Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Tax rebate for American car buyers?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 18, 2009 | 12:33 AM
  #16  
skorpion317's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by Bearcat Steve
Shares of GM and F are sold on the NYSE as well as many foreign exchanges. As such, there are many owners of each who are not in the U.S. None of the automobile companies are strickly American, Japanese, or Korean anymore. That hasn't existed in years. There is no such thing as an "American" car by your definition.
I'll attempt to explain this as simply as possible.

"American auto manufacturer" = an automobile manufacturer created and based in the United States of America. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are all American auto manufacturers.

"Foreign auto manufacturer" = an automobile manufacturer created and based in a foreign country, not the U.S.A. Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, etc. are examples.

Originally Posted by R377
You start running into the thorny issue of what cars should be given this rebate. You say "American auto manufacturer" ... so does that mean the Australian-built Pontiac G8 gets a rebate? If not, how about the Oshawa-built Camaro, which has significantly higher US content but still doesn't employ US assemblers? Or would a Kentucky-built Toyota Camry be more deserving?
I'm getting kind of tired of the "what's actually an American car?" straw-man question. Truthfully, it doesn't matter where the car is built. A Camaro built in Canada is still an American car, since the company that produces it is American. A Camry built in Kentucky is still a Japanese car, since the company that produces it is Japanese. A BMW built in South Carolina is a German car, etc. etc. Where the car is manufactured does not determine where the money goes once that car is purchased.
Old Apr 18, 2009 | 10:18 AM
  #17  
El Duce's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by skorpion317
I'll attempt to explain this as simply as possible.

"American auto manufacturer" = an automobile manufacturer created and based in the United States of America. General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are all American auto manufacturers.

"Foreign auto manufacturer" = an automobile manufacturer created and based in a foreign country, not the U.S.A. Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, etc. are examples.



I'm getting kind of tired of the "what's actually an American car?" straw-man question. Truthfully, it doesn't matter where the car is built. A Camaro built in Canada is still an American car, since the company that produces it is American. A Camry built in Kentucky is still a Japanese car, since the company that produces it is Japanese. A BMW built in South Carolina is a German car, etc. etc. Where the car is manufactured does not determine where the money goes once that car is purchased.
It's not a 'strawman" argument. If a Camry that any of us buy is built in Kentucky, then the more Camry's we buy, then the more gainfully employed that plant is. Therefore those workers get more hours, make more money and spend that money in Kentucky buying groceries, going to the movies, etc.

If we buy more G8s, then those plant workers in Australia are more gainfully employed, get more hours and then buy more stuff in Australia.

Simply looking at the label on the hood of a car is archaic and shows a lack of understanding of the most basic tenants of economics.

And as already mentioned, all of this subsidizing has to come from somewhere. The Big 3 don't have any money to magically pay for this. Besides, they've already tried the "we'll lay cash of the hood if you buy it" bit over the last decade and we've seen where that's gotten them.
Old Apr 18, 2009 | 02:45 PM
  #18  
super83Z's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,214
From: City of Champions, MA, USA
Originally Posted by El Duce
It's not a 'strawman" argument. If a Camry that any of us buy is built in Kentucky, then the more Camry's we buy, then the more gainfully employed that plant is. Therefore those workers get more hours, make more money and spend that money in Kentucky buying groceries, going to the movies, etc.

If we buy more G8s, then those plant workers in Australia are more gainfully employed, get more hours and then buy more stuff in Australia.

Simply looking at the label on the hood of a car is archaic and shows a lack of understanding of the most basic tenants of economics.

And as already mentioned, all of this subsidizing has to come from somewhere. The Big 3 don't have any money to magically pay for this. Besides, they've already tried the "we'll lay cash of the hood if you buy it" bit over the last decade and we've seen where that's gotten them.
Is it that you just don't get it or you just want to be argumentative?

