May or may not be that simple. Some cars lose the radio anti-theft code and it has to be reset. Many shops will plug a battery into the cigarette lighter socket to give the car power while the battery is swapped out.
Rated at 29 MPG Highway, it is better than many Grandpa type sedans.
Push trip odometer button for 30 seconds. Turn key to on position for
30 seconds. Then, off for 20. Then on for 10. Etc. There are lots of ways to tell a computer that is already watching lots of buttons and sensors that it should initiate a characterization cycle -- WITHOUT adding a dedicated "characterize battery now" button (which costs money).And the need for an 8 an twin turbos is because...?
The problem car manufacturers face is one of a mismatch between what customers appear to want and what "regulations" are driving. In Europe, cars tend to be smaller and more fuel efficient. You don't see HumVee's, oversized pickups with dualies, etc. Fuel is more expensive (and taxes different) so folks *prefer* the more efficient vehicles. Look at how the US auto market changes when fuel prices are headed north of $4-5. Then, how quickly they change back when they fall. By comparison, prices there tend to be *double* what they are, here. And, this has been the case for a long time -- not just a "blip" that comes and goes (as it does, here).
[I think they pay close to $10/G in the UK, currently -- while we're hovering at/about $2.50/G]Think about how your vehicle purchasing and driving decisions would be affected if *you* were paying $10/G. Sure, you might own a nice gas guzzler -- but, would let it sit in the garage most of the time while you drove your "SmartCar" around town! :>
"Twin Turbo V8"? Yeah, it's in the garage. Wanna see it?
OK, you're the exception. I don't think anyone else here would want their compensation to be in stock that they can't touch for 10 years instead of cash. You see that happening much by you? Good grief.
And who sets this "good enough" magic number? You, the govt? And why would anyone take a job in a company run this way when all the other companies don't pay you in stock you can't touch for 10 years?
Now you're getting even nuttier. Prosecute everyone, even if they were not directly to blame? You're actually proposing to prosecute the head of HR or IT because the CFO cooked the books or engineering cheated the pollution test? Again, how would you like it if it worked that way where *you* worked, where they could prosecute you for something someone else did?
Why does all this concern you so greatly? What deal Enron execs had with the company was up to the board of directors and the stockholders. And historically shysters will cheat, no matter what you do. Ken Lay and the CFO could have siphoned money off illegally directly into their pockets, for example. That's what Bernie Maddoff did, it's not hard.
How about the put your salary into that 10 year out stock, exactly like you're advocating. You didn't commit any fraud, do anything wrong. Yet there is a depression, the company falls on hard times and now the stock that was worth $100, is worth $10. Or how about you're 65 years old, get cancer and don't live to collect the 10 year out stock?
Who ever said that? The average CEO is far more at risk in the market than the average joe.
You continue to show that you don't know WTF you're talking about. You made the claim that short term investment income should be taxed like ordinary income. IT ALREADY IS. It's taxed exactly like salary income would be. So is interest income. There is an exemption for tax free bonds, which are state and municipal issued.
Long term investment (that was the kind you liked, right?) gains on that are taxed at a max of 20%. So, yeah in that class of investment gain, an investor would be paying a lower rate than some other tax payers with salary income, providing their salaries are high enough to wind up with an effective rate above 20%. It's not the typical worker with a family making $50K though. People in the lower incomes, somewhere around 45%, pay no income tax at all.
That investment generates capital that fuels America's economy, builds factories, creates jobs. And having a holding period longer than a year, any honest economist will tell you it's a bad idea, because it hinders efficient markets. You want investors able to switch horses, fund the next great idea, not be stuck holding some poorly performing stock for 5 or 10 years just to pay less tax when they sell it.
For examples of that just look at the $450 bil deficit, with $3.9 tril in spending. That's where the govt is already paying you.
Or, do I just get the same treatment as if I'd held onto
You're the one that claimed short term investment should be taxed as ordinary income when it already is. That gaff alone shows that you have no experience at all with what you're lecturing us on.
Wrong again. A CD is not long term, never was. Interest on a CD is always taxed as ordinary income, just like a salary. You really should just stop.
