look who is consolidating power and fortune today. Oh no, wait, everything is random, how silly of me.
Not random, I've certainly never said that. Weather is not random. But it is not planned, either.
Fair trade, not free trade. They are not one in the same. Trade with those who accept similar standards to ours.
So then globalization is ok, as long as it is "fair trade", and that is defined by the U.S. standards?
Other countries might think some of their standards are better than ours, too.
Where we do agree is that both parties are the same. You would expect the Democrats more than the Republicans to demand better standards for some trading countries, yet no such leadership is occurring.
In an ideal world, it would be OK to trade with China if they:
Paid their workforce well. Allowed free trade unions. Respected the environment. Respected patents and intellectual property.
I'm sure I'm missing a whole bunch.
They sure as heck don't respect intellectual property. Witness those blatant rip-offs of Rolls-Royce Phantoms. Heck, I've even seen them build an ersatz Lincoln Town Car.
The more goods and services from the US means more people working and less government support, less support from the government means less taxes.
By all means, let's only support American companies since they are paying all those taxes, and have our best interests at heart, eh?
Google is a good example - here's a company incubated in the tax supported research labs at Stanford. Google repays the US taxpayer by cuting "its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda."
Do no evil, buy American? How about some simple corporate and tax reform first?
Those standards and others are exactly what I am talking about. We have to abide by those standards, and rightfully so - such standards are the greatest contributor to higher labor costs in the developed world. Abide by those and the playing field becomes honestly level, not the suicidal garbage we are playing with today.
That car is a symbol of so much that is wrong with the opening of China and the lie of "free trade", shameful.
If it isn't random, someone or something has influence. The "free market" direction regading opening China and suicidal pointless foreign policy are not disconnected.
If those others don't like modern western standards and do not wish to play by any level of responsibility, they are free to not play here, nor should they be allowed. We've enabled them, not the other way around. We don't truly need shoddy disposable appliances, fake laundry detergent, and poisoned toys.
Democrats and Republicans are controlled by the same special interests - neither will create real progress. China gained "most favored nation" status under a Dem, while the opponent worked hard to open the place a generation earlier. What a coincidence.
Do no evil, buy American? How about some simple corporate and tax reform first?
Here's a thought: why not abolish corporate taxes altogether?
Corporations don't really pay taxes. People do. A well-run corporation will pass its tax burden on to its customers in the form of higher prices or to its employees in the form of lower wages. A corporation that doesn't do at least one of these things will eventually go out of business.
If you want to go after the well-off, do so directly by legislating rate increases for upper-bracket taxpayers (not my favorite - I'm a libertarian, after all) or with consumption taxes on luxury goods. Either way, you'll have an easier time enforcing compliance.
Many years ago, long before anyone thought of calling inheritance taxes "death taxes", I had an interesting conversation with a mid-level IRS manager. He firmly believed that if Congress abolished all Federal taxes except for the personal income tax, the IRS could ramp up its collections & rake in many tens of billions (in 1978 dollars) each year in additional revenue. In his professional opinion, collecting corporate & inheritance taxes was too resource-intensive - took too many of his best auditors & revenue agents - to be worthwhile.
Those standards and others are exactly what I am talking about. We have to abide by those standards, and rightfully so - such standards are the greatest contributor to higher labor costs in the developed world. Abide by those and the playing field becomes honestly level, not the suicidal garbage we are playing with today.
Well, *so far*, there are no Chinese cars being sold in the US, so that's not relevand (of course GM, our American company, put Chinese engines in some of its vehicles). China has NOTHING to do with the incompetence of the US makers and the fact that plenty of non-US brands are designing, sourcing, and making vehicles IN THIS COUNTRY with great success. The problem is the incompetence of the US companies' management and the fact that the UAW has the US companies by the gonads.
Here's a thought: why not abolish corporate taxes altogether?
Very thoughtful idea.
I guess the only disadvantage of this approach is that today, many of the tax receipts are "hidden" from personal taxes by the corporate taxes. So if all of those taxes moved to personal at once, people would revolt, as they would see how much they are REALLY paying.
In that case, corporations shouldn't be separate legal entities with limited liability and other protections for the officiers and shareholders - if they don't pay their bills, let's go after the shareholders and make them pay them. Treat them like partnerships, in other words.
This thread is and has been about more than cars for some time. Really, the entire ideal of "free trade" (in reality it is anything but) is relevant. Not to mention, upheaval nonwithstanding, it is just a matter of time before we do see a Chinese-built car - western badged or not - on the crumbing roads of what was this first world region.
if they don't pay their bills, let's go after the shareholders and make them pay them.
Isn't that what I suggested in my previous post? After all, upper-bracket taxpayers account for most of the shares held in publicly-owned corporations.
Not to mention, upheaval nonwithstanding, it is just a matter of time before we do see a Chinese-built car - western badged or not - on the crumbing roads of what was this first world region.
And I don't see that happening any time soon. IMO, today's market is vastly more competitive & harder to break into than it was in 1974, when I bought my 1st Japanese car - a Honda Civic.
If I were a Chinese auto exec, I'd focus on promising 3rd world markets, like Brazil or Vietnam, rather than waste resources on trying to get a toehold in the North American market.
"So if all of those taxes moved to personal at once, people would revolt, as they would see how much they are REALLY paying."...
tlong, that really IS the point...taxes should not be hidden, so a FairTax or Nat'l Sales tax would be out in the open and people could adjust their spending as they see fit...
The govt serves us, not the other way around...if the feds don't take in sufficient revenue, then their budget should be cut just like your or mine...
An open revolt is not a problem, IMO...so to denigrate the candidates who speak of open rebellion is not the "American way" as far as I am concerned...BTW, open rebellion is actually just talking about throwing the bums out, replacing them with new bums, and then throwing THEM out if they don;t perform as we expect them to...
Close the Depts of Energy, Education and HUD, abolish them to never-never land, dump their employees on the open market, and balance the budget overnight...it CAN be done if folks have the guts to do it...I know I would...
