NUMMI to close...no more California built Tacomas

I'm in general agreement. I just want to make a couple points:

1) I used the term "inject" as a coverall. The government doesn't technically have to give them money, but not taking it away in the first place is just a closely related cousin.

2) Economic growth during the Reagan era has largely been laid at the feet of the birth of modern deficit spending. All that capital flowing out of the government and into the private sector helped move things along. A similar concept would be the Clinton boom being built on bubbles.

Once again, I agree with the principles of supply-side wholeheartedly...it's a great theory.

 

What do you suggest as an alternative? The governments promise of Social Security? A guaranteed retirement? That money has to come from somewhere. I guess the government could invest the "Social Security" pot, but again they are relying on the markets to which you have an issue with. Look at countries like Sweeden who promise a cradle to grave policy of taking care of it's citizen's. Sweeden's economy is going to be bankrupt by 2020 when there's more people not working then working.

Capitalism never promised to make everyone rich....it only promised a wealth vs risk payoff. Going back to my original comment that many people have successfully retired off of money's earned on investments; probably more so than those living on Social Security.

 

Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't have any solutions. I just know what the problems are.

Agree with all of this.


Edit: Also, have you heard?! They're closing NUMMI!

 

1 True.....but something to think about, our country didn't used to tax our citized; albeit that was back in the early 1800's. However you look at it, do we really receive a Tax cut if our taxes go down, but more forms of taxes are created? I think the Obama administration is going to start getting creative with this....a promise to lower our income tax, but creat new taxes....much like Clinton did such as the Internet Infrastructure tax that was imposed in the 90's to my knowledge, that tax never went away. Anyways.....I digress, A tax cut for the poor=nothing, since most poor people don't pay taxes, and I'm willing to bet out side of Social Security, neither do you or about 70% of the folks on here.

2. Good point, yes Regan's principles were largely discounted because of his defense spending....but at the time, many had jobs as defense contractors....the end result was the defeat of the USSR....however he double the existing deficit....I will concede each party spends....one taxes and spends, the other taxes and passes the cost....

 

lol.....thread hijacked.....

 

To be simply put.. This is just the wheels of Capitalism turning. Toyota is doing what is best for them, and in turn your self as a Toyota owner.


Sure it is not good for the people working at the NUMMI plant, although they will find jobs else where. It might not be at quite as high pay, but they will also most likely get paid what their skills are worth.




Also, there was a comment about taxing the rich 'until they get to live like the rest of us.' That has to be one of the most socialistic comments that I have heard in a while, and on the verge of communistic.

 

X2, if they tax the employers out of biz what's going to happen to the you and me, the employee. That an't to hard to figure out is it?

 

Just for the record, the government loves me. I'm a single white male with no dependents. They eat 35% of my gross yearly.

The O-Plan is supposedly going to drop taxes on everyone making less than 150k per year. People at 150 to 250k will probably see their taxes hold steady. Above 250k, it's going up. This is all subject to context of course, so there will be exceptions, but this is what I'm reading all the experts telling me.

I wouldn't call the majority of those who are going to receive a reduction "poor".

 

You fellas apparently have trouble detecting a tongue planted firmly in cheek.

The point I was making (comically overstating) is that I give less than a damn about income taxes on rich individuals, because I'm not one. It's hard to feel sympathy for people whining about higher taxes when they have yachts.

Taxing richer human beings higher will not cause their companies to fail. The corporate entities are an entirely different tax category.

 

They eat 35% a paycheck, but come April, you get a healthy portion of that money back.....I feel for you brother I was single with no dependents no too long ago, but unless you're making close to $100K, you most likely fall into the 15-18% tax bracket.....remember to figure in your standard deductions.

BTW, you heard that Obama is most likely suspending his planned tax cut until the economy recovers....it's either that, or raise taxes across the board....don't expect to see any relief thsi fiscal year with a downturn economy; plus "free" universal health isn't free.

 

I think you miss the whole premise as to why these rich people have yachts? Somebody had to build and sell that yacht? Somebody probably is paid to maintain that yacht? Anyway the "rich" person spited in you example simply capitalized on the principles of capitalism in America...they were rewarded for their hard work, innovation, and risk.....you will never see that in any other form of government....and last I hear, the lower middle class, and poor don't hire people to do jobs.....

