The Drive-a-Toyota Act

Page 2 of 15  
Mike Hunter wrote:


Can you please tell us the location of the IRS website that lists which companies pay taxes?
I haven't found one that lists the taxes that corporations pay or even one the lists all the corporate tax payers.
JEff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is now OT, but according to a 2004 US GAO report, between 1996 and 2000, 61% of American corporations and 70% of foreign-owned corporations paid no US federal income taxes. For the 2000 tax year, 93.9% of US-controled companies paid less than 5% of its income in taxes. http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2004/04/08/most-companies-paid-no-taxes.aspx http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s / original/full GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04358.pdf
So, although I haven't found a site that publicizes US tax records, since the majority of companies owned or operated in the US did not pay US federal income taxes in 1996-2000, that the odds are in your favor for truth if you say that corporation X didn't pay federal taxes...
(I could not find data on individual firms' taxes paid, nor on state/ local income or property taxes, nor employment taxes...)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@kluge.net wrote:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2004/04/08/most-companies-paid-no-taxes.aspx
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/04/11/most_us_firms_paid_no_income_taxes_in_90s /
Are there not other taxes (besides income taxes) and fees that corporations do pay that allow a little sleight of hand in the picture that's painted when quoting such figures (i.e., just income tax)? Also, ignoring that, the very people that would be in favor of hitting up businesses with more taxes, costs, and penalties would be the very ones who complained after the fact that businesses are moving off shore and would blame, instead of themsleves, the people who were in favor of giving businesses incenctives for staying here and keeping business costs low.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not saying whether or not the income tax data is a good thing or a bad thing, or that anything should or should not be changed. (that is way OT for this list.) I was just pointing out that should the supposed list of corporate income tax filings be found, and if Toyota is really on that list, that Toyota would be with the majority of other corporations in not having paid corporate income taxes. (So Toyota shouldn't be singled out of the pack... "when in Rome...")
But so far I have not seen any proof of such a list, nor that Toyota is on it.
I can say that Toyota does pay taxes to someone, though - it's on their annual investor report (see the Financial section). http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/ir/library/annual/pdf/2006 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Corporations that show a loss for the year obviously do not pay corporate "income" taxes. ;)
mike
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

By that measure, I showed a "loss" every year of my married life.
Outgo was alway equal to or greater than income. And yet the bastards made me pay income tax.
Think it's too late for a refund ??
<rj>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Apparently not, or you would not have paid any income tax. One spending more than one earns is not a 'loss' it is mishandling of your income ;)
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And that takes us full-circle back to GM

<rj>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let's do a little modern math just in gas costs;
Silverado 250,000 mile life / 14 mpg * $3 = $53,751
Compact sedan 250,000 miles / 32mpg * $3 = $23,437
Anything else ? <rj>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<RJ> wrote:

Yep your math is WAY off.
The Silverado gets closer to 17 mpg and I have yet to see a compact that stayed together for 250,000 miles without MAJOR high dollar repairs.
--
Steve W.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

....and some semi's rack up a million miles or more. !! Maybe we should all drive semi's.
A high-point of my visit to the gas station is watching the truck owners fill their tanks..... tears running down their cheeks.
<rj>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Cleary, your high points come directly from deep within your imagination.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If the Silverado is such a bad vehicle why does it far out sell the Camry and sell at a rate ten times or more that of the Tundra? GM rebates their truck $3,500 but Toyota needs to rebate the Tundra at $5,000 to more them off the lot. ;)
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Or the morons that pay $6,000 more, for a similar size car like a Corolla, to save a relative few hundred dollars a year on fuel, then need to spend a small fortune at some point to replace the battery pack so they can sell or trade the Pruis. ;)
mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Cathy F. wrote:

And your hit on resale will be very big because potential buyers (the conscious ones anyway) will factor in the essential certainty that they will need to replace the batteries shortly down the road.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just like potential buyers will factor in the essential certainty that they will have a very expensive transmission repair on any other car.
But nobody talks about that when discussing used cars. It's simply a given.
The Prius doesn't have a traditional automatic transmission; it uses a VERY simple and straightforward mechanism that's pretty much bulletproof. So the Prius's Achilles Heel is its battery pack instead. So what? ALL modern cars have incredibly complex systems that make them dicey as used cars.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

That's BS. There is a *small* chance that there will be a major tranny problem on a given used car - yes, it is a risk, just as there is a risk that you'll walk outside and get run over by a truck, but nowhere near a certainty. Yet the batteries have a very understood *finite* life. You're really reaching with that argument.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. A modern automatic transmission is a VERY complex piece of machinery that even Honda can't get right.
The average owner, or lessee, has no idea how to take care of it and/or no incentive to do so. Somewhere at the 100K-125K range, it will likely need serious repair. That's the real world.
The used car buyer factors that in when evaluating a car for price.
So I repeat: standard car or Toyota HSD, both have $3000 weak spots that will show after much use. The advantage is that I can replace the battery pack far easier and more quickly than I can the automatic transmission on the Camry.
What's BS is that you're ignoring the fact that modern auto transmissions are much, much more frail pieces of gear today than ever. No doubt some of that is beancounting, the same type of beancounting that got Honda in trouble for SIX STRAIGHT YEARS on their transmissions that were hooked to V6 engines. They just could NOT get it right. First the four speed transmissions were falling like crazy, with Honda shops replacing three a week, then the nemew 5 speed trannies were designed with lubrication problems that required a recall for existing units and a redesign for ongoing new units. The existing units that got the lubrication kit may or may not fail as a result of that crap.
Honda threw away a BUNCH of their reputation in those two fiascos.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In my over 35 years of driving and car ownership, I have never had a single automatic transmission repair (other than 2 $20 speed sensors on late model Chryslers) - and that's at least 7 cars with automatic transmissions, and I don't think I've ever gotten rid of one with less than 170k miles on it.
Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.