This thread is and has been about more than cars for some time. Really, the entire ideal of "free trade" (in reality it is anything but) is relevant. Not to mention, upheaval nonwithstanding, it is just a matter of time before we do see a Chinese-built car - western badged or not - on the crumbing roads of what was this first world region.
Not sure about Chinese cars. But certainly lots of other stuff is Chinese.
So again (third time), since globalization is "a race to the bottom", does that include preventing all of those US companies from selling goods and services in other countries? Or is this only about China?
tlong, that really IS the point...taxes should not be hidden, so a FairTax or Nat'l Sales tax would be out in the open and people could adjust their spending as they see fit...
I don't think we're on the same page. If General Motors is a separate legal entity, they should be paying at least as much in taxes, percentage wise, as us individuals. That's the cost of GM becoming a corporation and enjoying limited liability and other benefits conferred by that legal status. If GM throws off dividends to shareholders and income to employees, those "entities" should pay taxes on those proceeds as well.
"..... If General Motors is a separate legal entity, they should be paying at least as much in taxes, percentage wise, as us individuals. "
I dunno, Steve. I would think that as a corporation, a company like GM would be best served by keeping as much money as possible by lowering corporate tax rates, so they can use that money for R&D, or investing in new equiptment, or hiring more employees. If the people running the company want to raid the coffers, let THEM pay the higher taxes.
I also belive that we should encode all the Bush tax cuts, but raise the Capitol Gains tax to 30%. Far too many people are making money off investments rather than work.
However, I would have one caveat to that; the CG tax would be chronologically REGRESSIVE, meaning the longer you kept it, the less you would pay in taxes. For example, when GM issues it's new stock (at lets say $25/share), if someone purchased 1000 shares for $25000, kept it for 8 months and sold it at $50/share, they would pay 30% tax on the $25K profits ($7500). BUT, if they held it for more than a year, the tax rate would drop by 3%, and drop another 3% for every year they kept it, up to a 5 yr (or 15%) drop. If they kept it long term (10 yrs or more), it would drop to 10%. So if the stock sold for the $50/share 5 yrs from now, they would only pay $3750 on that profit. Or $2500 if kept for 10 yrs. The same could be done for any investment, like real estate, too. This would keep these "house flippers"in check.
If General Motors is a separate legal entity, they should be paying at least as much in taxes, percentage wise, as us individuals.
My premise is that corporations currently don't pay taxes - they simply pass their tax burden on to individuals in the form of lower wages for employees & higher prices for consumers. Put another way, corporations today are tax collectors - not tax payers.
To me, it makes sense to cut out the middlemen - in this case, the corporations - & go after upper income individuals who own most of the shares in publicly-held corporations. After all, if all taxes are ultimately paid by individuals, as I believe they are, then isn't it more efficient to focus enforcement & collection efforts on individuals?
My guess is that you disagree with my premise & believe that corporations really do pay taxes. In other words, you think that corporations make no meaningful attempt to pass this cost onto employees & customers, as they do all other costs. Am I correct?
But how can it be double taxation when the corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes in the first place, thanks to loopholes?
Wow, this is frustrating!
My premise is that corporations have always been tax collectors - never tax payers. They pass their tax burden on to individuals, as I outlined in previous posts. Loopholes have nothing to do with this state of affairs.
At the end of the day, all taxes are paid by individuals. How could it be otherwise?
Because corporations in the US are separate legal entities with most of the rights that natural individuals have.
Corporations can own an income generating asset, make a profit off it, and never distribute the income as dividends. Who pays the taxes then (besides the employees of the corporation)?
I think for your purposes we already have S Corps that let corporate profits pass through to the shareholders for taxes. For that situation management is generally the shareholders so you avoid the disconnect that can happen when managers hoard profits, don't pay dividends and avoid taxes.
At the end of the day, all taxes are paid by individuals. How could it be otherwise?
Yes? No?
A corporation either passes the tax on through higher product or service sales prices, or eats it through a reduced profit margin, cash flow position, etc. Depends on their market situation, but generally I agree. I suppose you can make an argument that theoretically when a corporation eats it, if it is significant that action may reduce its stock price thereby still affecting its stock investors.
I believe the double taxation being referred to is that corporations have to pay out dividends on an after tax basis, but then the dividend recipient also has to pay income tax on it.
Quite a few stockholders aren't necessarily wealthy. In fact many of them are middle class through their pension funds, mutual funds and 401K's. Infact as people become truly wealthy their investment style often changes from risk taking to wealth preservation and they put more of their assets into bonds, real estate, etc.
I don't see a large national sales tax (VAT) in lieu of income tax working in the US because our economy is too dominated by consumer activity. It may work in some Asian economies that are more focused on manufacturing and who's citizens are more attuned to savings and investment. What I worry about is a small incremental sales tax on top of income taxes because as we've all seen in our states and municipalities over time that very small percentage keeps growing into a much more significant number. I think government has more trouble balancing revenue expansion versus expense reductions because there is no profit motive. But that is a whole 'nother area for discussion I suppose.
Because corporations in the US are separate legal entities with most of the rights that natural individuals have.
Corporations can own an income generating asset, make a profit off it, and never distribute the income as dividends. Who pays the taxes then (besides the employees of the corporation)?
I think the logic behind this, right or wrong, is that the corporate entity overall financial health is reflected in its stock price which is publically traded and subject to investor income taxes or capital gains taxes. There are also some taxes and fees paid in the trader/broker process, but the tax code believes this approach encourages investment and a stronger economy through corporate expenditure of those investment monies whether new stock, bonds, or selling of company held stock at a resulting inflated price to book. Also a stronger financial position may encourage the corporation to leverage through loans to expand and increase its capital expenditures.
I think for your purposes we already have S Corps that let corporate profits pass through to the shareholders for taxes. For that situation management is generally the shareholders so you avoid the disconnect that can happen when managers hoard profits, don't pay dividends and avoid taxes.
