Bankruptcy and Reorganization for Detroit?

What's anti-government about changing the way taxes are levied?

Sure it does. All that $$$ that was being paid to the feds for the income tax
can be used by the car companies to lower the price of their cars.

The price of American cars should stay about the same.

? The middle class isn't going to buy any yachts, or fuel to run them. The
middle class isn't going to buy personal bizjets. The middle class isn't going
to buy $100,000K+ cars. The rich are. They will pay the most tax.

The US corporate income tax is either the 2nd highest, or the highest on the
planet, depending on who you ask or what source you use. All that money that
was being sucked out of the American car companies via the income tax could
instead be used to lower the price of their cars.

It's Denny Hastert's plan, really. I'm just supporting it.

 

It took you long enough, Brent. You were arguing with someone either
stupid enough not to realize the difference between a descriptive
(non-capitalized) name and a "branded" name which may or may not bear
much resemblance in its nature to the non-capitalized one, or dishonest
enough to pretend he didn't know the difference. For example, he would
undoubtedly either not be able to understand the difference between
"Democratic Party" and "democratic party" (any number of terms could be
used in the example) and/or pretend that the two are synonymous.

As you say, a waste of time.

 

I think he was playing on a couple of typos looking back at it.
whatever... he doesn't want to discuss ideas but trivialities like you
mention above.

 

When it is taken for things not provided for by the Constitution - yes -
that is theft. That ought to send you off into quite a tangent or three.

Do you agree with Obama (you know - the guy that's going to swear in
January to uphold the Constitution) that this country has a major flaw
created by the Constitution? Or do you think he was wrong?

 

Corporate income tax, Federal and some states combined,comes in around 39%.
Repeal that too. Watch American companies get profitable. Watch some of our
old industries come back - electronics, textiles, etc.

 

So long as you're paying American-scale wages they'll stay right where they
are. The average factory worker in Malaysia earns $52 for a 44/48-hour week,
a shade over $1 an hour. The minimum wage in the US is $6.55 an hour. I
suppose while you're repealing everything you could repeal the minimum wage
as well. Set it at 85¢ an hour like it was in 1950 and companies will indeed
be coming back.
-- Ernie

 

All a minimum wage does is keep workers with low productivity and/or
little experience out of the job market because they cannot compete on
cost. The more productive/experienced person will be hired. If an
employer cannot get $6.55/hr plus other expenses out of a worker he
simply won't be hired. Simple as that. Any work worth more than the
minimum wage is driven by supply and demand unless a union is involved
that through a monopoly on labor drives the cost above market rates.

By the way, 85 cents in 90% silver US coin (as it was in 1950) works out
to $6.34 based on today's closing price of silver.

 

With a tax adavantage of having no corporate income tax, and the fact that the
American worker will be much better educated than the $1 / hr (peasant) worker,
the employer will be able to use much more advanced techiques and automation to
make up the difference - probably more than make it up. And then wait until
transportation costs catch up with importing things - the price of shipping
stuff across the ocean is absolutely going to skyrocket if AlGore gets his
carbon cap-and-trade nonsense instituted, and it looks like he will. There are
no commerical nuclear cargo ships - they all run on fossil fuel.

 

LNG?

 

LNG is a fossile fuel and contains carbon, and will produce CO2 when burned.

 

And windmills kill birds.

 

Way back (so I have heard) Henry Ford realized that he had to (1) pay
his employees well enough so that they could afford to buy his cars; and
(2) give them enough time off that they had opportunity to drive a car
and thus have the incentive to buy one.

Can a worker on today's minimum wage afford even the cheapest car? I
mean: to buy a new one and run it?

Perce

 

Heh...given that minimum-wage workers still pay a huge chunk of the
wages in taxes, they'd be lucky to buy Aunt Judy's beater.

Back in the 50s (according to a Readers Digest article a while back) the
average worker in the 1950s could afford a new car and his house,
without requiring the spouse to work. Even in the so-called "good"
economy of the Clinton administration, a person would have had to be an
executive to afford an average car and a house payment, especially once
taxes are added to the mix.

