Mousefield
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,583
- Tractor
- Sold 2008 CK35 HST
Are there any Tractors " Manufactured" in the US anymore.?
- Thread starter brin
- Start date
- Views: 15715
Perhaps the customer??
Nope. The customer buys a product or a service.
Mousefield
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 2,583
- Tractor
- Sold 2008 CK35 HST
You are correct, the company pays the wage. However if there are no customers to buy their product or service then no company, no employees, no wages.
Pushing_Tin
Gold Member
Of course there are always a few, but they are certainly a minorty, and getting rarer by the year.
Uh, YOUR quote
There is a HUGE difference between an hourly pay rate, and an hourly pay rate PLUS benefits. I still challenge you to find me a source that shows a blue collar line worker making $93 an hour PLUS benefits. I know many people that get paid overtime that don't want it. Paying overtime means that you do not have to hire more employees and give them training and benefits, so it's a smart business move in reality. Further, data from 2006 isn't really relevant as the UAW gave a lot of concessions during the bailouts.
And while we sort of agree, I think most that feel like you do (not necessarily you) are hypocrites. Take the oil spill this summer as an example. Nobody down there wanted the feds interfering in their business in any way shape or form........Until all h*ll broke loose and they wanted to know why the feds didn't inspect more rigs, how could they allow this to happen to their livelihoods? What was the government going to do to help them, it was sad and comical at the same time. Everybody hates government interference, until they need something.
Loren49
Veteran Member
A bit off topic but if we limited this discussion to only those who are using US assembled computer's with US manufactured parts, it would be pretty boring. (Let's add the US tvs and phones and we could all be Amish) :licking:
Loren
Loren
soulasphil
Platinum Member
I have a high opinion of US trade unions as compared to what we have here. I think you are exagerating their influence in the decline of US industry. Manufacturing has been losing jobs in the US for decades. Not only because objects could be made cheaper elsewhere, but because manufacturing could no longer pay the type of wages people had come to expect. They had to turn to services, financial and commercial jobs to follow the general increase in the standard of living. Which on the whole was not a good thing for trade unions.
OP
brin
Super Member
I just want to find a good Grease Gun that is made in the USA..The one I had for about 25 yrs. gave up on me about 2 yrs. ago and I have been through two junk imports in that time and again today the third one just wasted two tubes of grease....I am not a happy camper, I mean how complicated is a grease gun..Why can't they make them right ?
Thomas
Epic Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2000
- Messages
- 31,821
- Location
- Lebanon,NH.
- Tractor
- Kubota B2650HSD w/Frontloader & CC LTX1046 & Craftman T2200 lawn mower.
Grease gun..old homesteads also old garages auction/going out business good chance,they may not be be fancy but they can take a beating.
ModMech
Platinum Member
I know why people FEEL that way and in many cases it is true to some degree, but if it were representative of actual facts, there would be no Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar or VW products sold here because they ALL have higher input costs than we have in the USA (Labor, benefits, regulations, retirement, emissions and taxes).
I do not believe in the "offshore is cheaper (labor, taxes, regulations etc) and that's why we do it" arguement. I KNOW that is what the business people CLAIM, it's all over the media but I don't believe it at all.
The FACTS are that american WORKERS are more productive than EVER ad more productive than ANYWHERE ELSE on the planet. That means that you get more dollars of goods for a given dollar of labor input (wages, benefits, tax etc) with US based employees. I believe it is GREED that moves jobs out of the country and not economic necessity, I'll explain.
1) Moving jobs is easy and you can make the arguement for lower costs that most people will buy into because obtaining the FACTS is difficult.
2) Who's wages (all labor costs) have gone DOWN seriously in the past 50 years? Almost everyones! Look at the FACTS, the "average" employee in 1960 could provide for their family, buy a new car ever 3-5 years and pay off the "average" home in 30. How many of us can do that now? Sure as h#ll not me!
3) Who's wages have gone UP significantly in the past 50 years? Executives and middle management. They provide no intrinsic value to the firm but take up an ever larger portion of the labor costs. They are ALL classified as "non-revenue generating" staff.
4) If you want to reduce expenditures in a medium corporation by $1,000,000 what is easier:
a) Lay off 15 production staff and ask the remaining 45 to do extra work
b) Reduce executive compensation by 50%
Obviously option "b" preserves production capacity and employee satisfaction while option "a" does the exact opposite. Why then do they choose option "a" EVERY SINGLE TIME??????
GREED! What's mine is MINE and what's yours I can take!!!!!!
