Consider buying American!

"Tony Harding" > wrote in message
...
> BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>> news:fmhsj.6463$Wr4.5418@trnddc05...
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>>>>
>>>> GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
>>>> ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>>>>
>>>> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>>>> they need, they are going to go under. Consider buying an American
>>>> car.
>>>>
>>>> Here are some American models recommended in the 2007 Consumer Reports
>>>> Annual Auto Issue:
>>>>
>>>> Buick Lacrosse
>>>> Buick Lucerne
>>>> Cadillac CTS
>>>> Cadillac CTS-V
>>>> Cadillac DTS
>>>> Chevrolet HHR
>>>> Chevrolet Impala
>>>> Chevrolet Malibu
>>>> Chevrolet Tahoe
>>>> Chrysler 300
>>>> Chrysler PT Cruiser
>>>> Dodge Durango
>>>> Ford Five Hundred
>>>> Ford Focus
>>>> Ford Freestyle
>>>> Ford Fusion
>>>> GMC Yukon
>>>> Jeep Liberty
>>>> Lincoln MKZ
>>>> Lincoln Town Car
>>>> Mercury Milan
>>>> Mercury Montego
>>>> Pontiac G6
>>>> Pontiac Torrent
>>>
>>> What about Toyotas and Hondas made in America?
>>>
>>> What the Ford Fusion, made in Mexico?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't the Michigan 3 make their vehicles relevant to me rather than
>>> the other way around?
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> Where do the profits go? The profits for Japanese manufacturers, no
>> matter where the car is built, go to Japan. It sucks revenue out of our
>> economy.
>
> Consumers are voting with their dollars, Detroit needs to change the way
> it does business or die.

Just level the playing field. Institute the identical taxes and tariffs on
Japanese cars as the Japanese place on American cars. Then let's see what
happens.

While Japanese companies do pay state and local taxes, just as do American
companies, Japanese cooperation do not pay a single penny in US corporate
taxes. No matter how many times you say otherwise, it will not change that
fact







"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:GLWsj.4797$rh.1911@trnddc02...
> Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>> In article <xOhsj.6466$Wr4.4683@trnddc05>,
>> says...
>>
>>> The Japanese subsidies of Toyota and Honda pay corporate income tax to
>>> states and the federal gov't as well as local property and other taxes.
>>> How much in taxes they pay is not known.
>>
>> Maybe not by you. Data from EDGAROnline:
>>
>> In 2007, Toyota Motor Co. paid $7.609 billion in taxes.
>> In 2007, Honda Motor Co. paid $2.4127 billion in taxes.
>> In 2007, General Motors had a $2.785 billion tax credit on losses.
>> In 2007, Ford Motor Co. had a $2.646 billion tax credit on losses
>
> These figures are total taxes, and include taxes paid outside the US.
>
>> Chrysler is now private, so does not report financials.
>>
>>
>>> You're welcome to search the internet or the even the Toyota and Honda
>>> websites to find out how many people they employ.
>>
>> According to Hoovers:
>>
>> American Honda Motor Co. employed 25,000 people in 2005.
>>
>> Toyota is organized differently, with subsidiaries in different
>> locations:
>>
>> Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. employed
>> 5,600 people in 2007.
>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. employed 5,000 people in 2007.
>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. employed 3,000 people in 2007.
>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. employed 2,295 people in 2007.
>> Total: 15,895 people.
>
> Although not individually reported by Toyota or the US government, each of
> the Toyota companies are US companies that pay US taxes.
>
> Toyota spends nearly $30 billion a year in the US on goods and services,
> including auto parts. So there are a lot more workers indirectly employed.
>
> I wonder what the number is for each of the Michigan 3.
>
> Jeff
>
>> --Gene

I do not believe you are correct, entirely.

I worked for Toshiba for ten years, and they were formed in this country as
Toshiba America, with several operating companies -- Electronic Components,
Information Systems, Medical Systems, etc. -- below that. I don't recall
exactly, but I think there are 5 (five) operating companies here in America,
with each company having several divisions.

Perhaps this structure is for purely management purposes, but I am almost
certain that the company was structured this way due to tax law. Toshiba
Corp., in Japan did not pay US taxes, but the operating companies in America
did pay US taxes. It would benefit Toshiba to pay income tax on American
operations in America IF the US tax rate was lower than the Japanese tax
rate.





