1. Glad you speak for what passes as "normal people" in your view (or the lounge for that matter). However, in the real world of automobile sales and income from actual sales volume, not the sub-terrain enviroment shielded from sunlight and fresh air, the Cobalt is selling extremely well and is scoring well with buyers..... actual buyers.

BTW: the Cobalt SS is made of the same material as the base Cobalt, yet in your eyes, Cobalt looks "el cheapo" but SS doesn't?


2. Sure the HHR is patterened after the PT Cruiser. However, the HHR is a better PT Cruiser. I'm glad you feel comfortable bringing your mom in the conversation to back you up, but the truth is that the HHR is a success in the general public as well. Out here in California, you can barely sneeze without hitting one. With all due respect to your mom, HHRs look awesome. That's without periods or mood swings...... you're still in high school, aren't you?

3. You slam the new Impala, yet you'd buy a Toyota. Now I don't know what type of deals you are arranging in the shower after working out with that Toyota sales manager you mention, but if he's talking you into buying a stripped Avalon at the price a loaded V8 Impala SS is going for, I can only say that whatever is happening to you to get this type of deal is happening to you twice.

4. As for Corvette being a rich person's car, at $45,000 it's a car "empty nesters" get. The kids are done with college and are on their own, the house is mostly paid off, the person now has some extra money, and he's always wanted a Corvette. You can also take a look on most military bases. You're bound to see a new Corvette here and there owned by enlisted men who saved money on deployments. Hardly a rich bunch of guys.

5. I can't afford a Cadillac, but that doesn't mean I'm going to criticize them for becoming a status symbol and doing extremely well in sales. Not intrested in buying sour grapes today, so you can sell yours someplace else.

6. Solstice production numbers are 20,000. The point is?

7. You want appealing and affordable at GM? I'm guessing you mean the average median household income in the US for 2004 ($44,384 according to the US Census) on a payment plan of 60 months at a sub-10% intrest rate), so here you go:

Chevrolet Impala base, LT, and SS
Chevrolet Cobalt base, LT, and SS
Pontiac Grand Prix GT & GXP
Pontiac G6 (entire lineup)
Chevrolet HHR (entire lineup)
Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS (I'm excluding the base model)
Pontiac Solstice
Buick Lecrosse

And if it's only you and your spouce sharing that $44K, you can throw in the Pontiac GTO & the Cadillac CTS (base model).

I purposely left out trucks, SUVs, and crossovers. You do know GM still owns 60% of the large truck & SUV market, right?


I think the Impala & Lecrosse are pretty non exciting rides. But I also have to say that the Toyota showroom is nothing but an applience store. Honda is primarily a woman's-car dealer (FAR more women buy new Hondas than men). Outside of Infinity and the 350Z, Nissan is streaching the thin line between bad car design & pornography. And giving credit where it's due, Mitsubishi and Mazda are the only Pacific imports that seem to hit both the quality and design target.

But if you prefer a Corolla over something else for the same price and equiptment level, that's your preference. I'd pick a Charger R/T over an Impala myself. But I also realize that Impala is a very good and sucessful car for GM because I can separate my personal tastes from the actual marketplace.

 

The VW interiors look pretty decent but the problem is the car and the interior tend to fall apart.

 

Where is the banana on fire smilie?
:bananadea

 

Interesting article that give a little insight into GM's problems

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10265992/site/newsweek/

 

That may have been the most superb example of ownership I have ever witnessed in the years I have been lurking on this site. Kudos Guion, that was impressive!

 

While GM's design and marketing ability can be debated, what is for sure is something often overlooked...until mid April--taxes.

Its quite simple, yet, not the complete solution to the problem--again, GM's design and marketing ability can be debated.

Every car manufactored in America, with American hands, and by an American company (i.e GM--pretty much the only American company left) is subject to the most strict punishment any manufactor could ask for--the federal tax code.

How can we expect GM to compete with Mercedes (and every other foreign company) when they aren't subject to the same scrutiny?

Here's the math:

Current U.S tax system (income tax):

A Cadillac manufactured in the United States and sold in the US includes the cost of inclusive tax in it’s sale price sticker.

A Mercedes manufactured in Germany and sold in the US is reimbursed by the German government the taxes paid during production and avoids the American income tax.

Advantage: Mercedes.

Is it any surprise why our foreign competitors are leading in automotive sales when our country’s own tax system caters to foreign companies?

A comparison of competing products for sale in the United States to Americans under the FairTax* system:

A Cadillac is manufactured in the United States and sold in the US completely FREE of taxes during production. Taxes are collected one time at the retail level (meaning the consumer pays the tax—that’s called a sales tax.)