BTW, most MAJOR ag manufacturers manufacture or assemble at least some product lines in the USA. Deere, CNH, AGCO (Headquartered in the USA with 4 manufacturing plants) and Mahindra (ties to CaseIH, Navistar and three US locations).
jeffgreef
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
- Messages
- 189
- Location
- Plumas County, California
- Tractor
- Farmall, Gibson, Windolph, Simar, Bear Cat, Vaughan, Howard
I agree with the last post, that it's more complicated than just the idea that wages overseas are cheaper. Here are a few points to consider:
1-Wages are a lot cheaper in China, where Toyota and others get a lot of their parts, but that may change. The Chinese 'one child' policy has reduced their workforce to where it's getting harder for employers to find the workers they need, something new in China. The workers there are getting sick of being treated like manure and will ask for change.
2-If a tractor for sale in the US was made in the US with our wages and regulations, benefits, etc. I could not afford it. But, in 1960, I probably could. So what has changed? Now, a far higher amount of wealth is owned by a very small number of people in the US, and around the world, which leaves the rest of us to divy up what's left. We are slowly being squeezed as the banksters and other elites take more and more for themselves. I'm no Marxist and I believe in capitalism, but the playing field has to be equal and wealth distribution not weighted to one side. As it is, you and I can only afford more expensive items if they are produced with slave labor. It's a sad cycle. I'd prefer to believe that everyone who worked on my car, tractor, computer, lettuce, apples etc. was getting a fair shake.
3-Now, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed corporations unlimited permission to donate to political campaign contributions- and they are taking full advantage of it. Do you think they are going to try to influence politics in a way that reduces their CEO payscales and corporate profits, and makes it easier for you and me to buy a tractor, foreign or domestic?
It's not foreign wages vs. domestic wages, democrat vs. republican, or China vs. the US. It's We the People vs. the greedy elites. I say we push the Constitution in their faces and make them eat some humble pie.
CWFAC- Cheap Words From an Armchair Critic
IMHO, my two cents, for what it's worth.
JG
1-Wages are a lot cheaper in China, where Toyota and others get a lot of their parts, but that may change. The Chinese 'one child' policy has reduced their workforce to where it's getting harder for employers to find the workers they need, something new in China. The workers there are getting sick of being treated like manure and will ask for change.
2-If a tractor for sale in the US was made in the US with our wages and regulations, benefits, etc. I could not afford it. But, in 1960, I probably could. So what has changed? Now, a far higher amount of wealth is owned by a very small number of people in the US, and around the world, which leaves the rest of us to divy up what's left. We are slowly being squeezed as the banksters and other elites take more and more for themselves. I'm no Marxist and I believe in capitalism, but the playing field has to be equal and wealth distribution not weighted to one side. As it is, you and I can only afford more expensive items if they are produced with slave labor. It's a sad cycle. I'd prefer to believe that everyone who worked on my car, tractor, computer, lettuce, apples etc. was getting a fair shake.
3-Now, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, has allowed corporations unlimited permission to donate to political campaign contributions- and they are taking full advantage of it. Do you think they are going to try to influence politics in a way that reduces their CEO payscales and corporate profits, and makes it easier for you and me to buy a tractor, foreign or domestic?
It's not foreign wages vs. domestic wages, democrat vs. republican, or China vs. the US. It's We the People vs. the greedy elites. I say we push the Constitution in their faces and make them eat some humble pie.
CWFAC- Cheap Words From an Armchair Critic
IMHO, my two cents, for what it's worth.
JG
PILOON
Super Star Member
True high wages;
Take the quoted wage, add benefits, taxes, UIC, then deduct sick leave, vacation, hollidays etc and you will then get the ACTUAL production hours worked.
So taking the GROSS cost and devideing by worked hours gives that scary cost.
While a worker is paid for 52 weeks he in fact may only produce as little as 42 or so.
In fact the $50/r worker that nets perhaps $30 actually may cost his employer that $80 something/hr.
As to 'Made in America (Canada)';
That statement can be claimed if 50% is Canadian (US) content.
Now printing of manuals, packaging advertising are direct costs.
The profits are Cdn(US) content.
So in fact the manufactur's profit, the distributor's profit and the dealer's profits all count for Cdn (US content)!
So between printing, packaging and profits nearly all of the base product can be made offshore and sold as MADE IN US/Can!
Take the quoted wage, add benefits, taxes, UIC, then deduct sick leave, vacation, hollidays etc and you will then get the ACTUAL production hours worked.
