There are 18,000 corporations alone in the Cayman Islands that pay zero taxes.
That's BS. Just because a company has their HQ or has a subsidiary in the Cayman's doesn't automatically mean they pay 0 Federal and State income taxes. They are still subject to taxes on income earned in the US. It's the foreign based revenues the IRS taxes which a place like the Caymans help corporations and people avoid.
At least GM is employing many people on this continent to build many of their autos instead of bringing them over on freighters.
So, what percent of GM autos, suvs, light trucks SOLD in the United States are actually made in the U.S. vs a foreign brand such as Honda? Would have hoped that one of the conditions for a U.S. taxpayer bailout of the "failed" GM Corp would be that year-by-year the percentage of U.S. built vehicles has to go up a certain percentage.
As long as we taxpayers were forced by our D.C. government to bail out a company, we should not have to help Mexico or Canada economies as part of the deal.
I wonder if Honda is more American than GM in building a greater percent of their vehicles in the U.S. than does GM.
At least GM is employing many people on this continent to build many of their autos instead of bringing them over on freighters.
So, what percent of GM autos, suvs, light trucks SOLD in the United States are actually made in the U.S. vs a foreign brand such as Honda? Would have hoped that one of the conditions for a U.S. taxpayer bailout of the "failed" GM Corp would be that year-by-year the percentage of U.S. built vehicles has to go up a certain percentage.
As long as we taxpayers were forced by our D.C. government to bail out a company, we should not have to help Mexico or Canada economies as part of the deal.
I wonder if Honda is more American than GM in building a greater percent of their vehicles in the U.S. than does GM.
The bailout is turning into a big campaign issue so we'll be hearing plenty about it. We have a primary in a couple of weeks here in Michigan and Romney is getting hammered pretty good for supporting the Wall St. bailout but opposing the auto industry one (after supporting a bailout in '08).
That's if you can believe all the reporting and polls and noise.
Xrunner2, the Sonic is built in Michigan although its predecessor was built in Korea. I think you'll see more of this type of thing.
Percentage? Who cares? It is has been written again and again and again and again that the D3 employee more Americans, and utilize more U.S. suppliers, than any foreign company.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I agree and posted this in USAToday. The bail-out, like it or not, did help level the playing field with foreign automakers who have been subsidized (directly and indirectly) by their governments for years.
I like GM and am glad they are doing well. I bought a new 2011 Lacrosse last year that was assembled by the UAW in the Fairfax, KS plant. It is a great car and I love it.
It is has been written again and again and again and again that the D3 employee more Americans, and utilize more U.S. suppliers, than any foreign company.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of employees of US suppliers buy domestic brands.
My BIL works for an auto supplier in Michigan. He drives a Tundra and he just bought my SIL a new Odyssey. Granted Toyota and Honda are his customers along with GM and Ford.
•"All sedans ordered in 2012 will be the Chevrolet Volt" •Crossovers and minivans will be replaced by electric-vehicle sedans, i.e. the Volt •Field engineers (who presumably have to carry equipment and spare parts) are the exception to the Volt-only rule •Home assessments for installation of a 240-Volt Level 2 charging station will be provided to all Volt drivers •If it's not possible to install a Level 2 station, employees should use standard 110-Volt charging •If no electric power is available, driving the Volt using only its gasoline range extender is permitted •Employees should expense both public charging-station costs and the Volt-recharging portion of their monthly electric bills •If new GE drivers opt out of the fleet-vehicle program and choose to use a personal car, GE will not reimburse those expenses •Existing drivers will not be reimbursed for personal-vehicle use after January 1, 2013
I work for an auto supplier, probably the same ratio of domestic to foreign vehicles in the lot than anywhere else. We do business with the big 3 and the transplants, though. Honda and Toyota are very picky about how their product is made, want us using their Quality processes. Domestic used to be very profitable, weren't as picky, but they really scaled back what they will pay in recent lean times.
2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
No, it's not ok for any of them to get bailouts. But this is an auto board. If it were a finance board you'd hear us screaming about the banks!
Exactly. We have been asked by other posters and Steve at times to stay on track. Though, I have also said at times that the Wall Street abnd other industries' welfare is not okay.
