Maybe this one will get some thinking started...
This was from a report prepared by the staff of the US Senate Joint Committee on Taxation, dated April 15,2008
From the same report.
Seems we always hear a lot about how reducing the Capital Gains tax would somehow benefit the economy. Right?
Wages and salaries are the basis for most individual income. Capital gains income comes from investments, not something the average Joe trying to make things stretch from paycheck to paycheck even has. The richer taxpayers have investment income, and we constantly hear a whole lot of how reducing the capital gains tax will stimulate the economy by releasing money for job creation.
Seems to me reducing wage and salary taxes would release a lot more money into the economy.
To me,the bottom line for these charts is this:
Why are the corporations and the rich always complaining, through their controlled media and politicians, about how bad off they have it?
And why do so many regular Joes believe reducing the Fat Cats' share will somehow improve things for those below them?
Seems we always hear a lot about how reducing the Capital Gains tax would somehow benefit the economy. Right?
Wages and salaries are the basis for most individual income. Capital gains income comes from investments, not something the average Joe trying to make things stretch from paycheck to paycheck even has. The richer taxpayers have investment income, and we constantly hear a whole lot of how reducing the capital gains tax will stimulate the economy by releasing money for job creation.
Seems to me reducing wage and salary taxes would release a lot more money into the economy.
To me,the bottom line for these charts is this:
Why are the corporations and the rich always complaining, through their controlled media and politicians, about how bad off they have it?
And why do so many regular Joes believe reducing the Fat Cats' share will somehow improve things for those below them?
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by LF - TP 2511:
... Although taxes paid by corporations, measured as a share of the economy, rose modestly during the boom years of the 1990s, they remained sharply lower even in the boom years than in previous decades ... During the 1990s, corporations as a group paid an average of 25.3 percent of their profits in federal corporate income taxes, according to new Congressional Research Service estimates. By contrast, they paid more than 49 percent in the 1950s, 38 percent in the 1960s, and 33 percent in the 1970s ...
The 1990s was the Clinton era. Our current president has filled his cabinet with former members of the Clinton cabinet, including Hillary herself. This doesn't bode well that anything will change in regards to corporate taxation or corporate influence on government. The majority of politicians on the national scene, both democrat & republican, received substantial campaign funding from the big multi-national corporations. This is why I belong to neither of those parties.
If you believe that a plan to take our nation back from the corporations is needed, then we see eye to eye on this issue. This is why I recommend for people to vote third party in every election. The corporations have not as yet invested campaign funding in third party candidates.
The politicians in Washington are not what makes our nation great, they are often a shame to our nation. The greatness of this nation is the spirit of the people, the productivity of the middle class worker and the entrepreneurial spirit of the small businessmen like many members here. The US has been a fertile bed for innovation, invention, solutions and even idealism. The US is the first to respond when another nation is struck by disaster. We are a generous people. Our government has some big problems, but its still less oppressive than most. Denis C mentioned a couple of the areas where our nation lags, education & healthcare, I'm hoping that American innovation can find solutions to bolster these weak areas that fit into the American model, rather than forcing the American square peg into a European round hole. For instance, contributing to education and health care would certainly be a good way for the corporations to give-back to America, no?
-G
Quote from George
"""I remain fully supportive of a welfare system to help those who find themselves in temporary distress"""
Too bad most aren't using it on a temporary basis.
Alot of people are required to take urin samples for work. How about those on welfare? If those that are making the money for welfare need to take a test, shouldn't those receiving take a test? Seems only fair.
Will
"""I remain fully supportive of a welfare system to help those who find themselves in temporary distress"""
Too bad most aren't using it on a temporary basis.
Alot of people are required to take urin samples for work. How about those on welfare? If those that are making the money for welfare need to take a test, shouldn't those receiving take a test? Seems only fair.
Will
BECAUSE BILL GATES AND ANYONE WHO MAKES OVER 104K IS PROBABLY PLANNING THAT THE LIFSTYLE THEY WILL LIVE AFTER RETIREMENT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TO LIVE THEN COLLECTING SS WHEN THEY RETIRE ?