So taking the GROSS cost and devideing by worked hours gives that scary cost.
While a worker is paid for 52 weeks he in fact may only produce as little as 42 or so.
In fact the $50/r worker that nets perhaps $30 actually may cost his employer that $80 something/hr.
As to 'Made in America (Canada)';
That statement can be claimed if 50% is Canadian (US) content.
Now printing of manuals, packaging advertising are direct costs.
The profits are Cdn(US) content.
So in fact the manufactur's profit, the distributor's profit and the dealer's profits all count for Cdn (US content)!
So between printing, packaging and profits nearly all of the base product can be made offshore and sold as MADE IN US/Can!
ModMech
Platinum Member
A typical well paid UNION factory worker for Ford makes about $28/hr and is paid for 52 weeks of work. Ford "loses" no more money paying a union worker than an executive or salaried engineer, Ford only "gets" about 47 weeks of actual work out of any of them, so why pick on a line worker, union or not?
Wages: $28/hr
Vacation and holiday = $2.96/hr
Other fringes = $5.88/hr
Total = $36.84/hr.
Most engineers with the same experience earn more per hour in wages than the total of a line workers wage package. Many executives earn OVER $50,000/month! Yep, MANY executives earn as much in a MONTH as a "well paid" employee might earn in an entire year. How do you justify THAT? In my opinion, you CANNOT.
Currently, most technicians (any brand you can think of) get no more than about 40% of the door rate in terms of total compensation for themselves and their families. This used to be 60%! Their employers complain about the higher costs of A, B, C and X, Y & Z but the fact still remains, the techs are getting an EVER SMALLER PIECE while the owners take an ever larger piece.
As others have properly posted, it's not the redistribution of wealth it is about a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
Name ONE company, LLC or Corporation that can VOTE? Not ONE CAN. Our "elected" (bought) officials are "elected" to represent the VOTERS, not some company or corporation, PERIOD. Why are laws beng written to advantage a company and DIS-advantage a voter? Because you vote does not count! If you doubt it, try writing your elected official and ask them to go against what some big company contributor wants (that is really truely a bad idea), they will not. It is more important to ANY politician to get the money than YOUR VOTE!
Wages: $28/hr
Vacation and holiday = $2.96/hr
Other fringes = $5.88/hr
Total = $36.84/hr.
Most engineers with the same experience earn more per hour in wages than the total of a line workers wage package. Many executives earn OVER $50,000/month! Yep, MANY executives earn as much in a MONTH as a "well paid" employee might earn in an entire year. How do you justify THAT? In my opinion, you CANNOT.
Currently, most technicians (any brand you can think of) get no more than about 40% of the door rate in terms of total compensation for themselves and their families. This used to be 60%! Their employers complain about the higher costs of A, B, C and X, Y & Z but the fact still remains, the techs are getting an EVER SMALLER PIECE while the owners take an ever larger piece.
As others have properly posted, it's not the redistribution of wealth it is about a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
Name ONE company, LLC or Corporation that can VOTE? Not ONE CAN. Our "elected" (bought) officials are "elected" to represent the VOTERS, not some company or corporation, PERIOD. Why are laws beng written to advantage a company and DIS-advantage a voter? Because you vote does not count! If you doubt it, try writing your elected official and ask them to go against what some big company contributor wants (that is really truely a bad idea), they will not. It is more important to ANY politician to get the money than YOUR VOTE!
firedog
Gold Member
foggy1111
Elite Member
I owned a manufacturing company that was US based and we had some very innovative products and were proud to be made in the USA....although we were buying ever increasing numbers of parts and assemblies from abroad in later years (Asia). I could see the handwriting on the wall.....and many of our best customers (names you know) would remind me regularly something like this: "if you assembled overseas you could sell me cheaper". I needed to make a "leap across the pond" in order to grow and survive....and grow my international skills very quickly to boot.
My biggest and best customers would steal your engineering at the drop of a hat......and replace your product with an off-shore, house-brand, copy in a heartbeat. They all want "house brands" these days....even if they are inferior.
Although the new owners of my brand (now 100% made in Asia) have not reduced the prices...the current quality of my "old products" is now shoddy and poorly made. Some of them don't really work at all. Obvious defects IMO. I doubt that much money (if any) is being saved...although we never had a high cost-per-unit in labor. So there wasn't much to save by assembling overseas. Completion now abounds....and these guys are losing.....FAST.