GM had agreements with suppliers to pay them. GM had agreements with pensioners to provide them certain levels of income and benefits. GM had agreements with a certain number of dealers. GM had an agreement to pay taxes (however screwed-up that system is) under the same rules as other corporations filed and paid. GM has been able to break each and every one of those agreements in the last few years.
So now Rocky, you defend that the UAW agreement has to go thru because GM made an agreement? :confuse: GM is not paying tax to Uncle Sam. GM is getting tax-free profit. GM is partially owned by Uncle Sam and has lost $$ on its stock. Uncle Sam got that $$ by borrowing it. Each and every U.S. citizen borrowed from China and such, to give that $$ to GM to keep the doors open. So what does GM do with a portion of their tax-free profits that they've been given? GM decides tom honor 1 agreement - giving $$ away to their employees, who still are making fairly good wages, compared to many in this economy!
How is GM and the conomy going to do later this year, as gasoline looks like it is going to go near $5/gal? It's over $4/gal in many parts of CA already in Feb. And the conflict between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. is only worsening. That is only going to make gasoline prices higher. Most of GM's sales are still PU's, and SUV's, and that is where their profits mainly come from. Is GM ready if sales drop back to 10M or 11M annually?
The coming higher gasoline prices is going to squeeze the average consumer just like it did a few years ago, and the conomy is going to slow. I would not want to be a car salesmen sitting this summer trying to sell $35K 17mpg PU trucks.
The alternative would of been a recession greater than the great depression! Bush, Obama, made the right decision to save the Detroit 3 and millions of jobs!!!!
Instead of investing in a failing business, Obama could have spend the same amount of money on internet startups and putting more fiber in the ground to give the US a world-class network, and it would do more good for the FUTURE economy.
Very interesting. Those of us who have ACTUALLY owned a Honda product vs a domestic have observed this for at least the last 25 years.
I rode in my dad's '09 Accord EX-L v6 this weekend. While the Accord doesn't do much for me overall, but I'm always impressed when I ride or drive it.
My dad has put 80k miles on it and it's impressively tight and smooth. My wife's '11 Taurus isn't remotely in the ball park in terms of powertrain refinement, fit-n-finish, and an overall feeling of quality. It doesn't squeak or rattle, and the engine is just unbelievably smooth and quiet. Not the groaning I hear and feel from the Ford and GM vehicles I've owned and sampled.
No transmission issues either. It hasn't been perfect. rear brake pads wear quick, and he did have a coil pack replaced around 60k that was causing a miss.
Also I've heard comments about issues with Honda's 3.5v6 cylinder deactivation, but I never could tell it was active in my dad's. I'd see the eco light on, but no vibration or sounds were noticeable to me.
I attended the Chicago Auto Show yesterday. Was definitely better than the 09 show, but nothing really blew me away.
Chrysler probably had the coolest display as they had a ride and drive in 3 different areas. They had a test track setup with where you could drive a Fiat 500, 300C, Charger RT, and Challenger RT. It was pretty cool. Jeep had a 4x4 track to drive various Jeep models and they had another area for Ram trucks too.
Ford had a 2012 Shelby GT500 on a dyno which they ran through 4 gears. Wow, it sounded bad [non-permissible content removed]. To bad they didn't use the 650hp 2013 model, still it was very cool.
IMO, neither the new Fusion or Malibu look as good in person as as they did in the intro photos. I'd say I was more disappointed with the looks of the Fusion as I really liked how it looked in the photos vs. the Malibu.
The Buick display was dead as usual. They had a presenter introducing the Verano on a turntable and NOBODY was there to listen. It was almost sad. And I didn't see anyone looking at the Verano's you could get in. A few people were checking out the Lacrosse and Regal GS, but overall the Buick area was empty.
Chevy and Ford had about equal crowds. The ZL1 area had a lot of traffic and the car looked impressive.
The Cadillac area was busy too, not BMW or Mercedes busy but crowded none the less. The ATS and XTS both look better to me in person vs. the photos I've looked at.
The Mercedes area was just nuts. Basically impossible to look at anything. We hit the show at opening and was able to leave before the show really got crowded. By the time we left around 1:30 it was way to crowded. I was glad to leave at that point.