Ron do you think Bill Gates will apply for his SS benefits when he reaches retirement age? I think he will.
Same here I do not belong to either of the largest political parties.
George I agree, the reason I put your and Rons quote together is my wife works for the unemployment commission here(our UE rate last month was 11.6%, highest in the country) but my point is that Kim has seen people apply for UE benefits who had earnings in excess of $600,000 for the year. Now granted I make a good wage, that person who makes $600K will recieve the same benefit I get. Now with Rons estimate of what a person pays and should do for retirment. They should never collect those payments????
Or collect unemployment benefits, I mena with someone earning $600K they should have enough money to not need a measly $372 a week right?? But no they are and able to collect those even if the middle class think they should not need it.
As the saying goes the more you make the more you spend!!
Last point, while I was in business for myself I got to go to every type of house. My clients demographics were average of $35k>. But my point the wealthiest were the tightest bunch around. They did not like paying for anything( please do not take that the wrong way)!! LOL
Well that is how most of them got their money!!!
Jeff
Ron do you think Bill Gates will apply for his SS benefits when he reaches retirement age? I think he will.
quote:The majority of politicians on the national scene, both democrat & republican, received substantial campaign funding from the big multi-national corporations. This is why I belong to neither of those parties.
Same here I do not belong to either of the largest political parties.
quote:I remain fully supportive of a welfare system to help those who find themselves in temporary distress. Everybody should have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs during life's
quote:BECAUSE BILL GATES AND ANYONE WHO MAKES OVER 104K IS PROBABLY PLANNING THAT THE LIFSTYLE THEY WILL LIVE AFTER RETIREMENT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TO LIVE THEN COLLECTING SS WHEN THEY RETIRE ?
George I agree, the reason I put your and Rons quote together is my wife works for the unemployment commission here(our UE rate last month was 11.6%, highest in the country) but my point is that Kim has seen people apply for UE benefits who had earnings in excess of $600,000 for the year. Now granted I make a good wage, that person who makes $600K will recieve the same benefit I get. Now with Rons estimate of what a person pays and should do for retirment. They should never collect those payments????
Or collect unemployment benefits, I mena with someone earning $600K they should have enough money to not need a measly $372 a week right?? But no they are and able to collect those even if the middle class think they should not need it.
As the saying goes the more you make the more you spend!!
Last point, while I was in business for myself I got to go to every type of house. My clients demographics were average of $35k>. But my point the wealthiest were the tightest bunch around. They did not like paying for anything( please do not take that the wrong way)!! LOL
Well that is how most of them got their money!!!
Jeff
quote:A lot of people are required to take urine samples for work. How about those on welfare? If those that are making the money for welfare need to take a test, shouldn't those receiving take a test? Seems only fair.
Will
Oh oh. I better check my pulse.
Will and I are in COMPLETE harmony on that statement.
Larry
First Larry,
Your graphs and charts are showing ...just how the corporate tax declined since 1950 because CORPORATIONS LEFT THE USA and dont pay Corporate Tax ! Simple
Next Firgure # 1 Shows how there are more EMPLOYENT TAX and Individual Income Tax because there are MORE EMPLOYEES then business ... why because since 1950 because CORPORATIONS LEFT THE USA ! Simple
Figure # 2 Yes capitals gains tax ...business owners now either RENT because its full tax dedcutable ... or own and property ..DONT SELL IT ... as I said prior .. close up your business put their money in the bank, go to work for some one and..DONT SELL THE PROPERTY ..RENT IT other wise youpay capital gains tax.
In closing I would like to point out .. its come to a point in business that rather then concentrate on YOUR BUSINESS ...you we find oursleves focused more on Regulations, Rules, how to reduce your tax burden, how to keep from paying capitals gains tax ( by structuring your business property ) rather then working IN your business. After a while dong business in the USA is just not worth the risk.
Take a look at the everyday worker. You have your salary, savings, 401K ...you wathc it closely and penny pinch so the paycheck goes a long way.... how would you feel each day if you recieved in the mail a NEW fee, charge, bill invoice that squeeezed away at your pay check ? This is what is happening to business ..