I'm not an attorney, but while S corpoartion have some different tax consequences than a partnership or proprietorship, I believe the decision on which way to go is often driven more by liability issues, or potential partner issues, than by taxes.
Believe it or not, large publicly held corporations can actually have problems holding large money from hoarding profits because this will not only eventually upset their large shareholders leading to management shakeups, but inevitably invite hostile takeovers by outside parties wanting to get their hands on that cash. I think the bigger problem is corporate senior executives using that hoard of cash quickly as a piggy bank to reap hugely out of whack salaries and bonuses.
Corporations can own an income generating asset, make a profit off it, and never distribute the income as dividends.
Never say never. In time, one (or both) of two things has to happen. Either the shareholders will force the corporation to pay a cash dividend (as happened with Microsoft in 2003) or the retained profits will drive up the share price, which will motivate shareholders to realize capital gains by selling their shares at a profit. (Would any sane person invest in shares absent a reasonable expectation of (a) dividends, (b) capital gains or (c) both? Otherwise, what would be the point?)
In the first case, the Feds will tax the dividends. In the second, the Feds will tax the capital gains.
As I've said previously, only individuals pay taxes. How could it be otherwise?
fezo: OK, sometimes my grammar needs some correctin'
cooter: reading that last paragraph of yours is as complex as the current tax code, and I want kindergarten-level simplification...a Fairtax or retail sales tax would be paid by all consumers and they are really the only payers...a corporaton that pays taxes simply lowers dividends or raises prices...
with everyone paying the sales tax, that includes the black market, overseas tourists, and has the broadest scope for the greatest participation...yes, the local kid who mows your lawn will not charge you the tax, and if I paint your wall for a loaf of bread, no tax will be paid, but it is still the broadest tax on the greatest number of people, and you can control it by buying something cheaper...NO cap gains tax, no income tax, NOTHING...and no more tax returns, no more IRS looking over your shoulder, CITIZEN PRIVACY is restored, and everything is pay as you go...just the privacy aspect alone is worth it to a citizen like me who thinks our govt knows too much about us anyway...under my idea, the govt would only know we exist every 10 years with the census...no blacks, no whites, no Indians, no Hispanics, nothing...just how many people live here for US House representation...and kick all illegals out, we know where they are and we can get rid of them with simple enforcement...then build that 100 foot high wall, bring out the dogs, shoot on sight, and take away all water along their immigration routes...oh, don't forget poison gas in all their tunnels, or maybe anthrax, something a little stronger than poison ivy...
There were MB sold all over the world long before China was opened and the modern ideal of globalization (that being that the first world should jab a sword through its chest so a few can profit) was born. Europe plays on what is in effect a level playing field, in a culture which demands cultural and environmental responsibility. Much much less relevant than dealing with China here.
But back in those days there was not such downward pressure on North American purchasing power and real incomes, and the working class who could actually afford new cars wasn't rotting away.
Focus on other markets indeed...with how much IP either stolen or taken via shortsighted "partnerships" with idiotic western branch plant operators managed by the executive class who are virtually solely responsible for what ails us today,
cooter: reading that last paragraph of yours is as complex as the current tax code, and I want kindergarten-level simplification..
But you're a lawyer.... you SHOULD want graduate-level obfuscation. :P
...CITIZEN PRIVACY is restored, and everything is pay as you go...just the privacy aspect alone is worth it to a citizen like me who thinks our govt knows too much about us anyway...under my idea, the govt would only know we exist every 10 years with the census...no blacks, no whites, no Indians, no Hispanics, nothing...just how many people live here for US House representation...and kick all illegals out, we know where they are and we can get rid of them with simple enforcement...then build that 100 foot high wall, bring out the dogs, shoot on sight, and take away all water along their immigration routes...oh, don't forget poison gas in all their tunnels, or maybe anthrax, something a little stronger than poison ivy...
VAT sounds good, but like I said it would probably stunt economic activity in the US because we are so consumer focused. Also, VAT would probably just keep rising like any other tax. I'll raise another question - everyone these days seems to be harping about reducing or eliminating the capital gains tax preferential rate because its an "unfair" advantage. I say reduced capital gains rates are still over taxed. If a person buys something they pay sales tax, period. So if I chose to invest why shouldn't I just pay an initial sales tax on that investment and be done. Instead, I'm penalized with a much higher tax burden for putting my money toward something that will probably be overall more productive than just buying a car or TV. Another issue, if I purchase a home why am I penalized with a generally higher per capita property tax rate than an apartment owner even though those rental tenants probably cumulatively use more city services? Over time Robin Hood would incur depleted resources and go broke, this is what is going on in America. We reward consumption and penalize, sometimes even ostracize investment like its evil or something "less preferred or desired".
my name is othman from kuwait and I am happy to know you all in this forum. i am looking for texas Auction of used cars whree i could finde it ?I want to learn how to deal with the laws of this market. please any body want to help me send me emial to alenezi912@hotmail.com
The Canadian dollar is at parity with the US dollar. That makes for interesting press releases from Canadian car dealers.
"On our site at davisgm.ca we have a specific section for our US inventory so you can easily identify which ones we have brought in from America. We have employees that consistently research the vehicles which are better deals in the U.S.A. and we search those vehicles specifically so you can be sure that you are getting the most value for your money. Certain vehicles such as the GMC Sierra Trucks and Terrains are a much better deal in Canada so we will not import these as our new vehicle selection here will be the best value for the customer."
"But you're a lawyer.... you SHOULD want graduate-level obfuscation"...
tlong, you have me all wrong... ...I call myself either a conservative (as I define me) or mostly libertarian (I still wrestle with legalizing heroin, cocaine, meth, but I want total legalization of pot)...I also want laws written in plain English and I want tax laws to fit on one page, 8.5 x 11 inches, 12-13 point type...a Fair Tax (read the book) or a Nat'l sales tax would bring in revenue from virtually everybody (no, not the kid who mows your lawn) whereas a VAT is so hidden nobody knows where to find it.
