Government Bail Outs
Administrator
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,943
Likes: 0
From: ɯooɹpǝq ɹnoʎ
Vehicle: ǝdnoɔ sısǝuǝƃ
I don't believe it's getting off-topic, I believe it's all relating to the original thread and title. This shouldn't be closed, so feel free to discuss.
Wow - you really know that many people making more than $200,000? I don't know any personally (some at my company of course, as I said I work with C-levels).
"Beer Economics" has been posted on many websites and forums before. Because it's somewhat lengthy and off-topic, I'll post a link:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gamblin...36f5abf73?pli=1
Wow - you really know that many people making more than $200,000? I don't know any personally (some at my company of course, as I said I work with C-levels).
"Beer Economics" has been posted on many websites and forums before. Because it's somewhat lengthy and off-topic, I'll post a link:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gamblin...36f5abf73?pli=1
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,615
Likes: 11
From: Denver Co
Vehicle: 1999 Hyundai Tiburon
Thanks for the thread majik! I still do not agree, but I can see your point.
As for knowing folks making that much money, actually I do! Many of the parents of my students make well into the 200k jointly. Some are well over that as well.
I think the theory owns itself when it doesnt require the first three poor men to put into the pot. Thats not a real world scenario. Everyone making, what, over 8,000 dollars has to pay taxes. So the poor men are and should be responsible for a part of the the bill. But what the theory doesnt say is what the men were wearing, what they drove up in, or what exotic travel destinations they visited in the last 6 months. I get that its an analogy of the tax burdens put in laymen's terms to put into perspective that the rich put a lot of money into the pot. And, I must say I totally AGREE with that part of it!
I really do agree with you and others that taxes for large enterprises should be lowered to help improve upon an already healthy economy. Those kinds of tax benefits allow for extra money in R&D, expansion, and creating jobs. Possibly even raising wages. But now is not the time. The main problem right now is the base consumer spending that is simply NOT happening. Our economic giants need us buying their products, and we have seriously cut back. These big financial powerhouses on Wallstreet need their restructuring, namely those who have been asking for handouts over the last several months. But they all need to be regulated in some way.
Its just a bad time, and either decision will reep consequences on all sides. If the automotive companies are saved, great. People keep their jobs until the next big breakdown in economic failure due to their executives KNOWING that they will be saved because they are simply too big for the government to simply let fail. If the government does nothing, these huge executives fall, and fall hard, with their companies, but at the expense of huge job loses. BUT, with huge collapses comes rebuilding and restructuring, which in the long run, may be the best decision after all. Its such a hard point either way. Its definitely one that I havent quite made my mind as to how I am leaning.
As for knowing folks making that much money, actually I do! Many of the parents of my students make well into the 200k jointly. Some are well over that as well.
I think the theory owns itself when it doesnt require the first three poor men to put into the pot. Thats not a real world scenario. Everyone making, what, over 8,000 dollars has to pay taxes. So the poor men are and should be responsible for a part of the the bill. But what the theory doesnt say is what the men were wearing, what they drove up in, or what exotic travel destinations they visited in the last 6 months. I get that its an analogy of the tax burdens put in laymen's terms to put into perspective that the rich put a lot of money into the pot. And, I must say I totally AGREE with that part of it!
I really do agree with you and others that taxes for large enterprises should be lowered to help improve upon an already healthy economy. Those kinds of tax benefits allow for extra money in R&D, expansion, and creating jobs. Possibly even raising wages. But now is not the time. The main problem right now is the base consumer spending that is simply NOT happening. Our economic giants need us buying their products, and we have seriously cut back. These big financial powerhouses on Wallstreet need their restructuring, namely those who have been asking for handouts over the last several months. But they all need to be regulated in some way.
Its just a bad time, and either decision will reep consequences on all sides. If the automotive companies are saved, great. People keep their jobs until the next big breakdown in economic failure due to their executives KNOWING that they will be saved because they are simply too big for the government to simply let fail. If the government does nothing, these huge executives fall, and fall hard, with their companies, but at the expense of huge job loses. BUT, with huge collapses comes rebuilding and restructuring, which in the long run, may be the best decision after all. Its such a hard point either way. Its definitely one that I havent quite made my mind as to how I am leaning.