Ron
Ron
Your graphs and charts are showing ...just how the corporate tax declined since 1950 because CORPORATIONS LEFT THE USA and dont pay Corporate Tax ! Simple
Next Firgure # 1 Shows how there are more EMPLOYENT TAX and Individual Income Tax because there are MORE EMPLOYEES then business ... why because since 1950 because CORPORATIONS LEFT THE USA ! Simple
Figure # 2 Yes capitals gains tax ...business owners now either RENT because its full tax dedcutable ... or own and property ..DONT SELL IT ... as I said prior .. close up your business put their money in the bank, go to work for some one and..DONT SELL THE PROPERTY ..RENT IT other wise youpay capital gains tax.
In closing I would like to point out .. its come to a point in business that rather then concentrate on YOUR BUSINESS ...you we find oursleves focused more on Regulations, Rules, how to reduce your tax burden, how to keep from paying capitals gains tax ( by structuring your business property ) rather then working IN your business. After a while dong business in the USA is just not worth the risk.
Take a look at the everyday worker. You have your salary, savings, 401K ...you wathc it closely and penny pinch so the paycheck goes a long way.... how would you feel each day if you recieved in the mail a NEW fee, charge, bill invoice that squeeezed away at your pay check ? This is what is happening to business ..
Ron
Ron
quote:BECAUSE BILL GATES AND ANYONE WHO MAKES OVER 104K IS PROBABLY PLANNING THAT THE LIFSTYLE THEY WILL LIVE AFTER RETIREMENT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TO LIVE THEN COLLECTING SS WHEN THEY RETIRE ?
A couple points .. because Bill Gates IS REQUIRED to pay in to SS he deserves to be paid the 372.00. My point is hes smart enought to know he isnt going to live on that each month.
Next it will NOT be around much longer to collect.
A lot of people are required to take urine samples for work. How about those on welfare? If those that are making the money for welfare need to take a test, shouldn't those receiving take a test? Seems only fair.
Which I totally agree ..which leads me to my Favorite Politician RUDY GULIANI .. he made it that if WELFARE RECIPIANTS in NYC children dont show up for school ..there welfare check is cut .. the theory was that if the children attend school there is a good chance they will leave the Welfare System in one generation.
accobra,
EXACTLY. This is exactly what has been going on. Corporations are moving to another place in the global marketplace to do business more economically.
Larry, look up who is going to be the largest economy in either 2012 or a little later, and guess what, it will not be us unless we get our house in order. You seem to have a lot of time to look up graphs, so look up that one. The USA is quickly becoming second class, and I do not think that all of this socialism is going to help our cause at all -- it will just take us into the hole faster.
Oh yea, my corporation does not pay any income tax as your chart shows. As a subchapter S corporation, tax is only paid by the stockholder -- not the corporation and then the stockholder, so again, your graphs are a little misleading. Hey man, I thought this was supposed to be a transparent discussion of facts.... Now if someone could explain to me why anyone would want to pay the top marginal rate, and then pay that again by the stockholder, just greek to me. Larry, you sound like a really smart guy, then why do not you start your own business? Why wouldn't you? Sounds like money is falling from the sky. Sounds like you and OSOFAST have started the war on business and business owners along with your guy in the White House. Sorry, but the trickle-up poverty that you guys are talking about is not for me (i.e. Obama's socialist programs).
Again, I was not the one who came up with this topic, but I am sick and tired of listening to the garbage that comes from the left and getting kicked around. They have not walked one step in my shoes, but they are "experts" when it comes to my business and how good I have it. We are on the brink of destroying private businesses -- a lot of them -- really a crying shame. Just too bad that it will have to get a lot worse before it gets better, and then all I will get to do is say ".....told you so....."
Don't worry, it will just be those nasty republicans fault anyway ......
EXACTLY. This is exactly what has been going on. Corporations are moving to another place in the global marketplace to do business more economically.
