Sure, one action can have multiple reasons and outcomes. I agree with it in part that I need to pay my fair share of road taxes. I also recognize that this is a relatively new market force, and highly accurate consumption-to-taxation isn’t in place yet (again, for many reasons).
That doesn’t mean it’s why they do it, though.
Its not the only reason they do it.
And here I have to pay more to register my hybrid.
Same for my EV (double the hybrid registration cost in my state). However, that’s because of how road taxes are collected on the sale of gasoline/diesel fuel. Its still overpaying on EV taxes though. For the same registration fee I pay on an EV ($200/year) I could drive over 15,000 miles on a gasoline car getting 30 miles to the gallon. I drive maybe 11,000/year so I’m overly taxed compared to ICE drivers.
It’s going up. Unequivocally up.
Its going up, but the rate of change is going down. So yes, demand is still high, and the total amount of demand is increasing, it is increasing by a smaller amount each year. Here’s that demand growth/decline data for the oil sector.
This makes me wonder if China will be a geopolitical target for the oil nations like Russia and the Middle East.
Russia can’t afford to stop selling oil to China. Its one of its few customers left to sell oil to.
China is Saudi Arabia’s largest customer. Saudi Arabia can’t afford to piss off China.
If you have cheap electricity and cheap batteries, people will buy EVs. Colour me surprised.
Cheap EVs is part of it, and that part is subsidies from the government, but China has also increase the registration cost of pure ICE vehicles. Yeah, you can still buy them, but they’ll cost you a lot of extra money to register them to be legal to drive on the roads in China. On top of this, in major congestion areas, you have to get entered in a lottery to even get a license plate (ability to register a car). The government in China continues to reduce the number of ICE license plates available, and increases EV license plates. (source)
So its a lot more than just “cheap electricity and cheap batteries” in action in China causing this massive switch to EVs.
Layaway purchases in stores used to be popular but went away in the late 90’s. It’s back now as BNPL, with much worse terms.
Lawaway is superior. Laywaway had zero interest charges. Some places charged a flat fee, but you also didn’t get your item until the full balance was paid. There’s no chance of a lawaway purchase spiraling into a huge expense. The expense is fixed at the time of layaway and never gets higher. Lawaway also builds the ability to delay gratification, which is an important life skill that is sometimes not common.
BNPL has none of that consumer protection.
Seize their ships when they’re in port.
I didn’t dig very deep, but they may only be used in Russian and Chinese ports. This seems like a good way to insulate a larger company that does use NATO friendly ports. Create a new company, put two ships in it, and do risky shit in Russian and Chinese ports. If the company gets sanctioned the big company is protected.
Better to sue the shipping company into oblivion
The shipping company only has 2 ships. source
Seize the ship and sell it to cover the cost of repair.
Seizing a ship in international waters is a bad move. A better idea; block the docking of all Chinese ships at NATO country ports across the world until the cost of repairs are paid. Payment would arrive in about 5 minutes because the cost of of all Chinese flagged cargo ships idling outside ports for any length of time would be far far FAR more expensive.
Specific to Canada, there is a long history of free trade with comparable wages in auto sector, such that even some parts are shipped across the border for processing and shipped back.
Trump himself signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (which replaced NAFTA) in his first term ensuring tariff free trade between the 3 nations. So Canada and Mexico are about to learn the lesson that trump’s own signed legislation doesn’t hold water.
My guess is that the do, but their greed makes them hold on too long to exercise it. Its not like there’s a formula or measure when your Ponzi scheme is about to get exposed. For many I imagine the first time they learn they’re at risk, the evidence is already in the hands of prosecutors and your passport has been seized.
SALT deduction elimination was devastating for some folks.
Just because its not sent in doesn’t mean it was forgotten.
It’s not common for people to itemize any longer after Trump’s tax updates a few years ago
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 Trump passed put in place permanent tax cuts for corporations and temporary tax cuts for individuals. The individuals tax cuts expire next year in 2025 so in 2026 the current standard deduction for single filers of $14,600 drops to $8,300. For joint filers is currently $29,000 and dropping to $16,600. source
Unless these tax cuts for individuals are renewed, we might see many more folks itemizing again because the standard deduction is too small again.
I had a long reply typed out exploring the various aspects and raising questions to the methodology and applicability of the advice in the article to different groups of people in different geographies and stage of life. However the tone of replies seems to just want to accept the article as is. Its a yahoo finance article, so the depth is pretty shallow and only speaks in broad generalizations. Your reply is doubling down on exactly that. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but it looks like the there isn’t a desire in this thread to explore it any further.
So we’ll just accept the article answer which you summarize well: “generic/average month-to-month overview, home ownership is almost always more expensive.”
Conventional wisdom says keep renting folks and don’t question it.
Did you not read the comment? Property tax, insurance, and upkeep are all perpetual costs. The down-payment, closing fees, and potential mortgage insurance are the only up-front costs.
I read the comment. It doesn’t address the question. “Over what period of time?”
Are they judging on owing a house for 30 years vs renting for 30 years or are they judging owning house for 1 year vs renting for 1 year?
Once you factor in things it mentions like insurance, taxes, upkeep along with others like a down payment then it’s very easy to see where the 14% numbers comes from.
So you’re agreeing with me that they’re only comparing the first month of ownership of the house with the last month of renting? There’s no factoring in the long term rise in rents to their math?
There’s a lot of additional and hidden costs with home ownership.
There certainly are, but its very situational. A 100 year old home will have very different upkeep costs than a 10 year old home. A home in a hurricane zone will have different upkeep than one that isn’t.
First, musk is an ass. No defense of him.
Spaceflight, however, is awesome.
I’m a space systems propulsion design engineer by profession. I worked on a project which I will not name that requires on-orbit refuelling. (It’s not this one and I don’t and will never work for Elon Musk).
I’m just an enthusiast so I trust your professional opinion more than my own knowledge.
The technology for in-orbit refuelling doesn’t exist, and there’s a whole lot of new technology required.
I’m assuming your referring to the SpaceX on-orbit refueling of cryogenic propellants requirement, which I agree hasn’t happened yet in history by anyone. However, there is a regular on-orbit refueling of cryogenic propellants for years on a regular basis with Progress spacecraft refueling the 400 liters worth of tanks (860kg of hydrazine) on the ISS for its orbit raising rocket engine located on the Zvezda module of the ISS. Cryogenic propellants would be a whole different animal however.
I’m sceptical that they do have current solutions which are feasible and useful, rather than something like a one-shot refueling subsystem that weighs 250kg and delivers 15 litres of hydrazine.
As this technology is in regular use in space today, I don’t doubt SpaceX could do this, but we agree this doesn’t accomplish anything close to what is needed for the lunar mission SpaceX signed up for.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Err, clearly an action. A reaction IS an action by definition.
Point of order, counselor. Conclusion not supported by the facts. If you apply your same logic ( and conclusions) to the COVID lockdowns, then your conclusion would be those were unnecessarily destructive.