PRICES GOING UP BIG THIS YEAR AGAIN ON PELLETS
- Thread starter HOGG0494
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
tjnamtiw
Minister of Fire
I've got pellets in the shop from 4 years ago. As long as you take care of em, they last a long time. kap
you
you hit the nail on the head there. Stop buying pellets. Watch them scramble to absorb all they inventory. They hate having inventory on hand.
lagger
Feeling the Heat
what tax hike was that ?? my payroll tax didn't go up, capital gains did, and rightly so imo but I never saw an increase in my net from my job, here's a list of all the tax hikes that are attributable to the POTUS policies from a conservative site:
http://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996
also I got a 300 dollar credit this year on my fed tax for my biomass purchase
The White House report released this week — ahead of the vote in the Senate Wednesday to extend tax cuts for household income below $250,000 — does mention two years of payroll tax cuts that Obama pushed through in 2011 and 2012, but only when talking about how much money the president has saved American families:
stops getting collectedon income over $110,100.)
But Obama has not proposed extending the payroll tax cut — the White House spokesman has danced around the issue, saying it is “something that we would look at in December”— and there is little appetite on Capitol Hill for extending it either. (Republicans have never liked the concept.)
For that typical family making $50,000, ending that tax break will mean a $1,000 tax increase. So, while the White House likes to claim that its proposals would reduce taxes by $2,200 for that family, the net effect of the two tax changes actually would be a reduction in taxes of $1,200. (Alternatively, if Obama’s plan fails to pass the House of Representatives, that family will see a tax increase of $3,200, not $2,200.)
Indeed, the White House Web site continues to brag that the president last year fought for “middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from losing an average of $40 per paycheck, enabling them to keep about $1,000 of their hard-earned money.” That sentence is referring to the payroll tax cut.
A White House official argues that a) the debate currently is about income taxes and no one is trying to solve all outstanding tax issues and b) the payroll taxes were always known to be temporary. In contrast, this official argued, the Bush tax cuts — at least for the middle class — were always supported as being permanent, even though Congress did not write the law that way. (Got that?)
However, the White House’s Web site still refers to the previous payroll tax cuts as “tax cuts.”
Meanwhile, keeping the focus on income taxes also allows the president to avoid talking about another pending payroll tax contained in the health care law — a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing joint returns. (We had missed Obama’s line, referring to Clinton era tax rates, until it was highlighted by our colleague Jennifer Rubin on Wednesday.)
The Bush tax cut set the top income-tax rate at 35 percent, and Obama would restore it to the 39.6 percent rate set during Clinton’s presidency. But while Social Security taxes are capped, there is no cap on Medicare payroll taxes — also legacy of Bill Clinton’s 1993 deficit-reduction deal.
Currently, the Medicare payroll tax is 2.9 percent, split between employers and employees, but most economists assume some of the employer’s tax payments result in lost wages for the employee. So the health-care surcharge would be on top of that, resulting, as we previously have noted, in a marginal tax rate nearly as high as 45 percent for the wealthy.
stops getting collectedon income over $110,100.)
But Obama has not proposed extending the payroll tax cut — the White House spokesman has danced around the issue, saying it is “something that we would look at in December”— and there is little appetite on Capitol Hill for extending it either. (Republicans have never liked the concept.)
For that typical family making $50,000, ending that tax break will mean a $1,000 tax increase. So, while the White House likes to claim that its proposals would reduce taxes by $2,200 for that family, the net effect of the two tax changes actually would be a reduction in taxes of $1,200. (Alternatively, if Obama’s plan fails to pass the House of Representatives, that family will see a tax increase of $3,200, not $2,200.)
Indeed, the White House Web site continues to brag that the president last year fought for “middle class tax cuts to prevent a typical working family from losing an average of $40 per paycheck, enabling them to keep about $1,000 of their hard-earned money.” That sentence is referring to the payroll tax cut.