"Mike hunt" > wrote in message
...
> While Japanese companies do pay state and local taxes, just as do American
> companies, Japanese cooperation do not pay a single penny in US corporate
> taxes. No matter how many times you say otherwise, it will not change
> that fact
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:GLWsj.4797$rh.1911@trnddc02...
>> Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>>> In article <xOhsj.6466$Wr4.4683@trnddc05>,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> The Japanese subsidies of Toyota and Honda pay corporate income tax to
>>>> states and the federal gov't as well as local property and other taxes.
>>>> How much in taxes they pay is not known.
>>>
>>> Maybe not by you. Data from EDGAROnline:
>>>
>>> In 2007, Toyota Motor Co. paid $7.609 billion in taxes.
>>> In 2007, Honda Motor Co. paid $2.4127 billion in taxes.
>>> In 2007, General Motors had a $2.785 billion tax credit on losses.
>>> In 2007, Ford Motor Co. had a $2.646 billion tax credit on losses
>>
>> These figures are total taxes, and include taxes paid outside the US.
>>
>>> Chrysler is now private, so does not report financials.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You're welcome to search the internet or the even the Toyota and Honda
>>>> websites to find out how many people they employ.
>>>
>>> According to Hoovers:
>>>
>>> American Honda Motor Co. employed 25,000 people in 2005.
>>>
>>> Toyota is organized differently, with subsidiaries in different
>>> locations:
>>>
>>> Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. employed
>>> 5,600 people in 2007.
>>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. employed 5,000 people in
>>> 2007.
>>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. employed 3,000 people in 2007.
>>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. employed 2,295 people in 2007.
>>> Total: 15,895 people.
>>
>> Although not individually reported by Toyota or the US government, each
>> of the Toyota companies are US companies that pay US taxes.
>>
>> Toyota spends nearly $30 billion a year in the US on goods and services,
>> including auto parts. So there are a lot more workers indirectly
>> employed.
>>
>> I wonder what the number is for each of the Michigan 3.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> --Gene
>
>

Mike hunt wrote:
> While Japanese companies do pay state and local taxes, just as do American
> companies, Japanese cooperation do not pay a single penny in US corporate
> taxes. No matter how many times you say otherwise, it will not change that
> fact
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> news:GLWsj.4797$rh.1911@trnddc02...
>> Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:
>>> In article <xOhsj.6466$Wr4.4683@trnddc05>,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> The Japanese subsidies of Toyota and Honda pay corporate income tax to
>>>> states and the federal gov't as well as local property and other taxes.
>>>> How much in taxes they pay is not known.
>>> Maybe not by you. Data from EDGAROnline:
>>>
>>> In 2007, Toyota Motor Co. paid $7.609 billion in taxes.
>>> In 2007, Honda Motor Co. paid $2.4127 billion in taxes.
>>> In 2007, General Motors had a $2.785 billion tax credit on losses.
>>> In 2007, Ford Motor Co. had a $2.646 billion tax credit on losses
>> These figures are total taxes, and include taxes paid outside the US.
>>
>>> Chrysler is now private, so does not report financials.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You're welcome to search the internet or the even the Toyota and Honda
>>>> websites to find out how many people they employ.
>>> According to Hoovers:
>>>
>>> American Honda Motor Co. employed 25,000 people in 2005.
>>>
>>> Toyota is organized differently, with subsidiaries in different
>>> locations:
>>>
>>> Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc. employed
>>> 5,600 people in 2007.
>>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. employed 5,000 people in 2007.
>>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc. employed 3,000 people in 2007.
>>> Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Texas, Inc. employed 2,295 people in 2007.
>>> Total: 15,895 people.
>> Although not individually reported by Toyota or the US government, each of
>> the Toyota companies are US companies that pay US taxes.
>>
>> Toyota spends nearly $30 billion a year in the US on goods and services,
>> including auto parts. So there are a lot more workers indirectly employed.
>>
>> I wonder what the number is for each of the Michigan 3.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> --Gene


The problem that you don't understand, Mike, is that the subsidies of
Toyota and Honda are American corporations that pay federal income
taxes, too. Who owns the corporations does not matter.

Jeff

On Feb 13, 7:15 pm, dizzy > wrote:
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >>> The trouble [for the US car industry] is that 25 years after that 735i
> >>> was built it is probably still better than most US cars sold today in
> >>> almost every department. Some of them are still laughable e.g. the
> >>> Chrysler PT Cruiser - poor drive, poor ride, poor handling, poor
> >>> performance, poor trim, poor seats, poor reliability and so on. You
> >>> would be better off in a ten year old base entry model 3 series than a
> >>> new one of these.
> >But you don't have to replace it after just a few years.
>
> >Obviously cars are / were not taxed as much in the USA and over there a BMW
> >was a premium import.
>
> >Where it was made it would be a lot cheaper.
>
> >The main point was that a car designed and made in Europe a generation ago
> >is still better than most US made cars now.
>
> >The corrolory would be that current EU mass market cars (e.g. Ford Mondeo,
> >Vauxhall Vectra etc.) are better than their BMW market equivalents (3 and 5
> >series) of the mid 80's.
>
> >To put it another way the US is about 25 years behind Europe on car design,
> >build and quality control.
>
> You're thinking is flawed. It does not matter how many years have
> passed - an expensive care will always "beat" an inexpensive car in
> many of the areas you mentioned.
>
> On the other hand, newer cars should be expected to perform better on
> a per-dollar basis, have more and better safety features, and more
> modern conveniences.

I'm sorry but consumer reports recently showcased how a brand new
2008 BMW 7 series was lfar ess reliable than a 7 year old Lexus LS400.

Expensive cars are definitely NOT automatically more reliable cars.

CD

In article >,
still just me > wrote:
> >And in the old days, the electrical systems on Jags were just bad.