Larry, look up who is going to be the largest economy in either 2012 or a little later, and guess what, it will not be us unless we get our house in order. You seem to have a lot of time to look up graphs, so look up that one. The USA is quickly becoming second class, and I do not think that all of this socialism is going to help our cause at all -- it will just take us into the hole faster.
Oh yea, my corporation does not pay any income tax as your chart shows. As a subchapter S corporation, tax is only paid by the stockholder -- not the corporation and then the stockholder, so again, your graphs are a little misleading. Hey man, I thought this was supposed to be a transparent discussion of facts.... Now if someone could explain to me why anyone would want to pay the top marginal rate, and then pay that again by the stockholder, just greek to me. Larry, you sound like a really smart guy, then why do not you start your own business? Why wouldn't you? Sounds like money is falling from the sky. Sounds like you and OSOFAST have started the war on business and business owners along with your guy in the White House. Sorry, but the trickle-up poverty that you guys are talking about is not for me (i.e. Obama's socialist programs).
Again, I was not the one who came up with this topic, but I am sick and tired of listening to the garbage that comes from the left and getting kicked around. They have not walked one step in my shoes, but they are "experts" when it comes to my business and how good I have it. We are on the brink of destroying private businesses -- a lot of them -- really a crying shame. Just too bad that it will have to get a lot worse before it gets better, and then all I will get to do is say ".....told you so....."
Don't worry, it will just be those nasty republicans fault anyway ......
quote:Next (Social Security) will NOT be around much longer to collect.
For starters, please view this link:
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
It reports that even with NO CHANGES, SS will remain exactly as it is until 2041.
And it goes on to say that after that date, benefit reductions of about 22% would kick in. And if still no changes are made, benefit reductions will rise to 25% by 2082.
Those dates are determined by actuarial methods that some have said are overly pessimistic.
Most discussion on how to 'save' SS centers on cutting benefits, or raising the SS tax rate. These actions (IMHO) are designed to be "feel bad" emotion drivers that are being pushed by those Wall Street interests that wanted to gain control of the SS billions. Now that Wall Street has lost its glamour, you don't hear much talk about diverting the funds to those now-proven-overly-greedy-and-dishonest bastards. Just wait a few years and THAT scam will again pop-up its ugly little head.
The one method (again, IMHO) that will correct the projected SS shortfalls is to remove the cap on the wages subject to SS taxes.
WHAT, RAISE TAXES!!!!!??????
It is a raise in the CAP, not the TAX RATE.
For those of us making less than the cap (currently,$104K) there will be NO CHANGE in our SS taxes or the SS taxes paid by our employers. That, I believe, will include the majority of us who are workers and those of us who are employers.
For those above the cap, yup, you'll pay more taxes as will your employers.
HOW that increased revenue is used has many options: leave benefits the same, increase benefits, sliding scale of increased benefits.
Bottom line is just that one change, that will affect not too many of us, saves the system for all of us.
For a more in-depth look at how to balance SS, go to this link and click a couple of links to download a pdf report, dated February 2005.
http://tinyurl.com/bbaooq
Here is just an excerpt:
Raising the Tax Cap
The maximum wage base for paying Social Security taxes is $90,000 in 2005. Only earnings
up to $90,000 are taxed and counted toward workers’ future benefits. Currently, 6
percent of all workers earn more than the cap. Earnings above the tax cap now account for
15 percent of the aggregate pay of all workers who pay into Social Security, and are expected
to rise to 17 percent of aggregate pay over the next decade (OCAct, 2005b). The
current benefit for one who always earned the maximum amount and retired at age 65 in
2005 is $1,874 a month, or about $22,500 a year.2 The benefit replaces about 25 percent
of the worker’s taxable earnings (OCAct, 2004).
Option #1
If all earned income above $90,000 a year was taxed, but those earnings did not count
toward benefits, Social Security would be solvent. Making this change in 2005 would bring
in enough revenue to remedy 116 percent of the financing shortfall over the next 75 years.
With this change, workers who earn far more than the tax cap would pay considerably more
in taxes. For example, a person making $400,000 a year would pay $19,220 more and his
or her employer would pay a matching amount, for a total increase of $38,440. The
maximum benefit would be no higher than under current law. Ever since Social Security
began, the level of wages that are taxed has been linked to the level of wages that count
toward benefits. This proposal would break that link.