The Toyota area was boring other than 4 LFAs on display, and Honda didn't have much to look at either. The Scion FR-S is pretty cool. Didn't realize it was using a boxer 4 cylinder until I looked under the hood. I guess it's basically a Subaru, or is the new Subaru BRZ a Toyota? Either way, it has the heart of a Subaru.
All in all a good show. Lots of interactive displays.
Not the groaning I hear and feel from the Ford and GM vehicles I've owned and sampled.
My experience has usually been more of a growl than a groan. The sound of the field of 30 going by the main stretch at the Brickyard last year would be interpreted by some as groans. I think Chevy finished 1-2-3-4 there, 1st in the world in sales, and set their corporate profit record in their 103rd year.
Right now, my brother is getting 21 hwy in his 5.3 L ext cab and my other brother is getting 15 hwy from an old Accord V6. Guess which one is groaning?
The sound of the field of 30 going by the main stretch at the Brickyard last year would be interpreted by some as groans. I think Chevy finished 1-2-3-4 there
So, tell us what relevance is the NASCAR to real-world GM products. Are the engines in NASCAR race cars what one could buy at a GM dealer?
I attended the Chicago Auto Show yesterday. Was definitely better than the 09 show
In spite of the incredibly bad politics of Chicago, Crook County and Illinois, the entrepreneurs of Chicago (car dealers association) puts on a great show every year for over 100 years. Add to that the outstanding Chicago lakefront skyline, unequaled in any city of the US. and you have/had the perfect setting for an auto show. Watch a Bears game on national TV and see the overheads of the Chicago skyline/lakefront and see that there is no other city in the US that can match the beauty nor grandeur.
In spite of the incredibly bad politics of Chicago, Crook County and Illinois, the entrepreneurs of Chicago (car dealers association) puts on a great show every year for over 100 years. Add to that the outstanding Chicago lakefront skyline, unequaled in any city of the US. and you have/had the perfect setting for an auto show. Watch a Bears game on national TV and see the overheads of the Chicago skyline/lakefront and see that there is no other city in the US that can match the beauty nor grandeur.
I agree. I love Chicago despite its many flaws. Saturday was a beautiful day to be in the city. Not a cloud in the sky and it wasn't to cold.
I'd watch NASCAR if it was a competition between manufacturers of cars that are very close to what you buy in a showroom.
Make it that it has to be a standard production vehicle - must sell 5,000+ of that same body and engine to retail customer. Then allow the racers to put in a roll-cage and a few other safety devices, put a number on it, and that's it. No special cooling, weight reduction, engines, tires, or brakes. Oh ... and use a variety of different tracks - road course, dirt, and high-speed ovals to see which models are best overall.
I'd watch NASCAR if it was a competition between manufacturers of cars that are very close to what you buy in a showroom.
Follow SCCA events. That's probably about as close as you're going to get.
One thing I miss about living in Ohio is not being able to visit Mid-Ohio. Lots of great racing there with all different types of cars. Some are basically stock.
Kind of a nonsensical question since I suggested we fund some startups. Since they haven't started up yet, I don't know who they are! Better to fund new ideas than old, failed ideas.
Shouldn't good capitalists like the Comcast cabal and competitors be able to put fiber in the ground? Anything else is socialist, right?
As long as there is a regulated oligopoly there is no incentive for Comcast or Time-Warner, etc. to do much of anything. Encouraging some new competition would be a good idea. And I was comparing to the automaker bailouts. In a comparison, why not new age infrastructure over old age failures?
But how can an idea that is unknown be funded? Others who are funding their once failed ideas are somehow making a go of it. It's not like the competition for this industry is all self-sufficient and independent.
I'd have no problem with both building out fiber infrastructure and doing away with the in effect duopoly or in effect legalized monopoly in that industry...the money would also be well used building out hard infrastructure (roads and bridges especially), maybe even as a priority. Sadly, this is America, you get the regulations you pay for, and the cable cabal has bought off a lot of politicos.
I think we agree that government building infrastructure + the government deciding who can have a monopoly (or be kept alive) in that industry is a bad idea.
Similarly Superpacs are a terrible idea, but neither the Rep. or Dems. will now reject. I read yesterday that just 5 donors had provided 25% of the Superpac $ to the candidates running for president. And though Superpacs are by definition an independent group of people or businesses that support a candidate, it appears that Rick Santorum's main superpac donor, has been on-stage right behind the microphone lately.
