this money (without actually working for it) because i'll be taxed at a
> normal rate?'


It's income. I used to pay income tax on my earnings, and I worked a
number of jobs that were physically demanding and some that were
mentally challenged. For the most part, I worked damned hard for my
money. I was lucky enough to have earned enough to save some, and I was
lucky enough to have been given some money and to have inherited
some.... not a lot, but I saved it rather than blowing it all. I am not
getting a hell of a lot of interest on it, and then I have to pay income
tax on the interest. It is, after all, income. I don't work for it. I
just sit back and collect it, let it accrue and and make a little more
interest. But I do nothing for that income. Seems only fair that if I do
nothing to earn the money that I should pay as much tax on that as the
earnings that I had to work for.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:16:38 +0100, Giusi wrote:
>
>> "Dave Smith" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> news:36Pqn.8797
>>> blake murphy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are free to send extra taxes to the government if you want. The
>>>>> more >>> you send, the less the rest of us have to. Go ahead, send it
>>>>> in. Let me guess, you don't have any unearned income.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> why should unearned income be taxed a lower rate than wage income?
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe for the same reason that luxury yachts are taxed at a lower rate?
>>> >
>>> To give tax break to the people who can most afford it.
>>
>> Y'all persist in thinking that people who have unearned income are rich.
>> I
>> am not rich. I was self-employed most of my life and the only pension I
>> could have was what I could save and invest. SS doesn't make it for
>> anybody. You have to have a separate pension.
>>
>> You also completely ignore the need for investments and the risk
>> involved.
>> Coins under the mattress do not support the economy nor produce jobs.
>
> why should other taxpayers subsidize your risk by paying more on their
> wage
> income than you pay on your profit?
>
> and would people really say to themselves, 'gosh i really shouldn't make
> this money (without actually working for it) because i'll be taxed at a
> normal rate?'
>
> your pal,
> blake

I don't see it as subsidizing my risk, but you may. With interest rates on
savings at or below the inflation rate, not much incentive to get taxed on
that income is there. Not much incentive to save anything.

Giusi > wrote:

>"Dave Smith" > ha scritto nel messaggio

>> blake murphy wrote:

>>> why should unearned income be taxed a lower rate than wage income?

Historically, the reason is that rich people write the tax
laws and they chose to tax the types of income rich people
tend to have at lower rates.

>> Maybe for the same reason that luxury yachts are taxed at a lower rate? >
>> To give tax break to the people who can most afford it.

>Y'all persist in thinking that people who have unearned income are rich. I
>am not rich. I was self-employed most of my life and the only pension I
>could have was what I could save and invest. SS doesn't make it for
>anybody. You have to have a separate pension.

Under the tax changes in the Healthcare Bill, income coming out
of most types of pension plans is not subject to the new higher
tax rates. (i.e. it does not add to the income figure which
determines whether you are above threshold for the new taxes.)

They did not do a totally clean job of this, but that's the
intent and the basic result. If you have a lot of investment
income outside of pension plans, it will now be taxed at rates
comparable to that of wage-earners, as opposed at preferential
lower rates. The tax system has been flattenedi. Whereas if all
you have is a pension plan, even a very healthy one, you do not
see new taxes.

Steve