I used to have a new and improved model each year or so....the new guys have not made a new model in the 7 years they had the line....and they still cant get the stuff made right. Go Figure.
It's as if our government forced this all on the manufacturers by our policy. For the past 20+ years we have been exporting our manufacturing companies at an ever increasing rate. I never thought it would get to my small biz...BUT IT DID. Our policies encouraged "off-shoring"...and the demise of good manufacturing jobs in MANY cases. We don't even have enough sense to tax many of the incoming goods. Good grief. :confused2:
Fortunately (for me) I sold my biz and went into retirement...or my efforts would have been wasted...just as the jobs for my employees were / are. Truly a sad state of affairs IMO. What can you do? It feels like Rome is burning.
OH....and when I sold my biz..."labor" cost my biz $56. per hour total.....although wages were a fraction of that expense. Compare that with Asia? Pfffft.
My biggest and best customers would steal your engineering at the drop of a hat......and replace your product with an off-shore, house-brand, copy in a heartbeat. They all want "house brands" these days....even if they are inferior.
Although the new owners of my brand (now 100% made in Asia) have not reduced the prices...the current quality of my "old products" is now shoddy and poorly made. Some of them don't really work at all. Obvious defects IMO. I doubt that much money (if any) is being saved...although we never had a high cost-per-unit in labor. So there wasn't much to save by assembling overseas.
Completion now abounds....and these guys are losing.....FAST. I used to have a new and improved model each year or so....the new guys have not made a new model in the 7 years they had the line....and they still cant get the stuff made right. Go Figure.
It's as if our government forced this all on the manufacturers by our policy. For the past 20+ years we have been exporting our manufacturing companies at an ever increasing rate. I never thought it would get to my small biz...BUT IT DID.
Our policies encouraged "off-shoring"...and the demise of good manufacturing jobs in MANY cases. We don't even have enough sense to tax many of the incoming goods. Good grief. :confused2:Fortunately (for me) I sold my biz and went into retirement...or my efforts would have been wasted...just as the jobs for my employees were / are. Truly a sad state of affairs IMO. What can you do?
It feels like Rome is burning.OH....and when I sold my biz..."labor" cost my biz $56. per hour total.....although wages were a fraction of that expense. Compare that with Asia? Pfffft.
foggy1111
Elite Member
One more story......
I had a Mart Mart buyer in my booth at a trade show once (although he wore a show badge from a different company). At this point our product was HOT....and everyone wanted to buy.
He told me the price he would pay me for my product (with a US patent) and that if I didn't sell it to him for that price (about 1/2 of my typical sale) that he was offered my product by a Taiwanese firm and that is what he would do. (whom had my product hanging on the wall in their "chop shop").
I told him that I would loose all the biz that I had worked so hard to establish and be left with no margin if I sold him at his proposed price. We came to odds pretty quickly....and I told him "fine...if you decide to sell the Asian copy I'm glad....cause you have a lot of money and I have a good attorney". We had a parting of the way....and right then and there my policy was to sell everyone BUT Mart / Mart. Their buying policy was similar to extortion IMO.
They offered a competing product....for a year or so....before dropping their offering.
I had a Mart Mart buyer in my booth at a trade show once (although he wore a show badge from a different company). At this point our product was HOT....and everyone wanted to buy.
He told me the price he would pay me for my product (with a US patent) and that if I didn't sell it to him for that price (about 1/2 of my typical sale) that he was offered my product by a Taiwanese firm and that is what he would do. (whom had my product hanging on the wall in their "chop shop").
I told him that I would loose all the biz that I had worked so hard to establish and be left with no margin if I sold him at his proposed price. We came to odds pretty quickly....and I told him "fine...if you decide to sell the Asian copy I'm glad....cause you have a lot of money and I have a good attorney".
We had a parting of the way....and right then and there my policy was to sell everyone BUT Mart / Mart. Their buying policy was similar to extortion IMO. They offered a competing product....for a year or so....before dropping their offering.
Cat_Driver
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,517
- Location
- Coachella Ca.
- Tractor
- 2016 Kubota 4060, 2017 Tackeuchi excavator TB260
WHAT? " There is a HUGE difference between an hourly pay rate, and an hourly pay rate PLUS benefits" To WHO? EVERYTHING you pay a human including, wages befits etc. are all calculated as it pertains to the product being produce. So under your thinking if you pay someone $10.00 an hour and they get $50.00 an hour in benefits then the company is only paying them $10.00 and hour. Interesting then where is the $50.00 per hour coming from? Yep the product being sold.