Just because I am a lawyer doesn't mean I want the world in legalese...I consider myself a right winger except I get annoyed when the religious right places their entire voting emphasis on abortion...sure they have the RIGHT to do so, but from a common sense view, this country will not rise or fall on whether Jane has an abortion, but taking away my guns, too much regulation, too much govt interference in our lives, too much taxes CAN kill the US...
I think the 10th amendment is as important as the others, and, if it was enforced, 75% of what the fed govt does would be shut down tomorrow, as it is unconstitutional...it has been forgotten over the years, but a few strict constitutionalists on the Supreme Court could change that...
That is why I cannot belong to the ABA...they are Commies as far as I am concerned...
Unfortunately it looks like the pot legalization proposition is going to be defeated in CA. I guess we get what we deserve.
Perhaps you can explain how, over the years, the Fed government somehow has taken on so many things that are clearly not in the Constitution, in spite of the 10th amendment. Shouldn't the Supreme Court be invalidating all sorts of Federal programs?
There's actually a frightening amount where I agree with Bob. This no doubt comes from the libertarian side. There was a test some time ago that I could look up if I thought it was that important but what they did based on your answers was peg you politically. I was a libertarian liberal. That's about right.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
We don't always agree, but I think you have a lot of practical insight. Reagan was smart to talk down abortion, but not act on it because it is too divisive and potentially takes away too much attention on bigger national interest matters. Same goes for the far religious right. The unpredictability of them could provide the Republicans with some unwanted backlash. But I strongly agree citizens have their right to their own personal beliefs in these matters, and I don't think government should be involved in the patient physician matter of whether a doctor should or should not perform an abortion, or whether a doctor should be forced to perform it if it goes against their personal or religious beliefs.
I find your comments on pot very interesting. Stoners always seemed more mellow and less trouble than drunks back in college. I don't believe the vast majority of physicians are going to recklessly prescribe it and I don't believe the government should interfere in the doctor patient relationship when it is prescribed to legitimately combat medical issues like glaucoma. I'm afraid that while well intentioned, the heavy legal enforcement emphasis on pot is misapplied. I understand the emphasis because bureaucracies, government or commercial, so often use poor, ineffective metrics and since busting marijuana users is relatively easy police departments can score points and justify budgets. Unfortunately, I think that diverts attention, efforts and effectiveness in fighting much more dangerous hard drugs. One can argue that joints are a gateway drug, but perhaps that is because users have to go to illicit dealers to get it in the first place. If it was legalized, companies like Phillip Morris could sell it ensuring availability and making sure it wasn't cut by dangerous other ingredients. It would also assure government inspection and tax revenue just like alcohol. Meanwhile police could then focus all of their efforts on the pushers of the hard stuff which is where most of the medical and crime fallout occurs. Personally I don't use it because I don't like smoking, and I'm not a big drinker, but there seems to be a double standard on alcohol versus marijuana in government.
I also think the government needs to make some hard decisions on all of these agencies. Energy may have started out well intentioned, but it seems to me to have devolved into an enforcement agency rather than inspiring research and energy advancement. EPA has become cumbersome and probably caused more economic delay and harm than it has saved the environment. Education seems totally redundant to the state and local level. Pushing standardized tests isn't going to fix the issues here. Giving grant money to the best grant writers, or politically connected wastes diminishing budget dollars.
Finally, I sometimes worry that the judicial branch off the government has become too powerful, moving America away from the balance of the three branches envisioned by our Constitution writers. I think the appointment of judges has become too political, and that sometimes government attorneys can be more concerned about "notches on their belt" for career gain than fairness in their actions.
How does all of this apply to cars? I don't know, but those Chrysler workers nabbed on camera had both booze and joints!
You want to close up the deficit in a hurry? Legalize marijuana and tax the hell out of it. It'll still be cheaper than the illegal stuff. Just don't sell it to Chrysler workers...
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
"Finally, I sometimes worry that the judicial branch off the government has become too powerful, moving America away from the balance of the three branches envisioned by our Constitution writers"...
That is where I agree most, but that still depends on your political outlook...I consider myself in the "strict constructionist" camp, so I have no idea where the Supremes ever found a "right to abortion" in the "penumbra" of the 1st amendment, so I would have said that one who sees that right in the Const is insane...yet I also can see that there ought to be 1st amendment rights of free speech in TV, radio, and internet, simply because the Const granted that right in speech and print, the media of its day, and the founders never envisioned TV, radio or internet, yet the internet gives the individual the best way to communicate THEIR free speech than anyone ever envisioned...
I am also against political correctness as, simply, censorship...while the N-word and other words are hateful, that is why the [non-permissible content removed] can demonstrate in the streets of Skokie, IL and that is why folks should be able to use that word...remember, just 'cuz you have the right to SAY it, this confers no right that you have an audience or no right to force me to LISTEN to you...
At the risk of sounding radical (who, me?) we have gotten away from the Const because the judges like the power of legislating from the bench...I wonder if 9 Scalias on the bench might actually restore us to the original intent, as he (they) might have the guts to actually state that 2/3 of what the govt does is against the Const in any way, shape or form, and to hell with stare decisis...stare decisis only exists so they don't have to go back and overturn previous stupid decisions, but a true reading of the founder's intent would shut down over 70% of every federal dollar spent, and balance the budget in 20 minutes...
I would make those hard choices...the hardest choice of all???...for those in fed govt to give up the power they have and devolve it back to the states...that is what I would do...no more federal reserve, no more income tax, a defense budget that defends this country, no HUD, no welfare, no Dept of Ed, and on and on...
Like a lot of current issues, I don't know that the founders and constitution could have envisioned many of these situations, so I'm not convinced abortion is a constitutional matter regardless of which side one is on. I think it is more a moral decision on at what point life begins, conception or birth. I understand both points of view, but all I know is that I'm glad I don't have to make the call.