--------------------
Yes, SS will face some funding issues. But the sky isn't falling quite yet
Larry
quote:Oh yea, my corporation does not pay any income tax as your chart shows. As a subchapter S corporation, tax is only paid by the stockholder -- not the corporation and then the stockholder,
Why is that?
quote:A couple points .. because Bill Gates IS REQUIRED to pay in to SS he deserves to be paid the 372.00. My point is hes smart enought to know he isnt going to live on that each month.
Next it will NOT be around much longer to collect.
The $372 I quoted is the weekly unemployment benefit that Michigan pays out, and I agree wholeheartedly Ron.
At my last SS benefit summary at age 67 which is the age a American citizen can receive full SS benefits, I will be eligible to receive in the neighborhood of $1800 a month. Surley not enough to live on in 20 plus years. But like you said it may not be there for me, I do save what I can for my older years. But I do what I can.
The reason SS will not be there is the government in their wisedom decided to raid the SS cofers in the late 80's to early 90's to pay for budget items, instead of leaving a fully funded SS system for our citizens.
quote:Sounds like you and OSOFAST have started the war on business and business owners along with your guy in the White House. Sorry, but the trickle-up poverty that you guys are talking about is not for me (i.e. Obama's socialist programs).
I have not started a war, and I am sorry that you feel that way.
But FDR had to battle the same rhetoric to get the New Deal to fly also, and his plan brought this country from the brink of destruction.
By the way my name is Jeff.
quote:Larry, look up who is going to be the largest economy in either 2012 or a little later, and guess what, it will not be us unless we get our house in order. You seem to have a lot of time to look up graphs, so look up that one. The USA is quickly becoming second class, and I do not think that all of this socialism is going to help our cause at all -- it will just take us into the hole faster.
I'd address you by name, but since you never sign your postings....
Countries do not stay at the top forever. Never have, never will. So whether the "fall' of the USA is this generation, or three, or thirty, more down the road, get ready for it.
But that does not mean the end of life as we know it.
Would anyone argue the citizens of Australia, New Zealand, England, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Japan and on and on have miserable, all-work-and-no-play existences? Following your implied logic, since they are not at the "top" they must be "second class". But their citizens have jobs, have homes, buy cars, televisions and boats, raise children, take vacations, collect art, go out for dinner, have family reunions.... In short, their lives do not suck just because their countries are not NUMERO UNO.
Yes, I do worry that the following generations (my children and their children) will face a different American economy than the current model. But I'm not so sure, as you seem to be, that such a difference will mean an end to all things American.
I honestly believe this country is one of the best to live in, and will remain so for many generations to come.
It will change, yes. But relax, it will not die.
Larry
deniscCaretaker of 8MA1244 '70 Euro Mangusta DRIVE THEM, THEY WERE MEANT TO BE DRIVEN, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT ONE, BUY A POSTER!
Hey guys thanks for holding back....
I read this whay back when I was in university (college) so I hope I can quote it right. After the war many were seeking social assistance in the Montreal area. The mayor at the time found a solution and these people were asked to assist in building the Montreal Botanical gardens as unemployment insurance did not exist at the time. Today, these public gardens are amazing. The mayor helped people to stay proud and their efforts are still for everyone to see 60 years later. Unfortunately today I know of people working for cash and then trying to get either social assitance or unemployment insurance and even workmen's compensation. Simply not fair.
As to participating in UI, SS and other social security nets, admitedly it may not sound fair or you may never use it but that's par for the game.
As shown by Larry's charts the Govmt has a specific required budget. If the corporations don't pay it or if you let those corporations have headquarters in Japan(car companies) or in Switzerland (EvilGay) or in Barbados Oceanliners)or..any other country period.
Tax revenue has to come from somewhere.
