Actually what is far worse than the profits leaving tax free is the
only the lower-level people get a salary from them.
It probably is unfair to say but if you look at new manufacturing
starts in the US, and I'm talking non-retail, and non-service, your
to find most of them beng done by folks who worked in the corporate
boardrooms for 20+ years making six figure salaries. Those are the
employers we want to have in the country. We need new retail business
starts like a hole in the head - all they do is push the few surviving
ma-and-pa retailers out of business and put in giant multiplexes that
employ a bunch of high school students at minimum wage.
When companies like Toyota and Honda come in, the six figure
executive positions are reserved for the motherships in their homeland.
Additionally, particularly with the Japanese, they dislike making
infrastructure investments in the US, the first choice of suppliers is
Japanese firms, they nickel-and-dime everything they build here.
There are not a huge number of spinoff firms coming out of Honda
and Toyota investments here in the US. Contrast that to General
Motors and all of it's spawn.
While an economy filled with workers making $70K a year would probably
be a fairly pleasant thing, it's not going to be able to produce many
new business starts that are worth sneezing at. While a lot of people
decry the rich/poor gap, the fact that we have a good number of people
making half a million bucks a year, after taxes, running around in the
country does provide a fairly fertile ground for new busines starts.
that is one of the things that keeps the US going, since there's always
going to be business failures every year and unless your replacing
with new business starts, you end up with all business becoming giant
monopolies and everyone working for big wasteful conglomerates.
And a lot of those labor costs include labor from years ago. GM, Ford and
Chrysler didn't put enough money into their pension plans. And the cost of
insurance for retirees is really hurting them, too. It is estimated that it
costs about $1000 per car just for the retirees. The health insurance for
current workers is also hurting them. Of course, all of this is part of the
Revenues are not decreased all that much. And JetBlue and Southwest still
make money. Labor costs are one reason why the other airlines aren't making
money. The cost of fuel is another.
I hardly call 70 or 80 bucks a hour in wages AND benifits getting too
little. They do no realize the big "raise" thy get every year because of
the health care insurance that they do not pay for directly.
situation has been going on for decades..... since the days of a 16
hour day for $1.00 a day. Which means it's been going on under such
leadership as Clinton, Kennedy, etc, just as much as under Bush,
Reagan, etc. Saying it's a "Bushism" is totally ignorant of union
It's not the worker, union or not, or the bosses, or the consumers, or
the 3rd world countries. It's a combination of all of it. You can't
simplify it. And it has been a continuous progress of complication as
more of the global economy becomes enmeshed.
The US economy has always been in an upward death spiral. Companies
want more profit, so they raise prices. Workers need more money to pay
those prices. They strike, or whatever, for higher wages, and, as long
as they are at it, more bennies. The company is forced to give them at
least a portion of what they demand. So they raise prices to cover the
increase. (No company has really ever paid for wage increases, or
taxes... the consumers do. Who are the consumers? The people who make
the products the companies sell.) It cuts across the board. GM workers
may go on strike, which has nothing to do with haircuts, but you'll
see barbershops raise their prices.
Companies also require continued population growth in order to sell
more products which increases profits and pays the costs of labor etc.
(The last thing the world needs is continuing population increase.)
Imagine how many cars Ford, GM or Honda would need to produce and
sell, if the population were stable, or even declining. The number of
units would shrink because there is no one to sell to except those
cases where a car is crashed or wears out. The rest would just be
sitting there. Which means a need for fewer employees, so layoffs
occur.... which leads to strikes.... which leads to higher wages, and
subsequent product cost increases.
Eventually, the system has to break down or change. Unfortunately, it
seems everything is headed for some form of socialism, where even the
lamest of society gets full benefits.
Top executive salary increases at these rates have been going on for
years...long before Bush took office. Was it "Clintonism" then. Of course
not. The problem is what is going on in the board rooms, not the Oval
Actually that is not true, based on all the available facts. The average
personal income and the average family income is the US for all segments,
poor, middleclass, upper middleclass and the rich are all up, not down,
since the nineties. Same is true of the recent tax cuts. Income to the
federal treasury is UP, not down, since the nineties. ;)
Backyard Mechanic wrote: "Well..okay... but it's time to raise tax rates on
those top guys so they pay their fair share of taxes, instead of putting it
all on us poor working guys!"
People making the money Delphi workers are making (28 dollars and hour) are
not the rich guys. They are part of the middle class.
40 X 28.00 X 52 = 58240.00 dollars a year base pay. This is middle class.
I agree with raise the taxes on the rich but do it by taking away all their
tax shelters. Make them pay a bigger share of their wealth in taxes by not
giving them tax shelters.
Those that free load and don't work and depend on welfare need top stop
sucking on the governments tit and find a job even if it is a minimum wage
job. Then the government should assist them with housing. At least this
way they will be putting some money back in the system.
That is not true either. The fact is the more one earns in the US the more
one pays in taxes. Not only do you pay more in dollars, you are taxed at a
higher RATE as well. Those at the top already pay more than their fair
share of taxes. The top 5% of all taxpayers pay more than 50% of all the
taxes paid to the federal treasury. Since the tax RATES were reduced in
2000, around 45% or more, of all American pay NO taxes to the federal
treasury. That information is available on the IRS web site for anyone
willing to do a search.
Aw, shucks Mike... sorry to put you through all that.
I guess i forgot the 'rolleyes" smiley!
Oh, well... never hurts to fire for effect!
BTW: Folks at GM.com are reading this.
I posted a longer version on my blog and there was someone at GM on it
immediately.. for 7 minutes
to find that article just do a blog search on my email username
Bullshit. The cost of living, food shelter clothing, is fixed for everyone
in the US.
Nobody puts a gun to your head and tells you that you must buy that Rolls
rather than that Chevy for your car. Or that you must drink that fine wine
of tapwater. The rich at the top can live on the same things that the rest
Because of this, the middle class has little disposable income, the rich
Thus the rich owe far more to the society that gave them tons of disposable
income that they can use to buy that fine wine and that Rolls with, than the
poor do. So, no more of this "pay more than their fair share" poppycock out
of your hole.
In the early part of this country, the rich like the Carnagies, the
the Mellons, the Gettys, they all understood this. While they didn't pay a
higher tax rate at the time they gave far more back to the society in the
form of endowments and charity payments than the middle class and poor did.
Unfortunately so much of the new rich these days are greedy and grasping
and have the disgusting me me me me me me attitude like you do. That is
why we had to adjust the tax rates so as to make them pay more taxes.
Left to themselves they would not lift a finger to help their neighbors.
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: "Bullshit. The cost of living, food shelter
clothing, is fixed for everyone in the US. Nobody puts a gun to your head
and tells you that you must buy that Rolls Royce rather than that Chevy for
your car. Or that you must drink that fine wine
instead of tapwater. The rich at the top can live on the same things that
the rest of us live on.
Because of this, the middle class has little disposable income, the rich
have lots. Thus the rich owe far more to the society that gave them tons of
disposable income that they can use to buy that fine wine and that Rolls
with, than the poor do. So, no more of this "pay more than their fair
share" poppycock out of your hole.
In the early part of this country, the rich like the Carnagies, the
Rockafellers, the Mellons, the Gettys, they all understood this. While they
didn't pay a higher tax rate at the time they gave far more back to the
society in the form of endowments and charity payments than the middle class
and poor did. Unfortunately so much of the new rich these days are greedy
and grasping and have the disgusting me me me me me me attitude like you do.
That is why we had to adjust the tax rates so as to make them pay more
taxes. Left to themselves they would not lift a finger to help their
You need to go back to school and learn economics. We pay income tax on our
income and not what we spend. The rich pay taxes in a higher tax bracket
then the middle class and even higher then the poor. Some poor don't pay
any taxes or very little that the government gives them money back in the
Earned Income Credit.
Yes, the rich buy more expensive toys and luxuries of life but what your are
saying is that we should not allow them to use their income on theses things
those lowering the sales tax they pay on theses items. If knowing is allow
to buy them then these jobs would be lost and then they would have to go to
work in places making the Chevy type products you suggest they spend their
money on. Many of the rich do give money away each year. They do that
because they need to lower their taxes. Then there are some that make tons
of money in tax free investments and give very little back to society since
they don't have to pay taxes they don't need the tax break. They invest in
tax free municipal bonds.
Look up the richest 400 in America are and you will see that just about all
of them give money to different causes. Even though some only gave 1%, they
still gave more then most of us as a whole and they still paid more taxes
them most of us. I have more of a problem with them donating their money to
foundations that then have tax free status and take in millions of dollars
in donations and then only give out a small percentage of the donations back
as grants. To me to get a tax free status they need to have at least 60 to
70 percent of their assets distributed each year. The rest could be used
for running the charity.
This is absolute rubbish. Every time someone points out the basis of a
tax system you get someone bitching that a progressive tax system means that
we don't want rich people to live richly. This is absolute crap.
I -want- rich people to be able to buy toys and such because doing so
them to make even more money, thus paying more taxes, thus helping me
The only time a progressive tax system is counterproductive is when the
tax brackets -exceed- 50% of income. However up to 50% is no problem. If
someone is making a billion bucks a year in income, losing 500 million of it
society that is paying him the billion bucks is certainly fair. If he wants
he can then make 2 billion bucks next year, and he will then get his
The money that these rich are making has absolutely no value unless the
infrastructure exists to manufacture these toys that they want to buy with
500 million bucks. And you, I and everyone else make up that
If we wern't working, those few rich wouldn't have the 500 million to do
they wanted with. If we wern't working then even if they had that 500
they wouldn't be able to buy anything with it. Do you really think it would
any fun to own your own Lear jet and Rolls Royce if every road in the
you lived in was a dirt road, since everyone in the country was dirt poor?
there be any point to being rich enough to get your own way politically
you wanted, when the only thing that the government of the country your
in was doing was beating the crap out of people?