THE CEO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAY SCALE USED IN HIS ORGANIZATION! If he wants to pay folks peanuts and drive the "average wage" (you *did* read my post, didn't you? Oh, my fault! I forgot about your problem with READING COMPREHENSION!) down, then his pay will be JUST AS GOOD as he thought was appropriate for HIS organization! No gummit involvement at all. Let The Market sort that out, right??
OTOH, if he wants to pay his folks lavishly, then his "good enough" wage will likewise be increased.
AND, he still has that future stock to look forward to -- along with the stock that is now "coming due" from his *previous* jobs! Something that his employees probably DON'T have!
"Good Grief, Charlie Brown."
Because the other companies would eventually encounter "problems" and incur losses from their mismanagement. No more "government bailouts" -- let The Market take care of those poor performers. (I'm sure all the secretaries at Enron were thrilled when the company folded -- AND, they lost their stock as well!)
I *didn't* suggest prosecuting them! I'm asking you, Charlie Brown, what alternative schemes *you* can come up with to encourage/promote healthy LONG TERM decision making. Would you prefer caps on executive pay? Holding them criminally liable? Going after any of their assets "spent" or otherwise distributed (kids' college funds!) to discourage this bad behavior?
Or, do you think same ol', same ol' is the path to long term success as a society? (Or, are you just concerned about the Individuals getting their "deserved rewards"?)
And what has changed to prevent these sorts of abuses? What are
*you*, SPECIFICALLY advocating? Or, is everything fine and dandy by your read of the situation? Would you support a law that FORBID the government from getting involved in bailouts, etc.? I.e., "To big to BAIL?" Or, do you prefer the corporate welfare that we now have? (it's only *people* who shouldn't be entitled to government support...)Goes to my estate. What happens to that mansion that the CEO is living in when he dies? "Gee, why can't I take it WITH me? It's *mine*!!"
No. CEO's have control over how their organizations are operated. An "Average Joe" only gets a *glimpse* from the outside. He has no idea what the corporate culture is ACTUALLY like, what they are ACTUALLY doing at the current time, what their ACTUAL potential liabilities are, etc. If a CEO doesn't know these things, then what value does the CEO have to his organization?
Let's see how many folks cashed out of VW before the sh*t hit the fan. "Lucky guesses?"
No. We have different ideas as to what "short term" means. I don't consider 1 year to be LONG TERM! Yet the tax code does. So, there is no incentive for "investors" & CEO's to look beyond that 1 year window. All they have to do is hope to make money IN THE SHORT TERM (where "short" is what an average Joe would consider "short"... not the tax code!).
Do you buy an appliance with the expectation that it will be a "long term (investment)"? If it crapped out in 1 year, would you consider that to have been a GOOD (investment)? What about your car? Would you expect it to JUST last
1 year to qualify as an "investment" in your mind?Would you expect to turn a profit on your home in just 12 months?
Long term is 1 year. I.e., next annual report. I don't consider that long term in the sense that an Average Joe would consider a "long term" investment.
"I've been at work, here, for 1 year. Do I get to be CEO, now? Look at all that time I have INVESTED in this company..."
Sure! They can buy and sell at will! I'm just NOT giving them preferential treatment for selling off quickly.
Tell me what a company can *do* in a 1 year time frame. Yet, you want to reward the investor for "being in there for the long haul -- all 12 months!"
Pfft.
Yea, and I profitted greatly from the Iraq, Vietnam, Afghan, etc. wars. Not.
You've again missed what I wrote. IF I HOLD ONTO SOMETHING FOR A *TRULY* "LONG TIME" (like the timescale of gettng an education, buying a home, car, major appliance, etc. -- basically, anything other than a loaf of bread!), how should I be rewarded BEYOND those who made a 12 month commitment?
No, I complained that what the tax code calls "long term" is, in fact, SHORT (by any Average Joe's concept) term. So, those "long term" investments are not treated as ordinary income.
Do you make *all* your purchases with a 12 month window? ROI? etc.
In terms of tax laws, anything beyond 12 months is treated as long term wrt capital gains.
Simple exercise, Charlie Brown. Ask your friends to define "long term". Don't qualify it with anything (e.g., "capital gains", "tax laws", etc.). Take WHATEVER answer they give you and ask them what they would call a period of time DOUBLE that. Then, half that. Ask them how they look at their home purchase decision. Their decision as to where to school, etc.