Denis
I read this whay back when I was in university (college) so I hope I can quote it right. After the war many were seeking social assistance in the Montreal area. The mayor at the time found a solution and these people were asked to assist in building the Montreal Botanical gardens as unemployment insurance did not exist at the time. Today, these public gardens are amazing. The mayor helped people to stay proud and their efforts are still for everyone to see 60 years later. Unfortunately today I know of people working for cash and then trying to get either social assitance or unemployment insurance and even workmen's compensation. Simply not fair.
As to participating in UI, SS and other social security nets, admitedly it may not sound fair or you may never use it but that's par for the game.
As shown by Larry's charts the Govmt has a specific required budget. If the corporations don't pay it or if you let those corporations have headquarters in Japan(car companies) or in Switzerland (EvilGay) or in Barbados Oceanliners)or..any other country period.
Tax revenue has to come from somewhere.
Denis
My name is Mark.
If you were in my shoes, I truly believe you would more than likely have a different viewpoint than what you guys are saying. I guess all I can say is look at where we are right now with what the President has or has not been doing. Dow is taking a dive, 401k's have lost a lot of value that are in the stock market, and his appointments have been extremely disappointing to say the least. We have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, I have lost count of the others who have bowed out, I am assuming for the same tax cheating -- and the rest of us are supposed to be worse than these guys? I was not raised that way, and I certainly do not run my business that way.
The money has to come from somewhere, and like I have said before, with Obama's war on business, it will be very difficult for him politically moving forward if there is no or small improvements. How many trillions have we spent on the war on poverty, and that has been a complete failure. Obama can raise taxes on business as much as he wants, watch them leave this country for somewhere else to operate. This is what has been going on for years. Jeff and Larry can quote the government charts all they want, but it comes down to the basics. Raise taxes on corporations, and they will go somewhere else. Look at GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Yes, they are in trouble now for a multitude of reasons, but there are other car manufacturers in America that are making it without government bailouts (yes, I know Ford has not taken any money yet). Honda, Toyota, and BMW all manufacture vehicles in the USA, and they are not asking for bailout money. Why is that? They have structured their companies in such a way that they are more competitive than GM and Chrysler, and having manufacturing all over the globe is one reason for that.
As far as getting back to basics, again, I will say that, in my opinion, that we are going backwards with redistribution of income, socialist medicine (rather rationing of medicine), increasing of the size of government like we have never seen, bailouts in the billions of dollars to private companies that do not deserve it, and increasing of taxes on a minority that is already paying. The top 25% pay 86% of federal income taxes, and this is up from 84% in 2000. So to say that the "rich" do not pay their fair share is not true. The other statistic that is glaring is the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of all income taxes. Another way to look at it is in 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. This is from the Wall Street Journal.
If you were in my shoes, I truly believe you would more than likely have a different viewpoint than what you guys are saying. I guess all I can say is look at where we are right now with what the President has or has not been doing. Dow is taking a dive, 401k's have lost a lot of value that are in the stock market, and his appointments have been extremely disappointing to say the least. We have a tax cheat in charge of the IRS, I have lost count of the others who have bowed out, I am assuming for the same tax cheating -- and the rest of us are supposed to be worse than these guys? I was not raised that way, and I certainly do not run my business that way.
The money has to come from somewhere, and like I have said before, with Obama's war on business, it will be very difficult for him politically moving forward if there is no or small improvements. How many trillions have we spent on the war on poverty, and that has been a complete failure. Obama can raise taxes on business as much as he wants, watch them leave this country for somewhere else to operate. This is what has been going on for years. Jeff and Larry can quote the government charts all they want, but it comes down to the basics. Raise taxes on corporations, and they will go somewhere else. Look at GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Yes, they are in trouble now for a multitude of reasons, but there are other car manufacturers in America that are making it without government bailouts (yes, I know Ford has not taken any money yet). Honda, Toyota, and BMW all manufacture vehicles in the USA, and they are not asking for bailout money. Why is that? They have structured their companies in such a way that they are more competitive than GM and Chrysler, and having manufacturing all over the globe is one reason for that.
