No self-serve gas in New Jersey: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 7, 2025
Tommy Behnke's article about Jerseyites pumping their own gas is laughable ('Let Jersey Pump!' PostOpinion, Aug. 3).
First of all, most of us like having the gas attendant pump the gas. I don't know about you, but I like not having to stand in the rain, cold or snow to pump gas.
Advertisement
Second, gas prices might be discounted for self-service for a short period to keep customers, but would soon be brought back up to normal prices. Have you ever seen cheaper prices at the supermarket for self-check out? Plus, the removal of full service puts people out of work.
Lastly, just look at New York, where everyone pumps their own gas. The prices are not cheaper for anyone doing self-service, so let's leave well enough alone.
Walter Wayne
Advertisement
Morris Plains, NJ
Hey, Tommy, wake up! This is Jersey. Gas stations won't lower prices for self-serve customers as you claim. They will instead raise prices for attendant-pumped gas. Didn't you see 'The Sopranos'? I got a bridge to sell you.
Dan Hopkins
Washington Township, NJ
Advertisement
The price per gallon of gasoline has little to do with how it's pumped into a vehicle's tank.
New Jersey, now and for a long while, has the most reasonably priced gas in the region. New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians — who reside near the Garden State and have self-service gas — drive there to tank up.
Also, millions of Americans can remember when all gas stations provided full service. Outdated? Since when is convenience outdated? Try being elderly or handicapped and needing to pump your own gas.
The Motorist Fueling Choice and Convenience Act, while promising choice at the pump, offers no reassurance that it isn't a camel's nose under the tent for universal self-service.
Advertisement
Ron Wasserman
Freehold, NJ
I often drive from Rockland County to New Jersey just to get gas, not only because I don't have to pump it myself, but because it's cheaper.
The editorial suggests that pump-it-yourself gas will save customers money. But won't it simply encourage Jersey to increase its gas tax to New York and other states' levels?
Catherine Ricks Kant
New City
The Issue: The announcement of the new LA-based California Post, which will launch early next year.
Thank you for putting a big smile on my face. I can't wait until you come out with the Los Angeles counterpart to the New York Post ('Coast to coast Post,' Aug. 5).
Advertisement
There's so much corruption here in the city for you to expose. For example, I know of an apartment building that was sold for $6 million then resold for $9 million a month later to be made into a homeless shelter. I'd love to know whose pockets got lined.
Ed Autumn
Culver City, Calif.
Dear New York Post Editors: I'm wishing you the best, but you have your work cut out for you.
Advertisement
Common-sense journalism in California? With the politicians they have in place, it makes you wonder if they can even read over there. The pols are taking a beautiful state and turning it into a dumpster fire!
Nobody wants to visit — much less live — there, so good luck bringing some sanity to the state. And don't forget your hometown. It looks like we need help, too.
Kenneth P. Lebeck
Plainview
Advertisement
I spend a lot of time in southern California. Having The California Post on sale at my local Ralphs or Albertsons is a dream come true. I can only imagine the first California Post headline: 'Stuck on the 405? Read The Post or watch the Bassmaster.'
Eric Walters
Staten Island
Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
8 minutes ago
- New York Post
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem blasts ‘South Park' after show brutally mocks her appearance
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has blasted South Park creators as 'lazy' and 'petty' after the show cruelly mocked her appearance — depicting her as a vain, botoxed bimbo. 'It never ends, but it's so lazy to constantly make fun of women for how they look,' Noem, 53, told Glenn Beck on his podcast Thursday. 'It's always the liberals and the extremists who do that. If they wanted to criticize my job, go ahead and do that, but clearly they can't, they just pick something petty like that.' 4 Kristi Noem portrayed in a recent episode of 'South Park.' Comedy Central 4 Kristi Noem portrayed in a recent episode of 'South Park.' Comedy Central Noem admitted she hadn't watched the latest episode in which she's portray as a glammed up ICE agent who loves Botox, kills puppies and arrests anyone who is Hispanic. She said was too busy 'going over budget numbers and stuff.' It comes after the White House ripped South Park as 'irrelevant' and accused the show's creators of desperately grasping for attention following spate of recent episodes that roast President Trump and his administration. 4 Kristi Noem stands in front of prisoners in El Salvador. AP 4 ICE agents in an episode of 'South Park.' South Park Studios The day before the Noem episode aired, Homeland Security used an image from the show to advertise its ICE recruitment drive. 'We want to thank South Park for drawing attention to ICE law enforcement recruitment: We are calling on patriotic Americans to help us remove murderers, gang members, pedophiles, and other violent criminals from our country,' a statement from the agency said ahead of the show. 'Benefits available to new ICE recruits include an up to $50,000 signing bonus, student loan forgiveness, and retirement benefits.'
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Does Trump's new ‘big beautiful bill' change the age at which older Americans should start claiming Social Security?
President Donald Trump's so-called 'big beautiful bill' may not touch on Social Security directly, but its restructuring of the tax code is so extensive that it's likely to have an indirect impact on your decision about when to claim benefits. Specifically, for older Americans, the new bill's senior deduction could add some wrinkles to the decision about when to start claiming benefits. Here's a closer look at why you may need to adjust your retirement plan to fit around these new rules in order to maximize tax efficiency. Don't miss Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 6 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now Income thresholds for the senior deduction The Trump bill — which was enacted in early July — introduces an additional tax deduction for taxpayers who are 65 or older. The deduction could be up to $6,000 for an individual tax filer and up to $12,000 for a married couple if both spouses qualify. However, age isn't the only criteria that determines eligibility — the modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is also a critical factor. There are specific income thresholds built into the new rules that determine the actual amount of deduction you and your partner can claim. For instance, individuals earning a MAGI of $75,000 or under can access the full deduction. Beyond that amount, the deductions are phased out gradually and, for anyone earning more than $175,000, the deduction is fully phased out. Similarly, joint filers can expect to see a lower deduction if their combined MAGI is above $150,000 and could see none of the deduction if MAGI is more than $250,000. Given that the IRS considers income from Social Security as part of the MAGI calculation, claiming benefits early could put you and your partner over some of these income thresholds. If you earn a relatively high income from other sources and are between the ages of 65 and 70, not only will you have lower benefit payments because of claiming Social Security early, but you could also diminish some of these attractive seniors' deductions over the next few years. Let's use an example to illustrate this: Jamie and her partner are both 65 years old and earn a combined income of $145,000. At this level, they qualify for the full $12,000 in seniors deduction. However, they both intend to apply for Social Security benefits early and would receive $2,000 a month each (or $48,000 combined annually) through benefits. Under the Trump tax plan, many experts assume that MAGI (for the purpose of the seniors deduction) includes only the taxable portion of Social Security benefits — not the full amount. For a higher-income couple, up to 85% of Social Security benefits can be taxable. In Jamie and her husband's case, 85% of their $48,000 benefit equals $40,800, which would be added to their $145,000 income, bringing their total MAGI to $185,800. At that level, their seniors deduction would be phased down and reduced to $9,852. Jamie and her partner could potentially lose out on thousands of dollars in tax deductions over the course of a few years. Fortunately, there are a few levers seniors can pull to reduce this impact. Stay in the know. Join 200,000+ readers and get the best of Moneywise sent straight to your inbox every week for free. Preserving the deduction Depending on your age and income, there