Not really, but here in The Colorado Rockies, a turbo or s-charged engine helps. The main hwy going east/west thru CO (70) passes thru the Eisenhower Tunnel a 13.5K ft. If you don't wanna be doing 25 mph in 2nd gear, a turbo/SC engine helps. ;)
So why have small cars been getting even less mileage, lately. My '87 Honda Civic hatchback Si got 38 mpg and my ancient used diesel Rabbit ('70s?) got almost 40 mpg. Now, cars are bragging on 29-30 mpg. What's up with that?
nb
Probably because today's Civic weighs 800 pounds more.
Per Don Y:
Same here - only in software development instead of automobiles.
But I was not thinking in terms of a Lone Wolf.... more in terms of "Everybody within a certain manager's scope".
Speed. Pure speed.
I have a 2L Turbo in my car and while I do drive sanely, I do like acceleration. I'd not need the twin turbos though. As it is, I paid much more for my car than the non-turbo version. I'm buying another one soon, I know exactly what I want and will buy as soon as available.
I hear it all the time that "I need" that huge truck. Europe is quite civilized and built up using much smaller vehicles.
I drove small cars in Europe including a Smart ForFour on one trip. It got me where I wanted to go, just not as much fun or as comfortable. The numbers actually worked out at about the same cost per mile as my USA driving.
At $10/gallon I'd probably change some habits and probably drive a bit less. Right now I put on about 22,000 miles a year with a mid sized car with all the comforts. I could get away with a smaller, more economical vehicle, but I chose not to.
And the CEO doesn't want anything to do with your silly 10 year plan. Neither does the board. Nuff said.
Yes, in your nutty arrangement, the CEO doesn't even get paid as much as senior execs or managers. He gets paid the average for the whole corporation with the rest held in the form of stock that he can't touch for 10 years. Of course all the best CEOs would have none of this and would go to work at a company that didn't have this bizarre system. So, there's that. OF course the solution for you libs is to then *force* it on everyone.
Oh, my fault! I forgot
No, there is a range of "good enough", ranging from minimum wage for some part time help, on up to executive level. Under your nutty system, the CEO gets paid the middle of the pay scale for the whole company, the rest held in stock for 10 years. No CEO is going to sign up for that pay plan.
What a complete idiot. The govt bailed out a handful of companies out of millions. There is no widespread "problem" that needs your fixing. And the govt also got back almost all of it's money, with interest from the bailouts. In other words, it cost the taxpayers very little. Last time I checked there was the possibility the taxpayers could come out even or ahead. Now tell us what happened to the $700 bil Obama stimulus money? What happened to the solar loan program that lost billions? Neither one of those was ever structured with even the possibility of a profit. The first was pure spending, the second had zero upside, only downside. It's the kind of stupid, lousy govt deal Trump is haranguing about. So, instead of focusing on corporate bailouts that cost the taxpayers very little, why not focus on the real inefficiencies and stupid ideas?
It's bizarre to say that the other companies that didn't adopt your plan are all going to encounter problems and that the ones that follow your plan wouldn't. But it is typical lib thinking, focus not on the overall great economic system that works, but instead on the nits, then claim that you can fix those nits, and in the process screw the whole thing.
- let The Market take care of those poor performers.
Grow up. It's the real world. Sometimes bad things happen. But you're the typical liberal, Romney on the brain, you don't know anything about existing business or taxes, yet you're gonna fix all the worlds problems with one more set of your new laws, rules, etc.
You sure seemed to be. YOU brought it up and it fits in with your other screwy ideas.
I'm asking you, Charlie Brown,
I'd just leave what's working and not broken, alone.
Now, that's the specialty of you lib loons, who don't even understand that short term investment is taxed as ordinary income, that interest on a CD isn't a capital gain, etc, yet you're going to fix all the world's problems.
What we have now has built the greatest economy in history and made the USA the only superpower. I'd call that long term success. Why should we let you fiddle with it?