Now I understand you don't like the 2006 figures and want to set them aside by saying " 2006 isn't really relevant as the UAW gave a lot of concessions during the bailouts" ...that may fly with the taking heads on TV but not with me. Because the UNION made things in 2006 at that wage and BECAUSE of that wage companies went over seas. OH yippie the Unions gave "concessions" was one of those "concessions" the one that FORCED companies to pay a worker all day long to do nothing? OK lets look at some 2008 comparisons, or do you want to set these aside also, and these WERE UNDER OBAMAS plan.
Here's little chart of the " concessions" the Union made.
UAW Workers Actually Cost the Big Three Automakers $70 an Hour | The Heritage Foundation
I wonder if this is considered WAGES? Did they give this up as a "concession"
This is the Jobs Bank at GM, a two-decade-old program in which nearly 15,000 auto workers continue to get paid after their companies stop needing them. To earn wages and benefits that often top $100,000 a year, the workers must perform some company-approved activity. Many volunteer or go back to school. The rest clock time in the rubber room or something like it.
ModMech
Platinum Member
Addressing the post above regarding US Autoworkers total hourly wages....
We all need to understand the SOURCE of our data and how it is accumulated. The primary method used to skew data is to selectively "forget" to explain what all went into the data points, this is most obvious with the alleged health care increases.
We must remember that in *most* cases the data includes ALL EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES receiving benefits.
Who is more costly to insure, a young employee or a retired employee? The young are FAR less costly to insure but the "insurance costs" per employee are ALL costs for ALL beneficiaries divided by the number of ACTIVE employees.
As with insurance, ALL "employee" costs are included in the chart abov, that is costs for retirees and current employees combined, then divided by the number of current (active) employees. Every employer has three employee classes: Former, Current, Active. Not all current employees are active employees because at least one will be on Active Duty, Medical leave etc, but the firm still has costs associated with that employee.
When you allow an employee to retire after 30 years of service (at age 50 for example) and they are expected to live to age 86, the company has insurance and retirement costs for 6 years LONGER than that employee was "active"! How is that fair to anyone and it's not government requiring this! The "retirement" expectation has not really changed although we are living a LOT longer. A person should expect to work to about age 70, maybe longer, that gives 50 years of service and 16 of "retirement"; not the other way around.
Remember, healthcare costs and wage costs "per employee" almost always include costs for retirees and non-active employees that artificially inflate the numbers.
BTW, did you know that about the only creditors GM did not pay were the employees? GM and DCX filed against their employees and stockholders, NOT their creditors
We all need to understand the SOURCE of our data and how it is accumulated. The primary method used to skew data is to selectively "forget" to explain what all went into the data points, this is most obvious with the alleged health care increases.
We must remember that in *most* cases the data includes ALL EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES receiving benefits.
Who is more costly to insure, a young employee or a retired employee? The young are FAR less costly to insure but the "insurance costs" per employee are ALL costs for ALL beneficiaries divided by the number of ACTIVE employees.
As with insurance, ALL "employee" costs are included in the chart abov, that is costs for retirees and current employees combined, then divided by the number of current (active) employees. Every employer has three employee classes: Former, Current, Active. Not all current employees are active employees because at least one will be on Active Duty, Medical leave etc, but the firm still has costs associated with that employee.
When you allow an employee to retire after 30 years of service (at age 50 for example) and they are expected to live to age 86, the company has insurance and retirement costs for 6 years LONGER than that employee was "active"! How is that fair to anyone and it's not government requiring this! The "retirement" expectation has not really changed although we are living a LOT longer. A person should expect to work to about age 70, maybe longer, that gives 50 years of service and 16 of "retirement"; not the other way around.
Remember, healthcare costs and wage costs "per employee" almost always include costs for retirees and non-active employees that artificially inflate the numbers.
BTW, did you know that about the only creditors GM did not pay were the employees? GM and DCX filed against their employees and stockholders, NOT their creditors
stlawrence
Bronze Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 69
Some random points:
I know everyone loves to bash the unions and blame them for the exodus of jobs overseas. Two questions:
If a worker is injured in an on-job accident in India, what coverage does he have? (I think you can answer that question.) Would you do your current job with NO protection or government regulation to protect you? Would you let your child take medicine without any government regulation over the drug industry?
Regardless of what benefits a US worker has, would the industry moguls keep jobs here if the price difference was not that great? Or, would they still ship the jobs to India because they don't have to pay a decent wage, benefits, etc?