> No one ever said anything good about Lucas electrics in a car.

Lucas made the electrics for Rolls Royce and they were fine. Jaguar were
notorious for beating their suppliers down cost wise. The first XJ6 used
the very cheapest switch gear in the Lucas line up.

--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 15 Feb 2008 00:04:39 GMT, "John Q. Public" > wrote:
>
>My soon-to-be-father-in-law is a Ford retiree. His health plan pays
>NOTHING for office visits.

Boo ****ing hoo. Pass the Kleenex.
--
Dan.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:31:54 GMT, "BaJoRi" > wrote:

>
>"Tony Harding" > wrote in message
...
>> BaJoRi wrote:
>>>
>>> "Jeff" > wrote in message
>>> news:fmhsj.6463$Wr4.5418@trnddc05...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23124844/
>>>>>
>>>>> GM just made it known that they lost 39 billion in 2007, the largest
>>>>> ever annual loss for a US automaker.
>>>>>
>>>>> The big three are losing money, and if we don't give them the support
>>>>> they need, they are going to go under. Consider buying an American
>>>>> car.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are some American models recommended in the 2007 Consumer Reports
>>>>> Annual Auto Issue:
>>>>>
>>>>> Buick Lacrosse
>>>>> Buick Lucerne
>>>>> Cadillac CTS
>>>>> Cadillac CTS-V
>>>>> Cadillac DTS
>>>>> Chevrolet HHR
>>>>> Chevrolet Impala
>>>>> Chevrolet Malibu
>>>>> Chevrolet Tahoe
>>>>> Chrysler 300
>>>>> Chrysler PT Cruiser
>>>>> Dodge Durango
>>>>> Ford Five Hundred
>>>>> Ford Focus
>>>>> Ford Freestyle
>>>>> Ford Fusion
>>>>> GMC Yukon
>>>>> Jeep Liberty
>>>>> Lincoln MKZ
>>>>> Lincoln Town Car
>>>>> Mercury Milan
>>>>> Mercury Montego
>>>>> Pontiac G6
>>>>> Pontiac Torrent
>>>>
>>>> What about Toyotas and Hondas made in America?
>>>>
>>>> What the Ford Fusion, made in Mexico?
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the Michigan 3 make their vehicles relevant to me rather than
>>>> the other way around?
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> Where do the profits go? The profits for Japanese manufacturers, no
>>> matter where the car is built, go to Japan. It sucks revenue out of our
>>> economy.
>>
>> Consumers are voting with their dollars, Detroit needs to change the way
>> it does business or die.
>
>Just level the playing field. Institute the identical taxes and tariffs on
>Japanese cars as the Japanese place on American cars. Then let's see what
>happens.

There are no tariffs on auto imports to Japan.

"Jeff" > wrote in message
news:6Cpsj.39$dh.10@trnddc01...
> Michael Yeager wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:52:26 GMT, Jeff >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> In article <rfmsj.26$dh.21@trnddc01>, Jeff >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some cars made by XXXX (put in name of Korean, Japanese or American
>>>>> car company) are really good, some are so-so and some are really bad.
>>>>> That's true for all car companies. The proportion of bad American cars
>>>>> used to be higher, but now, the American car companies are coming out
>>>>> with some really good cars. And, the Japanese car companies made some
>>>>> really bad cars, too.
>>>> Joe Sixpack has $25,000 to spend on a car. That's a bunch of money to
>>>> him, and he doesn't want to waste it.
>>>>
>>>> No matter what he does, he rolls the dice. So, what does he do?
>>>>
>>>> Does he buy GM or Ford or Chrysler, with a track record that would make
>>>> a Russian tractory factory blush from embarassment? Or does he buy a
>>>> Japanese nameplate--where, to be sure, one could get a bad car, but the
>>>> odds are so incredibly against that?
>>> The old track record for the Michigan 3 isn't so good. But the track
>>> record for the more recent cars is good.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> Ford is recalling a ****LOAD of SUVs and vans (2006 and 2007 models)
>> over problems that can result in the car burning to the ground. Seems
>> they've had a lot of these over the past decade or so...
>
> And Toyota has had a lot of recalls last year and the year before.
>
> Please tell me the automaker who never makes any mistakes.
>
> Jeff

Tucker!

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Z0qsj.42$dh.16@trnddc01>, Jeff >
> wrote:
>
>> > But it's not NEARLY enough of a track record compared to the Japanese
>> > nameplates--not nearly enough for Joe Sixpack to throw his hard earned
>> > $25,000.
>>
>> Funny, the only carmaker to have increased sales last month was GM.
>>
>> I guess you don't know Joe.
>
> You keep wanting to focus on things so narrowly, and hope that you can
> convince someone that it's a trend.
>
> "The only carmaker to have increased sales last month was GM." Last
> month. Show me the last 20 years.
>
> "I found a lemon Toyota once." Once. Show me the last 200 million
> vehicles. GM, Ford, Chrysler--losers. Japanese nameplates--winners.
>
You won't get a lemon at Toyota of Orange.