 

Curious to know where your truck was built? Look at the first digit of the VIN.

1 USA
2 Canada
3 Mexico
4 USA
5 USA
6 Australia
9 Brazil
J Japan
K Korea
L China, Taiwan
S Britain
M Thailand
T Hungary
V France
W Germany
X Russia
Y Belgium, Sweden
Z Italy

 

I get some back, but it certainly isn't 17 to 20%. I wish!

Yeah I heard.

As for the healthcare stuff, let's not even go there. I'm in the healthcare industry. I could talk your ear off all night.

I will just say this: Universal care is not a great idea, but SOMETHING has to change!

The rich person *theoretically* is being rewarded for their hard work.

Or they were born to parents who knew the right people.

Once again, I think we're off on semantics. If I *have* to drag it all the way back to reality, let's try this: I feel taxing people who make over $250,000 a year 3 to 5% more will not destroy their lifestyles and could allow for some significant budget improvement on the federal balance sheets.

There. I said it.

 

Soooooooooo................, I heard the NUMMI Plant was closing........

 

Look at your last return...I'm willing to bet it was close....If you paid in say $6K and got back 1K....then there's your 17%.

I hear you, but I think the problem with health care is on the pharmaceutical
side of the house, but like you said we would be here all night.

Agreed, but I think the difference between our points is I don't feel that punishing somebody for their successes in the form of higher taxes.

I can agree with your point, but who is the government to decide who makes to much money....My thing is that most politicians come from money....If any politician wants to make a positive start, how about cutting the salary of Congress. My proposal is to institute a flat tax across the board. The Rich may have more money, but it's the poor that use all of the resources. I will restate it this way.....is it fair for kids to ask their parents for more "allowance" when they want to buy something? Should kids from wealthier families get more allowance because their families make more money? Taxes wouldn't need to be raised if the government learned to budget and spend appropriately....and I'm not saying your argue that, but with population growth steady, the flow of income from taxes should be steady as well...The government lives paycheck to paycheck....they never save.

 

I wonder if Toyota moves building the Tacoma down to Mexico, with the lower operating costs and lower labor rates, will the price reflect for buyers? My bet is no.....

 

Meh....probably not.

 

One of Reagan's better ideas.

It works very well for most of the bell curve, but falls short on the low end. The poor would be overtaxed in reality (if not on paper) because single units of currency mean a lot more once you drop below a certain income level.

In other words, say they institute a 20% flat tax. If you make 100,000k per year, you still have 80k left over which is almost certainly enough to meet your needs and then some. If you make 18k per year, that extra $3600 could mean keeping your house or not.

I would say the best meet in the middle solution is to redo the bracket system into three tiers:

The bottom bracket stays pretty much like it is. Middle bracket, which includes probably 90% or more of the population, gets the flat rate, and the top bracket gets a slight elevation because at that point you can give up a larger percentage without really noticing it.

This is true, and it's a difficult problem to work with. I think the best patch here would be government subsidies to non-profit assistance organizations. But that's way past where we are now.

It's not a complete fix anyway because it assumes everyone out there wants to be a productive member of society, which just isn't true. When the unemployment rate is down in the 3 to 4% range, I always laugh at people that want it lower. 3 to 4% of people in this world are just useless...or as I put it to a friend once, "Take 100 people off the street at random. Think you'll get three assholes in the group?".

Yeah. You'd think it would be a self-regulating system...the problem seems to be that budgets are expanded during booms, but when the economy contracts cutbacks are for everyone else.

As for why governments never save, I've pondered that mystery for a great while. They used to. What happened?

No, but the decreased cost of production will be reflected in their margins.

 

+ 1

 

Wow. Politics.

So how many jobs was Obama gonna save or create?

The problem is the repubs lost their soul. The conservative cry used to be "the government can't do anything worth a damn". This was so popular it got them elected. Then they BECAME the government, sold-out to the same lobbyists and went activist.

Sucks, cause now there is nobody worth voting for out there.

2012 = 1980, but Reagan is gone.

Politicians and diapers need to be changed (for the exact same reason)