We aren't talking about one or two models, or a plant full of workers, but the entire parent company.
Old Apr 18, 2009 | 04:04 PM
  #19  
skorpion317's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by El Duce
And as already mentioned, all of this subsidizing has to come from somewhere. The Big 3 don't have any money to magically pay for this. Besides, they've already tried the "we'll lay cash of the hood if you buy it" bit over the last decade and we've seen where that's gotten them.
The problem with the Big 3 offering incentives is that it cuts into their profit margins. With this idea, the companies aren't offering incentives - the government is, as a way to encourage purchasing of American products. The companies still get to make money, while the buyers still get their discount.

The incentive programs the Big 3 have been doing were actually pretty successful in generating sales. As I said, the main problem is that it reduced their profits.
Old Apr 19, 2009 | 11:40 AM
  #20  
El Duce's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by skorpion317
The problem with the Big 3 offering incentives is that it cuts into their profit margins. With this idea, the companies aren't offering incentives - the government is, as a way to encourage purchasing of American products. The companies still get to make money, while the buyers still get their discount.

The incentive programs the Big 3 have been doing were actually pretty successful in generating sales. As I said, the main problem is that it reduced their profits.
Why should I as a tax payer subsidize someone's purchase of a car? That's what this is. It's not much different than me subsidizing my neighbor's mortgage.
Old Apr 19, 2009 | 03:04 PM
  #21  
skorpion317's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,209
Originally Posted by El Duce
Why should I as a tax payer subsidize someone's purchase of a car? That's what this is. It's not much different than me subsidizing my neighbor's mortgage.
If you buy an American car, you can benefit from it also.

And it's not like you're paying for someone else's irresponsibility. Your neighbor buying a house they can't afford and then getting government money when they can't pay the mortgage is different from someone buying a car and getting a tax break from the government to encourage the purchase of an American car. You're not paying to let that person keep the car if they can't make the payments.
Old Apr 20, 2009 | 02:20 PM
  #22  
Brez's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 204
From: Vancouver Canada
I think its a great idea but the foreign manufacturers would not take any of it.
Old Apr 20, 2009 | 02:35 PM
  #23  
El Duce's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by skorpion317
If you buy an American car, you can benefit from it also.
So I have to go spend $30k on a car I may or may not actually think is better than the competition in order to benefit, no matter that the car is made by workers in another country? Not only that, but then I have to pay taxes on that purchase, so I can recieve some sort of my own tax money back in the form of an "incentive?" It's my money to begin with.

Originally Posted by skorpion
And it's not like you're paying for someone else's irresponsibility.
No, you're right. I'm paying so my neighbor buys a car that in all likelihood he doesn't really need.

Originally Posted by skorpion
Your neighbor buying a house they can't afford and then getting government money when they can't pay the mortgage is different from someone buying a car and getting a tax break from the government to encourage the purchase of an American car.
He's not getting a tax break. He's getting my tax money.
Old Apr 22, 2009 | 03:57 PM
  #24  
Bearcat Steve's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 210
From: Cincinnati, OH
Originally Posted by super83Z
Nobody on the internet reads posts anymore. I said "country of origin" ****ing read the post or shut up.
All childishness aside, I did read the post.

Precisely what does "Country of Origin" mean discounting the U.S. Government's meaning? If all of the parts are made in Mexico and a car is assembled in Ohio, does that make it an "American Car"? What if the parts are made here and it is assembled in Mexico? American Car? What if -- and this reflects reality -- parts are sourced all over the world, some sub assemblies are done in various countries and the final assembly is done in the U.S. American Car?

Assuming you can read as well as you can throw insults, the point of my post is that the meaning of a "domestic automobile" and a "foreign automobile" completely lost their meaning many years ago. The terms are merely remants of a time gone by.

So........

Is living in the past anything like living in Pleasantville?
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Feffman
Autocross and Road Racing Technique
4
Oct 9, 2015 05:42 AM
Kato
Parts For Sale
3
Jan 26, 2015 09:21 PM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Dec 5, 2014 11:42 AM
PFYC
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
0
Dec 1, 2014 08:08 AM
USAirman93
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
4
Nov 24, 2014 03:37 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:56 PM.