In today's tax mix, a job for say $18 per hour (about 2.7x minimum wage)
in an engineering field (most companies appear to value engineering
about the same as Dilbert's boss does) ends up a net of around $13 per
hour. That's just the taxation (including SS) on the income. Then you
get taxed 6 to 10% to spend it, taxed on any interest if you save it,
taxed on owning certain items, taxed if you sell them, and if you die
with possessions the survivors get taxed. All that taxation and the
Feds still run up the deficit (I don't blame Bush, didn't blame Clinton
and will not blame Obama since the POTUS merely signs or vetoes what the
Congress sends). We likely have the most expensive government in the world.

 

Fox news said it was 60% annual. Them or CNN. Not sure.

 

Are you callin' my '97 Camry a beater?

Not your Aunt

 

Aunt Judy just turned into Judge Judy.

 

Minimum wage is like most regulation on companies, a mechanism that
gives some companies an advantage over others. For instance, let's say
you own a giant corporation and you pay people X/hr and there are new
smaller companies trying to eat away at your market share and they pay
X-3/hr. Simple solution, get a minimum wage law passed that sets the
minimum at X-1/hr. Raise your competition's costs. This is why Walmart
is in favor of the minimum wage, they already pay more than their
competition for labor so they need to drive up their competitor's costs.
http://mises.org/story/1950

The other angle is from the side of labor unions and established workers
wishing to protect their market share of labor. The first law towards a
minimum wage (which bush II was blasted for ignoring after katrina) was
designed to keep low skilled workers from being competition to those
already established. By establishing a minimum wage it cuts people off
the first rung of the job ladder because they don't yet have the skills
for their labor to be worth the minimum.

When Henry Ford started making model T's there was not yet a Federal
Reserve system nor an income tax. It is these two pieces of the Wilson
administration along with the inflation for WW1 that started the ball
moving towards the point we are at today. Since then the federal reserve
system continually devalues the dollar for the benefit of its owners and
friends. War causes inflation as the government has the federal
reserve create money to fund those wars and increases spending on
welfare/entitlement programs in a 'guns and butter' type system. Today
there are just massive bailouts in the trillions of dollars to the
government's and federal reserve's friends. Meanwhile the public is
distracted by the media to the mere 25 billion for the automakers.
Citibank gets $45 billion plus $300+billion in backing instantly and
it's just mentioned in the press. No lingering debate or even debate if
Rockefellers should travel in coach.

When examining why people can't afford a house and car on one income
anymore the blame lies in large part on the federal reserve system. It
causes the bubbles. It drives inflation. It's reason to exist is to
inflate. Finally we start to get a little deflation and it's all so
horrible according to the pro-fed media. Why is it horrible? Deflation
is a good thing for people who save, it's good for poor people who now
can buy a little more with their money. It's only bad for those who
benefit from the inflation system, those at the top of the banking and
government systems.

Another factor in 'can't afford it' is that many people think
they have to have so much crap and such a bigger house, etc that they
don't realize that's the reason they need two incomes. That if they
lived in a 1950s style house and set their sights of a car a little
lower then they could. This of course isn't the case at all for anyone
on the lower end of the wage scale.

 

The US automakers aren't paying income tax. The reason is they're not
making any money.

Furthermore, if they were to make a profit, they still wouldn't owe
any income tax because they can carry prior losses foward against
future net income.

The US automakers can make money for several years before they'll owe
any tax. Your theory that income tax is what is raising the prices of
their cars is without basis based on the above.

Furthermore, its without basis on general economics because the buyer
determines the price of the product. The seller's costs only determine
whether he will make a profit at that price. The buyer doesn't
evaluate what it costs to make something and what a fair markup on
that would be. He evaluates what the item is worth to him.

 

Part of that evaluation is what he can get for the same money from
someone else. Even if a chevy is worth $20,000 to someone but he sees a
toyota for $18,000 that has all the chevy has plus a little more, it's
unlikely he's going to buy the chevy. He'll see the toyota as being
worth $21,000 to him and costing only $18,000. A bargin.

 

Does it get any dumber than this? lol

Everyone and their dog knows what the term 'national socialism' when
described as a right wing phenomenon refers to. It was Brent's obligation
to distinguish his usage if it differed.

Your play on ambiguity is the mark of a coward.