A White House official argues that a) the debate currently is about income taxes and no one is trying to solve all outstanding tax issues and b) the payroll taxes were always known to be temporary. In contrast, this official argued, the Bush tax cuts — at least for the middle class — were always supported as being permanent, even though Congress did not write the law that way. (Got that?)
However, the White House’s Web site still refers to the previous payroll tax cuts as “tax cuts.”
Meanwhile, keeping the focus on income taxes also allows the president to avoid talking about another pending payroll tax contained in the health care law — a 0.9 percent Medicare surtax on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing joint returns. (We had missed Obama’s line, referring to Clinton era tax rates, until it was highlighted by our colleague Jennifer Rubin on Wednesday.)
The Bush tax cut set the top income-tax rate at 35 percent, and Obama would restore it to the 39.6 percent rate set during Clinton’s presidency. But while Social Security taxes are capped, there is no cap on Medicare payroll taxes — also legacy of Bill Clinton’s 1993 deficit-reduction deal.
Currently, the Medicare payroll tax is 2.9 percent, split between employers and employees, but most economists assume some of the employer’s tax payments result in lost wages for the employee. So the health-care surcharge would be on top of that, resulting, as we previously have noted, in a marginal tax rate nearly as high as 45 percent for the wealthy.
Bioburner
Moderator
Old Spartan
Burning Hunk
The FICA tax change was not a tax increase. The reduction should never have taken place. The FICA tax is a dedicated tax that pays for an entitlement. Social Sewcurity is about the ONLY entitlement that beneficiaries actually pay for.
john193
Minister of Fire
I actually liked Paul Ryan's idea to give people control of their SS deduction by turning it into a 401k style system. I don't expect to see a dime out of SS when I'm retired.
Ambient
Member
response to above maybe off topic:
A. SS has been systematically defunded by congress raiding it's coffers. If they would leave it alone it would be sustainable. (same with the USPO)
B. 401K programs were meant to defund/defeat existing retirement programs, brought to you by corporation lobbyists.
C. 1% of the Country's wealth controls the outcome of your 401K program, stay tuned and watch that be diminished over time.
D. "Entitlements" is a buzz word, I'm surrounded by entities that get SSI, and also Large corporations and farms that get $$$$$ entitlements. Our farm declined the personal invitation to get a "free" greenhouse.
E. my personal apologies to anyone's sensibilities
The record number of heating degree days this winter and the increased number of pellet stoves in use, has brought pressure on the pellet market. I'm not hearing about "preseason sales" from anyone, just increased costs. The offset might be the cost of fossil fuels being so low. The brilliance of that manipulation, brought on by the Saudi's and big oil is undermining alternative energy sources. So, I'm assuming that the market may continue the increases in prices and production, with a correction as the 2015/16 season unfolds. I bought my pellets now....
A. SS has been systematically defunded by congress raiding it's coffers. If they would leave it alone it would be sustainable. (same with the USPO)
B. 401K programs were meant to defund/defeat existing retirement programs, brought to you by corporation lobbyists.
C. 1% of the Country's wealth controls the outcome of your 401K program, stay tuned and watch that be diminished over time.
D. "Entitlements" is a buzz word, I'm surrounded by entities that get SSI, and also Large corporations and farms that get $$$$$ entitlements. Our farm declined the personal invitation to get a "free" greenhouse.
E. my personal apologies to anyone's sensibilities
The record number of heating degree days this winter and the increased number of pellet stoves in use, has brought pressure on the pellet market. I'm not hearing about "preseason sales" from anyone, just increased costs. The offset might be the cost of fossil fuels being so low. The brilliance of that manipulation, brought on by the Saudi's and big oil is undermining alternative energy sources. So, I'm assuming that the market may continue the increases in prices and production, with a correction as the 2015/16 season unfolds. I bought my pellets now....