Administrator
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,943
Likes: 0
From: ɯooɹpǝq ɹnoʎ
Vehicle: ǝdnoɔ sısǝuǝƃ
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tibbytib @ Nov 23 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think the theory owns itself when it doesnt require the first three poor men to put into the pot. Thats not a real world scenario. Everyone making, what, over 8,000 dollars has to pay taxes. So the poor men are and should be responsible for a part of the the bill.</div>you're catching yourself. Those making over $8,000 pay taxes. Possibly the first three men represent those on welfare that receive money, those jobless who make no money, and illegal immigrants who receive but don't pay into the pot. You can't exclude them from the equation, because they do exist, but probably not three persons in this situation. Still, the situation is representative of what happens, in my opinion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tibbytib @ Nov 23 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But what the theory doesnt say is what the men were wearing, what they drove up in, or what exotic travel destinations they visited in the last 6 months.</div> That shouldn't matter. The cost is the same for the product, and they consume equally. Again, should you pay more for the dollar menu at McDonald's because you made more money?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tibbytib @ Nov 23 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I really do agree with you and others that taxes for large enterprises should be lowered to help improve upon an already healthy economy. Those kinds of tax benefits allow for extra money in R&D, expansion, and creating jobs. Possibly even raising wages.</div> I don't agree that we should lower taxes for the corporations, but instead provide bigger tax incentives. The only reason companies like mine (privately owned, billions of $ in revenue) and companies like Exxon donate to charities is for the tax benefits. Some companies like Microsoft actually do have a desire to help, but for the most part it's a tax incentive. We need money to be poured into these non-profit organizations and our rich companies like Exxon have the biggest ability.
Also, the PUBLIC companies rely on their stock prices (thus part of the reason for the economic turmoil right now). If we start eating away at the company profits, they'll cut wages to earn their profits in other ways, or raise the price of the products to make up for lost profits. So, I definitely don't agree with raising taxes for corporations, but rather giving them incentives for decreasing their taxable amounts.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tibbytib @ Nov 23 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But now is not the time. The main problem right now is the base consumer spending that is simply NOT happening. Our economic giants need us buying their products, and we have seriously cut back. These big financial powerhouses on Wallstreet need their restructuring, namely those who have been asking for handouts over the last several months. But they all need to be regulated in some way.
Its just a bad time, and either decision will reep consequences on all sides. If the automotive companies are saved, great. People keep their jobs until the next big breakdown in economic failure due to their executives KNOWING that they will be saved because they are simply too big for the government to simply let fail. If the government does nothing, these huge executives fall, and fall hard, with their companies, but at the expense of huge job loses. BUT, with huge collapses comes rebuilding and restructuring, which in the long run, may be the best decision after all. Its such a hard point either way. Its definitely one that I havent quite made my mind as to how I am leaning.</div> thus our quandary.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tibbytib @ Nov 23 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But what the theory doesnt say is what the men were wearing, what they drove up in, or what exotic travel destinations they visited in the last 6 months.</div> That shouldn't matter. The cost is the same for the product, and they consume equally. Again, should you pay more for the dollar menu at McDonald's because you made more money?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tibbytib @ Nov 23 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I really do agree with you and others that taxes for large enterprises should be lowered to help improve upon an already healthy economy. Those kinds of tax benefits allow for extra money in R&D, expansion, and creating jobs. Possibly even raising wages.</div> I don't agree that we should lower taxes for the corporations, but instead provide bigger tax incentives. The only reason companies like mine (privately owned, billions of $ in revenue) and companies like Exxon donate to charities is for the tax benefits. Some companies like Microsoft actually do have a desire to help, but for the most part it's a tax incentive. We need money to be poured into these non-profit organizations and our rich companies like Exxon have the biggest ability.
Also, the PUBLIC companies rely on their stock prices (thus part of the reason for the economic turmoil right now). If we start eating away at the company profits, they'll cut wages to earn their profits in other ways, or raise the price of the products to make up for lost profits. So, I definitely don't agree with raising taxes for corporations, but rather giving them incentives for decreasing their taxable amounts.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tibbytib @ Nov 23 2008, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But now is not the time. The main problem right now is the base consumer spending that is simply NOT happening. Our economic giants need us buying their products, and we have seriously cut back. These big financial powerhouses on Wallstreet need their restructuring, namely those who have been asking for handouts over the last several months. But they all need to be regulated in some way.
Its just a bad time, and either decision will reep consequences on all sides. If the automotive companies are saved, great. People keep their jobs until the next big breakdown in economic failure due to their executives KNOWING that they will be saved because they are simply too big for the government to simply let fail. If the government does nothing, these huge executives fall, and fall hard, with their companies, but at the expense of huge job loses. BUT, with huge collapses comes rebuilding and restructuring, which in the long run, may be the best decision after all. Its such a hard point either way. Its definitely one that I havent quite made my mind as to how I am leaning.</div> thus our quandary.