A Mercedes is manufactured in Germany and sold in the US similar to before, but now faces dramatically heightened competition due to the drastic release of production burden formerly cast upon the American manufacturer. Now that companies can manufacture goods in America and not pay ANY taxes during production—including taxes paid just to employ the hands needed to manufacture—the German company is encouraged to bring it’s assembly line to America to produce goods cheaper.

Advantage: America.

Abolishing the income tax will drastically reduce the burden of manufacturing in our country. It will bring jobs back into our nation, encourage savings which yield a dramatic increase in our nation’s GDP. It will eliminate the necessity of complying with rigorous IRS tax codes every year—since no longer are we taxing on income—which would, in return, put $250 Billion back into the consumer’s pocket.

Under a tax structure like the above mentioned, do you think we’d ever read articles like the one below written by Joseph Szczesny of thecarconnection.com, titled “Chrysler Eases By Ford, GM”?


While General Motors and Ford nurse serious battle wounds, the Chrysler Group continues to demonstrate that there is still a good deal of life left in the domestic auto industry.
The Chrysler Group reported a respectable if not spectacular four-percent sales increase in September, a time when the other domestic brands were faltering. It was the 18th consecutive month in which the Chrysler Group has managed to post a sales increase - one of the longest streaks in the industry.

Competitors such as GM groused that Chrysler raised incentives last month, but overall the DaimlerChrysler unit’s use of incentives, while generous, seemed to have been more strategic measures than the broad campaigns used by Ford and GM. In addition, while GM and Ford have been hit by a sharp fall in sport-utility vehicle sales, sales of Jeep-brand vehicles and the Ram pickup trucks have held up fairly well. Sales of the Dodge Durango have slipped, but Chrysler has gained ground from the robust showing of smaller vehicles such as the PT Cruiser and Neon, which jumped 15 percent last month.

* The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a rebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar revenue neutrality, and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This non-partisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax – collected by existing state sales tax authorities. The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. So it is also cost neutral – the final cost for goods and services changes little under the FairTax. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

** Mr. Loffredo, vice president of DaimlerChrysler, during a testimony before Congress offered the following in hopes to inspire tax reform; “The U.S tax system puts global companies at a decisive disadvantage. [W]hen the time came to chose whether the new company should be a U.S company or a foreign company, management chose a company organized under the laws of Germany.” The would-be “ChryslerDaimler” would face a 67.5% tax rate, while the actual DaimlerChrysler, headquartered in Germany, pays only 44%.

 

Higher sales taxes?

No thanks.

Simple rule:
The government gets X amount of dollars per year from all tax sources.
The burden is the burden.

Shifting the burden from one place to another is just a shell game. Particularly when a sales tax penalizes those least able to pay with a higher tax burden.

Now, I'm all for lower taxes, but the way to get it done is to cut them across the board and lower the amount of money the government gets ever year, thereby forcing efficiency.

Cut taxes across the board 10%, and cut government spending by 10% and we've got something to work with.

Finally, your comparison misses a HUGE primary issue in the debate - Germans pay nearly the highest combined tax rates on the PLANET, Germany's economy is right now in the crapper, unemployment is rampant and they are being out-competed on their own home turf by Eastern Europe.

While the US automobile industry is certainly hurting badly, all in all we're kicking a$$ and taking names in lots of other industries.

We OWN computers and software lock, stock and barrel.
We OWN pharmacuticals.
We are the high-tech standard of the world, particularly in medical, military & aerospace.

Decreasing the tax burden on GM and Ford will certainly help. If that's your proposal, I'm for it. If you are merely going to shift that burden elsewhere, then save everybody the confusion and keep it the way it is.

 

Two things Pacer.

One. This proposal is by no stretch increasing taxes. In actuality, it's decreasing the burden on everyone because (and for once) everyone pays into the system. With our current system, less than 1/2 of Americans pay for the taxes that everyone takes advantage of.

You're right. Taxes are a burden, but there is no reason why some have to put up with that burden 10-fold and others never even see it.

Two.
Germany may have higher taxes (although, they don't--that's why Chrysler moved there) but the German government reimburses Mercedes the taxes paid in Germany during manufactoring for every Mercedes sold in the US.

Yes, hypothetically we could center our tax reform around foreign sales as come up with some sort of tax credit system on American manufactoring, but then we're just playing the "shift the burden" game.

The only way to make it fair--if we ever want to make it fair--is to do what our founders had in mind, and that is make the tax voluntary.

You may not realize this, but a sales tax is a voluntary tax. You chose when to pay taxes. Whereas an income tax is direct. You may or may not be aware that it specifically states in the Constitution that direct taxes are NOT to be imposed upon the states (citizens). The founders knew that direct taxes would eventually lead to class warfare, voter-blck control, and corruption and abuse in political power.

 

It's a shell game.

Pay one way or pay the other.


Sure there is.

It's called "Ability to Pay".


Have you ever been to Germany?