are several ways to preserve some, or all, of the new seniors tax deduction. Perhaps the most straightforward way to do so — assuming you don't need the income from Social Security immediately — is to delay benefits. By waiting until age 70 to claim, not only do you boost your monthly benefit, but you may also reduce your taxable income during key years — which could help you qualify for more of the deduction. However, you also have to factor in the time limit for the senior deduction. According to the IRS, the additional deduction is scheduled to apply only to tax years 2025 through 2028, which means you don't have to delay taking benefits for too long if you're at a certain age and simply trying to maximize this specific incentive. This time limit also means that, for those who want to take Social Security benefits at the earliest possible age — 62 — the new senior deduction might not be much of a factor because it might end before you reach the age of qualification, which is 65. If you still want to take your benefits early, or are already receiving them, you could try to lower your MAGI in other ways. For instance, moving some of your investments from dividend-paying stocks to growth stocks could help reduce your passive income and MAGI. You could also take advantage of tax-loss harvesting to offset some of your capital gains and reduce your overall MAGI. It's worth noting that these strategies can be a bit complex, so make sure you speak to a financial advisor before you pull the trigger on any major decisions. What to read next Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Here are 5 simple ways to grow rich with real estate if you don't want to play landlord. And you can even start with as little as $10 Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Here are 5 'must have' items that Americans (almost) always overpay for — and very quickly regret. How many are hurting you? This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
So, About Those Big Trade Deals
If there's anything Donald Trump loves more than tariffs, it's a deal. So you can understand his excitement lately. Over the past few weeks, the president has announced tariff-related deals with three major trading partners—the European Union, Japan, and South Korea—that have been hailed as major victories for the United States. In each case, America's partners agreed to accept 15 percent tariffs on their exports to the U.S. while lowering trade barriers on American goods and promising to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. economy—in essence paying Trump to impose trade restrictions on them. 'Europe Caves to Trump on Tariffs' read a representative New York Times headline. In the days following the European Union deal announcement, the White House released a fact sheet quoting all the positive coverage. On Thursday, Jamieson Greer, Trump's top trade official, published a New York Times op-ed boasting that, with the completion of these deals, the administration had successfully 'remade the global order.' But upon closer inspection, Trump's trade deals aren't nearly as impressive as they sound. In fact, they aren't really trade deals in the traditional sense, and they might not benefit the U.S. at all. Trump did prove the doubters wrong in one important way. When the president originally announced his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, other countries threatened to respond in kind, leading many economists and journalists (myself included) to conclude that the tariffs would lead to a spiral of retaliation. With a few exceptions (notably China and Canada), that didn't happen. Instead, Trump has gotten key trading partners to back down. But simply avoiding retribution was never the goal of tariffs. The whole point of Trump's dealmaking strategy was supposedly to get foreign countries to lower their existing trade barriers—the classic purpose of a trade agreement. In his Liberation Day announcement, Trump complained at length about what he considered to be the excessive restrictions that other countries had imposed on American goods—including not only tariffs but also currency manipulation, value-added taxes, and subsidies to domestic firms—and vowed not to back down on tariffs until those countries lowered them. Scott Lincicome: What the U.K. deal reveals about Trump's trade strategy The announcements of the new deals purport to have delivered on this promise, giving Americans 'unprecedented levels of market access' to Europe, 'breaking open long-closed markets' in Japan, and making South Korea 'completely OPEN TO TRADE with the United States.' But the details of the deals, which remain sparse, tell a very different story. None include agreements by trading partners to meaningfully reform their tax or regulatory codes, strengthen their currencies, or reduce the barriers that have long been major sticking points in prior trade negotiations. Instead, the announcements are full of vague statements of intent—'The United States and the European Union intend to work together to address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products' (my emphasis)—and references to things such as 'openings for a range of industrial and consumer goods.' The main concrete action that the EU agreed to was to eliminate its tariffs on American industrial products. This sounds impressive unless you're aware that the average EU tariff rate on nonagricultural goods prior to the deal was just 1 percent. The main difficulty in