Bankruptcy and Reorganization for Detroit?

Dave Head wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:45:45 -0500, edward ohare
> > wrote:
>
>> Have the people who support this lost their minds?
>>
>> Consumers know reorganizations sometimes fail. Issues concerning
>> future availability of parts, resale value, and whether anyone will
>> be around to honor their warranties will be considered by them before
>> making a purchase from an automaker in bankruptcy reorganization.
>>
>> Durable goods manufacturers cannot be operated successfully during
>> bankruptcy reorganization.
>>
>> Taxpayer money cannot bail out Detroit. Only consumer money, spent
>> on the purchase of Detroit's vehicles, can bail them out. It
>> appears way too late for that.
>
> No, its not.
>
> Here's how to sell Detroit Iron:
>
> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>
> 2) The huge overhead of cars made in the USA incurred from the income
> tax is removed, and "Detroit Iron" gets really cheap.

Suuure it does. lol


>
> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine about
> the poor - they'll get compensation for the basic necessities of
> life).
>
> 4) The prices of cars built in this country are taxed back up to
> where they used to be via the consumption tax.
>
> 5) People now have a whale of a lot more money by the amount of their
> income tax witholding.

At least, until they have to 'consume'.


Some will buy a new car,

With their food money?

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, edward ohare >
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:27:14 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>
>>
>> Well, we just doubled the federal debt in the last 8 years with mere
>> cuts in income taxes, so I suppose getting rid of income tax
>> completely wil.... I know... it will produce more total tax
>> revenue!!!! Ronald Reagan taken to the max!
>
> The debt doubled by having wars on credit and corporate welfare and
> bailouts. Lowering taxes on individuals is never a bad thing.

It is when it starves essential government services.

On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, edward ohare >
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:27:14 GMT, Dave Head > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, we just doubled the federal debt in the last 8 years with mere
>>> cuts in income taxes, so I suppose getting rid of income tax
>>> completely wil.... I know... it will produce more total tax
>>> revenue!!!! Ronald Reagan taken to the max!
>>
>> The debt doubled by having wars on credit and corporate welfare and
>> bailouts. Lowering taxes on individuals is never a bad thing.
>
> It is when it starves essential government services.

essential government services are VERY few and don't require the
federal income tax which came into being in 1913 with the federal
reserve. What the federal government is needed for is very very little.
Everything else is better done locally. That way if a government becomes
too much of a burden you can move to the next city, county, or state.

On Nov 23, 7:27*pm, Dave Head > wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:45:45 -0500, edward ohare
>
> > wrote:
> >Have the people who support this lost their minds?
>
> >Consumers know reorganizations sometimes fail. *Issues concerning
> >future availability of parts, resale value, and whether anyone will be
> >around to honor their warranties will be considered by them before
> >making a purchase from an automaker in bankruptcy reorganization.
>
> >Durable goods manufacturers cannot be operated successfully during
> >bankruptcy reorganization. *
>
> >Taxpayer money cannot bail out Detroit. *Only consumer money, spent on
> >the purchase of Detroit's vehicles, can bail them out. *It appears way
> >too late for that.
>
> No, its not.
>
> Here's how to sell Detroit Iron:
>
> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>

oh good Lord, a right-wing anti-government kook.

> 2) The huge overhead of cars made in the USA incurred from the income tax is
> removed, and "Detroit Iron" gets really cheap.

Makes no sense.

>
> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine about the poor -
> they'll get compensation for the basic necessities of life).
>

Yeah, charge everybody another 30% when they buy a car. That'll get
more people to buy cars!

> 4) The prices of cars built in this country are taxed back up to where they
> used to be via the consumption tax.
>
> 5) People now have a whale of a lot more money by the amount of their income
> tax witholding. *

No they won't. If your tax is revenue neutral, in fact, the middle
class will pay more because the rich will pay less.

>Some will buy a new car, and that will be more than there were
> before since they have all this extra money.
>
> 6) The cars _not_ built in this country, which were not experiencing the burden
> of paying US income tax, will not experience the lowering of their price.
>

What burden does the income tax put on cars?

> 7) The cars _not_ built in this country will then be taxed by the amount of the
> consumption tax.
>
> 8) The people that have decided to use their windfall $$$ from not paying
> income tax to buy a car are way more likely to buy Detroit Iron, since it's
> going to be waaaaay cheaper than the cars built other than in the USA.
>
> 6)

You've been worshipping at the foot of right-wing talk radio too long;
it's mushed your brain.

On Nov 23, 11:20*pm, Brent P >
wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, Dave Head > wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:27:00 -0600, Brent P
> > wrote:
>
> >>On 2008-11-24, Dave Head > wrote:
>
> >>> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine about the poor -
> >>> they'll get compensation for the basic necessities of life).
>
> >>Replace it with *NOTHING*. Stop having an empire that the country cannot
> >>afford.
>
> > How do you propose to run the gov't at all without any taxes? Wanna go the
> > Somalia route - no gov't at all? *I imagine we can do that, but nobody would
> > like it, I think.
>
> Nice strawman. I said replace the _federal income tax_ with nothing.
> Without the federal income tax, federal government spending would
> have to be rolled back to something like level it was in the mid 1990s.

Totally false and totally ridiculous.

> The federal income tax is not the only federal tax. Before you lash out
> you might want to do a wee bit of basic research. Constitutionally
> limited government would be rather small and cheap to operate anyway.
>

Uh, the gov't is constitution, doofus.

> As to your Somalia nonsense, first of all even if the federal government
> were eliminated entirely there would still be tons of government in the
> USA. City, county, and state. A far away central government trying to
> micromanage everything is a monumentally bad idea anyway. Secondly,
> Somalia starts to recover when there is no government, the problems are
> from those who are trying to impose one by force. In other words, the
> criminals who either create or eventually infest government. The people
> themselves get on quite well without some government parasites taking
> half of what they earn.
>
> Why do you think not having a government that is trying to micromanage
> our lives is so scary? Would you kill your neighbor for his stuff if the
> government's police weren't around? I would think not. The criminals'
> behavior isn't much altered by the presence of the government's police
> either. It's really about how well the good people are knit together
> than about the government's cops. The more people are isolated and
> unable to act the easier the prey they become for the criminals. It
> doesn't matter how many cops are around because they can't be
> everywhere.
>
> As to a country to be like from a standpoint of taxation and services
> I would chose lichtenstein. The ruling prince of Lichtenstein is on
> record as saying that a taxation rate of 6% is all that is needed to
> provide the basic services and anything more is tyrannical.

Does Lich. have a military? Border guards? Prisons? Poor people?
Does it get most of its money from things like banks HQed there?

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-11-24, edward ohare >
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:27:14 GMT, Dave Head >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, we just doubled the federal debt in the last 8 years with
>>>> mere cuts in income taxes, so I suppose getting rid of income tax
>>>> completely wil.... I know... it will produce more total tax
>>>> revenue!!!! Ronald Reagan taken to the max!
>>>
>>> The debt doubled by having wars on credit and corporate welfare and
>>> bailouts. Lowering taxes on individuals is never a bad thing.
>>
>> It is when it starves essential government services.
>
> essential government services are VERY few and don't require the
> federal income tax which came into being in 1913 with the federal
> reserve. What the federal government is needed for is very very
> little. Everything else is better done locally. That way if a
> government becomes too much of a burden you can move to the next
> city, county, or state.

I'd ask for a cite, but crazy stuff like that is all over the web -
usually written by well-off healthy white males.

On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> On 2008-11-24, edward ohare >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:27:14 GMT, Dave Head >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, we just doubled the federal debt in the last 8 years with
>>>>> mere cuts in income taxes, so I suppose getting rid of income tax
>>>>> completely wil.... I know... it will produce more total tax
>>>>> revenue!!!! Ronald Reagan taken to the max!
>>>>
>>>> The debt doubled by having wars on credit and corporate welfare and
>>>> bailouts. Lowering taxes on individuals is never a bad thing.
>>>
>>> It is when it starves essential government services.
>>
>> essential government services are VERY few and don't require the
>> federal income tax which came into being in 1913 with the federal
>> reserve. What the federal government is needed for is very very
>> little. Everything else is better done locally. That way if a
>> government becomes too much of a burden you can move to the next
>> city, county, or state.
>
> I'd ask for a cite, but crazy stuff like that is all over the web -
> usually written by well-off healthy white males.

So you must consider theft from some people for the benefit of some
other people an essential service. Only government can do what would be
illegal for a private person to do.

And if you need a cite for when the federal reserve and current federal
income tax came into being you're woefully ignorant.

On 2008-11-24, Lloyd > wrote:

>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.

> oh good Lord, a right-wing anti-government kook.

Everyone who is against theft by government is "a right-wing
anti-government kook" to a central planner.

>> 2) The huge overhead of cars made in the USA incurred from the income tax is
>> removed, and "Detroit Iron" gets really cheap.

> Makes no sense.

There is income tax (corporate or otherwise) is included in the price of
every product.


>> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine about the poor -
>> they'll get compensation for the basic necessities of life).

> Yeah, charge everybody another 30% when they buy a car. That'll get
> more people to buy cars!

I thought socialists and central planners loved all forms of taxation.
Isn't the huge VAT something we are supposed to see as an enlightened
form of european life? That's all he's saying is to have a VAT.

>> 5) People now have a whale of a lot more money by the amount of their income
>> tax witholding. *

> No they won't. If your tax is revenue neutral, in fact, the middle
> class will pay more because the rich will pay less.