I think the people who wrote the Constitution in this country had grave concerns with government running-wild. I don't think the intent was to allow the Executive branch to make special bankruptcy rules, install auto-czars, have 60 years of wars that Congress never declares, and trample the Bill of Rights with such things as the Patriot Act which will never fade away, as there are always an infinite number of future terrorists who exist or could exist.
GM and C were bailed out for the wealthy and powerful to benefit. Especially C whose's parent owner Cerberus has plenty of other companies who's resources could have been used for C. But why pay your own bills, when the government is conveniently picking up the tab for others in the industry.
Guess what, we're in a worse situation than 2008-09. The banks and large corporations like GM have called out bluff. Whether they win or fail they WIN. If they run their corporations poorly or well, they WIN. Make some bets that lose, the government covers the bets; after some public berating which is for show. How many of us are getting that deal? It's morally and generally-recognized as corrupt, but they are our laws and loopholes in the laws. And the peons in this country still have their cable TV and live a decent enough lifestyle to not have marched en masse to DC.
2/3rds of corporations pay zero taxes and in fact most get tax refunds!
And 1/2 of all personal tax filers pay zero federal taxes and some receive money back.
But in both cases from year to year it's usually not the same people or the same corporations.
I've always done my own taxes even with all of my stock and options trading. It does help me understand how I can limit my tax liability.
Basically, my choices have almost as much affect on the tax rate I pay as my income amount and type. So just throwing out stats like, 2/3 of corporations pay zero taxes and 1/2 of all personal tax filers pay zero tax really doesn't mean much without knowing why.
I could have effectively eliminated my Federal tax liability for 2011. Buy a Volt, donate to a charity, have a medical condition not covered by insurance, defer the max amount of income and on and on.
But yes the tax code really needs a major overhaul. In my opinion, increasing taxes on the top 1% won't do much, other than but a feather in some politicians cap. We need more people and corporations paying in something. Rather than what's currently happening with fewer and fewer paying in more.
Here in central Illinois I've been seeing more Volts. With gas going up, it went up 20 cents here yesterday, the Volt may have a good summer, particularly if the tax credit is increased to 10K.
A price war on small cars in Europe is hammering GM. Stagnating home sales have hammered Peugeot, and they've been selling assets and pulling out of Le Mans to stay afloat.
Now, if you look at the actual numbers, you see that corporations in the U.S. only pay 8% of the total taxes taken in each year. The tax code is set up so that in theory they pay half and the public pays half. (or close to it) What happens is that due to the myriad of loopholes, offshore accounts, and incentives, they rarely pay any tax at all.
It's not that the tax code is wrong, it's that enforcement is so terrible.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html If you go to the projection for 2016, you see a glaring problem, which is that they are assuming that corporate taxes will jump to 21%. They also assume that in 4 years, no more spending happens. Basically, the idea of how to balance the budget is to tax corporations more (or collect more of what they should be paying)
In this political environment, though, good luck with that. If Obama wins again, the Republicans block him out of spite and if the Republicans win, that amount will drop to probably 5%. The issue has never been about tax rates but instead, about tax enforcement and collection.
Now, if you look at the actual numbers, you see that corporations in the U.S. only pay 8% of the total taxes taken in each year. The tax code is set up so that in theory they pay half and the public pays half. (or close to it).
Reading this just made me think of something that should be blatantly obvious! What's the difference between an individual paying tax and a corporation? Individual's pay tax on their "revenue"; corporations pay tax based on their "profit" . What I'm saying is that an individual making $100K pays taxes on that; not their Profit, which would be what's left after paying their bills. So if an individual were left with $1K out of that $100K, they would only pay tax on the $1K - if they were a corporation.
A corporation like GM has revenues of $100B annually. They don't pay tax on that. They only pay tax on a profit if they don't have a loss after deductions. GM would only pay tax on $6B not $100B; if they still were required to pay federal income tax.
So maybe this is another great example of the government favoring business. Why should we expect less, it is the corporations and wealthy (like Buffet, who shelters his money) that are deciding who gets elected for the most part.