I agree that the Feds are involved in too much, but I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as you. Look at highways. If we relied strictly on States our national highway system would be as convoluted as Route 66 was because of local politics and deal making. Someone has to referee at times and insure it makes sense for the betterment of the nation.
the Interstate Highway System because we all drive our cars, trucks and SUVs on them...plus, if Edmunds has a radio show, we can listen to the show while driving on the Interstate...
They qualified the Interstate Highway system as vital for National Defense, and I can accept that...in order to evacuate or transport goods, weapons, and give multiple "runways" for military planes to land (Air Force One?) the system will assist the entire nation in the event of a Nat'l emergency...I can see that, instead of all those 2 lane dirt roads going thru rural land that even horses and mountain goats have trouble navigating...
Now why the feds have to issue flood insurance policies to folks who build mansions on the coast just before hurrican season, I fail to see the need for that...just call State Farm, pay a yearly premium equal to 75% of the value of your home, and let the free market handle it...or don't live on the coast, or on an earthquake fault line...
Snopes says the Interstate Highway system was never intended to be used for landing airplanes.
Not that that has anything to do with buying American cars.
Or Japanese cars - here's something that sounds familiar. "'But Toyota is a global company that was born in Japan.... We would like to keep working hard in Japan.'
With the yen having hit a 15-year high against the dollar late last month, the rationale to do more overseas production is strengthening"
We had a great landing an airplane on the Interstate story. My mom used to own a four seater plane as an investment. She could and did occasionally fly it (took up pilot school at 62!) but mostly it was leased back to an aviation outfit who'd rent it out by the day.
one day my brother is heading to work on Route 80 and sees a plane land on the opposite lane. He realizes that this is a familiar looking plane. Checks it out and indeed it was my mom's plane. The guy who had rented it panicked when he thought he was running out of fuel. He forgot that on any of those planes there are two tanks and it just takes flipping a switch to get to the other tank which had loads of fuel.
The folks from the aviation place came on out and took off right from that spot.
We have some good pictures of that somewhere.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
"....cooter: reading that last paragraph of yours is as complex as the current tax code, and I want kindergarten-level simplification...a Fairtax or retail sales tax would be paid by all consumers and they are really the only payers...a corporaton that pays taxes simply lowers dividends or raises prices..."
I know, sometimes it take a little to get out what's in my mind. Basically, I want to discourage short term investments (less than a year) and encourage long term investments.
I too think that a National sales tax would be better than income tax, and that corporate taxes should be minimized or eliminated.
Steve, I think building where (or near) you sell, both vehicles and components, is inevitable and its not just currency fluctuation. The commodity craze has driven fuel prices up causing noticeably higher freight charges. Most importantly perhaps, supply chain analysis has become a major influence in most businesses today. Operating with low inventory levels requires relatively close by vendors. Generally, the longer the supply chain, both in distances and in the number of hands touching stuff means the higher the supply chain costs. Reduced purchasing and supply chain costs go directly to the bottom line. In fact, a 1% reduction here can equate to the same impact on profitability as a 10% sales revenue increase. In most areas, I think as soon as volume is high enough to offset fixed costs it often makes sense to build locally.
Comments
Not random, I've certainly never said that. Weather is not random. But it is not planned, either.
Fair trade, not free trade. They are not one in the same. Trade with those who accept similar standards to ours.
So then globalization is ok, as long as it is "fair trade", and that is defined by the U.S. standards?
Other countries might think some of their standards are better than ours, too.
Where we do agree is that both parties are the same. You would expect the Democrats more than the Republicans to demand better standards for some trading countries, yet no such leadership is occurring.
Paid their workforce well.
Allowed free trade unions.
Respected the environment.
Respected patents and intellectual property.
I'm sure I'm missing a whole bunch.
They sure as heck don't respect intellectual property. Witness those blatant rip-offs of Rolls-Royce Phantoms. Heck, I've even seen them build an ersatz Lincoln Town Car.
By all means, let's only support American companies since they are paying all those taxes, and have our best interests at heart, eh?
Google is a good example - here's a company incubated in the tax supported research labs at Stanford. Google repays the US taxpayer by cuting "its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda."
Do no evil, buy American? How about some simple corporate and tax reform first?
Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes (Bloomberg)
That car is a symbol of so much that is wrong with the opening of China and the lie of "free trade", shameful.
If those others don't like modern western standards and do not wish to play by any level of responsibility, they are free to not play here, nor should they be allowed. We've enabled them, not the other way around. We don't truly need shoddy disposable appliances, fake laundry detergent, and poisoned toys.
Democrats and Republicans are controlled by the same special interests - neither will create real progress. China gained "most favored nation" status under a Dem, while the opponent worked hard to open the place a generation earlier. What a coincidence.
Here's a thought: why not abolish corporate taxes altogether?
Corporations don't really pay taxes. People do. A well-run corporation will pass its tax burden on to its customers in the form of higher prices or to its employees in the form of lower wages. A corporation that doesn't do at least one of these things will eventually go out of business.
If you want to go after the well-off, do so directly by legislating rate increases for upper-bracket taxpayers (not my favorite - I'm a libertarian, after all) or with consumption taxes on luxury goods. Either way, you'll have an easier time enforcing compliance.
Many years ago, long before anyone thought of calling inheritance taxes "death taxes", I had an interesting conversation with a mid-level IRS manager. He firmly believed that if Congress abolished all Federal taxes except for the personal income tax, the IRS could ramp up its collections & rake in many tens of billions (in 1978 dollars) each year in additional revenue. In his professional opinion, collecting corporate & inheritance taxes was too resource-intensive - took too many of his best auditors & revenue agents - to be worthwhile.
Just a thought.
Well, *so far*, there are no Chinese cars being sold in the US, so that's not relevand (of course GM, our American company, put Chinese engines in some of its vehicles). China has NOTHING to do with the incompetence of the US makers and the fact that plenty of non-US brands are designing, sourcing, and making vehicles IN THIS COUNTRY with great success. The problem is the incompetence of the US companies' management and the fact that the UAW has the US companies by the gonads.