I'm sorry to be blunt, but you're just flat-out wrong relative to tax burden. Germans pay OUTRAGEOUS taxes.

People have to buy things to live. Sales taxes are charged on those things.

So, let's say we have two households.

Household #1 is at the median income of $44,000.

Household #2 is between $100,000 and $200,000.

Both have 2 adults and 2 kids.

Now, it costs a certain amount of money to put gas in a car, to put clothes on their backs and all of those other things in life that people NEED that are not food (not WANT). Let's just call those things equal for the moment at $10,000/yr, even though the household with the higher income will tend to spend more by purchasing more expensive clothes or premium fuel for their cars... but they don't HAVE TO spend more - they choose to. The median income family HAS TO spend that much to go to work and keep themselves clothed and sheltered.

If, as you propose, sales taxes are used for taxation instead of a graduated income tax, then the household with the lower income pays a greater percentage of their yearly income in taxes than the household with the higher income.

Here's the math:

Household #1:
$10,000 x 8% = $800
$800/$44,000 = ~2%

Household #2:
$10,000 x 8% = $800
$800/$150,000 = ~.5%

And that's just flat-out dumb. While certain points about relative tax burden can be entertained (I personally feel that EVERYONE pays too much in taxes), shifting any part of the burden to those least able to pay is nothing short of stupid.

I make a very good living. Way above the national average. I'd sure like to see my taxes go down, but I'm not going to do it on the backs of those who are least able to pay.

Finally, the idea that a sales tax on clothes or gas is voluntary is bunk. Both, given our current societal situations, are NECESSITIES.

 

Did I miss HHR release date or, according to November GM sales numbers, is it gonna sell over 100K in 12 months??

 

Good post.

 

I'm not exactly a proponent, but there are are a few compelling arguments for a flat tax.

1) No need for giant government bureaucracy to collect taxes
2) Hard for rich people to hide their income and not pay any taxes due to loopholes.
3) Average people can fill out their own tax returns
There are others, but I'm not that versed with the theory...

Eastern Europe is having good luck with it so far...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...04/ixhome.html

 

Why are the big guys at GM trying to destroy our heritage? Look at Buick....there is nothing supercharged anymore, no two door models available. Buick is the backbone of GM, but yet they have nothing with curb appeal.
I'm a proud 95 riviera owner. Not to mention I have 228,xxx miles on the car and it still runs like brand new....with the same tranny, engine and the same blower. Okay so, I'm really lucky and I didn't get a Monday or a Friday car, as they say....jk but still I would mind if they came out with something that would attract the sports car enthusiasts (something like the grand national!)

Another thought.....look at your local newspaper or television ad.....Look at Lexus, Jag, or any of those luxury cars. It's all about the image. The advertisment reminds me of a beer ad, drink this and you will get whatever you want, the chick, the dough, the big house, and the bad *** ride. Drive this car and everyone will want you and you will have the respect you desire.
Drive a Impala or a Rendezous and everyone knows you're paying 199 a month....and you got 5000 off in rebates because you bought your new wheels during the red tag/everyone is a GM employee/it's march madness/art van is having there last sale EVER (until tomorrow) Biggest sale event of the year.
Great. So, we are a bunch of cheap bastards. Glad to know that I'm still in love with GM.

 

flat tax will never fly because the corporation's lobbyists in DC would throw a **** fit and start lobbing millions of dollars into senator's coffers to prevent it on the grounds that it would hurt corporate bottom lines

 

PacerX - I could continue to debate this but we're shying from the original topic. I've never been to Germany, and you've never read anything about taxes.
Fair.

However, fact is, Chrysler chose to HQ in Germany for one reason:
the difference in TAXES.

Mr. Loffredo, vice president of DaimlerChrysler, during a testimony before Congress offered the following in hopes to inspire tax reform; “The U.S tax system puts global companies at a decisive disadvantage. [W]hen the time came to chose whether the new company should be a U.S company or a foreign company, management chose a company organized under the laws of Germany.” The would-be “ChryslerDaimler” would face a 67.5% tax rate, while the actual DaimlerChrysler, headquartered in Germany, pays only 44%.

Other thing (and this is why I know you haven't taken the time to educate yourself about the FairTax (or any other tax reform plan for that matter) is that under the FairTax everyone is compensated based on family size (not income) on the taxes expected to pay for the "necessities in life."

In short, all the necessities are TAX FREE. A poor person, and Bill Gates both have the ability to spend their money up to the poverty level...tax free. However, for every Bently Bill buys, he will pay into the fed. reserve.

Oh, and for the record this "each to his own ABILITY" is from Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto.

I'm not trying to have the final word here, however, I suggest we continue this discussion where it is appropriate. Check out this site: www.fairtaxforum.com if your interested. Im on that quite a bit.