If we're not going to aid our stumbling industry, we'll have to then put punitive and equalizing assessments on the competitors who play on our turf. Good luck getting that passed.
Why pay your own bills, indeed...we could ask that to some nations - both real and artificial, and entire regions. We do it all, and spend more than anyone else for it. Go USA!
"And the peons in this country still have their cable TV and live a decent enough lifestyle to not have marched en masse to DC. "
Now you know why various social welfare benefits tend to be pretty generous - keeps the nooses and guillotines at bay.
You get the justice you can afford. This isn't an egalitarian meritocracy. You can buy your way in and buy your way up.
There are morons in every company. Ford has its share of issues too, and has also been rewarded by the government - just not as directly as the other two.
I totally agree with you, but it seems our gov't is sending the following message:
1) The more morons you hire, the more direct help and bailout you'll get. 2) the more moronic your actions, the more direct help and bailout monies you'll get. 3) When you are failing, make sure you fail hard, steep, and deep!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
If you can't beat 'em, join em. Go GM!
At least GM is making first and 1/2 rate cars now instead of only trucks and after-thought-mobiles.
Regards,
OW
That's BS. Just because a company has their HQ or has a subsidiary in the Cayman's doesn't automatically mean they pay 0 Federal and State income taxes. They are still subject to taxes on income earned in the US. It's the foreign based revenues the IRS taxes which a place like the Caymans help corporations and people avoid.
So, what percent of GM autos, suvs, light trucks SOLD in the United States are actually made in the U.S. vs a foreign brand such as Honda? Would have hoped that one of the conditions for a U.S. taxpayer bailout of the "failed" GM Corp would be that year-by-year the percentage of U.S. built vehicles has to go up a certain percentage.
As long as we taxpayers were forced by our D.C. government to bail out a company, we should not have to help Mexico or Canada economies as part of the deal.
I wonder if Honda is more American than GM in building a greater percent of their vehicles in the U.S. than does GM.
So, what percent of GM autos, suvs, light trucks SOLD in the United States are actually made in the U.S. vs a foreign brand such as Honda? Would have hoped that one of the conditions for a U.S. taxpayer bailout of the "failed" GM Corp would be that year-by-year the percentage of U.S. built vehicles has to go up a certain percentage.
As long as we taxpayers were forced by our D.C. government to bail out a company, we should not have to help Mexico or Canada economies as part of the deal.
I wonder if Honda is more American than GM in building a greater percent of their vehicles in the U.S. than does GM.
That's if you can believe all the reporting and polls and noise.
Percentage? Who cares? It is has been written again and again and again and again that the D3 employee more Americans, and utilize more U.S. suppliers, than any foreign company.
It is nice to see the crony capitalists and wannabe oligarchs show their true colors, anyway.
What that does to the percentages I have no idea, but it may sway those percentages.
Surprised they didn't do the same with the Sonics platform mate, the Buick Encore...
I like GM and am glad they are doing well. I bought a new 2011 Lacrosse last year that was assembled by the UAW in the Fairfax, KS plant. It is a great car and I love it.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of employees of US suppliers buy domestic brands.
My BIL works for an auto supplier in Michigan. He drives a Tundra and he just bought my SIL a new Odyssey. Granted Toyota and Honda are his customers along with GM and Ford.
•"All sedans ordered in 2012 will be the Chevrolet Volt"
•Crossovers and minivans will be replaced by electric-vehicle sedans, i.e. the Volt
•Field engineers (who presumably have to carry equipment and spare parts) are the exception to the Volt-only rule
•Home assessments for installation of a 240-Volt Level 2 charging station will be provided to all Volt drivers
•If it's not possible to install a Level 2 station, employees should use standard 110-Volt charging
•If no electric power is available, driving the Volt using only its gasoline range extender is permitted
•Employees should expense both public charging-station costs and the Volt-recharging portion of their monthly electric bills
•If new GE drivers opt out of the fleet-vehicle program and choose to use a personal car, GE will not reimburse those expenses
•Existing drivers will not be reimbursed for personal-vehicle use after January 1, 2013
Maybe a big kick in the pants usage of the Volt by GE will generate more interest in the car, as more folks se them on the road.
My tendency is to look forward. There are a lot of things I didn't approve in the way the Big-3 were "handled", but "it is what it is" today.