When they took Saddam out in Iraq and went touring through his palaces, how
much of the toys that were in there were manufactured in Iraq? I don't
than a few percent. That's the issue with being rich. There's no point in
rich in a world where everyone else is destitute. Its's only worth being
a world where there's lots of toys to be able to spend your money on, and
things to do with your money, whether it be starting companies, funding
campaigns, or whatever your fancy. And all those choices of things for you
to amuse yourself cannot exist unless there's sufficient money in the rest
economy for them to be created.
As they should. "more taxes than most of us" IS their fair share.
Well that's a whole different issue, it's irresponsible giving is what it
a way it is encouraging corruption and graft and supporting criminals is
worse than not donating anything.
Yes and you could live like those below your social status as well and pay
more taxes. The country is based on a capitalistic system it is not a
socialist or communist society. Not only do the rich already pay more in
dollars, they are taxed at a higher RATE as well, what more do you expect of
The Rockefellers, Mellons, Heinz, Ford etal did not pay any federal income
taxes back then. The only taxes in those days were property taxes. They had
pretty much everything they needed and began to give away much of the
excess. In the nineteenth century Rockefeller even handed out dines, on the
streets of Pittsburgh, which amounted to a day wages in the steel mills and
mines, . Once the government imposed the 90% marginal tax rate they stopped
creating those foundations that bear their names because the government took
the bulk of their income. Nobody establishes foundations today during their
lifetimes on at there death for tax purposes. The Bill Gates types do give
away millions but it is done to reduce their tax liability. ;)
Nothing. But you said "Those at the top already pay more than their fair
share of taxes"
and that is absolute crap. The fair share of those at the top IS to pay a
than the rest of us.
What are you talking about, income tax was started by Abe Lincoln during the
Exactly. The problem today is that many of the super rich do not feel that
they ever have excess money, no matter how much money they make.
You are proving my point, here.
That happened in the 1950s and clearly it was completely stupid. That is
why they stopped doing it.
Marginal tax rate today is about 33%
Same difference. They give millions away to charities that help out the
poor, if those
charities didn't exist the government would have to step in and pick up the
The problem today is not in overtaxing the rich, far, far from it. The
at least in the US is that the federal government wastes billions on stupid
things - like continuing
the Iraq war long after we were done in there and should have left - and the
state governments waste millions on stupid things - like paying off
drunkards and such that have claimed
stress-related disability and got fired for it - that everyone, rich and
poor alike, is disgusted
with sending the government any more money. As a result we support these
and such where the goal is indiscriminate and illogical tax cutting, which
makes things in
government work even worse and drives the few good people left in government
out of it, which makes the whole system even more awful, and thus just feeds
for cutting even more taxes.
None of the tax cutters spawned by the Reagan revolution has ever once
any viable alternative to government. These people's hope is that somehow
if we starve
government of tax money and thus force it to shrink, that it will get better
on it's own.
Their answer to government waste is to just stop funding government - it is
not to go in
and find who the wasters are and hang them from the nearest sour apple tree.
course, if the money-wastng branch of the government happens to be the same
has voted itself in charge of enforcing religion and morals on the
population, then we
never cut their budget.
You are entitled to you own opinion however currently the top 5% of the
taxpayers in the US pay nearly 50% of ALL the taxes paid to the federal
treasury. That is indeed at a higher RATE and MORE than a fair share of
the cost of running the wasteful inefficient federal government you
referenced. Personally I pay more in federal income taxes annually today,
than the total amount of my income for the first 40 years of my working
So what? All that indicates is that 5% of the US taxpayers are making such
an unbelievable amount of money that they could spend the rest of their
lives buying everything they set their eyes on all day long and still die
richer than you can imagine.
Bullshit. Yearly income of $326,451 and above, the tax bracket is 35%
That is only about 10% more than most of the middle class pay. And
it does not mean, contrary to what you are implying, that rich are anywhere
near turning over half their income to the government.
Wrong. The wasteful inefficient federal government's operations
are what allow the superrich to make so much money that they are funding
50% of the government.
You can always quit complaining and go back to what you were making before,
then pay less taxes. Would that make you happy?
Believe me lots of people out there would be happy to trade places with you
and would be perfectly glad to pay the government even more in taxes than
I really feel sorry for you, Mike. Your attitude is exactly that of the
nouveau riche kind of person that any of the old Eastern money would
be disgusted with. You wouldn't last more than 15 minutes at dinner with
any of them before they would have you tossed out on the street. Quite
obviously all your money has done nothing to make you feel any better about
yourself or anyone else.
I'll waste not more time trying to enlighten you. As with most of things
about which you chose to comment you obviously have little or no knowledge
of that which you are addressing, merely stating a convolute opinion.
May I interject an alternative view? As I recall Rockefeller had to be
dragged down before he went on his charitable donations and led the
way, I do believe. And the person who dragged him down was Ida Tarbell,
a journalist of the first rank who went after him. He, Rockefeller
appreciated this, because I do believe it helped his health. He had
been quite ill. When he decided to just not get it all but give it
away, his health improved.
About giving back to society has me perplexed? How can the poor give
anything back to society, for the most part? And the middle class?
Well, this has been changing. But many people have to be coaxed and
exposed before they decide that it's embarrassing that their particular
group is not giving anything back to society. Some newspaper exposure
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.