Got to love Detroit
- Thread starter L98Terror
- Start date
L98Terror
Club Member
mdhmi said:
That's odd it's showed up on every P&L I've looked at in the past couple months and most of them have the govenment making more than the owners which is :bs:
Also my friend that's in the rental business had to pay it and he lost money last year. (not sure when and how the SBT comes into play)
ShadowRuleZ
Club Member
Why would we want more mfg jobs? It's a dying job classification that's being outsourced for pennies on the dollar (remember politicians wanting to relabel fast food as manufacturing?). I'd rather have a google requiring a higher level education any day over a manufacturing plant.
Heck, take electrolux in greenville. Granholm offered them no taxes and the employees offered to take huge cuts and they still picked up and moved to mexico.
Heck, take electrolux in greenville. Granholm offered them no taxes and the employees offered to take huge cuts and they still picked up and moved to mexico.
ShadowRuleZ
Club Member
And the SBT was repealed by the republican michigan congress against granholm's wishes since the congress did not have a replacement. What sense does it make to eliminate something when you don't have an alternative or a replacement for it? I suppose it did force the issue to replace the revenue in some format, but it seems reckless to do so without something else ready to take its place.
Dropd94Ranger
Forum Member
This is whats suppressing our auto. industry! I just don't get how foreign companies can be given these huge tax breaks to come over here while our domestic companies are struggling to maintain profits. Then ontop of that people bitch and moan saying they are making cars that "people don't want" and that they are not competitive! If the American OEM's were given tax breaks along with the foreign makers there wouldn't be that much of a problem with them. It's comparable to cell phone companies programs where you recieve a free phone and cheap plan when your a new customer but if you've been with them for almost 100 years like Ford, or GM have then you don't get shit! Or you could look at a sports team being given millions of dollars worth of trainers and coaches while other teams get nothing and then the fans are complaining that they aren't competitive enough.
And all this knocking on the Unions making too much, yeah I agree that they don't need to make THAT much but how about we look at the white collar management and executive jobs. Are those jobs really worth MILLIONS in someones salary?! If one person took a few hundred thousand dollar pay cut, he would still have a job, rather than 5 or 6 worker's NOT having a job at all. If a business is hurting, the blue collar workers shouldn't be the only people taking the blow EVERYONE on the payroll should!
L98Terror
Club Member
ShadowRuleZ said:
Easy, spend less. What sense does it make to handcuff businesses that are paying almost all of the taxes. (before you say employees pay taxes the employer pays wages in which taxes are paid from). The more you tax a business the harder it is for that business to grow, a bigger business pay more in taxes. Make it too expensive and businesses leave.
L98Terror
Club Member
Dropd94Ranger said:
Do you understand what a tax break is? The Govn't isn't giving them money they are just allowing them to have less stolen from them. Are you also suggesting that if Ford or GM went to build a plant somewhere they won't receive a break as well?
My guess is the states aren't giving the companies anything they are just negotiating a tax rate from the new business ahead of time. In the end the state & fed govn't will net way more tax revenues then if the business decided to set up shop somewhere else.
One of the few things I think the govn't should be spending money on is infrastructure.
Can you please provide details of the tax breaks given?
.
ShadowRuleZ
Club Member
Dr. Teeth said:
For this coming year, not the existing year.
uluz2a6
Senior Member
Q:
When the Big 3 move out for slave labor wages, does the price of cars drop? OR do the executives just line their pockets?
A reasonable and fair compensation system for executives and workers is fundamental to the creation of long-term corporate value. However, the past two decades have seen an unprecedented growth in compensation only for top executives and a dramatic increase in the ratio between the compensation of executives and their employees.
Boards of directors are responsible for setting CEO pay. Too often, directors have awarded compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and retain executives and have rewarded even poorly performing CEOs. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees.
Excessive CEO pay takes dollars out of the pockets of shareholders—including the retirement savings of America’s working families. Moreover, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company, its shareholders and employees.
For example, recent studies have linked CEO stock options to accounting fraud and other financial restatements. Stock option grants promise executives all the benefit of share price increases with none of the risk of share price declines. For this reason, stock options can serve as powerful incentive for executives to cook the books.
Some CEOs may have far greater control over their pay than anybody previously suspected. According to new research, certain CEOs may be backdating their own stock option grants to maximize their value. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Year after year, some companies’ top executives received options on unusually propitious dates."
Excessive CEO pay is fundamentally a corporate governance problem. When CEOs have too much power in the boardroom, they are able to extract what economists’ call “economic rents” from shareholders—the equivalent of monopoly profits. These rents are known as “agency costs,” and arise from the separation of ownership and control.