trade negotiations with the EU has long been its barriers on agricultural products, which appear to have been untouched by these deals. South Korea and Japan, meanwhile, agreed to allow more American-made cars into their markets—which also sounds great until you realize that the main reason American companies don't sell a lot of cars to those countries is the fact that almost nobody wants to drive a truck or SUV in Tokyo or Seoul. Lower trade barriers won't change that. What about the investments? According to the announcements, South Korea, Japan, and Europe have respectively pledged to invest $350 billion, $550 billion, and $600 billion in the United States (In an interview with CNBC, referring to the EU investment, Trump claimed that 'the details are $600 billion to invest in anything I want. Anything. I can do anything I want with it.') The EU has also agreed to purchase an additional $750 billion of American oil and gas. Those are big numbers, but they might not add up to much in the real world. The EU has no authority to require European companies to invest in the U.S. or buy its products. What the Trump administration touted as 'commitments' were mostly rough numbers based on what European companies were already planning to invest and buy. 'We can't force the company to do anything, nor will be able to pretend that we can, but we can talk to them, we can get their intentions, and we can transmit that as a faithful indication to our partners in the U.S.,' Olof Gill, a spokesperson for the European Commission, the EU's trade-negotiation body, said after the deal was announced. The 'investments' from Japan and South Korea, meanwhile, might not be investments at all. Shortly after the deal with Japan was announced, the country's top trade negotiator said that he anticipated only 1 or 2 percent of the $550 billion fund would come in the form of direct investment; the rest would mostly consist of loans that would need to be repaid with interest. South Korean officials have made similar statements. 'These numbers bear no relation to any conception of reality,' Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a trade adviser to the Biden administration, told me. 'Everyone has figured out that Trump really likes big numbers to sell his trade deals and doesn't need much substance to do so.' Recent history supports this view. As part of Trump's first-term trade deal with China, Beijing agreed to increase its annual purchasing of American goods by $200 billion. In the event, it didn't increase its purchasing at all. If America's trading partners didn't agree to meaningfully lower barriers to U.S. imports, and if their promises of investment are likely vaporous, then the only real concession that Trump's tariffs have won is … the right to impose tariffs. This means that the value of the deals comes down to the value of the tariffs. Tariffs can help domestic producers by making their foreign competitors' products more expensive. But tariffs can also hurt them, by raising the costs of the inputs they import to make their products. Several studies of the tariffs imposed during Trump's first term, which were much smaller and more targeted, found that manufacturing employment either stayed level or actually fell as a result. The ultimate result of the current wave of tariffs is yet to be determined, but so far, since Liberation Day, the manufacturing sector has shed tens of thousands of jobs and investment in new factories has fallen. A quarterly survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers in May found that optimism among manufacturing firms had fallen to its lowest point since the height of the coronavirus pandemic; trade uncertainty and raw-material costs were cited as top concerns. Rogé Karma: The mystery of the strong economy has finally been solved The new deals should at least give companies some much-needed certainty about tariff rates, which will help them make investment decisions. But in other ways, the deals actively undermine key American industries. Foreign cars, which represent the single largest American import from Japan and South Korea and the third largest from the EU, will face 15 percent tariffs. That is far lower than the rate American car companies have to pay to import car parts, which are tariffed at 25 percent, and crucial car-building materials like steel and aluminum, which are tariffed at 50 percent. As Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, said in a recent interview, foreign competitors such as Toyota now have a $5,000 to $10,000 cost advantage over American-made vehicles. Ford projects that it will lose $2 billion in profits this year alone because of higher tariffs; General Motors forecasts losses of $4 billion to $5 billion by the end of the year. The deals announced so far are only the beginning. The Trump administration is currently in the midst of negotiations with several trading partners, including China, Mexico, Switzerland, and Taiwan, and just yesterday implemented a new round of tariffs on about 90 countries, the ostensible goal being to bring those nations to the bargaining table too. If recent events are an indication, any future pacts will be framed as historic milestones in the quest to remake the global trade system in America's favor. The White House will issue pronouncements of eye-popping investments, drastically reduced foreign-trade barriers, and major concessions to American industry. When that happens, remember to look closely at the details.