Here's a thought: why not abolish corporate taxes altogether?
Very thoughtful idea.
I guess the only disadvantage of this approach is that today, many of the tax receipts are "hidden" from personal taxes by the corporate taxes. So if all of those taxes moved to personal at once, people would revolt, as they would see how much they are REALLY paying.
In that case, corporations shouldn't be separate legal entities with limited liability and other protections for the officiers and shareholders - if they don't pay their bills, let's go after the shareholders and make them pay them. Treat them like partnerships, in other words.
Isn't that what I suggested in my previous post? After all, upper-bracket taxpayers account for most of the shares held in publicly-owned corporations.
And I don't see that happening any time soon. IMO, today's market is vastly more competitive & harder to break into than it was in 1974, when I bought my 1st Japanese car - a Honda Civic.
If I were a Chinese auto exec, I'd focus on promising 3rd world markets, like Brazil or Vietnam, rather than waste resources on trying to get a toehold in the North American market.
tlong, that really IS the point...taxes should not be hidden, so a FairTax or Nat'l Sales tax would be out in the open and people could adjust their spending as they see fit...
The govt serves us, not the other way around...if the feds don't take in sufficient revenue, then their budget should be cut just like your or mine...
An open revolt is not a problem, IMO...so to denigrate the candidates who speak of open rebellion is not the "American way" as far as I am concerned...BTW, open rebellion is actually just talking about throwing the bums out, replacing them with new bums, and then throwing THEM out if they don;t perform as we expect them to...
Close the Depts of Energy, Education and HUD, abolish them to never-never land, dump their employees on the open market, and balance the budget overnight...it CAN be done if folks have the guts to do it...I know I would...
You need to fix that. Replace the word if with when.
Not sure about Chinese cars.
But certainly lots of other stuff is Chinese.
So again (third time), since globalization is "a race to the bottom", does that include preventing all of those US companies from selling goods and services in other countries? Or is this only about China?
Don't you have a Mercedes? :P
Taxes?.....those aren't taxes.... they're FEES! :shades:
I don't think we're on the same page. If General Motors is a separate legal entity, they should be paying at least as much in taxes, percentage wise, as us individuals. That's the cost of GM becoming a corporation and enjoying limited liability and other benefits conferred by that legal status. If GM throws off dividends to shareholders and income to employees, those "entities" should pay taxes on those proceeds as well.
I dunno, Steve. I would think that as a corporation, a company like GM would be best served by keeping as much money as possible by lowering corporate tax rates, so they can use that money for R&D, or investing in new equiptment, or hiring more employees. If the people running the company want to raid the coffers, let THEM pay the higher taxes.
I also belive that we should encode all the Bush tax cuts, but raise the Capitol Gains tax to 30%. Far too many people are making money off investments rather than work.
However, I would have one caveat to that; the CG tax would be chronologically REGRESSIVE, meaning the longer you kept it, the less you would pay in taxes. For example, when GM issues it's new stock (at lets say $25/share), if someone purchased 1000 shares for $25000, kept it for 8 months and sold it at $50/share, they would pay 30% tax on the $25K profits ($7500). BUT, if they held it for more than a year, the tax rate would drop by 3%, and drop another 3% for every year they kept it, up to a 5 yr (or 15%) drop. If they kept it long term (10 yrs or more), it would drop to 10%. So if the stock sold for the $50/share 5 yrs from now, they would only pay $3750 on that profit. Or $2500 if kept for 10 yrs. The same could be done for any investment, like real estate, too. This would keep these "house flippers"in check.
My premise is that corporations currently don't pay taxes - they simply pass their tax burden on to individuals in the form of lower wages for employees & higher prices for consumers. Put another way, corporations today are tax collectors - not tax payers.
To me, it makes sense to cut out the middlemen - in this case, the corporations - & go after upper income individuals who own most of the shares in publicly-held corporations. After all, if all taxes are ultimately paid by individuals, as I believe they are, then isn't it more efficient to focus enforcement & collection efforts on individuals?
My guess is that you disagree with my premise & believe that corporations really do pay taxes. In other words, you think that corporations make no meaningful attempt to pass this cost onto employees & customers, as they do all other costs. Am I correct?
But how can it be double taxation when the corporations aren't paying their fair share of taxes in the first place, thanks to loopholes?
Wow, this is frustrating!
My premise is that corporations have always been tax collectors - never tax payers. They pass their tax burden on to individuals, as I outlined in previous posts. Loopholes have nothing to do with this state of affairs.
At the end of the day, all taxes are paid by individuals. How could it be otherwise?
Yes? No?
Corporations can own an income generating asset, make a profit off it, and never distribute the income as dividends. Who pays the taxes then (besides the employees of the corporation)?
I think for your purposes we already have S Corps that let corporate profits pass through to the shareholders for taxes. For that situation management is generally the shareholders so you avoid the disconnect that can happen when managers hoard profits, don't pay dividends and avoid taxes.
Yes? No?
A corporation either passes the tax on through higher product or service sales prices, or eats it through a reduced profit margin, cash flow position, etc. Depends on their market situation, but generally I agree. I suppose you can make an argument that theoretically when a corporation eats it, if it is significant that action may reduce its stock price thereby still affecting its stock investors.
I believe the double taxation being referred to is that corporations have to pay out dividends on an after tax basis, but then the dividend recipient also has to pay income tax on it.
Quite a few stockholders aren't necessarily wealthy. In fact many of them are middle class through their pension funds, mutual funds and 401K's. Infact as people become truly wealthy their investment style often changes from risk taking to wealth preservation and they put more of their assets into bonds, real estate, etc.