The board of directors is supposed to protect shareholder interests and minimize these agency costs. However, at approximately two-thirds of companies, the CEO is the board’s chair. When one single person serves as both chair and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance.
CEOs also dominate the election of directors. The vast majority of directors are hand-picked by incumbent management. Because of the proxy rules, it is cost prohibitive for shareholders to run their own director candidates. Moreover, even if a majority of shareholders withhold support from directors, they are still elected to the board at most companies.
Ultimately, shareholders have to be able to trust their boards of directors to set responsible CEO pay packages. For this reason, CEO pay will be reformed only when corporate boards are made more accountable. Until then, CEOs will continue to influence the size and form of their own compensation, and CEO pay will continue to rise.
When the Big 3 move out for slave labor wages, does the price of cars drop? OR do the executives just line their pockets?
A reasonable and fair compensation system for executives and workers is fundamental to the creation of long-term corporate value. However, the past two decades have seen an unprecedented growth in compensation only for top executives and a dramatic increase in the ratio between the compensation of executives and their employees.
Boards of directors are responsible for setting CEO pay. Too often, directors have awarded compensation packages that go well beyond what is required to attract and retain executives and have rewarded even poorly performing CEOs. These executive pay excesses come at the expense of shareholders as well as the company and its employees.
Excessive CEO pay takes dollars out of the pockets of shareholders—including the retirement savings of America’s working families. Moreover, a poorly designed executive compensation package can reward decisions that are not in the long-term interests of a company, its shareholders and employees.
For example, recent studies have linked CEO stock options to accounting fraud and other financial restatements. Stock option grants promise executives all the benefit of share price increases with none of the risk of share price declines. For this reason, stock options can serve as powerful incentive for executives to cook the books.
Some CEOs may have far greater control over their pay than anybody previously suspected. According to new research, certain CEOs may be backdating their own stock option grants to maximize their value. According to The Wall Street Journal, “Year after year, some companies’ top executives received options on unusually propitious dates."
Excessive CEO pay is fundamentally a corporate governance problem. When CEOs have too much power in the boardroom, they are able to extract what economists’ call “economic rents” from shareholders—the equivalent of monopoly profits. These rents are known as “agency costs,” and arise from the separation of ownership and control.
The board of directors is supposed to protect shareholder interests and minimize these agency costs. However, at approximately two-thirds of companies, the CEO is the board’s chair. When one single person serves as both chair and CEO, it is impossible to objectively monitor and evaluate his or her own performance.
CEOs also dominate the election of directors. The vast majority of directors are hand-picked by incumbent management. Because of the proxy rules, it is cost prohibitive for shareholders to run their own director candidates. Moreover, even if a majority of shareholders withhold support from directors, they are still elected to the board at most companies.
Ultimately, shareholders have to be able to trust their boards of directors to set responsible CEO pay packages. For this reason, CEO pay will be reformed only when corporate boards are made more accountable. Until then, CEOs will continue to influence the size and form of their own compensation, and CEO pay will continue to rise.
The unions are a mixed bag. Overall they were good for labor but the UAW got too big for its britches and definitely helped screw up the domestic auto industry. Especially when they didn't see the writing on the wall and offer up concessions *before* the shit hit the fan. Keep in mind, working conditions in *most* jobs and certainly wages and benefits in *most* jobs (especially non-union manufacturing plants) have been helped indirectly by the union. There is no way Toyota, Nissan or Honda would be paying anywhere near what they do now if it weren't for the threat of unionization.
As someone else stated earlier, legacy costs aren't helping the Big 3 either. Each active GM employee will be supporting somewhere around 3 retirees by the time all the buyouts are complete.
As someone else stated earlier, legacy costs aren't helping the Big 3 either. Each active GM employee will be supporting somewhere around 3 retirees by the time all the buyouts are complete.
mdhmi
Club Member
Dr. Teeth said:
You pay your dental hygienists minimum wage? :icon_eek:
Dr. Teeth said:
The SBT is being eliminated next year. The SBT accounts for roughly $2,000,000,000 per year in state funding.
So, for all the people who bitched about the SBT - guess what it's going to be replaced with?
Probably a combination of a higher and more broad sales tax, a business tax with a different name, perhaps a higher state income tax, perhaps vastly increased Drivers Responsibility fees, property taxes, etc.
The point is that government isn't going to shrink.
murph
Club Member
uluz2a6 said:
Well I would love to know what CEO that you know of that has had an increase in pay in the last year. I know of a couple that are customer's of mine who have done nothing but bitch about the fact that thier salaries have fallen since the economy has gone bad. Plus my uncle who's the president of Lear seating corporation aslo has commented on how his pay was effected by the economy and not the better....
So again Kurt go ahead and copy and paste another paragraph from one of your Democratic web boards that isn't true.....
murph