As far as getting back to basics, again, I will say that, in my opinion, that we are going backwards with redistribution of income, socialist medicine (rather rationing of medicine), increasing of the size of government like we have never seen, bailouts in the billions of dollars to private companies that do not deserve it, and increasing of taxes on a minority that is already paying. The top 25% pay 86% of federal income taxes, and this is up from 84% in 2000. So to say that the "rich" do not pay their fair share is not true. The other statistic that is glaring is the top 50% of taxpayers pay 97% of all income taxes. Another way to look at it is in 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. This is from the Wall Street Journal.
deniscCaretaker of 8MA1244 '70 Euro Mangusta DRIVE THEM, THEY WERE MEANT TO BE DRIVEN, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT ONE, BUY A POSTER!
Hey Mark, Stats again what part of GNP do those 1% represent ;(
Denis
Denis
quote:Jeff and Larry can quote the government charts all they want, but it comes down to the basics.
Some are government charts, some are from other studies. Mark, it seems to be you're saying you don't like charts and figures, but you then go on to use them for your examples.
We all know figures can be stated to support any viewpoint. But if you view enough of them, you can hopefully learn enough to at least get a somewhat accurate picture.
quote:Honda, Toyota, and BMW all manufacture vehicles in the USA, and they are not asking for bailout money. Why is that?
They've already gotten their bailouts, both direct and indirect.
I can hear you now... "What the heck is Larry blathering about??!!"
Why do you think the overseas auto firms located in the industry-poor south? Because the south is known to have a lower concentration of good paying jobs, meaning newcomers can get labor more cheaply. Also because those states bent over backwards, each trying to outdo the other, and gave those companies HUGE tax concessions, free land and lord knows what else. And also, those new factories do not have decades of retired workers and the associated pension/health care costs.
That is why.
Larry
Oh yea, my corporation does not pay any income tax as your chart shows. As a subchapter S corporation, tax is only paid by the stockholder -- not the corporation and then the stockholder, so again, your graphs are a little misleading.
MARK .. me too my Mechanical Busness is an S corp also adn I get taxed on profit personally so which GRAPH am I on? ?? LOL I just formed 2 LLC's to protect myself against the SKATERS.
All I can say is I believe in going back to the basics. I was brought up and trainined by the generation that lived during the depression and WW2 .. old world values are where its at ... I prefer to hire the older generation .. they have loyalty, work ethics, dedicaton, and I dont become a over priced baby sitter ... but they are all at retirement age ... who are we going to pass the baton in the relay race too!
Ron
MARK .. me too my Mechanical Busness is an S corp also adn I get taxed on profit personally so which GRAPH am I on? ?? LOL I just formed 2 LLC's to protect myself against the SKATERS.
All I can say is I believe in going back to the basics. I was brought up and trainined by the generation that lived during the depression and WW2 .. old world values are where its at ... I prefer to hire the older generation .. they have loyalty, work ethics, dedicaton, and I dont become a over priced baby sitter ... but they are all at retirement age ... who are we going to pass the baton in the relay race too!
Ron
quote:Honda, Toyota, and BMW all manufacture vehicles in the USA, and they are not asking for bailout money. Why is that?
Larry you have to start asking more diffcult questions ... the answer is simple ... toyota, bmw etc have only 30,000 retireies theya re paying helath care benefits for ..the big 3 are paying for 500,000 each year ...so lets do the math 22000 family plan x 500,000 = 110,000,000 is that 110 million per year 1 / 10 of a billion ? just ot start and you didnt sell one car.
Take a look at Brazil .... they are uneffected by the global market .... why because they dont allow you to bring parts and raw materials into the country .. I seen a sign 1.50 ethonal 3.50 petro ... which one would you buy ?
Ron
deniscCaretaker of 8MA1244 '70 Euro Mangusta DRIVE THEM, THEY WERE MEANT TO BE DRIVEN, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT ONE, BUY A POSTER!
Ron, I think we covered that in a previous thread. GM and Ford tried to dump those retirement resposibilities by selling (spining-off) Delphi and Visteon. Then had to rebuy the white collar workforce or they would have gone under. In Canada Ford's white collar pensions are in a self sustaining trust fund. The trouble occurs when they use profits to pay pensions. Singer sewing machine was one early example, Tyco was another. There is a concern for Social Security as the forecast puts a heavy strain on the funds as the baby boomers will start retiring in BULK in 2010-2025 and there will be more retirees than people in the workforce.