I'm telling you again, that you're blowing everything out of proportion. It's what libs do. You find a .01% problem, bitch about it, claim it's the worst thing ever, without even understanding the underlying issues, and then claim that your new law, new rule, new regulation is going to fix it. In fact, it usually makes things worse. There is always going to be some bad CEOs, some shysters, some frauds, no matter what laws you have. Even the VW fraud, it was ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. They did it anyway.
The 90% decline in value due to conditions beyond your control over those 10 years in my example doesn't go to your estate, it goes where the woodbine twineth. It's gone. And while *you* might be OK with the 10% remaining going to your estate, who are you to speak for execs, CEOs or anyone else? Oh, and while you're at it also factor in that estate tax would get deducted from the remaining 10%.
What happens to that mansion that the CEO
The CEO wouldn't have a mansion in your system, how's he going to pay for a mansion on an average workers salary? Idiot.
An employee is working there and he has no idea what the corporate culture is? Obviously you never even worked in a corporation.
what they
Who said the CEO doesn't know those things? Another attempt at a strawman.
When you have some facts, instead of pulling stuff out of your ass, let us know. If they did, in the USA they would be guilty of insider trading. There, see, you already have a law covering it, but here you are, still complaining.
It's not an idea. You were talking about it with regard to income taxes. It's codified in the tax law, short term is less than a year.
Of course there is idiot. To start with, what CEO think's he'll be there for one year? A CEO and senior execs are compensated in large part with stock options. They vest over many years. Typically you're granted X shares and then they start to vest starting in 2 years and are totally vested over the next few years. In addition, typical CEOs don't cash them in, they hold a lot of them, ie they are typically heavily invested in the companies stock. And every year or two, they get another grant of new stock options extending the process out into the future.
All they have to do is hope
Wrong, per the above. They can make a lot more money by growing shareholder value and staying at the company long term. Would you rather have 1 mil, bailing in a year, or
50 mil at the end of 10 years? Good grief, this is simple.
If it crapped out in 1 year,
Another bizarre question that shows you don't know WTF you're talking about. None of those are investments.
Irrelevant. The implication is that CEOs have a 12 month horizon. Show us the CEOs that are expecting to just make all their compensation in one year or of a compensation plan that's structured that way.
It's long term as defined by the tax code. YOU were bitching that short term investment isn't taxed as ordinary income. In fact it is.
There has never been preferential treatment for selling quickly. Boy are you confused.
You're in way over your head here. You're telling us what tax policy should be, you wanted short term capital gains taxed as ordinary income - It is. You claimed interest on
1 or 3 years CDs is taxed as long term - It's not, it's ordinary income. You're telling us what CEO compensation plans should be, while you clearly don't even know what they are today, you have some bizarre idea that CEOs are only focused on the next year. Please, just stop.You shouldn't, there is no need to fix a problem that doesn't exist. And as I tried to explain to you, encouraging investors to lock in long term leads to market inefficiencies. Ever take some coursed in economics? It hinders the flow of capital into the best investments. It's not hard to understand. With no restrictions, if an investor with a capital gain sees a better investment opportunity, he sells what he has and moves it to the better investment. If he has to factor in that he can stay with the lesser performing investment for another two years, but then pay half in taxes, investors will tend to hold onto the poorly performing investment. Simple.
Your post:
"Or, change the tax laws regarding investments so anything short term is treated as regular income"
Existing tax law already treats short term as regular income. IF you knew what you were talking about, you would have said they should change the tax laws so the long term holding period is changed from
1 year to whatever it is that you want. But it's still a lousy idea to fix a non-existent problem.
You were talking about short versus long term in regards to tax policy, so of course the context is relevant.
I suspected as much. All those electric windows, mirrors, seats, air-bags, EDRs, etc, no doubt. Mine had no such dead weight.
nb
Exactly. Now, car manufacturers try not to ship spare tires (let alone the undersized "donuts") as a way of saving on weight. To "pay" for all the weight they've put in for unnecessary accessories, higher crash resistance, seating for seven, etc.
There's no *market* pressure to entice consumers to buy more efficient cars. So, the manufacturers are trying to address the legal mandates *and* "customer preferences". You're, in effect, trying to optimize two different (and often incompatible) criteria!