I don't see a large national sales tax (VAT) in lieu of income tax working in the US because our economy is too dominated by consumer activity. It may work in some Asian economies that are more focused on manufacturing and who's citizens are more attuned to savings and investment. What I worry about is a small incremental sales tax on top of income taxes because as we've all seen in our states and municipalities over time that very small percentage keeps growing into a much more significant number. I think government has more trouble balancing revenue expansion versus expense reductions because there is no profit motive. But that is a whole 'nother area for discussion I suppose.
Corporations can own an income generating asset, make a profit off it, and never distribute the income as dividends. Who pays the taxes then (besides the employees of the corporation)?
I think the logic behind this, right or wrong, is that the corporate entity overall financial health is reflected in its stock price which is publically traded and subject to investor income taxes or capital gains taxes. There are also some taxes and fees paid in the trader/broker process, but the tax code believes this approach encourages investment and a stronger economy through corporate expenditure of those investment monies whether new stock, bonds, or selling of company held stock at a resulting inflated price to book. Also a stronger financial position may encourage the corporation to leverage through loans to expand and increase its capital expenditures.
I'm not an attorney, but while S corpoartion have some different tax consequences than a partnership or proprietorship, I believe the decision on which way to go is often driven more by liability issues, or potential partner issues, than by taxes.
Believe it or not, large publicly held corporations can actually have problems holding large money from hoarding profits because this will not only eventually upset their large shareholders leading to management shakeups, but inevitably invite hostile takeovers by outside parties wanting to get their hands on that cash. I think the bigger problem is corporate senior executives using that hoard of cash quickly as a piggy bank to reap hugely out of whack salaries and bonuses.
Never say never. In time, one (or both) of two things has to happen. Either the shareholders will force the corporation to pay a cash dividend (as happened with Microsoft in 2003) or the retained profits will drive up the share price, which will motivate shareholders to realize capital gains by selling their shares at a profit. (Would any sane person invest in shares absent a reasonable expectation of (a) dividends, (b) capital gains or (c) both? Otherwise, what would be the point?)
In the first case, the Feds will tax the dividends. In the second, the Feds will tax the capital gains.
As I've said previously, only individuals pay taxes. How could it be otherwise?
cooter: reading that last paragraph of yours is as complex as the current tax code, and I want kindergarten-level simplification...a Fairtax or retail sales tax would be paid by all consumers and they are really the only payers...a corporaton that pays taxes simply lowers dividends or raises prices...
with everyone paying the sales tax, that includes the black market, overseas tourists, and has the broadest scope for the greatest participation...yes, the local kid who mows your lawn will not charge you the tax, and if I paint your wall for a loaf of bread, no tax will be paid, but it is still the broadest tax on the greatest number of people, and you can control it by buying something cheaper...NO cap gains tax, no income tax, NOTHING...and no more tax returns, no more IRS looking over your shoulder, CITIZEN PRIVACY is restored, and everything is pay as you go...just the privacy aspect alone is worth it to a citizen like me who thinks our govt knows too much about us anyway...under my idea, the govt would only know we exist every 10 years with the census...no blacks, no whites, no Indians, no Hispanics, nothing...just how many people live here for US House representation...and kick all illegals out, we know where they are and we can get rid of them with simple enforcement...then build that 100 foot high wall, bring out the dogs, shoot on sight, and take away all water along their immigration routes...oh, don't forget poison gas in all their tunnels, or maybe anthrax, something a little stronger than poison ivy...
Restoring this country is really quite easy...
Focus on other markets indeed...with how much IP either stolen or taken via shortsighted "partnerships" with idiotic western branch plant operators managed by the executive class who are virtually solely responsible for what ails us today,
But you're a lawyer.... you SHOULD want graduate-level obfuscation. :P
...CITIZEN PRIVACY is restored, and everything is pay as you go...just the privacy aspect alone is worth it to a citizen like me who thinks our govt knows too much about us anyway...under my idea, the govt would only know we exist every 10 years with the census...no blacks, no whites, no Indians, no Hispanics, nothing...just how many people live here for US House representation...and kick all illegals out, we know where they are and we can get rid of them with simple enforcement...then build that 100 foot high wall, bring out the dogs, shoot on sight, and take away all water along their immigration routes...oh, don't forget poison gas in all their tunnels, or maybe anthrax, something a little stronger than poison ivy...
Kinda sounding libertarian there Bob....
Interesting thought.
my name is othman from kuwait and I am happy to know you all in this forum.
i am looking for texas Auction of used cars whree i could finde it ?I want to learn how to deal with the laws of this market.
please any body want to help me send me emial to alenezi912@hotmail.com
regards
othman
"On our site at davisgm.ca we have a specific section for our US inventory so you can easily identify which ones we have brought in from America. We have employees that consistently research the vehicles which are better deals in the U.S.A. and we search those vehicles specifically so you can be sure that you are getting the most value for your money. Certain vehicles such as the GMC Sierra Trucks and Terrains are a much better deal in Canada so we will not import these as our new vehicle selection here will be the best value for the customer."
Selling Made in USA Vehicles at Davis GM (pr-canada.net)
tlong, you have me all wrong...
Just because I am a lawyer doesn't mean I want the world in legalese...I consider myself a right winger except I get annoyed when the religious right places their entire voting emphasis on abortion...sure they have the RIGHT to do so, but from a common sense view, this country will not rise or fall on whether Jane has an abortion, but taking away my guns, too much regulation, too much govt interference in our lives, too much taxes CAN kill the US...
I think the 10th amendment is as important as the others, and, if it was enforced, 75% of what the fed govt does would be shut down tomorrow, as it is unconstitutional...it has been forgotten over the years, but a few strict constitutionalists on the Supreme Court could change that...
That is why I cannot belong to the ABA...they are Commies as far as I am concerned...
Unfortunately it looks like the pot legalization proposition is going to be defeated in CA. I guess we get what we deserve.
Perhaps you can explain how, over the years, the Fed government somehow has taken on so many things that are clearly not in the Constitution, in spite of the 10th amendment. Shouldn't the Supreme Court be invalidating all sorts of Federal programs?