Administrator
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,943
Likes: 0
From: ɯooɹpǝq ɹnoʎ
Vehicle: ǝdnoɔ sısǝuǝƃ
McCain has a history of being against regulation.
I think we're stuck with what we have, and need to figure out how to make it work. I don't approve of government oversight, because that just gives way to more lobbyists, special interests, and corruption which would only waste more of our tax dollars... but in special circumstances like this, I think it's necessary.
Please contribute more to the thread, and leave one line jabs out of it.
I think we're stuck with what we have, and need to figure out how to make it work. I don't approve of government oversight, because that just gives way to more lobbyists, special interests, and corruption which would only waste more of our tax dollars... but in special circumstances like this, I think it's necessary.
Please contribute more to the thread, and leave one line jabs out of it.
Super Moderator
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,735
Likes: 3
From: Vegas, Baby, Vegas!!!
Vehicle: '14 Ford F-150
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sparticus @ Nov 21 2008, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>oooooh taxes. little fact about the democratically controlled state of Massachusetts (probably the biggest known democratic state in the union).
one of the ballot questions this election was to eliminate the [income] tax (5%). one big reason for wanting it is because New Hampshire has no [income] tax and a lot of the money is being spent in NH stores. The huge opponents of the repeal of the state tax (which ended up not passing by a landslide) was because it would force other fees to go up.
It hasn't even been a month since the election. Mass Highway (the turnpike) is increasing tolls and possibly putting up more booths. Subway stations are increasing parking. Subways are increasing fares. It will now cost more to register and re-register your car. And now they're planning on raising the gas tax in this state. All of this is in the past 3 weeks. Guess it really didn't matter about sales tax, everything is going up anyways. I love this state. eyeroll.gif</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sparticus @ Nov 21 2008, 07:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>i just looked it up, mass is actually below the national average for fuel tax</div>
OT, but as a former Boston, current Vegas resident, I must respond. Let's be 100% clear on something... the amount of money a State needs to operate is a constant, it doesn't change based on the voter's whims. Repealing the income tax WILL result in other fees increasing. Here in NV, we have no State income Tax. Guess how much it costs to register my '06 350Z every year... OVER $500. Our sales tax rate is 7.5%. I would MUCH rather pay a State Income Tax than be nickel and dimed to death. With an income tax, at least you know what you're paying every year. I have no idea how much I pay NV every year, but it's close or the same as what I payed to MA when I lived there. Also, with an income tax, the money came right off my paycheck, so I never saw it. It FEELS like I pay more here in NV because I get the money and then have to pay it out.
one of the ballot questions this election was to eliminate the [income] tax (5%). one big reason for wanting it is because New Hampshire has no [income] tax and a lot of the money is being spent in NH stores. The huge opponents of the repeal of the state tax (which ended up not passing by a landslide) was because it would force other fees to go up.
It hasn't even been a month since the election. Mass Highway (the turnpike) is increasing tolls and possibly putting up more booths. Subway stations are increasing parking. Subways are increasing fares. It will now cost more to register and re-register your car. And now they're planning on raising the gas tax in this state. All of this is in the past 3 weeks. Guess it really didn't matter about sales tax, everything is going up anyways. I love this state. eyeroll.gif</div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sparticus @ Nov 21 2008, 07:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>i just looked it up, mass is actually below the national average for fuel tax</div>
OT, but as a former Boston, current Vegas resident, I must respond. Let's be 100% clear on something... the amount of money a State needs to operate is a constant, it doesn't change based on the voter's whims. Repealing the income tax WILL result in other fees increasing. Here in NV, we have no State income Tax. Guess how much it costs to register my '06 350Z every year... OVER $500. Our sales tax rate is 7.5%. I would MUCH rather pay a State Income Tax than be nickel and dimed to death. With an income tax, at least you know what you're paying every year. I have no idea how much I pay NV every year, but it's close or the same as what I payed to MA when I lived there. Also, with an income tax, the money came right off my paycheck, so I never saw it. It FEELS like I pay more here in NV because I get the money and then have to pay it out.