A neighbor from Japan commented that tax/licensing there is designed to encourage consumption (of automobiles). Keeping an "older" car on the road was designed to be economically impractical -- buy new, ship your old car to vietname, laos, etc. There's no real reason to justify the turnover (it isn't intended to introduce safer cars to the market quicker, or more fuel efficient cars, etc.) besides keeping the industrial machine churning -- with the limited population, there.
Some years ago, I discussed a project with a gentleman to manufacture "wildlife cameras". These are essentially unattended cameras that you deploy in the wilderness to track/photograph the movement of wildlife. At the time, they were very expensive ($1K).
As it was a new concept to me, I stated: so, does the gummit use these? Or, wildlife researchers? Or, perhaps, INS folks trying to document/monitor the movement of illegals into the country??
No.
"Folks buy them, deploy them in the wild and then 'trade photos' (like at a monthly club meeting)." -- Oh, look! I got a picture of a raccoon!
"WTF? Is that a real *hobby*?"
"It gives them a reason to take their off-road vehicles OFF THE ROAD (as most folks owning them have never done so!)."
Exactly. uel economy, exhaust emissions be damned! :>
Yes. They've learned (due to economic pressures) not to indulge their "need for speed", "need for bigness", etc. They apparently measure their penises with rulers and not tachometers or big (perpetually EMPTY) truck beds.
I have a buddy with a big 7L diesel. It sits in his driveway -- unless it is in the shop! It's simply too inefficient to use. Sure, when he needed a ton of sand for a landscaping project, he was able to haul it in
*his* vehicle. Of course, he couldn't *unload* it -- but, that's just a technicality! :>Despite the fact that fuel is so much more expensive, there!
I've had to entertain business guests from abroad. They invariably look at my car(s) (over the years) and I can almost hear them thinking: "you could fit *my* car in the back seat of this one!" "A 20 gallon gas tank?? Yikes!"
You choose not to because you have a choice. My friend with the 7L truck with 60G expansion fuel tank also makes that choice. But, day to day, he opts to drive his plush Buick. :>
We drive about 6K/year. I took *my* car off the road many years ago simply because I was driving (at that time) less than 1,500 miles per year. With insurance at $600/year, fuel at a few hundred (gas guzzler), the regular battery and tire replacements (heat eats things, here) it was costing me almost $1/mile.
My *current* driving patterns are far less. I'd guesstimate 300 miles annually. And, probably half of that is for volunteer/charitable causes. While I could write off those expenses, it just seems silly to keep a car on the road just to keep it on the road!
I could see designing a control algorithm that lent itself to an implementation whereby a single module could encapsulate all of this information (and misbehavior). But, I can't see how that module would remain opaque. Even things as fundamental/basic as math libraries get routine scrutiny.
How do you guard against the guys in Quality changing their test procedures? "We've found a new way to test these subsystems for regulatory compliance! It will save the company $X! We'll all get big bonuses!!"
"No! Don't do that! You can't!!"
"WTF?? Why not?"
"Um..... (let me think for a while...)"
Is the same powerplant used in ALL of these vehicles? I.e., so that code ("ROMs") from one vehicle can be dropped into any of the others and have no noticeable consequences? Chances are, that's not the case. Other eyes have to, eventually, see the same details that expose the problem... Too many cars, too many years and probably too many staff members to rule that out!
Wow! Somehow he's able to assume he knows my political leanings, voting history, etc. Or, makes an ass out of himself by ASSuming such!
Again, "libs". How do you know I'm not a wackjob, right wing nutcase?
Clearly, I'm a bit better mannered than you! I thought only liberals raised RUDE kids?
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem. The CEO has had PRIOR JOBS! The stock from *those* jobs is available to him at the later date when he's sucking down an "average salary" at his NEW job.
You really should speak to someone about your reading comprehension problem. It makes you look naive and clueless.
Did the Enron employees know what was happening in THEIR culture? Did the VW employees know? You really seem to have your head so far up your ass that you're staring out your navel!
Welcome to my killfile. I --like others before me -- have determine that you're a total clown. Silly to waste my time arguing with someone who only sees the brown (of his own shit) around his eyes...
Trump 2016! Yay! Yet another Bozo on the Bus.
Nowadays noone sees the forest, only trees.That's the problem.