We can either sit around and grumble about it (and make no mistake, some will) or we can pick up and move on.
Lets see how this GE policy works out over the next few months...
Some of them even in this country! (vs. Canada and Mexico).
And no, I don't blame them, I'd do it too with the UAW floating around ready to strike at any moment.
It's the GM hate club. It's okay to bailout Wall Street so their employees can make millions and then get bonuses on top. But it's not okay for GM...
No, it's not ok for any of them to get bailouts. But this is an auto board. If it were a finance board you'd hear us screaming about the banks! :mad:
But, they do seem to have one thing in common with GM.... I don't think they paid any taxes last year, either...
GE 2011 Income Statement
GM showed a -$110 million income tax expense for 2011. Refund?
GM 2011 Income Statement
Exactly. We have been asked by other posters and Steve at times to stay on track. Though, I have also said at times that the Wall Street abnd other industries' welfare is not okay.
GM had agreements with suppliers to pay them. GM had agreements with pensioners to provide them certain levels of income and benefits. GM had agreements with a certain number of dealers. GM had an agreement to pay taxes (however screwed-up that system is) under the same rules as other corporations filed and paid. GM has been able to break each and every one of those agreements in the last few years.
So now Rocky, you defend that the UAW agreement has to go thru because GM made an agreement? :confuse: GM is not paying tax to Uncle Sam. GM is getting tax-free profit. GM is partially owned by Uncle Sam and has lost $$ on its stock. Uncle Sam got that $$ by borrowing it. Each and every U.S. citizen borrowed from China and such, to give that $$ to GM to keep the doors open. So what does GM do with a portion of their tax-free profits that they've been given? GM decides tom honor 1 agreement - giving $$ away to their employees, who still are making fairly good wages, compared to many in this economy!
How is GM and the conomy going to do later this year, as gasoline looks like it is going to go near $5/gal? It's over $4/gal in many parts of CA already in Feb. And the conflict between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. is only worsening. That is only going to make gasoline prices higher. Most of GM's sales are still PU's, and SUV's, and that is where their profits mainly come from. Is GM ready if sales drop back to 10M or 11M annually?
The coming higher gasoline prices is going to squeeze the average consumer just like it did a few years ago, and the conomy is going to slow. I would not want to be a car salesmen sitting this summer trying to sell $35K 17mpg PU trucks.
-Rocky
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all
They aren't alone...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C2011- 1103
Very interesting. Those of us who have ACTUALLY owned a Honda product vs a domestic have observed this for at least the last 25 years.
Can you tell us more.
Shouldn't good capitalists like the Comcast cabal and competitors be able to put fiber in the ground? Anything else is socialist, right?
I rode in my dad's '09 Accord EX-L v6 this weekend. While the Accord doesn't do much for me overall, but I'm always impressed when I ride or drive it.
My dad has put 80k miles on it and it's impressively tight and smooth. My wife's '11 Taurus isn't remotely in the ball park in terms of powertrain refinement, fit-n-finish, and an overall feeling of quality. It doesn't squeak or rattle, and the engine is just unbelievably smooth and quiet. Not the groaning I hear and feel from the Ford and GM vehicles I've owned and sampled.
No transmission issues either. It hasn't been perfect. rear brake pads wear quick, and he did have a coil pack replaced around 60k that was causing a miss.
Also I've heard comments about issues with Honda's 3.5v6 cylinder deactivation, but I never could tell it was active in my dad's. I'd see the eco light on, but no vibration or sounds were noticeable to me.
Chrysler probably had the coolest display as they had a ride and drive in 3 different areas. They had a test track setup with where you could drive a Fiat 500, 300C, Charger RT, and Challenger RT. It was pretty cool. Jeep had a 4x4 track to drive various Jeep models and they had another area for Ram trucks too.
Ford had a 2012 Shelby GT500 on a dyno which they ran through 4 gears. Wow, it sounded bad [non-permissible content removed]. To bad they didn't use the 650hp 2013 model, still it was very cool.
IMO, neither the new Fusion or Malibu look as good in person as as they did in the intro photos. I'd say I was more disappointed with the looks of the Fusion as I really liked how it looked in the photos vs. the Malibu.