Administrator
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 13,943
Likes: 0
From: ɯooɹpǝq ɹnoʎ
Vehicle: ǝdnoɔ sısǝuǝƃ
We have no income tax in TN. Our sales tax is 9.25-9.75 (mix of state/county depending on loc.). It cost me $10 for emissions testing and $75 to register a vehicle.
If you spend more, you get taxed more. Although, I believe state income tax is tax deductible? As is sales tax, but state income tax is much easier to keep track of.
If you spend more, you get taxed more. Although, I believe state income tax is tax deductible? As is sales tax, but state income tax is much easier to keep track of.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,992
Likes: 0
From: Washington D.C.
Vehicle: Hyundai Tiburon FX
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>"The US Government has thrown a $25 billion lifeline to Detroit carmakers crippled by the severe economic downturn, and Treasury has called on Congress to release more money for the still fragile banks."</div>
damnit man they got it. ...fo---ers they deserve to be out of business. michael moore said it really good: the government should them to convert their plant manufacturing to environmentally friendly means of production. and he's right why should the people who don't want to buy their cars pay for them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLUYRdDDT8...feature=channel
damnit man they got it. ...fo---ers they deserve to be out of business. michael moore said it really good: the government should them to convert their plant manufacturing to environmentally friendly means of production. and he's right why should the people who don't want to buy their cars pay for them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipLUYRdDDT8...feature=channel
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 11,992
Likes: 0
From: Washington D.C.
Vehicle: Hyundai Tiburon FX
it is a loan correct. but still it doesn't solve the problem, it prolongs it no?
Where is Hyundai amongst all of this is what I'd like to know. Anybody know how Genesis/Coupe sales are doing?
* YTD Total is 5,127 Genesis... It is just fresh too, these numbers will rise.
CARLINE NOV/2008 NOV/2007 CY/2008 CY/2007
ACCENT 1,983 2,238 48,598 34,110
SONATA 5,379 11,831 110,764 120,696
ELANTRA 3,268 3,340 92,085 81,967
TIBURON 411 727 8,699 13,472
SANTA FE 4,282 7,374 64,705 83,319
AZERA 316 1,575 14,114 20,351
TUCSON 918 3,107 18,153 38,514
ENTOURAGE 584 466 5,405 16,726
VERACRUZ 929 1,225 10,055 11,367
GENESIS 1,151 0 5,127 0
TOTAL 19,221 31,883 377,705 420,522
US Market August - November:
BMW 5-Series (14,595): 5,287 | 2,423 | 3,958 | 2,927
Mercedes E-Class (10,011): 2,681 | 2,968 | 2,098 | 2,264
Infiniti M (4,667): 1,211 | 1,077 | 1,193 | 1,186
Hyundai Genesis (4,478): 1,177 | 1,029 | 1,121 | 1,151
Lexus GS (4,203): 1,686 | 977 | 819 | 721
Audi A6/S6 (4,085): 1,520 | 1,090 | 758 | 717
Acura RL (1,081): 316 | 259 | 272 | 234
i didn't know those Mercedes/BMW's are hotcakes. bastards.
Where is Hyundai amongst all of this is what I'd like to know. Anybody know how Genesis/Coupe sales are doing?
* YTD Total is 5,127 Genesis... It is just fresh too, these numbers will rise.
CARLINE NOV/2008 NOV/2007 CY/2008 CY/2007
ACCENT 1,983 2,238 48,598 34,110
SONATA 5,379 11,831 110,764 120,696
ELANTRA 3,268 3,340 92,085 81,967
TIBURON 411 727 8,699 13,472
SANTA FE 4,282 7,374 64,705 83,319
AZERA 316 1,575 14,114 20,351
TUCSON 918 3,107 18,153 38,514
ENTOURAGE 584 466 5,405 16,726
VERACRUZ 929 1,225 10,055 11,367
GENESIS 1,151 0 5,127 0
TOTAL 19,221 31,883 377,705 420,522
US Market August - November:
BMW 5-Series (14,595): 5,287 | 2,423 | 3,958 | 2,927
Mercedes E-Class (10,011): 2,681 | 2,968 | 2,098 | 2,264
Infiniti M (4,667): 1,211 | 1,077 | 1,193 | 1,186
Hyundai Genesis (4,478): 1,177 | 1,029 | 1,121 | 1,151
Lexus GS (4,203): 1,686 | 977 | 819 | 721
Audi A6/S6 (4,085): 1,520 | 1,090 | 758 | 717
Acura RL (1,081): 316 | 259 | 272 | 234
i didn't know those Mercedes/BMW's are hotcakes. bastards.