The problem is not with the American workers and their benefits. The problem is with a government that deregulated industry and even legislated tax breaks for companies that shipped jobs overseas.
Why are US autos made in Canada and Mexico? Because Canada and Mexico both have national health care, so the company does not have to pay the huge health care costs for the workers. When we try that, the health care industry and the insurance companies go bonkers.
My solution? Pass legislation to punish companies that ship jobs overseas and then take US dollars. Give tax breaks to companies that bring jobs INTO the US (You know the Congress just tried to pass such a law, and the party of no voted it down.) Any company with federal contracts has to be based in the US and pay US taxes. (Hear that, Halliburton?) Pass trade protection legislation - foreign goods have to pay a tariff to be sold in the US. You might end up paying more for your shirt, but your neighbor will have a job.
Here's the really sad factoid - when a nation begins to develop, about the first industry they develop is manufacturing tractors. Isn't it sad that we don't even manufacture our own tractors, but India does?
I know everyone loves to bash the unions and blame them for the exodus of jobs overseas. Two questions:
If a worker is injured in an on-job accident in India, what coverage does he have? (I think you can answer that question.) Would you do your current job with NO protection or government regulation to protect you? Would you let your child take medicine without any government regulation over the drug industry?
Regardless of what benefits a US worker has, would the industry moguls keep jobs here if the price difference was not that great? Or, would they still ship the jobs to India because they don't have to pay a decent wage, benefits, etc?
The problem is not with the American workers and their benefits. The problem is with a government that deregulated industry and even legislated tax breaks for companies that shipped jobs overseas.
Why are US autos made in Canada and Mexico? Because Canada and Mexico both have national health care, so the company does not have to pay the huge health care costs for the workers. When we try that, the health care industry and the insurance companies go bonkers.
My solution? Pass legislation to punish companies that ship jobs overseas and then take US dollars. Give tax breaks to companies that bring jobs INTO the US (You know the Congress just tried to pass such a law, and the party of no voted it down.) Any company with federal contracts has to be based in the US and pay US taxes. (Hear that, Halliburton?) Pass trade protection legislation - foreign goods have to pay a tariff to be sold in the US. You might end up paying more for your shirt, but your neighbor will have a job.
Here's the really sad factoid - when a nation begins to develop, about the first industry they develop is manufacturing tractors. Isn't it sad that we don't even manufacture our own tractors, but India does?
Passing another stupid law to punish corporations is not the answer. If you don't believe in freedom and therefore free trade, set up tariffs. And if free trade crumbles as a result of tariffs, a peaceful world does too. No one cares where products are made anymore. It's hard to be warlike when you depend on other countries.
Unions didn't drive manufacturing out, they just lost their comparative advantage (foreign workers work for less).
You put tariffs up now, and you will create a really bad depression.
What we need to do is eliminate everything making America a less attractive place to invest in. That is tax laws and nit picking regulations. You can't take the risk out of the free market and call it a free market.
IMHO big government is sucking the life out of us all and I am tired of all the **** taxes (ripoff).
Loren49
Veteran Member
FYI - US income tax rates are lower than in most of the last 80 years. (This shows highest rates - note 94% in 1950s, 35% now Source:
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
When the considerable additional breaks which were included in the stimulus bill we are at a low.
Quote:The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.
Source:PolitiFact | Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts
Corporate tax rates - similar story
Source:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
There certainly are some questionable regulations but despite all the regulations companies seem to get away with many questionable practices - when disasters happen we then blame the government for not regulating them properly. Do you have a specific regulation in mind. We're still paying the cost for the lack of regulations in the earlier to mid 1900s. Its always cheaper to let your toxic wastes run into the water and on the ground.
Maybe we as consumers are the at fault as we look for the best price and if we invest we want the most profit.
Loren
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
When the considerable additional breaks which were included in the stimulus bill we are at a low.
Quote:The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.
Source:PolitiFact | Stewart claims that the stimulus bill is one-third tax cuts
Corporate tax rates - similar story
Source:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02corate.pdf
There certainly are some questionable regulations but despite all the regulations companies seem to get away with many questionable practices - when disasters happen we then blame the government for not regulating them properly. Do you have a specific regulation in mind. We're still paying the cost for the lack of regulations in the earlier to mid 1900s. Its always cheaper to let your toxic wastes run into the water and on the ground.
Maybe we as consumers are the at fault as we look for the best price and if we invest we want the most profit.
Loren
Here are some similar links:
