According to a report in today's Tribune Newspapers, GM may move the
corporate headquarters out of Detroit!
GM may reorganize as a Japanese corporation to get around paying US
corporate federal income taxes on profits earned in the US, as does Toyota
and all the other Japanese corporations doing business in the US.
For Japanese corporation, the federal taxes on profits earned in the US are
returned to the corporations by the Japanese government as capital
Looks like Michigan sure showed them how they ought to willingly
subject themselves to confiscatory taxes.
Now, instead of reasonable tax rates with workers paying state tax,
Michigan has a liability. California has lost businesses for the same
reason, along with other liberal-run states.
Basic economics escapes left-wing morons (excuse the redundancy).
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on
If you haven't noticed, the states that are in the best economic condition
today are the 22 states that have a balance budget requirement in their
Is it any wonder WHY the dims have always fought a balanced budget amendment
to the US Constitution?
Although I lived in Arkansas, which has a balanced budget requirement. Bill
Clinton found a way to 'cook the books'. The next guy in the Governor's
Mansion (after he'd aired it out to get the pot smell out) got whammed with
having to raise taxes to cover the things Bill and Hillary had 'buried'.
And impeached. That's how Mike Huckabee got to be governor. And he did the
same thing with the US budget. The surplusses weren't really surplusses
under the Clintons, just budgetary slieght of hand that came back to bite us
in the Bush years.
On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:45:37 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
I don't know anything about the Arkansas budget but would you care to
explain how Clinton "cooked the books" to create a surplus in the US
budget? When Bush came in, he promised a tax cut (mostly to the
wealthy) because he told us the surplus should be given back. (Never
mind that we still had to pay off a huge debt run up during the
Reagan/Bush years.) When the economy weakened and the surplus
disappeared, he said we had to give a tax cut because the economy was
weak. He then started spending like a drunken sailor and cooking the
books in his own way by not including Iraq and Afghanistan in the
budget, as if we didn't know we were going to spend money there when
we had 100,000 plus troops deployed. As a result, the deficit
exploded (again, like under Reagan) and the economy ended up crashing.
Obama is now trying to spend our way out of the worst crises since the
Great Depression and maybe it is working. We will be paying for it
for a long time and yes, higher taxes are inevitable.
What Clinton (as well as earlier and later presidents) did in terms of
the "surplus" was to not include the money borrowed from the surplus of
the Social Security trust fund as a debt.
Obama's between a rock and a hard place right now. If he doesn't prop up
the banking and insurance industries with borrowed money, the recession
will turn into a depression. If he does prevent a total collapse, he'll
be doing it in a way that burden future generations with the cost of
cleaning up the Bush/Reagan mess.
The Onion headline "Black man given Nation's Worst Job" was funny, but
it was not all that off the mark. It's always been left to Democrats to
clean up the financial messes left by Republicans, and a lot of people
resent that they finally have to pay for the drunken party that they'd
enjoyed for so long, and start screaming "tax and spend Democrats" when
they should be screaming "borrow and spend Republicans."
The longer we wait to raise taxes to a level that will cover expenses,
the worse off we'll get. Bush never included the cost of his wars in the
budget, all that money needs to be paid back eventually. But of course
if he had went to the American people and said, "listen, we need each
family to pay $2000 a year to finance these wars," he would never have
been able to start the wars in the first place.
It was a great party while it lasted. Too bad it fell to Obama to tell
people that the party's over.
But this was nothing new under Clinton. I believe that the SSI
surplus was always included in official revenue figures. Even then, I
seem to recall that the revenue surplus exceeded the SSI surplus in 99
It would be easier to take if the Bush Administration were in jail.
No big deal. Big companies move all the time. If it saves them money, one
should ask why they didn't do it 10 or 20 years ago.
Enough of the Japanese bashing. If GM has a CFO that incompetant, and not
hard to believe, then another reason why GM should go down.
For it would be easier to rebuild GM from scratch than to weed out that
incompetance. Which is what is a happing.
GM down over 20% on the day. I wouldn't doubt we will get an announcement
this week. The one where GM will take it's first real steps in 30 years to
fix the problems and to get the hell out of the taxpayers pockets.
That's not true. The companies that are owned by Toyota in the US are
organized as US companies and pay state, federal and local taxes, just
like companies that are organized as US companies and owned by US
Yet, the US subsidiaries are actually US companies and pay US taxes.
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.