The Buick display was dead as usual. They had a presenter introducing the Verano on a turntable and NOBODY was there to listen. It was almost sad. And I didn't see anyone looking at the Verano's you could get in. A few people were checking out the Lacrosse and Regal GS, but overall the Buick area was empty.
Chevy and Ford had about equal crowds. The ZL1 area had a lot of traffic and the car looked impressive.
The Cadillac area was busy too, not BMW or Mercedes busy but crowded none the less. The ATS and XTS both look better to me in person vs. the photos I've looked at.
The Mercedes area was just nuts. Basically impossible to look at anything. We hit the show at opening and was able to leave before the show really got crowded. By the time we left around 1:30 it was way to crowded. I was glad to leave at that point.
The Toyota area was boring other than 4 LFAs on display, and Honda didn't have much to look at either. The Scion FR-S is pretty cool. Didn't realize it was using a boxer 4 cylinder until I looked under the hood. I guess it's basically a Subaru, or is the new Subaru BRZ a Toyota? Either way, it has the heart of a Subaru.
All in all a good show. Lots of interactive displays.
My experience has usually been more of a growl than a groan. The sound of the field of 30 going by the main stretch at the Brickyard last year would be interpreted by some as groans. I think Chevy finished 1-2-3-4 there, 1st in the world in sales, and set their corporate profit record in their 103rd year.
Right now, my brother is getting 21 hwy in his 5.3 L ext cab and my other brother is getting 15 hwy from an old Accord V6. Guess which one is groaning?
So, tell us what relevance is the NASCAR to real-world GM products. Are the engines in NASCAR race cars what one could buy at a GM dealer?
In spite of the incredibly bad politics of Chicago, Crook County and Illinois, the entrepreneurs of Chicago (car dealers association) puts on a great show every year for over 100 years. Add to that the outstanding Chicago lakefront skyline, unequaled in any city of the US. and you have/had the perfect setting for an auto show. Watch a Bears game on national TV and see the overheads of the Chicago skyline/lakefront and see that there is no other city in the US that can match the beauty nor grandeur.
I agree. I love Chicago despite its many flaws. Saturday was a beautiful day to be in the city. Not a cloud in the sky and it wasn't to cold.
No kidding. I don't remember the last time I wasted an afternoon watching a NASCAR race.
Make it that it has to be a standard production vehicle - must sell 5,000+ of that same body and engine to retail customer. Then allow the racers to put in a roll-cage and a few other safety devices, put a number on it, and that's it. No special cooling, weight reduction, engines, tires, or brakes. Oh ... and use a variety of different tracks - road course, dirt, and high-speed ovals to see which models are best overall.
Race what you sell!!
Follow SCCA events. That's probably about as close as you're going to get.
One thing I miss about living in Ohio is not being able to visit Mid-Ohio. Lots of great racing there with all different types of cars. Some are basically stock.
Kind of a nonsensical question since I suggested we fund some startups. Since they haven't started up yet, I don't know who they are! Better to fund new ideas than old, failed ideas.
Shouldn't good capitalists like the Comcast cabal and competitors be able to put fiber in the ground? Anything else is socialist, right?
As long as there is a regulated oligopoly there is no incentive for Comcast or Time-Warner, etc. to do much of anything. Encouraging some new competition would be a good idea. And I was comparing to the automaker bailouts. In a comparison, why not new age infrastructure over old age failures?
-Rocky
I'd have no problem with both building out fiber infrastructure and doing away with the in effect duopoly or in effect legalized monopoly in that industry...the money would also be well used building out hard infrastructure (roads and bridges especially), maybe even as a priority. Sadly, this is America, you get the regulations you pay for, and the cable cabal has bought off a lot of politicos.
Similarly Superpacs are a terrible idea, but neither the Rep. or Dems. will now reject. I read yesterday that just 5 donors had provided 25% of the Superpac $ to the candidates running for president. And though Superpacs are by definition an independent group of people or businesses that support a candidate, it appears that Rick Santorum's main superpac donor, has been on-stage right behind the microphone lately.
I think the people who wrote the Constitution in this country had grave concerns with government running-wild. I don't think the intent was to allow the Executive branch to make special bankruptcy rules, install auto-czars, have 60 years of wars that Congress never declares, and trample the Bill of Rights with such things as the Patriot Act which will never fade away, as there are always an infinite number of future terrorists who exist or could exist.