There is no incentive to do so. Nor any real deterrent to NOT doing so!
When I take on a project, I insist on control over my efforts.
*I* write the specs, design the hardware/software, build the test suite, etc. So, the project meets its *stated* goals instead of just being a stab-in-the-dark *at* those goals.Clients have mixed attitudes towards this. They see it as extra cost, time, etc. "up front": "Why can't we just *try* something like this and see how well it is received, what problems people find with it, etc.?"
"Sure, *you* can do that. But, my involvement stops when we're done with that first pass. I have no desire to waste my time getting jerked around because you don't know what you want, haven't done your market research to know what your *customers* want, etc.
"And, as you want to skimp on the specification phase (because that takes time/money), I'm going to reserve the right to do anything that isn't formally specified in whatever manner is EASIEST and MOST CONVENIENT for me! Which will also save you time/money (isn't that YOUR goal).
"Of course, if one of those unspecified details you've overlooked allows me to simply 'reset' the product when one of those conditions occur (probably not what your USERS will want) then you might wish you'd spent that extra time up front on nailing down all those pesky details! Or, at least *that* one!"
A consequence of my approach is that I can contractually bind myself to repairing "bugs" in my implementation "for free" -- with very little risk of ever having to "pay up" on that commitment.
(Isn't this the ideal type of insurance? You KNOW you won't have any problems down the road...)
And, you *don't* have to come out with a "version 2" that has the features you forgot to put in "version 1".
A lot of what you've posted so far puts you on the same page as Bernie Sanders, so there's that.
Because right wing types don't have the penchant to put more regulations on companies, tell them how they have to compensate their CEOs or think that there is a significant problem with corporate fraud like happened at VW and the solution is more big govt "fixes". And in typical lib fashion, you don't come out and say it would take the govt to force what you want. But it's obvious. No company is going to freely adopt your nonsensical plan. If any thought it was a good idea, they would have done it long ago. But the folks who actually run the business now that with your nutty compensation plan, they could not hire and retain senior execs. And they know that what they have now works and they are OK with it.
Is that how you live? You only rely on past jobs to pay today's bills and acquire today's assets?
You're the one that told us short term investments should be taxed as ordinary income - They are. You're the one that told us the interest on a 1 or 3 year CD is taxed as long term - It's not. You're the one telling us that CEOs only have a one year horizon because of their compensation plans - You're wrong, they already have stock option plans that reward performance 3 to 5 years and beyond. And yet ironically, it's precisely those areas that you're here telling us how it should be. Obviously you're the one that's clueless and making an ass of yourself.
A couple of execs committing fraud and corporate culture are two different things. Looks like you've never worked for any significant corporation or you'd know. But that's typical, tell everyone how things should be without even knowing how they are.
I'm sure I'll be in good company there. Your killfile explains why you're so obviously ignorant.
Keep lying. As I pointed out to you, top exec compensation plans include stock options and it's a big part, usually the largest part of their compensation. They vest over 2 - 5 years. And every year or two, they get more stock options that similarly vest out in the future. Also, the typical CEO holds significant stock in the company, that's the whole purpose of those stock options, to align the CEOs financial interest with that of the company. Consequently, they aren't focused on just the next year, it's a total BS claim. Just the facts.
Another statement of economic ignorance. Consumers react to the price of fuel, how much the cars cost to drive, how many MPG one car gets compared to other vehicle choices. Plus, if you followed the news over the last decades, when the price of gas went way up, the sales of gas hungry vehicles declined, their resale value declined, etc.
So, the manufacturers are trying to address the legal
Sounds like they have some of the same free thinking lib types like you over there. That think one more tweak, one more law, one more forcing of the free market, will fix some imagined problem. "I think every taxi owner should have a new car every year, so that's how it shall be for all!"
Uncle Monster posted for all of us...
--------------------------------------------------------- Because Google Groups users can't seem to set their word wrap... This message has been cleaned by MessageCleaner.exe v2.17
I am somewhat surprised they went after gov't motors ignition switches as much as they did.
Of course this is a different cabel of the gov't. VW should ask how much it's gonna cost to clean up the river they bleeped up. It doesn't matter because WE are the ones paying for it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.