There's actually a frightening amount where I agree with Bob. This no doubt comes from the libertarian side. There was a test some time ago that I could look up if I thought it was that important but what they did based on your answers was peg you politically. I was a libertarian liberal. That's about right.
I find your comments on pot very interesting. Stoners always seemed more mellow and less trouble than drunks back in college. I don't believe the vast majority of physicians are going to recklessly prescribe it and I don't believe the government should interfere in the doctor patient relationship when it is prescribed to legitimately combat medical issues like glaucoma. I'm afraid that while well intentioned, the heavy legal enforcement emphasis on pot is misapplied. I understand the emphasis because bureaucracies, government or commercial, so often use poor, ineffective metrics and since busting marijuana users is relatively easy police departments can score points and justify budgets. Unfortunately, I think that diverts attention, efforts and effectiveness in fighting much more dangerous hard drugs. One can argue that joints are a gateway drug, but perhaps that is because users have to go to illicit dealers to get it in the first place. If it was legalized, companies like Phillip Morris could sell it ensuring availability and making sure it wasn't cut by dangerous other ingredients. It would also assure government inspection and tax revenue just like alcohol. Meanwhile police could then focus all of their efforts on the pushers of the hard stuff which is where most of the medical and crime fallout occurs. Personally I don't use it because I don't like smoking, and I'm not a big drinker, but there seems to be a double standard on alcohol versus marijuana in government.
I also think the government needs to make some hard decisions on all of these agencies. Energy may have started out well intentioned, but it seems to me to have devolved into an enforcement agency rather than inspiring research and energy advancement. EPA has become cumbersome and probably caused more economic delay and harm than it has saved the environment. Education seems totally redundant to the state and local level. Pushing standardized tests isn't going to fix the issues here. Giving grant money to the best grant writers, or politically connected wastes diminishing budget dollars.
Finally, I sometimes worry that the judicial branch off the government has become too powerful, moving America away from the balance of the three branches envisioned by our Constitution writers. I think the appointment of judges has become too political, and that sometimes government attorneys can be more concerned about "notches on their belt" for career gain than fairness in their actions.
How does all of this apply to cars? I don't know, but those Chrysler workers nabbed on camera had both booze and joints!
That is where I agree most, but that still depends on your political outlook...I consider myself in the "strict constructionist" camp, so I have no idea where the Supremes ever found a "right to abortion" in the "penumbra" of the 1st amendment, so I would have said that one who sees that right in the Const is insane...yet I also can see that there ought to be 1st amendment rights of free speech in TV, radio, and internet, simply because the Const granted that right in speech and print, the media of its day, and the founders never envisioned TV, radio or internet, yet the internet gives the individual the best way to communicate THEIR free speech than anyone ever envisioned...
I am also against political correctness as, simply, censorship...while the N-word and other words are hateful, that is why the [non-permissible content removed] can demonstrate in the streets of Skokie, IL and that is why folks should be able to use that word...remember, just 'cuz you have the right to SAY it, this confers no right that you have an audience or no right to force me to LISTEN to you...
At the risk of sounding radical (who, me?) we have gotten away from the Const because the judges like the power of legislating from the bench...I wonder if 9 Scalias on the bench might actually restore us to the original intent, as he (they) might have the guts to actually state that 2/3 of what the govt does is against the Const in any way, shape or form, and to hell with stare decisis...stare decisis only exists so they don't have to go back and overturn previous stupid decisions, but a true reading of the founder's intent would shut down over 70% of every federal dollar spent, and balance the budget in 20 minutes...
I would make those hard choices...the hardest choice of all???...for those in fed govt to give up the power they have and devolve it back to the states...that is what I would do...no more federal reserve, no more income tax, a defense budget that defends this country, no HUD, no welfare, no Dept of Ed, and on and on...
I agree that the Feds are involved in too much, but I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as you. Look at highways. If we relied strictly on States our national highway system would be as convoluted as Route 66 was because of local politics and deal making. Someone has to referee at times and insure it makes sense for the betterment of the nation.
They qualified the Interstate Highway system as vital for National Defense, and I can accept that...in order to evacuate or transport goods, weapons, and give multiple "runways" for military planes to land (Air Force One?) the system will assist the entire nation in the event of a Nat'l emergency...I can see that, instead of all those 2 lane dirt roads going thru rural land that even horses and mountain goats have trouble navigating...
Now why the feds have to issue flood insurance policies to folks who build mansions on the coast just before hurrican season, I fail to see the need for that...just call State Farm, pay a yearly premium equal to 75% of the value of your home, and let the free market handle it...or don't live on the coast, or on an earthquake fault line...
Not that that has anything to do with buying American cars.
Or Japanese cars - here's something that sounds familiar. "'But Toyota is a global company that was born in Japan.... We would like to keep working hard in Japan.'
With the yen having hit a 15-year high against the dollar late last month, the rationale to do more overseas production is strengthening"
Toyota keen on Japan production despite yen rise (xe.com)
OK, but can it be used for that anyway, kinda like an unintended side effect???
We had a great landing an airplane on the Interstate story. My mom used to own a four seater plane as an investment. She could and did occasionally fly it (took up pilot school at 62!) but mostly it was leased back to an aviation outfit who'd rent it out by the day.
one day my brother is heading to work on Route 80 and sees a plane land on the opposite lane. He realizes that this is a familiar looking plane. Checks it out and indeed it was my mom's plane. The guy who had rented it panicked when he thought he was running out of fuel. He forgot that on any of those planes there are two tanks and it just takes flipping a switch to get to the other tank which had loads of fuel.
The folks from the aviation place came on out and took off right from that spot.
We have some good pictures of that somewhere.
I know, sometimes it take a little to get out what's in my mind. Basically, I want to discourage short term investments (less than a year) and encourage long term investments.
I too think that a National sales tax would be better than income tax, and that corporate taxes should be minimized or eliminated.