Mike

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
investment funds.


"Canuck57" <dave@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:8ydOl.40904$BX.30385@newsfe18.iad...
>
> "dbu'" <nospam@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nospam-2458A6.06391812052009@news.giganews.com...
..
>>
>> I hope GM has the guts to pull up stakes and get the hell out of
>> detroit. GM should move to a more friendly state like Mississippi or
>> Tennessee where government and workers are more friendly to big
>> companies. Detroit is in decline along with Michigan. They both need a
>> kick in the *** and boot the democrats out of power along with the big
>> shot partisan labor unions.
>> --
>> "Barack Obama went to Harvard and became
>> an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about
>> the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all
>> about it." Bobby Rush
>
> Wagoner, the one who got away with $20M taxpayer funded pension, was from
> Harvard.
>

Conscience

On 2009-05-12 11:27:46 -0700, "Mike" <mikehunt2@lycos.com> said:

> 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
> investment funds.

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
religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” -- Patrick Henry

Mike

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
Constitutions?

Is it any wonder WHY the dims have always fought a balanced budget amendment
to the US Constitution?



"Conscience" <nobama@göv.com> wrote in message
news:gucfbr$vqm$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2009-05-12 11:27:46 -0700, "Mike" <mikehunt2@lycos.com> said:
>
>> 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
>> investment funds.
>
> 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 religions, but
> on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." -- Patrick Henry
>

Conscience

On 2009-05-12 12:08:40 -0700, "Mike" <mikehunt2@lycos.com> said:

> 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
> Constitutions?

Nope. I never wondered.

> Is it any wonder WHY the dims have always fought a balanced budget amendment
> to the US Constitution?

No wonder at all.

--
“This is a Christian Nation.” -- SCOTUS (Church of the Holy Trinity
vs. The United States, 1892)

CharlesTheCurmudgeon

"Conscience" <nobama@göv.com> wrote in message
news:gucie9$4i0$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2009-05-12 12:08:40 -0700, "Mike" <mikehunt2@lycos.com> said:
>
>> 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
>> Constitutions?
>
> Nope. I never wondered.
>
>> Is it any wonder WHY the dims have always fought a balanced budget
>> amendment
>> to the US Constitution?
>
> No wonder at all.
>
> --
> "This is a Christian Nation." -- SCOTUS (Church of the Holy Trinity vs.
> The United States, 1892)
>

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.

Charles Grozny

Canuck57

"Mike" <mikehunt2@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:4a09bf7e$0$19993$ce5e7886@news-radius.ptd.net...

> According to a report in today's Tribune Newspapers, GM may move the
> corporate headquarters out of Detroit!

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.

> 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
> investment funds.

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.

Jeff

On May 12, 2:27 pm, "Mike" <mikehu...@lycos.com> wrote:
> 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.

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
companies.

> For Japanese corporation, the federal taxes on profits earned in the US are
> returned to the corporations by the Japanese government as capital
> investment funds.

Yet, the US subsidiaries are actually US companies and pay US taxes.

jeff

> "Canuck57" <d...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8ydOl.40904$BX.30385@newsfe18.iad...
>
>
>
> > "dbu'" <nos...@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:nospam-2458A6.06391812052009@news.giganews.com...
> .
>
> >> I hope GM has the guts to pull up stakes and get the hell out of
> >> detroit. GM should move to a more friendly state like Mississippi or
> >> Tennessee where government and workers are more friendly to big
> >> companies. Detroit is in decline along with Michigan. They both need a
> >> kick in the *** and boot the democrats out of power along with the big
> >> shot partisan labor unions.
> >> --
> >> "Barack Obama went to Harvard and became
> >> an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about
> >> the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all
> >> about it." Bobby Rush
>
> > Wagoner, the one who got away with $20M taxpayer funded pension, was from
> > Harvard.

Gordon McGrew

On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:45:37 -0500, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon"
<n5hsr@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Conscience" <nobama@göv.com> wrote in message
>news:gucie9$4i0$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 2009-05-12 12:08:40 -0700, "Mike" <mikehunt2@lycos.com> said:
>>
>>> 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
>>> Constitutions?
>>
>> Nope. I never wondered.
>>
>>> Is it any wonder WHY the dims have always fought a balanced budget
>>> amendment
>>> to the US Constitution?
>>
>> No wonder at all.
>>
>> --
>> "This is a Christian Nation." -- SCOTUS (Church of the Holy Trinity vs.
>> The United States, 1892)
>>
>
>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.
>
>Charles Grozny
>

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.

Gordon McGrew

On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:27:46 -0400, "Mike" <mikehunt2@lycos.com>
wrote:

>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,

What profits?

>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
>investment funds.

And they have universal health insurance too.


>
>
>"Canuck57" <dave@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:8ydOl.40904$BX.30385@newsfe18.iad...
>>
>> "dbu'" <nospam@nobama.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:nospam-2458A6.06391812052009@news.giganews.com...
>.
>>>
>>> I hope GM has the guts to pull up stakes and get the hell out of
>>> detroit. GM should move to a more friendly state like Mississippi or
>>> Tennessee where government and workers are more friendly to big
>>> companies. Detroit is in decline along with Michigan. They both need a
>>> kick in the *** and boot the democrats out of power along with the big
>>> shot partisan labor unions.
>>> --
>>> "Barack Obama went to Harvard and became
>>> an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about
>>> the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all
>>> about it." Bobby Rush
>>
>> Wagoner, the one who got away with $20M taxpayer funded pension, was from
>> Harvard.
>>
>

SMS

Gordon McGrew wrote:

> 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?

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.

> 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.

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.

Gordon McGrew

On Wed, 13 May 2009 20:07:27 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>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.

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
and/or 2000.

>
>> 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.
>
>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.

It would be easier to take if the Bush Administration were in jail.

labatyd

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:sVLOl.29790$Ws1.11142@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

"party" is hardly over. Obama is moving it to a different part of the globe.