GM and C were bailed out for the wealthy and powerful to benefit. Especially C whose's parent owner Cerberus has plenty of other companies who's resources could have been used for C. But why pay your own bills, when the government is conveniently picking up the tab for others in the industry.
Guess what, we're in a worse situation than 2008-09. The banks and large corporations like GM have called out bluff. Whether they win or fail they WIN. If they run their corporations poorly or well, they WIN. Make some bets that lose, the government covers the bets; after some public berating which is for show. How many of us are getting that deal? It's morally and generally-recognized as corrupt, but they are our laws and loopholes in the laws. And the peons in this country still have their cable TV and live a decent enough lifestyle to not have marched en masse to DC.
And 1/2 of all personal tax filers pay zero federal taxes and some receive money back.
But in both cases from year to year it's usually not the same people or the same corporations.
I've always done my own taxes even with all of my stock and options trading. It does help me understand how I can limit my tax liability.
Basically, my choices have almost as much affect on the tax rate I pay as my income amount and type. So just throwing out stats like, 2/3 of corporations pay zero taxes and 1/2 of all personal tax filers pay zero tax really doesn't mean much without knowing why.
I could have effectively eliminated my Federal tax liability for 2011. Buy a Volt, donate to a charity, have a medical condition not covered by insurance, defer the max amount of income and on and on.
But yes the tax code really needs a major overhaul. In my opinion, increasing taxes on the top 1% won't do much, other than but a feather in some politicians cap. We need more people and corporations paying in something. Rather than what's currently happening with fewer and fewer paying in more.
A price war on small cars in Europe is hammering GM. Stagnating home sales have hammered Peugeot, and they've been selling assets and pulling out of Le Mans to stay afloat.
Now, if you look at the actual numbers, you see that corporations in the U.S. only pay 8% of the total taxes taken in each year. The tax code is set up so that in theory they pay half and the public pays half. (or close to it) What happens is that due to the myriad of loopholes, offshore accounts, and incentives, they rarely pay any tax at all.
It's not that the tax code is wrong, it's that enforcement is so terrible.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html
If you go to the projection for 2016, you see a glaring problem, which is that they are assuming that corporate taxes will jump to 21%. They also assume that in 4 years, no more spending happens. Basically, the idea of how to balance the budget is to tax corporations more (or collect more of what they should be paying)
In this political environment, though, good luck with that. If Obama wins again, the Republicans block him out of spite and if the Republicans win, that amount will drop to probably 5%. The issue has never been about tax rates but instead, about tax enforcement and collection.
Now its Not Again, Stupid Carbs And Rednecks!
Reading this just made me think of something that should be blatantly obvious! What's the difference between an individual paying tax and a corporation? Individual's pay tax on their "revenue"; corporations pay tax based on their "profit" . What I'm saying is that an individual making $100K pays taxes on that; not their Profit, which would be what's left after paying their bills. So if an individual were left with $1K out of that $100K, they would only pay tax on the $1K - if they were a corporation.
A corporation like GM has revenues of $100B annually. They don't pay tax on that. They only pay tax on a profit if they don't have a loss after deductions. GM would only pay tax on $6B not $100B; if they still were required to pay federal income tax.
So maybe this is another great example of the government favoring business. Why should we expect less, it is the corporations and wealthy (like Buffet, who shelters his money) that are deciding who gets elected for the most part.
Why pay your own bills, indeed...we could ask that to some nations - both real and artificial, and entire regions. We do it all, and spend more than anyone else for it. Go USA!
"And the peons in this country still have their cable TV and live a decent enough lifestyle to not have marched en masse to DC. "
Now you know why various social welfare benefits tend to be pretty generous - keeps the nooses and guillotines at bay.
You get the justice you can afford. This isn't an egalitarian meritocracy. You can buy your way in and buy your way up.
I totally agree with you, but it seems our gov't is sending the following message:
1) The more morons you hire, the more direct help and bailout you'll get.
2) the more moronic your actions, the more direct help and bailout monies you'll get.
3) When you are failing, make sure you fail hard, steep, and deep!