The middle class will always pay the most regardless of what scheme.
That's the whole point of a progessive income tax, it's to make sure
those who are wealthy stay wealthy and in power. As far as a tax on
consumption those who are not wealthy can at least control how much they
are taxed. They can *choose* to buy less stuff while an income tax
steals it off the top. Both are vile, but a tax on consumption is
slightly less vile.

> What burden does the income tax put on cars?

How do you think corporations get the money to pay corporate income
taxes?

On 2008-11-24, Lloyd > wrote:
> On Nov 23, 11:20*pm, Brent P >
> wrote:
>> On 2008-11-24, Dave Head > wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:27:00 -0600, Brent P
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>On 2008-11-24, Dave Head > wrote:
>>
>> >>> 3) Replace the income tax with a consumption tax (don't whine about the poor -
>> >>> they'll get compensation for the basic necessities of life).
>>
>> >>Replace it with *NOTHING*. Stop having an empire that the country cannot
>> >>afford.
>>
>> > How do you propose to run the gov't at all without any taxes? Wanna go the
>> > Somalia route - no gov't at all? *I imagine we can do that, but nobody would
>> > like it, I think.
>>
>> Nice strawman. I said replace the _federal income tax_ with nothing.
>> Without the federal income tax, federal government spending would
>> have to be rolled back to something like level it was in the mid 1990s.
>
> Totally false and totally ridiculous.

Entirely true.

>> The federal income tax is not the only federal tax. Before you lash out
>> you might want to do a wee bit of basic research. Constitutionally
>> limited government would be rather small and cheap to operate anyway.

> Uh, the gov't is constitution, doofus.

You can has cheezeburger? The federal government is lawless and has
been so for many many years. Notice today's $45 billion given to the
rockefeller business known as citibank.

>> As to your Somalia nonsense, first of all even if the federal government
>> were eliminated entirely there would still be tons of government in the
>> USA. City, county, and state. A far away central government trying to
>> micromanage everything is a monumentally bad idea anyway. Secondly,
>> Somalia starts to recover when there is no government, the problems are
>> from those who are trying to impose one by force. In other words, the
>> criminals who either create or eventually infest government. The people
>> themselves get on quite well without some government parasites taking
>> half of what they earn.

>> Why do you think not having a government that is trying to micromanage
>> our lives is so scary? Would you kill your neighbor for his stuff if the
>> government's police weren't around? I would think not. The criminals'
>> behavior isn't much altered by the presence of the government's police
>> either. It's really about how well the good people are knit together
>> than about the government's cops. The more people are isolated and
>> unable to act the easier the prey they become for the criminals. It
>> doesn't matter how many cops are around because they can't be
>> everywhere.
>>
>> As to a country to be like from a standpoint of taxation and services
>> I would chose lichtenstein. The ruling prince of Lichtenstein is on
>> record as saying that a taxation rate of 6% is all that is needed to
>> provide the basic services and anything more is tyrannical.

> Does Lich. have a military? Border guards? Prisons? Poor people?
> Does it get most of its money from things like banks HQed there?

Heaven forbid the US stop being an empire with ~700 military bases
around the world and stop putting people in prison for their vices
(drug use). Don't worry lloyd, the US isn't going to care about freedom
any time soon. We'll just have left wing version of national socialism
now. We've even got a classical piece of fascism that's been lacking for
the last 8 years, a popular leader.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-11-24, marcodbeast > wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-11-24, edward ohare
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:27:14 GMT, Dave Head >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Repeal the income tax - ALL of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, we just doubled the federal debt in the last 8 years with
>>>>>> mere cuts in income taxes, so I suppose getting rid of income tax
>>>>>> completely wil.... I know... it will produce more total tax
>>>>>> revenue!!!! Ronald Reagan taken to the max!
>>>>>
>>>>> The debt doubled by having wars on credit and corporate welfare
>>>>> and bailouts. Lowering taxes on individuals is never a bad thing.
>>>>
>>>> It is when it starves essential government services.
>>>
>>> essential government services are VERY few and don't require the
>>> federal income tax which came into being in 1913 with the federal
>>> reserve. What the federal government is needed for is very very
>>> little. Everything else is better done locally. That way if a
>>> government becomes too much of a burden you can move to the next
>>> city, county, or state.
>>
>> I'd ask for a cite, but crazy stuff like that is all over the web -
>> usually written by well-off healthy white males.
>
> So you must consider theft from some people for the benefit of some
> other people

Yep - there we go, classic k00kery.

an essential service. Only government can do what would
> be illegal for a private person to do.

You just slid right off your 'city, county, or state' argument into the
no-tax abyss.

You are willing to stay off the tax-maintained roads, are you? If so, can
you afford ICBMs?