Lowes around me is $259 a ton. If I wanted to buy them in $50 increments and use a 15 off 50 coupon they could be had for about $4.00 a bag or $200 a ton.
john193
Minister of Fire
I'd be interested to know if this works because there were a few people on here who said lowes refused coupon use on pellets. But perhaps it was that managers call...
Buy online pick up in store. Has always worked for me. You usually can even reuse the coupon online again the system does not void it most often. Although some folks have commented that they can not buy online at their store.
sportbikerider78
Minister of Fire
Lots of factors to consider.
Supply and demand. 2 really cold winters in a row = greater demand.
No one has extras left over from previous years as well, so there is even more than normal demand as people chew through reserves and order more.
Money inflation. Our buck is worth less every year. Prices going up 3-5% is just keeping pace with inflation.
Regulation. What isn't getting regulated more? Higher cost for employees,,,higher cost for products.
I think you would be hard pressed to say that pellet companies are making higher margins every year. Besides, if they are then more manufacturers would get in the game to make profits. Then everyone wins because supply increases and prices go down.
I'm switching to wood for a few years to try my hand at that. Not sure what the final solution would be, but pellets aren't a steal of a deal like they used to be.
vinny11950
Minister of Fire
Every year I hear the same thing in Spring and then the prices in the fall are pretty close to the previous year's.
They may actually be better next winter because supply disruptions should be sorted out by then and fracking oil rigs are shutting down thereby opening up more rail space for pellets to be moved around the country.
Supply in Long Island last fall was tight, but then a bunch of pellets showed up in Jan and Feb.
They may actually be better next winter because supply disruptions should be sorted out by then and fracking oil rigs are shutting down thereby opening up more rail space for pellets to be moved around the country.
Supply in Long Island last fall was tight, but then a bunch of pellets showed up in Jan and Feb.
Peterfield
Minister of Fire
I don't think it's the pellet companies doing the gouging but rather the last one in the line before the consumer. When you go to one store and they have pellets at 4.98 a bag and the same brand at another store in the same area is 6.25 a bag, that's either gouging or they are a very poor negotiator when it comes to ordering pellets.
Husky
Feeling the Heat
Just got information on early buy of barefoot for $275 a ton and Dry Creek $235 a ton. Not sure if I want to buy this early or wait to see if price decrease in late spring, early summer.
john193
Minister of Fire
That's the price I paid for barefoots last year factoring in delivery. I'd be happy with that in my neighborhood.
SidecarFlip
Minister of Fire
Old Spartan
Burning Hunk
I spent my working life investing by the dollar cost averaging method. Buy so much periodically and the big price fluctuations are "evened" out. Cost me some opportunity profit in up years but mitigated losses in down years.
I am buying my pellets (a two year supply) based on this mode. began a week ago and will purchase another ton next week. One ton per month March through December. Two Pennington, Two Lacrete, and Two Clean Fire. The remaining four will be opportunity buys depending on what is available.
I am buying my pellets (a two year supply) based on this mode. began a week ago and will purchase another ton next week. One ton per month March through December. Two Pennington, Two Lacrete, and Two Clean Fire. The remaining four will be opportunity buys depending on what is available.
Pete Zahria
Minister of Fire
It's really neither in most cases...
If you are thinking back a ways to those Blazers that you guys talk about for cheap money at Home Depot,
you cannot compare that to the price a pellet dealer has to charge. That was a freak.
They got those and sold them for the set price that was negotiated before the season started.
Smaller dealers/hardware stores etc., have no "negotiating" powers.
The prices can vary between loads..If you have to pay say $300 a ton for something, you can't sell it for $239...
Big Box Stores, and local dealers selling pellets, are two very very different species.......
Decent pellets sold at smaller dealers, cost dealers more than BBS sell their stuff for.
Plain and simple.
It's good that there are options when it comes to buying things, not just pellets.
Some people only think about price, and others just buy the ones they prefer.
Nothing wrong with either preference.
Dan
- Status
Similar threads
