PacerX-
For someone who could possibly be barking up the same tree, you're becoming a bit hostle.

I'll go in order.

(1) If companies pay less, individuals are going to pay more.

And who do you think pays for the company's taxes now? If you think corporations pay an income tax, think again. We do. Taxes are a cost of doing business. They filter down until they reach the final cost of the good.

(2) What, precisely, is a "necessity" according to this plan.

That is the best part. YOU get to decide. Every month you are reimbursed the EXPECTED taxes paid what the necessities in life based on your household size. That figure is the same figure we use today, as determined by the HHC (Health & Human Services) for calculating the poverty level. Whatever the determined poverty level based on your family size, you are reimbursed for the EXPECTED taxes paid for necessities in life.

For example, if you are a single filing individual you would receive roughly $180 a month reimbursement on the taxes for these necessities. Now, this puts responsibility back into the hands of the people and gets rid of government telling us how we have to make decisions in life. With that reimbursment, you can either buy more crack, or invest in your savings. Your choice. There's no need for me to bother you with more details, this is "just a shell game," as you put it.

(3) Junior, politically speaking I'm slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun, so save the "Pacer's a Pinko" crap for the labotomy outpatients you deal with on other boards.

Name calling won't get you anywhere, Senior. And, for the record, your political affiliation really doesnt matter. Sure, we can make generalizations, but its pointless. You either get it or you dont.

(4) And, the reason WHY I brought this into the mix is clearly mentioned in my first post--because it is because of our INCOME TAX on American production we continue to witness our companies outsource, slip in rank, and lay off more and more individuals.

Pacer, it bothers me that you would rather justify an inefficient tax code than listen to a reasonable alternative. Is the FairTax truely possible? Only if we get enough people believing in it. Not everyone, just enough. Is it perfect? No. But nothing is. Is it an improvment? Yes, and many other ideas are simply because it is impossibleto define fair and effective when your tax system is as broken and unfair as ours. You bash my motivations as if I took a dump in your cereal this morning.

You know, the revolutionary war was also hatefully opposed. 75% of the colonists opposed the war. All it took was a few believers.

 

Sales tax was created by the devil.

 

1) Is there some comprehension threshold inherent to this post that some people posting in it have failed to achieve? How compelling of an argument can you make if it takes someone forever to figure it out? It weakens your message, and makes you look stupid in the process. Something tells me others on here will agree.

2) Uhm, I like your theory on 10+ year old cars. It shows me you have no clue what the hell I'm talking about, and it also shows you didn't even bother to read my post either...which brings me back to the whole level of comprehension argument, but I digress.

3) Anyway, the theory I am using is that the people on this thread complaining about the new designs are driving 10+ year old used F bodies, and probably range in age from 16-25. I have news for you. If you don't like the Impala, that's ok...GM doesn't care if you like it anyway. You probably don't like a Camry either, which is exactly the same market the Impala is going after! If you don't like the HHR, that's ok too...because you aren't a 40 year old female, which is typically the type of person who will buy an HHR. Basically, what I'm saying is just because YOU don't like something, doesn't mean "it sucks." Neither of those cars are supposed to cater to you anyway. And seeing as how many whiners apparently own 10+ year old cars, how soon do you plan to purchase a brand new car anyway?

I hope my points are clearer now. I even used impeccable English, to help facilitate my point

 

Oh, and as for my "cop out" on the original message in this thread? I didn't cop out...I just think you're flat wrong.

 

Well put. However, allow me to throw this one out.

What if you aren't a 40 year old female and happen to like much about the HHR?
For example, I'm a mid-20s soon-to-be Dad. My wife and I before purchasing a Saturn Vue were considering the HHR due to the "Employee Discount" pricing.
I probably thought it looked cooler than she did, but inside, that thing is very nice! All the extra features, down to the iPod controlled stereo scream "youth-inspired."
What Im getting at is, maybe GM did have the younger gen. in mind. Maybe, they were trying to peel away from the Scion box (whatever they call that boxey, van thing), Toyota Matrix, and Pontiac Vibe market?
If they are trying to add youthful market appeal to a car, and the general response from the youth is "it sucks," then maybe they fell short in their design. ??

*Please note, it's probably very likely that our award winning, MTV-soaked, youth would use such advanced diction as "it sucks."

Personally, although Im kinda an "old-young guy" (mid 20s, homeowenr, business owner, married, family man typically do not describe 20 year olds), I did consider the HHR for a hot minute, but they fell short in their ability to really grab us. Ultimatley, we went with the Saturn, not because it was cheaper, but because we thought it looked better.

To me, the HHR is just a bit too long. If they got rid of that school-bus looking side, it would be pretty sweet. --Aside from the fact that it's also real late in the market... how many PT cruisers are out there now??

Just my $0.02

 

Actually it's like forgetting about Ataris and focusing on the X-box.

Keep up, will ya?

I can't argue with your logic. All I can say is the thing is gaining market share for GM here in California, and it seems to have younger drivers than the PT does.

Not early twentysomthings maybe, but seemingly under thirty.

 

Need to fix quick. Kill Buick, like they did Olds, and watch that GM doesn't just become a distributor.

About my standings in the marketplace-
I have had my fair share of GM products. But through it all, my daily driver, the rivi, has been the one to outlast them all. God, I love that 3.8! And you chevy guys can appreciate that, after all it was under the hood of the Monte and the Impala for years....hands down, aside from the LS1/LS2 that was once of the most outstanding engine GM produced.
I'm a Buick chick, but that doesn't mean I don't throw chevy some love too, my dad has had C5s in the past, my boyfriend has a chevy ss camaro, and I have worked in retail for 3 years selling GM products I see some things that could use improvement, but don't we all.

If you kill our heritage, what do you have left?

 

I don't know about you, but to me a radio that can accomidate MP3 players doesn't scream "youth-inspired" it screams "up to date." To me, a simple CD player screams "might as well be an 8 track player" these days. Before you go saying that I must be really young, well, I'm not.

 

I wouldnt argue you. Id say since the iPods (and similar mp3 players) continue to revolutionize the music industry we're going to see a continuing trend to focus on mp3 playback instead of cd-players.

Therefore a iPod player in the car would be "up-to-date."

BUT, how many 40 year old women are seen wearing those clicky bright white earbuds?

I still think the "iPod feature" was geared to invite the youth.

 

How about to lead the way?? I have NO idea how many other companies are selling cars with "iPod" hook-ups, but maybe GM thought they'd try to be (one of) the first? For a change. That's been their problem for so long, is waiting to see what everyone else does first (huh, huh, I guess that's the whole argument about the HHR, eh?) but at least it's got an iPod, and the PT Cruiser doesn't!!