SS and pensions were invented as a marketing tool because train engineeers were not retiring and putting travelers and cargo at risk. It was also a tool to attract the best employes. The whole scheme was good well into the the mid-80's when people started to retired earlier (or were offered packages to leave early) and lived longer: prior to that the average retiree only drew 2-3 years on their pension. Think back to your teens a 65 year old man was old, today we see people living a full life well into their 80's and many living to almost 100.
Auto sector employees used to draw 85% of their salaries when plants were shut down (in Canada the goverment has allowed these employees to go on unemployment when shut down occurs as part of the 'bailout' therefore reducing the drain on corporate funds). In the late 90's Jack Nasser (at Ford) tried to spin-off the assembly plants so they would be part of Visteon and the Company could walk away from grandfathered contracts and then just pay cars per unit (like parts).
Should companies walk away from their (let's call it unwritten - some written. I know I had a written contract when I started) social contracts total chaos would occur. What would happen to your employes if you called a meeting tomorow and told them starting today if you say with me I'll cut your pay by $10/hr. You'd loose half your workforce, hire newbees and be baysitting again. The numbers at Ford 3 years ago were that the labour cost per car were 5-8% of vehicle cost and marketing was $3500 to $4000 per unit. Profit on a basic Focus was $800 up to $15,000 on a Navigator. The companies have nickeled and dimed suppliers, now they will posture the governement for funds. Yeah I know the situation has changed with the crash but management have anticicipated a doomsday scenario (that why Ford was ready)
I dont quite agree with flushing pension responsibilites:company pension vs self managed 401K. There has to be a middle of the road situation. Perhaps a joint pension where the company participates in transferable 401K. Our fathers always told us:'be good to your employer and they will be good to you'. .Not so sure if that is still true, but in my heart I want to believe it still applies.
The auto manufactures are victims in this case. The true culprits in this CRASH are the Wall Street fund managers and insurance people who insured those funds.
SS and pensions were invented as a marketing tool because train engineeers were not retiring and putting travelers and cargo at risk. It was also a tool to attract the best employes. The whole scheme was good well into the the mid-80's when people started to retired earlier (or were offered packages to leave early) and lived longer: prior to that the average retiree only drew 2-3 years on their pension. Think back to your teens a 65 year old man was old, today we see people living a full life well into their 80's and many living to almost 100.
Auto sector employees used to draw 85% of their salaries when plants were shut down (in Canada the goverment has allowed these employees to go on unemployment when shut down occurs as part of the 'bailout' therefore reducing the drain on corporate funds). In the late 90's Jack Nasser (at Ford) tried to spin-off the assembly plants so they would be part of Visteon and the Company could walk away from grandfathered contracts and then just pay cars per unit (like parts).
Should companies walk away from their (let's call it unwritten - some written. I know I had a written contract when I started) social contracts total chaos would occur. What would happen to your employes if you called a meeting tomorow and told them starting today if you say with me I'll cut your pay by $10/hr. You'd loose half your workforce, hire newbees and be baysitting again. The numbers at Ford 3 years ago were that the labour cost per car were 5-8% of vehicle cost and marketing was $3500 to $4000 per unit. Profit on a basic Focus was $800 up to $15,000 on a Navigator. The companies have nickeled and dimed suppliers, now they will posture the governement for funds. Yeah I know the situation has changed with the crash but management have anticicipated a doomsday scenario (that why Ford was ready)
I dont quite agree with flushing pension responsibilites:company pension vs self managed 401K. There has to be a middle of the road situation. Perhaps a joint pension where the company participates in transferable 401K. Our fathers always told us:'be good to your employer and they will be good to you'. .Not so sure if that is still true, but in my heart I want to believe it still applies.
The auto manufactures are victims in this case. The true culprits in this CRASH are the Wall Street fund managers and insurance people who insured those funds.